By Shahid Javed Burki1

For a politician who built his 2008 presidential campaign on a no-war platform, it is a painful decision to reverse a course he has diligently sought to pursue. On 10 September 2014, a day before the 13th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, American President Barack Obama committed himself to another war. This was done in a televised address to his nation. He made a sober assessment of the situation created not only for his country but for the entire international community by the new threat from an Islamic extremist movement that had morphed several times since the United States invaded Iraq under the direction of President George W Bush.

President Bush had launched two wars during his first term but left both unfinished as he handed the reins of power to his successor, Barack Obama. Bush had sent American troops into Afghanistan in October 2001 to punish the Taliban regime that then governed from Kabul for having provided support and sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organisation, Al Qaeda. It was bin Laden’s organisation that planned and launched the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 that claimed almost three thousand lives. Less than two years later Bush sent American troops to Iraq to achieve an objective that remains unclear to this day. Both wars in many ways contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism. Its latest manifestation is something called the “Islamic State”, also known as the “Islamic Caliphate”. The latter term signifies the movement‟s ambitions that embrace the Muslim lands beyond Iraq and Syria, the two countries where the “Islamic State” is currently lodged.

Bush’s two wars have left an impression on world history that will remain for decades to come. Thousands of American lives were lost and tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans were killed. These wars and their aftermath, by various counts, have caused more than a couple of trillion US dollars. By pulling out his country’s troops from Iraq and by beginning the process of withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Obama had hoped to bring to an end this particular episode in American history. But that has not happened since the chain of events relating to these two wars has resulted in the spread of conflict to other places including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali and Nigeria. The original Al Qaeda created franchises in many places in Asia and Africa. In July 2014 its nominal head Ayman al- Zawahiri announced that a new chapter had now been founded in South Asia that would focus on the sub-continent‟s large Muslim populations.

According to Saeed Naqvi writing for India Today, “desperate Muslim youth may at that stage be in search for a rallying force, but I find it difficult to believe that Zawahiri kind of Islam will have burgeoning clientele in India. The danger will arise when muscular forces like the ISIS, with their mastery of the new media technology begin to reach out to pockets of agitated Muslims on social networks. That would be dangerous because the turmoil in West Asia is a regular part of the Arab and Western media diet. They have some understanding of issues arising from their different perspectives. On foreign affairs Indian audiences have no sources of information other than that is doled out to them by outsiders”.2

Some of the “morning after” commentary following President Obama’s address missed the real import of the message he was giving. We can read five meanings into it, all of considerable significance for the countries of South Asia. The sub-continent after all has one of the largest concentrations of Muslim populations in the world. Even more important, the region has 83 million of the 200 million people who belong to the Shia sect of Islam. It is this group that is the particular target of the “Islamic State” as it has shaped up in Iraq and Syria.

Among the more thoughtful comments in the American press following the delivery of the speech was by E J Dionne Jr., the columnist who contributes regularly to The Washington Post. “Over the last decade, Americans” views on foreign policy have swung sharply [from] support for intervention to profound mistrust of any military engagement overseas. Over the same period, political debates on foreign affairs have been bitter and polarized, defined by the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was a proper use of the nation’s power or a catastrophic mistake. This contest for public opinion has taken place in the shadow of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. For understandable reasons, the United States was thrown off- balance by the horrific events of 13 years ago, and we have never fully recovered”.3 Another gruesome event – the beheading of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, with videos of their execution displayed on social media sites – is another course-changing event for the leadership groups and citizens of the United States.

There are five elements in the strategy laid out in President Obama’s short address on 10 September 2014 that need to be noticed, in particular by those who are watching the unfolding of these events from the South Asian angle. The first refers to the promise that America will not put troops on the ground in this latest declaration of war. Using ground troops has always led to long-wars for which the American public has no longer any appetite. Operating from the air, the America will like other nations to set their troops on the ground. America‟s big disappointment was that Pakistan refused to send its grounds troops to eliminate the safe-havens from which several terrorist groups were giving a hard time to the Americans fighting in Afghanistan. Effectively, Islamabad left the fight against terrorism on its own territory to the American drones which were used extensively for three years. It was only after it dawned on the Pakistani establishment that the extremist presence in the country’s tribal areas had become an existential threat to the Pakistani state itself that the Pakistan Army launched an operation called Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan. Moreover, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan may take two years beyond the declared target of end- December 2014.

Second, there will be greater reliance on airpower to achieve the stated objectives. The US will use bombers and fighters more sparingly since they inflict heavy collateral damage that creates enormous resentment among those who get hurt. It is these people who then become willing recruits for causes such as those espoused by the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”. Instead, there will be much greater reliance on drones, a weapon that got its full operational test in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

But the drones are successful only when they are operated on the basis of sound intelligence. This can only be provided by the locals, and that means working with the governments operating in the area. This is the third part of the Obama strategy. This is a new kind of war being waged in the countries where the governments are basically friendly towards the United States. This, by and large, was the case when the use of drones was at its peak. However, a friendly government which backs the US efforts must be fully representative of all – or nearly all – segments of the population. To use the new jargon from political science, it must be “inclusive”. That certainly was not the case in Iraq where the administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was avowedly pro-Shia. This political orientation threw many Sunnis into the extended ISIS arms. It was only after a new government took office in Baghdad that President Obama felt some comfort that his condition of political inclusiveness might be met and that the alienation of the Sunni population from the Shia-dominated central government might be reduced.

The fourth element is the pursuit of aggressive multilateralism but not of the type practised by President George W Bush. President Obama is working on putting together groups of countries that will include some major Muslim states. US Secretary of State John Kerry has visited various Middle Eastern capitals now to drum up support for the new American war. His efforts have yielded some results. Ten Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia announced during the American diplomat’s visit that they would join Washington in a strategy to first debase and then destroy ISIS. Turkey also indicated its support for the effort. According to one assessment, the “[US] administration believes that it needs clear support of Sunni regimes in the region to prevent ISIS from framing the conflict as a clash between Islam and the west”.4 It was for this reason that in his speech President Obama said the US could not take the place of Arab nations in securing their region. The cooperation of the Saudis is of critical importance since they espouse the form of Islam that is closest to the one advocated by the ISIS. With the co-option of the Muslim states by the US, the world’s Muslim populations will not see Obama’s war in the terms spelled out by Samuel Huntington in his enormously influential book, The Clash of Civilizations.

The fifth element of the strategy is the clear message from the United States that ultimately the responsibility for dealing with the scourge of extremism rests with the countries that have become or are likely to become its victims. In justifying his war that will be fought by the American military mostly from the air, President Obama drew a parallel between his approach in the areas that have succumbed to the ISIS and his approach towards Yemen and Somalia. That was a wrong comparison since these two are weak states that don’t have the capacity to deal with dissatisfaction that has led to the spread of extremism. Iraq and Syria have the potential of becoming strong states once again. What is also wrong is to suggest, as Vice-President Joe Biden put it a couple of days before President Obama spoke, that the US would follow the ISIS “to the gates of hell”. If America has learned a lesson from its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan it is that the push towards the gates of hell can be made only by the political systems that are in place in the countries that are likely to succumb to the pressures of extremism.

As Emile Simpson, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, who had done a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an infantry officer, wrote: “The lessons of the past decade suggest that a clearly bounded extension of US military action means taking responsibility at most for the initial phase, not the permanent defeat of ISIS, in which the west should only play a supporting role. The alternative is to commit to a long fight, removing the pressure on regional states to act. Anyone advocating that would have to believe that the western publics are prepared to bear the cost. They are not”.5

For South Asia, the war against the ISIS is not a distant war. There are elements in both Afghanistan and Pakistan who would be prepared to adopt the ISIS ideology and its techniques if it is able to consolidate its hold over the areas in which it has established itself. India too has to worry since it has a large Muslim population with a significant Shia population, one of the targets of Sunni extremism.

1. Mr Shahid Javed Burki is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. He can be contacted at sjburki@gmail.com. Opinions expressed in this paper, based on research by the author, do not necessarily reflect the views of ISAS. During a professional career spanning over half a century, Mr Burki has held a number of senior positions in Pakistan and at the World Bank. He was the Director of China Operations at the World Bank from 1987 to 1994 and the Vice President of Latin America and the Caribbean Region at the World Bank from 1994 to 1999. On leave of absence from the Bank, he was Pakistan‟s Finance Minister, 1996-97.

2. Saeed Naqvi, “Can Ayman Zawahiri have the desired effect on India?”, India Today, 8 September, 2014.

3. E.J. Dionne Jr., “The new politics of foreign policy”, The Washington Post, 11 September, 2014, p. A19.

4. Geoff Dyer and Richard McGregor, “Arab states back Obama against ISIS”, Financial Times, 12 September, 2014, p 1.

5. Emile Simpson, “Fight Isis but do not chase them to the gates of hell”, Financial Times, 12 September 2014, page 11.

The post Obama’s ‘War On Terror': A South Asian View – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A Lebanese policeman pled for his life as he watched a fellow captive be executed with a gunshot to the head, in a video released by Nusra Front Saturday.

The video showed soldier Mohammad Hammieh asking the Lebanese to put an end to Hezbollah’s attacks on the Sunni community moments before a man, dressed in black, shot him in the head in the presence of Ali al-Bazzal, a captive policemen.

Bazzal, wearing a white t-shirt and his military pants, begged Hezbollah to change its policy.

“If you don’t stop attacking and inciting against our Sunni brethren then I will follow my fellow soldier who was killed right there,” Bazzal cried out with his hands tied as he knelt in front of a tree with Hammieh lying dead beside him.

Sobbing and crying, Bazzal asked “the party of the devil” to withdraw from Syria and go back to fighting Israel.

According to Lebanese media reports, the radical group said it would hand over the body of Hammieh in exchange for 15 detainees held in Roumieh Prison.

Nusra Front said that Hammieh was “the one who paid the price” for Hezbollah’s attempts to obstruct negotiations as well as the Lebanese Army’s arrest of “civilians and shelling of Qalamoun.”

The statement, which was circulated on social media, also warned that the radical group was preparing to execute Bazzal.

The execution came after a roadside bomb attack Friday against Lebanese troops in Arsal that killed two soldiers, which prompted the military to launch raids in search of gunmen. Media reports said that some 200 people were arrested in the Army raids.

The Nusra Front first threatened to kill Hammieh Tuesday, saying that he might be the first “to pay the price” of failed negotiations with the Lebanese government and Hezbollah’s continued crackdown on Syrian refugees in Arsal and along the town’s borders.

The government has been engaged in indirect negotiations through a Qatari-sponsored mediation with militants over the release of the abducted security personnel.

