Morocco will not host the African Cup of Nations in 2015 due to fears caused by the Ebola virus, Reuters reported Saturday.

The executive committee of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) will make a final decision on November 11 in Cairo on the place where the cup will be held.

On Monday CAF denied Morocco the transferal of the African Cup of Nations to 2016, asking the Royal Moroccan Football Federation to clarify its position by November 8 on its preparedness to host the tournament. According to the agency, Morocco rejected the ultimatum.

The cup is scheduled for January 17 through February 8, 2015.

The current Ebola virus outbreak began in Guinea in December 2013, and spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal. However, Senegal and Nigeria have recently been declared free of Ebola by the World Health Organization (WHO). Several cases of the disease have also been registered outside of West Africa.

According to WHO latest estimates, there have been more than 13,000 reported Ebola cases, with more than 4,800 having been killed by the virus. The majority of lethal cases have been concentrated in three West African countries – Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

The post Morocco Refuses To Host African Cup Of Nations 2015 Due To Ebola Virus – Reports appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In this week’s address, in advance of Veterans’ Day, the President paid tribute to the men and women in uniform who have given so much in service of America. Veterans have risked their lives to protect our freedom, and we need to be there for them when they return from duty by ensuring they get the care they need and the opportunities they deserve. The President asked every American to thank and welcome home the veterans in their lives who, like all who fight for our country, are heroes worthy of our constant gratitude and support.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 8, 2014

Hi, everybody. This weekend, I depart for Asia to advance American leadership and promote American jobs in a dynamic region that will be critical to our security and prosperity in the century ahead. The democracies, progress and growth we see across the Asia Pacific would have been impossible without America’s enduring commitment to that region – especially the service of generations of Americans in uniform. As we approach Veterans’ Day, we honor them – and all those who’ve served to keep us free and strong.

We salute that Greatest Generation who freed a continent from fascism and fought across Pacific Islands to preserve our way of life. We pay tribute to Americans who defended the people of South Korea, soldiered through the brutal battles of Vietnam, stood up to a tyrant in Desert Storm and stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

And we celebrate our newest heroes from the 9/11 Generation – our veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For more than 13 years, we have been at war in Afghanistan. Next month, our combat mission will be over, and America’s longest war will come to a responsible end.

But the end of a war is just the beginning of our obligations to those who serve in our name. These men and women will be proud veterans for decades to come, and our service to them has only just begun. So as we welcome our newest veterans home, let’s honor them by giving them the thanks and respect they deserve. And let’s make sure we’re there for their families and children, too – because they’ve also made great sacrifices for America.

Let’s honor our veterans by making sure they get the care and benefits they’ve earned. That means health care that’s there for them when they need it. It means continuing to reduce the disability claims backlog. And it means giving our wounded warriors all the care and support they need to heal, including mental health care for those with post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury. Some of the most moving moments I’ve experienced as Commander in Chief have been with our wounded warriors. Some have to learn how to walk again, talk again, write their names again. But no matter how hard it is, they never give up. They never quit. And we can’t ever quit on them.

Let’s honor our veterans by making sure they get their shot at the American Dream that they risked their lives to defend – by helping them find jobs worthy of their skills and talents, and making sure the Post-9/11 GI Bill stays strong so more veterans can earn a college education. When our veterans have the opportunity to succeed, our whole nation is stronger. And let’s work together to end the tragedy of homelessness among veterans once and for all – because anyone who has defended America deserves to live in dignity in America.

Finally, let’s honor our veterans by remembering that this isn’t just a job for government. It’s a job for every American. We’re all keepers of that sacred trust that says, if you put on a uniform and risk your life to keep us safe, we’ll do our part for you. We’ll make sure you and your family get the support you need. We’l have your backs – just like you had ours.

So this Veterans’ Day, and every day, let’s make sure all our veterans know how much we appreciate them. If you see a veteran, go on up and shake their hand. Look them in the eye. Say those words that every veteran deserves to hear: “Welcome home. Thank you. We need you more than ever to help us stay strong and free.”

The post Obama: This Veterans’ Day, Let’s Honor Our Veterans – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Evidence of corruption inside the EU’s rule-of-law mission in Kosovo may not be compelling, but indications that EULEX initially ignored its own prosecutor’s suspicions are much stronger.

By Nate Tabak and Jeta Xharra

It’s clear that being the centre of the worst scandal in EULEX’s six-year history has taken a toll on Maria Bamieh. Sitting on a couch at her home near Film City KFOR base in Pristina, the 55-year-old British prosecutor spoke haltingly, with the exhausted tone of a person who probably hasn’t had a good night’s sleep in weeks.

“I just want everybody to believe that I’m not a revengeful, horrible bitch,” Bamieh said, taking a drag of a cigarette.

Over the past two weeks, she has emerged as EULEX’s chief accuser in a corruption scandal that has captivated Kosovo and reverberated in the corridors of power in Brussels. According to the prosecutor, she’s simply a whistleblower who wasn’t taken seriously, and then fired for aggressively pushing the EU’s rule-of-law mission to properly investigate serious allegations of corruption in its own ranks.

On the other side, EULEX, albeit quietly, has cast Bamieh as a disgruntled employee who was ultimately angry about losing her job amid downsizing and decided to embarrass the mission by leaking sensitive documents to the newspaper Koha Ditore. (Bamieh denies this.)

Dozens of pages of internal EULEX documents, obtained by BIRN, paint a far murkier and more incomplete picture. The evidence of corruption is circumstantial – based on wiretaps and testimony whose credibility are suspect. But at the same time, it appears that an initial complaint by Bamieh did not lead to any official investigation. The mission only took action after its intelligence unit came forward with evidence, beginning an internal investigation in May 2013, about a year after Bamieh made a complaint, according to a confidential summary of the internal investigation.

By Bamieh’s account, she stumbled upon a conspiracy to scuttle her corruption case using bribery in 2012. Conversations recorded through court-authorised intercepts include intermediaries of defendant Ilir Tolaj, an official at the Ministry of Health, discussing contacts with the chief EULEX judge at the time, Francesco Florit. “I said, tell him if he takes over definitely and guarantees that the matter is done, he shall tell us, how can we and what we can do for him,” one man says in a conversation recorded on May 31, 2012.

Also troubling, according to Bamieh, was that Tolaj intermediaries were apparently getting information from the office of Jaroslava Novotna, the chief EULEX prosecutor, who seemed to be conspiring to get her taken off the case. Novotna did not respond to BIRN’s questions.

“I was shocked by what I was hearing in the intercepts,” Bamieh recalled. “I felt like I was in the middle of some John Grisham novel.”

Complaints ignored

The Tolaj corruption case was politically charged and complicated. It involved accusations that officials in the Ministry of Health had taken bribes to award health contracts. As Bamieh worked the case in the spring and summer of 2012, Kosovo police officers were monitoring the phones of Tolaj, who was in jail, and those of his associates.

According to emails she showed BIRN, Bamieh began sending concerned messages in May upon learning of the intercepted conversations that suggested an effort to bribe Florit, and the complicity of Novotna.

Bamieh also notified Signe Justesen, then head of Kosovo’s Special Prosecution Office, and took the complaint to Silvio Bonfigli, who at the time was head of EULEX’s executive arm. According to Bamieh, Bonfigli assured her that her complaints would be investigated thoroughly.

Bamieh’s emails suggest that Bonfigli was preparing to refer her complaint to the internal investigations unit, but it appears that did not happen. Bonfigli, who has since left the mission and works as a prosecutor in his native Italy, did not respond to messages from BIRN.

Justesen, who left her post in January 2013, declined to discuss what happened during her tenure, but offered praise for Bamieh. “I can tell you however that I considered Maria a very honest and dedicated prosecutor who always did what she thought was best in finding the truth and combating crime,” Justesen wrote in an email.

Privately, EULEX officials have suggested that Bamieh may be exaggerating the extent of her complaints. They point to the way she wrote one section of the Tolaj indictment, which sounds dismissive of the evidence of any improper behaviour.

When she issued her indictment in the case on July 4, 2012, Bamieh wrote: “It is not suggested that Mr Florit or Mrs Novotna were involved in the attempts to obstruct justice. It is highly likely that the individuals involved were feeding Mr Tolaj inaccurate false information for their own interests.”

Bamieh, on the other hand, said she was trying to strike a balance between her obligation to disclose evidence in her criminal case and preserving any internal investigation at EULEX.

“Maybe I didn’t word it in the best way possible,” Bamieh said of the indictment. “But I was under time constraints, and Signe [Justesen] and I agreed that we would put those allegations into the indictment. We would disclose the intercept, but we would do it in a way that we do not influence the internal investigation that we believed was ongoing at that time.”

The judge who stands accused

The last two weeks haven’t treated Francesco Florit well, either. The former head EULEX judge, who now serves on the bench in Udine, Italy, had quietly faced an internal EULEX investigation going to back to 2013 into bribery allegations until Koha Ditore made them public, and Bamieh openly accused him in interviews.

The Italian judge agreed to discuss the claims openly, even appearing head-to-head with Bamieh during a debate on Kosovo TV station Kohavision.

Florit, who vehemently denies ever taking a single bribe or asking for one, said EULEX is wasting its time.

“The Mission should treat it for what it is, i.e. a nonsense that does not deserve attention nor further waste of time and that should be archived,” he said.

Even if any further investigations clear his name, Florit contends that his career is effectively ruined. “Who would promote or recruit a judge who has been suspected of ‘selling decisions’?” he asked.

The most serious allegation against Florit is that he took around 300,000 euros in 2009 to secure the release of a murder defendant. This allegation, too, was uncovered by Bamieh in 2013 while she was investigating the 2007 bombing of a club on Bill Clinton Boulevard in Pristina, which left two people dead.

The case involved three defendants, all former members of a Kosovo police special unit. In 2009, Besnik Hasani and Shpend Qerimi were convicted, while Nusret Cena was acquitted in a trial where Florit served as the presiding judge on a three-member panel. The three men also were tried in a 2007 triple murder that took place near Kacanik, and in that case Cena, too, was the only person acquitted, although Florit was not involved in that trial.

Family members of Hasani and Qerimi have alleged a collective effort to raise money to secure the three men’s release, and that ultimately a bribe was paid to Florit in 2009 in Durres, Albania.

According to the family’s versions of events, the money raised was not deemed sufficient by Florit to release all of the defendants, so ultimately Cena was the only acquitted. Cena and his lawyers have vehemently denied this, as has Florit.

Flurim Asani, the brother of Besnik Hasani, told EULEX investigators in 2013 and BIRN this month that that he was in Durres for a meeting between Florit and an attorney to discuss the deal. Asani said he saw Florit from afar, but did not attend the meeting.

Florit, for his part, has denied ever being in Albania in 2009, and suggests that the story is an effort to secure a retrial – which the family is urging in the Kacanik murder case.

Bamieh acknowledged the possibility that the bribery story could have been concocted. But she said there is strong reason to have suspicions about Florit, especially considering the intercepts in the Tolaj case.

“I’ve never said he’s guilty. I’ve said that there’s something here that stinks. And it stinks big time,” Bamieh said.

As for the Tolaj case, Florit has pointed out that the intercepts in the Tolaj case simply establish that people were talking about him – and that he can’t be held responsible for their statements – and that the main defendant ultimately was found guilty.

Florit does admit that he met – five or six times – with one of Tolaj’s intermediaries, a professor. The judge, however, insists that the meetings were largely innocent. The professor had mostly benign things to discuss, such as an invitation to lecture at the University of Pristina, Florit said. But on his final visit, the professor brought up the Tolaj case, upon which Florit said he ejected the man and submitted a report to Bamieh the next day.

Florit sent a copy of the statement to BIRN, which is consistent with his version of events. But Bamieh contents that Florit drafted it only upon confronting the judge about the mentions of him on the wiretaps. Florit contends that he did it on his own initiative.

What EULEX did and didn’t do

According to an internal report obtained by BIRN, EULEX began taking the corruption allegations seriously in May 2013 after the mission’s intelligence unit encountered evidence that Florit and a prosecutor had been offered bribes. BIRN is not naming the prosecutor, whom it has been unable to contact directly for an opportunity to respond directly to the allegations.

The reports by the intelligence unit triggered a formal internal investigation. That probe did conclude that there mostly likely had been an effort to bribe Florit and the prosecutor, but uncovered no evidence that these efforts were successful, suggesting that the suspect wiretaps could be explained by an effort of lawyers to defraud clients or a deliberate effort to mislead investigators.

Investigators also looked into Florit’s bank accounts and found no irregular transactions, but noted “this can be investigated better by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation”.

“There are currently no grounds for the suspicions of bribery of EULEX staff,” the investigators wrote.

Still, the internal investigation did not exclude the possibility that the bribery had occurred, and recommended that an independent prosecutor be appointed to investigation the allegations further – which EULEX says it has done.

The most damning part of the investigation, however, is related to how the mission handled Bamieh’s initial complaints, particularly a memo she sent to Silvio Bonfigli, the head of the executive division. “As of this date, the memo did not lead to any actions within the Mission,” investigators wrote, noting that Bamieh had also notified the then Deputy Head of Mission, Andy Sparks, and the Head of Mission, Xavier Marnhac, about her suspicions.

