By Peter Certo*

The Obama administration has never been one for grand State of the Union addresses. And once the commentariat has had its fun picking apart the subtle jabs, the applause lines, the body language, and whatever else, there’s often not a whole lot of oxygen left to dig into anything else.

So like a lot of people, I spend a lot of time rolling my eyes at the annual exercise, and sometimes I’m tempted to skip it altogether. But for many Americans, it’s the one political speech a year they pay much attention to. So it’s worth weighing in on.

In several respects, particularly on economic issues, Obama struck a decidedly more populist tone than in prior addresses. Many of his new proposals here — such as paid sick leave for workers, federal assistance for childcare, paid maternity leave, and a plan to make community college free — aren’t revolutionary exactly, but they’d make life better for millions of Americans, and they’d bring the United States up somewhat more to the standards of the developed world. On balance, there was a lot more to like than in years past, when the president seemed to feel constrained to tack to the center.

Yet on foreign policy, as usual, it was a mixed bag. Here are a few passages that caught my eye — the good, the bad, and the oh-so-ugly — that I’d hate to see fall through the cracks as the speech falls out of the news cycle.

Yes!

Towards the opening of Obama’s foreign policy remarks, he highlighted some major breaks his administration has made from the ruts of the past. If he follows through on them, they might mark the most significant foreign policy accomplishments of his entire presidency. (And interestingly, they sound more like Obama circa 2008 than anything else in his speech.)

Cuba

In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new. Our shift in Cuba policy has the potential to end a legacy of mistrust in our hemisphere; removes a phony excuse for restrictions in Cuba; stands up for democratic values; and extends the hand of friendship to the Cuban people. And this year, Congress should begin the work of ending the embargo. 

The Obama administration’s recent announcement that the U.S. government would pursue full normalization with Cuba marked a stunning about-face. Though it puts the United States about half a century behind the rest of the world, Obama should be applauded for taking on a deeply entrenched anti-normalization lobby, seemingly of his own accord. Congress should follow his lead and end the senseless embargo (something the business wing of the GOP, perhaps in nostalgia for Batista, has been quietly pushing for decades).

Iran

Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies  —  including Israel — while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict. There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails  —  alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.

Speaking of taking on deeply entrenched lobbies, Obama has faced down enormous pressure from the right-wing “Israel Lobby” and other Beltway hawks in his bid to strike a nuclear accord with Iran. A deal that staves off the immediate threat of war would be good enough. One that ends Washington and Tehran’s 30-plus years of mutual estrangement would be even better.

Obama’s absolutely right about the sanctions proposals currently being bandied about by hardline senators like Mark Kirk and the newly elected Tom Cotton: They’re designed not to ensure Iranian compliance with a potential agreement, but to avert the chances of any agreement at all by chasing Iran away from the table. “The end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of Congressional action,” Cotton said in a recent talk at the Heritage Foundation. “It is very much an intended consequence.”

So I was delighted to hear Obama reiterate his threat to veto any new sanctions legislation to cross his desk while the talks are underway. Despite his perfunctory insistence on keeping “all options on the table,” the idea of going to war with Iran anytime soon has been relegated to a disreputable fringe — exactly where it belongs.

Yes, But…

So Obama got it right on a few things. More often, he highlighted some defensible goals, but left out some crucial context — often concerning his own record.

Guantanamo Bay

Since I’ve been president, we’ve worked responsibly to cut the population of GTMO in half. Now it’s time to finish the job. And I will not relent in my determination to shut it down.

Yes, Obama has slowly whittled down the population at Guantanamo Bay. But the prison remains open despite his executive order — issued as one of his first acts as president — to shut it down, and despite the fact that nearly half the remaining inmates have been cleared for release.

Releases have been on the uptick lately, and it’s nice to hear that that the administration still considers closing the facility a priority. But let’s hope this is the last State of the Union we hear about this. Shut it down, dude.

Iraq and Afghanistan

Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over. Six years ago, nearly 180,000 American troops served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain. 

Okay, but last year around this time, we had approximately zero troops in Iraq, and Obama had previously indicated that we’d be approaching zero in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Instead, Obama’s deployed around 3,000 new troops to Iraq since last summer, and last November quietly extended the combat mission for nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least another year. We’ve also got a bonus bombing engagement in Syria. It’s true that the balance of U.S. forces overseas has been on a slow decline, but here Obama is taking credit for ending wars that he’s actually extended, or in some cases started himself.

Russia and Ukraine

We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small  —  by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.

Forgive me for straying, but if we’re concerned about bigger nations bullying the small, wasn’t it just last December that Obama directed his ambassador at the UN to block yet another Security Council resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands? And isn’t his own government threatening to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority for filing war crimes charges against Israel over last summer’s brutal assault on the Gaza strip?

Well, back to the matter at hand. Washington’s role in Ukraine’s civil crisis was a fishy one (remember that “F— the EU” phone call?), but I agree that there’s really no excuse for Russia’s seizure of the Crimea or its stoking of Ukraine’s civil war. Sanctions — though by some measure an ineffective and needlessly provocative response — were far preferable to the military escalation urged by some of the president’s more hawkish critics.

Nonetheless, what really has Russia’s economy reeling is the collapse of global oil prices. As Russia’s currency bottomed out, Miriam Pemberton wrote a short piece for Foreign Policy In Focus reminding us that what happened to Russia could just as well happen to the United States if we keep our economy hitched to the military-industrial-fossil-fuel complex.

Climate Change

In Beijing, we made an historic announcement  —  the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

I don’t want to diminish the significance of the world’s two largest polluters making a deal to cut back on carbon. But as Walden Bello outlined for Foreign Policy In Focus recently, there are two enormous problems with this deal.

First, the agreed upon cuts are nowhere near enough to prevent catastrophic climate change — and in the case of China, there are no specific reductions listed at all, only a vague agreement that Chinese emissions will “peak” by 2030.

The silver lining, I suppose, is that those targets could theoretically be tightened over time once a modicum of trust is established. But the more worrying problem, Bello observes, is that Washington and Beijing completely circumvented the existing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to strike their own deal. This isn’t just a bureaucratic problem — it means that an international agreement mandating specific emissions cuts is now extremely unlikely, since the world’s leading polluters and economic powerhouses have already opted on a voluntary (and unfortunately insufficient) system of their own making.

Torture and Drones

As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we’re threatened, which is why I’ve prohibited torture, and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained. 

Prohibiting torture is great. But when you know full well that the CIA tortured people, lied about it, and then spied on the Senate committee that was investigating it for lying, well, it’s time to give that prohibition some teeth. Currently the only person serving time for the CIA’s amply documented and unbelievably illegal torture program is the whistleblower who exposed it. Meanwhile, the architects of the policy are paraded across cable news programs like respectable statesmen.

On the drone front, it’s true that drone strikes have tailed off in the last year or two (though by no means completely). That’s an immense credit to the people who worked to its expose its human costs. But Obama shouldn’t yet be allowed to forget that it was his administration that assembled every Tuesday to set “kill lists” for the week (and indeed, it may still), spreading the drone war from Yemen and Somalia to Pakistan and all the way to the Philippines. Conservative estimates put the death toll from the administration’s drone campaign at 2,400, with civilian casualties numbering at least in the hundreds and the “militant” associations of the dead impossible to verify.

Just, No

Finally, on a few issues — perhaps the ones he’ll most rely on the new GOP majority to support him on — Obama offered a few initiatives that weren’t defensible at all.

Trade Deals

As we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but fair.

It might have been easy to miss if you don’t follow these issues, but this passage was absolutely horrible. Set aside for a moment the petty imperialism at play in Obama’s insistence that China shouldn’t “make the rules” for trade in its own region (which Obama didn’t name, perhaps because that would have made the weirdness of the remark more apparent, but he meant the Asia-Pacific).

What Obama wants here is what’s called “fast track authority” for two trade deals his administration has been negotiating — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or TPP) between the United States and nearly a dozen Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) between the United States and European Union. Both deals are being written in secret, by lobbyists — and if they’re anything like other recent U.S. trade deals, they’ll give corporations the power to sue sovereign governments in an obscure World Bank tribunal for imposing labor or environmental regulations they don’t like. So “we” wouldn’t be making the rules for trade in Asia or anyplace else — corporate lobbyists would be.

That’s the exact opposite of “leveling the playing field” and anathema to the protection of workers anywhere. Yet “fast track” would let Obama present these lobbyist-written trade pacts to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no opportunity for amendments. That’s precisely why a large coalition of social and environmental justice groups has launched a campaign to make sure he doesn’t get it, arguing that stopping fast track is key to stopping the whole deal.

War Authorization

In Iraq and Syria, American leadership  —  including our military power  —  is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.

I won’t go into the problems with Obama’s open-ended war strategy in Iraq and Syria — I tried to cover most of that here.

Still, maybe you think it’s a good thing that he’s asking for congressional approval (and implicitly, perhaps, an open debate about the merits of the war). But if you ask me, it’s a little “Caesar Augustus” of him to “call on Congress” to retroactively authorize an unconstitutional war he’s already launched — especially when he’s already claimed that he doesn’t need an authorization anyway.

The War Powers Act is clear on this: If the president fails to get congressional authorization for a military deployment within 60 days of launching it, then it’s not Congress’ job to rustle up an authorization — it’s the president’s job to end the deployment. What Obama wants here is a legal fig leaf for an illegal war, and he shouldn’t get it.

So there are a few things to like, a few things to worry about, and a few others to get mad about.

Of course, this piece just covers what Obama chose to talk about. There was plenty — like the proliferation of U.S. Special Forces over most of planet and the utterly compromised Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” — that he opted not to mention at all. And there were a few really big things — such as an epidemic of police violence, a breakdown in domestic racial relations, and horrifying excesses in police militarization and domestic surveillance — that he alluded to but dared not name. These tragic trends have all defined the darker side of the Obama years.

Well, there’s always next year.

*Peter Certo is the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

The post State Of The Empire In 2015 – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

1.          The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, accompanied by First Lady Michelle Obama, is visiting India from 25-27 January 2015.  The President of India and the Prime Minister of India welcomed the U.S. President as the Chief Guest at India’s 66th Republic Day celebrations, the first U.S. President to grace this historic event.

2.         Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama assessed the extensive bilateral strategic and global partnership between their two countries and pledged to continue to enhance cooperation across the spectrum of human endeavor to better their citizens’ lives and that of the global community.

3.         Noting that the multifaceted partnership between the United States and India is rooted in shared values of democracy and strong economic and people-to-people ties, President Obama and Prime Minister Modi elevated the bilateral relationship through their endorsement of a new India-U.S. Delhi Declaration of Friendship, which builds on their 30 September Vision Statement by articulating tangible principles to guide ongoing efforts to advance mutual prosperity, a clean and healthy environment, greater economic cooperation, regional peace, security and stability for the larger benefit of humankind.

4.         Recognizing the important role that both countries play in promoting peace, prosperity, stability and security in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region, and noting that India’s ‘Act East Policy’ and the United States’ rebalance to Asia provide opportunities for India, the United States, and other Asia-Pacific countries to work closely to strengthen regional ties, the Leaders announced a Joint Strategic Vision to guide their engagement in the region.

5.         The Prime Minister and the President acknowledged and expressed satisfaction at the qualitative reinvigoration of strategic ties and the intensity of substantive interactions since the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington in September 2014.  They appreciated the focused action and accomplishments by both sides on the decisions taken during the Summit in September and in this regard, they welcomed:

• The 30 September 2014 signing of an implementing agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to conduct the joint NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) mission.
• The convening of the Defence Policy Group and its subgroups on 28-29 October 2014 to pursue stronger and expanded bilateral defence cooperation.
• India’s ongoing facilitation of U.S. Department of Defense humanitarian missions in India, including a mission in October and November 2014, to recover the remains of fallen U.S. soldiers who served in World War II.
• The signing of the India-U.S. Statement of Guiding Principles on Triangular Cooperation for Global Development on 3 November 2014, in furtherance of bilateral efforts to advance sustainable development in cooperation with partner countries around the world.
• The breakthrough between India and the United States on issues relating to the implementation of the Bali Ministerial Decisions regarding public stockholding for food security purposes, the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and post Bali work.
• Convening of the U.S.-India Joint Commission Meeting on Science and Technology Cooperation in New Delhi on 17 November 2014 to review, exchange views, and advance cooperation in diverse areas of science and technology and foster engagement in techno-entrepreneurship and innovation partnership for mutual benefit.
• Convening of the India-U.S. Higher Education Dialogue in New Delhi on 17 November 2014 to further bilateral cooperation in this field, strengthen partnerships between Indian and U.S. universities and community colleges, improve student and scholar mobility, and promote faculty collaboration.
• The signing of the MoU on 18 November 2014 between Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which would make available up to $1 billion in financing to facilitate expanded cooperation and enhance U.S. private sector investment in Indian clean energy projects.
• Successful hosting of the bilateral India-U.S. Technology Summit on 18-19 November 2014 with the U.S. as a partner country for the first time.
• Convening of the High Technology Cooperation Group on 20-21 November 2014 to shape a cooperative agenda on high technology goods, including export control-related trade in homeland security technologies, high technology manufacturing equipment including machine tools, defence trade, and fostering collaboration in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and health-related information technology.
• Convening of the Smart Cities Conclave on 22 November 2014 organised by the U.S.-India Business Council in cooperation with the Ministry of Urban Development and the Mayors and Commissioners of Ajmer (Rajasthan), Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) and the decision by the Government of India to constitute a high-level committee for each of the three Smart Cities comprising different departments of the Central Government, the state governments, local governments, and representatives of the U.S. industry.
• Signing of three MoUs between the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency on 25 January 2015 to develop Vishakhapatnam, Allahabad, and Ajmer as Smart Cities with the participation of U.S. industry, in furtherance of the commitment made by the Leaders in September 2014.
• The convening of the Trade Policy Forum at the Ministerial level on 24-25 November 2014, in which India and the United States agreed to work towards resolving commercial impediments in both markets, to help realize the potential of bilateral trade in goods and services, and to promote investment and manufacturing.
• Convening of the India-U.S. Political Military Dialogue on 4 December 2014 to exchange perspectives on bilateral strategic and regional issues.
• Convening the sixth round of the India-U.S.-Japan trilateral discussions on 20 December 2014 to deepen regional engagement and to discuss ways to implement projects on the ground.
• The launch of the Infrastructure Collaboration Platform in New Delhi on 13 January 2015 to promote enhanced market access and financing to increase U.S. industry participation in the growth and development of sectors that support Indian infrastructure.
• The 12-15 January 2015 expert exchange on Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) strategies and technologies and completion of a Joint Statement of Intent and a work plan for a programme of bilateral C-IED cooperation.
• The signing of a framework on and inauguration of the India-U.S. Investment Initiative in Washington on 12-15 January 2015 to jointly cooperate on facilitating capital market development conducive to financing investment; creating an environment that encourages investment in various sectors in India; and working to overcome any obstacles to such investment.
• The convening of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Working Group in Washington on 14-15 January 2015 and the 23 January signing of the Joint Declaration of Intent to advance implementation of the Digital India programme and further bilateral commercial ICT cooperation.
• Launching of a Knowledge Partnership in defence studies expressing a shared desire to pursue collaborative activities between the United States and Indian National Defence Universities.
• Signing of the Statement of Cooperation for Supervisory Cooperation and Exchange of Supervisory Information between the Reserve Bank of India and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve System, and Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC).
• Convening of Indian and U.S. CEOs who are committed to deepening bilateral economic ties by identifying current impediments to trade and investment and working with the two government to find solutions; and identifying emerging sectors where public-private partnership can unlock new collaborations between our two peoples.
• The 13 January 2015 signing of the MoU between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ministry of Urban Development to enable USAID to share expertise, best practices, innovation and technologies in support of India’s efforts to strengthen water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in urban areas.
• India’s recent introduction of visa-on-arrival for U.S. citizens and the convening of the first technical discussions to advance India’s membership in the United States’ Global Entry Program, initiatives aimed at easing travel between India and the United States to further strengthen people-to-people ties.
• Cooperation on scientific research collaboration on the Indian Monsoon Rainfall currently underway aboard the U.S. research vessel JOIDES Resolution in the Bay of Bengal.
• The conclusion of the first of two project annexes between the Indian Department of Atomic Energy–Department of Science and Technology and the U.S. Department of Energy, which will enable discovery science cooperation in particle accelerator and high energy physics.
• The 22 January signing of the MoU between the U.S. Department of Treasury and India’s Ministry of Finance to enhance cooperation to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
• The Completion of an MoU between the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Biotechnology, Indian Council of Medical Research, All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, and the U.S National Institute of Health and National Cancer Institute.
• The 23 January signing of the Joint Declaration of Intent between USAID and the Ministry of Human Resource Development for technical support to the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), starting with IIT Gandhinagar, to strengthen research and entrepreneurship capabilities.
• The recent finalization of the 2015 Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship, which will guide and expand the bilateral defence and strategic partnership over the next ten years.
  The 22 January signing of the India-U.S. Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) Agreement to facilitate cooperation in defence research and development.
• Continuing bilateral engagement on the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), including the 22 January 2015 agreement in principle to pursue co-production and co-development of four pathfinder projects, form a working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design, and explore possible cooperation on development of jet engine technology.