Nusra Front and ISIS are both demanding the release of Islamist prisoners from Roumieh Prison in exchange for the Lebanese hostages. They are holding at least 22 soldiers and policemen captured during last month’s clashes between radical militants and the Lebanese Army in the northeastern region of Arsal.

While Nusra has released seven policemen as a sign of goodwill, ISIS has beheaded two soldiers.

The post Nusra Front Executes Lebanese Captive, Threatens Another In New Video appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Another 43 Gonabadi Dervishes have been arrested in Tehran, according to the Majzooban-e Noor website. The report indicates that the group was planning to stage a gathering in front of the Tehran Prosecutor’s office.

Gonabadi Dervishes have gathered in Tehran on a number of occasions to protest the treatment of jailed Gonabadi dervishes. This time they were reportedly planning to sit in protest with closed eyes and hands to express their solidarity with their peers in jail.

Majzooban-e Noor writes that in protest against the treatment of their peers by the judiciary, the dervishes “are planning to gather with closed eyes and hands in front of the prosecutor’s office and ask for the arrest of all the dervishes of their campaign by the judiciary.”

The protest was set for 11 AM but all the streets leading to the prosecutor’s office were blocked by security cars. Currently, nine of the jailed dervishes are on a hunger strike to protest their treatment, and many of them are said to be suffering a severe decline in health.

The post Iran: Dervishes Arrested Ahead Of Solidarity Protest appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The U.S. Secret Service has increased security outside the White House after a man jumped the fence and made it inside the building before being apprehended.

Secret Service Director Julia Pierson ordered enhanced officer patrols and surveillance along the north fence of the White House shortly after the Friday incident. She also ordered a comprehensive review of what happened when an unarmed 42-year-old man scaled the fence and entered the presidential residence, where agents seized him.

President Barack Obama and his daughters had just left the White House Friday evening in a helicopter, when the unarmed intruder scaled the north fence, ran across the lawn and entered the presidential residence, where agents seized him.

Republican lawmaker Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House of Representatives’ subcommittee on national security oversight, called the security breach “totally unacceptable.”

A Secret Service official said the agency will review its response.

A day later, on Saturday, a man was arrested for trespassing at the White House. The Secret Service said the man approached the White House gates on foot and was turned away a short time before returning to the gate in a vehicle. He was arrested when he refused to leave.

The fence-jumping incident Friday sparked a rare evacuation of parts of the White House.

The Secret Service identified the suspect as 42-year-old Omar Gonzalez from Copperas Cove, Texas. Officials say Gonzalez did not have any weapons.

President Obama and his daughters were headed to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, where they were to join first lady Michelle Obama, who traveled separately.

People have jumped the White House fence before, but there have been no publicized reports of someone making it inside.

Just last week, on September 11 — the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks against the U.S. — another man climbed the fence and was taken into custody.

Part of the difficulty in securing the White House grounds lies in the public access granted to pedestrians right in front of the building. Tourists are able to go right up to the gate on Pennsylvania Avenue to look at the building and take photos. The street used to be open to vehicles, too, but was confined to pedestrians after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

The Secret Service has faced a series of blows to its reputation in recent years — including revelations of sexual misconduct. In 2012, more than a dozen Secret Service agents and officers were implicated in a prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, where Obama traveled for a summit.

The post Secret Service Under Scrutiny After Intruder Gets Into White House appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Taken at face value, a rare acknowledgment by International Olympic Committee president Thomas Bach that sports and politics are inextricably intertwined should be a first step towards radical reform that offers a proper structure to govern the relationship. That is nowhere truer than in Middle Eastern, North African and Asian soccer where political domination of the game is dominant despite insistence by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and world soccer governor FIFA that sports and politics are separate.

Speaking at the opening of the Asian Games in Incheon, South Korea, Mr. Bach said sports should acknowledge its ties to politics as well as big business but at the same time ensure that it maintains its neutrality.

“In the past, some have said that sport has nothing to do with politics, or they have said that sport has nothing to do with money or business. And this is just an attitude which is wrong and which we cannot afford anymore. We are living in the middle of society and that means that we have to partner up with the politicians who run this world,” Mr. Bach said. He said politicians and business leaders needed to respect the autonomy of sporting bodies or risk diminishing their positive influence.

Mr. Bach targeted the AFC’s and FIFA’s denial of the marriage between sports and politics that most officials and analysts in the soccer world freely acknowledge by noting that allowing countries to set their own rules in football would mean that “international sport is over.”

The IOC president, who this month celebrates his first year in office, said that governing the relationship between sports, politics and business was a core theme of his presidency.

Mr. Bach’s vision for the Olympic Games is embedded in his agenda for the coming six years which involves making the bidding process more flexible, lowering the cost of hosting tournaments and creating a digital channel to promote Olympic sports and values such as fair play.

Ensuring that the incestuous relationship between sports and politics in Middle Eastern, North African and Asian soccer is transparent and independent will take a lot more than focusing on the organization of tournaments and the projection of values. Little short of restructuring the relationship and developing a governance regime that shields soccer from political interference will break the grip of autocratic regimes on the sport. Middle Eastern and North African autocrats use soccer for a host of self-serving political purposes, including pacifying populations; ensuring that soccer pitches do not emerge as venues of protest; and seeking to improve their tarnished images at home and abroad.

A review of Middle Eastern and North African members of the boards of regional associations like the AFC and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) as well as of officials populating the boards of major soccer clubs and the ownership structures of those clubs in countries like Egypt, the Gulf states, Syria, Lebanon and Iran shows that they are populated by members of autocratic ruling families or executives closely aligned with government. The same is true for Mr. Bach’s own backyard, the national Olympic committees in the Middle East and North Africa. The intimate relationship between sports and politics is symbolized by the powerful role that the president of the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC) and Olympic Council of Asia, Sheikh Ahmed Al Fahad Al Sabah, a prominent member of Kuwait’s ruling family, plays in world sports.

The election last year of Bahraini Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa to complete the term of disgraced AFC president Mohammed Bin Hammam, the Qatari national at the centre of the Qatar controversy and the FIFA scandals, also says much about the intimate relationship between politics and soccer governance in the Middle East and Asia. Three national soccer players in Sheikh Salman’s home country were three years ago denounced as traitors, detained and tortured for participating in anti-government demonstrations three years ago. The players have been released but Bahrain has since arrested two whole teams.

Sheikh Salman, a member of Bahrain’s repressive ruling family and head of the Bahrain Football Association, has refused to comment on the plight of his players insisting that sports and politics are separate. British prosecutors have been considering a petition by a Bahraini national for the arrest of a relative of Sheikh Salman’s, Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the eldest son of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, commander of the Gulf island’s Royal Guard and head of the Bahrain Olympic Committee, on suspicion of involvement in the abuse of political prisoners. Prince Nasser phoned into the show on state-run television that denounced the three national team players in a demonstration of support of what amounted to a kangaroo court.

Sheikh Salman persuaded the AFC Congress in June in Brazil to tighten his political control of Asian and Middle Eastern soccer governance by agreeing to combine the post of AFC president and FIFA vice president rather than maintain the vice presidency as an elected position. The move was also designed to sideline the current FIFA vice president, Jordanian Prince Al bin Al Hussein, the one member of a ruling family, who has emerged as the foremost reformer in soccer governance, campaigning for greater transparency, accountability, focus on grassroots and women’s rights.

In response, Prince Ali has said he would run for election to the FIFA executive committee when his current term as vice president ends in 2015. “I don’t care about playing musical chairs. If you are an ExCo member, you are an ExCo member; it doesn’t matter where you sit. The composition of Asia has changed and if we want to have all the power in Asia under one person, time will tell if that is a good decision or not… I did notice that coming to Brazil there were many influential players in Asia and outside of Asia and outside of football as well that were pushing for this for whatever reason. If that’s what they want, go ahead. Time will tell if that’s a good decision or not… I don’t give a damn about protocol. I care about football. It doesn’t make a difference, titles or what have you. For me, I’ve done what I had to do to protect the interests of Asian football,” Prince Ali told reporters earlier this month.

The post IOC President’s Call For Transparency Challenges Middle Eastern/Asian Political Dominance Of Soccer – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Last week, the House and Senate voted to rubber stamp President Obama’s war plans for the Middle East. Both bodies, on a bipartisan basis, authorized the US to begin openly training and arming the rebels who have been fighting for three years to overthrow the Assad government in Syria.

Although the Syrian government has also been fighting ISIS and related extremist groups for three years, the US refuses to speak to the Syrians and has warned Assad not to interfere with the coming US attack on sovereign Syrian territory

President Obama promised that airstrikes alone would “degrade and destroy” ISIS, telling the US military in a speech last week that:

“The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission… I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”

But of course any US troops sent into a war zone are “combat” troops. And more are on their way.

While the president was swearing that there would be no boots on the ground, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, was in open disagreement. General Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that US forces would need to embed with Iraqi or Kurdish troops in combat situations under certain circumstances.

The limited mission the president promised just weeks ago has already greatly escalated, and now threatens to become another major regional war. In reality, however, this is just a continuation of the 24 year US war on Iraq that President George Bush began in 1990 and candidate Obama promised to end as President.

Under last week’s authorization bill, the president would have authority to train 5,000 fighters in Saudi Arabia for insertion into the civil war in Syria. This is in effect a re-arrangement of the deck chairs. To this point the training was carried out by the CIA in Jordan and Turkey. Now, the program will be moved to the Pentagon and to Saudi Arabia.

The CIA training of the rebels thus far has resulted in a direct pipeline of weapons from “vetted moderates” to the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and to the very ISIS that the administration claims to be fighting. In July, a full brigade of 1,000 fighters from the US-backed Free Syrian Army joined ISIS! Of course they took their US-provided weapons and training with them, some of which will certainly be used against the rapidly increasing US military personnel in the region.

That Saudi Arabia is considered a suitable place to train Syria’s future leaders must be some kind of sick joke. While ISIS was beheading two American journalists – as horrific as that is – the repressive Saudi theocracy was beheading dozens of its own citizens, often for relatively minor or religious crimes.

If we want to stop radical terrorists from operating in Syria and Iraq, how about telling our ally Saudi Arabia to stop funding and training them? For that matter, how about the US government stops arming and training the various rebel groups in Syria and finally ends its 24 year US war on Iraq.

There are 200 million people bordering the countries where ISIS is currently operating. They are the ones facing the threat of ISIS activity and expansion. Let them fight their own war, rather than turning the US military into the mercenary army of wealthy Gulf states. Remember, they come over here because we are over there. So let’s not be over there any longer.

