Ten US Apache helicopters were loaded onto to ships for delivery to Egypt four days ago, an Egyptian air force commander has said at a press conference.

The statement, by Lieutenant General Younes El-Masry, comes after US Secretary of State John Kerry told Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi on Monday that the attack helicopters would be sent in November.

In September, the US said it planned to deliver ten Apache helicopters to support Cairo’s counter-terrorism efforts.

The US announced last April it would lift the hold on the helicopters’ delivery to Egypt, initially imposed after the ouster of president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

Each year the US sends Egypt aid of $1.5 billion, including military aid of $1.3 billion, which was frozen in October 2013 over democracy concerns.

Original article

The post US To Send Apache Helicopters To Egypt appeared first on Eurasia Review.

U.S. aircraft carried out 18 strikes on Islamic State positions near the besieged Syrian border town of Kobani and five strikes against the group in Iraq on Tuesday and Wednesday, Oct 15, the U.S. military’s Central Command said, according to Reuters.

The planes struck 16 buildings occupied by Islamic State militants and destroyed several of their fighting positions near Kobani, a Kurdish town on the Syrian border with Turkey, it said in a statement on Wednesday.

It said four strikes near Baiji, the site of Iraq’s largest oil refinery, destroyed an artillery piece, a Humvee, a machine gun and a building used by the group, which has seized large parts of Iraqand Syria.

Another strike near Haditha Dam in Iraq destroyed an armed vehicle, the statement said.

On Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama met with military leaders from a coalition including Arab states, Turkey and Western allies that he is leading in the fight against Islamic State.

“Coalition air strikes will continue in both of these areas,” Obama said during the meeting outside Washington, voicing deep concern about the situation in Kobani as well as in Iraq’s Anbar province, which is at risk of being seized by Islamic State militants.

Aircraft from some of the coalition partners joined U.S. planes in previous air strikes in Syria and Iraq, but Wednesday’s statement made no mention of any other country participating in the latest attacks.

The U.S. military has named the coalition operation against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria “Inherent Resolve,” a U.S. military official said on Wednesday.

The post US Says 18 Airstrikes Carried Out On IS Positions In Syria appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rajorshi Roy

Recently, two important agreements known as the Minsk agreements were signed by the governments of Ukraine, Russia, representatives of OSCE and Donbass region on September 5 and 20, 2014. These agreements outlined steps to de-escalate the mounting tensions including cessation of military hostilities, exchange of prisoners, protection of Russian language and gradual devolution of power. This key development came against the backdrop of a strong military offensive by the Ukrainian troops against the pro-Russian supporters, while the threat of a Russian military intervention loomed large. It led ‘Verkhovna Rada’, the Ukrainian Parliament, to pass a law sketching the contours of local self-government in south-eastern part the country.

While the ceasefire is a much needed respite yet it does raise two pertinent questions: What made the key players arrive at such agreements? Can these deals facilitate the initiation of a political dialogue in Ukraine?

The Agreements and Stakeholders

As the events in Ukraine unfolded, the agreements involving key protagonists was expected:

Russia

Russia’s stake in the ongoing crisis has been to retain its sphere of influence in the region. Having raised the stakes it would have been detrimental for President Putin to see pro-Russian supporters get defeated by the Ukrainian forces. However, a full scale Russian military intervention may not have been in Kremlin’s long term interest. Ukraine is not Crimea and nationalist sentiments even in the pro-Russian eastern Ukrainian cities run high. An intrusion could have fast-tracked Ukraine’s NATO membership and possibly led Moscow to international political isolation. Russia would also have to bear the cost of restoring the region’s crumbling economy. Therefore, a surge in military support that would allow the rebels to fight back and establish new areas of control seemed to solve the dilemma. This move enabled Russia to leverage its influence for policy decisions in Kiev. As the decision to suspend Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU prove, Moscow retained the decisive strings in this standoff.

Ukraine

The military setbacks suffered by government troops had left President Poroshenko with few options. There was a real danger of pro-Russian separatists gaining further territorial ground. With the Ukrainian economy in shambles and the core of its industries and natural resource base being in the restive south-east, Kiev could not afford to let go of this strategic region. Moreover, NATO’s refusal to strengthen Ukraine’s military capabilities and inability of the ‘West’ to meet its energy needs against the onset of winter forced the hands of President Poroshenko. The ceasefire paves the way for a modium of stability while preserving the country’s territorial integrity.

‘West’

A ceasefire suits both the US and EU since the only way to stop an imminent Russian military intervention would have been to send in NATO troops. But it is unlikely that the ‘West’ retains an appetite for a direct military confrontation with the Kremlin. The ceasefire allows it to continue to provide Ukraine with modest support without taking full responsibility for events there. Moreover, driven by strong economic and energy interdependence with Russia, EU’s backing for the Minsk dialogue reveals an intention to repair ties with Moscow. Interestingly, neither the US nor the EU is a party to the two agreements.

Consequently, the ceasefire allows all parties to recalibrate their positions while keeping the door open for a political reconciliation in this chess game of Eurasian geo-politics.

Prospects

The first impression is that the agreements have the potential to diffuse the volatile atmosphere. Barring a few sporadic cases of violence the ceasefire has held so far. However, as always the devil lies in the details and several issues have started emerging:

First, with Parliamentary elections around the corner and having previously labelled the pro-Russian separatists as ‘terrorists’, it remains to be seen how much devolution of power is President Poroshenko willing to give in to.

Second, will the current outline of autonomy be acceptable to the pro-Russian separatists in general and the Kremlin in particular?

Third, the degree of cooperation with the ‘West’ that Kiev is willing to gamble upon without antagonising Moscow. This is evident from its consistent push for an Association Agreement with the EU. Russia’s core interests in the Ukrainian quagmire remain the same i.e. restore Ukraine’s status as a neutral country, establish federal principles of governance, preserve economic ties with the eastern part of the country and maintain the status of Russian language.

Fourth, the agreements delineate the positions of Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian supporters on the ground. This is likely to lead to serious complications over the management of a frozen conflict.

Fifth, the crisis is as much about Russia and Ukraine as it is about the geo-political rivalry between Russia and the ‘West’. The NATO summit has identified Russia as an adversary while President Obama has labelled it as the second biggest threat to global security after the Ebola virus.1. Similarly, the Kremlin has responded by promising to revise Russia’s military doctrine and referring to south-eastern Ukraine as ‘Novorossiya’ during its official engagements with the US.2. And contrary to popular perception, the US may not engage Russia to deal with terrorism in the Middle East despite the very convergence of their interests. Moscow is not expected to oppose an initiative that tackles this scourge since it is also in its interest that it be resolved. Against this backdrop, a rapprochement between Russia and the US looks highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the Minsk agreements can be the first step towards finding a viable political solution to the Ukrainian crisis. The key challenge lies in balancing Russia’s core interests with that of geopolitical calculations of the ‘West’. Nevertheless, the truce in this region appears fragile as validated by the recent attempts of pro-Russian supporters to capture the Donetsk airport.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/CeasefireinUkraineAnAssessment_rajorshiroy_141014.html

1. “Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly”, The White House, September 24, 2014<

2. “Obama’s UN speech moves Kremlin walls”, Pravda, September 26, 2014

The post Ceasefire In Ukraine: An Assessment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Is East Asia prepared for an Ebola outbreak? Even with lessons from the SARS epidemic and the current cooperative mechanisms in place, the region cannot let its guard down in the face of a grave threat to global health security.

By Gianna Gayle Herrera Amul and Mely Caballero-Anthony

With the Ebola epidemic in West Africa showing no signs of being effectively contained, and the latest news of a health care worker infected with the Ebola virus in the United States, prospects of the deadly disease hitting Asia can no longer be excluded. Anthony Banbury, Head of the United Nations’ emergency Ebola mission has warned that the Ebola virus is “far ahead of us and every day the situation gets worse”. Against this scenario, how can Asia prepare itself?

In 2013, East Asian states through the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) framework (including China, Japan and South Korea) had committed to use cooperative mechanisms to improve disease surveillance and to boost pandemic preparedness and response in the region. Lessons from the SARs outbreak in 2003 had prompted countries in East Asia to establish this regional framework for combatting highly infectious pandemic outbreak. While the response is more than timely under the threat of Ebola, further commitments and actions, through increased financing, vigilance in disease surveillance and using mobile health infrastructure are critical steps to prevent an Ebola outbreak in the region. Moreover, East Asia’s contribution to boost the supply of qualified health workers in West Africa can go a long way in checking the spread of the Ebola epidemic beyond West Africa.

