Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73702 articles
Browse latest View live

Nonlethal Weapons: A Technological Gap Or Misdefined Requirements? – Analysis

$
0
0

By Ofer Fridman

The internal and international conflicts that have taken place in the last few decades have significantly raised the issue of interacting with with civilian populations, a problem that has been worsened by urbanization. In the last few decades of the 20th century, a universal respect for human life became a crucial variable within the international community in general and Western societies in particular.1 In this new political reality, the military seeks new technologies that have “greater precision, shorter duration, less lethality, and reduced collateral damage . . . [as these technologies] may provide more effective power than their larger and more destructive, but also more inexact and crude, predecessors.”2

Nonlethal weapons (NLW) would seem to be the perfect answer for this military quest; however, observers point out that, to date, “few non-lethal weapons incorporating new technologies have actually been deployed on a large scale”3 and that “operational use of available non-lethal weapons by the military has been limited.”4 Despite the reasonable demand for the employment of less lethal military technologies on the battlefield, then, it seems that such technologies are still far from becoming a reality.

In 2009, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that “the joint non-lethal weapons program has conducted more than 50 research and development efforts and spent at least $386 million since 1997, but it has not developed any new weapon.”5

There are three possible explanations for this detrimental situation: ineffective management of the provided resources, significant technological gaps that cannot be filled within the framework of the existing funding, or an incorrect translation of the desired capabilities into the technological requirements that define these gaps. In other words, the current situation with NLW has been caused by one of the following: ineffective management by the Department of Defense (DOD), insufficient resources, unbridgeable technological gaps, or the misdefinition of these gaps. While the GAO report points at DOD’s ineffective management as the main reason for the inability to field operationally useful NLW, this article argues that the main problem can be found in misdefined requirements for nonlethal weapons that, in their turn, lead to incorrect characterization of technological gaps.

NLW in the U.S. Military

In the early 1990s, the American military was caught up in the theory of a revolution in military affairs, which consisted of the implementation of new military technologies combined with fundamental shifts in military doctrine and organization. Speculations about new military technologies that have revolutionary potential did not overlook NLW; for example, a prominent think tank held that “if U.S. forces were able . . . to incapacitate or render ineffective enemy forces without destroying or killing them, the U.S. conduct of war would be revolutionized.”6

DOD started to pay more coherent attention to nonlethal weapons in 1995 during Operation United Shield, the effort where U.S. forces supported the withdrawal of United Nations peacekeepers from Somalia. The process of the institutionalization of NLW in DOD was led by a Non-Lethal Weapons Steering Committee established in 1994 and was promoted by groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations. The process was finalized in 1996 with the establishment of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP). In July 1996, DOD Directive 3000.3, “Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons,” defined nonlethal weapons as “[w]eapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment.”7

Since 1996, the JNLWP has had five defined missions: identifying and understanding current and projected operational requirements and capability gaps; identifying and developing technologies into operationally suitable and effective less lethal solutions that are cost-effective; facilitating the acquisition and fielding of less lethal capabilities; advancing awareness of policy and public understanding through strategic communication and support for education and training; and efficiently managing resources and support.8 However, despite 18 years of activity and millions of dollars spent, most of the NLW that have been adopted by the military are commercial off-the-shelf systems produced for the law enforcement market (for example, Taser X26, Long-Range Acoustic Device, and FN 303 riot gun) rather than a product of JNLWP research and development.9 Moreover, the flagship of the JNLWP’s activity and investment, the Active Denial System, has never been used.10

Today it seems that the promised revolutionary change offered by NLW is still far out. This raises the obvious question of whether these systems are necessary on the current and future battlefield because only the existence of such a necessity could justify efforts to improve the current detrimental situation with NLW.

Does the U.S. Military Need NLW?

An understanding of the necessary military capabilities requires a comprehensive analysis of current and future threats, possible adversaries, broad political and military environments, and many other noteworthy factors. In an attempt to answer the question of the relevance of NLW on the modern battlefield, this article analyzes three primary official documents that consider all required aspects and define current and future military environments: the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020 (CCJO); DOD Defense Science Board’s Challenges to Military Operations in Support of U.S. Interests (CMOSUSI); and U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-66, Force Operating Capabilities (FOC).

The purpose of CCJO is to provide general guidelines for future force development and describe the future operating environment. Its main concept, globally integrated operations, defines how the joint force should prepare itself for the future security environment. Describing one of the key elements of this concept, the CCJO states:

Future Joint Operations will be increasingly discriminate to minimize unintended consequences. The increased transparency of the future security environment . . . heightens the need for force to be used precisely when possible. . . . In the saturated information environment of tomorrow, even minor lapses in conduct or application of fires could seriously damage the international reputation of the United States. This reality places a premium on joint operations informed by values and professionalism.11

In other words, while the CCJO calls for increasing competence of the future joint force, it also states that undesired collateral damage would compromise U.S. activity and therefore has to be minimized. In addition to this statement in the CCJO, the Defense Science Board’s report, which focuses on challenges that the United States has to be prepared for, clearly argues that “with respect to the human toll on innocent civilians, the U.S. strategy is to reduce ‘collateral damage.’”12

Unlike the CCJO and CMOSUSI, TRADOC’s FOC is a more specific document that formulates force operation capabilities desired for the U.S. Army in the short and long term. It analyzes the future security environment and describes specific military capabilities and requirements for future forces. Describing the complex nature of future conflicts, the FOC states:

While the nature of war will remain a violent clash of wills between states or armed groups pursuing advantageous political ends, the conduct of future warfare will include combinations of conventional and unconventional, lethal and nonlethal, and military and nonmilitary actions and operations, all of which add to the increasing complexity of the future security environment.13

In the section that describes the desired maneuver support, the FOC continues:

The major combat operation focus, coupled with the increasing likelihood of smaller-scale contingencies, clearly establishes the need for a full spectrum force. This force must be able to: execute [the] full spectrum of forces; minimize noncombatant fatalities, permanent injury, and undesired damage to property and environment; maintain force protection, reinforcing deterrence; and expand the range of options available to joint force commanders. All of these imperatives demonstrate a clear need for nonlethal weapons, even in conjunction with lethal weapons, to achieve a decisive outcome.14

The FOC describes the future security environment as an increasingly complex one that will include a vast spectrum of operations, but it clearly states that nonlethal actions will unquestionably be a part of future conflict. Moreover, it defines the ability to minimize noncombatant fatalities and undesired damage as an option that has to be available to joint force commanders.

Thus, all three documents emphasize the need to minimize collateral damage and harm to innocents during future military confrontations. The first two formulate this general requirement and point toward the possible solution that is inherent in higher professionalism, better intelligence, better targeting, and precision weapons; the FOC translates this general requirement into feasible capabilities that should be provided by NLW. According to the FOC, nonlethal weapons should enhance the capability of the joint force in accomplishing the following objectives:

(a) Discourage, delay, or prevent hostile actions; (b) Limit escalation; (c) Take military action in situations where the use of lethal force is either not the preferred option, or is not permitted under the established Rules of Engagement (ROE); (d) Better protect our forces; (e) Disable equipment, facilities, and enemy personnel; (f) Engage and control people through civil affairs operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP); (g) Dislodge enemy from positions without causing extensive collateral damage; (h) Separate combatants from noncombatants; (i) Deny terrain to the enemy.15

The analysis of these three fundamental documents clearly demonstrates that minimizing collateral damage and noncombatant fatalities is a military capability required by the reality of present and future conflicts, and NLW can be a practical tool in achieving this capability. There is no doubt that the U.S. military has to develop this capability to be prepared for future operations, and consequently, there is an obvious necessity to field operationally useful NLW. While there are many different possible reasons that can explain the current lack of such NLW (for example, the GAO report mentioned above), the following examination suggests that the main cause is a failure to translate the demand described above into appropriate NLW policies and requirements.