This article was published by The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: Congress Votes For More War In The Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Fierce clashes and shelling were reported early Sunday in Sana’a as Houthi rebels appeared to be moving in on a key army base in the north of the Yemeni capital.

Witnesses reported loud explosions in the early hours, Yemeni news site Al-Masdar Online reported, hours after UN Yemen envoy Jamal Benomar announced that a ceasefire agreement had been reached between the government and the Shiite rebels.

A military source told Al-Masdar that Houthi fighters had shelled the headquarters of the officially dissolved First Armoured Division near Sana’a University, and that troops had responded by shelling Houthi positions. The First Armoured Division was commanded by retired general Ali Mohssen, who led several wars against the Houthis in northern Yemen during the rule of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Houthis, who seek to revive the Zaidi Shiite traditions of Yemen’s historically dominant northern highlands, say their fight is against Mohssen and his allies in the Sunni Islamist Islah party, and not against the Yemeni army.

Fighting between the Houthis and Sunni rivals backed by army forces broke out in Sana’a early last week, and spread to wider areas on Thursday. Unofficial estimates put the death toll since Thursday at more than 100. The Houthis have expanded the areas under their control this year, from their original stronghold in the northern province of Saada on the Saudi border to the outskirts of Sana’a.

Their followers have set up protest camps in recent weeks near key ministries in Sana’a to press for the removal of the government and reinstatement of full energy subsidies. Opponents accuse the Houthis of seeking to reinstall the rule of the hereditary Zaidi imams – who were toppled by a republican revolution in northern Yemen in 1962 – with the support of Iran. Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the Arab world, faces a further secessionist movement in the south and an al-Qaeda insurgency.

Original article

The post Yemen: Clashes Continue In Sanaa As Ceasefire Disintegrates appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Geethanjali Nataraj  Richa Sekhani

India and China are the world’s oldest civilizations and have shared relations for as long as 2,000 years. Starting their modern relation in 1950 which has been volatile because of border disputes, post-colonial bonhomie and Asian solidarity, 1980s was the period when both countries made an attempt to give a new start to their diplomatic and economic ties. In 1984, both the countries signed a Most Favoured Nation Agreement (MFN) and 2008 saw China emerge as India’s largest trading partner, thereby giving boost to their strategic and military relations as well. The trade level between both the countries increased from $2.92 billion in 2000 to $ 74 billion in 2011 and expected to touch $ 100 billion by 2015.

With growth in trade, investments between both the countries witnessed a spurt as well. China’s accumulated investment in India reached US $ 57.6 million while India’s investment in China reached US $ 44.2 million by December 2011. To further add to the good signs, the recent establishment of New Development Bank — an initiative by the BRICS — has been a landmark step which is likely to bring upsurge in the political and economic ties between both the countries. With the headquarters of Bank in Shanghai, and its Presidency with India, the New Development Bank is likely to enhance the engagements and exchanges between both the countries.

However, economic ties, which are the key driver of good Sino- India ties, came into trouble in 2012 when the bilateral trade in goods fell by almost 10 per cent from 2011. India’s trade imbalance with China has shot up the trade deficit which widened from $28 billion in 2010-11 to $ 40.8 billion in 2012-12. Similarly, on the security front, the situation between both the countries has always remained tensed because of the border disputes. Absence of trust in each other is another major problem between the countries. To sum up the relationship is characterised by 3Cs; Cooperation, Competition and Conflict.

However, given the economic size of both the countries, India and China relations hold significance as both countries are Asian powerhouses. The arrival of Chinese President on September 17, in Ahmedabad, on the occasion of Mr. Modi’s Birthday was a celebrating time for India, as Mr. Xi, as expected, came up with a bundle of gifts and promises which added a new chapter to India-China relations. The first day of the visit saw the signing of three MoUs with Gujarat, with $ 400 million to be pumped into the country. The first agreement was signed between China Development Bank and Industrial Extension Bureau of Gujarat government for developing industrial parks in the state. Another pact was signed between China’s Guangdong province and the Gujarat government for developing a ‘sister province’ which covered wide spectrums including trade and industry, environmental studies, science and technology waste water management, sports and infrastructure etc. And the third MoU was between Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation and Guangzhou for knowledge-sharing on various issues like health, culture, science and technology, environment and education among others.

India’s Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman also signed a ‘Five-Year Trade and Economic Development Plan’ with Chinese counterpart Gao Hucheng with a view to improve trade balance. The agreement also laid down a roadmap to promote sustainability and lessen the bilateral imbalance, as the trade gap stood at US$ 35 billion in favour of China and also proposed to strengthen investment cooperation in order to realise $20 billion investment from China in the coming 5 years as promised by the Chinese President. The two Commerce Ministers also signed the minutes of the 10th session of India- China Economic Group which was held in Beijing. Also measures to enhance the market accessibility of Indian goods such as pharmaceuticals, farming and fuel products in China were discussed. The Chinese President also had US$ 7 billion in store for investments in industrial parks in Pune and Gandhinagar. Indian and Chinese companies have also signed preliminary deals worth more than $3bn in aircraft leasing and telecoms, among other sectors. Both sides also focussed on increasing co-operation in trade, space exploration and civil nuclear energy.

However, the border issues remain contentious. As India does not confirm with Beijing’s stand on Arunachal Pradesh, she has sent out a strong message by not signing the proposed Visa Liberalisation agreement. China, which is pumping money into India, was keen to sign the agreement as this would have made the professional and entrepreneur’s movement into India much easier.

India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tried its multi-pronged strategy by directing its efforts toward look East-Policy and enhancing its partnership with Japan and U.S. as evident from the PM’s recent visits to Japan. Seeking India engaging and playing an important role on the global stage, the visit led U.S to endorse India-Japan Strategic partnership to strengthen into trilateral cooperation to address the issues related to security, economic and proliferation and energy. Some see this trilateral partnership as a move taken against the rising diplomacy of China. Amidst the discomfort from the intimacy between Modi-Abe, it was expected that Chinese President Xi Jinping will utilise every single minute of his stay in India in letting “no stone unturned” to make India-China relations better. However, although some cash exchanges were made, the long battle over border disputes was not addressed.

Undoubtedly, PM Modi has succeeded in adding a new zest and meaning to India-China relations with the visit of the Chinese President. However, it is evident that the full potential in trade and other areas of cooperation would not be realised unless peace and tranquillity is restored on the border. Realising this, the Indian PM has urged the Chinese for a speedy and early resolution to the boundary disputes.

(The writers are research scholars with Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The post India-China Trade Ties Hindered By Border Disputes, Mistrust – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini’s appointment as the new European Union foreign policy chief offers the opportunity for an overhaul of EU foreign and security policy.

With many EU leaders, ministers and senior officials slow to respond to world events given Europe’s traditionally long summer break, the 2014 summer of death and violence has left the reputation of ‘Global Europe’ in tatters, highlighting the EU’s apparent disconnect from the bleak reality surrounding it.

When she takes charge in November along with other members of the new European Commission, led by Jean-Claude Juncker, Mogherini’s first priority must be to restore Europe’s credibility in an increasingly volatile and chaotic global landscape.

It cannot be business as usual. A strategic rethink of Europe’s global outreach is urgent.

Given their different national interests and histories, European governments are unlikely to ever speak with “one voice” on foreign policy. But they can and should strive to share a coherent, common, strategic reflection and vision of Europe’s future in an uncertain and anxious world.

Changing gears is going to be tough. Many of Europe’s key beliefs in the use of soft power, a reliance on effective multilateralism, the rule of law and a liberal world order are being shredded by governments and non-state actors alike.

With China and other emerging nations, especially in Asia, gaining increased economic and political clout, Europe has been losing global power and influence for almost a decade.

Despite pleas by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the crisis in Ukraine, most European governments remain reluctant to increase military and defence spending. At the same time, the Eurozone crisis and Europe’s plodding economic recovery with unacceptably high unemployment continue to erode public support for the EU both at home and abroad.

Populist far-right and extreme-left groups in Europe – including in the European Parliament – preach a protectionist and inward-looking agenda. Most significantly, EU national governments are becoming ever greedier in seeking to renationalise important chunks of what is still called Europe’s “common foreign and security policy”.

To prove her critics wrong – and demonstrate foreign policy expertise and flair despite only a six-month stint as Italy’s foreign minister – Mogherini will have to hit the ground running.

Her performance at the European Parliament on September 2, including an adamant rejection of charges of being “pro-Russian”, appears to have been impressive. Admirers point out that she is a hard-working team player, who reads her briefs carefully and speaks fluent English and French in addition to her native Italian.

These qualities should stand her in good stead as she manages the unwieldy European External Action Service (EEAS), plays the role of vice president of the European Commission, chairs EU foreign ministerial meetings, chats up foreign counterparts and travels around the world while also – hopefully – spearheading a strategic review of Europe’s global interests and priorities.

The tasks ahead are certainly daunting. There is need for reflection and action on several fronts – all at the same time. Eleven years after the then EU High Representative Javier Solana drew up the much-lauded European Security Strategy (partially revised in 2008), Europe needs to reassess the regional and global security environment, reset its aims and ambitions and define a new agenda for action.

But this much-needed policy overhaul to tackle new and evolving challenges must go hand-in-hand with quick fire-fighting measures to deal with immediate regional and global flashpoints.

Multipolar world

The world in 2014 is complex and complicated, multipolar, disorderly and unpredictable. Russia’s actions in Ukraine have up-ended the post-World War security order in Europe. The so-called “Islamic State” is spreading its hateful ideology through murder and assassination in Syria and Iraq, not too far from Europe’s borders. A fragile Middle East truce is no guarantee of real peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Relations with China have to be reinforced and consolidated. These and other complex problems require multi-faceted responses.

The days of ‘one-size-fits-all’ foreign policy are well and truly over. In an inter-connected and interdependent world, foreign policy means working with friends but also with enemies, with like-minded nations and those which are non-like-minded, with competitors and allies.

It is imperative to pay special attention to China, India and other headline-grabbing big countries, but it could be self-defeating to ignore the significance and clout of Indonesia, Mexico and other middle or even small powers. Upgrading ties with the United States remains crucial. While relations with states and governments are important they must go hand-in-hand with contacts with business leaders, civil society actors and young people.

Finally, Europe needs to acquire a less simplistic and more sophisticated understanding of Islam and its Muslim neighbours, including Turkey, which has been left in uncertainty about EU membership for more than fifty years.

Europe’s response to the new world must include a smart mix of brain and brawn, soft and hard power, carrots and sticks. Isolation and sanctions cannot work on their own but neither can a foreign policy based only on feel-good incentives. The EU’s existing foreign policy tools need to be sharpened but European policymakers also need to sharpen and update their view of the world.