The memo had also mysteriously disappeared, which investigators found troubling: “The fact that an important document can disappear emphasizes the need for an open and transparent investigation. It is important that the Mission addresses this issue.”

The internal investigation did not conclude there had been a cover up, as Bahmieh has alleged, but does lend credibility to the claim. “The fact is, people did not want to believe this. I did not want to believe it. I knew that people, even in the face of the intercepts, would say, ‘Ho ho ho, this is too far-fetched.’

Asked about the initial response to Bamieh’s complaints, EULEX suggested that the process simply took time. “Investigations are not always linear. It is a complex case where various different elements had to be brought together before an investigation could be formally opened,” said EULEX spokesperson Dragana Nikolic-Solomon.

Prosecutor ‘didn’t plan to shame EULEX’

When EULEX suspended Bamieh on October 23, the prosecutor was already on her way out – and not happy about it. Bamieh wasn’t offered a position in the newly-downsized EU rule of law mission, and her appeal – on the grounds of being unfairly evaluated during the rehiring process – was rejected.

Bamieh said that Novotna, about whom she raised suspicions about in the Tolaj case, was part of the evaluation process and rated her poorly. Evidence for this is hardly compelling: an evaluation sheet that shows Bamieh ranked 21 out 26 on a list of prosecutors but shows no indication of who was doing the evaluating.

EULEX has not said if Novotna was part of the evaluation process, but noted that the selection process was competitive, with 17 candidates for four positions.

Bamieh, for her part, sees EULEX’s ultimate decision not to rehire her and her recent suspension as the coda in a pattern of retaliation she alleges occurred after she began making accusations in 2012.

The decision to speak out, Bamieh said, led to isolation at the Kosovo Special Prosecution Office, and petty investigations into issues like illegal parking and having an intern. She has also made allegations that she was treated as she was, in part, because she is a woman and from an ethnic minority.

Bamieh insisted that despite her grievances, she planned to go quietly, though her complaints would eventually have come out in a lawsuit.

“It was never my plan to publicly embarrass EULEX,” Bamieh said. “I only did this because I was suspended.

“I’m 55 years old, I don’t need to work. I could just go and happily retire to my garden and stay with my family. But I’m not going to let it happen unjustly.”

Additional reporting by Valerie Hopkins.

The post Scandal And Suspicion At The EU’s Kosovo Mission appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An anonymous U.S. official caused a dustup when he called the Israeli prime minister “chickenshit.” Others might have said worse.

By Adil E. Shamoo and Peter Certo

Last month, an anonymous U.S. official stirred a tempest in a teapot when he called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a chickenshit” in comments to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The insinuation was that while Netanyahu will happily rile up his right-wing base on issues related to Palestine or Iran, he lacks the political courage to take meaningful steps to resolve either conflict.

State Department officials scurried to disavow themselves of the remark. But the incident revealed an increasingly common conclusion in Washington: Netanyahu’s foot-dragging on Middle East peace is not only frustrating for the United States—it’s dangerous.

Once a taboo subject in Washington, the value of the U.S.-Israeli alliance has increasingly come under scrutiny among even leading members of the foreign policy establishment.

As Anthony Cordesman—a Mideast expert at the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies—observed, “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”

General David Petraeus, back when he was the head of the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.” Even President Obama has listed the conflict as a factor in U.S. wars in the Middle East that are “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

These comments by leading American figures were made four years ago—well before the Obama administration had had its biggest dustups with Netanyahu’s government. Two Gaza wars and another round of failed peace talks later, nothing has changed except Israel’s increasing willingness to flaunt international law—as it did in its massive assault on Gaza earlier this year, which killed some 1,500 civilians.

Now, even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry—a pro-Israel stalwart—admits, to the chagrin of Israeli officials, that the lack of progress in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians is feeding support for the Islamic State. “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region,” Kerry said of his efforts to cobble together an anti-Islamic State coalition, “who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation.”

One would think that such complaints from a key ally and patron would elicit some soul-searching in the Israeli government. Yet instead of charting a new course in his speech at the United Nations last September, Netanyahu fell back on an old, lazy recipe of demonization, equating Hamas with the Islamic State and the Islamic State with Iran. And he continued oft-used delaying tactics, inviting the current coalition of Arab countries fighting the Islamic State to draft a new peace proposal for Israel and the Palestinians—despite his longstanding rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative drafted over 10 years ago by many of those same countries. Officials in the Obama administration were reportedly “unconvinced” that Netanyahu’s proposal was sincere, given his lack of interest in direct talks with the Palestinians themselves.

In addition, just days before an October meeting with President Obama, Israel announced plans to construct 2,610 new housing units in East Jerusalem in violation of existing agreements. In a rare public rebuke, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said that the new settlements will alienate Israel’s “closest allies” —presumably including Washington—and “call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”

Uncowed, Netanyahu dismissed the criticism, describing the U.S. rejection of the new settlements as “against American values” and “anti-peace.” When an Israeli prime minister describes longstanding U.S. strategic interests—in this case, conditions that would enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—as “un-American,” it’s a clear indication that the United States cannot continue its current course of appeasing Israel’s every demand.

That’s a conclusion increasingly shared by Israel’s longtime allies in Europe. Sweden’s new government recently indicated that it will recognize Palestine as a state. The UK parliament followed up with a symbolic recognition vote of its own, and more European countries may soon do the same.

Groups in the United States and in Europe, meanwhile, have worked with Palestinian activists to organize a boycott of Israeli settlement products and academic institutions. Indeed, U.S. civil society—including many Jewish organizations—is now leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. government when it comes to rethinking the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu now looks poised to mobilize his supporters in the U.S. Congress to vote against any nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Yet even as official Washington simmers with frustration at Netanyahu’s simultaneous demands for U.S. support and disregard for U.S. interests, officials rushed to put out the fire started by the anonymous “chickenshit” quip. As Foreign Policy’s Steve Walt put it, if Washington pretends that the “‘special relationship’ is hunky-dory, even when it is obvious to even casual observers that it is not,” then “Netanyahu’s not chickenshit—the White House is.”

Adil E. Shamoo is professor at University of Maryland and an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. He is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of Equal Worth—When Humanity Will Have Peace. His website is www.forwarorpeace.com. Peter Certo is the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

The post Netanyahu Is National Security Risk—And Washington Knows It – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Walter Schwimmer*

Speaking as former Secretary General of the Council of Europe on de-escalation on the Korean Peninsula, on peace and security in Eastern Asia is a real challenge. For millenniums Europe itself was far away from forming unity and providing peace. On the contrary, the smallest of all continents has been the scene of many wars, some of them called the “100 years war” or the “30 years war”.

The latter involved most of the European countries and was one of the most destructive armed conflicts in history.

Between 1618 and 1648 more than half of the European population died because of direct or indirect consequences of the fighting. In the 20th century this history of bloody conflicts culminated once again in conflicts which became global, 100 years ago Europeans started World War I and 75 years ago World War II. Many historians dealt this year of centenary of WWI with its causes.

I dare to say that there are always the same threats to peace and security: lack of communication, stereotypes and prejudices and ignorance.

Current conflicts, in the Middle East, in Africa, but also in Eastern Europe may persuade us to repeat the saying that history gives lessons all the time, but nobody is learning them.

However there are examples where the lessons of history were not only listened to but were transformed into dialogue, mutual understanding, and at the end to friendship. One example is the process of European unification including the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. But there are other, in my view exiting examples too.

E.g. South Africa, which was also divided, not in a territorial sense but inside the nation. In all these positive examples you will see three key words and principles: dialogue, reconciliation and truth.
While after World War I it were only a few people who were ready to learn the lessons, during the World War II people started to prepare the new after-war-Europe based on a common cultural and spiritual heritage. It was in the middle of World War II, in 1943, when the famous British statesman Sir Winston Churchill surprised the listeners of his weekly radio address.

He suggested that after the war all nations of Europe including the current enemies should form a “Council of Europe” to unite the continent in peace and through cooperation.

In the aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War, the main concern of the founding fathers of the European unification was to create a system that would ensure lasting peaceful co-operation between all European nations based on common values.

Unfortunately the post-war period in Europe was also marked by the political and material division of Europe with the emergence of the iron curtain.

The division, which has had a deep and traumatic impact on Europe, was characterized by an ideological confrontation between two political systems. Europe was breathing, to quote Pope John Paul II, only with one lung.

But beside this deep ideological and military rift Europe could avoid direct military confrontation, I would like to say, also because of the remembrance of the horrors of the WWII.

And in this context I have to pay tribute and bend my knees in front of the victims of the nuclear tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their unimaginable suffering saved the world from further tragic nuclear experiences. And the legacy of the dead or livelong suffering and handicapped people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be nuclear disarmament, in particular in Eastern Asia!

But before turning to East Asia and the Korean Peninsula, let me return to the European example.

An important step to overcome the rift in the common home of Europe was the conference on security and cooperation in Europe with the Helsinki accord of 1975 signed by 35 countries including the U.S. and the Soviet Union, that promotes human rights as well as cooperation in economic, social, and cultural progress. The Helsinki accord proved that Europe had still much more in common than what could divide the continent.

The OSCE – Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – emerged from the Helsinki Conference.

It plays an important role up to today and is covering Europe, Central Asia and North America except Mexico. Currently the OSCE is monitoring the Ukrainian crisis. The OSCE is not unknown in East Asia as three countries of the region – Japan, Mongolia and South Korea are already partners for cooperation of the OSCE.

14 years later, 1989/1990 dramatic political but peaceful changes swept through Europe as consequence of several factors.
Michael Gorbachev’s perestroika was one of them, the collapse of centrally planned economy in the communist countries was another one. But in my view the most important factor was the people. The peoples of the countries separated from the other part of Europe by the Iron Curtain wanted to choose their governments themselves like in the Western part of Europe.

In my view it was not the end of history as proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama, no, it was the return to the better part of European history.

Central, Eastern and South-eastern Europe could join the path of peace and reconciliation which was chosen by the Western European democracies in the late 40ies and early 50ies of the last century when the Council of Europe and the European Communities were created. The Council of Europe goes back to the already mentioned courageous idea of Winston Churchill and the European Union, former the European Communities, goes back to the idea of French foreign minister Robert Schuman.

The enemies of yesterday should administrate the main resources of armament, coal and steel, together in order to make wars between them impossible.

However, there was also still mistrust among nations in the after-war-decade. And the ideas were not totally new. The Austrian aristocrat with a Japanese mother, Richard Coudenhove-Calerghi, created after the WWI the Paneuropa-movement and proposed United States of Europe.

A programme of European Christian-Democratic Parties in the 30ies spoke about a common market, a term which is familiar to the European Union.

What was essential for the success of these ideas in the aftermath of WWII was that they were accompanied by a large movement of reconciliation or you may call it also spirit of reconciliation. Reconciliation of former enemies has been seen throughout Europe, for example between France and Germany, Austria and Italy, Germany and Poland, Russia and Germany.

This reconciliation is at the same time a prerequisite of European unification as well as a result of it. I do not dare to answer the famous question who was first the chicken or the egg. Reconciliation is taking place also in South Eastern Europe. The enemies of yesterday are sitting together in a Regional Council and are co-operating in a free trade area. I do not want to hide that there are still problems, like the functioning and complicated structures of the common state institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and a fair and just solution for all inhabitants of Kosovo.

There are still problems in the Caucasus and the already mentioned Ukrainian and Crimean crisis. But in the spirit of the new Europe dialogue and mutual understanding should help to solve these problems too.

What was decisive that reconciliation could take place, became reality in every day’s live of the nations concerned? These were of course several and different aspects. It needed politicians who were convinced that they couldn’t do more for the security and a live in peace for their nations than to reconcile with the neighbours and enemies of the past.

E.g. it was important for German-Polish and perhaps even more for German-Jewish reconciliation when German Chancellor Willy Brandt fell on Dec.7, 1970 on his knees in front of the monument of the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto. And it fostered without any doubt the French-German reconciliation when President Charles de Gaulle and Bundeskanzler Konrad Adenauer met on the battle fields of WWI and when the two old men embraced each other after signing the Treaty of Elysee between their countries.

But the sustainable reconciliation happened at grass root level, when more than 8 million young Germans and French participated in the youth exchange or when Italians and Austrians worked together in the mountains of Northern Italy, 2000 to 4000 meters above sea level, to turn the trenches and shelters of WWI into mountain trails.

One may ask whether this concept can be exported or better to say, imported? The African Union, for example, followed already the model of the Council of Europe but with the goal to reach the level of integration of the European Union.

This will of course be not very easy due to different political systems in the member countries and they still face serious conflicts to overcome, may I just refer to Congo and Sudan. But the vision is already there.

The Americans have their Organisation of American states and NAFTA, the free trade zone of USA, Canada and Mexico, South America has Mercosur. In East Asia and the Pacific you will find several attempts to enhanced cooperation, from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (without Japan), the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (with Japan as observer), to ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Asian+3, with again Japan, China and South Korea on board.

To some extent these cooperation organisations or entities are still a mirror of political and ideological rifts and differences, some are already crossing ideological dividing lines, some still need some deepening of trustful cooperation.

As East and South East Asia has a history of conflicts like Europe and is still facing ideological rifts, reconciliation of former enemies and rivals should play a similar role like in Europe in order to achieve peace, stability and security for all.