6.         Prime Minister Modi and President Obama jointly appreciated the significant efforts undertaken by both sides in recent months to re-energize the strategic partnership, and affirmed expanding the substantive underpinnings of our diversified bilateral strategic partnership including through expanded strategic consultations, stronger defence, security, and economic cooperation.

7.         President Obama also reiterated his support for Prime Minister Modi’s vision to transform India, and recognized that India’s focus on its development priorities presented substantial opportunities for forging stronger India-U.S. economic ties and greater people-to-people contacts.  Reaffirming that India’s rise is also in the interest of the United States, regional and global stability, and global economic growth, President Obama reiterated the United States’ readiness to partner with India in this transformation.  The two leaders pledged to translate their commitment of “Chalein Saath Saath”: “Forward Together We Go” of September into action through “Sanjha Prayaas; Sab Ka Vikaas”: “Shared Effort; Progress For All”.

Economic Growth

8.         Prime Minister Modi and President Obama expressed confidence that continued bilateral collaboration will increase opportunities for investment, improve bilateral trade and investment ties and lead to the creation of jobs and prosperity in both economies.  In this regard, the Leaders agreed to continue to strengthen their broad-based partnership for development through stronger trade, technology, manufacturing, and investment linkages between the two countries and triangular cooperation with partner countries, and that continued efforts to maintain labor standards as per domestic law and agreed international norms will make these linkages more durable.  The two sides also committed to continuing to cooperate on the finalization of the Post-Bali Work Programme in the spirit of the Doha mandate.

9.         The President and the Prime Minister affirmed their shared commitment to facilitating increased bilateral investment flows and fostering an open and predictable climate for investment.  To this end, the Leaders instructed their officials to assess the prospects for moving forward with high-standard bilateral investment treaty discussions given their respective approaches.

10.       The President and the Prime Minister also welcomed the fifth annual U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership Dialogue in February, in which the countries will deepen their dialogue on macroeconomic policy, financial sector regulation and development, infrastructure investment, tax policy, and efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

11.       The two sides agreed to hold a discussion on the elements required in both countries to pursue an India-U.S. Totalisation Agreement.

12.       President Obama commended Prime Minister Modi’s “Jan Dhan” scheme to prioritize financial inclusion for India’s poor.  The Leaders noted India’s intent to join the Better Than Cash Alliance.

13.       The Leaders committed to explore areas of collaboration in skill development ranging from establishing quality assurance systems for skilling certification standards, setting up of skill development centres, nurturing and promoting social entrepreneurship and strengthening the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem.

14.       President Obama and Prime Minister Modi agreed to collaborate in the implementation of India’s ambitious Digital India programme and expand commercial cooperation, including by encouraging investment engagement in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector.

15.       In recognition of the importance of their ongoing commercial discussions, the two sides agreed to hold public-private discussions in early 2015 under the aegis of the India-U.S. Commercial Dialogue for a period of two years, until March 2016, on mutually agreed areas of cooperation.

16.       Recognizing the progress made in constructive engagement on Intellectual Property under the last round of the India-U.S. Trade Policy Forum held in November, 2014, the Leaders also looked forward to enhancing engagement on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in 2015 under the High Level Working Group on Intellectual Property, to the mutual benefit of both the countries.

17.       Acknowledging the potential for technological cooperation in the rail sector in augmenting and optimizing India’s rail infrastructure, the Leaders agreed to facilitate U.S. Trade and Development Agency and Indian Railways technical cooperation that will assist Indian Railways’ efforts to modify its leasing and public-private partnership frameworks to attract private sector funding.

18.       The Leaders recognized the robust public-private U.S.-India civil aviation partnership and agreed to continue working together to identify emerging technologies and build a larger commercial engagement agenda through key events such as the 2015 U.S.-India Aviation Summit and demonstration of advanced U.S. technologies.

19.       Reaffirming their commitment to safety and security of civil aviation, the United States and India will continue consultations between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the India Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to ensure international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), with the aim of restoring Category I status at the earliest possible time.

20.       Noting the importance of ongoing cooperation in higher education, the President and Prime Minister welcomed ongoing efforts to extend a knowledge partnership for supporting the Indian Institute of Technology at Gandhinagar through USAID.  President Obama and Prime Minister Modi also pledged to collaborate through India’s Global Initiative of Academic Networks (GIAN), to facilitate short-term teaching and research programs by up to 1000 visiting U.S. academics in Indian universities.

21.       The Leaders emphasized the importance of strengthening international financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund. The President also affirmed his commitment to enhancing India’s voice and vote in international Financial Institutions and ensuring that resources are made available and used creatively through multilateral development banks for infrastructure financing. Prime Minister Modi appreciated the efforts of the U.S. Treasury for cooperating with the Ministry of Finance on the Task Force on Resolution Corporation set up in pursuance of the recommendations of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission.

High Technology, Space and Health Cooperation

22.       Prime Minister Modi and President Obama reaffirmed their commitment to ensure that partnerships in science, technology and innovation are a crucial component of the overall bilateral engagement in the 21st century.  They also reaffirmed their support for the role that science, technology and innovation partnerships can play in addressing pressing challenges in areas such as food, water, energy, climate, and health and developing innovative solutions that are affordable, accessible and adaptable,  meet the needs of the people of the two countries and benefit the global community.  To this end, the Leaders agreed to continue to develop cooperative efforts in many areas of science, technology, and innovation, including studying the impacts of water, air pollution, sanitation and hygiene on human health and well-being.

23.       The Leaders also agreed to continue U.S.-India collaboration in hydrology and water studies and monsoon modelling and noted the need to expeditiously work towards launching an Indo-U.S. Climate Fellowship to facilitate human capacity building.  The Prime Minister and the President also reaffirmed the importance of ongoing efforts to strengthen women’s participation in science, technology, engineering, and math through networking and mentoring programs.

24.       The President and the Prime Minister welcome efforts, under the bilateral High Technology Cooperation Group, to seek timely resolution of the challenges to trade in High Technology goods, including the U.S. licensing requirements for trade in certain dual use items.

25.       The Leaders reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation.  Both countries reiterated their interest in sharing information and best practices on IPR issues, and reaffirmed their commitment to stakeholders’ consultations on policy matters concerning intellectual property protection.

26.       President Obama and Prime Minister Modi agreed to further promote cooperative and commercial relations between India and the United States in the field of space.  The leaders noted the on-going interactions between their space agencies, including towards realizing a dual frequency radar imaging satellite for Earth Sciences, and exploring possibilities for cooperation in studying Mars.

27.       The Leaders took note of ongoing U.S.-India space cooperation, including the first face-to-face meeting of the ISRO-NASA Mars Working Group from 29-31 January 2015 in Bangalore, in which the two sides will consider opportunities for enhanced cooperation in Mars exploration, including potential coordinated observations and analysis between ISRO’s Mars Orbiter Mission and NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN mission (MAVEN).  The Prime Minister and the President also welcomed continued progress toward enhanced space cooperation via the U.S.-India Civil Space Joint Working Group, which will meet later this year in India.

28.       Under the umbrella of an implementing agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Atomic Energy of India, the Leaders welcomed expanded collaboration in basic physics research, and accelerator research and development.

29.       The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and announced specific actions at home and abroad to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including a CDC-Ministry of Health Ebola and GHSA preparedness training, expansion of the India Epidemic Intelligence Service, and development of a roadmap to achieve the objectives of the GHSA within three years.

30.       The Leaders also committed to multi-sectoral actions countering the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and cooperation in training of health workers in preparedness for infectious disease threats. The Leaders agreed to focus science and technology partnerships on countering antibiotic resistant bacteria and promoting the availability, efficacy and quality of therapeutics.

31.       The Leaders welcomed further progress in promoting bilateral cooperation on cancer research, prevention, control, and management and agreed to continue to strengthen the engagement between the CDC and India’s National Centre for Disease Control.

32.       The President and Prime Minister also welcomed the upcoming completion of an Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Injury Prevention and Control MoU between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Indian Council for Medical Research to further collaborative efforts to improve the health and welfare of both countries’ citizens.

33.       The Prime Minister and the President also agreed to expand the India-U.S. Health Initiative into a Healthcare Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in health sectors including through capacity building initiatives and by exploring new areas, including affordable healthcare, cost saving mechanisms, distribution barriers, patent quality, health services information technology, and complementary and traditional medicine.  The President and the Prime Minister pledged to encourage dialogue between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Indian counterparts on traditional medicine.  The Leaders also pledged to strengthen collaboration, dialogue, and cooperation between the regulatory authorities of the two countries to ensure safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceuticals, including generic medicines.

34.       The Leaders also agreed to accelerate joint leadership of the global Call to Action to end preventable deaths among mothers and children through a third meeting of the 24 participating countries in India in June 2015.  As host, India will showcase the power of new partnerships, innovations and systems to more effectively deliver life-saving interventions. They also lauded the highly successful collaboration on a locally produced vaccine against rotavirus which will save the lives of an estimated 80,000 children each year in India alone, and pledged to strengthen the cooperation in health research and capacity building through a new phase of the India-U.S. Vaccine Action Programme.

Defence and Homeland Security Cooperation

35.       Prime Minister Modi and President Obama welcomed the efforts made by both sides to expand bilateral defence cooperation in areas of mutual interest and reaffirmed their commitment to continue to work towards deepening the bilateral defence relationship.  The Leaders acknowledged bilateral military ties as the foundation of the defense relationship and encouraged their respective militaries to pursue additional opportunities for engagement through exercises, military personnel exchanges, and defense dialogues.

36.       The Leaders also acknowledged the need for the two-way defence engagement to include technology cooperation and collaboration, co-production and co-development.  To this end, the President and the Prime Minister emphasized the ongoing importance of the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) in developing new areas of technology cooperation in the defence sector including through co-development and co-production and the Prime Minister welcomed the U.S. Defense Department’s establishment of a dedicated rapid reaction team focused exclusively on advancing DTTI.  The Leaders expressed confidence that continued DTTI collaboration will yield additional joint projects in the near future.

37.       The President also welcomed the Prime Minister’s initiatives to liberalize the Foreign Direct Investment Policy regime in the defence sector and the Leaders agreed to cooperate on India’s efforts to establish a defence industrial base in India, including through initiatives like ‘Make in India.’

38.       Prime Minister Modi and President Obama expressed satisfaction over the efforts made by both countries to deepen cooperation in the field of maritime security, as reflected in the 2015 Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship.  To this end, they agreed that the navies of both sides would continue discussions to identify specific areas for expanding maritime cooperation.  They also reiterated their commitment to upgrading their bilateral naval exercise MALABAR.

39.       The two sides also noted the growing cooperation between their law enforcement agencies, particularly in the areas of extradition and mutual legal assistance, to counter transnational criminal threats such as terrorism, narcotics, trafficking, financial and economic fraud, cybercrime, and transnational organized crime and pledged to enhance such cooperation further.    The President and the Prime Minister also noted the serious risks to national and economic security from malicious cyber activity and agreed to cooperate on enhancing operational sharing of cyber threat information, examining how international law applies in cyberspace, and working together to build agreement on norms of responsible state behavior.

40.       The Leaders committed to undertake efforts to make the U.S.-India partnership a defining counterterrorism relationship for the 21st Century by deepening collaboration to combat the full spectrum of terrorist threats and keep their respective homelands and citizens safe from attacks. The Leaders reiterated their strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations with ‘zero tolerance’ and reaffirmed their deep concern over the continued threat posed by transnational terrorism including by groups like Al Qaida and the ISIL, and called for eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, disrupting terrorist networks and their financing, and stopping cross-border movement of terrorists.

41.       The Leaders reaffirmed the need for joint and concerted efforts to disrupt  entities such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, D Company and the Haqqani Network, and agreed to continue ongoing efforts through the Homeland Security Dialogue as well as the next round of the U.S.-India Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism in late 2015 to develop actionable elements of bilateral engagement.  The two sides noted the recent U.S. sanctions against three D Company affiliates.  The President and the Prime Minister further agreed to continue to work toward an agreement to share information on known and suspected terrorists.  They also agreed to enter discussions to deepen collaboration on UN terrorist designations, and reiterated their call for Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai to justice.

42.       The President and the Prime Minister also noted the positive cooperative engagement between the Indian and the U.S. authorities with a view to working together to counter the threat of IEDs and to develop counterterrorism best practices.

Energy and Climate Change

43.       Noting that the Contact Group set up in September 2014 to advance implementation of bilateral civil nuclear cooperation has met three times in December and January, the Leaders welcomed the understandings reached on the issues of civil nuclear liability and administrative arrangements for civil nuclear cooperation, and looked forward to U.S.-built nuclear reactors contributing to India’s energy security at the earliest.

Clean Energy Goal and Cooperation

44.       President Obama and Prime Minister Modi emphasized the critical importance of expanding clean energy research, development, manufacturing and deployment, which increases energy access and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The leaders announced actions to advance India’s transition to low carbon economy. India intends to increase the share of use of renewable in electricity generation consistent with its intended goal to increase India’s solar target to 100 gigawatts by 2022. The United States intends to support India’s goal by enhancing cooperation on clean energy and climate change, to include:

i.   Expanding Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Research (PACE-R): A renewed commitment to PACE-R, including extending funding for three existing research tracks of solar energy, building energy efficiency, and biofuels for an additional five years and launching a new track on smart grid and grid storage.

ii.   Expanding Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Deployment (PACE-D): Both the countries intended to expand our current Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Deployment (PACE-D) through increased bilateral engagements and further joint initiatives to expand cooperation in support of India’s ambitious targets in renewable energy.

iii.   Accelerating Clean Energy Finance: Prime Minister Modi emphasized India’s ongoing efforts to create a market environment that will promote trade and investment in this sector. President Obama welcomed India’s ambitious solar energy goals and encouraged India to continue its efforts to increase trade and private investment in this sector. President Obama conveyed the potential availability of U.S. Government official financing in this area, consistent with its policies, to support private sector involvement for those entities in contributing to India’s clean energy requirements.

iv.   Launching Air Quality Cooperation: Implementing EPA’s AIR Now-International Program and megacities partnerships, focused on disseminating information to help the urban dwellers to reduce their exposure to harmful levels of air pollution, and enable urban policy planners to implement corrective strategies for improving Ambient Air Quality in the cities keeping in view health and climate change co-benefits of these strategies.

v.   Initiating Climate Resilience Tool Development: Jointly undertaking a partnership on climate resilience that will work to downscale international climate models for the Indian sub-continent to much higher resolution than currently available, assess climate risks at the sub-national level,  work with local technical institutes on capacity building, and engage local decision-makers in the process of addressing climate information needs and informing planning and climate resilient sustainable development, including for India’s State Action Plans.

vi.   Demonstrating Clean Energy and Climate Initiatives on the Ground: Additional pilot programs and other collaborative projects in the areas of space cooling, super-efficient appliances, renewable energy storage, and smart grids.

vii.   Concluding MOU on Energy Security, Clean Energy and Climate Change: Both countries concluded negotiations on a five year MOU to carry this work forward, to be signed as early as possible at a mutually agreed upon date.

Climate Change

45.       The United States of America and the Republic of India recognize that global climate change is a profound threat to humanity and to the imperatives of sustainable development, growth and the eradication of poverty. President Obama and Prime Minister Modi share a deep concern regarding the climate challenge and understand that meeting it will require concerted action by their countries and the international community. They stressed the importance of enhancing their bilateral cooperation on adaptation measures, as well as joint research and development and technology innovation, adoption and diffusion for clean energy and efficiency solutions that will help achieve the goals of transitioning to a climate resilient and low carbon economy. They also stressed the importance of working together and with other countries to conclude an ambitious climate agreement in Paris in 2015. To this end, they plan to cooperate closely over the next year to achieve a successful agreement in Paris. The President and Prime Minister reaffirmed their prior understanding from September 2014 concerning the phase down of HFCs and agreed to cooperate on making concrete progress in the Montreal Protocol this year.

Global Issues and Regional Consultations

46.       The Leaders agreed to expand their efforts to assist other developing countries and address global development challenges for the benefit of the wider region and the world and they lauded ongoing triangular assistance, which may involve U.S.-India collaboration to address development challenges in third countries in areas including health, energy, food security, disaster management, and women’s empowerment. The two sides noted that this collaboration, which is active with Afghanistan, East and West Africa, may be expanded to additional third countries.

47.       Further underscoring the importance of implementing infrastructure projects to enhance connectivity and enable freer flow of commerce and energy in the region, the Leaders agreed to develop additional areas in which both sides could work together, including on India’s initiatives to enhance its connectivity with the South and South East Asian region.  The President and the Prime Minister also stressed the importance of the economic and transport connectivity between Central and South Asia and the need to promote a secure, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan as part of a secure, stable, and prosperous region.  Reaffirming the importance of their strategic partnerships with Afghanistan, the Leaders asserted the importance of a sustainable, inclusive, sovereign, and democratic political order in Afghanistan and they agreed to convene further high-level consultations on Afghanistan in the near future.

48.       The President and the Prime Minister also welcomed the role of the leaders- led East Asia Summit (EAS) process in promoting open, balanced and inclusive security architecture in the region.  Noting the discussions in the sixth round of the India-US-Japan Trilateral Dialogue, the President and the Prime Minister underlined the importance of the cooperation between the three countries through identification of projects of common interest and their early implementation, and they decided to explore holding the dialogue among their Foreign Ministers.