Critical global response

The deadly Ebola virus has already killed about 4,000 people in West Africa since its outbreak this year. With the alarming rate of infection, the UN has called for a twenty-fold increase in global epidemic response. Despite complaints of a belated global response—the WHO declared Ebola to be Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) only in August — several countries have now come forward to provide the much needed financial assistance to affected countries in Africa.

The US has topped the list of contributing countries, pledging about US$ 168 million followed by the United Kingdom and Germany at US$ 19 million and US$ 15.3 million respectively. Most recently, the IMF fast-tracked US$130 million aid to fight the Ebola epidemic while the World Bank had contributed US$ 105 million.

While financial assistance is no less critical, West African leaders and humanitarian workers on the ground have also urgently called for more assistance from qualified and trained health workers to be deployed in the affected areas to stem further infections. So far, East Asian countries have responded to the call for help.

The Philippines has recently announced plans to deploy a substantial number of its health workers in West Africa, while Malaysia has pledged to send more than 20 million medical gloves to affected countries. Japan has already given about US$2 million to the WHO, UNICEF and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies since April and further pledged to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and laboratory experts. Meanwhile, China has sent two medical teams, mobile laboratories, around 170 health workers and more than US$5 million in humanitarian aid.

Fast spreading Ebola

With a fast spreading Ebola, more can be done to combat the disease. The Ebola virus has evolved since its first outbreak in Central Africa in the 1970s. While transmission used to be limited to forested, remote and rural areas in West Africa, the latest outbreaks are now seen in urban areas. The reported rapid rate of infection has been caused by the weak and often substandard health systems in these countries. Since Ebola has similar symptoms to malaria, typhoid fever and meningitis, effective diagnosis has proven to be a tough challenge.

The Ebola outbreak has also seen an alarming feature of health workers at high risk of infection. So far, the WHO has reported 233 deaths of health workers while caring for Ebola infected patients.

The health crisis is also proving to be very costly for less developed regions. With the WHO projecting Ebola infections to escalate to 20,000, the World Bank estimated that the epidemic can financially cripple the West African region by US$32.6 billion in losses by the end of 2015. SARS had set back the East Asian region by US$20 billion in economic losses.

How prepared is the region?

East Asia has always been susceptible to infectious diseases. But with ASEAN playing a central role, the region could hopefully put up a strong defence given existing regional frameworks and the lessons from SARS and bouts of combatting episodes of avian flu pandemics. With its experience with SARS and bird flu, the WHO noted that East Asia is more prepared than other regions to respond to a possible pandemic with its existing mechanisms of surveillance and transparency.

One such mechanism is the APT regional disease surveillance mechanism which has standardised a Protocol for Communication and Information Sharing on Emerging Infectious Diseases that encourages member states to report all cases of diseases that are categorised as a PHEIC.

Another mechanism is the Regional Multi-Sectoral Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Framework which evolved from the ASEAN Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Taskforce (2004-2010). The framework combines collaborative pandemic preparedness with multi-level disaster management leveraging on the central role of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre).

In addition, the expertise in joint disease surveillance and clinical management of the APT Field Epidemiology Training Network (FETN) can be utilised to conduct epidemiological studies and to share treatment protocols to comply with the ASEAN Minimum Standards on Joint Multi-sectoral Outbreak Investigation and Response. This framework has started discussions on the appropriate mechanisms to prevent and control Ebola.

In terms of transparency, timely information sharing and capacity building, another mechanism is the ASEAN Risk Communication Resource Centre (RCRC) which aims to support efforts in managing health emergencies.

Increased cooperation on emerging public health concerns is further under way. Last September, the 12th ASEAN Health Ministers’ Meeting issued a Joint Statement with China to increase health workers’ capacity and to prevent newly-emerging infectious diseases including Ebola, H7N9, H5N1 and MERS-CoV.

Despite WHO’s pronouncement, East Asian countries cannot let their guard down. With more uncertainty confronting global health security, increased vigilance, stepped up efforts in surveillance and transparency, as well as heightened public awareness should always be the order of the day for the region.

Mely Caballero-Anthony is Associate Professor and Head of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS). Gianna Gayle Herrera Amul is Senior Analyst with the RSIS Centre for NTS Studies.

The post Keeping Ebola Away From Asia: Lessons From SARS – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) Deputy Minister Nomaindia Mfeketo will undertake a working visit to Korea this week.

The Deputy Minister will co-chair the 8th Policy Consultative Forum, together with LEE Kyung-soo, Deputy Minister for Political Affairs of the Republic of Korea, on Friday in Seoul, Korea.

“South Africa’s participation in the Policy Consultative Forum will be informed by its national interests and priorities, its regional and continental commitments, as well as its aspirations for a prosperous world at peace with itself,” said Dirco spokesperson Clayson Monyela on Wednesday.

In addition, South Africa will demonstrate a clear commitment to strengthen its friendship and cooperation through the frequent exchanges of visits and business delegations.

In building a strong mixed economy, South Africa needs foreign partnerships.

Korea is South Africa’s 4th largest trading partner in Asia and South Africa is Korea’s largest trading partner in Africa.

Trade, investment and skills development form the backbone of relations between South Africa and the Republic of Korea, a high-technology country which makes it an attractive partner for South Africa.

During the Policy Consultative Forum, Deputy Minister Mfeketo will convey the priorities of the Government of South Africa as outlined in the National Development Plan (NDP), South Africa’s roadmap to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030.

The NDP also provides a strong platform for collaboration and partnership to address constraints to growth, create jobs and achieve a more inclusive society.

South Africa and Korea share similar views on the importance of multilateralism. The Republic of Korea provides ongoing support for the continued development of the African continent through the Korea-Africa Forum of which the previous forum was held on 17 October 2012.

The next Korea-Africa Forum is scheduled for 2015.

Korea enjoyed a favourable trade balance with South Africa in 2013 – approximately R6.1 billion. Total trade in 2013 was R30.2 billion, with South African exports to Korea in the region of R12.1 and South African imports from Korea in the region of R18.1 billion.

The post South Africa To Embark On Working Visit To South Korea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The questionable continuance of the NATO alliance after the Cold War ended is demonstrated by Turkey’s reluctance to help against the rampaging group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The alliance was originally supposed to defend NATO members against a Soviet attack but, in the post-Cold War era, has expanded in territory and mission (power projection to other parts of the globe). In the current “crisis,” ISIS has been attacking close to Turkey in Kurdish areas along the Turkish-Syrian border and in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq. Although the NATO allies, ever led by the United States, have pledged to defend Turkey against ISIS, as NATO’s governing treaty requires for a member state, Turkey has done nothing to help the desperate Kurds fighting the group to keep the town of Kobani on the Syrian side of the Turkish-Syrian border. As usual, the NATO alliance—which long ago became an end in itself to demonstrate U.S. power and prestige, rather than providing the United States any real security—seems rather one-sided. Of course, Turkey, with a huge and capable army deployed along its border with Syria, does not need much help in defending itself from the ragtag ISIS group with only 20,000 to 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria—and far fewer along Turkish borders. Finally, the United States had to coerce Turkey into at least letting allied aircraft use the large air base at Incirlik to bomb ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

One-sided and out-dated alliances aside, Turkey’s seemingly strange reluctance to see the danger from ISIS should be a red flag to the United States. During the Cold War and after, the hyperactive U.S. superpower has constantly seen local threats as more severe than the countries in a particular region. Yet one would think that regional actors would have a better idea of threats to themselves than a distant colossus, which often behaves like a nervous Nellie. They often do, and thus the United States has leaped into what turned out to be the quagmires of Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan/Afghanistan, and Iraq—in which the threats to the United States turned out to be vastly exaggerated. Turkey’s reluctance to dive into a seeming threat right on its border should be a wake up call to halt the U.S. slide into another bog in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey is not helping the desperate Kurds against ISIS across the border in Syria because it fears the Kurds more than it does ISIS. For decades, Turkey has been fighting a civil war with its own Kurdish population that has killed 30,000 people. The Kurds are a stateless people in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq, although they have an autonomous region in Iraq and want one in Syria—both of which the Turks also fear could embolden their own Kurds to want the same, or even independence from Turkey. The bad news for Turkey and the United States is that the most effective fighting force against ISIS has been the Kurdish PKK fighters from Turkey and its YPG Syrian affiliate—not the Peshmerga militias from the Kurdish region of Iraq or the Iraqi Army, both of which had trouble against the group. However, the PKK has also fought the Turks for years, is Marxist, and is on the U.S. terrorism list.