Current Policies and Requirements

DOD Directive 3000.3E lists 10 different capabilities that NLW can provide to joint forces. According to the directive, NLW have the potential to enhance the commander’s ability to:

(1) Deter, discourage, delay, or prevent hostile and threatening actions; (2) Deny access to and move, disable, and suppress individuals; (3) Stop, disable, divert, and deny access to vehicles and vessels; (4) Adapt and tailor escalation of force options to the operational environment; (5) Employ capabilities that temporarily incapacitate personnel and materiel while minimizing the likelihood of casualties and damage to critical infrastructure; (6) De-escalate situations to preclude lethal force; (7) Precisely engage targets; (8) Enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of lethal weapons; (9) Capture or incapacitate high value targets; (10) Protect the force.16

While these capabilities emphasize the nature of NLW, they insufficiently suit the general demand described in the CCJO and CMOSUSI documents—minimizing noncombatant fatalities on the battlefield. Furthermore, this list does not correspond with the required capabilities as defined by the FOC. For example, translating the complexity of the future battlefield and undesired consequences of collateral damage, the FOC accurately argues that nonlethal weapons have to be able to “dislodge [the] enemy from positions without causing extensive collateral damage” and “separate combatants from noncombatants.” Unfortunately, these significant characteristics are not in the DOD directive, which in essence defines policy and, therefore, the aims of the future development of NLW.

The Non-Lethal Weapons Requirement Fact Sheet (NLWRFS) is an official document published by the JNLWP that generalizes two initial capabilities documents and identifies requirements for nonlethal effects. The JNLWP is interested in investment in and promotion of new NLW that can support the tasks listed in the fact sheet. For example, the NLWRFS defines the following four counterpersonnel required tasks for NLW: “(1) Deny access into/out of an area to individuals (open/confined) (single/few/many); (2) Disable individuals (open/confined) (single/few/many); (3) Move individuals through an area (open/confined) (single/few/many); (4) Suppress individuals (open/confined) (single/few/many).”17

Like DOD Directive 3000.3E, this list again does not correspond with the desired capabilities defined by the FOC, and, therefore, barely addresses the future threats on the battlefield discussed in the CCJO and CMOSUSI.

Furthermore, on the one hand, the NLWRFS states that it addresses “specific non-lethal capability requirements for U.S. forces operating in complex environments.”18 On the other hand, it barely corresponds with the desired NLW capabilities and requirements as defined by FOC:

The future Modular Force, specifically, must be provided with organic nonlethal capabilities to disrupt, dislocate, disorganize, disintegrate, fix, isolate, suppress, and destroy enemy functions. Joint force commanders (JFCs), furthermore, must be provided with multifunctional/multirole lethality options in integrated multipurpose system configurations. . . . The future Modular Force Soldier must have the ability to employ a wide array of lethal and nonlethal munitions based upon mission need and force protection.19

The fact sheet neither refers to the whole spectrum of desired capabilities defined by FOC nor addresses one of the most important requirements—namely, that nonlethal weapons “must be provided with multifunctional/multirole lethality options in integrated multipurpose systems.”20 The NLWRFS fails to define required NLW as weapons that have an adjustable level of lethality and are integrated in multipurpose weapons systems; in other words, it fails to require the need, as correctly defined by the FOC, for weapons systems that integrate nonlethal and lethal capabilities.

As shown, DOD Directive 3000.3E and the NLWRFS clearly misdefine the required NLW capabilities and mislead the development of future NLW, decreasing the chances of new nonlethal technologies emerging that answer the demands of the future complex security environment. Thus, the analysis indicates that these two authoritative documents pave the way for NLW in an incorrect way, allowing an adaptation of off-the-shelf law enforcement technologies. The joint force is not a law enforcement agency, although it sometimes fulfills similar missions; therefore, military oriented nonlethal weapons have to be more versatile and more integrated. While there is no expectation that the U.S. warfighter in Afghanistan will replace the M16 rifle with the Taser X26, FN 303, or Oleoresin Capsicum Dispenser, these nonlethal capabilities have to be integrated with the warfighter’s M16 or other lethal weapons systems. This argument, however, raises the question about the ability to bridge the technological gaps related to such integration.

A Technological Gap (or Lack of It)

The current policies regarding nonlethal weapons clearly mislead military industries in defining the required capabilities. To address the existing and future threats created by the increasing complexity discussed by the CCJO and CMOSUSI, nonlethal weapons have to answer the capabilities emphasized by the FOC—versatility and integration with existing lethal weapons systems. On the one hand, the JNLWP, and therefore DOD, do not define these capabilities as a technological gap that has to be bridged. On the other hand, examples of such systems are already employed by the U.S. military or are under development. Moreover, certain systems developed by foreign manufacturers clearly demonstrate the ability to integrate nonlethality with and within lethal systems.

Regarding U.S. technologies, the best example is the M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System (MASS). It is an under-barrel shotgun attachment for the M16 that, while preserving the lethal capability of the main rifle, simultaneously provides a warfighter with an additional capability of 12-gauge nonlethal ammunition.21 Unfortunately, MASS has remained outside the JNLWP scope of interest. Other good examples of emerging systems are the XM25 and 81 millimeter (mm) Non-Lethal Indirect Fire Munitions (NLIFM). The first is a 25mm air burst grenade launcher with various lethality, from highly lethal to nonlethal depending on the type of ammunition.22 The second system expands the existing capabilities of the M252 81mm mortar into the field of nonlethality.23 Unfortunately, again, these two systems are not in the JNLWP’s focus. (The NLIFM was reported in the JNLWP annual review, but it is not included in the lists of current, developing, or future NLW supervised by the JNLWP.24)

Given the achievements of international industries in the field of integrated nonlethal capabilities, it is important to look at Russia and Israel. In the last few years, Russian industries successfully demonstrated a range of nonlethal munitions based on irritant agents—munitions for rocket-propelled grenade launchers, different caliber mortar shells, heliborne KMGV-type dispensers, and even 500 kilogram cluster air bombs.25 Alternatively, in Israel, the Israeli Military Industries propose the 120mm stun cartridge for tanks,26 and a private company, L.H.B. Ltd., offers an attachment of an upgraded Russian-made compact kinetic less-lethal pistol PB-4-2, which can be attached as a foregrip to any lethal rifle.27

While there is no confirmation that these nonlethal weapons have been adopted by the Russian or Israeli military, the mere fact of their existence clearly shows the technological ability to integrate lethal and nonlethal systems. Moreover, nonlethal capabilities of weapons, such as MASS, XM25, and NLIFM, demonstrate that American military industry understands the gap in the desired NLW capabilities of U.S. forces and—even without the direct lead of the JNLWP or DOD—is able to produce such capabilities.

Conclusion

In 2012, the previous director of the JNLWP, in addressing the problem of NLW, published an article titled “From Niche to Necessity” in this journal, which stated that “accepting nonlethal weapons as an integral element of the warfighter’s toolkit requires a cultural shift that is counterintuitive to the military, which understandably emphasizes the use of lethal force. ”28 This shift has to start with the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program itself and the way in which it defines the desired NLW. As discussed, there is a pressing need for integrated NLW that will provide warfighters with the capabilities to minimize noncombatant casualties and collateral damage. To meet that necessity, DOD in general, and the JNLWP specifically, have to translate that need and incorporate it into their NLW policies and requirements.

Since World War II, the U.S. military has been the technological leader in military affairs, and the American military-industrial complex has been able to deal with all the technological challenges that confront it. Taking nonlethal weapons out of their niche and creating technologies that will answer the emerging necessity should not pose an enormous technological gap; it is a question of the right definition of the desired capabilities that will focus research and development efforts.