Mogherini’s youth – and hopefully fresh stance on some of these issues – could be assets in this exercise. Importantly, Mogherini must work in close cooperation and consultation with other EU institutions, including the European Parliament and especially the European Commission whose many departments, including enlargement issues, trade, humanitarian affairs, environment, energy and development are crucial components of ‘Global Europe’.

The failure of synergies among Commission departments is believed to be at least partly responsible for the weaknesses of the EU’s “Neighbourhood Policy”.

Also, a coherent EU foreign policy demands close coordination with EU capitals. This is especially true in relations with China. Recent experience shows that, as in the case of negotiations with Iran, the EU is most effective when the foreign policy chief works in tandem with EU member states. Closer contacts with NATO will also be vital if Europe is to forge a credible strategy vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine.

Such cooperation is especially important if – as I suggest – Mogherini embarks on a revamp of EU foreign and security policy.

Mogherini will not be able to do it on her own. Much will depend on the EEAS team she works with and the knowledge, expertise and passion her aides bring to their work. Team work and leadership, not micro-management, will be required.

Putting pressing global issues on the backburner is no longer an option. The change of guard in Brussels is the right moment to review and reconsider Europe’s role in the world. Global Europe’s disconnect needs to be tackled before it is too late.

The post Wanted A ‘Global Europe’ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jutta Wolf

Violations of rights in Egypt are becoming increasingly evident in the aftermath of the country’s Ministry of Social Solidarity proposing a new law, which would constitute a dangerous escalation in the framework of systematic targeting of civil society activists and increasing restrictions imposed upon them, according to the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND).

The Egyptian ministry in charge of regulating civil society organization proposed a new draft law in June 26, 2014, causing shockwaves among civil society organizations (CSOs) in the country. For six months, they had carried out negotiations with former Social Solidarity Minister Dr. Ahmed el-Boraei, which led to a proposed law to be presented to forthcoming parliament soon after the elections.

However, says the Beirut-based network, the law proposed by the current minister will erase all the previous efforts and contains signs of an effort to undermine and quell civil society in Egypt. Through the law, the ministry aims to “nationalize around 40,000 civil society groups and make them quasi-governmental adjuncts”, which “closely [resembles] the proposed law put up for discussion during the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule”.

“The proposed law constitutes a plain and flagrant violation of the new Egyptian constitution and the country’s human rights obligations, especially Article 22 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” warns ANND.

Yet the Ministry was not satisfied with merely proposing the draft; three weeks later, it sent out a warning in the form of an announcement in state owned Al-Ahram newspaper on July 18, 2014. The caution addressed what it dubbed as “entities” performing civil society work, which have not been registered in accordance with Law 84 of 2002, alerting them of the need to register in 45 days or they will be dissolved.

This was followed by a memorandum sent by 23 rights organizations to the Egyptian Prime Minister on July 24, declaring their rejection of the draft law and of other escalatory measures.

The memo indicated that the warning constitutes a “blatant attack on other long-established legal systems regulating companies in the fields of law and other activities related to development, academia, and culture”.

Several organizations in Egypt prefer to register under the civil company law or as law offices to avoid interference in their affairs and strict control by the government. “Based on its faith in the critical role of civil society and community organizing in the quest towards reforms and providing a rights-based and humane character on public life,” ANND strongly condemns the draconian practices of the Ministry of Social Solidarity in Egypt.

ANND also expresses its deep concern for the increasing antagonism against the work of civil society organizations in the various fields of intervention, in the assault on the freedom of expression – targeting journalists in particular, the right to peaceful assembly and protest – in the adoption of the Law on the Right to Public Meetings, Processions and Peaceful Demonstrations of 2013, which imposes severe restrictions, and, through the onslaught against civic associations and the enforcement of tight controls, especially in light of the adoption of the system of registration, instead of notification [of association].

ANND lends it voice to the signatories on the memo and all civil society and community-based organizations in Egypt, due to the negative and destructive repercussions of such measures on Egyptian civil society, calling on the Egyptian prime minister to abide by his commitments to human rights organizations, through holding a wide meeting to discuss these measures.

Remarkably, adds ANND, during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of its human rights obligations in 2010, Egypt had pledged to improve the environment for the work of non-governmental organizations. The Ministry’s initiative to adopt the law is inconsistent with this commitment, in all respects, and occurs two months prior to Egypt’s human rights revision during UPR second cycle, where it will be accountable to the Human Rights Council on the extent of its honoring such commitments.

In a memo to the prime minister, ANND has called for retracting the draft law on civil society organizations, which was recently put forward by the Ministry of Social Solidarity, and revoking unequivocally the notice issued by the Ministry of Social Solidarity in Al Ahram newspaper.

ANND also wants the Ministry of Social Solidarity to initiate deliberations with civil society organizations, based on the positions reached in the dialogue with former Minister of Social Solidarity, Ahmed Boraei. It also calls for a legal framework that is more consistent with international standards and the Egyptian constitution (ratified by general referendum at the beginning of the year), and to present it to the new parliament once elections are held.

The post Arab NGO Network Concerned Over Rights Violations In Egypt – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Cemre Nur Öztürk

The third meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors this year took place between September 15 and 19, 2014, at the IAEA’s headquarters in Vienna. The issues discussed included measures that should be taken to strengthen international cooperation in nuclear, radiation, transport and waste safety, and the Agency’s activities related to nuclear science, technology, and applications and nuclear verification. The board also deliberated on the application of IAEA safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in the Middle East, as well as the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreements in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, respectively. The next IAEA Board of Governors meeting will be held on 29 September 2014.

The Director General of the IAEA and the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran earlier signed the Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation on 11 November 2013 in Teheran. Here, the parties agreed on further cooperation that includes on the one hand Iran’s obligations to inform the IAEA of its nuclear facilities and to implement transparency measures, while on the other hand the IAEA must protect confidential information. If Iran takes the necessary measures in accordance with the Joint Statement, $4.2 billion of Iranian funds frozen in foreign banks could be released and sanctions on petrochemical exports, gold trading, the sale of goods and services in the automotive industry, and the supply of parts and maintenance needed to keep Iran’s civilian aircraft flying safely will be suspended. As the Joint Statement is an interim accord, the date of 20 July, 2014, has been set as the deadline for a final settlement on Iran’s nuclear program. However, because Iran failed to meet the terms of the agreement with the IAEA by the above date, the deadline was pushed back to 24 November 2014. The IAEA’s main aim is to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is being employed for civilian purposes.

In his opening speech, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano emphasised the importance of Iran’s continuous and timely implementation of all practical measures that were agreed upon under the Framework for Cooperation and the necessity for the country to propose new measures with which it can agree in the next round of negotiations.

Timeline of sanctions against Iran

According to the Council on Foreign Relations’ study, “Crisis Guide: Iran”, Iran was subjected to economic and military sanctions by the USA for the first time in 1984 because it was thought to be involved in the 1983 Beirut bombings that killed more than two hundred US marines. Two years later, the USA imposed new sanctions that encompassed an export ban and prevented US firms from contributing to Iran’s oil and gas sectors. This new round of sanctions was based on allegations that Iran sponsored terrorism and was pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran and the IAEA signed a Safeguards Agreement in 1974. The Safeguards Agreement requires the application and implementation of safeguards, materials control, provision of information to the IAEA, and the non-application of nuclear materials for non-peaceful activities. In 2003, Iran declared its plans to develop nuclear fuel and in this same year the IAEA and Iran reached yet another agreement on the use of nuclear power for non-military purposes. After the growing allegations that highly enriched uranium was being used in the construction of weapons at the Natanz Nuclear Facility, in response to the reaction of global public opinion, Iran signed an Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards that allowed for more intrusive inspections of IAEA inspectors. With the election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in 2005 to the office of president of Iran, uranium enrichment once again resumed. In response to US concerns, the IAEA discussed referring Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.

But according to a study conducted by the International Institute for the Strategic Studies it would take several more years before Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon. The UN adopted later a resolution that imposed new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. This includes a trade embargo on nuclear and ballistic material, restrictions on travel, and the freezing of select individuals’ assets.

Meanwhile, Iran has continued to discuss it nuclear program with the EU-3 (Germany, France and UK). In 2006, the USA, Russia, and China also took part in the discussions and thus the group of countries known as the Permanent Five Plus One, or ‘P5+1’, was formed. The P5+1 tried to deter Iran from further enriching uranium by offering it a package of incentives and possible reduction in sanctions, but Iran did not respond. In March 2008, the UN Security Council adopted a third round of sanctions against Iran because, based on IAEA assessments, it did not halt its uranium enrichment program. In 2009, an IAEA report stated that Iran suspended neither its enrichment-related activities nor the construction of nuclear plant at Qum as required by the Security Council.

In 2010, Iranian President Ahmedinejad triumphantly declared that uranium had been enriched to the level of 20 percent and that the country does not intend to build a nuclear weapon. In June 2010, the UN adopted a fourth round of sanctions via Resolution 1929 that introduced new bans on certain investments in Iran, restrictions of weapon sales, and penalties for companies connected to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and main shipping company. In November 2011, an IAEA report noted that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

The post Iran’s Nuclear Negotiations On The Tightrope appeared first on Eurasia Review.

There are ten units that “unify” the space of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina [1]. We call them cantons or counties (although the Constitutional Court of the Federation has a special position on the latter administrative units – a county name is unconstitutional, they say) but they still exist as such. “That is what has been given to us through our fight” – echoes on the pulse of a youthful student. Within the Canton / Counties should be organized a cultural space for the purpose of improving life for all citizens of the above mentioned areas. But instead of an ad-hoc solution of the approach to the culture as something that is defined as: “Hi pal, you need so much money, no problem, but do not ask for much because it should be given to others!?”... We must cross the river, it is deep, it is broad…

The aim to which we should be focused on a long-term basis is moving the cultural sector into one of the key priorities of the overall development. It is necessary to constantly review the cultural values ​​and to promote cultural pluralism, along the development of multiculturalism and openness to the surroundings. It is necessary to encourage individual creativity and develop cultural communication, including the one in the new information technologies.

The main aim is not only to raise consumer tastes of residents of Canton / Counties, but also the quality of life in these areas. In all segments of cultural creativity is necessary to keep the attained levels of development, and create a basis for further development, having in mind, as it is particularly important, openness for new initiatives. These goals will be achieved by thoughtful connecting of professional, amateur and alternative activity in the culture, fostering and presenting traditional culture, and by linking different sectors of life in Canton / County: culture, education, economy, tourism, sport…

The basic prerequisite for the achievement of the stated objectives is the ensuring of the infrastructure, i.e. space and time to work.
How to reach it? As follows:

1. Gathering information about the complete “cultural infrastructure” in Canton / County, in other words, within all municipalities.