And there’s more bad news for the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, the best hope for the United States is to turn the Sunni tribes from supporting Sunni ISIS to fighting it—just as the those same tribes were turned from supporting Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq to supporting the United States during its occupation. The problem is that this trick will be difficult to achieve a second time because before, the United States promised that the U.S-backed, Shi’ite-dominated government in Iraq would allow the minority Sunnis back into the Iraqi military an government bureaucracy. Those promises were broken, and instead the Iraqi Sunni tribes received nothing but oppression from the Iraqi government. Thus, in general, the tribes fear and loathe that government more than they do ISIS. ISIS is so effective largely because of the support from Sunni tribes. Even the few tribes that have partnered with the Shi’ite government have done so very warily.

Finally, the Sunni groups battling the Alawite (a branch of Shi’ite Islam) government of Bashar al Assad in Syria hate and fight each other as much as they do that regime. The Free Syrian Army—which is the United States’s only hope for a ground force it can use against ISIS in Syria—is pathetically weak compared to the other groups, such as ISIS and the al Qaeda-affiliated al Nusra.

If this all seems to be a complicated morass, it is! Since ISIS is only a threat to the region, not the United States, the United States should avoid taking ISIS’s bait and limit its involvement in the conflict, thus denying the group a tool to recruit added fighters and garner greater monetary contributions. As for Turkey, if the United States does not want to abrogate the NATO alliance (which would be wise but unlikely), the U.S. military should help defend the country with airstrikes if ISIS attacks it but otherwise wish Turkey good luck in dealing with the threats to its region from the Kurds and ISIS.

This article appeared at The Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

The post Turkey’s Reluctance To Help Against ISIS Should Be A Red Flag – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Daria Chernyshova

Trilateral talks on Tehran’s nuclear program, involving Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and US Secretary of State John Kerry, has finished in Vienna and lasted for some six hours, Ashton’s spokesperson Michael Mann tweeted late Wednesday.

“EU Ashton’s trilat [trilateral talks] with US Sec [Secretary] of State [John] Kerry and Iran FM [Javad] Zarif now finished after more than 6 hours in total,” Mann tweeted.

Speaking about the trilateral talks, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that given that they lasted for so many hours, “the process is going forward.”

” In case of a stalemate or dissociation, the contacts would have unlikely lasted for so long,” Ryabkov said, adding that regardless of the format of talks, all the participants are actively involved in the process of finding a comprehensive deal.

“And we have agreed that tomorrow’s events will become a direct continuation of what was happening in Vienna on Tuesday and Wednesday,” he said.

Ryabkov also noted that the Iranian issue was one of the main priorities at the talks between Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry in Paris on Tuesday.

At the trilateral talks on Tehran’s nuclear program in Vienna the sides were expected to bridge the remaining differences to facilitate the signing of the comprehensive nuclear agreement before the November 24 deadline.

Prior to the trilateral talks Zarif and Ashton held a bilateral meeting. Following the meeting with the EU foreign policy chief on Tuesday, Iran’s top negotiator said the remaining differences could be resolved.

The post EU, US, Iran Finish More Than 6-hour Meeting Over Tehran’s Nuclear Program appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The US government’s rapid-fire screening of unauthorized migrants at the border is sending Central Americans back to the risk of serious harm, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 44-page report, “‘You Don’t Have Rights Here’: US Border Screening and Returns of Central Americans to Risk of Serious Harm,” details the US border policies and practices that place migrants at risk of serious harm back home, based on the accounts of people sent back to Honduras, people in detention, and an analysis of deportation data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Hondurans who fled extortion and threats from brutal gangs faced fast-track screening procedures in the US that resulted in their deportation without a genuine opportunity to claim asylum. Several of those returned told Human Rights Watch that after their return, they were afraid to leave their houses, fearing for their lives.

“The US government’s fast-track screening of migrants is ignoring the very real fears of the people arriving at the border,” said Clara Long, US immigration researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “In its frenzy to stem the tide of migrants from Central America, the US is sending asylum seekers back to the threat of murder, rape, and other violence.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 35 migrants, including 25 recent deportees in Honduras and 10 Central Americans in migrant detention centers in Artesia, New Mexico and in Karnes, Texas.

In recent years, US officials have apprehended growing numbers of Central Americans crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. Migrants are fleeing for many reasons, among them rising rates of violence fueled by gangs and drug violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

The vast majority of these people are placed in detention. They undergo a hasty two-part assessment by US officials with no right to appear before an immigration judge or asylum officer unless they are flagged by the Border Patrol agents who apprehended them or other immigration officers as being afraid to return to their country. The Border Patrol agents, who are responsible for the initial screening of migrants, are failing to identify asylum seekers so that they can move on through the asylum process, Human Rights Watch said.

“Alicia R.,” a Honduran woman who witnessed her mother’s murder by a gang and was deported with her two children, ages 3 and 10, in August 2014, said her case never got beyond US Border Patrol: “I told them, I cried, that I couldn’t go back to my country … but they deported us.”

Data for 2011 and 2012 that Human Rights Watch obtained from US Customs and Border Protection under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that few Central American migrants are identified by the Border Patrol as people fearing return to their country. The data show that the vast majority of Hondurans who arrived during that period, at least 80 percent, were placed in summary removal proceedings, and that only 1.9 percent were flagged as possible asylum seekers by US Customs and Border Protection. The percentages for people from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala are similar, ranging from 0.1 to 5.5 percent. By comparison, the Border Patrol flagged 21 percent of migrants from other countries for secondary, in-depth screening.

Customs and Border Protection’s methods for interviewing migrants in the expedited removal process had serious flaws, Human Rights Watch said. Uniformed Border Patrol officers are usually armed while apprehending migrants; when they interview the migrants a few hours or days later, their holsters are empty but visible; and their interviews are often conducted in crowded settings without confidentiality. These factors appear to hamper the ability of officers to identify those in need of more in-depth screening. Migrants told Human Rights Watch that Border Patrol officers seemed singularly focused on deporting them, which hindered them from making their fears known.

“Mateo S.,” a migrant deported in September 2014, said that when he told a Border Patrol officer of the threats against his life in Honduras, “He told me there was nothing I could do and I didn’t have a case so there was no reason to dispute the deportation…. I told him he was violating my right to life and he said, ‘You don’t have rights here.’”

International law binding on the United States prohibits the return of anyone to a country where they face serious risks to their lives or safety. International law also discourages the detention of asylum seekers and prohibits the detention of migrant children. Migrants facing deportation are entitled to access to legal counsel.

The Obama administration and the US Congress should stop fast-tracking Central American migrants for deportation and allow them adequate opportunity to make a claim for asylum, Human Rights Watch said. The administration should reverse its decision to expand the detention of migrant families, evidenced by the creation in June of two new family detention facilities and plans announced in September to build a 2,400-bed facility in Dilley, Texas. The government should also increase migrants’ access to legal counsel, which would improve handling of asylum claims and help ensure that the US does not return people to countries where they face repression or torture.

“The Obama administration needs to immediately roll back its dramatic expansion of family detention,” Long said. “Making an asylum claim in a foreign language and country is hard enough without having to do it from behind locked doors, while caring for scared and anxious children, and without a lawyer.”

The post US Migrants Returned To Danger, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court sentenced a prominent Shia cleric to death on October 15, 2014. Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was convicted on a host of vague charges, based largely on his peaceful criticism of Saudi officials. Al-Nimr has a wide following in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, where most of the country’s Shia minority live.

The charges included “breaking allegiance with the ruler,” “inciting sectarian strife,” and supporting rioting and destruction of public property during 2011-2012 protests in Shia-majority towns and cities. Al-Nimr was also charged with violently resisting arrest in July 2012. Human Right Watch was not able to determine if the conviction was based on these charges, which al-Nimr has disputed. The proceedings of Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court, which conducted the trial in 13 sessions over a year and a half, raise serious fair trial concerns, Human Rights Watch said.