Source:
This article was originally published in the Joint Force Quarterly 76, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:

  1. Sjef Orbons, “Non-Lethality in Reality: A Defence Technology Assessment of its Political and Military Potential,” Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam, 2013, 28–30.
  2. David A. Koplow, Death by Moderation: The U.S. Military’s Quest for Useable Weapons (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), ix–x.
  3. Neil Davison, “Non-Lethal” Weapons (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 209.
  4. Ibid., 86.
  5. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), DOD Needs to Improve Program Management, Policy, and Testing to Enhance Ability to Field Operationally Useful Non-Lethal Weapons: Report to Congressional Requesters (Washington, DC: GAO, April 2009).
  6. Michael J. Mazarr, The Military Technical Revolution: A Structural Framework. Final Report of the CSIS Study Group on the MTR (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1993), 43.
  7. Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 3000.3, “Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons,” July 9, 1996.
  8. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, “Purpose,” available at <http://jnlwp.defense.gov/about/purpose.html>.
  9. Davison, 86.
  10. Tracy J. Tafolla, David J. Trachtenberg, and John A. Aho, “From Niche to Necessity: Integrating Non-Lethal Weapons into Essential Enabling Capabilities, ” Joint Force Quarterly 66 (3rd Quarter 2012).
  11. Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020 (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, September 10, 2012), 7–8.
  12. Defense Science Board, Challenges to Military Operations in Support of U.S. Interests , Volume II, Main Report (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, December 2008), 9.
  13. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-66, “Force Operating Capabilities,” March 7, 2008, 17.
  14. Ibid., 88–89.
  15. Ibid., 88.
  16. DOD Directive 3000.3E, “Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons,” April 25, 2013.
  17. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, “Non-Lethal Weapons Requirement Fact Sheet,” available at <http://jnlwp.defense.gov/pdf/pressroom/NLW%20Requirements%20Fact%20Sheet%20Oct%202011.pdf >.
  18. Ibid.
  19. TRADOC, 88.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Dan Parsons, “Army, Marine Corps Succeed in Rapidly Fielding Specialized Individual Weapons (UPDATED),” National Defense , January 2013, available at <www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/Army,MarineCorpsSucceedinRapidlyFieldingSpecializedIndividualWeapons.aspx>.
  22. Project Manager Soldier Weapons Briefing for NDIA, May 18, 2010, available at <www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkBTamilio.pdf>.
  23. Non-Lethal Weapons Annual Review (Washington, DC: DOD, 2013), available at <http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Portals/50/Documents/Press_Room/Annual_Reviews_Reports/2013/DoD_Non-Lethal_Weapons_Program_Annual_Review_11.19.2012_HTML_format_v1.pdf>.
  24. The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, Non-Lethal Weapons, available at <http://jnlwp.defense.gov/Resources/RelatedLinks.aspx>.
  25. Michael Crowley, Drawing the Line: Regulation of “Wide Area” Riot Control Agent Delivery Mechanisms under the Chemical Weapons Convention (Bradford, UK: Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Project and Omega Research Foundation, April 2013), 27–38.
  26. Israel Military Industry, “120mm STUN, M337 Cartridge,” available at <www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67059>.
  27. L.H.B. Ltd., “Less-Lethal Multi-Purpose Pistol PB-4-2,” available at <www.lhbltd.com/advanced.php?id=1>.
  28. Tafolla, Trachtenberg, and Aho.

The post Nonlethal Weapons: A Technological Gap Or Misdefined Requirements? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


ECOFIN Discusses Investment Plan For Europe, New Rules To Prevent Money Laundering

$
0
0

On Monday, January 27, in Brussels, the Minister for Finance, Jānis Reirs chaired the meeting of the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels. The Council discussed the Investment plan for Europe, financial assistance to Ukraine, new rules to prevent money laundering and other important topics.

The Council discussed a proposal to establish a European fund for strategic investments, which is expected to mobilise at least €315bn in private an public investment.

The Presidency confirmed plans to reach an agreement in March 2015, so as to allow for new investments as early as mid-2015.

Macro-financial assistance to Ukraine

Ministers discussed a proposal by the Commission to grant macro-financial assistance of up to €1.8 billion to Ukraine. The Presidency of the Council concluded that a decision had to be taken quickly.

“Political assistance indicate that the EU must be in a position to provide assistance,” said Mr Reirs.

The assistance would be provided in the form of medium-term loans, disbursed in three installments. It would help cover Ukraine’s outstanding external financing needs in 2015-16.
New rules to prevent money laundering

The Council endorsed an agreement reached with the European Parliament on new rules to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

Agreement with the Parliament was reached by the Presidency in December 2014. Approval of that outcome paves the way for adoption of the package at second reading.

Following the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, the Council and the Commission agreed on a statement highlighting the need to take decisive actions against terrorist financing.

To enhance the efficiency of the new rules, the statement calls for further efforts towards:

  • speeding up national implementation of those rules;
  • strengthening cooperation on terrorist financing between the member states’ financial intelligence units;
  • addressing terrorist financing risks via the EU’s supranational risk assessment.

Tackling corporate tax avoidance

The Council amended the EU’s parent-subsidiary directive, adding an anti-abuse clause to prevent tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by corporate groups.

The aim is to stop the directive from being misused, and to achieve greater consistency in its application in different member states. The anti-abuse clause will prevent member states from granting the benefits of the directive to arrangements that are not “genuine”, i.e. that have been put into place to obtain a tax advantage without reflecting economic reality.

“This is the second important change we have made to the parent-subsidiary directive,” said Mr Reirs. “Fighting tax avoidance by multinationals is a high priority both for the EU and at international level.”

The post ECOFIN Discusses Investment Plan For Europe, New Rules To Prevent Money Laundering appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India Needs To Learn How To Leverage Friendship With US – Analysis

$
0
0

By Manoj Joshi*

With the hype over the Obama visit reaching a crescendo, it’s time for a reality check. Being friends with the United States is one thing, but leveraging it to your advantage is quite another.

There are lessons that India needs to learn, ironically enough from our two adversaries – China and Pakistan – who have been very successful in using the US connection to their advantage.

The Obama visit has led to significant movement in all the areas in which the relations had advanced in the Bush era – civil nuclear cooperation, strategic and defence technology ties and economic relations.

The stalling of our relationship was particularly acute in the case of the civil nuclear deal. India’s nuclear liability Act is considered so draconian that potential foreign suppliers have refused to invest in India’s civil nuclear sector.

Even Indian suppliers are balking at providing equipment for the NPCIL power reactors.

Just what fix has been arrived at is not yet clear, but Modi’s statement that “we are moving towards commercial cooperation, consistent with our law, our international legal obligations, and technical and commercial viability,” suggests that the hurdles have been overcome.

But the devil is always in the detail, and here, the details needed are as to whether the fix proposed is within the letter and spirit of the law.

The Indo-US nuclear deal was not really about civil nuclear cooperation. Sure, India needs a leg up in producing clean energy. But nuclear power is not going to be a significant portion of India’s energy mix till at least 2050 and beyond.

The Indo-US nuclear deal was all about strategic signalling. It told the world that the pill that was stuck in the Indo-US throat since the Pokhran I blast in 1974 was, at last, being washed down.

Along with it would be the layers of technology restriction regimes that India had been subjected to since then.

Sunday’s joint statement acknowledged that the US considered India ready for entry into the MTCR and NSG.

The other two regimes-the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group – would follow.

The key change today is that India has a decisive leader, as well as a Government with a clear majority.

Notwithstanding a problematic personal history with the US, Modi had a very clear notion of India’s place in the world, and it was next to the United States-“our natural global partner.”

That it wasn’t just rhetoric became clear with the swift removal of hurdles to the WTO Trade facilitation deal in November 2014.

The US, which had given up on India, has sensed opportunity and has grabbed it with both hands.

Confronted with a rising and assertive Beijing the US realises that it needs something more than its traditional allies in Japan, Australia and ASEAN, to make its Asian pivot credible.