49.       The President and Prime Minister pledged to strengthen their efforts to forge a partnership to lead global efforts for non-proliferation of WMDs, to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs, and to promote universal, verifiable and non-discriminatory global nuclear disarmament.  They supported negotiations on a fissile material cut-off Treaty on the basis of the Shannon Mandate in the Conference on Disarmament.

50.       As active participants in the Nuclear Security Summit process, the United States and India welcomed progress towards reducing the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or related materials, and noted their shared commitment to improving nuclear security nationally and globally.  The Prime Minister welcomed the hosting of the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit by the United States.  President Obama and Prime Minister Modi also welcomed the recent convening of the first bilateral nuclear security best practices exchange, under the auspices of the Global Center for Nuclear Energy Partnership, as an example of their cooperation on nuclear security.

51.       In a further effort to strengthen global nonproliferation and export control regimes, the President and the Prime Minister committed to continue to work towards India’s phased entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group.  The President reaffirmed the United States’ position that India meets MTCR requirements and is ready for NSG membership and that it supports India’s early application and eventual membership in all four regimes.

52.       The Leaders expressed concern over the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, including its uranium enrichment activity.  They urged the DPRK to take concrete steps toward denuclearization, as well as to comply fully with its international obligations, including relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, and to fulfill its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party talks.

53.       The Leaders welcomed recent progress and noted the criticality of Iran taking steps to verifiably assure the international community of the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, and agreed that this is an historic opportunity for Iran to resolve outstanding concerns related to its nuclear programme.

54.       Highlighting the United States’ and India’s shared democratic values and recognizing the important role of women in their societies, the Leaders looked forward to reconvening the Women Empowerment Dialogue as early as possible and reasserted their zero tolerance for violence against women.  The Leaders also looked forward to the reconvening of the Global Issues Forum.

55.       The President and the Prime Minister also reaffirmed their commitment to consult closely on global crises, including in Iraq and Syria.  The Leaders agreed to exchange information on individuals returning from these conflict zones and to continue to cooperate in protecting and responding to the needs of civilians caught up in these conflicts.

56.       President Obama reaffirmed his support for a reformed UN Security Council with India as a permanent member, and both leaders committed to ensuring that the Security Council continues to play an effective role in maintaining international peace and security as envisioned in the United Nations Charter. They also committed to accelerate their peacekeeping capacity-building efforts in third countries.

57.       Both sides also acknowledged that the Internet was a central element of the information society and a powerful enabler of global economic and social progress. Both sides also noted that the growth of the Internet in the coming decade would be from developing countries, of which India would be a significant contributor, especially in the context of its “Digital India” programme.

58.       The Leaders recognized that a digital divide persists between and within countries in terms of the availability, affordability and use of information and communications technologies, and they stressed the need to continue to bridge that divide, to ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications technologies for development, are available to all people, including the poorest of the poor.

59.       President Obama thanked Prime Minister Modi and the people of India for the extraordinary hospitality extended to him on his second presidential visit to India, and he congratulated the nation on the celebration of its 66th Republic Day.  The Leaders reflected proudly on recent achievements and looked forward to continuing to work together to build a U.S.-India partnership that is transformative for their two peoples and for the world.

The post US-India Joint Statement: ‘Shared Effort; Progress For All’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The following statement was released by the White House as US President Barack Obama visits India meeting with that nation’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

*****

As the leaders of the world’s two largest democracies that bridge the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region and reflecting our agreement that a closer partnership between the United States and India is indispensable to promoting peace, prosperity and stability in those regions, we have agreed on a Joint Strategic Vision for the region.

India and the United States are important drivers of regional and global growth. From Africa to East Asia, we will build on our partnership to support sustainable, inclusive development, and increased regional connectivity by collaborating with other interested partners to address poverty and support broad-based prosperity.

To support regional economic integration, we will promote accelerated infrastructure connectivity and economic development in a manner that links South, Southeast and Central Asia, including by enhancing energy transmission and encouraging free trade and greater people-to-people linkages.

Regional prosperity depends on security. We affirm the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.

We call on all parties to avoid the threat or use of force and pursue resolution of territorial and maritime disputes through all peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

We will oppose terrorism, piracy, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction within or from the region.

We will also work together to promote the shared values that have made our countries great, recognizing that our interests in peace, prosperity and stability are well served by our common commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

We commit to strengthening the East Asia Summit on its tenth anniversary to promote regional dialogue on key political and security issues, and to work together to strengthen it.

In order to achieve this regional vision, we will develop a roadmap that leverages our respective efforts to increase ties among Asian powers, enabling both our nations to better respond to diplomatic, economic and security challenges in the region.

As part of these efforts, the United States welcomes India’s interest in joining the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, as the Indian economy is a dynamic part of the Asian economy.

Over the next five years, we will strengthen our regional dialogues, invest in making trilateral consultations with third countries in the region more robust, deepen regional integration, strengthen regional forums, explore additional multilateral opportunities for engagement, and pursue areas where we can build capacity in the region that bolster long-term peace and prosperity for all.

The post US-India Joint Strategic Vision For Asia-Pacific And Indian Ocean Region – Statement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Tally Helfont*

Friday was a busy day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was only mere hours after Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (90) passed away that his successor was now firmly in place. The new king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (79), had occupied the role of Crown Prince for two and a half years prior to his accession to the throne, rendering the announcement of his appointment more a matter of protocol. Salman’s successor, Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz (69), also came as no surprise as he too had been named by late King Abdullah as his Deputy Crown Prince back in March. It isn’t as if there were many to choose from. Unlike in Western monarchies, where succession is passed father to son, in Saudi Arabia, it can pass between brothers. Salman and Muqrin are among the remaining sons of the late King Abdulaziz (1876-1953) eligible for the position. However, these appointments were not the only ones to be made in the wake of the succession.

King Salman made a few strategic appointments of his own on Friday, moving his sons and some of his allies into key positions within the kingdom. For example, Mohammad bin Salman Al-Saud (34), Salman’s son, has been appointed defense minister (replacing Salman himself) and head of the royal court, replacing influential advisor to the late king, Khaled al-Tuwaijri. Another appointment of particular note was the naming of Interior Minister Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (55) as the new Deputy Crown Prince – marking the first time that a grandson of Abdulaziz is (second) in line to the throne. This appointment begins to address questions surrounding the quandary of non-patrilineal succession favored in the Kingdom by finally introducing a treacherous generational change into the lines of succession from the sons of Abdulaziz to his grandsons. But it is much more than that.

The other, if not more important aspect of these “new” faces on the block has to do specifically with their matrilineal identity. Abdulaziz had many wives. Therefore, most of his sons are half-brothers. Salman is one of the “Sudairi Seven”[1] – an influential alliance of seven full brothers born to King Abdulaziz and Hassa bint Ahmad al-Sudairi. The Sudairi Seven represent the largest sibling cluster in Al-Saud family. Though the now late King Abdullah was not one of the Sudairi seven, many among the new cadre[2] are affiliated in some way with this powerful bloc. Sudairi influence stretches throughout the kingdom, encompassing a host of minor and senior posts within Saudi Arabia. The appointment of Mohammed bin Nayef not only reasserts the supremacy of this alliance since the deaths of King Fahd and Crown Princes Sultan and Nayef reduced the bloc’s strength, but also potentially secures the Saudi crown in Sudairi hand forevermore. By finally making the jump to the generation of the grandsons of Abdulaziz, and putting a male of Sudairi lineage in line for the crown as Deputy Crown Prince, hundreds of Abdulaziz’s progeny, many of whom are sons of a former king, will likely lose any prospect of ascending to the throne.

Though the consolidation of power within a certain familial bloc is not surprising in such a tribal society, its implications are nonetheless important as the stability of the kingdom in a post-succession period may depend on it. The current climate in the region is certainly a breeding ground for instability so consolidating power within a small loyal group bound by ‘asabiya (tribal solidarity) may ultimately prove to be the glue that helps the kingdom weather this transition successfully.

For his part, Salman expressed sorrow over the passing of Abdullah in his first televised speech as king, and affirmed that the kingdom will hold the same “correct path” it has taken since it was founded in 1932. He then went on to declare via Twitter: “I ask Allah to make me succeed in serving our dear people and in achieving their wishes, and that He keeps our country and nation safe and stable, and He protect it from all mischief and harm.”

For a good depiction of the Saudi Royal Tree, see: http://graphics.wsj.com/saudi-arabia-family-tree/

About the author:
*Tally Helfont is the Director of FPRI’s Program on the Middle East. Her current research focuses on regional balance of power, the Levant and the GCC, and U.S. policy therein. She is also a Contributing Analyst for Wikistrat’s Middle East Desk, a crowd-sourcing consultancy. Ms. Helfont has instructed training courses in Civil Information Management to U.S. Military Civil Affairs Units and Human Terrain Teams assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan. She is the author of the FPRI monograph, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s U.S. Cell [1988-95]: the Ideological Foundations of Its Propaganda Strategy. Her writings have appeared in Orbis, INSS Insight, and al Majalla, as well as in FPRI’s E-Notes and Geopoliticus blog. Helfont conducted research in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the summer of 2011, about which she authored several articles. She holds an M.A. in Middle East Studies from Tel Aviv University, and is proficient at various levels in Hebrew, Arabic, and French.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Fahd, Sultan, Abdulrahman, Nayef, Turki, Salman, and Ahmed made up the Sudairi Seven.

[2] Salman (Sudairi son), Mohammed Bin Salman (Sudairi grandson), Mohammed bin Nayef (Sudairi grandson).

The post Saudi Arabia: The Sudairi Seven Back On Top – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Terrorist groups are generally distinguished from guerrilla organisations, but this distinction is gradually disappearing as a growing number of terrorist groups adopt guerrilla tactics. This study first offers some empirical evidence in support of this claim and then argues that in light of the growing divergence between terrorist and guerrilla organisations, most terrorist groups are better conceptualised as insurgent organisations. Such an approach can help analysts adopt a greater nuance in examining terrorist groups, leading to improved policies to stem the evolving threat of terrorism.

By Assaf Moghadam*

This paper first offers some empirical support to the idea that the vast majority of contemporary terrorist groups use a combination of terrorist and guerrilla tactics.[2] It then argues that these transformations would benefit from a growing reliance on concepts drawn from the insurgency and counterinsurgency literature on the part of analysts in order to fully appreciate the evolving nature of these groups. Finally, the study calls for increased correspondence and cross-fertilisation between terrorism studies and the scholarship on insurgency and counterinsurgency, as well as the literature on civil wars. We believe that such an interdisciplinary effort can offer a more lucid and dispassionate conceptualisation of these groups, of the full range of their activities and of the broader context in which they tend to operate. Such an approach, in turn, can improve policies to address the threat posed by these violent actors.

Analysis:

In the summer of 2014, three prominent militant groups commonly classified as terrorist organisations engaged in significant combat operations that featured capabilities and tactics exceeding those traditionally ascribed to terrorist groups. These groups also achieved rare battlefield successes untypical of ordinary terrorist groups. The ‘Islamic State’ (IS, formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or ISIS) has been able to extend its stronghold and create an imposing presence over large swathes of territory in both Syria and Iraq, while threatening other neighbouring countries such as Jordan. The Lebanese Hizballah, dubbed by some analysts as ‘among the most skilled light infantry on the planet’,[3] continues to amass significant battlefield experience through its ongoing involvement in the Syrian civil war on behalf of the incumbent Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad. Finally, in the Gaza Strip, the militant Islamist group Hamas has posed formidable challenges to Israeli military forces and civilians using a combination of terrorist and insurgent tactics. These trends also apply to other groups in broader geographical regions, including al-Qaeda. As a recent article by Jihadism scholar J.M. Berger argued, even al-Qaeda, broadly defined, is currently focused on fighting ‘wars and insurgencies’, while it conducts terrorism only ‘on the side’.[4]

This paper argues that the examples above indicate a broader transformation of terrorist groups into insurgent actors that increasingly combine the use of terrorist and guerrilla tactics.

Terrorism, guerrilla and insurgency

The existing scholarship on terrorism and its perpetrators suggests that terrorist groups differ from other militant actors such as guerrilla organisations. Terrorist groups and guerrilla organisations are said to differ, among other things, in their target selection. As Alex Schmid notes in his magisterial volume on terrorism research, ‘in the dominant understanding among experts, the victims [of terrorism] are predominantly not members of an armed force’.[5] Moreover, terrorist groups are generally considered to be smaller in size, while employing uncompromising violence. Conventional wisdom holds that the secret nature and small size of terrorist organisations generally prevents them from holding territory, while their focus on extreme violence prevents them from enjoying popular support.[6] Bruce Hoffman, for example, writes that terrorists do not function in the open as armed units, generally do not attempt to seize or hold territory, deliberately avoid engaging enemy military forces in combat, are constrained both numerically and logistically from undertaking concerted mass political mobilization efforts, and exercise no direct control or governance over a populace at either the local or the national level’.[7] Terrorist groups, in other words, are generally considered to have a modus operandi that differs from those of guerrilla groups.

A cursory look at contemporary ‘terrorist groups’, however, suggests that these groups regularly carry out guerrilla operations as well. In the existing literature, guerrilla attacks are said to typically emphasise extended campaigns of assassination, sabotage and hit-and-run attacks carried out by small and highly mobile paramilitary units. Like the tactics of terrorism, guerrilla warfare is described as a ‘weapon of the weak’ designed to harass the enemy and gradually erode his will. Yet where terrorism is in essence an act of psychological warfare –it hopes to turn the targeted population against its own government–, guerrilla operations primarily target their enemy’s capabilities.[8] Functioning as ‘small armies’, potent guerrilla forces are large and strong enough to seize and hold territory. Moreover, guerrilla tactics differ from terrorist tactics in terms of its main targets. While the prime targets of guerrilla fighters are the enemy’s armed forces, police or support units, as well as general government and economic targets, the targets of terrorist groups are usually understood to be civilians and, at most, non-combatants.[9]

Whereas terrorist groups have traditionally been treated as distinct from guerrilla organisations, many contemporary militant groups apply both terrorist and guerrilla tactics. As Robert Scales and Douglas Ollivant argue, a growing array of Islamist ‘terrorists’ have turned into ‘skilled soldiers’ who increasingly use a blend of traditional terrorist tactics and modern war-fighting techniques.[10] Contemporary militants continue to use terrorist tactics to intimidate potential supporters and enemies alike, but their modus operandi has evolved into skills that can pose considerable challenges to states and their populations. They now ‘maneuver in reasonably disciplined formations… and employ mortars and rockets in deadly barrages’. They rely on ambushes, roadside bombings, sniper fire and other tactics that in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan have imposed considerable challenges and losses to US forces. Groups such as the Islamic State, Hizballah and Hamas are able to handle second-generation weapons such as Russian RPG-29s and possibly wire-guided anti-tank missiles and build sophisticated underground tunnel systems.[11]

Empirical support for the growing terrorism-guerrilla nexus

One criterion by which to measure the growing crossover of terrorism and guerrilla tactics is to examine the choice of targets. Specifically, this analysis examines the targeting choices of groups defined as ‘terrorist groups’ by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) of the University of Maryland, one of the most extensive and widely employed databases on terrorism. We examined all groups in the period between 2002 and 2012 that carried out at least six attacks –the minimum required to render the statistical analysis meaningful–.[12] 2012 is the last year for which data is available through the GTD, and we examined a period of more than 10 years because a shorter period would have significantly lowered the number of groups that would have reached the set minimum of six attacks. Furthermore, focusing on this time period allows for the analysis of contemporary militant actors, thereby rendering our study more policy relevant. These requirements left us with 119 groups to analyse. For each group we recorded the total number of attacks during that period and examined the distribution of target types, with a focus on attacks against civilians, general and diplomatic government targets, military targets and attacks against the police.[13] We expected a sizeable portion of the targets of these organisations to be military, government or police targets –a finding that would lend credence to our hypothesis that terrorist groups use guerrilla tactics as well–.

As the following analysis shows, the data strongly suggest that terrorist groups indeed use a combination of guerrilla and terrorist tactics. The analysis first focused on data for the universe of groups active in that decade. For these 119 groups, the average percentage of attacks against civilians is 32% (with a median of 28.6%). As Figure 1 shows, on average civilians are the favoured targets for these groups but such attacks account for no more than a third of the total. As much as 16% of the attacks were aimed at military targets, 15.3% against government targets and 13.4% against police targets. When combined, these targets generally considered typical for guerrilla operations –such as military, government and police targets– are targeted in 44.7% of the cases –a significantly higher figure than for civilians, the classic target of terrorism.

We then conducted a more focused analysis on the target selection of ‘terrorist groups’ active in the Middle East and North Africa. In sum, groups active in the Middle East and North Africa are more likely to attack civilian targets compared with their counterparts in the other geographic locations combined. Still, attacks that could also be considered guerrilla attacks, ie, against military, police and government targets, outnumber attacks against civilian targets. The 10 most active groups labelled as terrorist groups by the GTD that operate in the Middle East and North Africa aim for non-civilian targets 47.3% of the time and civilian targets 41.8% of the time.

In conclusion, an empirical analysis strongly suggests that if terrorist attacks are defined as attacks against civilian targets only, the common labelling of these groups as ‘terrorist groups’ is, strictly speaking, only partially accurate.