“Saudi Arabia’s harsh treatment of a prominent Shia cleric is only adding to the existing sectarian discord and unrest,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Right Watch. “Saudi Arabia’s path to stability in the Eastern Province lies in ending systematic discrimination against Shia citizens, not in death sentences.”

Authorities arrested al-Nimr’s brother and legal advocate, Mohamed al-Nimr, in the courtroom after he announced the verdict on Twitter. Human Rights Watch was not able to determine the reason for the arrest, but local activists said they believed it was to prevent him from speaking to the media about the trial.

The brother’s tweet said that the court rejected prosecutors’ request for a “crucifixion” sentence, the kingdom’s harshest, in which the convicted person is beheaded and the decapitated body displayed in public.

Authorities arrested Nimr al-Nimr in June 2012 and held him for eight months before bringing charges, although the Interior Ministry had labeled him an “instigator of discord and rioting” after his arrest. Officials claimed that he resisted arrest and rammed a security force’s vehicle, leading to a gun battle in which al-Nimr was wounded. Purported photos of the incident released by the local media show the wounded sheikh slumped in the back seat of a car wearing a bloodied white robe. A family member told Human Rights Watch that al-Nimr did not own a gun and that they dispute the claim that he resisted arrest.

Local activists and family members told Human Rights Watch that al-Nimr supported only peaceful protests and eschewed all violent opposition to the government. A 2011 BBC report quoted him as supporting “the roar of the word against authorities rather than weapons … the weapon of the word is stronger than bullets, because authorities will profit from a battle of weapons.” In another video available on YouTube, al-Nimr states, “It is not permitted to use weapons and spread corruption in society.”

Local activists told Human Rights Watch that authorities held al-Nimr in an isolation cell in the Security Forces Prison Hospital in Riyadh for much of his time in detention. Family members who visited said that he was held in a windowless cell measuring 4-by-4 meters. Authorities did not allow al-Nimr to speak freely with visiting family members for the first four months, but since November 2013 immediate family members have been able to see him in his cell for an hour every two weeks.

Saudi Arabia systematically discriminates against its Shia citizens, who constitute 10 to 15 percent of the population. This discrimination reduces Shias’ access to public education and government employment. They do not receive equal treatment under the justice system, especially with regard to religious freedom. Shia rarely receive permission to build mosques and, unlike their Sunni counterparts, do not receive government funds for religious activities.

Al-Nimr’s arrest caused demonstrations in Awamiyya, a Shia village in the Qatif district that has been the site of anti-government demonstrations since 2011. Media reported that security forces shot and killed two demonstrators on the evening of al-Nimr’s arrest.

The local activists, who asked not to be named for fear of arrest, said that al-Nimr had a strong following among Shia youth because of his outspoken criticism of government policies and advocacy of greater rights for the Shia. In late March 2009, al-Nimr suggested in a Friday sermon that the Shia might consider seceding from Saudi Arabia if the government continued to deny their rights. When security forces tried to detain him he went into hiding.

In June 2012, less than a month before his arrest, al-Nimr gave a Friday sermon following the death of Prince Nayef, the former interior minister. “Where is Nayef’s army?” al-Nimr said. “Can they stop his death? Where is his secret police? Where are his officers? Can they stop his death so that worms won’t eat him?”

Al-Nimr is the latest prominent Shia cleric to receive a harsh sentence from the Specialized Criminal Court. In August, the court convicted Tawfiq al-Amer for publicly demanding constitutional reforms and sentenced him to eight years in prison and a ten-year ban on foreign travel and delivering sermons. The court had originally sentenced him to a three-year prison term in December 2012, but an appeals court rejected that sentence as overly lenient.

Human Rights Watch has urged the Saudi authorities to abolish the Specialized Criminal Court, the body that convicted al-Nimr. The government set up the court in 2008 to try terrorism cases but has increasingly used it to prosecute peaceful dissidents on apparently politically motivated charges and in proceedings that violate the fundamental right to a fair trial.

A Human Rights Watch analysis in September of four trials of Shia protesters before the Specialized Criminal Court revealed serious due process concerns. They include broadly framed charges that do not resemble recognizable crimes, denial of access to lawyers at arrest and during pretrial detention, quick dismissal of allegations of torture without investigation, and admission as evidence confessions that defendants said were coerced without investigating their claims.

“Unfair trials of Shias amount to no more than a legal veneer for state repression of demands to end long-term discrimination,” Stork said. “Saudi Arabia’s judicial council should immediately review al-Nimr’s verdict and quash it if they discover clear due process violations.”

The post Saudi Arabia: Prominent Shia Cleric Sentenced To Death appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Majid Izadpanahi

Since the 1979 revolution, the Iran has accused the US interference in the West Asia as the root of regional instability. But there are cases when Tehran has cooperated with Washington when their interests coincided.

The Islamic State (IS) has ambitious political, economic, military and ideological plans, and continues to occupy territories and seeks recognition. The IS has captured oil-rich areas in Iraq and Syria and is smuggling oil via Turkey. It has beheaded journalists, has inflicted heavy casualties and human tragedies in Iraq and Syria’s Kurdish areas. The IS has become the richest and most powerful terrorist group ever, and now is marching towards Baghdad.

Today, the IS is considered a national security threat both by Iran and the US. Its movement towards the southern Iraqi cities of Samarra, Najaf and Karbala is Iran’s red line. Also, its anti-Shia policy and its military operation near Iran’s border directly threaten Iran. The US considers the IS as a threat to its citizens, and especially its approach and plan to seize Iraq’s oil rich areas in the south, as dangerous.

Iran and the US have a history of cooperation in tackling common enemies. First, it was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and second, Saddam Hussain’s Ba’athist regime in Iraq. Iran fully supported the US attack on the Taliban regime in 2001, and collaborated to establish political order in Afghanistan during the Bonn Conference. But immediately after that, the then US President George Bush labelled Iran as “Axis of Evil” shocking Tehran and embittering the bilateral. During the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran once again supported the US led coalition and provided them with intelligence inputs. Subsequently, however, the “all options are on the table” and “the regime change” option had extremely adverse impacts on the reformists’ bid to improve relations with Washington.

Today, once again, there is a convergence of interests between Iran and US over Iraq. The IS is marching towards Baghdad, Iraqi Kurdistan, and southern Iraq, threatening Shia-majority areas and the oil-rich Kurdish regions of the country. An overthrow of the central government in Baghdad is neither Iran’s interest nor the US’.

At present, Iran supports all groups involved in fighting the IS inside Iraq and Syria. Iran provides military advice to the Iraqi government, has military cooperation with the Kurds and covers the news of the developments in Iraq.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in his recent visit to Iraq, reflected Iran’s approach towards Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government by conveying Tehran’s support to him. By visiting President Masoud Barzani of the Iraqi Kurdistan, he proved Iran’s support to them by providing arms, ammunitions and intelligence.

The US also gives moral, material and logistical support to the Iraqi government to keep the IS out of Iraq. Therefore, given how Iran and the US are trying to eliminate the same enemy, it is pragmatic for the two to come closer. However, there are several reasons for Iran preference to fight the IS alone instead of joining the US-led coalition. To begin with, Iran was not invited for the Paris Conference, organised to create a coalition West Asian countries – that included a number of corrupt regimes – to defeat the IS. Saudi Arabia is accused of supporting the IS and other terrorist groups such as the Taliban. Turkey helps the IS in selling oil – the latter’s main source of income – via plastic pipelines and other routes. Iranian officials denounce this conference as a farce and state that they would rather fight the IS alone.

Despite not being invited to the Paris Conference, US leaders have admitted to the importance of Iran in eliminating the IS. On August 21, Deputy Spokesperson, US State Department, Marie Harf, stated, “there is a positive role Iran can play.”
At home, in Iran, after three decades of chanting anti-American slogan, distrusting the US and being accused of sponsoring terrorism and building nuclear weapons by the US, incumbent Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s moderate administration is being pressured by the conservatives to continue the war alone.

Building the Iraqi army, supporting the government of Iraq, supporting the integrity of Iraq, Iraq’s stability and security and eliminating the IS are goals both Iran and the US are attempting to achieve. Iran supports US air strikes on the IS because it can help the cause: defeating a very dangerous enemy in Tehran’s neighbourhood.

Destroying the same enemy still could not form a coalition that includes both Iran and the US. Iran is now more conscious of its actions and foreign policy because it still remembers that after its unconditional cooperation with the US in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, not only they did not get the results they expected but their overtures too were rejected; and the reformists and moderates were defeated in the subsequent presidential election.