The one country which has the potential and heft to offset China’s gravitational pull is India. As of now this is only a potential, but if unleashed it has the stuff of transforming the region’s geopolitics.

Read the ‘Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean’ document carefully and you can find the nuances.

More important than the nuts and bolts of various agreements is the fact that the US and India now seem to have a sense of shared purpose and direction.

There is a sense of realism as well, given the experience of the past decade.

As Obama put it, closer ties between India and the US could not be built overnight and could only be developed over a period of time. All the building blocks are now in place. All that is left is for the construction crew to begin its work.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: Mail Today

The post India Needs To Learn How To Leverage Friendship With US – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia Crackdown Is New Assault On Independent Groups, Says HRW

$
0
0

The Russian government crackdown against nongovernmental organizations shows that the 2012 “foreign agent” law amounts to little more than an effort to crush dissent and debate that is essential in a democratic society, Human Rights Watch said.

The Justice Ministry has used newly introduced powers to brand 30 groups as “foreign agents,” including the country’s most expert and authoritative human rights organizations, and has used bureaucratic pretexts to try to close down several other groups. At least six groups have chosen to close rather than be labelled a “foreign agent” – a term widely and unambiguously understood in Russia to mean “spy” or “traitor.” Other groups have been hit with steep fines. New draft laws, if adopted, would further marginalize “foreign agent” groups by forbidding public officials to participate in them, and would sanction anyone involved with a group the authorities deem “undesirable.”

“Russia’s authorities seem determined to stigmatize and silence dissent, until there is no one left to speak out,” said Rachel Denber, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of targeting independent groups, the government should be listening to what they have to say.”

Since December 2014 alone, the Justice Ministry has branded 16 groups as “foreign agents.” They include the Sakharov Center, a prominent organization dedicated to sustaining the legacy of Andrei Sakharov – the Soviet physicist who became a dissident, human rights leader, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate – and housing a permanent exhibition on the history of Soviet repression. They also include the Nizhny Novgorod-based Committee against Torture, a leading nongovernmental group that provides legal aid and rehabilitation to torture victims in Russia.

Government notices to several of these groups, which Human Rights Watch reviewed, show that authorities equate public discussion of government policies, actions, or officials with “political activity,” particularly if it criticizes or expresses dissenting views. Documents received by the Committee against Torture and the Sakharov Center, for example, singled out discussion and public documents that criticize the government, and claimed, in one case, that a public letter to the United Nations “aims to discredit” government agencies.

“Singling out speech that criticizes government policies or actions belies the authorities’ claims that the ‘foreign agent’ law was about transparency,” Denber said. “What is transparent is that the government increasingly considers most criticism a security threat.”

A new draft law, which passed a first reading in parliament on January 19, 2015, would ban “undesirable” foreign companies or organizations, or groups that are perceived to pose a threat to broadly defined “defense capability or security of the State, public order, or public health.” The bill’s stated aim is to “protect the constitutional order, morality, human rights and the lawful interests of other people,” and its author said in a media interview that it was aimed at groups that are “unfriendly” to Russia. If the current version of the law is adopted, it would impose hefty fines on people who organize activities for such groups, participate in those groups’ activities, or “obtain money or property from them.” Repeat offenders would be subject to criminal penalties.

In several cases, the Justice Ministry branded groups as “foreign agents” while they were still appealing government notices ordering them to change their activities or funding or to register as “foreign agents.” Among them are Memorial Human Rights Center, Public Verdict, Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms (Jurix), and Agora. In some cases, the groups learned of the Justice Ministry’s designation from the media.

Under the 2012 “foreign agent” law, groups that accept foreign funding and engage in broadly defined “political activities” must publicly identify themselves as “foreign agents.” A June 2014 law authorized the Justice Ministry to register such groups without their consent.

Russian authorities have also moved to liquidate several prominent groups, accusing them of violating a range of bureaucratic regulations. For example, in September the Justice Ministry petitioned the Supreme Court to liquidate Memorial Russia, an umbrella group dedicated to assisting survivors of Soviet repression, just after the organization had informed the ministry that the group would hold a members’ congress to address the ministry’s concerns.

All of the groups singled out in recent months had already been targeted in the spring of 2013, when the government carried out a nationwide inspection campaign of independent groups.

In 2012 and 2013, government officials claimed the “foreign agent” law aimed only to enhance transparency and rejected allegations that it aimed to marginalize or punish advocacy groups. In April 2014, Russia’s Constitutional Court ruled there were no legal or constitutional grounds for contending that the term “foreign agent” was pejorative and that, therefore, its use was “not intended to persecute or discredit” groups.

But new legislation proposals announced in December belie these claims, Human Rights Watch said.

In December, the Justice Ministry said it was examining draft amendments that would allow removing organizations from the “foreign agents” registry if they could demonstrate that they had either not received foreign funds or stopped engaging in “political activity” for a full year after their initial designation. Groups that were removed from the registry and subsequently found to carry out “political activity” and receive foreign funding would “lose the right to be removed from the registry for three years.”

In mid-December, two members of the Duma, the Russian parliament, announced they had submitted draft amendments that would ban civil servants and members of parliament from being a member of or serving on the board, advisory council, or any other body of a “foreign agent” group. One of the bill’s sponsors said that the change was needed “if we’re going to achieve minimum Western influence on our country’s political situation” and that “The struggle for sovereignty is serious and painstaking work.”

“The government’s latest moves against independent groups and freedom of expression are shockingly out of line with Russia’s international human rights obligations and its commitments as a Council of Europe member,” Denber said. “The government should immediately drop the ‘foreign agent’ law and stop harassing independent groups.”

The post Russia Crackdown Is New Assault On Independent Groups, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

AQAP’s Ideological Battles At Home And Abroad – Analysis

$
0
0

By Robin Simcox*

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is a grave security threat to both Yemen and the West. This was most devastatingly proved on January 7, 2015, when the group carried out a bombing attack against police cadets in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, killing dozens. Shortly thereafter, they likely perpetrated their first attack on Western soil.

Said and Cherif Kouachi, who had both travelled to Yemen in 2011 and are thought to have received training and financing from AQAP, murdered twelve staff members at the Parisian offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that had published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.1 In the days after the Charlie Hebdo attack, AQAP claimed credit for the operation.2 In fact, the group had already identified Charlie Hebdo’s editor as a target for assassination in the spring 2013 edition of Inspire, AQAP’s propaganda magazine.

In recent years AQAP has carried out a series of high-profile attempted attacks on Western aviation, killed hundreds of members of the Yemeni military and security forces and bombed multiple foreign embassies in Sana’a. They are a highly formidable outfit.

Ominously, AQAP has also carved out multiple safe havens in Yemen, a task made easier by the chaos of Yemen’s Arab Spring protests, which began in January 2011. Over 2,000 people may have died in that uprising, leading to the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had governed Yemen for over three decades.

However, AQAP was not the only group looking to take advantage of the shifting power dynamics of Yemen’s Arab Spring. Other key actors – such as the Muslim Brotherhood-linked al-Islah party and General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, the hugely powerful military commander – have followed suit. Most dramatically, the Shiite movement known as the Houthis recently executed a coup that has extended its control over key territory, including parts of the capital city of Sana’a. Even by Yemen’s standards, the situation today is chaotic as the government remains virtually powerless to shape events.

The competition for influence in which AQAP is embroiled in Yemen mirrors an ongoing competition for influence in the global jihadist movement provoked by the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Following the capture of significant amounts of land in Iraq, ISIS emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a caliphate in June 2014. How to respond to this development has divided jihadists, including al-Qaeda, and poses a conundrum for AQAP.

This paper studies the evolution of the AQAP and ISIS relationship in the context of ISIS’ growth, and AQAP’s approach to resolving the resulting disagreements. It then examines AQAP’s influence in the overall context of Yemen’s current political and ideological ruptures.