When Willy Brandt fell on his knees in Warsaw in 1970 Europe was still divided, the Federal Republic of Germany belonged to the democratic West and NATO, and Poland belonged to the Communist Bloc and the Warsaw Pact.

This did not hinder Willy Brandt to apologize for the crimes and atrocities carried out by Nazi-Germany. He demonstrated that reconciliation is possible across political and ideological boundaries.
To achieve, what is the aim of today’s conference, de-escalation in Eastern Asia and in particular on the Korean Peninsula, you need the same spirit and readiness for dialogue and reconciliation.

On all sides you need the cognition that across existing boundaries and rifts there is much more people have in common than what could divide them. So, where to should such a cognition or recognition lead?

First of all, continue and develop what is already there, e.g. the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which is in the state of promising negotiations between the member countries of ASEAN, the three additional members of ASEAN Plus Three, i.e. China, Japan and South Korea, and Australia, India and New Zealand. These 16 countries should not form an exclusive club.

They should express from the very beginning the openness for others, in particular for North Korea. It will demonstrate that economic cooperation is bringing many more advantages than military confrontation.

The same applies to already existing areas of economic cooperation between North and South Korea, e.g. the Kaesong North-South Korean industrial complex.

But there are other modalities too such as traditional arm’s-length trade and investment and processing on commission (POC) trade.
Despite all difficulties and backlashes one shouldn’t underestimate the contribution of economic cooperation to de-escalation. It was also one of the European experiences during the time of the so-called Cold War when Western and Eastern Germany developed economic ties.

Another option at East Asian multilateral level would be to follow the European example of the Helsinki process. As already mentioned it was an important contribution to security and cooperation in Europe when in 1975 35 countries from both sides of the Iron Curtain including the U.S. and the Soviet Union met for a conference.

The aim was promoting human rights as well as cooperation in economic, social, and cultural fields. Like the OSCE a Conference and in consequence an Organization for Security and Cooperation in East Asia (OSCEA) of all countries of the region including of course Russia but also the “trans-pacific” USA could be a platform for de-escalation and prevention of conflicts. The OSCE participating states Russia and USA as well as the East Asian partners for cooperation of the OSCE could certainly help with their know-how. The organization itself will for sure assist too.

Looking to the map, OSCE and a new OSCEA would cover the northern and central part of Asia, Europe and North America, forming a kind of belt of security and cooperation.

I could also imagine that either some East Asian states bilaterally or international organisations of East Asia could organize even multilaterally youth exchange following the very successful French-German example. I am afraid that such a proposal is coming too early for North and South Korea, but I would see another opportunity that is a pressing issue for many Koreans at the same time.

Millions of families were separated following the division of the Korean peninsula in 1945 and the 1950-53 Korean War. There have been family reunification events in the past on a relatively small scale. But many more separated families who had no contacts at all for more than 60 years are desperately waiting to see their relatives. Reassuming family reunification talks and programs would certainly be a way to better mutual understanding.

Let me come to my last proposal in a very sensitive area.

You remember that I mentioned the Schuman-Plan that stood at the cradle of the European Union, avoiding future wars by common administration of the resources of conventional warfare, coal and steel. Today’s challenge is not the resources of traditional warfare but the threat of nuclear war.

I repeat that the legacy of the dead or livelong suffering and handicapped people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki m be non-proliferation of nuclear arms and disarmament, in particular in East Asia.

On the other hand, still some countries including North and South Korea want to use atomic energy peacefully. But it’s well known, it is not a very big step from nuclear power plant to the production of atomic bombs. The best way to overcome the mutual mistrust would be to form a nuclear community on the Korean Peninsula, administrating peaceful atomic energy together and holding the peninsula free from nuclear bombs.

Coming to the end of my intervention I would like to summarize.

It is worth to follow the European example how to create an area of peace and stability. Courageous leaders have to admit wrongdoings and crimes of the past and should see reconciliation with former enemies as the best way to provide peace and security for the own nation. Overcoming the threats of non-communication, stereotypes and prejudices as well as ignorance and based on a spirit of truth, dialogue and reconciliation inclusive cooperation on a regional level regarding economy as well as security should be intensified.

On the Korean Peninsula existing economic cooperation should be intensified with a very special solution for the nuclear power.
At grass root level the spirit of reconciliation shall be implemented through a wide program of youth exchange and on the Korean Peninsula more separated families should have the opportunity to meet. May be all this sounds like a dream.

But let me by concluding modify a word of Vaclav Havel, who said, if we don’t dream of a better Europe, we will never get a better Europe.

If you don’t dream of East Asia in peace and prosperity, of a Korean Peninsula without confrontation, you will never get it.

Dr. Walter Schwimmer
Former Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Chairman of the International Coordinating Committee of the World Public Forum – Dialogue of Civilizations

First published by the Modern Diplomacy www.moderndiplomacy.eu

The post Europe As A Model For De-Escalation In Korean Peninsula – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kanchi Gupta

India’s diplomatic outreach to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to secure the release of 46 nurses abducted by the Islamic State (IS) in July this year underscores the importance of enhancing, in particular, political and security cooperation with the Gulf. Security ties are essential to complement the existing framework, which supports India’s energy and economic interests in the region. While India has had security agreements with Oman, Qatar and the UAE for some time, India-Saudi Arabia defence ties were only recently institutionalised during Saudi Defence Minister Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz’s visit to New Delhi in February 2014.

Prince Salman’s visit, the highest-level visit by a Saudi dignitary to India since 2006, brought into focus Riyadh’s diplomatic initiative in seeking greater defence cooperation with India as part of its efforts to diversify its security partnerships.

Reciprocal high-level visits in recent years between New Delhi and Riyadh—including the visits of Saudi King Abdullah in 2006, former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2010, former Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna in 2011 and former Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony in 2012—have set the momentum for stronger bilateral relations between both countries.

As China and Pakistan, among other countries, deepen their engagement with Saudi Arabia, it is critical for India to look beyond economic imperatives to secure its wider interests in the region.

This Issue Brief examines the main contours of the India–Saudi Arabia security and defence partnership and the background against which it has evolved. The first section looks at the importance of Indo–Saudi relations from a geopolitical perspective, and why it is crucial for the two countries to diversify security partners given the political turmoil in West Asia. This section argues that geopolitical changes have necessitated greater cooperation between both countries; they are de-linking their partnership from individual policy imperatives, including their respective relations with Iran and Pakistan.

The second section outlines the trajectory of the Indo-Saudi bilateral partnership and the main takeaways from high-level visits and defence cooperation agreements between the two countries. The last section emphasises the symbiotic nature of India–Saudi Arabia relations and the increasing scope for greater cooperation.

Deconstructing India–Saudi Arabia Ties

India’s energy and maritime security interests in the Indian Ocean littoral and the Gulf date back to the 19th century. The British government in India established “Exclusive Agreements” with the Gulf sheikhdoms and assumed responsibility for their foreign affairs and defence relations. The upheavals of the 20th century, including the Partition of India and the onset of the Cold War, severely constrained New Delhi’s role in the Gulf region.

The Cold War led New Delhi to tilt towards Moscow and away from the US and its allies in the Gulf. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, a close ally of the US, drifted closer to Pakistan against the backdrop of western pressure and fears of Soviet expansionism. India’s relative decline as a commercially viable partner, post-independence, also limited its engagement with the Gulf and the Indian Ocean littoral.

The Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought Pakistan and Saudi Arabia closer. Both countries shared concerns about Ayatollah Khomenei’s anti-American posturing and the possibility of his religious rhetoric affecting their Shia populations. Pakistan also emerged as a frontline state in supporting the US against the Soviets; the Pakistani military cooperated with Saudi Arabia, which in turn bankrolled Islamabad’s military programmes.1

The end of the Cold War and India’s economic liberalisation in the 1990s led to India’s greater engagement and economic integration with the Gulf. The Gulf countries, too, recognised the importance of India’s economic potential and its defence capabilities as critical to the region. Riyadh began to de-hyphenate its relations with India and Pakistan, particularly after the 9/11 attacks and American pressure to keep a distance from jihadist groups.

For India, resource security is one of the key agendas for improving political, economic and security partnerships in the region. Even though India’s relations with Saudi Arabia have been constrained due to a number of factors enumerated below, Riyadh has emerged as India’s largest supplier of crude oil, fourth largest trade partner and is host to a sizeable Indian expatriate community—the largest in Saudi Arabia. Thus, India’s growing energy requirements, an expanding diaspora and concerns of religious extremism are vital factors that influence New Delhi’s strategic calculus towards the Kingdom.

Pakistan

Stronger ties with Saudi Arabia could help to bolster India’s profile in the region and counter Pakistan’s influence in the Islamic world. During Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz’s visit to India, both countries signed a defence cooperation agreement. Prior to visiting New Delhi, Prince Salman also visited Islamabad and pledged increased bilateral cooperation “in the field of defence”.2 This reportedly includes collaboration in defence production and training of Syrian rebels to overthrow President Assad’s regime.3

During Prince Salman’s visit, citing India’s “vital stakes” in the Gulf, then Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid asserted that Riyadh’s ties with India can improve, as both India and Pakistan are opting to look “beyond their disagreements.” “Since Saudi Arabia has a close friendship with Pakistan, it was difficult for it to take sides in the India–Pakistan confrontation,” he stated.4

India–Saudi Arabia relations have also been affected by the traditionally close military ties between Islamabad and Riyadh. Pakistan helped the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) build fighter jets in the 1960s, drive back a South Yemeni incursion in 1969 and stationed troops in the Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s.5 Saudi Arabia, in turn, provided military support to Pakistan during the 1971 war with India. It also promised economic and diplomatic support to Islamabad when the latter conducted nuclear tests in 1998 in response to India’s nuclear tests.6 Furthermore, Riyadh has been known to support organisations that sponsor militant groups in Kashmir.7

Riyadh now supports improvement in India–Pakistan relations. While in Islamabad, Prince Salman said that Riyadh “hoped” for a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN resolutions, adding that Saudi Arabia “welcomed peaceful developments in India-Pakistan relations.”8

Terrorism

India’s vulnerability to cross-border terrorism, often sponsored by Pakistani groups whose funding can be traced back to Saudi Arabia, necessitates greater cooperation between both states on counter- terrorism. Given that jihadi terrorism threatens Saudi Arabia’s stability as well as India’s, both countries have inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on combating crime, which includes terrorism, transnational crime and extremism.

In 2012, Riyadh deported a terrorist, Sayed Ansari, accused of involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008 and allegedly linked to Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI. This not only represented a high point in Indo-Saudi cooperation on counter-terrorism, but was also an example of Saudi efforts to balance relations between India and Pakistan. While the region is beginning to pursue separate policies towards India and Pakistan, building deep linkages with the Gulf can also help New Delhi moderate the Gulf’s influence on Pakistan.9

Riyadh is also facing a domestic threat from the rise of the IS, which has hundreds of Saudi fighters among its ranks and has vowed to “conquer” the Land of the Two Holy Mosques. Given that some Indians have been radicalised by the IS over the internet, Indian and Saudi intelligence agencies are discussing ways to prevent their respective citizens from joining the IS.

Syed Asif Ibrahim, the Director of Indian Intelligence Bureau, left for Riyadh on September 29 to discuss avenues for cooperation over the IS threat. Saudi Arabia has also assured India that it will keep a close watch on Haj pilgrims to prevent them from entering Syria or Iraq.10

China

Saudi Arabia has emerged as a new arena for India–China competition. In addition to competing for energy resources, India’s regional policy is influenced by China’s growing security profile in the Gulf. Professor Harsh Pant from King’s College writes that “China’s growing dependence on maritime space and resources is reflected in the Chinese aspiration to expand its influence and to ultimately dominate the strategic environment of the Indian Ocean region.”11

Prince Salman visited China in March 2014 and pledged to “strengthen the strategic partnership” with Beijing. Signalling greater Chinese political participation in the region, Prince Salman stated that “China [is] an international magnate with great political and economic weight to play a prominent role in achieving peace and security in the region….we look forward to more cooperation with China to achieve an urgent peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.”12

Over the years, Saudi Arabia and China have expanded their military and economic relations. In November 2010, China’s naval escort flotilla made a “goodwill” call at the Jeddah port in Saudi Arabia. This was a clear signal of China’s naval activism and bid to seek enhanced cooperation between the two militaries.13 Saudi Arabia is China’s largest supplier of crude oil. In the 1980s, China sold nuclear-capable missiles to Riyadh.14 News reports also suggest that Riyadh is considering purchasing fighter jets produced by China and Pakistan.15

Iran

Prince Salman’s visit to India overlapped with that of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who was in India to “revive ties”16 and discuss issues of critical importance to both countries, like developments in Afghanistan, regional extremism, and trade and economic ties, including Iran’s crude oil exports to India.

Iran is an important source of oil and natural gas as well as a critical element in India’s strategic calculus due to its geographical proximity to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran can provide a commercial corridor to Central Asia; furthermore, India and Iran have agreed to invest in the development of the Chabahar port that links Afghanistan with Central Asia. Even though the realities of the India–Iran relationship have been overstated,17 New Delhi’s strategic partnership with Tehran will continue to be a cause of concern for Saudi Arabia.

Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that while India is a vital commercial partner for Saudi Arabia, the strategic value of closer Indo-Saudi ties is elevated when viewed through the lens of Riyadh’s rivalry with Tehran. Thus, Saudi Arabia has matched the Indo-Iranian partnership with diplomatic overtures of its own.18

US

Saudi Arabia’s desire to diversify security partners stems from recent disagreements with US policy over the civil war in Syria and US failure to condemn the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. US negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme have also raised concern in Riyadh that Washington may accommodate some Iranian terms that could be inimical to Saudi interests.

While the US called for “an orderly transition to democracy”19 at the height of the protests in Egypt in 2011, the fall of Mubarak cost the Gulf its long-time ally in the US-led security framework in the region. The US–Russia deal on dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons also signalled a lack of political will by Washington to engage militarily in the region. Budget cuts in military spending and a reduced dependence on West Asian hydrocarbon resources have intensified speculation about US engagement in the region.

Elucidating Riyadh’s intention of adopting an assertive role in international affairs, Saudi Ambassador to Britain Mohammed bin Nawaf al Saud stated that the “West’s policies on both Iran and Syria risk the stability and security of the Middle East.” “We [Riyadh] showed our preparedness to act independently with our decision to reject a [non-permanent] seat on the United Nations Security Council,” he added.20

Secretary of State John Kerry, however, has dismissed the “disengagement myth”21 and announced that long-term security frameworks are in the pipeline with Gulf partners like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.22 Even though a US or NATO security umbrella in the Gulf may remain intact, Saudi Arabia fears a shift in power relations in the region due to the end of the US–Iran nuclear standoff.

The Saudi Perspective

Saudi Arabia has tried to offset shifts in the regional balance of power by promoting efforts towards greater integration of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). However, Oman’s rejection of the GCC union proposal, as well as Riyadh’s deteriorating relations with Doha, have undermined GCC unity. Saudi-Qatari disagreements have also exacerbated the political turmoil in the region.

Michelle Dunne of the Carnegie Middle East Centre has noted that “[i]n every arena—in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Libya, even what happened in Egypt—this regional polarization, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates…on one side and Qatar and Turkey on the other, has proved to be a gigantic impediment to international efforts to resolve any of these crises.”23

Thus, a changed regional context characterised by shifting alliances, sectarian polarisation and a growing threat from Islamist insurgencies, like the Islamic State, have presented Saudi Arabia with a number of internal and regional challenges. The Arab uprisings that began in 2011 have aggravated unrest within Saudi Arabia’s Shia community. The domestic security threat has traditionally been viewed by Riyadh through the prism of geostrategic competition with Iran. Furthermore, Tehran’s support for Assad’s regime in Syria, the Shia-led government in Baghdad, the Shia uprising in Bahrain and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen are challenges to Riyadh’s sphere of influence in the region.

Given the geopolitical realities of a rising Iran, Saudi Arabia is cultivating ties with India to counter the influence of the Shia state. Moreover, India’s growing economy and large Muslim population have created space for economic, cultural and strategic complementarities between both states. Regional changes have also facilitated a mutual desire in both countries to not let their bilateral relations be limited by their individual foreign policy imperatives.

In the past, Saudi Arabia may have been concerned about India’s defence and economic ties with Israel. However, the political transformations taking place in the region, including the US–Iran nuclear negotiations, the collapse of the Mubarak government in Egypt and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood,24 have led to a convergence of interests between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Saudi Arabia’s muted response to the escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza in June 2014 —with over 2,000 Palestinian casualties—is symptomatic of the shift in Saudi-Israeli relations.

Thus, India’s posture towards the Arab-Israeli conflict no longer needs to be guided by zero-sum calculations.

Defence Cooperation

India and Saudi Arabia have deepened their engagement in the defence sphere. A number of high- level reciprocal visits between the military establishments of the two countries took place after King Abdullah’s visit in 2006.There are ongoing talks to develop ties in the field of maritime cooperation by conducting joint naval and military exercises and training of defence personnel. In 2007, a five- ship Indian flotilla made a port call in the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia.

A defence cooperation agreement was signed between India and Saudi Arabia in February 2014 during Prince Salman’s visit to New Delhi. The MoU sought to promote cooperation in the defence sector through the exchange of defence-related expertise and training, as well as in the fields of science and technology.25

Over time, defence cooperation has moved beyond the realm of anti-piracy operations to include training, technical assistance and exchange of military hardware. The Delhi Declaration, signed in 2006 during King Abdullah’s visit to India, provided a framework for cooperation in all fields of mutual interest and expanded the scope to include counter-terrorism, money laundering, drugs and arms smuggling. The two sides “affirmed their commitment to … maintaining international peace and stability … and resolving outstanding conflicts in the world through peaceful means.”26

The Declaration also marked the importance of King Abdullah’s “Look–East policy,” particularly because he chose to visit India and China for his first trip outside West Asia after becoming the Saudi ruler.27 News reports suggest that the policy signifies Riyadh’s efforts to “step away from over dependence on America” and “engage with rising powers that are far less interested than Washington in what Saudi Arabia does within its borders.”28

The Riyadh Declaration, signed during Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2010, elevated the bilateral engagement to a strategic partnership29 and reinforced efforts towards deeper cooperation in economic, political, security and defence fields. The Declaration represented a high point in Singh’s “Look–West policy,”30 which was unveiled in 2005 and aimed at raising New Delhi’s economic and political profile in the Gulf region.

Then Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s visit to Riyadh in 2012 laid the foundation for institutionalising a broad-based defence agreement between the two countries. His visit led to the formation of a joint committee on defence cooperation, which laid the roadmap for a bilateral agreement. The joint committee, mandated to develop areas of cooperation between both countries’ defence establishments, held its first meeting in New Delhi on 10 September 2012, and discussed proposals for exchange of high-level visits, training exchanges, ship visits and passage exercises during such visits.

Antony’s proposals for greater cooperation in hydrography and India-Saudi Arabia cooperation in defence production were also accepted by Riyadh. Apart from joint training in counter-insurgency and mountain warfare technique, Antony also suggested an active Saudi role in the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS).31
Conclusion

Former Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid, speaking at the fifth plenary session of the Manama Dialogue 2013, stated that the “vital security interests of the two sides are interlinked” and “defence is an emerging area of cooperation.” “The mutually beneficial engagement is based on an assessment of our national interests and our bilateral complementarities,” he added.32

As US dependence on Gulf energy resources declines, India’s relationship with the region is an increasingly symbiotic one. India will provide a dependable and long-term energy market to the Gulf, which could have greater potential to have its resources exploited through undersea and overland gas pipelines. India also has the capabilities and the will to not only safeguard its own coastline and island territories, but also contribute to keeping the region’s sea lines open and flowing.33

Saudi Arabia’s outreach to India is a consequence of altered political and economic realities within the Gulf region and beyond. The possibility of receding US political will and economic necessity to invest in Gulf security and safeguard the interests of its allies is a leading factor.

Strengthening India–Saudi Arabia ties is also vital for both countries when viewed through the prism of their geopolitical considerations. From the Saudi perspective, the importance of steering New Delhi away from a closer relationship with Tehran has been reinforced in the post-2003 regional security environment.

The fall of Saddam Hussein was followed by a mobilisation of Shia communities across Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon. This was not only a domestic setback to Riyadh but also a political setback because it empowered Shia Iran. Iran’s influence in the region also spread with the resilience of Assad in Syria, a Shia-led government in Baghdad and Hezbollah’s victories in Lebanon. Riyadh sought to balance against Iran’s regional ambitions through a US-led security framework in the region.

However, the nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran have changed this dynamic.

From the Indian perspective, a stronger partnership with a key regional player like Saudi Arabia balances against Islamabad’s influence in the region. While India’s relations with the Gulf were constrained in the post-Partition era, Pakistan mobilised Gulf support in its conflicts with India,34 much of which has endured till date. India can leverage a deeper partnership with Saudi Arabia to moderate this support, particularly that of funds to jihadi extremists.

There is greater potential for the development of India–Saudi Arabia partnership because it is evolving independent of both countries’ foreign policy imperatives. Pakistan, Israel and Iran are no longer the central focus of Indo–Saudi bilateral relations, thus widening the scope for political, economic and security cooperation. There is increasing recognition of the potential impact of this cooperation on the security dynamics of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean littoral. Geopolitical realities necessitate that India exploit this potential and increase defence participation in the Gulf region.

About the author:
Kanchi Gupta is a Junior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by The Observer Research Foundation as ORF Issue Brief Number 80, November 2014.

Endnotes:
1. Harsh V. Pant, “Pakistan and Iran’s dysfunctional relationship,” Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, Pages 43-50, http://www.meforum.org/2119/pakistan-and-irans-dysfunctional-relationship#_ftn3.
2. Kokab Farshori, “Saudi-Pakistan military ties get stronger,” Voice of America, http://www.voanews.com/content/saudi-pakistan-military-ties-getting-stronger/1855116.html.
“Pakistan, Saudi Arabia pledge to further expand ties,” Dawn, February 18, 2014, http://www.dawn.com/news/1087658/pakistan-saudi-arabia-pledge-to-further-expand-ties.
3. Taimur Khan, “Saudi Arabia and Pakistan forge stronger strategic alliance,” The National, February 10, 2014, http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-and-pakistan-forge-stronger-strategic- alliance.
“Pakistan sheds light on defence talks on China, S. Arabia,” Dawn, March 7, 2014, http://www.dawn.com/news/1091555.
4. “India has vital stakes with Gulf states, says foreign minister,” Al-Arabiya, February 28, 2014, http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/02/28/India-has-vital-stakes-with-Gulf-states- says-foreign-minister.html.
5. Bruce Riedel, “Saudi Arabia: Nervously Watching Pakistan,” The Brookings Institute, January 28, 2008, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/01/28-saudi-arabia-riedel.
6. Ibid.
7. Husain Haqqani, “The ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,March20,2005, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Ideologies.pdf.
8. “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia pledge to further expand ties,” The Dawn, February 18, 2014, http://www.dawn.com/news/1087658/pakistan-saudi-arabia-pledge-to-further-expand-ties.
9. C. Raja Mohan, “Bridging the Gulf,” The Indian Express, February 25, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/ article/opinion/columns/bridging-the-gulf/99/.
10. Shishir Gupta, “ISIS on mind, India sends IB chief to Saudi Arabia,” Hindustan Times, September 29, 2014, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/isis-on-mind-india-sends-ib-chief-to-saudi-arabia/article1- 1269535.aspx.
11. Harsh Pant, “China’s naval expansion in the Indian Ocean and India-China rivalry,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: JapanFocus,May3,2010, http://www.japanfocus.org/-Harsh_V_-Pant/3353.
12. “Crown Prince holds meeting with Chinese President,” Saudi Press Agency, March 14, 2013, http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/details.php?id=1209132.
13. Russell Hsiao, “China expands naval presence through Jeddah port call,” The Jamestown Foundation, December 17, 2010, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5 D=37292#.VBb2_pSSxfs.
14. John Calabrese, “Saudi Arabia and China extend ties beyond oil,” The Jamestown Foundation, September 27, 2005, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3895 &no_ache1#.VBbwq5SSxfs.
W.P.S. Sidhu, “Saudi Arabia, Iran and a three-way tango,” Brookings India, March 3, 2014, http://brookings.in/saudi-arabia-iran-and-a-three-way-tango/.
15. Zachary Keck, “Saudi Arabia may buy Pakistani-Chinese fighter jets,” The Diplomat, January 24, 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/saudi-arabia-may-buy-pakistani-chinese-fighter-jets/.
16. “Iran’s Zarif plans India visit to revive ties: Report,” The Business Standard, February 24, 2014, http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/iran-s-zarif-plans-india-visit-to-revive-ties-report- 114022401127_1.html.
17. Harsh Pant, “India-Iran ties: Myth of a ‘strategic partnership,” Center for Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, February 11, 2008, https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/iit/hpant.
18. Daniel Markey, “Saudi Arabia’s new strategic game in South Asia,” The National Interest, July 18, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/saudi-arabia%E2%80%99s-new-strategic-game-south-asia- 10909?page=show.
19. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on different news channels on January 30, 2011 to address the situation in Egypt. She stated that “we want to see an orderly transition so that no-one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government.”
20. Mohammad bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, “Saudi Arabia will go it alone,” The New York Times, December 17, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/saudi-arabia-will-go-it-alone.html.
21. John Kerry, Remarks at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 24, 2014, http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/01/220605.htm.
22. Ibid.
23. David D. Kirkpatrick and Eric Schmitt, “Arab nations strike in Libya surprising U.S.,” The New York Times, August 25, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/africa/egypt-and-united-arab-emirates- said-to-have-secretly-carried-out-libya-airstrikes.html.
24. Saudi Arabia has faced agitation movements within its borders driven by the Brotherhood’s calls for political reforms. These concerns eventually led the Kingdom to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. The Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt under the leadership of Mohammad Morsi in June 2013. However, Morsi was ousted from power in July 2013 following a popular revolt. General Fatah el-Sisi was voted as Egypt’s President in June 2014, who, along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, led a crackdown on the Brotherhood and its supporters.
25. Joint Statement on the occasion of the Official Visit of Crown Prince, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to India, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, February 28, 2014, http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/23014/Joint+Statement+on+ the+occasion+of+the+Official+Visit+of+Crown+Prince+Deputy+Prime+Minister+and+ Defence+Minister+of+the+Kingdom+of+Saudi+Arabia+to+India+2628+February+2014.
26. “Delhi Declaration, Signed by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh of India,” Consulate General of India, Jeddah, January 27, 2006, http://cgijeddah.mkcl.org/Content.aspx?ID=26453&PID=683.
27. Anand Giridharadas, “Saudi Arabia pursues a ‘look-East’ policy,” The New York Times, January 26, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/business/worldbusiness/26iht-saudi.html?pagewanted= all&_r=0.
28. Ibid.
29. “India-Saudi Arabia Relations,” Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, January 28, 2013, http://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Saudi_Arabia_Bilateral_Brief_for_website_- _28_January_2013.pdf.
30. “PM launches ‘Look West’ Policy to boost cooperation with Gulf,” Press Information Bureau, July 27, 2005, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=10534.
31. “India and Saudi Arabia agree to set up a Joint Committee on Defence Cooperation,” Press Information
Bureau, February 15, 2012, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=80322.
IONS is an India-led initiative that seeks to increase maritime cooperation among navies of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region. For more information see Indian Ocean Naval Symposium at http://ions.gov.in/about_ions.
32. Middle East Security and Non-proliferation: Salman Khurshid, Manama Dialogue 2013, Fifth Plenary Session, The IISS Regional Security Summit, December 8, 2013, https://www.iiss.org/en/events/ manama%20dialogue/ archive/manama-dialogue-2013-4e92/plenary-5-fbc6/khurshid-632c.
33. Ibid.
34. C. Raja Mohan, “India’s strategic challenges in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf,” in India’s growing role in the Gulf: Implications for the region and the United States, Gulf Research Center, 2009, Page 59, http://www.cftni.org/monograph-indias-growing-role-in-the-gulf.pdf.