Adopting concepts from insurgency and counterinsurgency theory

The trends emerging from our data analysis seem to suggest that what are commonly labelled ‘terrorist groups’ are in fact entities that engage in terrorism in addition to using other tactics. We argue that an existing concept, that of ‘insurgent group’, is most useful in describing this development.[14] The concept accounts for the generally observable interplay between violent and nonviolent (ie, political) means of struggle, for these groups’ reliance on either single or multiple tactics and for the fact that terrorism most often emerges in the context of a broader armed conflict such as a civil war.

The US Army/US Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual offers a definition of insurgency that synthesises the dominant view among insurgency and COIN theorists. It describes insurgency as ‘an organized, protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control’.[15] Subversion and armed conflict –the interplay of political and violent means– are the two main ways in which insurgents seek to attain their goals. The concept of insurgency can help overcome the conceptual difficulties regarding the proper labelling of many contemporary militant groups because theorists of insurgency have long argued that insurgents typically rely on several modes of warfare at once. Although theoretically these modes of warfare do not have to include acts of terrorism –insurgents can rely, for example, on a combination of conventional and guerrilla tactics– they almost always do. Ariel Merari, for instance, observed that ‘whenever possible, insurgents use concurrently a variety of strategies of struggle. Terrorism, which is the easiest form of insurgency, is practically always one of these modes’.[16]

Viewing terrorist groups as insurgent groups should not be seen as an attempt to play down the fact that these groups frequently commit acts of indiscriminate violence. Yet it does help place these acts in a broader context of a more complex reality. Based on this understanding, even the most violent groups using the most despicable tactics are likely to spend most of their time and energy doing something other than killing civilians –fighting regular troops and government forces and subverting their enemies by means of propaganda and other political means.

Of course, as the late terrorism scholar Paul Wilkinson noted, ‘it is possible to engage in acts of terrorism without mounting a full-scale insurgency’. [17] Self-standing campaigns of terrorism detached from broader conflicts, however, are becoming increasingly rare, and have always been the exception. According to Wilkinson, historically, acts of terrorism have been used as ‘part of a wider repertoire of struggle’.[18] Recent research on the interplay between terrorism and civil wars –the dominant type of warfare since World War II– confirms the ongoing relevance of Wilkinson’s assessment. According to data assembled and analysed by Michael Findley and Joseph K. Young, most incidents of terrorism ‘take place in the geographic regions where civil war is occurring and during the ongoing war’.[19] Civil wars are typically coded, inter alia, as wars between at least two parties, one of which is the government. The conduct of civil wars is therefore, by definition, marked by insurgency and counterinsurgency, again suggesting a close interrelationship between terrorism and insurgencies.

Conclusion:

We believe that conceptualising of contemporary terrorist groups as ‘insurgent groups’ offers a far more nuanced approach that more accurately reflects reality on the ground. The approach helps acknowledge a number of important caveats: (1) terrorist groups use, almost without exception, terrorism in conjunction with other tactics, notably guerrilla warfare; (2) terrorist groups are becoming more sophisticated political actors, at times even striving to win over hearts and minds of local populations; and (3) terrorism is rarely a self-standing phenomenon as most terrorism occurs in the context of broader armed conflict, typically in cases of insurgency and/or civil war.

The analytical employment of the ‘insurgent group’ concept can contribute to a deeper theoretical understanding of the power distribution challenge that insurgent groups pose to governments by using terror. In addition, the suggested label can be useful in explaining the adoption of both violent (including terrorism) and nonviolent means of political struggle, based on the present political, economic and social conditions on the ground. Furthermore, the use of the label ‘insurgent groups’ allows a more comprehensive perspective on the dynamic relations between politically-motivated violent actors that use terrorism as a tactic, governments and other relevant actors. Finally, in terms of policy, the use of the suggested framework will provide a broader perspective of the insurgents’ political development, a better grasp of its network of contacts and supporters and it may also afford a considerable flexibility to policy decision-making.

Theoretically our conclusions also call for closer intellectual interaction between the terrorism and insurgency studies fields, as well as to the study of civil wars. Closer correspondence between these related fields can help shed more light on the political aspects of the campaigns in which terrorism occurs. Recognising that ‘terrorist’ violence, brutal and wanton as it is, cannot be divorced from these groups’ additional activities can assist in the formulation of better policies. Such policies should combine political and military components to address what is in essence a political-military threat. Finally, viewing terrorism as a phenomenon closely related to insurgency and civil war will allow analysts to pool the insights and best practices from academic fields that have thus far been treated separately. The study of terrorism, insurgency and civil wars not only suffer from a disconnect as far as the analysis of their causes are concerned: analyses of how these different phenomena might end are similarly compartmentalised. Insights from the study of the termination of civil wars and insurgencies, for example, are likely to inform future studies of the decline and demise of groups heavily reliant on terrorism, and vice versa.

About the author:
Assaf Moghadam
Director of Academic Affairs, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya<

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

Notes:
[1] The author is grateful to Ronit Berger and Polina Beliakova for research support.
[2] The targeting of civilians is generally considered a key aspect of terrorism. On this point, see especially Boaz Ganor (2005), The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers, Transaction Publishers, p. 1-24. Most scholars, however, expand that category of victims to civilians as well as noncombatants. See Alex P. Schmid (Ed.) (2013), The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, Routledge, Oxford & New York, p. 39-157. For a recent discussion of guerrilla tactics targeting primarily government targets and armed forces, see Max Boot (2013), Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present, WW Norton & Company, p. xxii-xxiv. For a classic treatment of the topic, see Walter Laqueur (1976), Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study, Transaction Publishers.
[3] Robert H. Scales & Douglas Ollivant (2014), ‘Terrorist Armies Fight Smarter and Deadlier than Ever’, Washington Post, 1/VIII/2014, (accessed 6/VIII/2014).
[4] J.M. Berger (2014), ‘War on Error’, Foreign Policy, 5/II/2014, (accessed 24/VII/2014).
[5] Alex P. Schmid & Albert I. Jongman (1988), Political Terrorism. A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Databases and Literature, Transaction Publishers, Amsterdam & New Brunswick.
[6] See James Khalil (2013), ‘Know Your Enemy: On the Futility of Distinguishing between Terrorists and Insurgents’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 36, nr 5, p. 419-430. On a traditional description of terrorist groups, see Martha Crenshaw (1985), ‘An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism’, Orbis-A Journal of World Affairs, vol. 29, nr, p. 465-489. See also Bruce Hoffman (2006), Inside Terrorism, Columbia University Press, chapter 1.
[7] Hoffman, op. cit., p. 35.
[8] For classic doctrinal formulations of guerrilla warfare, see Samuel B. Griffith (1978), Mao Tse-Tung on Guerrilla Warfare, Anchor Press; Guevara, Ernesto ‘Che’ (1998), Guerrilla Warfare, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln; and Robert Taber (1970), The War of the Flea: A Study of Guerrilla Warfare Theory and Practice, Paladin, London.
[9] For a comparison of terrorism and guerrilla strategies, see Bard E. O’Neill (2005), Insurgency and Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse, 2nd edition, Potomac Books, Washington DC; Laqueur (1976), op. cit.; Boot (2003), op. cit.; and Ariel Merari (1993), ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency’, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 5, nr 4, p. 213-251.
[10] Scales & Ollivant (2014), op. cit.
[11] Scales & Ollivant (2014), ibid.
[12] The GTD database distinguishes between a large number of target types, but five of these were of particular significance to this project: civilians, diplomatic, government, military and police targets. We chose a minimum of six attacks because if a group listed in the GTD database attacked each one of the target types included in the database, setting six attacks as the minimum would ensure that at least one target type was targeted more than the others. A lower cut-off point would render the statistical analysis less meaningful.
[13] As stated earlier, the GTD provides information about many other target types-However, these are of less importance to this project. Additionally, we eventually excluded one of the target types –attacks on (diplomatic) government targets– from our charts and the final analysis as this type of target was rarely struck compared with the other target types, not used by most groups and lacked sufficient weight for an empirical analysis.
[14] We are not the first authors to do so. For similar arguments, see for example Merari (1993), op. cit.; David J. Kilcullen (2005), Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 28, nr 4, p. 597-617; and Khalil (2013), op. cit.
[15] US Department of the Army (2007), The US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, US Army Field manual nr 3-24, Marine Corps Warfighting publication nr 3-33.5, University of Chicago Press. This definition is similar to the definition in other classic texts on insurgency. Compare, for example, O’Neill (2005), op. cit.; David Galula (1964), Counter-Insurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, Frederick Praeger, New York, and John A. Nagl (2009), Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam, University of Chicago Press.
[16] Merari (1993), op. cit.. For a similar view, see also Kilcullen (2005), op. cit.
[17] Paul Wilkinson (2011), Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 3rd edition, Routledge, Oxford & New York, p. 10.
[18] Wilkinson (2011), ibid.
[19] Michael G. Findley & Joseph K. Young (2012), ‘Terrorism and Civil War. A Spatial and Temporal Approach to a Conceptual Problem’, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 10, nr 2, 2012, p. 286.

The post Interplay Between Terrorism, Insurgency And Civil War In Middle East – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United Kingdom’s search for Jihadi John, the masked, British-accented fighter who appears in videos and beheading of foreigners condemned to death by the Islamic State, the jihadist group that controls a swath of Syria and Iraq, has highlighted the significance for militants of soccer as a recruitment and bonding tool. It has also put the spotlight of a small band of Portuguese nationals who have joined the jihadists in recent years.

The British search is focusing, according to The Sunday Times, on five East London amateur players who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State and have since suggested on social media that at least one of them had intimate knowledge of the executions. The five are seen as potential leads to Jihadi John, who identity is believed to be known to British intelligence.

One of the five players, 28 year-old, Nero Seraiva, tweeted last year on July 11, days before the execution of American journalist James Foley, the first of the Islamic State’s Western hostages to be decapitated: “”Message to America, the Islamic State is making a new movie. Thank u for the actors.” The tweet came days before the jihadist group announced Mr. Foley’s execution in a graphic You Tube video entitled A Message to America.

Jihadi John’s latest video threatened last week to execute two Japanese hostages, one of which, Hurana Yukawa, is believed to have been killed over the weekend.

Intelligence sources believe that Mr. Seraiva and his East London associates may be involved in the filming and distribution of videos of Jihadi John and the beheadings. Westerners who met the same gruesome fate as Mr. Foley include American journalist Steven Sotloff, British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines and US aid worker Peter Kassig who changed his name to Abdul-Rahman Kassig after converting to Islam.

The investigation of Mr. Seraiva’s group is likely to offer insights into the Islamic State’s appeal. The group’s five members are all Portuguese nationals with roots in Portugal’s former African colonies who migrated to Britain for study and work.

Celso Rodrigues da Costa, whose brother Edgar also is in Syria, is believed to have attended open training sessions for Arsenal, but failed to get selected. Mr. Da Costa, born in Portugal to parents from Guinea-Bissau adopted in Syria the name Abu Isa Andaluzi.

Andaluzi or Al Andalus are names adopted by several of the approximately one dozen Portuguese nationals, at least half of whom were resident in Britain, who have joined the Islamic State. The adopted names, Arabic references to the Iberian Peninsula at the time of Muslim rule, reflect a desire to return the region to Islam.

Islamic State demonstrated its understanding of the recruitment and propaganda value of soccer when it last April distributed a video in which Mr. Da Costa appeared as a masked fighter.

The video exploited the physical likeness of Mr. Da Costa to that of French international Lassana Diarra, who played for Arsenal before moving to Lokomotiv Moscow. A caption under the video posting read; “A former soccer player – Arsenal of London – who left everything for jihad.” Another text said: “He… played for Arsenal in London and left soccer, money and the European way of life to follow the path of Allah.”

On camera, Mr. Da Costa said: “My advice to you first of all is that we are in need of all types of help from those who can help in fighting the enemy. Welcome, come and find us and from those who think that they cannot fight they should also come and join us for example because it maybe that they can help us in something else, for example help with medicine, help financially, help with advice, help with any other qualities and any other skills they might have, and give and pass on this knowledge, and we will take whatever is beneficial and that way they will participate in jihad.”

Mr. Da Costa and his cohorts were following in the steps of a number of European players from immigrant backgrounds who radicalized. Burak Karan, an up and coming German-Turkish soccer star, was killed during a Syrian military raid on anti-Bashar al Assad rebels near the Turkish border.

Yann Nsaku, a Congolese born convert to Islam and former Portsmouth FC youth centre back, was one of 11 converts arrested in France in 2012 on suspicion of being violent jihadists who were plotting anti-Semitic attacks. Nizar ben Abdelaziz Trabelsi, a Tunisian who played for Germany’s Fortuna Düsseldorf and FC Wuppertal, was arrested and convicted in Belgium a decade ago on charges of illegal arms possession and being a member of a private militia. Mr. Trabelsi was sentenced to ten years in prison.

They all shared with militant Islamist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh a deep-seated passion for the sport. Their road towards militancy often involved an action-oriented activity, soccer.

Fabio Pocas, at 22 the youngest of Mr. Seraiva’s group, arrived in London in 2012, hoping to become a professional soccer player. In Lisbon, Mr. Pocas, a converted to Islam, attended the youth academy of Sporting Lisbon, the alma mater of superstars such as Cristiano Ronaldo and Luis Figo.

In London, he helped amateur league UK Football Finder FC (UKFFFC) win several divisional competitions. The Sunday Times quoted UKFFFC football director Ewemade Orobator as saying that Mr. Pocas “came here to play football seriously. In about May 2013 an agent came down and said, ‘Work hard over the summer and I will get you a trial (with a professional club).'” Mr. Pocas failed to take up the offer and travelled to Syria instead where he adopted the name Abdurahman Al Andalus.

Mr. Pocas, according to The Sunday Times, has settled in the Syrian town of Manbij near Aleppo where he has taken a Dutch teenager as his bride. “Holy war is the only solution for humanity,” he said in a posting on Facebook.

The post UK Search For Jihadi John Spotlights Recruitment Role Of Soccer – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The attacker in the December 2014 Sydney hostage crisis was not a ‘lone wolf’, but an amateur, part of a growing trend that international terrorist groups have encouraged. This strategy works because it uses the amateurism itself to evade standard counterterrorist practices, expands potential targets, and takes advantage of governments’ overreaction to terrorism.

By Justin V. Hastings*

Australia was shocked by the Sydney hostage crisis in December, in which a single shotgun-wielding attacker, Man Haron Monis, took hostages for 18 hours in the Lindt Café in Sydney’s Martin Place, shutting down Sydney’s central business district, and ultimately resulting in the deaths of two hostages and the attacker. During the standoff, Monis showed a flag with the shahada – the Muslim article of faith – and demanded an Islamic State flag.

As is inevitable in such attacks, the news media immediately looked for connections to known terrorist groups and, when nothing substantive was found, claimed that Man Haron Monis was an example of a ‘lone wolf’ attacker, arguably a troubled individual rather than a terrorist. But this is a flawed way of thinking about the Sydney attack and others like it. In fact, such attacks may represent a new trend in terrorism, one for which the term ‘lone wolf’ is a misnomer.

Disappointment of globalised terrorism

After the September 11 attacks, many commentators proclaimed that a new era of terrorism had arrived, one in which the technologies of globalisation, such as the Internet, mobile phones, 24-hour news stations, containerised shipping, and cheap and fast commercial jet travel, would bring transnational terrorism to the doorsteps of citizens in developed countries. Yet, while there have indeed been transnational attacks and plots in developed countries, they have not occurred at the tempo that one might expect if terrorists have truly been liberated by globalisation.

Transnational terrorist groups maintain logistical support networks and communications across international borders necessary for planning and operational decisions by relying on the technologies associated with globalization. Yet the infrastructure supporting these terrorism-enabling technologies is also controlled by states: states can monitor mobile phones and emails, and they can exercise extra scrutiny at airports and seaports. With greater hostility and focus from the governments, terrorist groups have found it difficult to use these technologies without detection, thus making it difficult for them to stage transnational attacks, or even to get into some countries at all.

Islamic State, and Al-Qaeda before it, thus face a problem of being frozen out of many developed countries. They have responded by giving up on attempting to move weapons or people across international boundaries, and instead encouraging a new type of terrorism, one that does not need to use the technologies of globalisation to be successful.

In each of the incidents in this new wave of terrorism, one or sometimes two attackers staged a relatively unsophisticated attack with some but not dozens of casualties. They were usually resident in the country where they were attacking, or at least had easy access to their target country, and used simple weapons – cars, knives, and shotguns.

A number of attacks in recent years fit this pattern: in addition to the Sydney hostage crisis, there are also the May 2014 shooting by a French national at a Jewish museum in Belgium, the beheading of soldier Lee Rigby in the United Kingdom in May 2013, the shooting attack at Parliament Hill in Ottawa in Canada in October 2014, the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013 and the December 2014 attacks in France that used cars to run into crowds.

Why amateur terrorism works

Since the groups themselves may only encourage rather than control the attacks, and may have never heard of the attackers before, they sacrifice command and control, as well as the ability to control logistics or training for attacks. Since the attackers often have no formal training, the attacks themselves are often amateurish, poorly planned, and rarely kill large numbers of people. Yet both these sacrifices redound to the benefit of the amateur terrorists and the organizations that encourage and claim credit for their actions in four ways.