2. Finding funds for repairs, construction and upgrading of existing and new facilities, depending on the needs in a particular area.

3. After finishing of the work find the possibility of providing space (i.e. the use of existing infrastructure resources) for:
a) Rehabilitation of space for movie screenings and theater;
b) Library and reading room;
c) Studio (all types- ballet, folk dance, theater);
d) Theater (for children, youth and the elderly);
e) Space for youth (lectures, screenings, alternative contents).

4. Another important prerequisite are financial resources. It takes planning to access the cultural sector in the budgets of the Canton / County so as to establish a balance within funds between spending for institutions and spending for programs in culture, and build a system for evaluating the cultural content. It is also necessary, in the budget, to provide funds for investment. Of course, in addition to the above funding, it is necessary to encourage other ways to finance culture (sponsorships and donations).

5. In determining priorities for assistance to institutions of importance to the development of culture in all its forms, the government should be focused on the following:

a) Request the presentation of plans by cultural institutions for a 12 month period;
b) Require reporting from cultural institutions for a period of past twelve months;
c) Submission of the shaped methodological requirements for funds – how funds will be invested and how projects are self-sustained for the future.

6. Every six months ask the relevant municipal departments for the complete information about active cultural institutions, individuals, clubs, NGO’s, associations dealing with issues of cultural interest.

7. Assist the establishment of clubs, associations of cultural significance. Publish a public announcement about the support and establishment of the Association of Writers, Artists and all those institutions involved in the promotion of cultural values.

8. Publish an announcement at the end of the year for the best work of authorship in three categories (novel, poetry books and stories). The first three awarded works should receive awards and will be published from the funds from authorized ministries.

9. Establishment of the Council for Culture at the level of the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports in accordance with the Law (where the Law exists – so far it exists only in the Sarajevo Canton) with the aim of shaping the program in the field of culture in the Canton / County.

Proposal for an article on the Law on culture:
“Article ____
Council for culture:
– Determine the content and guidelines for establishing of programs in the field of culture of Canton / County.
– Participate in the development of programs in the areas of culture Canton / County;
– Monitors and evaluates the performance of the program in the field of culture Canton / Counties and provides incentives for its amendment;
– Give opinions on the execution of programs in the field of culture Canton / County;
– Assess the situation and development of cultural activities in the Canton / County;
– Give opinions on draft laws and other regulations in the field of culture and the proposals of other laws and regulations that interfere with the field of culture;
– Takes the initiative and proposals for editing other issues in the field of culture. ”

10. In accordance with the current or strategic needs it should be established a council, commissions and expert groups. Proposal of the article ____ draft for culture:

“Article _____
To participate in the execution of the tasks of the Ministry, the Minister establishes councils, commissions and expert groups, as expert advisory bodies for specific areas of cultural activity.

The composition of the councils, committees or expert groups, their tasks and the way of work is determined by the Minister, through the founding act”

11. Twice a year should be organized a joint meeting with all the cultural institutions, associations from Canton / County with the aim of presenting the situation on the ground and trying to create a long-term strategy for culture.

12. The operation in formulating the vision of cultural heritage protection in collaboration with museums and other institutions dealing with the protection of cultural heritage.

13. Make contacts and arrange meetings with writers from Bosnia and Herzegovina in all municipalities of the Canton / County. Contacts should be realized with associations of writers. Plan month of the books in Canton / County and then in each municipality made ​​a presentation of certain literary works and writers as well as the propagation of the book as a common good oriented towards reconciliation, coexistence and prosperity. To this end it is necessary to revive / establish working memorial museums of Ivo Andric, Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar, Mesa Selimovic, Nikola Sopa, Aleksa Santic, Musa Cazima Catic and other ones, through hiring professionals, curators of literature, who would coordinate the work of the association in Canton / County and begin various programs in the literary field. These memorial museums would become organizational, documentation and informational centers of literary activity in the area of Canton / County.

14. Establishment, by passing the law, relevant inspection services in the domain of culture.

15. Individual requirements should be implemented by respecting:
a) The geographic coverage of a wider area of the Canton / County;
b) Current activities in the field of culture;
c) The quality of the planned activities;
d) The recommendations of the Council for Culture;
e) The sustainability of projects.

The methodological approach you have is great, my dear student! But when and how will you implement it? – Suddenly interrupted my dreams from the side of my favorite professor. Should I do not dare to even have a dream, my professor? For once, leave me alone. I’m trying to do in my dreams what dreams I cannot do in the reality!

Go back to sleep.
And have a dream.
Keep an eye out just for the awakening.
It is always painful in these areas.
Like in the movie: “Strategy of magpie”.

Notes: [1] Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina (another entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina is: Republic of Srpska). Within Bosnia and Herzegovina should be mentioned Brčko District as well, aside of two entities, as the part of BiH

The post Bosnia And Herzegovina And XXI Century: Canton (A County Like) Strategy Of A Magpie – Essay appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Paula Kavathas

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa receives daily international coverage, with good reason, as the human and economic crisis intensifies in four nations – Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria. The World Health Organization has called for international cooperation to halt the spread of the deadly virus, advocating for a massive emergency response. With no approved vaccine or therapeutic, treating infected individuals is that much more difficult, and the question arises on how to better prepare for the next pandemic.

One approach to fight pandemics would be to establish a fund earmarked for two purposes: An immediate-response fund would provide assistance to countries with weaker health infrastructure to fight present outbreaks while other funds would be channeled for research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, or diagnostics for emerging diseases such as Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Chikungunya.

The United States should take the lead in establishing such a fund by requiring a tax on airline tickets for all passengers traveling in and out of the country. Extra charges are not unprecedented with passengers already paying a tax on tickets to pay for homeland security. The US Department of Transportation Statistics reports 181,413,042 international passengers departed or arrived at US airports in 2013 – most with round trips. Adding $3 per international ticket would amount to about $500 million per year.

Why single out international tickets? Because international travelers can be vectors or carriers for infectious microorganisms, this charge would be a fair form of insurance that would contribute to reducing the likelihood of pandemics.

In response to the current Ebola crisis Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft, recently donated $9 million to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $50 million to provide supplies and scale up emergency operations. Funds generated from the tax on international travel would achieve a similar effect providing similar flexible money before a crisis requiring a massive response occur without waiting for major donors. This would also reduce the need of governments to redirect funds earmarked for other purposes. Responses would be quicker.

Throughout human history infectious organisms such as smallpox and the black plague have led to epidemics and economic contraction. The challenge today, however, is the ability for such infections to spread globally more rapidly. International air travel has become a commonplace part of life for many, creating a so-called “global village” wherein a virus can leap from even the remotest areas to urban centers that are home to millions and create a global crisis within months. The world’s experience with SARS illustrated this. The disease emerged in Southern China in mid-November 2002 and spread to Canada within four months, after being carried by an international airline traveler. Individuals from many parts of Asia and Australia were infected by asymptomatic air travelers. By the time the SARS epidemic subsided, less than a year later, a total of 8,098 people worldwide had been infected, the disease killing about 10 percent of them. The estimated cost to the Far East alone was roughly $30 billion.

Ebola’s economic impact is already significant, costing millions in tourism and trade, for the countries fighting the disease. People are being advised not to travel to the affected countries. Airlines are also hurt economically when such events occur. During the 2003 pandemic of SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Asia-Pacific carriers lost $6 billion in revenue and North American airlines lost $1 billion, Reuters reported.

One of the problems in fighting Ebola is that the Western African countries have a relatively weaker health infrastructure, lacking in adequate supplies and personnel. The New York Times described a desperate search by a prominent doctor in Sierra Leone, Sheik Umar Khan, for basic supplies such as protective clothing, chlorine for disinfection, salt solutions to fight dehydration and body bags before succumbing to the disease himself. The United Nations and the aid group Doctors Without Borders have issued urgent appeals for international aid to contain the outbreak. An emergency fund provided by the new tax would be available as an immediate resource. The White House, relying on recommendations from the US Centers for Disease Control and the State Department, could decide how to distribute the funds.

Considering the barrage of news reports on medical research, many may assume that sufficient funds are available to research microbes behind emerging infectious diseases. However, pharmaceutical firms and government agencies tend to fund research and development on infectious diseases that affect large numbers of people because of greater impact or commercialization potential. Research on a vaccine, therapeutic or diagnostic for a relatively rare infectious pathogen in a developing country poses greater financial risk if the outbreaks are limited. With the recession of 2008 and budget sequestration in 2013, the resources available to the National Institutes of Health and other funders of such research in the United States, have been reduced. Providing a new source of revenue, a form of economic stimulus, could help smaller companies to work on high-risk projects involving pathogenic infectious organisms.

With increased funds, researchers can also take advantage of modern technologies. Originally vaccines were composed of either attenuated or weakened forms of a pathogen or inactivated pathogen. Using recombinant DNA technology, it is now possible to isolate single genes from a pathogen. Researchers can simply produce the protein made from that gene for immunization or place the gene in a non-pathogenic virus for immunization. An example of a new type of vaccine is the US Food and Drug Administration–approved Flublok influenza vaccine from Protein Science Corporation, which uses the viral protein hemagglutinin protein for immunization. The traditional vaccine that contains inactivated influenza virus is likely to be replaced. Current vaccines for human papilloma virus and hepatitis B were developed in similar ways.

Many of these viruses live in host species, called reservoir species, where they are non-pathogenic. When the virus is transmitted to another species, the virus can become lethal as is the case for humans with Ebolavirus. The filoviruses, including Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus have been linked to bats. The bat becomes infected with the virus, and the virus multiples in the bat before being shed into the environment. However, the bat makes an effective immune response, suffering no harm, in contrast to humans where infection by the Zaire Ebolavirus is 60 to 90 percent lethal. Understanding how the bat makes an effective immune response to Ebola could provide clues for new strategies to fight the virus.

Wealthier nations with the strongest scientific infrastructure, such as the United States, must take the lead in combatting pandemics. People traveling internationally should be part of the solution by paying a tax that would provide immediate help with epidemics caused by infectious organisms and fund the development of long-term solutions for future outbreaks – critical for human well-being in the age of global travel. Hopefully the governments with the capacity to administer such funds will heed this call and take action. Ebola will not be the last epidemic.

Paula Kavathas is professor of laboratory medicine and of immunobiology at Yale University School of Medicine, chair of the Yale Women’s Faculty Forum and a Public Voice Fellow with The OpEd Project.