Despite the fact that the US’ elimination of the IS serves Iranian interests, it seems that the Iranian government now wants a nuclear bonus in return for coalition in order to reduce the conservatives’ pressure.

Majid Izadpanahi
Research Intern, IPCS, and Ph.D Candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
E-mail: majid.izadpanahi@gmail.com

The post Iran-US: A Nuclear Bonus To Cooperate Against Islamic State? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Siwei Liu

President Xi Jinping’s six-day South Asian trip is over. Apart from a series of bilateral agreements, friendly high-level dialogues and other interactions, the trip also demonstrated the direction of China’s South Asian policy. Indeed, with growing bilateral and multilateral interactions with South Asia, China is looking for a more flexible and comprehensive policy to accommodate the present situation, and to some extent, respond to the related arguments of China as a threat in the region.

Admittedly, one of the challenges for China’s current South Asian policy is how to address doubts about the motivations for China’s foreign policy in the region, in particular, India’s worries about the “China threat.” China has repeatedly stated that it is keen on promoting peaceful development and cooperation toward win-win outcomes and cooperate with India towards regional prosperity, but in some Indian assessments, China’s rising profile in South Asia is not good news. For example, an Indian analyst argues that China is expanding its sphere of regional influence by surrounding India with a ‘string of pearls’ that could eventually undermine India pre-eminence and potentially become an economic and security threat.

Obviously, Xi’s visits in September not only tried to confirm that Beijing is putting greater emphasis on this region, but also demonstrate that it want to address its neighbours’ “China threat” perception. For this, the Chinese leader presented Beijing current South Asian policy with some new characteristics.

First, Xi emphasised common regional development. In his speech at the Indian Council of World Affairs, he said, “A South Asia that enjoys peace, stability, development and prosperity serves the interests of countries and people in the region and of China as well. China wants to live in harmony with all countries in the region and contribute its share to the development of the region. ” Xi not only suggested that China should work with the relevant countries to step up economic integration and connectivity in the region but also proposed that they come together to join the “Belt” and “Road” initiatives that aim at strengthening connectivity among countries along the traditional land and maritime silk roads.

Second, Xi emphasised multi-dimensional cooperation with South Asian partners. For economic cooperation, in the next five years, China plans to work with South Asian countries to increase bilateral trade to US$150 billion, its investments in South Asia to US$30 billion, and provide US$20 billion in concessional facilities to the region. It needs to be mentioned that Beijing also focuses on other modes of cooperation and interaction with South Asia. China is concentrating its efforts on expanding people-to-people and cultural exchanges with South Asia. It plans to offer 10,000 scholarships, training opportunities for 5,000 people, an exchange and training programme for 5,000 youth, and train 5,000 Chinese language teachers for South Asia in the next five years. In addition, China will work with South Asian countries to implement the China-South Asia Partnership Initiative for Science and Technology, give full play to the role of the China-South Asia Expo, and build new platforms for mutually beneficial cooperation.

There is no denying that during his trip, President Xi reaffirmed China’s good neighbourly foreign policy and made efforts to deepen strategic relations at the multilateral and bilateral levels, which is a timely move. It reflects what President Xi described: “the principles of China’s neighbour diplomacy as amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness.” However, a one-time diplomatic trip may not be enough to address all the concerns and issues.

Although Xi’s South Asian trip opened a new door for China-South Asia relations, it is necessary for China to understand that challenges and problems still exist. In the future, China needs to undertake more dialogues and interactions both through the official and civilian channels with South Asia, in particular, India. As the two biggest powers in the region, China and India should both be positive and see the multiple levels of potential interaction in the future, and join hands in cooperation. It will benefit this region and the rest of Asia as well. In addition, China also should be aware of other challenges it might face such as how to deal with South Asia’s complicated regional relations, in particular, India-Pakistan relations, which needs China’s smart and cautious diplomacy. Other issues like Afghanistan’s stability and development, especially after 2014, will also test Chinese political and diplomatic wisdom. Just as some analysts say, China should realize that instability in one part of the region inevitably bleeds into other parts of South Asia and could possible threaten China.

Siwei Liu
Assistant researcher, Institute of South Asian Studies, Sichuan University, China

The post ‘China Threat’ In South Asia: A Perspective From China appeared first on Eurasia Review.

After months out of the spotlight, Greece was back at the center of Europe’s financial troubles on Wednesday, when concerns over the stability of the government and its bailout program triggered a massive sell-off in stocks and bonds.

Greece’s main stock index closed 6.3 percent lower – having traded down as much as 9.8 percent lower earlier in the day. Following a 5.7 percent loss on Tuesday, that brings the index to its worst level in 14 months.

Yields on Greece’s 10-year bonds also rose sharply, to 7.73 percent – up 1.10 percentage points on the day, a sign investors are more worried about default.

Economist Megan Greene said investors were rattled by a combination of factors, with the sudden rise in Greece’s borrowing rates likely to hurt the country’s hopes of leaving its bailout program.

The benchmark 10-year borrowing rate has risen from a low of 5.5 percent in September, making it harder for the country to hope to finance itself on markets and no longer depend on bailout loans. The government had hoped to emerge from its bailout program earlier than planned.

“The rising government borrowing costs should be a wakeup call to the Greek government not to tempt the markets with an early bailout exit,” said Greene, chief economist at Manulife Asset Management.

Greece was at the heart of the eurozone debt crisis that started in 2009 and resulted in Athens receiving bailout loans worth 240 euros billion ($304 billion) to avoid bankruptcy. The country has since then stumbled through an economic depression and is this year finally seeing a stabilization in its economy.

But its massive national debt is still not considered sustainable. That could mean it may need more rescue loans or seek further improvement to its bailout loan repayment terms.

Though Wednesday’s losses come amid a wider drop in global markets, they were exacerbated by a survey on Monday indicating the government may not last through the winter. The poll showed the opposition Syriza party – which wants Greece to renege on part of the bailout loans it owes fellow European countries and the International Monetary Fund – had a widening lead over the governing conservatives.

The government will rely on opposition support in February to elect a new president. Without it, the government would collapse.

Syriza is arguing Greece’s economy cannot recover unless a substantial portion of money owed to bailout creditors is canceled. It describes the dramatic increase in poverty and unemployment after years of austerity measures as a “humanitarian crisis.”

A default on Greece’s bailout loans could have uncertain financial consequences, however. International investors may shy away for years from lending to the country for fear of not being repaid, for example.

Conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras chaired a cabinet meeting on the economy after markets closed Wednesday.

His Socialist coalition partner, Deputy Prime Minister Evangelos Venizelos, said doubts over Greece’s political stability posed the biggest threat to the country’s recovery.

“We can see just how fragile the situation is … and the danger of turning pretty domestic political squabbles into reasons for the markets to turn against us,” Venizelos said.

“What we are seeing today, is scenes from the future that must be avoided.”

To make matters worse, Greene, the analyst, said there were concerns that Greece’s banks might get hit by upcoming stress tests by the European Central Bank, due to their rising number of bad loans. The ECB is reviewing eurozone banks to see if they are healthy enough – if not, they will be required to raise money on markets or receive bailouts.

The post Greece Returns To Market Spotlight With Nosedive appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Despite objections from a student body which faces the burden of 17% tuition hikes during the next four years, probable Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton spoke to the UNLV foundation Monday night, drawing a speaking fee of $225,000. Ironically, in her speech, she opined that more needs to be done to assure young people can achieve their dreams and free students from debt.

Ms Clinton delivered her remarks to a crowd of about 900 people gathered in a Bellagio resort ballroom for the annual UNLV Foundation dinner benefiting the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Local reporter Venise Toussaint pointed out the Clinton hypocrisy during a Tuesday morning report about the event:

Well, Kim and Dana, this is Hillary Clinton’s third trip to Las Vegas so far this year and every time the big question is, will she or won’t she run for president? She was asked to last night and she really did not have an answer, not yet at least, fueling a lot of the speculation about her presidential bid. But to help her make that decision and sway her back toward the White House, she received a clever gift: some running shoes from Brian Greenspun, the owner of the Las Vegas Sun. Now Hillary Clinton addressed more than a dozen issues in her hour-long speech, from education and energy to foreign policy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But her appearance at the dinner was also marred with some controversy. As she spoke about the rising cost of college tuition and student loan debt, she also accepted a hefty speaking fee of $225,000. Now that’s the majority of the $235,000 that the UNLV foundation collected from donors at that dinner.​

Recently Hillary got herself in more hotwater after telling a reporter that she struggled to pay off houses (mansions) showing how out of touch she is with ordinary Americans who struggle to cover the next month’s rent.