The post India And Saudi Arabia: Scope For Greater Security Cooperation – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“I’m leaving, but not like before … this time forever … now, you should cry…I will never come to you again“ — Rock band “White Button“, Once Upon A Time

I’m trying to write something that might be similar to a coherent sentence, encrusted with literature. I just cannot get confused by the amount of evil and ignorance that I (we) am (are) surrounded.

A State that is not with its people who are, and here and now disappear in the collapse of nonsense that is surrounding us. Yes, the British Foreign Minister and German Foreign Minister have, as of this week, a new plan, a Strategy (to be more precise  “Bosnia and Herzegovina – a new strategic approach” as of 5.11.2014. made in Aspen for having Bosnia and Herzegovina to get closer and closer to Europe, but…

…Lawmakers frequently are targeting relentlessly the already exhausted citizens by imposing a ‘levy on the wilaya‘ with demands for incoherent increases in expenditures for their dreams (and indeed, they sleep at the sessions) within all levels of parliamentary democracy in the country of Bosnia (and Herzegovina).

Cultural institutions are disappearing under the influence of “Culture Policy” of the new rulers throwing into the ashes the legacy of ancestors who disappeared, dissolved in damp basements of museums and other institutions. Theaters cease their work because money for their livelihoods is gone. Writers print books with prices (although really small) that cannot cover the cost of printing unless you have a good backing in one of the (orthodox) institutions that purchase a complete circulation of the books that nobody reads. However, how to appreciate the published books?

According to whether it has been praised by a critic (lobbies through representing certain group – read people/nation) speaking about the Millennium qualities of written works and / or how many times different people (read-nationalities) write about that / those books written to one of (for now) three valid languages in our beloved country? Or according to who and how many times he/she finds himself/herself in one of the local and not to mention the foreign anthologies? Indeed, fellow writers, how many of us are in such position today?

Unemployment is up while the black market blossoms … At the stadium in Široki Brijeg (Herzegovina) openly chanting “Kill a Turk” (meaning Bosnian Muslim) and “stomp Bali’s” (bad word for Bosnian Muslim) with rattling to the silent Bosnian Anthem and with a hand on the heart as fervent anthem was from western neighbors. A and Sarajevo parquet Mirza’s Skenderija (Cultural and sport center called by late Mirza Delibadis, famous ex-Yugoslav basketball player) suffers shocks of thousands of lighters directed to the others (Croats and Serbs) who have different name than them (Muslim). Not to mention the smaller entity (RS- Republic of Srpska -for those who do not know) where the name of Bosnia and Herzegovina belonges to the finished past time…

The governing parties lose ground while splintered opposition is choking in totalitarian cramp of at least one (and sometimes more people) man…

Diseases all around the room … They die young. Just fall asleep and do not wake up.

Influenza, meningitis, leukemia, cancer … The citizens of Bosnia (and Herzegovina) are not those any more. The rest is just a word. Will it disappear also? Ask the researchers who will
in a thousand years as Indiana Jones look for buried treasure within these areas. They will not find it. Here there’s nothing. And neither of us will soon be.

Allah dear, my dear God, Budha of mine … Tell us finally why we all deserve this … Do not torture us anymore. The strength we do not longer have.

We die and we did not have die.

We are born and we have not been born.

Audiatur et altera pars …. For once, listen to us.

Or even those Ministers above from Aspen…at least.

The post Bosnia And Herzegovina And XXI Century: Stray Visions Of Its Own End – Essay appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The newspaper USA Today has corrected an erroneous report that claimed Archbishop Charles Chaput criticized the recent extraordinary Synod on the Family, rather than misleading media coverage of the event.

A correction to a USA Today story said that the Nov. 2 article erroneously reported that Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput said October’s synod caused “confusion.”

“The story did not include that Chaput said he believed confusion stemmed from news reports on the conference, not the conference itself,” the USA Today correction read.

The Nov. 2 newspaper story, titled “Pope Francis agitates conservative U.S. Catholics,” suggested that the archbishop was among those Catholics for whom Francis’ papacy “seems to be infuriating, worrying or just plain puzzling.”

Archbishop Chaput’s original comments came after he delivered an Oct. 20 lecture in New York City hosted by the interreligious journal First Things.

The lecture itself did not discuss the synod, but on the role of religious believers in modern America.

Archbishop Chaput’s comments about media coverage of the synod came in response to an attendee’s question about the synod.

“To get your information from the press is a mistake because they don’t know well enough how to understand it so they can tell people what happened,” the archbishop said. “I don’t think the press deliberately distorts, they just don’t have any background to be able to evaluate things. In some cases they’re certainly the enemy and they want to distort the Church.”

“Now, having said all that, I was very disturbed by what happened. I think confusion is of the devil, and I think the public image that came across was of confusion. Now, I don’t think that was the real thing there.”

The archbishop said the Church has a “clear position” on matters of marriage and Holy Communion, a topic of discussion at the synod.

Archbishop Chaput said, “I’m not fundamentally worried because I believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church.”

Other reports that have been called “misleading” appeared in Religion News Service and in the National Catholic Reporter-hosted blog “Distinctly Catholic,” authored by Michael Sean Winters.

Religion News Service’s Oct. 21 story was originally titled “Archbishop Chaput Blasts Vatican Debate on Family, says ‘Confusion is of the Devil’.” The title was later changed to “Archbishop Chaput ‘disturbed’ by Synod Debate, Says ‘Confusion is of the Devil’.”

Kenneth Gavin, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, said the Religion News Service headlines for its report inaccurately presented the archbishop as critical of the Vatican, when he was in fact criticizing “those who used the draft report from the Synod out of context to reinforce their own opinions and agendas.”

The post USA Today Corrects Inaccurate Report On Archbishop Chaput, Synod appeared first on Eurasia Review.

NATO doesn’t have the necessary funds to meet the demands of US lawmakers and purchase French-built Mistral warships in order to prevent Russia from getting the vessels, a military source said.

“NATO’s budget is too small to not only purchase Russia-ordered Mistral helicopter carriers, but to even compensate France half of the penalties in accordance with the contract,” a military source in Brussels, Belgium told TASS news agency.

NATO’s military and civilian budget for 2014 amounts $ 1.6 billion, while the penalty for non-delivery of the two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia could reach $ 3 billion, the source explained.

“Moreover, NATO simply doesn’t have a structure that could receive the ships. The Alliance has almost no military equipment of its own. So there would be no use in the helicopter carriers even if the money to purchase them is found,” the source said.

The idea of buying the Mistral vessels is “absurd from a military point of view” because the ships are “custom-built in accordance with Russian standards, which makes their use by NATO highly problematic and will require additional, expensive refitting,” he stressed.

The source has called the proposal by the US senators “a purely political project, in which NATO as an organization is physically unable to participate.”

“The main irony in this situation” is that even if several NATO member states will be able to allocate the necessary funds and purchase the ships – it’s not France, but Russia, which will get the money, he said.

“The contract has been paid and the redemption price will go to Moscow,” which today is “probably” more interested in money than in Mistral and “does not look too concerned” about the problem with delivery.

“The fact that this logic isn’t obvious to the US congressmen may only cause disappointment among allies and laughter among the Russians,” he concluded.

The comment comes in response to Friday news that eight US lawmakers forwarded a letter to NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, urging the Alliance to purchase the Mistral vessels.

“Sensitive to the financial burden that France may incur should it rightly refuse to transfer these warships to Russia, we renew our call that NATO purchase or lease the warships as a common naval asset,” the letter said as quoted by The Hill website.

“Such a decisive move by NATO isn’t without precedent and would show President Putin that our rhetorical resolve is matched by our actual resolve and that this Alliance will not tolerate or abet his dangerous actions in Europe,” it added.

NATO headquarters confirmed that it received a letter, but provided no official comments on the possibility of the purchase of the ships.

Russia and France signed a €1.12 billion ($1.6 billion) contract for building two Mistral-type ships in June 2011.

Under the deal, Russia was supposed to receive the first of the two warships, the Vladivostok, in October this year.

However, the delivery has been postponed due the pressure on France by the US, which imposed several waves of sanctions against Moscow over its accession of Crimea and the crisis in Ukraine.

The second Mistral-class helicopter carrier, the Sevastopol, is scheduled to be handed over to Russia in 2015.

The post NATO Unable To Purchase Russia-Bound French Warships appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran’s judiciary should quash the conviction of Ghoncheh Ghavami for “propaganda against the state” and immediately release her since the charge is on its face a punishment for peaceful speech and protest, Human Rights Watch said today. Ghavami, a dual Iranian-British national, was arrested June 30, 2014 after protesting a ban on women attending volleyball matches. She began a hunger strike on November 2 to protest her detention, her brother Iman Ghavami told Human Rights Watch.

The International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) has called on the Iranian government to release Ghavami, and affirmed its commitment to “inclusivity and the right of women to participate in sport on an equal basis.” Nevertheless, on November 2, the Asian Volleyball Confederation reportedly announced that it had selected Iran to co-host the 2015 Asian Men’s Volleyball Championships. Ghavami’s conviction and Iran’s continuing ban on women spectators should prompt the FIVB to step up its actions on her behalf and for equal access to sporting events, Human Rights Watch said.

“The list of people Iran has jailed for demanding their rights is a long one,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives. “To that list we can now add a courageous voice for women’s right to watch a sporting event.”

A Tehran revolutionary court convicted Ghavami in a closed trial on October 14. On November 1, her lawyer, Mahmoud Alizadeh Tabatabaei, told the Iranian Labour News Agency that the court had yet to issue the written judgment, which would explain the basis for the guilty verdict. Tabatabaei said that Iranian law requires courts to issue their written verdicts within one week of a trial’s conclusion. The delay in this case has fueled fears that authorities may bring additional charges against Ghavami, a family friend following the case, told Human Rights Watch.

Tabatabaei said that he was not able to meet with his client except on October 14, the day of the trial.

Security authorities initially arrested Ghavami and about 20 others on June 20 after they protested a ban preventing women from entering the Azadi Sports Complex to watch a match between Iran and Italy. The protesters were taken to Tehran’s Vozara Detention Center, where women arrested for breaches of the Islamic dress code are often held. Officials released Ghavami after several hours, but re-arrested her on June 30, when she returned to the detention facility to collect her phone.

Iman Ghavami said that security officials then searched his sister’s home, confiscated her laptop and other possessions, and transferred her to Evin prison, where she remains. Ghavami spent her first 41 days in solitary confinement in section 2A of Evin prison , he said. It is believed that Section 2A is controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

On September 22, Iran’s judiciary spokesperson said that Ghavami’s arrest was for national security reasons and “has nothing to do with sports.” However, no judiciary or other state officials has disclosed any of the evidence used to convict Ghavami.

The male-only policy for spectators at volleyball matches dates to 2012, when the Sports and Youth Affairs Ministry extended the existing policy on soccer matches to cover volleyball. Iranian officials claim that mixed attendance at sports events is un-Islamic, threatens public order, and exposes women to crude behavior by male fans.

Human Rights Watch urged the FIVB in a September 29 letter to raise Ghavami’s case with the Iranian government and to ensure that “the FIVB will not, in the future, authorize games in venues where the entry policy or national laws violate the principle of non-discrimination on gender and other prohibited grounds.”

The FIVB responded that it had sent a letter to President Hassan Rouhani urging him to reconsider the decision to keep Ghavami under arrest. In an October 21 meeting with Human Rights Watch staff, the FIVB affirmed its commitment to inclusivity and the right of women to participate in sports and said that Iran would not be able to host a world championship or any international event until this problem is solved.