The Al-Qaeda – ISIS Split

In order to understand the importance of AQAP’s relationship with ISIS in the context of the overall jihadist movement, it is necessary to elucidate the reasons behind the split between ISIS and al-Qaeda. Even before the rupture, relations between al-Qaeda and its Iraqi franchise had long been strained. Al-Qaeda’s senior leadership lamented the group’s unwillingness to take instructions and the harm its indiscriminate killings caused al Qaeda’s reputation in the Muslim world.3 Ultimately, however, it was the Syrian uprising of 2011 that precipitated the ISIS–al-Qaeda break.

As chaos engulfed Syria, al-Baghdadi sensed an opportunity to exert influence. From Iraq, he dispatched fighters to Syria to form the al-Nusra Front (ANF), which would develop into a highly effective fighting force against the Bashar al-Assad regime. In April 2013, al-Baghdadi incorporated the ANF into his own organization, which he rebranded the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), and asserted dominion over activities in Syria.4

When ANF emir Abu Mohammad al-Jolani objected, al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahri was forced to intervene. Backing al-Jolani, in the summer of 2013 al-Zawahiri ruled that the groups should operate independently and instructed al-Baghdadi to focus on Iraq.5 Al-Baghdadi’s subsequent refusal to do so led to open fighting between the ANF and ISIS in parts of Syria.6 By the end of 2013, al-Baghdadi was sending private correspondences to representatives of other al-Qaeda franchises, urging them to shift their allegiance from al-Zawahiri.7 In February 2014, with al-Baghdadi’s intransigence apparent, al-Zawahiri severed al-Qaeda’s ties with ISIS.8 In the ensuing months, some analysts speculated that al-Qaeda could splinter en masse, with some franchises aligning themselves with al-Baghdadi while others remained loyal to al-Zawahiri.9

Possible Reconciliation

Thus far, AQAP’s senior leadership remains loyal to al-Zawahiri. The group has not pledged allegiance to ISIS and, despite arguments to the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest that it will do so.10 In fact, AQAP has been focused on fostering unity among Sunnis, issuing conciliatory messages that support al-Zawahiri and calling for unity in the face of such mutual enemies as the United States and Iran.

In March 2014, just one month after the al-Qaeda–ISIS split, AQAP posted an audio message online that proclaimed, “[W]e have one stance toward all groups that wage jihad for the sake of God…[AQAP] have been careful from the beginning to have a brotherly stance toward all the mujahideen.”11 The timing of this message was particularly significant as it was released shortly after al-Qaeda’s main representative in Syria, Abu Khalid al-Suri, was killed by ISIS fighters.

In July 2014, AQAP’s emir, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, issued a tribute to al-Zawahiri; meanwhile, key AQAP ideologues released a separate, seemingly supportive video of al-Qaeda’s emir.12 These, too, were strategically timed messages of support, as they came only days after al-Baghdadi had declared his caliphate.

On August 12, 2014, AQAP released another ISIS-related video via its al-Malahim Media Foundation platform. In the video, key AQAP ideologue Ibrahim al-Rubaish praised the Sunni victories being won on the Iraqi battlefield.13 Although not naming ISIS explicitly, al-Rubaish stated, “I congratulate all the mujahideen on all battlefronts and all Muslims on the victories that our brothers in Iraq have achieved against the puppets of the [Iranians]…Who does not rejoice in the victory of the Sunni Muslims and the defeat of the gangs of [former Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki?”14

Two days later, AQAP published a statement offering security advice to “our brothers in Iraq” and announced “solidarity with our Muslim brothers in Iraq…we stand by the side of our Muslim brothers in Iraq against the American and Iranian conspiracy and their agents of the apostate Gulf rulers.”15 A Twitter account affiliated with Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP’s insurgent wing, sent a similar message.16

These messages have been misread by some as AQAP foreshadowing a possible break from al-Qaeda and a pledge of allegiance to al-Baghdadi.17 In reality, they were merely declarations of support for fellow Sunnis and the victories they were gaining over the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq. AQAP fighters’ hatred for Shiites likely outweighs any ill-feeling caused by the al-Qaeda–ISIS split.

Multiple AQAP statements in recent months seemingly confirm this. A joint statement released in September 2014 by AQAP and a fellow al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, encouraged warring jihadists in Syria to focus on the enemy that unites them: the United States and its supposed “crusader campaign to fight Islam and the Muslims.” The statement argued that divisions only weakened the jihadist movement and benefited its enemies: Christians, Jews, Shiites and Alawites.18

That same month, AQAP also released a video related to ISIS via al-Malahim Media Foundation that featured Sheikh Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, a veteran al-Qaeda jihadist who had ties to Osama bin Laden. In the video, AQAP implored the jihadists to “form a coalition to strike the leader of invalidity and the head of disbelief”; and to “forget their difference, unite their efforts, and join their ranks against their crusader enemy.” Al-Ansi encouraged striking the U.S. (referred to as the “main enemy”) and “its interests everywhere.”19

Al-Ansi was also keen to stress the importance of Iran as an enemy, ascribing Houthi territorial gains in Yemen, and the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, to an Iranian plot. In doing so, Al-Ansi linked not just AQAP and ISIS, but all Sunnis in an epic contest against their mutual enemies. Again, the message is that jihadist infighting should come to an end in order to focus on the larger strategic battles at hand. Even so, al-Ansi is not afraid to criticize ISIS when necessary. For example, he also described the group’s filming and marketing of beheadings as “barbaric” and “not acceptable.”20

In October, AQAP again addressed the issue of common enemies. On Twitter, it specifically referred to the war against “our brothers in the Islamic State” and how, “on this occasion,” it supported them “against the global crusader campaign.” AQAP made a further call for “the mujahideen to forget their disputes and to stop the infighting among them, and to be diligent in pushing away the crusader campaign that targets all.”21

Clearly, AQAP’s leadership desires more unity, not greater division. While this conciliatory approach has not been reciprocated by ISIS, it is one that is broadly in line with that of al-Zawahiri, who has attempted to mend ties with ISIS since its February 2014 expulsion.22 These efforts have been aided by the fact that, thus far, no key AQAP figure is known to have joined ISIS. Due to his seniority, the most significant defector who could have switched sides would have been AQAP emir Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who is thought to be a mediator for intra-al-Qaeda disputes. It is possible that he mediated between al-Qaeda and ISIS prior to the latter’s expulsion.23

Al-Wuhayshi’s mediation was likely an attempt to improve relations between the groups, rather than a signal that he was considering defecting. In fact, not only has al-Wuhayshi explicitly praised al-Zawahiri since al-Baghdadi declared his caliphate, but he also was promoted to the role of al-Qaeda’s “general manager” by al-Zawahiri in the summer of 2013.24 This was the first time that al-Qaeda bypassed its core Pakistani leadership to promote a leader from a regional affiliate to such a senior role. Today, al-Wuhayshi has emerged as a leading contender to replace al-Zawahiri as overall emir of al-Qaeda, should the Egyptian leader be killed. For al-Wuhayshi, defecting to ISIS makes little sense on any front.

Speculation that Ibrahim al-Asiri, AQAP’s key bomb-maker, has aligned himself with ISIS is also likely wide of the mark.25 Admittedly, al-Asiri aspired to join up with the jihad in Iraq following the U.S. invasion of 2003. However, he was jailed in his home country of Saudi Arabia for planning to do so, which seemingly led to a shift in attitude toward his own government. Al-Asiri commented that “[u]p until that point I didn’t know that the Saudi government was in the service of the crusaders” (i.e. the U.S.).26 Al-Asiri’s subsequent plots have reflected this shift in focus. In August 2009, for example, al-Asiri constructed a bomb with which his brother Abdullah attempted to assassinate Muhammad bin Nayef, the Saudi Minister of Interior. Al-Asiri also constructed the underwear bomb of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, which the Nigerian attempted to detonate on Christmas Day 2009 aboard an airliner traveling from the Netherlands to the U.S. Al-Asiri’s focus on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia matches AQAP’s priorities, and there is no evidence to suggest al-Asiri is moving away from AQAP ideologically. Furthermore, as one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, traveling from (in all likelihood) AQAP strongholds in southern Yemen to ISIS strongholds in northwest Iraq would be a risky proposition for al-Asiri.