The post Hillary Complains About Student Debt While Speaking For $225,000 At University appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lankan military spokesman, Brig Ruwan Wanigasooriya, told reporters and local media that foreigners, including accredited and resident correspondents, will have to receive permission from the ministry of Defence to visit the Tamil-majority Northern Province. “This decision follows security concerns due to actions of a few which are considered to be detrimental to the national interest. Based on information received by government intelligence services, certain foreign nationals are engaged in spreading various opinions among different communities to incite public disturbance and conflicts among the civilians, thereby threatening the national security. When there is a real threat to national security, we cannot wait. We must act”, said Wanigaooriya. The Colombo government already accuses several diplomatic missions in the capital as well as foreigners of trying to collect testimony from survivors to support allegations of rights abuses by security forces during the civil war that ended in 2009.

With the exacerbation of tension between President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which rules the Northern Province, the province came under a very tight security blanket immediately prior to, and during, President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s recent visit to the region for the inauguration of the Colombo-Jaffna rail line.

Slamming the restriction on foreigners, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP, M.A. Sumanthiran, said that it is “totally uncalled for, illegal and divisive”. “While we Tamils are not talking about separation from Sri Lanka, the President is constantly talking about Tamil separatism. By blocking foreigners from going to the North, he is actually dividing the country. He has made the North a separate place, distinct from the rest of Sri Lanka”, Sumanthiran said.

The new restrictions on foreigners will also regard a large number of Sri lankan Tamil ethnic minority members, who obtained foreign passports after abandoning the fight and live abroad as refugees.

The post Sri Lanka: Foreigners Restricted From Tamil Province appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The High Court of Lahore confirmed the death sentence of Asia Bibi and dismissed her appeal. Around 20-25 Mullahs were present at the hearing and lawyers feel that it must have put pressure on the court. The hearing was due to begin at 9:45, but was first adjourned until 10:20 and then 11:30. According to some observers, the judges wanted to take some time to review the case.

Many Christian lawyers, including Tahir Khalil Sindhu, Provincial minister for Minorities Affairs and Human Rights, were present at Asia Bibi’s defence table. After hearing arguments on both sides, the court confirmed the death sentence against Asia Bibi for blasphemy. “The judges found the charges of the two Muslim women, two sisters, who testified that Asia committed blasphemy valid and credible. The two who Asia had an altercation with, sparking the case”, explained one of the defence lawyers, Naeem Shakir, not hiding his deep disappointment. “Justice is increasingly in the hands of extremists”, added Shakir, announcing that in agreement with Asia’s husband, the defence will take the case to the supreme court, third and final level of justice in Pakistan.

Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five and now a global symbol in the fight against blasphemy laws, has been on death row since November 2010, after her conviction for alleged insults to the Prophet Mohammed during a heated argument with other Muslim women.

The post Pakistan Court Upholds Death Sentence Against Asia Bibi For Blasphemy appeared first on Eurasia Review.

One irony of Vladimir Putin’s visit to Belgrade is that it coincides with increasing talk of regional reconciliation in the Balkans. Yet the problem with reconciliation is that, as a concept, it is so slippery. Like any process aimed at transforming conflict, reconciliation works in a shadow land of nuance and subtlety.

By Bridget Storrie

‘When I heard you were moving to Serbia,’ a friend of mine said ‘I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.’  She was so horrified I had to check she hadn’t heard ‘Siberia’ instead.   We were living in Mongolia at the time, so anything was possible.  But Serbia it was, and she was so appalled by my laissez-faire attitude towards my children’s safety and my own sanity and self-respect she has barely spoken to me since.

Other people have been almost as direct.  ‘How’s Belgrade?’ another friend asked recently.  He used to be in the British army and spent some time in central Bosnia.   ‘Still full of bad people?’

It is nothing of the sort of course, but this week you could almost be forgiven for thinking that it was. As I write, every dog in the neighbourhood is caught up in a frenzy of barking as elderly warplanes rumble overhead, rehearsing for the biggest military parade in 40 years. Ostensibly it is to mark the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade by Russian forces after the Second World War. In fact, the timing has been engineered to coincide with a visit by Vladimir Putin, who will be the spectator-in-chief when he arrives tomorrow.

But if the US Ambassador has been publicly frothy about why Putin should be welcome in Belgrade, most Serbs seem to be taking it in their stride. A highly scientific poll carried out round a kitchen table at the weekend had one of my educated and liberal friends admitting that she quite liked Putin. She lived in Moscow for some years and said he made her feel safe. Her theory is that extraordinary times need extraordinary leaders.

That apart, one irony of Putin’s visit is that it coincides with increasing talk of regional reconciliation in the Balkans. Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic has said this will be a ‘major priority’ when Serbia takes up the chairmanship of the OSCE next year.

The problem with reconciliation though is that, as a concept, it is so slippery. A trawl through the scholarly literature shows that although most people agree it has something to do with dealing with the past, healing relationships and creating new futures, the breadth and depth of it is hard to pin down. Is it the ability simply to coexist? Or does it imply some ‘warmer’ notion of economic and political cooperation? Does it always, heaven forfend, involve mercy and forgiveness?

The advantage to politicians of course, is that the less clearly reconciliation is defined the harder it is to measure, and the less use it becomes as a standard of ‘good’ behaviour. But in another sense you could argue that reconciliation’s nebulous character is its strength. It allows it to stretch to fit the particular context in which it finds itself. And it relieves practitioners of the arguably unethical obligation to urge forgiveness on people who have suffered human rights abuses beyond imagination. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the people who are coming out of conflict themselves to decide what reconciliation means for them.

With luck that won’t mean more vast and costly displays of military power. Reconciliation, like any process aimed at transforming conflict works in a shadow land of nuance and subtlety. It’s a place of small shifts, altering perceptions, and (most importantly) softening stereotypes. At its best it allows both ‘villains’ and ‘victims’ to step back from the extreme edges of their identities, to a middle ground where other facets of their existence can gain traction.

The sorts of facets of life in Serbia that our friends abroad are unaware of; humour, hospitality, generosity, imagination a strong sense of family and a city safe enough for our children to prowl around on there own.

But the most helpful way of thinking about reconciliation might be through the prism of futures studies (plural intended). In countries where the truth of the past is painfully contested working backwards from a shared vision of the future in twenty, thirty or fifty years might be less inflammatory than trying to work the other way round.

Ziauddin Sardar is a London-based academic and futurist. In his book ‘Future: All that Matters’ he warns that in the absence of strategic thinking and planning there is a danger that ‘parochial and brittle’ social practices will be unconsciously projected into the future as ‘universal truths’.

None of this means that the past should be ignored. According to Sardar, the questions futurists must ask are ‘which interpretations of the past are valorized? What histories make the present problematic? How does the ordering of knowledge differ across civilizations, gender and worldviews? Who is seen as the ‘Other’, inalienably different from ‘us’? And which vision of the future is used to maintain the present?’ Which, indeed.

In fact, the practise of orientating reconciliation towards the future has a pedigree.  The ‘grandfather’ (his words) of peace building, Johan Galtung was a futurist before he became an internationally renowned peace builder. ‘The question I ask people’ he said in a recent interview ‘is what kind of future would you like to have?’ Futures studies would ask a second; ‘what do you need to do today to get there?’

Serbia?

Bridget Storrie is a conflict consultant and mediator.

The post Serbia: Back To The Future – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As many as 200 million Chinese citizens live below the international poverty line of U.S.$1.25 a day, a top official revealed on Wednesday.

While the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s own figures show just 82 million people are living below its poverty line of U.S.$1 a day, many more are considered to be in poverty by international standards used by the World Bank.

“Up to the end of 2013, demographically, 82.49 million people are still trapped in poverty according to China’s poverty line, and 200 million according to the international one,” Zheng Wenkai, vice-minister of the State Council Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development, told local media.

“It’s a tough nut to crack. Poverty is a weak point for our goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020,” Zheng was quoted as saying by the English-language Global Times, which has close ties to party mouthpiece The People’s Daily.