The post How To Fund The Ebola Fight – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On August 5 of this year, Major General Harold J. Greene was killed in Afghanistan by a lone gunman. Greene was the highest-ranking U.S. military officer to be killed in a war zone in four decades. Before him, according to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial database, Maj. Gen. John Albert B. Dillard Jr. was killed on May 12, 1970 when his helicopter was shot down. Later Rear Adm. Rembrandt Cecil Robinson, who was the Navy’s equivalent of a major general, was killed on May 8, 1972 when his helicopter crashed. Five other American officers of comparable rank were killed in the Vietnam War, all in air crashes, whether accidental or caused by hostile action. Lt. Gen. Timothy L. Maude, who was the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel, was killed at the Pentagon site on September 11, 2001.

What is noteworthy here is that Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene died not at the hand of a sworn enemy like the Taliban but from a burst of gunfire by a soldier in an allied army who had been largely paid, trained and equipped with the American and NATO support. One of the most puzzling developments has been such insider attacks, in which Afghan personnel have opened fire on their foreign military counterparts.

Why? Why did Maj. Gen. Greene die? Is there something wrong he did, and/or symbolized or represented that was at the heart of the reason behind his killing? How about the other killings that have happened in the occupied territories? Surely, for every effect there is at least a cause behind; nothing of that sort happens without a reason. What could have motivated the Afghan soldiers to killing Greene and other occupying soldiers?

Occupation of a foreign territory is never an easy task. Even when the native fighters were defeated newer ones have always emerged later to continue the old fight of their parents. Occupying forces have, therefore, always tried to create its surrogate army by recruiting from inside the occupying territory to work as a buffer force. That is how they have been able to rule vast territories of India and other colonies in our world while their own forces accounted for a very small fraction of the total force.

Occupation of a foreign territory with an alien culture is even harder. Attacks are often motivated by deep-seated animosity between the occupation forces and those occupied: the contempt each side holds for the other. That could well explain the reasons behind much of the problems faced by the occupation forces in Afghanistan. In 2010 an American and a Canadian colonel and two American lieutenant colonels were killed in a suicide car bombing. Per account of a coalition official, that event sent “more than a little shock and numbness” at coalition headquarters. Another coalition official compared General Greene’s death to the killings of American advisers at Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry by an Afghan government employee in 2012. That attack came in the midst of a wave of anti-American violence over burnings of the copies of the Holy Qur’an at Bagram Air Field, a sprawling base north of Kabul. A German brigadier general and a senior Afghan commander were among the wounded.

The “inside attacks” phenomenon became noticeable in 2008 and surged for the next few years. In 2012, there were 60 such attacks, including the fatal shooting of two American advisers by a government worker inside the Interior Ministry. By June of this year, 87 insider attacks had killed 142 coalition troops and wounded another 165, according to the Long War Journal, an online publication focused on American counterterrorism.

There was no similar incident before the shooting of Maj. Gen. Greene on August 5. According to a senior Pentagon official, the general and some other Afghan and American officers were standing by a water purification tank when the Afghan soldier opened fire without warning.

It was also unclear what provoked two other “insider attacks” that week: a firefight Tuesday between an Afghan police guard and NATO troops near the governor’s office in southern Paktia province, and an incident Wednesday in Uruzgan province in which an Afghan policeman poisoned his colleagues’ food, then shot at least seven of them before fleeing in a police truck, officials said.

As (late) Professor Edward Said mentioned in his lecture at a seminar in Cal Tech some 30 years ago, which I had the privilege of attending, nowhere did the occupation forces encounter as much resistance as they did in Muslim territories. Muslims were militarily defeated and their lands occupied by the western forces, but the resistance against occupation continued for decades making it very difficult for new rulers to sustain their gains. Simply put, Muslims are loathe to be occupied and ruled over by invading kafirs; none of the conquerors were able to convince the bulk of their Muslim subjects for a moment that they had benign intentions. This, in spite of all the propaganda of the occupation forces trying to portray its so-called kinder, gentler mission. From the time of Napoleon, these western occupiers, who had defeated Muslims militarily, claimed that they intended to restore, protect, and liberate their new subjects. They even sounded as if they had no quarrel with the religion of Islam and the culture of Muslims.

After his royal entry to Alexandria, Egypt in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte proclaimed, “You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur’an.” One of his generals, Jacques Ménou, even converted to Islam to show his respect for Islam.

Similarly, soon after his arrival in Baghdad in March 1917, Stanley Maude, the British commander, after having defeated the Ottomans, addressed “the People of the Baghdad Vilayet” saying: “Our armies have not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Hulaku your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken into desolation and you yourselves have groaned in bondage. … the Turks have talked of reforms, yet do not the ruins and wastes of today testify the vanity of those promises?

It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance, that you should prosper even as in the past. … Between your people and the dominions of my King there has been a close bond of interest. …
It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised and that once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals. …

I am commanded to invite you, through your nobles and elders and representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army, so that you may be united with your kinsmen in North, East, South, and West in realising the aspirations of your race.”

Eight months later, in November 1917, the Soviet communist conquerors of Central Asia announced in a missive titled “To All the Muslim Workers of Russia and the East”:

“Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution…”

As noted by a neocon analyst in his 2009 essay “Western Conquerors or Liberators of Muslims?” the history of Europe is replete with such statements. After Britain secured its rule over India, its officials made repeated professions of respect for Islam, so as to diminish Muslim hostility to their rule. … According to him, a particularly bizarre instance dates to 1937, when the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini arranged for Muslim notables from Italian-ruled Libya to gird him with the “sword of Islam” during a visit to Tripoli. “Muslims may rest assured,” Mussolini intoned on that occasion, “that Italy will always be the friend and protector of Islam throughout the world.”

All those western conquerors, perceived more as crusaders than liberators, were hypocritical. This perception was not altogether lost soon after 9/11 when President George W. Bush wanted to present his administration as anti-Taliban, and anti-al-Qaeda but not anti-Islam. However, the often bigotry-ridden, inflammable and hostile remarks from some members within his administration could not hide the real intent. The American-led invasion of Afghanistan, originally referred to one time by President Bush as a “crusade”, was then haughtily, almost in a Pharaonical manner, dubbed “Operation Infinite Justice”, which was finally called “Operation Enduring Freedom” to present itself as ‘saving’ Afghans from tyranny of the Taliban. Although the Taliban was replaced, genuine freedom remained a far cry for most Afghans. And the same is true for the Iraqis who were rid of the former dictator Saddam Hussein.

The occupation forces have replaced the old guards and trained new ones. But nothing seems to be working towards stabilizing the current regimes. In Iraq there is ISIS (or ISIL), which is threatening the Shia-led government. The American-led invasion, occupation and re-intervention have gone so wrong that a major US newspaper last month put up a cartoon depicting Saddam Hussein taunting “Do you miss me?”

The post Western Conquerors Were Never Liberators – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US President Barack Obama chose the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to unveil his strategy against the Islamic State (IS) in an address to the nation from the White House in Washington.

In what is seen by some analysts as a reversal, Obama authorised airstrikes inside Syria for the first time as well as expansion of strikes in Iraq as a part of the strategy  to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the IS.

He ordered a broad military campaign in concert with a “coalition of the willing and capable” against the IS as it is seen to pose a risk to Americans and the interests of its allies in the region. In the past few weeks the US has been launching limited airstrikes against IS targets in Iraq in support of Iraqi and Kurdish resistance, and in response, the IS has released videos depicting the beheading of two American journalists in Syria.

There is speculation that India, in a departure from the past, may consider the option of being a part of this international effort; more as a “responsible” global actor than in response to any threat posed by the IS to the country. An issue US might take up in the forthcoming Obama-Modi meeting. The US State Department has indicated that more than 40 countries have already given or offered support of some kind to Iraq in dealing with the militants.

The Strategy

The US State Department briefing said the focus will be on “multiple lines of effort, including military support to our Iraqi partners, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, countering IS’ financing and funding, addressing humanitarian crises, and de-legitimising IS’ ideology”. Before Obama’s address the US Treasury Department indicated that it would, as a part of the strategy, step up efforts to undermine the IS’ finances by working with other countries, especially Gulf states, to cut off the group’s external funding networks and its access to the global financial system.

Obama’s declaration to destroy IS through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy comes with a few caveats; no putting American troops in combat roles on the ground in Iraq or Syria. He said US will not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. Second, US will not take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.

Obama also said that he was dispatching nearly 500 more US troops to Iraq to assist operations against the IS, while the White House in a separate statement said it was providing $25 million in immediate military assistance to the Iraqi government. The US administration has also sought and obtained authorization from the Congress for a Pentagon-led effort to train and arm more moderate elements of the Syrian opposition under a $500 million programme.

Coalition of the Willing and Capable

At the NATO summit in Wales in the first week of September, the US  announced that it had formed a 10-nation “core coalition”  to counter the IS threat which comprised of US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. The coalition announcement, possibly since it only referred to the “core”, consisted of NATO members, and did not include any Arab nation and only one of Iraq’s six neighbours, Turkey. It is also unclear what specific commitments the allies including the core members, have made within the two-pronged strategy of strengthening allies on the ground in Iraq and supporting them with airstrikes.  The US and France, since then has escalated diplomatic efforts with allies in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere to help with efforts to degrade the terror group.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly offered to host the training missions and the Arab League  has essentially agreed to become part of the coalition, announcing that its 22 members would take unspecified, yet urgent political, defensive, security and legal measures to combat extremists. 10 Arab states since then have come forward with more substantial commitments. Turkey, which shares a long border with both Iraq and Syria, has committed to intercepting foreign fighters en route to the conflict. Jordan is expected to provide intelligence support and help establish targets for the coalition airstrikes. Paradoxically, conspicuous by its absence from this coalition is Iran, the only local player which is willing to put boots on ground  ( is doing so) against the IS.

US Senator John McCain, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Sep 9, outlined his visualisation of the contours of the desired India-US relationship which would support India’s rise as a more influential “global actor”. He outlined a strategic agenda which would contribute to a rules-based international order that would foster India-US relationship. One of the strategic priorities that he flagged within the agenda was a stable Middle East. To that end he remarked “imagine the signal India would send if it joined the emerging international coalition to confront the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”

The question is would the Narendra Modi government make that quantum transition in its West Asia policy to accommodate such a notion? It has been reported that India is actively considering bolstering the capabilities of the Kurdish regional government in Irbil in this regard.