While AQAP’s leadership remains stalwart in its loyalty towards al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda, its rank-and-file has proven more restless. U.S. officials observed the trend of AQAP defections to ISIS quickening as ISIS expanded its territorial control in the summer of 2013.27 One Yemeni-based analyst even claimed that ISIS was training AQAP-linked fighters in Yemen, and that AQAP members had moved to Iraq and Syria in order to affiliate themselves with the group.28

Some Yemeni jihadists have also made public statements in support of ISIS, including the ideologue Abdul Majid al-Hitari. Arguably the most outspoken has been Mamoun Hatem. A tribal leader and AQAP ideologue, although AQAP has not confirmed his role, Hatem’s reputation made him the rumoured target of a U.S. drone strike in March 2014.29 Hatem posted a series of supportive messages on Twitter both prior to, and after, al-Baghdadi’s declaration of a caliphate.30 Yet, as Thomas Joseclyn of the Long War Journal has pointed out, even Hatem failed to back the actions of those Yemeni mujahideen fighters who pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In fact, Hatem took to Twitter to say that while he had attempted to persuade AQAP to swear fealty to al-Baghdadi, he did not want support for ISIS to weaken AQAP and divide the Yemeni jihadist movement.31 Another AQAP fighter sympathetic to ISIS is Jalal Baleedi, an AQAP field commander in the governorates of Abyan, Shabwa, Hadramout, al-Bayda and Lahj in southern Yemen.32 However, he has not suggested any intent to formally break from AQAP over the ISIS issue.

In September 2014, a new group called “The Supporters of the Islamic State in Yemen” released a video of nine mujahideen fighters pledging their allegiance to al-Baghdadi. 33 A month later, journalists in Yemen received an email from a group announcing itself as “Supporters of the Islamic State in the Arabian Peninsula.”34 Then, in mid-November, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi accepted a pledge of allegiance from a group known as the “Mujahideen of Yemen” and proclaimed all other jihadist groups’ activities in Yemen invalid.35 Little is known about these various groups, including whether they are even three separate entities. It is possible that they consist of AQAP fighters unhappy with the group’s distance from ISIS, though this too cannot be confirmed.

Regardless, senior AQAP official Harith bin Ghazi al-Nadhari felt compelled to respond to al-Baghdadi, stating that ISIS’ caliphate is not legitimate, that it had not been approved by Islamic authorities and that ISIS had no real presence outside of Syria and Iraq. He also blamed divisions in the jihadist movement on ISIS, contending that they “split the ranks of the mujahideen, and scattered them….” However, even in this speech, al-Nadhari stressed that AQAP “did not want to talk about the current dispute” between ISIS and al-Qaeda so as to avoid encouraging “the enemies of Islam.” He explicitly reiterated AQAP support of “our brothers with what we can, and we still hold to that position, as we believe in the necessity to support our mujahideen brothers, including all of their groups and entities, regardless of their inclinations.“Al-Nadhari also emphasized AQAP’s “utmost joy” at the reports that mujahideen infighting had potentially abated in Syria.36

Following the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks, the debate concerning the AQAP–ISIS relationship took yet another twist. On January 8, Amedy Coulibaly likely shot and killed a police officer in Paris. The next day, he held up a kosher bakery and killed four hostages before French police managed to kill him. While Coulibaly had pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi, he also claimed his attack was coordinated with the Kouachi brothers’ operation against Charlie Hebdo.37 Given the division between AQAP and ISIS, there was significant speculation as to whether the groups had coordinated the Paris attacks.38 Stated simply, this is unlikely. As the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Aaron Zelin has pointed out, any coordination between the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly is more likely due to their personal relationships rather than joint planning by the respective groups.39

Therefore, the overall prospect of AQAP splintering the jihadist movement further by aligning itself with ISIS is highly unlikely. Even so, ISIS’ declaration of a new caliphate poses some challenges to AQAP through its appeal to Yemenis impatient with al-Qaeda’s lack of progress. After all, AQAP controlled “emirates” in Abyan and Shabwa, south Yemen, in the spring and summer of 2011, only to be expelled the following year. ISIS appears to have much more durability and a demonstrated ability to hold territory, which may increase the appeal of the group the longer it carries on as a semi-coherent state.

Beyond jihadist circles, AQAP is also involved in a struggle for power and influence within Yemeni society. The next section examines this struggle, with a particular focus on the group AQAP currently has the most reason to fear: the Zaidi Houthi rebels.

Enter the Houthis

Zaydism is a form of Shiism that was followed by Yemen’s elite rulers until the country became a republic in 1962. The new leadership, backed by Saudi Arabia, attempted to minimize the influence of the Zaidis, who constituted a majority in parts of the north but a minority in Yemen overall. Salafism and Wahhabism were subsequently strongly promoted as alternatives from the 1970s onwards.40 A series of institutes espousing these alternatives were subsequently formed, which enjoyed some popularity with lower-class Zaidis outside of the old governing aristocracy.

Zaidi fears regarding the gathering strength of Salafist and Wahhabist ideology were exacerbated by the formation of the al-Islah party in the aftermath of the May 1990 merger of north and south Yemen. Al-Islah was co-founded by Abdullah al-Ahmar, a key tribal leader with close links to Islamists, and Abdul Majid al-Zindani, a man now designated as a terrorist by the U.S.41 The organization has been described as representing “a wide coalition for Sunnis of the Muslim Brotherhood and apolitical backgrounds, Wahhabi Salafis, and tribals seeking patronage, some from Zaydi backgrounds.”42

Two main Zaidi responses emerged to this growth in Wahhabi Salafi influence. The first was al-Haqq, which was led by Zaidi elites and contained future Houthi leaders. Al-Haqq aimed to establish a closer relationship with Saleh and those in government, and thereby gain greater access to patronage. However, al-Haqq failed to harness grassroots or youth support.43

More successful was the Believing Youth network of summer camps and sports clubs in northern boarding schools. The Believing Youth’s teachings contained a more religious and ideological slant, with a particular focus on social issues. The founders of the movement included several members of the al-Houthi family, and the socio-religious identity that developed in the Believing Youth network would contribute to the Houthi rebels’ outlook.44

Following a series of protests in 2002 in Saada, north Yemen, a Zaidi insurgency led by Husayn al-Houthi emerged. Al-Houthi delivered religious speeches assailing the government for its corruption, and bemoaned high unemployment and food prices. His star rose throughout the mountain towns of north Yemen; in June 2004, he launched an armed rebellion against the government.45 Saada would emerge as the rebels’ stronghold.

In September 2004, after government forces killed Husayn al-Houthi, his younger brother Abdulmalek took command of the group. Under his leadership, the Houthi rebels would fight five wars with the government, interrupted only intermittently by uneasy truces. Following the last ceasefire, in 2010, the Houthis began to expand their presence through intermarriage with key tribal families. A year later, the movement developed a political wing.

Considering this history, the violence that broke out between the Houthis and the Yemeni government in 2014 was predictable. However, what few could have predicted at the time was that Houthi-initiated protests in August 2014 would – in just over a month – lead to a political coup and the fall of Sana’a.

To understand how this happened, it is vital to understand the conditions behind Ali Abdullah Saleh’s protracted departure.

Exit Saleh

Saleh agreed to step down as early as April 2011 as part of a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) brokered deal. Saleh backed out of signing this agreement multiple times, finally relenting in November 2011. Power was formally handed over to his vice president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, in February 2012.