Some 120,000 villages across 832 Chinese counties are listed as poverty-stricken, Zheng said.

Those who live there lack access to running water, electricity and good roads, as well as being in desperate need of better healthcare and education, he said.

He said many of the poorest regions of China are also those that are vulnerable to natural disasters, and have poor infrastructure.

The news came after an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report predicted that the Chinese economy will surpass that of the U.S. by the end of the year in terms of purchasing power.

China’s gross domestic product (GDP), a broad measure of the nation’s output of goods and services, is expected to top U.S.$17.63 trillion, compared to the U.S.’s $17.41 trillion economy, while Chinese people control 16.48 percent of the world’s purchasing power, compared with the U.S.’ 16.28 percent, the report said.

Fairly accurate

Professor Xie Tian of the University of South Carolina said he believes Zheng’s estimate is fairly accurate.

“China’s poverty-stricken population…is below 20 percent of the total population,” Xie said.

He said rapidly rising consumer prices in the past three years have made a nonsense of poverty alleviation funds.

A China-based writer, who gave only his surname Liu, said China’s poorest people are often in a worse situation with regard to access to healthcare and education than many others on a lower income around the world.

“These are people with nothing to fall back on whatsoever,” Liu said. “They have no education and haven’t been prescribed medicines in their entire lives.”

“They also don’t have proper water or sanitation.”

Complex factors

He said the factors contributing to poverty in China are complex, often involving remote regions and a concentration of power with the central government in Beijing.

“This means that the remedial steps they take don’t always take effect where they are supposed to,” Liu said. “China has no democracy, so its system can’t respond with policies that suit the situation on the ground.”

According to Liu, many more counties are poverty-stricken than are recorded by Zheng’s office.

“Many of them don’t want the stigma of being labeled a poverty-stricken county, but they actually need the subsidies,” he said.

Meanwhile, Xie said many people are prevented from finding better lives elsewhere by China’s “hukou,” or household registration system, which shuts migrant workers out of social services and education outside their birthplace.

“The movement of population is a natural process that can wipe out poverty,” Xie said. “If you force farmers and mountain-dwellers to stay on their own land, you are preventing [this from happening].”

“Of course, if they flood into cities, then the government is faced with a different sort of poverty, but it’s easier to deal with because the people are all concentrated in one place,” he said.

“But China is a dictatorship, so this is a systemic problem.”

Reported by Shi Shan for RFA’s Mandarin Service. Translated and written in English by Luisetta Mudie.

The post China’s Poorest Number 200 Million As Economy Takes Top Spot appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Andrea Gagliarducci

An incorrect translation into English of the original midterm report of the Synod on the Family may have spurred controversial interpretations of the document itself.

The document’s original version was written in Italian, which Pope Francis directed to be used as the official language of the synod. In prior synods the official language had been Latin, esteemed for its precision and lack of ambiguity.

The point of controversy occurs at paragraph 50 of the relatio. The Italian original, after praising the gifts and talents homosexuals may give to the Christian community, asked: “le nostre comunità sono in grado di esserlo accettando e valutando il loro orientamento sessuale, senza compromettere la dottrina cattolica su famiglia e matrimonio?”

In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”

Italian’s “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”

The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.

It must be said that the translation was not an “official” translation – the Vatican website notes at the top it is an “unofficial translation” – but it was the working translation delivered by the Holy See press office in order to help journalists who are not confident in Italian with their work.

However, until now only this “working translation” has been provided.

The document was first delivered in Italian, shortly before Cardinal Peter Erdo of Esztergom-Budapest, general rapporteur of the synod, was going to read it in front of the assembly. After about half an hour, the document was available in English, French, Spanish, and German translations, and delivered via a bulletin of the Holy See press office.

This timing suggested that the translation had been done in the very last moments. According to a Vatican source, Cardinal Erdo had to give the document to the General Secretariat for the Synod on Saturday, and the document had been polished until the very last moment, and was given back to Cardinal Erdo only late on Sunday.

That the text is not fully Cardinal Erdo’s may be suggested by the fact that “the post discussion relation is much shorter than the pre-discussion one,” as Archbishop Philip Tartaglia of Glasgow put it to CNA Oct. 15.

The excerpt on pastoral care of homosexuals has been addressed by critics during the discussion that followed the reading of the relatio on Monday.

The document raised the impression that the Church had changed her views concerning homosexuality.

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed Oct. 13 that “pastoral care for homosexuals has always been part of the Church’s teaching, and the Church has never gotten rid of or dismissed homosexual from her pastoral programs.”

In fact, pastoral care for homosexuals is well described in a 1986 document, issued by Cardinal Mueller’s dicastery, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.”

Bearing the signature of the then-prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and approved by St. John Paul II, the letter was delivered to bishops worldwide, providing instructions on how the clergy should respond to the claims of the LGBT community.

Far from being a document of condemnation, the document provided a nuanced response to the issue of homosexuality.

The document stressed that “it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

Pastoral care for homosexuals was also addressed.

“We encourage the Bishops to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses,” the document read

But – the document added – “no authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”

Likewise, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

The document also dealt with the spiritual life.

“An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.”

The approach of the document was thus that of reaffirming the truth of the teaching of the Church, and at the same time approaching with mercy homosexual persons.

The post How An Incorrect Translation Of Synod Report Created Chaos appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The self-imposed November 24 deadline for the conclusion of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program is approaching, and the Iranian nation, as well as thousands of enthusiastic people across the world, are waiting to see if more than one decade of strife and conflict over Tehran’s nuclear activities will finally come to an end or not.

President Hassan Rohani’s administration has shown its strong willingness and firmness to resolve the nuclear controversy through diplomatic channels and peacefully. Since he came to power in June 2013 presidential elections, Iran and the group of P5+1 (five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) held several round of intensive talks the lengthiest of which from July 2 to 20 lasted for 18 days. The interlocutors have failed to clinch a comprehensive deal by which all the economic sanctions imposed against Iran, including the UN Security Council sanctions and the U.S. and EU unilateral sanctions will be lifted and dismantled in return for complete transparency and confidence-building measures by Iran over its nuclear activities, including on such issues as the number of centrifuges it would need to operate.

The Western negotiating parties, despite their remaining differences with Iran, have praised Rohani’s negotiating team led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for its seriousness and dexterity and its determination to engage in substantive talks. Several sticking points were removed and there are a few, but major issues on which Iran and the six world powers still disagree. However, it’s highly probable that the two sides will eliminate each other’s concerns or work out a deal which will satisfy the other party and benefit the whole international community. Even the pessimistic analysts who believe Iran and the P5+1 cannot sign a comprehensive deal before November 24, say that the ultimate failure of the talks does not mean that the room for diplomacy will be closed.

The U.S. State Department’s Persian Language Spokesman Alan Eyre says that his government has received the message imparted by the government of President Rohani, that Iran prefers the path of cooperation to the path of confrontation, and that it is trying to win the confidence of the international community.

“The good news is that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran says it has chosen interaction (ta’amol) over confrontation (taqabol),” he told Iran Review in an exclusive interview. “If it fully follows this path of interaction and cooperation regarding the nuclear portfolio and we arrive at a final agreement – i.e. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, sanctions will be lifted and the Iranian economy will again be reconnected to the global economy, and Iran will still have a nuclear program that meets its practical needs.”

Alan Eyre is the Director of Iran Media and Public Diplomacy Office at the U.S. Embassy in London. Alan Eyre speaks Persian language fluently and usually posts Farsi posts on his Facebook page which is followed by more than 100,000 users. He had previously worked as a diplomat with the U.S. embassies in Syria, UAE and Azerbaijan and maintains a blog hosted by the U.S. Department of State, in which he responds to questions by the Iranian citizens about the U.S. foreign policy and the Iran-U.S. relations. Eyre is closely familiar with the Persian literature and uses a lot of slang and proverbs in his writings, although he said he has never visited Iran.

In an exclusive interview with Iran Review, Alan Eyre spoke to us about the U.S. government’s position on the nuclear talks, the anti-Iran sanctions and the Iran-U.S. relations. You can read the full text of the interview below.