First, lack of command and control means that several ways for governments to gain information about attacks – intercepting communications, following links and relationships, and surveilling associates of known terrorists – are relatively ineffective in stopping the plots. A poorly planned attack is also often one that lacks any traceable communications with others.

Second, a lack of logistical sophistication make it easier to carry out the attack itself, and harder to stop before the fact. The attackers often use everyday items that are readily available in country and not amenable to being controlled even by well-functioning governments, and draw little of no suspicion when they obtain them. Increasingly harsh laws are unable to stop attackers — this is partially why China has been unable to stop Uyghur separatist attacks, which have used knives, cars and homemade explosives, despite having a police state.

Third, the groups can rhetorically benefit from attacks that are congruent with their objectives that occur in developed countries far from their logistical chains or command and control networks. By “adopting” amateur attackers, as both Al-Qaeda and Islamic State did after the Sydney hostage crisis, praising Monis’ actions in their magazines, terrorist groups are able to make it appear as if the tentacles of radical Islam are everywhere.

The existence of pinprick attacks around the world may also serve to encourage even more such plots, as amateur attackers use the attacks to reach out to the terrorist groups and demonstrate their solidarity (as Monis did), rather than the other way around.

Finally, the groups (and arguably the amateur attackers) have realised that they do not actually need to do much to damage their enemies. The effectiveness of the attack is not dependent on the size of the attack itself (or even whether the attacks kill anyone directly) but on the auto-immune response from the target state and its society.

With a shotgun and a black flag, Monis occupied Australia’s media space for nearly two days, and was able to shut down downtown Sydney, while the state library, parliament and supreme court were closed, and the train station and nearby roads were shut down. Simply taking hostages and identifying himself as sympathetic to radical Islam was enough to achieve economic and psychological effects Islamic State never would have been able to achieve on its own, using its own resources, in Australia.

*Justin V. Hastings is Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Comparative Politics at the University of Sydney. He is a past Visiting Scholar at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Amateurism: The New Terrorist Strategy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Gulgiz Dadashova*

Azerbaijan with a rich history is more than just a country in the South Caucasus. It is a living example for others who want to co-exist in a troubled region of the world.

Here in Baku, the capital of the intercultural and secular Azerbaijan, or in Khinalig, the most remote village of the Land of Fire, people don’t care much about the meaning of the word ‘tolerance’, as they don’t care about color, race or religion when making friends or sharing life.

Here people share their joys and sorrow. Christians, Jews, and Lezginz were fighting hand in hand for the freedom of Azerbaijan in the 1990s and they were crying together for the lives lost in terror attacks. They also marked together the national progress, as well as the bright victory at Eurovision 2012 and great victories of our sportsmen during Olympic Games.

With politicians, there is a lot to talk about “accepting” and “tolerating” when it comes to religion, origin or sex. No one and no nation can see the value of variety in culture and religion clearly enough as Azerbaijan…

As an example, an oak tree decorated with Christmas-tree decorations gives a fabulous look at the capital Baku and regions of Azerbaijan, which while it has a predominantly Muslim population, people can be seen wishing each other Merry Christmas on Christmas night.

The most-loved holiday of Azerbaijanis – Novruz- symbolizes the end of winter and beginning of spring and is often linked with the oldest monotheist religions, Zoroastrianism. It is largely celebrated in the country, involving all, irrespective of their religions and cultures.

This commonality in traditions, indeed, makes Azerbaijani society quite unique, sometimes leaving many questions for researchers when seeking to find the roots of this secular multicultural and tolerant society.

On this backdrop, it has become more topical in the globe amid rising intolerance, Islamphobia, Anti-Semitism and Racism, which over the course of history has often caused numerous deaths, genocides, violence, religious persecution as well as confrontations at different levels. Sometimes it is racial and ethnic, sometimes it is religious and ideological and sometimes it is a political and social issue. But in its every manifestation, it is evil and painful.

People are humiliated, bullied and attacked for no reason other than the fact that they have a different appearance, different views and different interests. Acts of violence sourcing from discrimination always produce justification, in the worst scenario done in the name of God. They are presented as a right vision and the protection of “ideals.” However, wars, pogroms, inquisitions, and other terrible things which have been happening cannot be, and should not be justified. Otherwise, they will develop into an irreversible path, in fact inflicting damage on all of us.

Religious tolerance in Europe is one of the most discussed topics after centuries of wars between opposing denominations of Christianity, each claiming to be “the one true church”. Today, the whole of Europe turns a blind eye to intolerance against Muslims, naming them terrorists and if not officially, but “under cover”, forcing them to refrain from following their religion.

In the US, religion is not the question, but the color of the skin which is the main source of hate. Criminals of all skin colors and religions do exist, but the Americans, but for still some ‘whites’  see the real danger in the color. The Ferguson events began with the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, by a white policeman. The shooting prompted protests that roiled the area for weeks.
The disputed circumstances of the shooting and the following protests and civil unrest received considerable attention in the US and abroad, and sparked a vigorous debate about law enforcement’s relationship with African-Americans.

Closer to home, hate crimes targeting Turks and Muslims are common in the heart of Europe, i.e. Germany. German authorities announced in 2011 that a neo-Nazi gang was responsible for the murders of eight Turkish shopkeepers in the notorious NSU case. The killings were dubbed  the “Doner killings” by German media outlets, named after the döner restaurants commonly run by Turks. And new attacks were reported in late 2014.

On this background, the situation is quite different in this small part of South Caucasus – Azerbaijan, where ordinary people don’t understand when the world praises it for being tolerant, this predominantly-Muslim nation, for accepting Jews, Christians or atheists.

Azerbaijan shows the world somewhat anther picture on the back of rising number of hate crimes around the world. Azerbaijanis preserve their national identity associated with a unique heritage based on an improbable blend of Turkism, Zoroastrianism, moderate Islam, and its historical function as ‘bridge’ between Asia and Europe along the Silk Road.

Azerbaijan can be truly called a land representing a wide range of ethnicities.

According to the 2009 census, ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan represent 8.9 percent of the population, including Lezgins (the largest minority group, making up 2 percent of the population), Russians (1.3 percent) and others, such as Talysh, Tats (Muslims and Judeo-Tats), Avars, Georgians, and Ashkenazi Jews, which comprise the remaining 3.9 percent.

A settlement of a large number of Jewish citizens was organized without fear of discrimination, retribution, or clashes with neighboring towns and states.

Jews arrived in an area called Guba in 1735. They have been living in Azerbaijan for over a thousand years. It was in 1735 that Huseyn Ali Khan invited them to reside in the town of Guba. Huseyn Ali Khan’s son, Fatali Khan became a protector of the Jewish community in a cantonment in Guba called Krasnaya Slobada and, interestingly, it has the highest density of the Jewish community in the world.

But Azerbaijan also holds Zoroastrian roots, Shia and Sunni Muslim communities and a Christian Orthodox tradition and a range of other religious traditions, all of which co-exist together feeling themselves part of the country.

Or take the fact that, Azerbaijan was the first country in the East to enfranchise women, making Azerbaijan the first Muslim nation to grant women equal political rights with men. Now, Azerbaijan has a society where women make up one-third of the workforce and stand with and play an integral role in the societal development. This allows Azerbaijan to take a leading role in the Caucasus, Middle East and North Africa region.

This is something that Azerbaijan and its people have nurtured over the past centuries, since they maintain that diversity and different faiths will contribute to the heritage and tradition of Azerbaijan. That is why the way to global tolerance passes through Azerbaijan.

*Gulgiz Dadashova is Deputy Editor-in-Chief at the Baku-based AzerNews newspaper, and is engaged in developing analytical articles about energy and social issues. Follow the author on Twitter: @GulgizD

The post When Tolerance Just Isn’t Enough – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rajesh Rajagopalan*

With President Barack Obama being the first US President to visit India twice and the first to be the Chief Guest at the Republic Day parade, we should expect the hyperbole that normally accompanies such state visits to be a notch higher this time.

Being democracies, both India and the US would prefer to base their foreign policies on something larger and nobler than narrow self-interest. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s developmental agenda means that American investment and smart cities may garner a lot of attention. But without strategic understanding, economic ties itself will also suffer.

Both sides need to get more realistic about their relations so that we move beyond the traditional trap of exaggerated expectations and inevitable disappointments. The two sides could begin by junking all talk about a ‘non-transactional relationship’ because there is no such thing in international politics.

All international cooperation is transactional and therefore limited. Non-transactional relationships suggest relations based on love or kinship, non-existent in international relation. Nation-states cooperate because their interests coincide and they cooperate for as long as those interests are aligned. This is why international politics is full of seemingly strange bedfellows, such as Pakistan and China or the US and Saudi Arabia. This is also why seemingly obvious partners have great difficulty cooperating, whether it is India and the US or various supposedly fraternal groups such as the Cold War socialist bloc or the Arab bloc.

Transactional international relationships are not such a bad thing as long as the two sides are clear about the terms of the transaction. Instead of pursuing the mirage of a non-transactional relationship, India and the US should focus on areas where there is mutual interest and agree not to let areas of disagreement come in the way. This requires clear-eyed realism on both sides: New Delhi needs to overcome the fantasy that Washington needs it more than the other way around, either for economic reasons or for balancing China. Equally, Washington needs to understand that this partnership is not about democracy or common values but about common interests.

Both sides should understand that this common interest does not include Pakistan or Afghanistan. Pakistan is America’s kryptonite, a country they have been wrong about every decade for the last six. India should have no expectation that Washington’s helplessness on Pakistan will change. In any case, despite their minimized Afghan presence, America’s continued efforts to stabilize Afghanistan means that the US still needs to keep the Pakistan army in good humour. If that effort fails, the US can be expected to wash its hands off the whole problem, much like they did in the 1990s. Neither is helpful to India though there is little India can do about this except to adjust its expectations accordingly. The US and India can cooperate on Pakistan on the fringes, especially on intelligence sharing, but outside of this New Delhi should not expect or give much.

If regional concerns cannot be the basis for strong ties, global issues are an unlikely ballast for strong relations even when India and the US share common interests, such as on terrorism, nuclear security and non-proliferation and in the abstract, democracy.

The real strategic glue in the relationship is the common concern in maintaining some sort of balance in the larger Asian region in the context of China’s rise. This is not just an Indian or an American worry but one that is widely shared in the region, a consequence of China’s surprisingly maladroit strategic behaviour the last few years. Preventing China from entirely dominating the Asia-Pacific is in Indian and American interest. That makes a strong India an American interest. Less recognized, especially in New Delhi, is that a strong US is also in India’s interest because India and other Asian powers cannot manage China on their own.

India conducts military exercises with Japan, Vietnam and Australia and others in the region but they cannot expect to match China either alone or together because none have the capacity to reach across the entire region. Only the US can, which is why it has to anchor such efforts at regional security cooperation. This makes a strong US an Indian and Asian interest.

The biggest threat in all this is buck-passing: both sides trying to free-ride, hoping that the other will shoulder the burden of balancing China. Such buck-passing is dangerous. If neither side shoulders the burden, both could suffer. Preventing such buck-passing requires both India and the US to be clear-eyed about their common self-interest.

*The author is a Professor of International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi

The post US-India Relations: Need For Clear-Eyed Realism – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

According to an AFP report, Kurdish fighters have expelled Daesh militants from the Syrian city of Kobani, which lies on the border with Turkey.

“The (Kurdish) People’s Protection Units have almost full control over Kobani after expelling [Daesh] fighters,” the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told AFP.

Just last week fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) retook a strategic hilltop position known as Mishte-ur.

As a result of the violence, more than 200,000 Kobani residents have also fled across the border into Turkey.

Original article

The post Syria: Kurds Reclaim Kobani From Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The relative peace achieved in Nagaland was further consolidated through 2014, as insurgency-related fatalities continued to decline. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) the State recorded a total of 15 fatalities, including 11 civilians and four militants in 2014; as compared to 32 fatalities in 2013, including 11 civilians and 21 militants; a decline of 53.12 per cent.

As in 2013, there was no fatality among Security Forces (SFs) in 2014. In fact the last fatality in this category was recorded in 2008, when the Police on May 11, 2008, recovered the body of an Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) trooper between the Keyive and Heningkunglwa areas under Peren District. Earlier, Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) cadres had killed an IRB trooper at Diphupar village in Dimapur town on April 25, 2008.

Fatalities were reported from five Districts in 2014 – Mon, Phek, Dimapur, Kiphire and Mokokchung – as against seven Districts in 2013. In 2013, these included Mon, Dimapur, Kiphire, in common with 2014, as well as Kohima, Tuensung, Zunheboto and Wokha.

Of the 11 civilians killed in 2014, nine died in a single incident. On January 3, 2014, the highly decomposed bodies of nine Karbi tribesmen, who were blindfolded with their hands tied and shot from close range, were found in a gorge in Dimapur District. The Rengma Naga Hills Protection Force (RNHPF), a group supported by the NSCN-IM, claimed responsibility for the killings. The incident was linked to Karbi People’s Liberation Tiger (KPLT) militants’ killing of a Rengma Naga tribesman in the Karbi Anglong District of Assam on December 27, 2013.

Two other civilians were killed in two separate incidents – at Mukalimi village in Zunheboto District on January 23 and at Phek Town in Phek District on June 3.

By comparison, the 11 civilian fatalities in 2013 were recorded in nine separate incidents

Fatalities among militants witnessed a steep decline, with just four killed in 2014. Of these, two were killed in two separate fratricidal clashes among Naga militant formations – a cadre each of NSCN-Khole-Kitovi (NSCN-KK) and Federal Government of Nagaland (FGN). On November 5, 2014, SFs killed a United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I) cadre, identified as Ananta Dutta alias Prakash Baruah, in an encounter at Charing Basti in Mokokchung District. Another ULFA-I cadre, identified as ‘assistant finance secretary and operational commander’ Partha Asom alias Partha Pratim Gogoi, was reportedly killed on January 15, 2014, by cadres of his own group under the order of ULFA-I chief Paresh Baruah, who feared that Gogoi was about to surrender to the SFs on January 26, 2014.

The number of militants killed in 2013 stood at 21. More importantly, 12 of these militants were killed and another 11 were injured in 18 fratricidal clashes. The worst of these took place on December 2, 2014, when three NSCN-Khaplang (NSCN-K) cadres were killed while one was injured in a factional clash with NSCN-KK cadres at Sikiu under Shamator sub-division in Tuensang District. Another two were killed by SFs in two separate incidents – one each of NSCN-IM and NSCN-K.

Clearly, a marked improvement has been witnessed through 2014 in terms of fratricidal clashes as well, which had undermined the State’s security environment for several years. According to SATP data, a total of 426 militants have been killed in such clashes since 2001, the highest number in 2008, when a total of 101 militants were killed in internecine fighting. The worst of recorded incident took place on June 4, 2008, when at least 15 cadres of the NSCN-IM and the Unification faction of NSCN (NSCN-U) were killed in separate factional clashes in and around Dimapur.

Fratricidal clashes among Naga groups outside Nagaland, and resultant casualties, also registered a decline in 2014 as compared to the preceding year. Five such incidents, resulting in three deaths and two injuries, were reported in 2014; as against seven such incidents in 2013, resulting in nine deaths and two injuries.

The improvement is primarily due to the signing of the ‘Lenten Agreement’ on March 28, 2014, during a two-day reconciliation meeting of three Naga militant groups – NSCN-IM, NSCN-KK and Naga National Council/ Federal Government of Nagaland (NNC/FGN) – at Dimapur, under the banner of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR). The agreement, signed by six top leaders of the three groups, stated that, in accordance with the Naga Concordant signed on August 26, 2011, they agreed “in principle to form the NNG [Naga National Government]”. This development led to a sharp decline in fratricidal clashes. The joint statement, following the agreement, stated, “While this task is being carried out, we call for maintenance of the status quo, by vigilantly refraining from any unwarranted activities by the Nagas”.

Since an overwhelming proportion of violence in the State had been the result of turf wars between the Naga factions, various other parameters of violence, including explosions and abductions also declined. However, six incidents of explosion, resulting in injuries to five persons, were reported in 2014; as against eight such incidents, resulting in two civilian deaths, recorded in 2013.

The SATP database recorded six incidents of abduction [in which eight people were abducted] in 2014, whereas 12 persons were abducted in 10 such incidents in 2013. 10 incidents of extortion were also recorded in 2014, as against nine incidents reported in 2013. The numbers relating to both abduction and extortion are gross underestimates as most such incidents go unreported, as victims comply without reporting to the Police.

165 militants were arrested in 95 incidents during 2014. These included 56 militants of NSCN-IM, 35 NSCN-K, 33 of NSCN-KK, 24 belonging to different Naga National Council (NNC) factions, nine belonging to the Assam-based United People’s Liberation Army (UPLA), and five belonging to the Assam-based IK Songbijit faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS). 146 militants were arrested in 69 incidents in 2013.

Despite these positive developments, areas of concern persist. Border clashes along State boundaries remain a challenge. Indeed, in one of the worst clashes along the Nagaland-Assam border, which erupted on August 12, 2014, at least 20 people were killed in the Golaghat District of Assam. Clashes along the interstate borders of these two States, over the years, have claimed many lives. The worst of such clashes took place in 1979 when at least 54 people were killed. Signficantly, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Justice T.S. Thakur, on January 14, 2015, observed that the boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland could be resolved either by deciding the 1988 law suit filed by Assam or by referring the matter for arbitration. On the issue as to which State will have control over the disputed area for maintaining law and order and administrative purposes, the bench observed, “it is for the political executive to decide and it cannot be managed by the judiciary.”