Indian Role

It is not insignificant that the coalition against the IS has, so far,  few Arab countries standing up to be counted considering how major a threat IS has been perceived to be not only to the region but also the Islamic faith. The positions taken by some of these “local partners” (with most of whom India shares cordial diplomatic relations) is indicative of their disparate and diverse, and frequently conflicting, interests on key issues including the IS. Despite its barbaric acts, the IS is viewed by some sections as a manifestation of valid Sunni grievances in the region. These countries would like these grievances addressed concurrently with any action against the IS.

Turkey’s conditional acquiescence to the coalition membership would provide India a sense of the diplomatic and security challenges it could face. Turkey has reportedly indicated to the US that the power balance in the region should not be affected as a consequence of the international intervention; and in this context no weapons should be given to Shiites, who are strong in Baghdad and the Assad administration in Syria. On the issue of support to the Kurds, it felt that having unmonitored weapons in the area could post a threat to Turkey’s domestic security. The beleaguered Iraqi government too has reservations on the West dealing directly with Irbil as this is undermining its tenuous legitimacy, sovereignty and integrity of the Iraqi nation.

Besides historical and existing military and commercial ties, and the fact that the West considers the Peshmerga as the “finest” fighting force against the IS in the region, Kurds have received assistance from the US and EU nations simply because the West does want to be seen as supporting Shia groups in Iraq. The US and its allies are making concerted efforts to portray IS as a problem within Islam and more specifically between the Sunnis. However, the option to aid and strengthen the Iraqi Kurdish government may not be such a straightforward choice for India.

India would also watch keenly the support US garners at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly session.

A recalibration of India’s West Asia policy is not going to be a mere case of shifting gears. As the Modi government moves to assert India’s position as a reckonable global player, the country’s stand on the declared strategy to counter the IS may prove to be its first major foreign policy challenge.

(Monish Gulati is a Senior Research Fellow with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com)

This article appeared at South Asia Monitor.

The post War Against Islamic State: Can India Play A Role? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rupak Bhattacharjee

In their bid to boost economic cooperation and connectivity, policy makers, government officials, bankers, economists, business and industry leaders of India and Bangladesh participated in a business conclave titled “A New Phase in Bilateral Economic Relations” on Aug 23-24 in Dhaka.

The conclave attached priorities to issues concerning Bangladesh’s trade ties with north eastern states. The representatives of both the countries discussed the challenges and opportunities of connectivity between Bangladesh and north eastern states and the possible ways of improving infrastructure at land ports, removing non-tariff barriers and increasing investment to enhance bilateral trade between the two countries.

Bangladesh demanded that India should do away with non-tariff and para-tariff barriers to help Dhaka in increasing its exports to India for minimising the trade imbalance between the two nations.

Bangladeshi business leaders and experts identified a number of impediments, including testing and certification, packaging and labelling issues that stood in the way of doing business with India. They maintained that in most cases, India does not recognise certification of Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institution, which is hampering exports to the country.

The Indian delegation led by Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) Minister General (retd) V.K. Singh tried to convey the message that New Delhi is keen on forging ties with Bangladesh with special focus on expansion of business with north east because of geographical contiguity. Singh said at the conclave that there is endless scope for expanding Bangladesh’s trade with seven states and the union government would provide all possible support to explore the opportunities.

He reiterated India’s commitment to ensure prospects of neighbouring countries as it believes that India’s prosperity lies in the neighbour’s prosperity. General (retd) Singh, who fought Bangladesh’s Liberation War in 1971 alongside the Bengali freedom fighters, urged Bangladeshi entrepreneurs to explore his government’s neighbourhood policy for mutual benefit. Singh said his government had decided that the north east must develop in terms of infrastructure, which means rail, road and air connectivity and connectivity with neighbouring countries.

The minister noted that despite getting duty free access in the Indian market, Bangladeshi exporters could not fully exploit the opportunity as they failed to “understand the Indian market”. Indian Chamber of Commerce president Rajeev Singh observed that Bangladesh with its natural resources has enough potential to broaden trade ties with north east India

He has listed commodities having “comparative trade advantage”, including coal, limestone, stone chips, bamboo, cement, palm oil, wheat, sugar, readymade garments, processed food and drinks.

Meghalaya Chief Minister Mukul Sangma proposed joint investment with his state given its rich deposits of granite and very high quality limestone. Sangma invited Bangladesh for making joint investments in hydropower projects and the agro-forest sector in Meghalaya.

He said Meghalaya has huge potential in hydro-electricity and Bangladesh could get electricity through investment. He also suggested organising a separate conclave focusing on tourism as Meghalaya is well known for its tourist spots. Furthermore, the conclave saw business-to-business (B2B) meetings between Indian and Bangladeshi investors and entrepreneurs.

India is the biggest trading partner of Bangladesh. Following its decision in November 2011 to allow duty free and quota free access for Bangladeshi items, Dhaka’s exports to India registered an upward growth. In the last fiscal, Bangladesh’s $563.9 million exports to India were the highest ever against India’s exports of over $4.5 billion. Currently, Bangladesh is India’s largest trading partner among the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member nations.

According to the India-Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Indian investment stood at $2.5 billion in 2013-14. The trade deficit between the two countries has been persisting over the years despite taking several corrective measures. In its efforts to reduce the trade imbalance, Bangladesh submitted a list of 61 more items for duty free access to the Indian market.

On Aug 23, the Indian delegation met Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on the sidelines of the conclave and submitted seven proposals for connectivity, including access to Chittagong port.

During her talks with Singh, Hasina reiterated Bangladesh’s primary demand to sign the much-awaited Teesta water sharing agreement. Hasina also urged India to provide transit to Bangladesh with Nepal and Bhutan through Indian territory.

The Indian side reassured Dhaka of providing the transit facility and added that a railway line should be built along the existing road that connects Bangladesh with Nepal and Bhutan.

Singh noted that the existing “border haats” have expanded people-to-people contacts between the two countries to a considerable extent. He also met Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali and stressed on further widening and deepening of the relationship between the two nations, especially between the north east and Bangladesh.

Another north eastern state, Tripura will be largely benefited from improved trade ties and connectivity with neighbouring Bangladesh. This small state is surrounded by Bangladesh from three sides. The Manik Sarkar government, which enjoys warm relationship with the Awami League regime in Bangladesh, has been seeking transit facilities through Bangladesh and access to Chittagong port.

After meeting Hasina, Tripura Minister Tapan Chakraborty said the Bangladesh government has decided to allow its neighbours to use both Chittagong and Ashuganj sea ports to strengthen economic integration among South Asian countries.

It may be noted that the Indian government is providing financial assistance for the construction of a bridge on Feni river, building a 70-km road from Sabroom in South Tripura district to Chittagong port and laying railway tracks between Agartala and Akhaura (in Chittagong division).

The Bangladesh Prime Minister’s Economic Affairs Advisor Dr Mashiur Rahman maintained that both the countries should institutionalise the existing river and road transit facilities between them as a “multi-modal” one. He suggested that a new warehouse should be built in Chittagong port to handle export and import of Indian goods through the port. Dhaka on its part has taken some initiatives for reaching out to India’s north east.

The Hasina government has already sought New Delhi’s permission to open its Deputy High Commission in Guwahati and upgrade Agartala Visa Office to an Assistant High Commission to boost diplomatic and commercial presence in the north east.

Following formation of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government at the centre, India has been consistently engaged with Bangladesh. Singh is the second Indian minister to visit Dhaka since the tour of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in June. Singh said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also keen to visit Bangladesh in future.

The recently concluded India-Bangladesh Business Conclave assumes significance against the backdrop of the Modi government’s new initiative of promoting greater engagement between Indian states and foreign nations.

(Rupak Bhattacharjee has worked as Senior Research Fellow at Kolkata’s Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies and New Delhi’s Institute for Conflict Management. He can be contacted atsouthasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post India-Bangladesh Business: Engagement Of Northeast Essential – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Ram Kumar Jha

Water resources is considered the backbone of the Nepalese economy. The issue of water resources has always been in the priority list of bilateral cooperation between India and Nepal.

It has vast potential to generate power and can assist in irrigation facilities by construction of mega projects. However, flash floods, erratic behaviour of rivers and construction of a barrage along the India-Nepal border have submerged Nepalese territory and caused huge loss of lives and property during the monsoon season.

The river system of Nepal with more than 6,000 rivers drains from north to south towards the Ganges. The total average annual runoff from all these river systems is estimated at about 225 billion cubic metres (BCM). Nepal is utilizing only a part of it (estimated at 15 BCM) for economic and social purposes. Until now, Nepal has utilized mainly medium and small rivers for different uses such as drinking water, irrigation and hydropower.

The larger and perennial Himalayan rivers have been virtually left untapped, except for a few run-of-the river schemes. Since there is extreme seasonal variation in water availability in the Nepalese rivers, all future programmes will have to focus on storage of water during the rainy season and its utilization during dry periods.

The Koshi River Basin is a trans-boundary river system that stretches from China in the north down through Nepal and across the Himalayan mountain ranges, and discharges into the Ganges river in India covering about 70,000 km2 of land. This basin is the home of millions of people reliant on the fertile floodplains and the river for their livelihoods. At the same time subsistence farmers balance the threat of starvation with that of floods.

CUTS International, a Jaipur-based research and advocacy organisation, with support from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Australia, has conducted a survey in Nepal to estimate the live conflicts and their remedial actions for water security between India and Nepal. The study found that India and Nepal signed the Koshi agreement in 1954 to regulate the flow of the river and to ensure flood management.

The project is utilised for power generation and irrigation purposes. The development of the Koshi project took place in three phases. The first phase was the period of the 1950s, when the Koshi Agreement was signed. Koshi Barrage was built between 1959 and 1963 and straddles the Indo-Nepal border. In the second phase, the 1966 version stated that Nepal would lease the land for the barrage to India for a period of 199 years.

The third phase of the Koshi project started in the late 1980s, when the Indian government proposed the idea of an alternative project to protect the Koshi barrage itself. This stemmed from a breach in the eastern embankment in 1987 and then in 1991 secretary level talks were held on the issue of building the Sapt Koshi High Dam.

It was contended that since the overall lifespan of the barrage would not be more than 50 years, the period of 199 years was too long. Questions have also been raised on the feasibility of the project from the social and environmental perspectives.

This is a point of commemoration that the Koshi River carries high concentration of sediment and mud, creating a delta of fertile but unstable plains. Until the construction of embankments, the river was moving westward. The embankments stopped this process and caused the accumulation of sediment on the river bed, which rose and led to the breakup of the embankments in 2008. As a result, the entire dam construction project is fraught with danger and can lead to major disasters.