The deal, however, retained considerable influence for Saleh in the new government. The General People’s Congress party, of which Saleh remained the head, was well represented in the new cabinet, and members of Saleh’s family kept their jobs in the military and security apparatus. This ensured him continued influence and control over parts of the military, complimenting his other tribal alliances. The deal also established a power sharing agreement with the main opposition party, al-Islah. Importantly, Saleh received immunity from prosecution for the deaths that occurred during that year’s uprising.

This arrangement posed a severe problem for the Houthis, who gained no ministerial posts as part of the GCC deal. Not only were none of their natural allies strengthened, but their relationship with al-Islah, with which they had aligned in calling for Saleh’s departure, even deteriorated.46

A further source of Houthi discontent sprang from the shape and form of the proposed new federal Yemen. This has its roots in the National Dialogue Conference (NDC), created as part of the GCC deal. The NDC convened 565 representatives from various political factions – including youth representatives, southern secessionists, Houthis, women as well as established government figures – for almost a year to discuss political reconciliation and other key issues concerning Yemen’s future.

The delegates agreed that Yemen would evolve into a federal system comprised of six states.47 After initially withdrawing in protest, the Houthis accepted the principle but stressed their dissatisfaction at how the borders would be drawn. Specifically, the Houthis objected to being isolated from certain resources and a specific port.48 They demanded that a single region in the north be created and that they gain more access to federal government institutions.49

This set the scene for the clashes that broke out this year between Houthis, the army, and tribal groups friendly to both the government and al-Islah. The Houthis achieved a major victory by taking control of the city of Amran, north of Sana’a. While they agreed to withdraw in late July, they nonetheless emerged from the clashes emboldened.

Moreover, in May, the Yemeni finance minister announced that fuel subsidies were to be cut as part of a $500 million loan negotiation with the IMF.50 Once these cuts came into effect in August and fuel prices increased by 90 percent, the Houthis demanded an immediate restoration of the subsidy. 51 Tens of thousands of their supporters gathered on the outskirts of Sana’a while their bulldozers levied buildings to make way for makeshift protest camps.52 This was an opportunistic and tactical move, capitalizing on a deeply unpopular policy in order to legitimize a Houthi power grab.

After initial violent skirmishes, the government relented, agreeing to reintroduce fuel subsidies and form a new cabinet.53 However, emboldened by their successes, the Houthis continued their advance. Before long, they conquered the influential al-Iman University, run by Abdul Majid al-Zindani, and overran the state security forces defending the state television building. They also took control of a nearby stadium.54

Fighting centered on a military base northwest of Sana’a, where the Houthis defeated military units loyal to General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar. This was a significant moment, as Ali Mohsen – an enemy of the Houthis who had led the state’s wars against them – had huge levels of influence in the government.55 Importantly, Hadi did not deploy his most loyal military units in support of Ali Mohsen. Possibly, the president was content to watch two aspiring rivals bludgeon one another. Once Hadi’s forces declined to engage the Houthis, al-Islah-aligned fighters chose to abstain as well.56

As the Houthis advanced on Sana’a, Yemen’s military abandoned their posts and Interior Minister Abdo al-Torab ordered troops to co-operate with the advancing forces.57 Houthis seized the Central Bank, government buildings, and television stations and banks, setting up checkpoints throughout Sana’a while its leadership went to the presidential palace to negotiate terms. Even the Houthis may have been surprised at how easily Sana’a fell.

On September 21, an agreement was signed calling for the appointment of a new prime minister within three days, followed by the formation of a technocratic government within a month. Unsurprisingly, the agreement also stipulated the reintroduction of fuel subsidies.58 Furthermore, the Houthis were to put forward an adviser to the president, populate the Shura Council, and participate in election monitoring, among other tasks related to the outcome of the NDC.59 Finally, Houthi militias were to be integrated into the Yemeni security and police forces. In return, they were to dismantle their protest camps and checkpoints. Ultimately, however, the Houthis refused to cede control of Yemeni territory, agree to disarmament and abide by a ceasefire in the contested areas.60 With that, the deal was in doubt.

That Hadi could not unilaterally enforce these terms highlighted a lack of state power and testified to the comprehensive nature of the Houthi victory. That the truce was even partially brokered by the United Nations – which had criticised the Houthi aggression and whose acquiescence on the GCC deal had paved the way for Hadi in the first place – laid bare the scope of domestic and international dysfunction in Yemeni politics.

The Houthi victory is already translating into significant levels of political influence. On October 7, as part of their demand that a new prime minister be installed, Hadi attempted to appoint his ally, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak. The Houthis, however, nixed the appointment and called for a return to mass protests. 61 Bin Mubarak subsequently turned down the position. Yemen’s ambassador to the U.N., Khaled Bahah, perceived as more amenable to the Houthis, was selected days later.62 One of his first moves was to give the Houthis control of the oil ministry.63

The Houthis are matching their political expansion with territorial gains. Weeks after their triumph in Sana’a they captured Damar, to the south of the capital, before proceeding to Hodeida, a port city in west Yemen. This was an understandable strategic move. Hodeida provides access to Bab al-Mandab, a southern entrance to the Red Sea. Bab al-Mandab links up with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean and separates East Africa from the Arabian Peninsula. Approximately 4 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through this waterway.64

Saleh and the Houthis

When the Houthis captured Damar and Hodeida, they did so without a fight. The ease with which they swept through Sana’a can be attributed to the shambolic nature of the Yemeni military.65 However, it also suggests a possible deal. Saleh may have seen the Houthis as a vehicle with which to wreck the Yemeni political process, defeat adversaries such as al-Islah and Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar and even manoeuver back into power.

Saleh-aligned army units were rumoured to have reached truces with the Houthis even before their takeover of Sana’a, while the capture of Damar is thought to have been assisted by tribesmen loyal to Saleh.66 There have also been suggestions that tribesmen fighting alongside the Houthis were Saleh loyalists, and that Saleh instructed his supporters to help control the streets of Sana’a once Ali Mohsen had been defeated. One Sana’a resident who had observed certain checkpoints in the capital commented, “I know these people. They aren’t Houthis. They… couldn’t care less about the Houthis.”67 The implication is that Saleh loyalists struck up an alliance of convenience. The former president’s son, Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh, is one possible collaborator. Until August 2012, he was head of the elite Republican Guard.

An alliance with Saleh’s may make sense for the Houthis in the short term, but it is not a move that will gain them popular support. The Houthi takeover of Sana’a has already cost them some of the goodwill they had accrued during their anti-corruption campaign. By cooperating with the unpopular Saleh, who is hated in Yemen and against whom the Houthis had agitated for so long, the group runs significant risks.

Iran and the Houthis

While the Houthis are a home grown movement whose strength is largely based on exploiting local grievances, they also have important connections to Iran.

In December 2009, Arab and Egyptian sources reported that meetings were taking place between the Houthis, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy.68 Months before, the U.S. had largely dismissed Saleh’s attempt to link the Houthis to the Iranian government.69 In September 2009, the U.S. assessed that “Iranian influence in Yemen has thus far been limited to informal religious ties between Yemeni and Iranian scholars and negligible Iranian investment in the energy and development sectors.”70

However, suspicions concerning Iranian ties to the Houthis strengthened in January 2013 when a boat containing anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades was intercepted on its way to Yemen. The Yemeni government believed that the large weapons cache was loaded in Iran and destined for “armed insurgents” in Yemen.71 One Yemeni official has claimed that Iran continues to ship weapons while Western officials charge Hezbollah with channelling cash to the Houthis.72

As the Yemeni tribal and conflict analyst Nadwa al-Dawsari points out, some Iranian leaders publicly celebrated the Houthi triumphs. For example, Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khameini, stated that Iran “supports the rightful struggles of [the Houthis] in Yemen and considers this movement as part of the successful Islamic Awakening movements.”73 In return, the Houthis have also been known to profess support for Iranian religious figures, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.74

Furthermore, another Iranian official has stated that the elite IRGC Quds Force has a military presence in Yemen and is training Houthis. It has also been alleged that Hezbollah has dispatched military operatives to the Houthis.75 In fact, suspected Hezbollah members and IRGC officers were arrested at Sana’a International Airport under the suspicion that they had come to train rebels.76 These individuals were freed after the Houthis seized Sana’a in September.77 Iranian training of Houthis does not occur just in Yemen. According to members of the Yemeni government, Iran has also used Hezbollah to train Houthis in southern Lebanon. This training is thought to be overseen by the IRGC.78

Iran’s potential ties to Yemen have significant geopolitical consequences, particularly for Saudi Arabia. Yemen’s northern neighbour has historically wielded significant influence in Yemen via large cash payments and aid to key political and tribal figures.79 The Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, has called on Iran to remove its “occupying” forces (not just from Yemen, but also from Iraq and Syria).80 The GCC, too, issued a warning of not “stand[ing] idly” while foreign powers took over Yemen.81 How this rhetoric translates into action, however, remains to be seen.