It is the prevailing and frequent diktats of the Naga militant formations that remain the primary public and security concern. For instance, the ‘civilian arm’ of NSCN-IM, the ‘Government of the People’s Republic of Nagalim’ (GPRN), through its ‘ministry of mines and minerals’ on July 9, 2014, wrote to Metropolitan Oil and Gas Pvt. Ltd. (MOGPL), rejecting the firm’s prospecting licence, leading to cessation of work. MOGPL, however, launched the pre-production phase of its operation at Old Jalukie village in Peren District in September. Kireshwar Bora, Chief Operating Officer stated, on September 23, 2014, that drilling operations had started in Changpang field (Wokha District). The permit was issued by the State Government of Nagaland in February 2014 to develop the Wokha and Peren oil zones.

In another development highlighting this crisis, the Angami Youth Organization (AYO) and Chakhesang Youth Front (CYF), on April 29, 2014, banned NSCN-K cadres from entering Angami tribal areas, and cautioned all Government establishments, institutions, contractors, corporate, public and private individual business owners against contributing any form of “tax and percentages” to the group. This came after a member of the Action Committee against Unabated Taxation (ACAUT), Abe Mero, was attacked by a suspected NSCN-K militant on April 9, 2014 in Kohima.

Significantly, according to a May 27, 2014, report, Joel Nillo Kath, the ‘co-chairman ‘ of ACAUT, noted that multiple ‘taxation’ and illegal collection started right from the entry gates to the State, where different militants and ‘government agencies’ charge exorbitant rates in the form of yearly tax on vehicle, transport, and goods entry on every item, including essential commodities. He added that militant groups started the system of ‘dealership’ for almost all commodities, as a result of which only a small coterie of businessmen were allowed to deal in those commodities.

ACAUT was formed by several organizations under the aegis of the Naga Council in May 2013, in an effort to check the rampant imposition of ‘illegal tax‘ on the people, especially the business community, by various organizations, particularly including Naga militant outfits.

It is, consequently, useful to assess the losses and gains as a result of the cease-fire agreements signed between the Naga groups and the Central Government, and the several rounds of talks that have followed. R. N. Ravi, the current chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), who was appointed by Central Government as the interlocutor for talks with Naga groups on August 9, 2014, in a news article published on January 23, 2014, observed:

The reckless ‘ceasefire’ between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM)… for the last 17 years is pushing the Nagas into a state of civil war. While the protagonists of the ‘ceasefire,’ New Delhi and the NSCN (I-M), are in mutual comfort capering about the mulberry bush without a stopwatch, the process has landed the Nagas in an orbit of self-destruction. They are far more fragmented and fractious than before… Over 1,800 Nagas have been killed in some 3,000 fratricidal clashes since the beginning of the ‘ceasefire’ (1997-2013). Contrast it with the violence during the 17 years preceding the ‘ceasefire’ (1980-96) that took a toll of some 940 Naga lives in 1,125 clashes mostly with the security forces… The crucial stakeholders — the popularly elected State government, the traditional Naga bodies that wield wide and deep influence on their respective tribes and other active militias in the fray — were excluded from the process. … NSCN (I-M), notwithstanding its pan-Naga pretensions, is essentially a militia of the Tangkhul tribe of Manipur with little resonance with the broad Naga family. A deal cut with it would not be acceptable to the Naga society… The ‘ceasefire’ with the NSCN-IM has resulted in the retreat of the state from the crucial areas of governance and subversion of democratic politics. The absence of a credible state has created a power vacuum that is being filled in by chaotic sub-nationalist forces often at war with one another.

More than 70 rounds of talks have taken place between NSCN-IM and the Central Government since 1997, without any concrete gains, other than the fact that the outfit has reportedly given up its demand for ‘sovereignty’. Likewise, the cease-fire agreements signed with other prominent Naga insurgent groups – NSCN-K [signed in 2001] and NSCN-KK [signed in 2012] – have also failed to construct any substantive solution to the lingering conflict.

For long, a policy of drift appeared to dominate the approach to militancy in Nagaland and its overflow into neighbouring States. The new dispensation in New Delhi has, however, articulated a time bound strategy of negotiations with Naga groups. On October 18, 2014, while commenting on peace talks with NSCN-IM, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval noted, “There should never be any feeling that it (talks) is protracted… The (peace) process is the means to an end and if there is an end, which is a desired end, it must be found in real time. There should be rule of law in the Naga insurgency-affected areas for which peace process must be completed as early as possible.” It remains to be seen how these declarations are translated into policy and process.

The post India: Nagaland Assessment For 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Security Forces (SFs) recovered three bullet-riddled bodies from Mand area of Turbat District of Balochistan on December 30, 2014. The victims had been shot multiple times in the head, chest and face at close range.

Earlier, on December 21, 2014, at least eight bullet-riddled bodies were found dumped at three separate places across the Province. At Kalzai in Pishin District, three bodies of Afghan nationals were found. Two Baloch bodies were found at Khanozai in the same District. Another three bodies of Afghan nationals, were found dumped near a river in the Baghao area of Ziarat District. Ziarat Assistant Commissioner Abdul Salam Achakzai disclosed. “The bodies bore multiple torture marks which suggest they were tortured before being shot in the head.”

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), based on open media sources, at least 153 bullet-riddled bodies were recovered in Balochistan through 2014, as against 39 such recoveries in 2013. 124 of the bodies found in 2014 where recovered from the Baloch separatist areas of South Balochistan, and 29 from Pashtun-dominated North Balochistan.

The staggering rise in recoveries of such bodies in 2014 was primarily accounted for by the discovery of three mass graves in the Totak area of Khuzdar District. Between January 25, 2014, and April 2, 2014, a total of 103 bodies were recovered from these graves. The bodies were too decomposed for identification. The local people claimed that 169 bodies were found in these graves.

The recovery of these mass graves in Khuzdar has now further confirmed what SAIR has been highlighting over years, that there is a relentless campaign by the state’s covert agencies to target Baloch nationalists and their sympathisers in campaigns of ‘disappearances’, and a ‘kill and dump’ policy, both directly and through sectarian/extremist proxies in Balochistan, particularly in the south regions of the Province.

According to SATP’s partial database, the Province has recorded at least 3,295 civilian fatalities since 2004. Of these, 305 civilian killings (182 in the South and 123 in the North) have been claimed by Baloch separatist formations. Islamist and sectarian extremist groups, primarily Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Ahrar-ul-Hind (Liberators of India), claimed responsibility for another 512 civilian killings, 506 in the North (mostly in and around Quetta) and six in the South. The remaining 2,478 civilian fatalities – 1,498 in the South and 980 in the North – remain ‘unattributed’. A large proportion of the unattributed fatalities, particularly in the Southern region, are believed to be the result of enforced disappearances carried out by state agencies, or by their proxies, prominently including the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Aman Balochistan (TNAB, Movement for the Restoration of Peace, Balochistan). In 2014, the Province recorded at least 301 civilian fatalities of which 26 civilian killings (All in North) were claimed by Baloch separatist formations. Islamist and sectarian extremist groups claimed responsibility for the killing of another 37 civilians (31 civilians in the North, mostly in and around Quetta; and six in south). The remaining 238 civilian killings remain ‘unattributed’.

Significantly, prior to 2014, Islamist and sectarian extremist formations were not overtly operating in South Balochistan and none of these outfits had claimed responsibility for any civilian killing in the region. This, however, is now a thing of the past. On May 21, 2014, at least six people, including a Government school teacher identified as Master Hameed, were shot dead when terrorists entered his residence and opened fire, killing him and five of his relatives in the Dasht area of Turbat District. The attack came in the wake of threatening letters sent to private schools by a newly surfaced Islamist terrorist group, Tanzeem-ul-Islam-al-Furqan (TIF, Oragnisation of Islam and the Holy Standard) in Panjgur District, warning the people to completely shut down girls’ education or to prepare themselves for “the worst consequences as prescribed in the Quran”.

Earlier, on May 13, 2014, four armed TIF terrorists, wearing headbands with Allah-o-Akbar (Allah is Great) imprinted on them, set ablaze the vehicle of Major (Retired) Hussain Ali, owner of The Oasis School, in the same District, while he was driving girls to school. The masked terrorists asked him and the girls to de-board the vehicle, before setting it ablaze. These attacks in Panjgur and Turbat Districts indicate the penetration of the Taliban ideology of intolerance and religious bigotry into the Southern regions of Balochistan, which had, thus far, escaped the influence of TTP and its likes.

South Balochistan has long been affected by the Baloch nationalist insurgency, while the North came under the influence of Islamist terrorist formations, including TTP and LeJ. While ethnic Baloch people were targeted by the state machinery, persons from minority communities were persecuted by state-sponsored extremist groups. Zohra Yusuf, chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) claimed, on October 12, 2014, that Balochistan had been made a fertile place for armed religious extremists under a plan and, as a result, about 300,000 Shias, Zikris, and Hindus had been forced to migrate to other areas of the country. She expressed concern over this distress migration of minorities due to lack of security in Balochistan.

The ‘disappearances’ issue has come to dominate the political discourse in Balochistan. However, while the search for missing persons continues, their cases have been complicated by gross discrepancies in the record. For instance, according to a July 23, 2014, report the Home Department stated that only 71 people were missing in the Province, while human rights organisations estimate that the figure is closer to 8,000. The Voice for Baloch Missing Persons (VFBMP), an advocacy group, insists that more than 19,000 Baloch political activists and sympathisers have been subjected to enforced disappearances over the last 13 years. VFBMP vice-president Mama Qadir told The Express Tribune on July 23, 2014, “There are more than 19,000 people who were subjected to enforced disappearance in Balochistan and none of them have been recovered yet. The Government has done nothing, except to release those who were detained for a brief period.” He added that his organisation had submitted a detailed report to the United Nations with evidence regarding missing persons. Significantly, on January 12, 2015, the Pakistan Supreme Court directed the Federal Government through Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt to submit comprehensive data within 10 days, regarding the number of missing persons in the country.

Terrorism related incidents and fatalities have, however, registered a decline through 2014 as compared to the preceding year. According to SATP data, the province recorded 607 fatalities, including 301 civilians, 223 militants and 83 SF personnel in 2014, in comparison to 960 such fatalities, including 718 civilians, 137 SF personnel and 105 militants in 2013. Similarly, the number and lethality of suicide attacks in the Province has also decreased considerably, with four such incidents resulting in 12 fatalities and 64 injuries in 2014; as against nine such attacks resulting in 233 deaths and 407 injuries in 2013. The Province also witnessed a decrease in bomb blasts and resultant fatality, from 138 incidents and 440 deaths in 2013, to 84 incidents and 132 deaths in 2014. Further, as against 63 major incidents of killing (each involving three or more fatalities) resulting in 433 fatalities in 2013, year 2014 recorded 56 such incidents resulting 415 fatalities. The provincial capital Quetta recorded a considerable decrease in terrorism related incidents, from 190 in 2013 to 100 in 2014. There were nine attacks on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) convoys through 2014, with three killed and six injured, as against 18 such attacks in 2013, with six killed and seven injured. Attacks on gas pipelines, however, increased from 10 in 2013 to 17 in 2014.

Disappearances and the state’s ‘kill and dump policy’ continue to cause great distress in Balochistan, feeding the crisis of mistrust between the Baloch people and Islamabad and prolonging the insurgency. Islamabad’s strategy of creating and supporting Islamist extremist groups to manage domestic political challenges has enormously aggravated the problem in both North and South Balochistan, though these groups are most active in the North. The limited gains in terms of a marginal reduction in most indices of violence, consequently, offer little hope of a sustainable improvement in the Province.

The post Pakistan: Balochistan Assessment For 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Ukrainian army is essentially a ‘NATO legion’ which doesn’t pursue the national interests of Ukraine, but persists to restrict Russia, President Vladimir Putin says.

“We often say: Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian Army. But who is really fighting there? There are, indeed, partially official units of armed forces, but largely there are the so-called ‘volunteer nationalist battalions’,” said Putin.

He added that the intention of Ukrainian troops is connected with “achieving the geopolitical goals of restraining Russia.” Putin was addressing students in the city of St. Petersburg.

According to Putin, the Ukrainian army “is not an army, but a foreign legion, in this case a foreign NATO legion, which, of course, doesn’t pursue the national interests of Ukraine.”

Kiev has been reluctant to find political solutions to the crisis in eastern Ukraine and only used the ceasefire to regroup its forces, the president stressed.

“Unfortunately official Kiev authorities refuse to follow the path of a peaceful solution. They don’t want to resolve [the crisis] using political tools,” Putin said, adding that first Kiev authorities had first used law enforcement, then security services and then the army in the region.

“It is essentially a civil war [in Ukraine]. In my view, many in Ukraine already understand this,” Putin added.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has reacted to President Putin’s words, calling his statement “nonsense.”

“The statement that there is a NATO legion in Ukraine is nonsense. There is no NATO legion,” Stoltenberg told reporters.

Already tense situation in eastern Ukraine gone downhill in past 2 weeks. The escalation of violence came after a controversial incident at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha, where 12 passengers were killed on January 13.

Kiev and the militia blamed each other for the incident.

Following escalation, Kiev ordered “massive fire” on militia-held regions on January 18. The self-proclaimed Donetsk republic’s leader accused Kiev of trying to restart the war.

Violent confrontation between Ukrainian army troops and rebels reached its climax last week, when Mariupol in the Donetsk Region was shelled. At least 30 people were killed and over 100 wounded.

Kiev and militia troops traded blame, with rebels insisting they didn’t’ have weapons close enough to the city to carry out such a deadly attack.

Western countries reiterated accusations of Russia backing the rebel forces, and so being partly responsible for violations of the Minsk agreement. They called for more sanctions against Moscow.

On Monday, US President Barack Obama promised the United States would examine options to “ratchet up the pressure on Russia” on the Ukraine issue.

At the same time, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Washington has “more tools” available to increase pressure on Russia.

“I think we have seen that the sanctions work to create real stress in the economy. We have more tools. I am not today going to enumerate what the tools are but we have more tools,” Lew told a news conference in Brussels.

Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski also called on the EU to consider imposing tougher sanctions on Moscow, saying: “The response of the Western world should be very firm.”

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also hinted at further restrictions, adding that “an attack or a broad offensive on Mariupol would be a qualitative change in the situation to which we would have to react.”

Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov called fresh threats of anti-Russian sanctions “an absolutely destructive and unjustified course that would eventually prove to be shortsighted.”

“Instead of stepping up the pressure on those who refuse to start a dialogue and to solve the conflict in a peaceful way, we hear they want to resume this economic blackmail against Russia,” Peskov noted in his statement.

The post Putin: NATO Using Ukraine’s Army To Fight For Its Interests appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sidra Ajaib Kayani*

India is currying favor for membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group; a multi-nations body comprised of 48 member states which was formed 40 years back in 1975. It was established to guarantee that no civilian nuclear materials could be redirected for military purposes, as was done by India. Basically NSG was established in the wake of India’s 1974 so called ‘peaceful Nuclear Explosion’.

Apparently the materials and equipment that India acquired from Canada and the United States for peaceful purposes had clandestinely been redirected for its nuclear-weapon program.

After the 1974 nuclear test, India was banned from any kind of nuclear trade by major states, including United States, for many years. India has yet to sign the treaty that was aimed to prohibit nuclear proliferation, the NPT. The treaty commits NWS to relinquish nuclear weapons. Soon after the Indian nuclear test in 1974, the Nuclear Supplier Group, which was then named as the London Group because of the series of meetings in London from 1975 to 1978, was establish to supplement the NPT by concentrating on nuclear commerce related issues as NPT failed to prevent India’s nuclear test.

In 2003, the situation began to change when the United States extended its hand of cooperation towards India and signed a civilian nuclear deal with India in 2005. The deal, as a whole was established on the supposition that it would support the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However the reality check raises the question that, are they (US) rewarding India because of her excellent record of non-proliferation? Then how will they justify India’s cooperation with Saddam Hussein of Iraq and with Iran in Bushehr’s nuclear power plants. Eventually, the deal damaged the spirit of nuclear non-proliferation regime. The deal also multiplied the probability that in coming years the prevailed setup of nuclear non-proliferation regime would weaken.

India was given an exemption from the comprehensive IAEA safeguards, a requirement of NSG guidelines which along with NSG’s underline principle of trading with NPT member states only went by the way side. It is ironic that the NSG which was set up in response to nuclear test by India in 1974 now is ready to reward it in violation of the non-proliferation regime it claims to champion and US is sponsoring all this.

India commemorates 26 January as its Republic Day because the Constitution of India came into effect which replaced Government of India Act 1935. US President Obama is going to visit India on that day, being a first sitting President of United States. There are suspicions expressed in different segment of international community regarding the Obama’s visit that if any further discriminatory ties as like the Civil Nuclear Deal, knotted between them, then it will be a point of ponder that what message they are intended to deliver to rest of the world? Are they inspired to change the international norms by these kind of discriminatory attitude towards some by compromising on principle or what?