Some aspects of the 1954 Koshi Agreement created friction between India and Nepal, the most important of which was the issue of compensation and irrigation. The other points of contention are the issue of water rights and the question of the management, control and operation of the barrage. These issues are considered as an infringement on Nepal’s territorial sovereignty.

With a view to optimizing the benefits and tackle the problems, both India and Nepal have set up three-tier mechanisms: Joint Ministerial Commission for Water Resources (JMCWR), 2012; Joint Committee on Water Resources (JCWR), 2011 and Joint Standing Technical Committee (JSTC), 2008 to implement agreements and treaties.

An additional mechanism: Joint Committee on Inundation and Flood Management (JCIFM) which deals explicitly with the issues of inundation, embankments and flood forecasting was also established in 2008.

The latest development is in line with our expectations of an improvement in India-Nepali relations. In this context, India-Nepal should arrive at a common framework and they also need to arrive at a shared understanding on upstream and downstream rights. At the same time, information sharing and cooperation on water issues is also an important element.

For water management and control joint mechanisms need to be evolved with a multi-stakeholder approach. It could help in minimising risks that could affect the lives of common people in the long term. Therefore, water cooperation can be an effective remedy to the irritants in India-Nepal relations.

(Dr. Ram Kumar Jha, is Policy Analyst, CUTS Centre For International Trade, Economics & Environment, Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS International).He can be reached atsouthasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post Water Cooperation Has Potential To Lift India-Nepal Ties – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US President Barack Obama has “usurped” his power, breaking laws and violating the Constitution, US Senator Rand Paul asserted in a keynote address at the Republican Party convention in California on Saturday.

The politician hailing from Kentucky recalled that the United States celebrated Constitution week mid-September, but he then said, “The president celebrated the Constitution by violating the Constitution. And this is not the first time, unfortunately.”

Rand Paul added that the worst thing Obama has done is abuse the separation of power. “It is his treading upon and obscuring the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers gave us.” He referred to it as a terrible tragedy and a danger to the very fabric of the Republic urging to “do everything we can to stop [Obama] from abusing our laws.”

Pauls’ concerns are understandable. Obama has repeatedly stated that he is willing to act without formal congressional approval. For instance, in his State of the Union address Obama said that he was eager to work with Congressmen “to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class.” However, he warned then that “wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

More recently, Obama returned to the issue on Labor Day once again criticizing Republicans for not helping and promising to work without Congress if need be. “If we had a Congress that cared about policies that actually helped working people, I promise you we could get everything done that we’ve talked about doing. But until we have that Congress, it’s up to us to fight for these policies,” the US president said at the 2014 Milwaukee Laborfest.

Obama was not the only one Rand Paul targeted on Saturday. The Republican also criticized Hillary Clinton for her response to the deadly attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 that left four Americans, including the US ambassador, tortured and then killed. Paul called it her “3 a.m. moment” referring to Clinton’s campaign ad aired during the Democratic primaries in 2008. The ad argued that Clinton was the one capable to handle a crisis by answering a phone ringing in the middle of the night. “I think she had a 3 a.m. moment. She didn’t answer the phone, and I think it absolutely should preclude her from being considered president,” Paul told a cheering crowd.

The senator drew parallels between Benghazi and the 1993 Black Hawk Down episode saying that in both instances the US government ignored pleas to provide more security to US personnel in Benghazi and Mogadishu, Somalia. Paul insisted that Clinton in her capacity as the Secretary of State was directly responsible for safeguarding the US embassy in the war-torn country. He observed then that if Hillary worked for Bill Clinton in 1993, the then US president would have surely fired her.

The post Rand Paul Slams Obama, Clinton For Benghazi Attack, Abuse Of Laws appeared first on Eurasia Review.

God’s consolation for Albania’s martyrs and other persecuted Christians is a reminder for us all of the intimate consolation that God offers amid suffering, Pope Francis said at a Sunday vespers service.

“The Lord consoled them because there were people in the Church, the people of God – the old ladies, holy and good, many cloistered sisters… who prayed for them. And this is the mystery of the Church: when the Church asks the Lord to console his people, the Lord consoles humbly, even clandestinely. He consoles in the intimacy of the heart and he consoles with strength.”

“Woe to us if we seek another consolation” than in the Lord, the Pope said. “Woe to priests, religious, sisters, novices and the consecrated who seek consolation that is distant from the Lord!”

Albania lived under state-imposed atheism from 1967 to 1991, but priests and other religious leaders began to endure persecution when dictator Enver Hoxha took power in 1946.

The regime conducted a war against religions: almost 2,100 people, including Catholic priests and adherents of other religions, were brutally killed because of their religious beliefs.

Pope Francis spoke about the country’s history of persecution at a Sep. 21 vespers service at the Cathedral of St. Paul in Albania’s capital of Tirana.

He said he had been surprised to learn of the severity of Albania’s suffering.

He recounted seeing the images of Albania’s martyrs that lined his route from the airport to Mother Teresa Square. At the vesper service, the Pope also met an elderly priest and a nun persecuted under Albania’s oppressive twentieth century atheist dictatorship.

“One sees that this people still has memory of their martyrs, of those who have suffered greatly! A people of martyrs,” Pope Francis said.

“And today, I was touched by two of them.”

The Pope noted the “simplicity” of the priest’s and the nun’s speech even though they told of “much suffering.”

He suggested the reasons they could survive their tribulations could be found in the vesper service reading from St. Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, which speaks of “the God of every consolation.”

God still consoled the persecuted despite their physical and mental suffering and their fears of being sent to the firing squad, he said.

“Blessed be God the Father, God of every consolation, who consoles us in all of our trials, in order that we may console those who we find in every kind of affliction, with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God,” the Pope said.

“We are sinners,” the Pope said. But in the martyrs, “the Lord was with us.”

“This is the way. Do not be discouraged!”

The Pope said that these martyrs have provided an example, but we must be an example for others. As we go home today, the Pope concluded, we might think: “Today we have touched the martyrs.”

The post Pope: Albanian Martyrs Knew God’s Consolation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

They won’t be going anywhere. The Scottish “No” vote may well have had their day on Friday, but the genie of Britannic rejection is definitely out of its confined bottle. The United Kingdom is feeling the strain and stretch of secession sentiment, and those in London are scurrying about in a panic.

The figures are not entirely comforting for the unionists. Of 3,619,915 votes cast, 2,001,926 went for negative; with 1,617,989 for secession. The Yes vote may well have come second in the count, but there is a feeling that those attempting to quash the matter had to start that rather unimaginative trick called fear. The question most popularly thrown at the electorate was: “What if?” Leaving can be such a terrible business, and at a certain point, there was a sense that the Prime Minister was evoking the calamity of Nora walking out of Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. Do you really want to go on a voyage of self-discovery and leave husband and children behind?

Much of the campaign for the union ranged between disingenuousness to plain old sentimentality at a comfortably tired marriage that needed to persist in the usual, none too exciting conjugal rituals. There was nothing in the No campaign to suggest that they had found the spice – only the terror that rejection might well follow.

That fear was also saddled with the idea of terrible inconvenience. European Commission President José Manuel Barroso decided to abandon all pretence of being neutral, making it clear that an impetuous Scotland would have to go to the end of the European Union admission queue if it was to attain independence. Barroso saw the result as “good for a united, open, and stronger Europe, for which the Commission stands”, making the almost daft suggestion that an independent Scotland was inconsistent with a unified Europe to begin with.

Caught with its pants down, the campaign for the union fought for the most part with an enthusiasm that comes with status quo indifference. But then, the emotive side got worked up with speculations about the UK’s physical being. Scotland leaving would be like one’s leg sauntering off into the distance, or an arm going on permanent holiday.

This image tended to play out in a structural sense on such forums as NATO and the United Nations Security Council. Exeunt Scotland, exeunt British presence and pro-US compliance. Even the US President, Barack Obama, was hoping via unholy social media that five million Scots would not be forming their own country, if only because he might have to do the work of subordinating another state. (Aircraft Carrier Britain sounds better than frigate Scotland.) NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen would second that: “I respect the choice of the Scottish people, I welcome the statement by Prime Minister Cameron that the UK will go ahead as a united country.”

Prime Minister David Cameron could only fall back on grand statements about how the question had been settled. “The debate has been settled for a generation … and there can be no disputes, no re-runs, we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people.”

Then came the oil and gas industry front men cooing at the result, the sort of thing that should make people break down parliament’s doors. Scottish oil services tycoon Sir Ian Wood and Shell CEO Ben van Beurden, hardly the doyens of democracy, were content that the issue had been postponed. Wood was “pleased the Scottish people had chosen the best of both worlds” which for such a figure tends to mean neither.1 Wood could not wait to emphasise the recommendations made by his own “Maximising Economic Recovery Review”, which relegated Scotland to a natural resource salvager for cash-strapped Britain. The oil and gas industry, he warned, had been depleted “in the medium term and certainly areas like the North East of Scotland must begin to take this seriously”.

The effects of the vote have spilled off in numerous directions. There is the effect in the UK itself.

Devolution has been asymmetrical in effect – what the Scottish vote has also illuminated are issues of governance for the rest of the Union. There is already talk about England being for England, which goes to show that a vote about Scotland invariably becomes a debate about what the English themselves are going to do.

Even Cameron had to admit that, “Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to vote on these issues.”

Any sort of nationalism, even the good natured fluffy sort, is bound to get ugly, the sort of playground cowardice that passes for genuine debate, but there is only one issue on the cards here: self-governance. Cameron will have to cough up more, giving Scotland autonomy over everything short – and only just short – of foreign affairs and defence. And nothing he does will convince the voters in general that London is more distant than ever.

Then came the European spill off, frothing its way into other countries with that old secession bug. The Catalonian regional parliament did not waste time, passing a vote (106-28) that would authorise the region to hold non-binding consultations regarding independence in November. Catalonia’s regional president, Artur Mas, was cheery. “What happened in Scotland and the United Kingdom is not a setback for us – because what we really want in Catalonia is to have the chance to vote, the same possibility.”2 The Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has preferred to get the legal briefs together and challenge the move in Spain’s Constitutional Court.

European separatists have certainly warmed to the result, despite it going against the Scottish nationalists. The recipe here is spiced by a confident assertion of greater autonomy. The central power is bound to be running scared – regional authorities are getting tetchy.

The New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) led by Bart De Wever and South Tyrolean separatists comprised of the South Tyrolean Freedom (STF) party, for instance, have taken heart, suggesting that Europe may have to head to more regionalist forms of government, something like continental devolution. The tremors of succession, in other words, are very much on the wall – and that wall is hardly going to be washed anytime too soon.

The post Leaving The Doll’s House: The Scottish Referendum – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.