On November 1, at the FIVB World Congress in Cagliari, Italy, Dr. Ary S. Graça, the body’s president, publicly called for the release of Ghavami and declared, “[W]omen throughout the world should be allowed to watch and participate in volleyball on an equal basis.” The Asian Volleyball Confederation’s announcement came the next day.

“Sports associations have no business bringing events to countries where women will not be welcome as spectators – or where they could get attacked or arrested for cheering a team,” Worden said. “Sporting bodies and leaders need to agree that they will not back mega-sporting event host countries that violate the sport’s fundamental commitment to equality.”

Human Rights Watch has called on organizers of international sporting events to include non-discrimination clauses in their host city contracts, following the decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in September to include that requirement. The IOC has informed the finalists bidding for the 2022 Winter Games of this requirement.

“The FIVB took a positive stand for the principle of gender non-discrimination in sports – a principle that Ghoncheh Ghavami is paying an enormous price for,” Worden said. “Countries that discriminate against women who want to play or watch sports should quite simply be denied the chance to host international competitions until they change their policies and play by the rules.”

The post Iran: Free Woman In Sports Protest Case, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

GCC member states are working to establish a joint human rights body at the bloc’s general secretariat to help curb domestic violence at the regional level.

“The move to establish the rights agency was prompted by the growing number of domestic violence incidents reported throughout the Gulf countries,” said a GCC statement on Saturday.

“Plans are being prepared to set up the human rights office at the GCC base in Riyadh,” said the body’s chief Abdullateef Al-Zayani, according to the statement.

The GCC is concerned about domestic violence, child protection, acts of torture and abuse mainly involving children and women, as well as maltreatment of domestics in the Gulf, added Al-Zayani.

Al-Zayani, who participated in a forum on violence and security in Doha late last week, said that the GCC countries will use all means to fight abuse and domestic violence and to put up a united front against it at the regional level. He also revealed plans to introduce a unified law to fight domestic violence in the Gulf.

He welcomed the tough measures introduced by some Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia to curb this social evil.

Saudi Arabia adopted a regulation in July 2013 that guarantees domestics nine hours of rest daily, one day off a week, and one month of paid vacation after two years of service.

Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has announced plans to appoint 150 judges to deal with domestic violence cases.

A report quoting Nasser Al-Oud, adviser to the justice minister and general supervisor of the social services department, said there are 177 cases of domestic violence currently before Saudi courts involving women and children, including assault, rape and forced confinement.

He said the training would allow judges to handle cases more effectively.

In August last year, the Saudi government passed a law criminalizing domestic abuse. “Penalties for domestic abuse were recently raised from a month to one year in prison, and from SR5,000 to SR50,000 in fines in the Kingdom,” he said. However, many other Gulf countries have so far not taken such strict measures to curb domestic violence. For example, Qatar currently does not have a specific law criminalizing domestic violence that also includes rape.

According to a report issued by the Qatar Foundation for the Protection of Women and Children, the number of reported cases about violence against women rose by 54 percent between 2011 and 2013. In Kuwait, the legislation process also remains in its infancy. It is important to note here that Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Oman either exclude domestic workers from their labor laws completely, or have very lax provisions for their protection.

The post GCC Declares War On Domestic Violence appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jamal Doumani

Over the last six years, President Obama’s administration has shown itself to be a dismal failure in its domestic policy as in its foreign policy. That at least appears to be the verdict of voters in the mid-term elections held last Tuesday across the US.

For most Americans, domestic policy translates primarily as how well the economy is managed and President Obama has led a nation during his tenure that suffered a prolonged six-year economic decline.

On the eve of the elections, for example, where democratic candidates were trounced — surrendering a Senate they had handily controlled — roughly 2.2 million Americans were unemployed, comprising individuals who, in the words of the federal government’s monthly report on the economy, “were marginally attached to the labor force” and who had unsuccessfully “looked for a job sometime in the prior twelve months.” A chief executive who presides over, and is ultimately held accountable by the electorate for, that kind of performance is likely to see his party lose in mid-term elections — and potentially in 2016.

Americans, you see, have come to look at prosperity in their lives as an entitlement. Consider, in this regard, America’s wealth creation over the years: As the millennium opened in 2000, according to the Federal Reserve, the increase — the increase, alone — in the net worth of American households was approximately equal to the total annual income of the three billion people of China, India, Russia and Brazil combined. True, this disparity began to narrow recently, but we are still looking at an astonishing economic fact that the average American is not only blaze about but takes for granted.

For decades after World War II, the United States enjoyed an annual average growth rate of 3.3 percent —and still found enough time and enough cash lying around to help rebuild Europe under the Marshall Plan. Over the last six years, however, under Obama’s stewardship, that growth plunged to 2.5 percent in 2010 and 1.9 percent in 2013 — and is still plunging, despite a recent uptick in employment figures.

President Obama has not only failed his constituency at home, but he also has failed his constituency abroad, for he had one there as well. More than six years ago, while campaigning for president, he mesmerized Americans with his sonorous rhetoric. Yes, we can, he hollered. They believed him. And they voted for him. On his overseas trips, he equally mesmerized Germans in 2008 when he addressed 200,000 ecstatic Berliners at the Brandenburg Gate, and a year later, in an effort to “mend a severely damaged relationship” between the US and the Muslim world under George W. Bush, he gave a speech before a large invite-only audience at Cairo University.

Yes, he declaimed there, it’s all about the audacity of hope. He was trusted. And he was applauded. Obama, as we say, talked the talk and walked the walk. He was an African-American, the first to aim for and finally occupy the White House. He knew how to string his words together and make them sing. Lest we forget, the deepest energies of the black soul are always expressed in idiom and music. And who could resist the charms of a man who is able to address a crowd as touchingly as a jazz soloist is able to jam on his sax?

But in his foreign policy, as in his domestic policy, Barack Hussein Obama just didn’t cut it, for he turned out to be a detached president who shunned — almost dreaded — American engagement in our part of the world, especially in Syria and Palestine, where in the former he appeared to be giving a tyrant like Bashar Assad a lot of slack and in the latter he appeared to be letting a brazen expansionist like Benjamin Netanyahu walk all over him.

Middle-class, middle-brow, middle-aged, middle-Americans from, say, Kansas or Ohio may not overly care about, or fully understand, their government’s foreign policy (unless we’re talking about Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, where America was conducting the war there on credit and where 65,000 Americans were killed), but they do feel that policy’s trickle-down effect on their financial lives. And for the last six years, they have chafed at the erosion of their place in the world.

And the erosion is all too real. In his new and critically acclaimed book, “Losing Our Way: An Intimate Portrait of a Troubled America”, Bob Herbert, former columnist for the New York Times, writes about his country’s sense of aimlessness in recent years, the aimlessness evinced domestically in the anemic recovery (if recovery it was) of the Great Recession and evinced internationally in the morass of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“As I traveled the country,” he tells his readers, “I couldn’t help but notice that something fundamental in the very character of the United States had shifted. There was a sense of powerlessness and resignation among ordinary people that I hadn’t been used to seeing.

The country seemed demoralized.”

Now who wouldn’t give a drubbing at the polls to those responsible for this mess?

The post Why Democrats Got A Drubbing – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The tentacles of Islamic State (IS), already coiled around large areas of northern Iraq and Syria, are now reaching out as far as northern Sinai. Egypt’s most active militant group is Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, and whether or not it is formally allied with IS and its leader, the self-styled caliph of all Muslims – contradictory reports about that have recently appeared in the press – it is certainly closely aligned to IS, whose objectives it backs, and whose methods it copies. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which attempted to kill the interior minister in Cairo in 2013 in a car bomb attack, has issued videos of the beheading of captives. It claimed responsibility for the bomb attack in Sinai in September, when at least 11 policemen were killed in a convoy travelling through village of Wefaq, near the Gaza border.

Based on intercepted phone calls and text messages, Egyptian security officials recently claimed to have uncovered requests for aid from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis to IS. According to this intelligence, the Sinai-based terror group requested the IS senior leadership to send trained members to Sinai to help carry out terrorist attacks.

On Friday, October 24, two attacks in the Sinai peninsula killed 33 Egyptian security personnel. In the first, in the al-Kharouba area northwest of al-Arish, near the Gaza Strip, 30 people were killed and more than 25 wounded. Among them were several senior officers from Egypt’s Second Field Army based in Ismailia. One Sinai-based official said a rocket-propelled grenade was used to target two armored vehicles loaded with ammunition and heavy weapons, at a checkpoint near an army installation. Later, gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint in al-Arish, killing three members of the security forces.

Together the two attacks produced the biggest loss of life in decades for Egypt’s army, which has been carrying out an offensive against jihadists in northern Sinai. Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi declared three days of national mourning, during which state television displayed black ribbons on screen. Following a meeting of the National Defence Council, he also imposed a three-month state of emergency in the north and centre of the Sinai peninsula where the violence took place, and closed Egypt’s Rafah crossing into the Gaza Strip.

In short, Egypt now acknowledges that the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip has become one of the region’s main exporters of terrorism, and is mounting a major offensive aimed at overcoming the threat and re-establishing effective control. Its aim is to establish a security buffer zone along its shared border with Gaza in order to prevent terrorists from using smuggling tunnels to launch attacks on Egyptian soldiers and civilians. The Egyptian army’s security crackdown includes imposing a curfew on the region, closing the Rafah crossing into Gaza, demolishing hundreds of houses along the border with the Gaza Strip and transferring thousands of people to new locations. In other words – words familiar from their frequent use in castigating Israel – the Egyptians are tightening their blockade on Gaza and collectively punishing not only Hamas, but the Palestinians living there.

But, as Middle East journalist Khaled Abu Toamen wryly observes, though all this is happening before the eyes of the international community and media, the UN Security Council has not been asked to hold an emergency meeting to condemn what some Egyptian human rights activists describe as the “transfer” and “displacement” of hundreds of families in Sinai.

“Needless to say,” writes Abu Toamen, “the international community will continue to ignore Egypt’s bulldozing hundreds of houses and the forcible eviction of hundreds of people in Sinai. Egypt’s war does not seem to worry the international community and human rights organizations, at least not as much as Israel’s operation to stop rockets and missiles from being fired into it from the Gaza Strip.”

He believes that the Egyptians, who once thought that the tunnels along their shared border with Gaza were being used only to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip, now think they are also being used to smuggle weapons and terrorists out. Accordingly they have sealed off their border with Gaza, insulating themselves from Hamas.

Meanwhile, following the firing of a rocket from Gaza into southern Israel on November 2 – the second since the end of Operation Protective Edge on August 26 – Israel has also closed the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings to Gaza “until the security situation allows their reopening”, according to an Israeli Defense Ministry spokesperson, who added that the closure was not meant as a punitive measure, but to protect people working at or passing through the crossings. Emergency humanitarian goods would continue to be allowed through.

Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzouk declared that the Israeli closure of the crossings violates the cease-fire agreement which ended Operation Protective Edge, and called the decision “a childish and irresponsible act. This is collective punishment that is being imposed on the Gaza Strip.” But Hamas leaders like the Egyptian actions even less. On November 2 they appealed to the Egyptian authorities to reopen the Rafah border crossing, warning that the continued blockade on the Gaza Strip was in violation of the Egyptian-engineered cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. Eyad al-Bazam, spokesman for Hamas’s Interior Ministry, pointed out that the closure of the Rafah terminal was preventing Palestinians with humanitarian cases from leaving the Gaza Strip.

However Egypt is convinced that the two-pronged attack on October 24 that killed 33 soldiers was the work of Palestinian militants based in Gaza. Egypt’s Major General Sameeh Beshadi told the Arab newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, that there was “no doubt that Palestinian elements had taken part in the attacks.” According to Beshadi, the militants, who infiltrated Sinai via tunnels linking the peninsula to the Gaza Strip, prepared the booby-trapped vehicle used to attack the army checkpoint near El Arish. The use of rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, he asserted, was proof that this attack, like all the large-scale attacks in the area in recent years “involved well-trained Palestinian elements.”

Just at the moment Hamas needs Egypt much more than Egypt needs Hamas. Hamas’s ability to emerge with any credit from its latest conflict with Israel is dependent on the outcome of the indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks on the Gaza truce, being brokered by Egypt in Cairo. It must therefore feel very uncomfortable with the result of the recent terrorist outrage in Sinai – namely, Egypt’s postponement of the latest round of talks until late-November. This may explain why Hamas has denied that its operatives were responsible for firing the rocket that hit the Eshkol region of southern Israel last week, and has arrested five men it accuses of the attack.

Perhaps Egypt can succeed where Israel has notably failed – in convincing the leaders of Hamas that terrorism is a two-edged weapon that can bring an unwelcome retribution down on its perpetrators.

The post Egypt’s War On Terrorism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia has a new figurehead to condone its actions and degradation. His credentials include: the Nobel Peace Prize and he has a host of other awards and honorary degrees from all over the world. He is the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Soviet Union, President, Mikhail Gorbachev. His mission is to congratulate the Russian Federation’s actions and the leadership of Vladimir Putin and at the same time, he is to blame the West for all of the faults and failures of the new Russian empire. Gorbachev is apparently here to approve of this new empire.