A special exception that the US is hewing for India’s joining the NSG will cause several implications: first, it will weakened the non-proliferation regime; second, NSG’s credibility and efficacy would be questioned along with its support for non-proliferation regime; third, NSG’s preferential treatment to India would be a dangerous precedent for others like Iran and North Korea as it would solidify the perception of India as de-facto NPT nuclear weapon state and last but not the least is, after becoming member of NSG, India would have a voice in determining new export guidelines which would have a dangerous impact as India is inspired to become a global nuclear supplier. It would also give India a veto over decision-making, including any future decision involving Pakistan.

The US growing strategic nexus with India and hope to profit from India’s nuclear market are the two motivational factors of its preferential treatment to India. However, it is plausible that the US more inclination towards India and growing nuclear nexus will seriously undermine the cause of peace and stability in this region. US should understand the gravity of the damage they are committing to the cause of peace and stability by giving India country-specific nuclear waivers. The US special treatment by improving India’s position in the South Asian region will ultimately disturb the regional equilibrium.

*Sidra Ajaib Kayani as research associate works for Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad, also can be reached at kayanisidra@yahoo.com

The post United States’ India Nuclear Policy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Muhammad Umar*

Media’s self-delusional merrymaking aside, as expected, Modi and Obama didn’t have any major developments to announce from Hyderabad house exactly a month after Christmas.

Obama pushed for greater access to the Indian labor force, and Modi obliged to make it happen. Obama offered tools, and data to help track pollution in the air, and Modi accepted. Obama demanded that the liability on US suppliers of nuclear reactors plus undisclosed technologies be limited in time and costs, Modi promised to push for a financial cap in case of nuclear disaster.

Modi and Obama clearly share a special GEOSEP (geo-economic-strategic-politically) inspired friendship that’s been translated into their foreign policy. However, there is little bang for the buck as their countries have gained little from each other. Despite what the Indian media will have you believe, trade, defense, and nuclear cooperation with America is in a deadlock, due to various Indian trade and taxation policies, including the nuclear liability law.

While addressing the media, Obama pointed to the fact that trade between the two countries had increased several folds, but the true credit for that accomplishment goes to Indian Congress Party’s Dr. Manmohan Singh rather than Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party.

It was Congress Party’s ‘Accidental Prime Minister’ rather than Modi’s accident prone BJP that made a nuclear cooperation deal possible in 2005. Had BJP not opposed the agreement, and introduced the liability law, today the Indian people would be enjoying the benefits of nuclear trade with America rather than the middle order staffers squabbling while leadership trying to save grace. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.

Obama had a clear mission to promote American business interests in India and that is exactly what he did. He also reaffirmed his total disregard for nuclear non-proliferation norms by supporting India’s quest for four export control arrangements that include Nuclear Suppliers Group. Modi on the other hand made little effort to promote India’s interests; in fact, he went in the other direction, offering the Americans a way around the Indian liability law, at the expense of his own people. Patriotic Indians will not take Modi’s appeasement kindly: ‘India takes no pressure!’

Modi regime may defend this appeasement as a quid pro quo, arguing that in return for his promise to cap the financial burden on suppliers, Modi was able to negotiate the Americans away from tracking nuclear material once it arrived in India. India has a record of diverting civil technology for military use. Indian 1974 nuclear test and consequent creation of NSG perhaps give some conscious Americans sleepless nights! The whole thing is a sham and their general public has been fooled. All nuclear material supplied to India will be tracked by the IAEA under safeguards but the unsafe-guarded military reactors will continue to work apace to produce materials for bomb making – thanks to the Obama administration for relieving pressure on Indian domestic resources. So Americans are happy to relent on tracking the nuclear technology so far as Indian money keeps coming.

Although the proposal to offer State-backed insurance to suppliers willing to do business in India sounds enticing, it is meaningless. There is no guarantee that American suppliers will agree to buy insurance from the Indian government. In addition, the insurance does not guarantee protection from the Indian nuclear liability act. The US companies have been very clear on this issue, they want a promise of zero liability through legislation, which is something Modi committed to them back in September, but failed to deliver on.

India introduced the liability law to ensure that if there were an Indian Chernobyl, the suppliers would be held responsible. Indians still remain skeptical after Bhopal accident in American run pesticide factory in which over 8,000 were killed. It’s been three decades since that tragedy and the American Union Carbide was never held liable, and the surviving victims are still waiting to be properly compensated.

Indian fears and liability measures are genuine. American General Electric and Westinghouse Electric provided the reactors at Fukushima in Japan, and both companies were held liable after the 2011 nuclear disaster. The contradictory ambitions of providing electricity to every household, fissile material to thousands of existing and forthcoming bombs, winning big power status, urgency of containing rising economic power and the shameless haste in making money can come in the way of rational and pragmatic decision making. Americans and Indians are in a blindfolded tango in their so-called strategic partnership.

Since they had raised high hopes, the details of differences and compromises have perhaps been kept away from the Indian public as Modi promises the American companies that he will do his best to further their interests.

Modi should have demanded that if the Americans are willing to do business in India, they should operate within the framework of the Indian liability law, just as they do in the their country under their laws, and just as they did in Japan. Because at the end of the day, even if the insurance pool scheme is successful and it attracts American suppliers, the Indian government will be held liable in case of an accident, and its people will eventually be forced to pay the price.

It is still unclear whether or not the announcement made by Modi and Obama on the nuclear issue carries any weight. There has been no official text to detail how they plan to implement the nuclear deal. Obama summed it up well when he said, “we’re moving towards full implementation.” Clearly, nothing was done or said yesterday to suggest otherwise.

Setting aside the nuclear issue, it seemed the only other headway made was in setting up a hotline between Modi and Obama, and a promise to interact more.

It is too early to speculate the implications of defense agreements between both countries, because similar treaties have been signed in the past, producing very little in the end. Both leaders agreed to renew the already existing framework for defense cooperation, so we shouldn’t expect anything new.

Obama did take a jab at Russia during the press conference, most likely causing a minor rift in Russian-Indian ties. The President said, “We have a profound interest, as I believe every country does, in promoting a core principle, which is, large countries don’t bully smaller countries.” Perhaps Obama chose to forget that India is also a large country that failingly tries to coerce Pakistan.

President Obama naïvely thinks that he can use India to counter China’s growing global influence without having to pay a price himself. Today, as the procession passed by Obama on Republic Day, one thing was missing, the Agni-V missile, which represents the true reality of India. It’s aggressive ambitions to develop weapons that can target cities around the world, including in the US and Europe. India notably reduced its range from 8000 km once the West raised concerns.

The test of the Agni-V missile was postponed until the 31st of January; to be tested a week after Obama leaves India. I hope the President also realizes that once India gets NSG membership it will flex its muscles easily. It may develop test a truly inter-continental Agni VI, complete the fleet of indigenously built nuclear submarines and test new warheads. Thereon, all major cities around the world will be under Indian threat, even if New Delhi remains a friendly and likeminded capital.

This trip was nothing more than a symbolic gesture, reaffirming warming ties between the two countries. Both sides achieved no substantial deliverables, and it will most likely continue this way for next decade or two, at least.

Modi does not yield the kind of influence needed in the Indian parliament to deliver on any of his commitments to the American President. We still have to wait and see what the final text and domestic reactions of this new agreement on limiting financial liability are. Even if this agreement is approved, there is still no guarantee that the Americans will want to do business in India.

As is, it seems that Obama wanted to visit India one more time, to be known as the only President to have attended the Republic day celebrations, and only President to have visited India twice. He missed Taj Mahal – a symbol of peace and love built by Shah Jehan – and also missed an opportunity to build regional and global peace. Let’s hope that is not the legacy Obama leaves.

*The writer is an assistant professor at the National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) in Islamabad. He tweets @umarwrites.

The post Obama In India – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Europe showed a willingness on Monday (26 January) to give Athens more time to pay its debts, but little sign that it would yield to a new Greek government’s demands for debt forgiveness.

European Union leaders and policymakers responded to Greek anti-bailout party Syriza’s election victory on Sunday with warnings that a debt reduction for Greece would be against eurozone rules and would send the wrong message to other members of the single currency.

Before any talks on more time for Greece to repay its debts can start, Athens must get an extension of its existing bailout to give itself time for negotiations on future economic policy and on longer loan maturity with international lenders.

“My forecast is that an extension of the (Greek bailout) programme will have to happen,” Thomas Wieser, who heads the Euro Working Group that prepares decisions of eurozone finance ministers, told Austrian broadcaster ORF.

Eurozone finance ministers are gathering in Brussels to consider how to deal with Greece after the change of government, given the existing €240 billion Greek bailout programme expires on February 28.

The euro fell to an 11-year low as Syriza’s victory set Athens on collision course with international lenders and potentially threatened its place in the single currency.

Syriza officials have previously said their government’s first priority would be to ask lenders for a few months of time so both sides can discuss their positions from scratch rather than picking up from where the previous government left off.

They resist the idea of extending a bailout programme that they are staunchly opposed to. Tsipras last week dismissed the Feb. 28 deadline when the bailout expires, saying he had until July to negotiate with lenders.

“We are asking for more time, not an extension of the existing programme,” a senior party official told Reuters last week.

The extension of the bailout is needed because without it Athens will not be eligible for the European Central Bank’s plan of government bond purchases. If Greece refuses to service its debt owed to the eurozone it would not get any more money from eurozone governments and private investors would not lend to it either, officials said.

Ending austerity

EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said he did not expect any decisions on Greece from eurozone finance ministers on Monday, just a signal of readiness to engage in talks with the new Greek government.

Even though Syriza won the elections on promises of ending fiscal austerity and demanding debt forgiveness, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Berlin expected it to stick to agreements with its eurozone partners.

“We offer to work with the Greek government, but we expect them to stand by agreements,” he said.

Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb said his country was ready to discuss an extension if the new government can commit to agreed contracts and promised structural reforms.

“We will not forgive loans but we are ready to discuss extending the bailout programme or maturities … But this will not change the fact that Greece must continue economic reforms,” Stubb told reporters.

The chairman of the group of eurozone finance ministers, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, struck a similar note, saying there was very little support in Europe for writing off Greek debt.

Arriving for the eurogroup meeting, Dijsselbloem congratulated the winning party, saying: “We stand ready to work with them as we have always worked with previous Greek governments.” He said that extension of the period for repayment of Greece’s debt would be the first thing under discussion between the eurogroup finance ministers and Greece, but added that a formal request for extension must come from Athens before it could be agreed.

Dijsselbloem said that discussion would also centre on the ‘sustainability ‘ of Greece’s debt, though he declined to go into more detail on what that may mean.

European Central Bank board member Benoit Coeure said the ECB would not take part in any debt cut for Greece, but changes to the debt maturities were possible.

“There is no room for unilateral action in Europe, that doesn’t exclude a discussion, for example, on the rescheduling of this debt,” Coeure told Europe 1 radio.

It was a message echoed across much of Europe, particularly in Germany, the biggest contributor to eurozone bailouts whose chancellor has led calls for budgetary rigour.

Germany’s top-selling Bild newspaper led with “Greeks elect euro nightmare”, the next page showing Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras punching the air next to the headline “What is this victory punch going to cost us?”

Germany’s EU Commissioner, Guenther Oettinger, said a debt restructuring for Greece would send the wrong message to other countries in the eurozone.

“If we cut debt (for Greece), that would give the wrong signal to Portugal or Ireland, Cyprus or Spain,” Oettinger told German radio Deutschlandfunk.

The International Monetary Fund also said Greece could not demand special treatment for its debt.

“There are internal eurozone rules to be respected,” IMF chief Christine Lagarde told Le Monde daily. “We cannot make special categories for such or such country.”

The European Commission made few specific comments on the new government. “The Commission fully respects the sovereign and democratic choice of the Greek people,” said chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas, adding: “We are ready to engage with the new government it has formed. Greece has made remarkable progress in recent years and we stand ready to continue assistant Greece in addressing the remaining reform challenges.”

The post EU Open To Later Greek Debt Repayment, Not Forgiveness appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The President’s State of the Union Addresses are rarely focused. They are written by numerous speechwriters and put through many drafts, each reflecting the urgings by interested parties to have their issues mentioned. Often, this makes the speech sound like a grab bag of lists.

But once up on the teleprompter before a joint session of Congress and a thousand reporters and commentators, the speech becomes a signaling presentation by what the President says, how the President says it and what the President does not say.

While trying to resist the temptation to project what I or my colleagues would have included, it is remarkable to note how contradictory or inconsistent a number of President Obama’s points were.

For example, while touting the increased production of oil and gas (he did note the fast rise of solar/wind energy), he later provided gravity to the perils of climate change. Taken together, they do not mix well for the formation of a national energy conversion policy to renewables and efficiency so as to slow climate change’s planetary devastation.

Mr. Obama spoke of cherishing civil liberties. But he did not mention support of any amendments to the so-called Patriot Act, up for Congressional renewal this June, which would delete atrocious anti-civil liberties provisions, from search and seizure notification delays to snooping into sensitive personal, medical and financial information, or even people’s library usage. Nor did he declare, while saying he was increasing transparency, that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 6700 page already redacted backup report on the CIA’s use of torture could be publically released from his administration’s grip.

When he said that “we still need laws that strengthen rather than weaken unions, and give American workers a voice,” it would have been more persuasive had he told us that he meant revising the notorious anti-union Taft-Hartley Act. Then he contradicts his concern for workers by urging passage of the job-exporting Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TPTA) and not filling his 2008 promise to revise NAFTA and the World Trade Organization Treaty that have resulted in the loss of large numbers of jobs along with labor, consumer and environmental rights. (See globaltradewatch.org.)

To make matters worse, he wants Congress to adopt a “fast-track” procedure for passage of the TPTA, which does not allow amendments and requires limited debate. How does that give workers a voice?

Catching up with what Western Europe has been doing for 60 years, President Obama strongly urged more available and affordable childcare, paid sick leave and paid maternity leave. He also demanded higher capital gains and dividend taxes on the super-rich. So far so good.

Every year, the Republicans, who hypocritically want lower deficits while at the same time raising military spending and corporate welfare, somehow think that shackling the Treasury Department’s tax collections are not increasing deficits. But the President didn’t stick up for the IRS, whose budget is being annually slashed so that it cannot collect more of the $300 billion in yearly evaded taxes.

President Obama wants to increase repair and expansion of public works (called infrastructure), but he didn’t connect this initiative to a crackdown on corporate defrauding of the government, such as on Medicare, Medicaid and defense contracts. This could be big money savings to pay for infrastructure needs and become a “law and order” drive against corporate crime—having Left-Right support in our own country.

Over five hundred billion dollars are spent annually through federal government contracting of goods and services with corporations. Putting the full text of these contracts online and requiring, at last, annual auditing of the Pentagon’s $800 billion military budget (including the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere) would squeeze out a lot of waste, fraud, and useless expenditures.

In 2006, then Senator Obama and arch-Republican Senator Coburn co-sponsored a bill that became law to place summary information about government contracts online. This has strong Left-Right support in Congress but it has needed a White House jumpstart to make sure the full text of those contracts is put online. It is inexplicable that such open fiscal accountability was ignored in his address, but then he has rarely mentioned this consequential reform since his inauguration in 2009.

When he came to the section of his speech that argued for raising the minimum wage, the President specifically taunted Republicans by saying “if you truly believe you could work full time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.” It would have been more effective were he to have said specifically what higher minimum wage per hour he wanted.

With Obama, as with Clinton, one rarely gets the feeling that he means what he says when speaking for progressive programs, such as zero tuition for community college students and other measures. Follow-through, a laser focus, and the building of coalitions are required for these proposals if they are to be seen as priorities rather than merely feel-good rhetoric.

The President does have opportunities for Left-Right convergence, drawing on existing public opinion and rank and file members of Congress, to move legislation that will benefit the public.

But in his “last hurrah” over the next two years, he’s got to be a hands-on President working the Congress and barnstorming the country on these overdue changes, instead of adding to his over 425 fundraisers that so drained his attention and political freedom during the last six years.

The post Ralph Nader: Obama’s State Of The Union, Swings And Misses – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“Marx’s once scandalous thesis that governments are simple business agents for international capital is today an obvious fact on which ‘liberals’ and ‘socialists’ agree.” — Jacques Rancière,Dis-agreement (1999), 113

Across Europe, and more specifically, the euro-zone, a spectre did not so much haunt as totally materialise in the form of Alex Tsipras and the Syriza party. Greece woke up to a new party that had never seen office, coming within a few seats of governing in its own right. Any European party would have salivated at such an outcome – coalitions tend to be a matter of course, and majorities normally associated with authoritarian types. In the Greek case, the order established during the post-junta period had been overturned – at least on electoral paper.

Tsipras, in just falling short of the 151 number required to form government, has sought support from other potential partners. To date, it seems that the right-wing ANEL Independent Greeks party has agreed to muck in. Both have a common anti-bailout position, though it remains to be seen what else they can find common ground about.

This immediately got the leaving incumbents speculating that the union would not last, a desperate attempt at premature Schadenfreude. Petros Doukas, former deputy finance minister, pondered that, “It’s ultimately going to be much more difficult to figure out exactly what policies they will ultimately agree on.”

A mixture of euphoria and terror has met the result. The latter reaction is typical of the market-managers who see earnings being whittled away in speculation and a rocking of the financial sector. The market, in such language, is a sanctified deity which should be propitiated. It is not something to control, let alone directed by human hand. It has its own inscrutable morality.