Q: Alan; in a December 2011 interview with BBC Persian, you had expressed concerns that Iran was not willing to take part in negotiations with the world powers over its nuclear energy program and did not abide by its “international obligations”. However, now that Iran has shown willingness to participate in comprehensive and meaningful dialog, has the United States seized the opportunity to engage Iran diplomatically and find a viable solution to one of its most challenging foreign policy issues? If so, then why is there still talk about increased sanctions in the Congress after the signing of the Joint Plan of Action, and sporadic war threats against Iran by President Obama?

A: I think it is clear that both sides, Iran and the P5+1, are working seriously in this diplomatic process that could resolve the international situation that has arisen due to Iran’s non-compliance with its NPT obligations, and the resulting concerns about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. President Obama has made clear that he will not support increased sanctions while negotiations are moving forward and while the JPOA is still in effect. And there have been no ‘threats of war’ from President Obama. All he has said is that the US position is that Iran must not attain a nuclear weapon, that it must dispel international concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program, and that he vastly prefers to ensure this goal via diplomacy, no options are off the table.

Q: As stipulated by the Geneva interim accord, Iran has scaled back certain parts of its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium to the purity of 20%. The United States and the European Union are mutually expected to fulfill their commitments laid down in the Joint Plan of Action, which was just extended for a period of 4 months until November 24, including the removal of sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical and auto industry sectors. However, many Iranian businessmen say that the restrictions still exist in these areas, and that no significant change has taken place in the state of the sanctions. What’s your view on that?

A: I’d not heard that. What I do know is that Iranian officials have consistently said that both sides are fulfilling their JPOA obligations. Let’s not forget however that private companies cannot be compelled into the Iranian market, and that many companies, although eager to return to Iran, are also eager to comply with the existing sanctions regime and as such are waiting to see if there will be a comprehensive nuclear agreement and a consequent lifting of sanctions before seeking to re-engage in business with Iran.

Q: The U.S. government, and the officials at the State Department usually assert that Washington supports the Iranian people’s right of freedom and their quest for having a better, more prosperous life. However, the actions of your government contradict this claim. Google, Yahoo and Apple don’t allow the Iranian people, even the Iranian citizens living in the United States, to use and buy many of their products and services, which I refer to as a technological apartheid. Many Iranian patients of chronic diseases die every year as a result of the unavailability of medicine and medical equipments which should be imported from the United States. Your government penalizes those European companies that sell aircraft spare parts to Iran, and you surely know about the high rate of civilian casualties resulting from the aviation accidents in Iran. How do you explain that? Isn’t such an approach a collective punishment of the Iranian citizens?

A: All people either benefit or suffer from the actions of the governments that they form to represent their collective interests, and there is no doubt that the Iranian people are experiencing the consequences of the policies and positions that their own government has taken. Sanctions were only imposed by the international community because despite its best efforts, Iran would not comply with its NPT obligations and create sufficient international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. As a result of this non-compliance with its NPT obligations, its lack of sufficient cooperation with the IAEA and the overall lack of transparency of its nuclear program, its file was referred to the UNSC for action, which has led us to where we are now. This is not just a US opinion, it is the opinion of the relevant international bodies, to include the IAEA and the UN, and the very effectiveness of the sanctions is a testimony to the unity of the international community regarding these concerns.

The good news is that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran says it has chosen interaction (ta’amol) over confrontation (taqabol). If it fully follows this path of interaction and cooperation regarding the nuclear portfolio and we arrive at a final agreement – i.e. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, sanctions will be lifted and the Iranian economy will again be reconnected to the global economy, and Iran will still have a nuclear program that meets its practical needs.

Q: The election of moderate President Hassan Rohani was a clear message by the Iranian people that Iran seeks cooperation with the international community and a peaceful approach for the resolution of the nuclear controversy. Has the U.S. government received the message, and is it mutually ready and determined to replace confrontation with cooperation and dialog?

A: Yes, we have received the message of President Rohani’s election: that the Iranian people want a change, that they want to be reconnected to the international community, that they want cooperation (ta’amol) instead of confrontation (taqabol). From day one, President Obama has been seeking a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue, as shown by his historic 2009 Nowruz message.

Q: Following some 35 years of frosty relations and an absence of diplomatic exchanges, the two sides agreed to allow meetings between Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the Secretary of State John Kerry. The two top diplomats conferred with each other several times, in New York and then in Vienna. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman also met Foreign Minister Zarif and deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi on a number of occasions. So, the diplomatic contact is being facilitated. Do you believe that such exchanges and meetings can lead to the emergence of a mutual understanding and the peaceful settlement of disputes and if yes, then how?

A: Yes, of course, I think that diplomatic contact is essential for the peaceful resolution of disputes and for bettering mutual understanding, which is one of the reasons I became a diplomat. The United States was heartened by the decision of the Rohani administration to commit to the P5+1 negotiations, and we are hopeful that Iran will make the hard decisions it needs to make to assure the international community that Iran’s nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful.

Q: For the negotiations on the comprehensive deal to be successful, the United States and its European allies need to take a realistic approach. They have certain demands which they believe Iran should fulfill. But is a meaningful dialog and negotiation tantamount to one side making frequent demands and the other side making concessions repeatedly? Is the United States ready to back away from those demands which Iran says are excessive and unjustifiable, and making concessions on a reciprocal basis?

A: The P5+1 doesn’t have ‘demands’ it is making of Iran, and certainly doesn’t have excessive or unjustifiable ones. As I’ve said, the US, and indeed the international community, has serious concerns that it is seeking to address via the P5+1 negotiating process. President Obama has been quite clear about the US strategic goal in these nuclear negotiations: that Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon and that the international community gain full confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has its own strategic goals, and what is happening during these negotiations, which are being conducted in an atmosphere of seriousness and goodwill, is that each side is trying hard to reach a solution, using creativity and hard work, that satisfies each side’s concerns.

Q: Are you hopeful that Iran and the United States can work together to address their common concerns, including the rise of ISIL in Iraq, the stability and future of Afghanistan and drug trafficking in the country and the humanitarian crisis in Syria? Iran can be a reliable partner that had even offered to cooperate with the United States in 2003 over the security of Afghanistan, but was immediately responded by being branded as a part of the Axis of Evil by President Bush. What’s your take on that?

A: I think that, as Iranian officials themselves have said, first let’s reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, after which we can see if there are other areas where we have mutual interests and where we can cooperate. But first let us ensure that we can reach agreement on this nuclear issue, such that international concerns are met and sanctions can be lifted. Currently, as our Secretary of State Kerry has pointed out, although both the US and Iran understand the ISIL threat, we are not coordinating with Iran in this fight.

The post Washington Heartened By President Rohani’s Decision To Engage In Nuclear Negotiations – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Tehran and the P5+1 countries are moving towards resolving their differences and reaching a final agreement on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Zarif, who heads the Iranian negotiating team in nuclear talks with the six countries, also described the trilateral talks as “very difficult”, but said progress was made and possible solutions discussed.

“It was very difficult, serious and intensive … but instead of focusing on problems, we discussed solutions as well,” Zarif said. “There was progress in all the fields.”

“It is reconcilable, provided everyone makes the tough decisions,” he said.

The Iranian Foreign Minister earlier said “considerable” differences linger on in the ongoing talks between Tehran and the P5+1 group, but stressed they could be resolved.

“In this round of talks, we are discussing a solution to put an end to the differences. There are, indeed, considerable differences, but that does not mean these differences cannot be settled,” Zarif said.

Zarif said that the outstanding issues and possible solutions to them were discussed during his meeting with Ashton and those between his deputies and representatives of the P5+1 group.

He underlined the need for “serious” and “innovative” solutions to settle the differences, but stressed that the talks may take more time than expected to work out such solutions. He, however, said that both sides are yet to reach common ground.

Iran and the P5+1 group have also agreed to extend talks over Tehran’s nuclear energy program for another day and will hold an unannounced meeting in Vienna.

The meeting will be jointly chaired by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who leads the negotiating team from the P5+1 countries, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday to continue the nuclear discussions.

The top Iranian official said that the Thursday talks will be attended by “political directors” from the P5+1 group as part of efforts to find “common ground.”

According to Zarif, talks with all members of the P5+1 group are scheduled upon a request by Iran.

“It was the Islamic Republic of Iran’s request that in addition to talks with Ms. Ashton and the US, we have negotiations with all members of the P5+1 group. Therefore, the talks have extended for Thursday, which indicates political will on all sides to the talks,” he added.

The post Zarif: Iran, P5+1 Moving Towards Resolving Differences appeared first on Eurasia Review.