It is not only Mikhail Gorbachev’s long list of Soviet Union reform accolades that place him in a position of prestige and secular moral authority, but the power that the West gave him by acknowledging his role as the pivotal figure for ending the Cold War. Meanwhile, U.S. President Ronald Reagan can be cited by American textbooks as an instigator of the Cold War conflict while all the praise and about-face action of the Soviet Union is accredited by Mikhail Gorbachev’s benign vision for world peace is highly celebrated. U.S. President George H.W. Bush does not get enough credit either. It was Reagan that demanded Gorbachev “tear down” the Berlin Wall as a symbol to set Eastern Europe free, but it was the reality and conditions facing Gorbachev from all sides that forced his hand into what resulted as positive action.

The present Russian establishment is blatantly using the aging Mr. Gorbachev as a mouthpiece for the purposes of legitimacy and for the West to second-guess any military resistance to escalating Russian aggression. The sad irony is that the West has over decades given them this ability to do so; although, at the time, the purpose of awarding Gorbachev with prizes was for reconciliation and encouragement of liberal values and the elimination of a totalitarian Soviet Union. But even from the start, Gorbachev was a reform Marxist who favored “socialist markets” and strong state political control to be held out as long as possible and under his domain. He did not desire to destroy a tyrannical Soviet system in with any “Moscow Spring” but to make it more efficient or by extending its life. After all, reform was a way of life after Joseph Stalin. It was Boris Yeltson’s opposition that eventually stole Russia from underneath Gorbachev’s grasp. But Gorbachev’s political pickle between hardline conservatives who attempted a coup and liberals who took advantage of his every move that acted as the real domestic political climate.

So, in reality, Mikhail Gorbachev’s bitterness and reluctance to implement grand reforms known as glasnost and perestroika could be seen and felt even at the time of his short reign from within the Soviet Union. Even democratization was just another political ploy and intended only as a vehicle to promote his political agenda, not a stamp of approval for the development of liberal democracy in Russia.

Everything Gorbachev did was to accelerate himself, his agenda and prevent the fall of the Soviet Union and not to endorse any true liberal equivalent. He has never been nor will he become anytime soon a liberal. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was internally a result of Boris Yeltson’s position of power after the conservative coup against him. Before that, he experienced the bitter defeat in Afghanistan due to hard resistance and Western intelligence operations. By officially allowing for their self-determination inside the Eastern Bloc countries, Gorbachev was attempting to ensure communist party influence without the use of military force against anti-communist militancy or the potential for it. And it failed to win any gains with communists but the uprisings that followed did throw off the yoke of communism and the Soviet choke hold were largely peaceful. Nevertheless, the whole purpose and stated reason was of limiting Soviet military interventionism and preventing future revolts or uprisings in Eastern Europe, like in the past, but that could become Afghanistan and destroy Russia.

So it was not out of any deep love for human rights and peace but a result of fear that Gorbachev based many of his political actions. Those fears were the result of communist mismanagement as well as external military pressure and response readiness from a committed Western alliance. Otherwise they equated to what President Ronald Reagan called the “Evil Empire” in spite of decades of varied reforms.

Gorbachev’s true views of favor bestowed on his one-time Soviet Union are out in the open with what he calls the Western “triumphalism” and how bad of shape the world is in now because of a lack of a bi-polar counterbalance and the U.S. not listening. The outdated message is an anachronistic derision of 2003 unipolarism and the Invasion of Iraq, but which no longer applies in the case with of the present Western-Russian stand-off. This thinking alone would indicate his strong support for the Soviet Union as a critical and positive player in global affairs if there were not already so much evidence for this perspective. Also, this pervasive defeatist resentment by the hands of the Americans and Europe is shared by the current Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian population at large.

The current Russian ethno-nationalism and expansionism to revive Soviet Union geopolitical claims have nothing to do with U.S. actions and everything to do with negative Russian Federation misperceptions and over-aggression. NATO expansionism is consensual and not coercive. The states turn to NATO to get away from Russian intimidation. These recent aggressive Russian actions are the result of a dictatorial cult-of-personality with President Vladimir Putin at the epicenter of it all. Unfortunately, this rally-round-the-flag has infected most of Russia, and particular their political elite, both old and new.

But Gorbachev is more than just another voice of calling in the distant Russian winds, he now has the capacity to acts as a very powerful “voice of Russia.” Most importantly, he has been empowered by the Western embrace for over two decades. Now he is in a perfect position to bite the proverbial liberal hands that have fed him political praise, which equates to legitimacy power, and placed him on the pedestal of history, only so he can now blame Europe and the Americans for Russian militancy while he watches his nation return to the authoritarian or totalitarian rule, he is celebrated as leaving. It is indeed an interesting twist.

Vladimir Putin represents the total and complete opposite of everything the Gorbachev character in the revised Western history books tell us that he stood by. In fact, if there is one person that Gorbachev should utterly hate the most and speak out against with all his might, that person is Vladimir Putin, whose is directly responsible for sending Russia back in time into its dark ages.

At the 25th anniversary summit of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gorbachev said that “the world is on the brink of a new Cold War.” That is true, but only because Russia is provoking one with land grabs, mock elections, aerial incursions, show trials, nationalization of industries, human rights abuses, political assassinations, etc. The new Russian pope asks the West to make the efforts to drop sanctions against Russia and return to the negotiation table and not for Russia to reverse course.

The very man credited with bringing down the Berlin Wall risks helping Putin build another one.

*First Published by In Homeland Security.

The post Gorbachev Warns Of New Cold War – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Eight percent of your genome derives from retroviruses that inserted themselves into human sex cells millions of years ago. Right now the koala retrovirus (KoRV) is invading koala genomes, a process that can help us understand our own viral lineage and make decisions about managing this vulnerable species.

In a recent study, published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, scientists from the University of Illinois discovered that 39 different KoRVs in a koala’s genome were all endogenous, which means passed down to the koala from one parent or the other; one of the KoRVs was found in both parents.

Koalas are the only known organisms where a retrovirus is transitioning from exogenous to endogenous. An exogenous retrovirus infects a host, inserts its genetic information into the cell’s DNA, and uses the host cell’s machinery to manufacture more viruses. When an exogenous retrovirus infects an egg or sperm cell and the viral genetic information is then passed down to the host’s offspring, the virus becomes an endogenous retrovirus (ERV).

Becoming part of the koala genome

Like humans, koalas have evolutionary defenses against endogenization.

“During the early stages of endogenization, there are huge numbers of retroviruses. KoRVs are present all across koalas’ genomes, with many thousands or tens of thousands of KoRVs in the population,” said Alfred Roca, a Professor of Animal Sciences and member of the Institute for Genomic Biology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Over time most of them will disappear because these copies of the virus may be present in as few as one individual chromosome. If that one individual happens to not reproduce, or if it reproduces and the other chromosome is passed down, then that ERV will disappear.”

In order to end up with 100 ERVs in an organism, the species may have to start with 10,000 ERVs in its ancestors, Roca said. It takes retroviruses, like KoRV, many thousands of years to become a fixed part of the koala genome, like the eight percent of retroviral DNA that all humans share.

The ERVs that are successfully passed down are protected by the koala’s DNA repair mechanisms so that their rate of mutation is extremely low. Based on the dearth of mutations in the endogenous koala retroviruses, Roca’s team was able to estimate that the KoRVs integrated into the host germ line less than 50,000 years ago. “This is quite recent compared with other ERVs that are millions of years old and have accumulated mutations,” said first author Yasuko Ishida, a research specialist in Roca’s lab.

Overcoming retroviral fitness effects

In koalas, KoRV has been linked to leukemia, lymphoma, and immune suppression, which can lead to increased susceptibility to chlamydia.

“It seems likely that for thousands of years since this virus integrated, the koala host has suffered fitness effects,” Roca said. “It is possible that across species, when a host lineage has been invaded by ERVs, it had to go through this process of adaptation between host and virus, which is a very sad finding. It may be a very long, slow, painful process for the host species, one which human ancestors have gone through and overcome many times in the distant past.”

In mammals, retroviral DNA is associated with placental development and has been found to protect hosts from harmful exogenous retroviruses.

“But once retroviruses become part of the host, they begin to help the host because that is how they survive,” Roca said. “They will be better off if they evolve to protect the host. Over time, the detrimental effects go down and the beneficial effects go up.”

Conserving koala populations

In the 1900s, koalas were extensively hunted for their fur. In an effort to preserve koalas, a few individuals were moved to an island off the coast of Australia. Years later, the inbred island population was reintroduced to southern Australia. Today some of the southern koalas remain uninfected while almost all northern koalas have dozens of KoRVs in their genomes.

“Which is the lesser of two evils?” Roca said. “Do you try to conserve genetic diversity, which is present in the northern populations along with the retrovirus or do you conserve southern populations that don’t have the retrovirus but are horribly inbred?”

Roca’s research team included research specialist Yasuko Ishida, graduate student Kai Zhao, and scientific collaborator Alex Greenwood of the Leibnitz Institute in Berlin. Their work was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The San Diego Zoo, Columbus Zoo, San Francisco Zoo, and Riverbanks Zoo provided the koala samples.

The post Koala Study Reveals Clues About Origins Of Human Genome appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The US White House released this week a Fact Sheet regarding the Administration’s strategy to counter the Islamic State. Following is that complete White House press release.

FACT SHEET: The Administration’s Strategy to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Updated FY 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations Request

ISIL poses an immediate threat to Iraq, Syria, and American allies and partners throughout the region as it seeks to overthrow governments, control territory, terrorize local populations, and implement an oppressive and intolerant interpretation of sharia law.  If left unchecked, ISIL could pose a growing threat to the United States and others beyond the region.  Thousands of foreign fighters – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined ISIL in Syria and Iraq.  We are concerned that these trained and battle-hardened fighters will try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.  At the same time, ISIL is attempting to assert itself as the leader of the global jihad.  ISIL remains well-resourced and has demonstrated an ability to recruit and radicalize through social media.

The United has built a global coalition of willing partners with the goal of degrading and ultimately defeating ISIL.  The President has set forward a comprehensive strategy featuring nine lines of effort to counter ISIL:

• Supporting Effective Governance in Iraq:  We are supporting the new Iraqi government on efforts to govern inclusively and effectively as well as to strengthen its cooperation with regional partners.
• Denying ISIL Safe-Haven: We are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Working with the Iraqi government, we are striking ISIL targets and supporting Iraqi forces on the ground. We will degrade ISIL’s leadership, logistical and operational capability, and deny it sanctuary and resources to plan, prepare and execute attacks.
• Building Partner Capacity: We will build the capability and capacity of our partners in the region to sustain an effective long-term campaign against ISIL. Our advisors are working to advise Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces, to improve their ability to plan, lead, and conduct operations against ISIL, and we will provide training to help the Iraqis reconstitute their security forces and establish a National Guard.  Our train and equip program will strengthen the Syrian moderate opposition and help the defend territory from ISIL.
• Enhancing Intelligence Collection on ISIL:  Continuing to gain more fidelity on ISIL’s capabilities, plans, and intentions is central to our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy the group, and we will continue to strengthen our ability to understand this threat, as well as to share vital information with our Iraqi and Coalition partners to enable them to effectively counter ISIL.
• Disrupting ISIL’s Finances:  ISIL’s expansion over the past year has given it access to significant and diverse sources of funding.  So, we are working aggressively with our partners on a coordinated approach to reduce ISIL’s revenue from oil and assets it has plundered; limit ISIL’s ability to extort local populations; stem ISIL’s gains from kidnapping for ransom; and disrupt the flow of external donations to the group.
• Exposing ISIL’s True Nature:  Clerics around the world have spoken up in recent weeks to highlight ISIL’s hypocrisy, condemning the group’s savagery and criticizing its self-proclaimed “caliphate.”  We are working with our partners throughout the Muslim world to highlight ISIL’s hypocrisy and counter its false claims of acting in the name of religion.
• Disrupting the Flow of Foreign Fighters:  Foreign terrorist fighters are ISIL’s lifeblood, and a global security threat—with citizens of nearly 80 countries filling its ranks.  On September 24, the President convened an historic Summit-level meeting of the UN Security Council, focused on this issue and we will continue to lead an international effort to stem the flow of fighters into Syria and Iraq.
• Protecting the Homeland: We will continue to use the criminal justice system as a critical counterterrorism tool, work with air carriers to implement responsible threat-based security and screening requirements, and counter violent extremism here at home.
• Humanitarian Support:  We and our partners will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the displaced and vulnerable in Iraq and Syria.

Pursuing the nine lines of effort to advance the comprehensive strategy is a whole of government effort.

FY 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Amendment

The Administration will submit an updated FY 2015 OCO request to Congress for the Department of Defense (DOD), the Intelligence Community (IC), and the Department of State and Other International Programs (State/OIP).  These amendments request $5.6 billion for OCO activities to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

These OCO amendments would provide resources for DOD and State/OIP for operations and activities that were not anticipated when the Administration submitted its June 2014 OCO budget request.

Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)

In support of OIR, the OCO amendments include $5.0 billion for DOD to conduct a range of military operations against ISIL in the Middle East region, which includes the $1.6 billion Iraq Train and Equip Fund.  These operations directly support the components of the Administration’s strategy that aim to deny ISIL a safe-haven and expand intelligence collection against ISIL.  Funds include items such as:

• sustaining personnel forward deployed to the Middle East to provide training, advice, and assistance to partner security forces engaged in the fight against ISIL;
• providing forces with enablers to support operations, especially the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms and support that are essential to conduct comprehensive counterterrorism operations;
• replenishing or replacing munitions expended while conducting airstrikes against ISIL, including from Air Force and Navy platforms; and
• financing operations and maintenance costs for air, ground, and naval operations, including: flying hours; ship steaming days; and fuel, supplies, and repair parts.

The proposed OCO funding is in addition to the $58.6 billion DOD OCO request sent to the Congress in June 2014, which included the costs of operations in Afghanistan, DOD’s forward military presence in the broader Middle East region, and other critical missions.  The costs of military operations against ISIL in the Middle East region were not included in the June 2014 request, and DOD requires additional funding in order to avoid diverting funding from other key priorities within its budget.

Building Partner Capacity

DOD’s request supports the President’s strategy in terms of building partner capacity with the $1.6 billion Iraq Train and Equip Fund (ITEF).  ITEF will provide the resources to help reconstitute and develop security forces.  The funding will allow for training at multiple sites throughout Iraq for approximately twelve Iraqi brigades.  Coalition members will also play a critical role in the training of these forces. DoD will provide training, supplies, and equipment for Iraqi forces.  ITEF will complement other efforts to enable partners to counter terrorism, such as the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) requested as part of the Administration’s June 2014 OCO request.

Funding for State/OIP

The amendments include $520 million in funding for State/OIP, which is in addition to the $7.3 billion total OCO request for State/OIP in the FY 2015 Budget and June OCO amendment including CTPF.  The existing request provides funding for diplomacy, governance, and security programs and activities to respond to the situation in Syria and other ongoing global crises.  This amendment includes additional resources to counter ISIL in Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the region – directly linked to denying ISIL Safe Haven, Building Partner Capacity, Exposing ISIL’s True Nature and Humanitarian Support lines of effort.

The funds will support the following activities: 

• Bolstering regional partners and their efforts to address extremist threats along their borders;
• Expanding ongoing assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition to develop their capacity to provide local security for communities;
• Providing assistance to meet emergency humanitarian needs in Iraq; and
• Exposing ISIL’s bankrupt ideology and narrative by amplifying positive messaging through international media and public diplomacy programs.

The post White House: Fact Sheet For Administration’s Strategy To Counter Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

While an Ebola epidemic has been raging in West Africa since March 2014, an outbreak of this haemorrhagic fever occurred in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in August, leaving fears over the virus’ spread to Central Africa. A study by the IRD, the Institut Pasteur, the CNRS, the CIRMF in Gabon, the INRB in DRC and the WHO, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 16 October 2014, confirms that it is an Ebola epidemic. However, this particular epidemic is due to a local strain of the virus, different from the one rife in the West of the continent. While this result shows the two epidemics are not linked, it illustrates the speed at which the disease has emerged. It is therefore urgent that we understand just how the disease is spread.

With the world’s eyes focused on West Africa, where several countries have been affected since March 2014 by the most serious Ebola epidemic ever witnessed, the WHO reported another outbreak in the North of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 24 August. It was therefore essential to verify whether this second epidemic stemmed from that of West Africa, indicating its spread to Central Africa.

A different strain

Researchers from the IRD, the Institut Pasteur, the CNRS, the CIRMF in Gabon and the INRB in the DRC, in collaboration with WHO experts, reveal that it is a new outbreak of haemorrhagic fever, separate from the West-African outbreak. The CIRMF has performed whole genome sequencing of the virus responsible using a high-throughput sequencer that is unique to Sub-Saharan Africa. It confirms that it is a virus from the Ebola species, but shows that the Congolese strain is different from the one in West Africa. Moreover, it appears to be very similar to those that ravaged in the DRC and Gabon between 1995 and 1997.

A contained epidemic

This result means that the Congolese outbreak is due to a local viral strain, which has been controlled. This epidemic began on 26 July 2014 when a woman fell ill a few days after cutting up a monkey found dead in the forest. To date, 70 cases have been confirmed, including 42 deaths, giving a fatality rate of around 60%, similar to that observed in West Africa. The epidemic peak was observed in the week of 24 August 2014. Thanks to the protection measures implemented by the Congolese health authorities – isolation of patients, protection of medical staff, instructing the populations to avoid all body contact – the epidemic now appears to be contained.

This recent rise in Ebola epidemics shows that the likelihood of the virus being passed on from animal reservoir to humans is increasing. We therefore urgently need to gain a better understanding of the ways in which the virus circulates (seasonal or other) within its natural reservoir and the factors that govern the virus’ transfer from one animal species to another or to humans. Better knowledge of these parameters would enable alert thresholds to be defined and epidemics to be predicted, which could prove invaluable to the rapid implementation of control measures.

The post Ebola In DRC: New Strain Of Virus Found appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An interesting new paper recently published in the International Journal of Remote Sensing which hypothesises that night-time light can be a useful source for monitoring humanitarian crises, such as that unfolding in Syria.

The ongoing Syrian Crisis, which broke out in April 2011, has been a severe humanitarian disaster, with more than 190,000 deaths since the start of the conflict. However, evaluating the ongoing crisis in Syria is challenging, because reliable and comprehensive witness reports are hard to gather in a warzone. Therefore, satellite images, as one of the few sources of objective information, are potentially of great importance.

In their recent study published in International Journal of Remote Sensing, Xi Li and Deren Li analysed the effect of the Syrian Crisis on levels of night-time light as a means of evaluating and monitoring the conflict. By comparing the levels of light in March 2011 and February 2014, (see Fig 1. attached) they found that in all of the provinces, the levels of night-time light had declined sharply following the breakout of the conflict. Indeed, in most provinces, the level of night-time light decreased by more than 60%.

Notably, the authors also found that the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from each province showed a linear correlation with the level of night-light loss. This relationship between the number of displaced persons and the drop in night-time light levels may allow for the quantitative estimation of the number of IDPs from other areas of conflict, such as Iraq, where the activities of Islamic State are causing significant civil unrest.

The post Satellite Images Shed Light, Or Lack Thereof, On Impact Of Syrian Conflict appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ann Schneible

After six years serving as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Burke has been appointed as Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Cardinal Burke, 66, confirmed publicly in October that Pope Francis informed him of the move. The American prelate was appointed as chief justice of the Catholic Church’s highest court in 2008 by Benedict XVI.

Previously, he headed the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Mo. and the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis.

The Order of Malta is a lay religious order dedicated to offering humanitarian assistance and medical and social services to the needy. It was founded in the 11th century to care for pilgrims to the Holy Land, today it has more than 13,500 members worldwide. They are supported by tens of thousands of volunteers.

As patron of the Order, Cardinal Burke will be tasked with caring for their spiritual interests.

The appointment to the highly honorific role is uncommon for a cardinal so far from the retirement age of 75. He will be tasked with significantly fewer responsibilities.

The development will draw speculation from all sides but no official reason was given with the announcement from the Holy See Press Office. During his short pontificate, Pope Francis has moved quickly in reshaping the curia to form the leadership that addresses his priorities.

To take the place of Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti has been appointed by the Holy Father as new Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

The French Moroccan archbishop has until now been serving as Secretary for Relations with States. British Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, until now the Apostolic Nuncio to Australia, has been appointed in place of Archbishop Mamberti as Secretary for Relations with States.

Pope Francis has also appointed Fr. Chad Zielinski to be bishop of Fairbanks, Alaska, a military chaplain for the nearby Eielson Air Force Base.

Born 1964 in the US State of Michigan, Fr. Zielinski was ordained for the diocese of Gaylord in 1996. Since 2002, he has served as an Air Force chaplain, having been appointed to Eielson military base in 2012.

The post Cardinal Burke Moved To Order Of Malta, Mamberti To Lead Signatura appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The incidents during the recent football match between Serbia and Albania and the fall-out with attacks against bakeries owned by real (and presumed) Kosovo Albanians in Serbia and the postponement of the visit of Albanian Prime Minister to Belgrade have created a misleading hype about Serb-Albanian relations.

By Florian Bieber

Numerous media reports and a recent study by IFIMES, based in Ljubljana, which received considerable media attention often note how many decades no Albanian head of state has visited Belgrade (of course Edi Rama is not the head of state), but such chronology is mostly hyperbole. The reason for the long gap were difficult relations between Yugoslavia—not Serbia—and Albania during the Socialist period. Even this tense period was interspersed by moments of cooperation, such as between Kosovo and Albania in the 1970s. Thus, the fact that mutual visits have been few is not indicative of Serb-Albanian relations, until not until the 1990s. In 1997, Fatos Nano met with Slobodan Milosevic during a regional summit in Grece—back then described by Albanian TV, according to the BBC “the first meeting at such a high level between the two sides in 50 years.” Of course, the Kosovo war broke out a few months later and a rapprochement do not continue. However, the idea that relations are difficult is a myth and the lack of contact or high ranking visits is more indicative of the lack of perceived need for good relations than tensions. While both countries have and continue to hold different views on Kosovo, there are few bilateral issues (especially since they no longer share a common border). The limited ties (although JAT and after an interruption Air Serbia has been flying from Belgrade to Tirana for years), point to the fact that while the ‘Yugosphere” means the relations between the countries that emerged from Yugoslavia are dense and intense, those to Albania are much weaker.

In fact, we are thus talking about a confusion of relations between Serbia and Albania with Serb-Albanian relations in the post-Yugoslav space. The taunting flag of “Greater Albania” above the Belgrade stadium has given rise to suggestion that greater nation-states are still “dangling in the air”. While I have had discussions what the flag represents (whether it is greater Albania, i.e. a state in these borders or ‘just’ a more abstract claim to such territories as being ‘Albanian’), it does not matter. The idea of a “Greater Serbia” and  “Natural Albania” (as its proponents often call it) exist. Yet, these are irrelevant ideas. The Red and Black Alliance in Albania got just a little more than 10,000 votes in parliamentary elections in 2013, the only party supporting this agenda openly. Sali Berisha, in his efforts to utilize the centenary of the Albanian state for his political survival used it and failed. Arguably in Kosovo, Vetëvendosjehas been a more formidable proponent of Albanian nationalism and talk of Albanian-Kosovo unification, yet its support arguable is more based on its criticism of the governing parties and its anti-corruption rhetoric than its nationalism. In Serbia of course, the party which publishes “Greater Serbia”, the Radical Party, is no longer in parliament and I have argued earlier, the main basis of Serb nationalist rhetoric was not the creation of a ‘great’ nation-state, but a narrative of grievance and fear. Thus, the juxtaposition of “Greater Albania” against “Greater Serbia“ as the aforementioned report suggests is misleading. Danger arises from stories of owns one righteousness and the threat of the other. The power of nationalism is the strongest not when it promises the world (or at least a good chunk of the neighbor’s land), but when it speaks to people’s fears and protests one’s (in the sense of collective) innocence. Unfortunately, much of the debate after the incidents in the Belgrade stadium were shaped by such perceptions. Political elites, both in Serbia and in Albania reactions were displaying nationalist instincts, talking about the other (from the Serbian government, from the Albanian government, see also the tweet exchange between Rama and Vučić) as being responsible, while one’s own side is peace-loving and innocent.

Thus, the tense responses in Tirana and Belgrade are more surprising than expected. As mentioned earlier, relations between Serbia and Albania are not historical bad, as media reports might suggest, and there are no significant political players who want to create some ‘Great’ nation states. Yet, narratives of innocence and moral superiority are quickly established. It would be tempting to call this pandering to one’s own nationalist electorate, but this does fully explain the dynamics. Neither government has an election to win any time soon, and much too loose from worsening relations, in particular in regard to EU accession.

Regional cooperation, a key condition of the EU, has been good to talk and meet (especially if you are minister), but sensitive topics are left out. The fact that German chancellor Merkel had to intervene in the dispute is an example of the Serbian and Albanian governments depriving themselves of agency in regional cooperation and rendering their commitment to good neighborliness less credible. Thus, if only a calculated move by governments, it seems like a risky gambit. More plausible than just a strategic use of nationalism, the responses seem to suggest that underlying stereotypes remain salient. Many in Serbia still think, like Vučić, that Greater Albania is a real threat and many in Albania (and Kosovo) don’t challenge the idea that one’s own nation is innocent and that nationalism is benevolent, unlike the neighbors. In this way, the lack of relations, rather than the bad (but intense) relations between Serbia and Albania facilitated the fall out in recent weeks.

Florian Bieber is a Professor of Southeast European Studies and director of the Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz, Austria. He studied at Trinity College (USA), the University of Vienna and Central European University, and received his PhD in Political Science from the University of Vienna. Between 2001 and 2006 he worked in Belgrade (Serbia) and Sarajevo (Bosnia & Hercegovina) for the European Centre for Minority Issues. He is a Visiting Professor at the Nationalism Studies Program at Central European University and has taught at the University of Kent, Cornell University, the University of Bologna and the University of Sarajevo.

This article was originally published on the Balkans in Europe policy blog, and is available by clicking here. 

The post Greater Serbia And Greater Albania Do Not Exist: The Myth Of Bad Serb-Albanian Relations – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.