Consider the wording of Nick Squires (The Telegraph, Jan 26), as he was monitoring the numbers: “The surprise alliance between two staunchly anti-bailout parties, spooked markets and triggered a loss of nearly 4 percent on the Athens Stock Exchange as well as elsewhere in Europe.”

But the Syriza victory is more significant in another sense: the challenge it poses to democracy in the euro-zone. The issues of austerity and debt cannot be divorced from that of political management. Where, given Syriza’s jarring win, does that sit in the European rubric, frayed as it is? For one, the party faces what has been termed by French philosopher Jacques Rancière as the “post-democratic” moment.

Democratic institutions, in this age, are openly, and unquestionably, identified with the market, something which distinctly takes the gloss off their accountability for the broad citizenry. “From an allegedly defunct Marxism,” argues Rancière in Dis-agreement (1999), “the supposedly reigning liberalism borrows the theme of objective necessity, identified with the constraints and caprices of the world market.” The company boardroom and the cabinet meeting room, have become one.

Axiomatic to this is the creation of the debt, or indebted society, a system of control that works through imposing punishment, providing dispensation, and reimposing punishment in accordance with the manager’s logic. The manager works according to biblical dictates, moralising the world of debt, frowning against the heavily indebted, but frowning even more when the debts are paid.

Colin Crouch, who had already written about post-democracy in 2004, sees the Greek-austerity policy adopted, and imposed, by the troika, as its ultimate form in action, debt fanaticism generated from above. It is a situation where bankers and financiers, responsible for a crisis (the Global Financial Crisis being their supreme handiwork), manage it through compliant governments who, in turn, forged a response sympathetic to bankers and financiers “at the expense of the rest of the population.”

For Crouch, “the most explicit expression of the post-democratic aspects of crisis management was the framing of the Greek austerity package, designed by international authorities in close collaboration with an association of leading bankers” (LSE Blogs, 2013).[1]

There are even some writers who feel that another, more threatening stage in the funereal rites of democracy is being read, something far more sinister: that which totally inverts it, creating a form of self-defeating totalitarianism.

Little surprise, then, that European leaders warn of irresponsible democratic behaviour, one that will lead to bank runs and negative European Central Bank briefings. (Eight billion euros was withdrawn from Greece in the last week alone.) Ultimatums are being hinted at: if you are against austerity, then you must be against the euro-zone. British Prime Minister David Cameron, having only recently glowed at the achievements of the late authoritarian Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, found Greek democratic judgement a touch too much to bear. “The Greek election will increase economic uncertainly across Europe.” (Twitter, Jan 25).

For all those reasons, the austerity brigade, with its philosophy, has taken a battering. Savage cuts and so-called structural reforms to the Greek economy have actually served to increase unemployment and shrink the welfare state. This can be laid squarely at the feet of those who have become Greece’s economic managers, these post-democratic managers in the form of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund.

The mountain to be scaled by Syriza is a monumental one. Come March, seven billion euros worth of debt will mature with menacing, guilt-worn clout. Liquidity will be needed, but Tsipras will be very much in his rights to ask for debt cancellation and a readjustment of bailout terms. But even cancellation will not let Greece off the hook, giving only a false hope and liberation from a distinctly unequal financial system within a zone that is artificially democratic. The words of the Greek electronic music band from 1992, Stereo Nova, may still apply: “My country is a colony of a larger colony.”[2]

Notes.
[1] http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/five-minutes-with-colin-crouch/

[2] http://www.chronosmag.eu/index.php/y-stavrakakis-my-country-is-the-colony-of-a-larger-colony.html

The post Greece: Syriza’s Challenge – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Four years on from the Second Ivorian Civil War, the Cote d’Ivoire’s truth and reconciliation commission is tasked with helping to heal the divisions the conflict left in its wake. However, there is still much work to be done as the country prepares for elections in 2015.

By Oussou Kouamé Remi*

The general election to be held in the Côte d’Ivoire in 2015 could be a wake-up call for the country’s reconciliation process. Four years on from the violence which took hold of the country between October 2010 and April 2011, a solution to building long-term, sustainable peace has yet to be found.

It was the last Presidential election that sparked the crisis in 2010. The dispute between the then President, Laurent Gbagbo, and his challenger, Alassane Ouattara, saw both claiming victory – and spurred a cycle of violence that left over 3,000 people dead and thousands more displaced.

Ouattara eventually won the conflict, and assumed office in 2011. One of the most challenging tasks that awaited him was how to reconcile a society torn apart by a decade of war.

Establishing a truth commission

The conflict officially ended with the capture of Gbagbo by the Côte d’Ivoire military on 11 April 2011. This paved the way for a recovery process, including the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission.

Established in September 2011, the truth and reconciliation process, or CDVR in its French initials, was asked to investigate and deal with human rights violations past and present. It was led by former Prime Minister Charles Konan Banny. It had problems, however. In particular, it was unclear as to when its mandate should end. This was especially problematic given what we know about reconciliation as a healing process, which can often take decades.

In November 2013 the CDVR released its first conclusions, but many concerns were raised, including about the fundamental lack of initiatives established to mitigate divisions and heal wounds.

On the road to reconciliation, Côte d’Ivoire is therefore confronted by many roadblocks. On the socio-professional level, job-hunting has become an obstacle course. The regime has been accused of giving preference to particular ethnic groups. Sayings such as “Ainn’ ta mogo lo ha?” (Is he or she one of us?”) have become commonplace, contributing further to social unrest.

Problems of reconciliation

Amid a national reconciliation process that has come to a standstill, with rampant corruption and widespread injustice, other facts have also tarnished the reconciliation process. Some suggest that arrests and discrimination have been directed almost exclusively towards the allies of former president Gbagbo. And Gbagbo himself has been sent to The Hague to face allegations of mass murder, even though both sides in the conflict committed awful crimes.

Given all of this, many have raised doubts about the potential for progress towards real reconciliation, before 2015 at least, which will be another year of crucial elections in Côte d’Ivoire. If the incumbent President wants to have a peaceful term, and avoid the resurgence of violence with the opposition and among his own followers, he must place initiatives for meaningful reconciliation, social justice and employment high on his to-do list.

*Oussou Kouamé Remi is a lecturer in the department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Alassane Outtara University in Bouake.

This article was originally published by Insight on Conflict and is available by clicking here.

The post Reconciliation In The Cote d’Ivoire: Mission Impossible? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Louise Højen

On Sunday January 18, 2015, special prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in his apartment in Buenos Aires from what appears to be suicide. He was leading the investigation of the 1994 terror bombing of the Center for Argentine Jewish Mutual Aid Association (AMIA, Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) Jewish Community Center, in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people were killed. Last week, he released a 300-page report accusing high-profile Argentine officials such as current President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman, and other senior state officials, for covering up Iran’s alleged involvement in the bombing. Mere hours before his death, Mr. Nisman was scheduled to present his collected evidence during a closed session at the Argentine Congress.[1] The reasons behind his death are being questioned and are currently the focus of a spate of mainstream media in Argentina, which have led to mass protests demanding truth and justice.

21 Years of Injustice

On July 18, 1994, a car bomb exploded in front of the AMIA, a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, leaving 85 killed and 300 wounded.[2] Alberto Nisman led the investigation for more than 10 years in search of revealing a big injustice. In 2006, he accused the Islamic Republic of Iran and its top executives of masterminding the bombing, which was executed by Hezbollah (a Lebanese Shia Muslim group) and linked to Iranian funding in the 1980s.[3] In 2008, he demanded that former President Carlos Menem and Juan José Galeano, the leading judge in the 1994 AMIA bombing case, should be detained based on grave accusations of corruption regarding the ongoing investigation. At that time, it was speculated whether Nisman was pretending to be in good standing with President Fernández, but the current situation leaves few doubts about their relationship.[4] The 21 year-long investigation took new heights on January 14, when Nisman revealed his sensational 300-page report, in which he accused President Fernández and other high-profile officials, of protecting Iran and securing virtual impunity for its involvement in the AMIA bombing in exchange for preferential relations to aid Argentina’s severe energy deficit with oil.[5]

Of course, both President Fernández and other government officials immediately denounced Nisman’s findings. Interpol’s former general secretary, Roland Noble, publically supported the government, which was a severe blow to Nisman’s credibility. The Fernández administration also pointed to former collaboration with Iran on finding those responsible and prosecuting them, including the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to set up a shared truth commission in search of the alleged perpetrators.[6] However, the MoU was never signed by Iran’s government, and after an appeal from Nisman, it was ruled unconstitutional by the Argentine Federal Court on March 15, 2014.[7]

After Nisman’s death, the Argentine government quickly pronounced it as suicide. However, evidence seems to support the opposite; that the initial autopsy found no gunpowder on Nisman’s hands, there was no suicide letter, and those in contact with him prior to his death called him confident before the scheduled meeting with Congress on January 19.[8] However, President Fernández has reversed her story and now claims that she no longer believes that Nisman committed suicide.[9] It is a suspicious turn of events given her first response on January 19 in a lengthy rambling post on her Facebook page emphasizing the tragedy of “what would compel a person to make the horrific decision of committing suicide?”[10]

President Fernández’ Change of Heart

Information released in the days following Nisman’s death has been sparse, but the investigation continues, and President Fernández’ sudden rejection of suicide as the cause of death is not surprising, but has been received with skepticism by the public.[11] On January 22, Fernández wrote a note in which she explains that she never believed that Nisman committed suicide, though a good part of it is spent on devaluating his report as false.[12]

Critical voices, including well-placed members of Argentina’s Jewish communities, see the death of Nisman as clear sign of declining democracy in Argentina, and thousands of people have taken to the streets since Sunday, January 18.[13] The next day, an estimated 20,000 people gathered at Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires in a rally, while smaller demonstrations took place in Mendoza, Córdoba, and outside the presidential residence in Olivos, among others.[14] Suspicions and accusations are spreading and the government has realized they could not endorse the suicide story, which explains why President Fernández and other state officials have changed their positions from claiming suicide to move further in favor of Nisman’s death being a murder.[15] The government has begun to claim that Nisman’s death is a plot against the government to boost the 1994 AMIA bombing case. However, no major break-through has been made neither in the investigation of the death of Nisman nor in the 1994 bombing case. Therefore, Fernández’ attempt to bolster public support is largely futile since a majority of Argentinians believe in “Nisman’s thesis that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that the Fernández government signed with Iran [in 2013] was designed to cover up the latter’s involvement in the 1994 bombing[.]”[16] The demonstrations emphasize lack of results to hold those accountable for a death that is increasingly being perceived as a cold-blooded murder.

The 86th Victim of the 1994 AMIA Bombing

In the days following Nisman’s death, he quickly became mourned as the 86th victim of the 1994 AMIA bombing. The support for his recent findings and continuous fight to bring justice to the 1994 victims’ families, has been clear through the various rallies and demonstrations since January 19. The public is especially upset now in the aftermath of France’s Charlie Hebdo case, where the government swiftly and diligently worked to find the perpetrators.[17] Argentinians demand the same governmental investment to erase the sense of injustice and despair among civil society. As Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League explained about Nisman;

“The Jewish community has lost a stalwart hero, and Argentina and all people who pursue the truth and justice with a passionate zeal have lost a great fighter. Throughout the years, all kinds of forces have tried to put him down, to destroy him. Every time he uncovered new stuff or exposed some interests that weren’t happy, they set the courts against him or they set the police against him. And every time they tried to put him down, he fought it, he got up and beat them.”[18]

But not this time. If Fernández really wants to prove her change of heart, she and the government must bring results to the table. It is the government’s responsibility to provide security for its citizens. However, the Argentine government’s next move is surely to be met with skepticism, as people with Nisman’s death find themselves powerless to the Argentine government’s incompetency (or lack of will?) to protect its citizens and human rights. Journalist Roxana Levinson explains that “[t]his death is like another bomb. It’s a death sentence for truth and justice in the AMIA case.”[19] Argentina’s government must terminate this bureaucratic discussion on the cause of Nisman’s death, which does nothing but show their poor ability to achieve results. If not, Argentina is facing the danger of ending up in the same situation as the Mexican and Paraguayan governments, who continuously fail to find the culprits behind respectively the 43 missing student teachers and the murdered journalists from 2014, and thousands of other victims of the insecurity.[20] Nisman might be dead and unable to personally put an end to the 21 year-long prosecution of those behind the 1994 AMIA bombing, but the case is far from closed. A new tide of Argentine citizens has risen and is demanding justice.

*Louise Højen, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

References:
[i] Latin News. ”Nisman death rocks the country,” Latin American Regional Report, January 18, 2015, RBS-15-01: 7.

[ii] El Universal. ”CRONOLOGÍA. Atentado a mutual judía de Argentina y #MuerteDeNisman,” Jan. 19, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2015/cronologia-muerte-nisman-1069961.html

[iii] El Universal. ”CRONOLOGÍA. Atentado a mutual judía de Argentina y #MuerteDeNisman,” Jan. 19, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2015/cronologia-muerte-nisman-1069961.html

[iv] La Nación. ” Quién era el fiscal Natalio Alberto Nisman,” Jan. 19, 2015. Accessed Jan. 23, 2015: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1761272-quien-era-el-fiscal-natalio-alberto-nisman

[v] The Economist. “Oil and trouble,” Jan. 16, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: https://www.google.com/search?q=argentina+nisman&oq=argentina+nisman&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i61.2503j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&tbm=nws&q=iran+and+argentina+AMIA+trade

[vi] Official Cristina Fernández de Kirchner website. “AMIA, una vez más, sin Justicia ni Verdad,” Jan. 15, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.cfkargentina.com/amia-una-vez-mas-sin-justicia-ni-verdad/ ; Official Cristina Fernández de Kirchner website.” Nota de Interpol ratifica que las acusaciones hechas por el fiscal Nisman son falsas.” Jan. 16, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.cfkargentina.com/nota-de-interpol-ratifica-que-las-acusaciones-hechas-por-el-fiscal-nisman-son-falsas/

[vii] Bronstein, Hugh and Alejandro Lifschitz. “Argentine court strikes down ‘truth commission’ deal with Iran,” Reuters, May 15, 2014. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-argentina-iran-idUSBREA4F00320140516

[viii] Latin News. ”Nisman death rocks the country,” Latin American Regional Report, January 18, 2015, RBS-15-01: 7.

[ix] Official Cristina Fernández de Kirchner website. “ENERO 22, 2015 AMIA y la denuncia del fiscal Nisman,” Jan. 22, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015:http://www.cfkargentina.com/amia-y-la-denuncia-del-fiscal-nisman/

[x] Quote has been translated by the author. The official quote is: “¿Qué fue lo que llevó a una persona a tomar la terrible decisión de quitarse la vida?” from the official Facebook page of Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. “AMIA. Otra vez: tragedia, confusión, mentira e interrogantes.” Jan. 19, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: https://www.facebook.com/notes/1014136438614222/

[xi] BBC. “Argentine leader convinced Nisman death was no suicide,” Jan. 22, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30931458

[xii] Official Cristina Fernández de Kirchner website. “ENERO 22, 2015 AMIA y la denuncia del fiscal Nisman,” Jan. 22, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015:http://www.cfkargentina.com/amia-y-la-denuncia-del-fiscal-nisman/

[xiii] Lahrichi, Kamilia. ”Argentina Jews Reject ‘Suicide’ of Crusading Terror Prosecutor as Rage Spreads,” The Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 21, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://forward.com/articles/213132/argentina-jews-reject-suicide-of-crusading-terror/

[xiv] Latin News. “Argentina: No signs of a third party in Nisman’s death,” LatinNews Daily, January 20, 2015.

[xv] La Nación. “Las contradicciones de Cristina Kirchner y Sergio Berni por la muerte de Nisman,” Jan. 22, 2015. Accessed Jan. 23, 2015: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1762116-las-contradicciones-de-cristina-kirchner-y-sergio-berni-por-la-muerte-de-nisman

[xvi] Latin News. ”Nisman death rocks the country,” Latin American Regional Report, January 18, 2015, RBS-15-01: 7.

[xvii] Lahrichi, Kamilia. ”Argentina Jews Reject ‘Suicide’ of Crusading Terror Prosecutor as Rage Spreads,” The Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 21, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://forward.com/articles/213132/argentina-jews-reject-suicide-of-crusading-terror/

[xviii] Heilman, Uriel. “Nisman Mystery: Hezbollah, Argentine Government Fingered in Death of AMIA Prosecutor,” Jewish Exponent, Jan. 21, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://jewishexponent.com/headlines/2015/01/nisman-mystery-hezbollah-argentine-government-fingered-in-death-of-amia-prosecutor

[xix] Lahrichi, Kamilia. ”Argentina Jews Reject ‘Suicide’ of Crusading Terror Prosecutor as Rage Spreads,” The Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 21, 2015. Accessed Jan. 22, 2015: http://forward.com/articles/213132/argentina-jews-reject-suicide-of-crusading-terror/

[xx] Human Rights Watch “Mexico,” in World Report 2014, 2014. Accessed Jan. 23, 2015: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico ; Højen, Louise. “Pablo Medina: Paraguay’s Third Victim of Drug Politics,” Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Oct 24. Accessed Jan. 23, 2015: http://www.coha.org/pablo-medina-paraguays-third-victim-of-drug-politics/

The post Argentina Demands Answers: The Death Of Alberto Nisman – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.