AQAP and the Houthis

Shortly after the September 21 agreement, Abdel Malek al-Houthi delivered a speech from Saada in which he stated that “the most dangerous obstacles” facing Yemen – seemingly a reference to Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar and his tribal and Sunni associates, such as al-Islah – had been removed. The only “remaining obstacle” was AQAP.82

In fact, AQAP had been taking advantage of the unrest by inserting dozens of operatives into Sana’a to join pre-existing sleeper cells. In an AQAP video released weeks before the Houthis entered the capital, AQAP leader Jalal Beleidi warned that “[o]ur fighters have entered Sana’a and we are waiting for this battle. Our fight will be against both the Houthis and the government.”83

This was not an empty threat. At the end of September, AQAP targeted a house in Saada owned by a prominent Houthi and a Houthi-controlled hospital in Marib, east Yemen.84 Shortly after bin Mubarak declined the prime ministership, AQAP launched two subsequent suicide attacks. One occurred in Sana’a, targeting Houthis gathered at Tahrir Square, and killed over forty people, while the other in Hadramawt, southeast Yemen, targeted the military and killed at least twenty soldiers.85 Between October 16-20, AQAP claimed responsibility for sixteen separate attacks, largely in central Yemen.86

AQAP will increasingly come into conflict with the Houthis in the months ahead as both groups strengthen their presence throughout Yemen and look to make inroads into new territory. For example, in October, AQAP took control of Udain, a town in southwest Yemen. This was potentially a retaliatory move after the Houthis took control of nearby Ibb, a known AQAP area of operation.87

Another example is the current Houthi attempt to expand into Radaa, al-Bayda province. This is bringing them into conflict with both AQAP and tribal fighters.1 The escalation of Houthi–AQAP violence is already becoming clear. Following the Houthi push into Radaa, AQAP military commander Qasim al-Raymi warned that their actions “will not just pass unnoticed and you will pay the price dearly.”89 These were not empty words. Days later, AQAP and allied tribal fighters launched six attacks over one weekend against the Houthis.90 On December 3, AQAP launched a car bomb attack targeting the home of the Iranian ambassador; and, on December 15, a co-ordinated AQAP car bomb attack against Houthi positions in Radaa led to the deaths of twenty five people, including fifteen children.91

The Radaa tribes are not supportive of AQAP’s ideology, but they also regard the Houthis as outsiders and are wary of their attempts to appropriate land and usurp power. Therefore, the more the Houthis expand, the greater will be AQAP’s ability to recruit. As Nadwa al-Dawsari has noted, a similar situation occurred in the summer when al-Islah and the tribes fought Houthis in Marib and Jawf.92

The Houthi–AQAP clashes are likely to lead to increased sectarianism. While this has generally not been a motivating factor in the various battles throughout Yemen, AQAP regards the Houthis as heretics and will attempt to frame the conflict in sectarian terms. This could play into a latent concern among Sunnis about the rapidity and scale of the recent Houthi expansion.

AQAP and the Future of Yemen

In recent times, Yemen has suffered from a lack of successful governing models, making the conditions ripe for a group such as the Houthis to gain a solid level of support. However, their actions in recent weeks have undercut much of this support. The Houthis ability to hold onto territory in the face of the inevitable pushback from al-Islah, Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar and other forces remains to be seen. In a country beset by violence, division and poverty, whoever manages to emerge from this struggle in the long term remains an open question.

AQAP has always sought to take advantage of this type of instability in Yemen. Fortunately, AQAP’s style of jihadism has proven unable to attract popular support. Furthermore, in the past, the group has displayed an inability to hold territory in the face of concerted military opposition from the army, state-backed militias and tribes. This sets it apart from ISIS, which has shown itself capable of seizing and holding territory.

Yet the impact that ISIS’ rise has had on Yemen’s jihadist movement should not be overstated. It may have generated some expressions of sympathy and a small number of defections from AQAP, but AQAP’s senior leadership remains united in their loyalty to Ayman al-Zawahiri and are leading the effort to foster unity among likeminded Sunnis. Furthermore, the Yemeni government is increasingly weak and struggles to project much strength outside of Sana’a. AQAP will exploit this weakness by expanding into new territories across Yemen and potentially helping convince wavering Yemeni jihadists that AQAP is well equipped to match ISIS’ achievements.

As AQAP attempts to take and hold territory, the group will increasingly come into conflict with the aggressively expansionist Houthis. Whoever comes out on top will help dictate Yemen’s future. Unfortunately, neither option provides much reason for optimism. An uptick in violence is certain and a rise in sectarianism remains possible. Inevitably, AQAP will be at the heart of both.

No matter the developments within Yemen in the months ahead, AQAP will remain relevant to not only that country, but the jihadist movement as a whole. It is a highly resilient organization. Its key leaders have been killed in drone strikes, its territorial gains at times have been reversed, and its spectacular transnational terrorism has raised the ire of Western governments. Yet – as recent events in Paris have proved – it continues to thrive and manages to retain relative unity in the face of ISIS. It is no surprise that defeating the group remains such a priority for governments across the world.

About the author:
*Robin Simcox
Research Fellow, Henry Jackson Society

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute and is reprinted with permission.

1. “Both brothers behind Paris attack had weapons training in Yemen – sources,” Reuters, January 12, 2015.
2. “Al Qaeda officially lays claim to Paris carnage,” CBS News, January 14, 2015.
3. “Dear Zarqawi: A Letter from Zawahiri, and a Constitutional Compromise,” Long War Journal, 12 October, 2005; “Harmony: The Attyia-Zarqawi Letter,” Long War Journal, September 27, 2006; “Letter from Adam Gadahn – SOCOM-2012-0000004-HT,” Combating Terrorism Center.
4. “ISI Confirms That Jabhat Al-Nusra Is Its Extension In Syria, Declares ‘Islamic State Of Iraq And Al-Sham’ As New Name Of Merged Group,” The Middle East Media Research Institute, April 8, 2013, available at http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7119.htm.
5. “Qaeda chief annuls Syrian-Iraqi jihad merger,” Al-Jazeera, June 9, 2013.
6. For example, see “Activists say ISIS top commander killed in Syria,” Al-Arabiya, February 8, 2014; “Al Qaeda’s chief representative in Syria killed in suicide,” Long War Journal, February 23, 2014.
7. “Terrorism,” Five Dimensions Consultants, December 4, 2013.
8. “Al-Qaeda disavows any ties with radical Islamist ISIS group in Syria, Iraq,” Washington Post, February 3, 2014.
9.For example, see “ISIS overtakes al-Qaeda as biggest threat to the West,” The Times, July 1, 2014; or “Global jihadists recognize Islamic State,” Al-Monitor, July 3, 2014.
10. “Oh My: Al-Qaeda and ISIS Joining Forces?” Town Hall, August 19, 2014.
11. “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb calls for reconciliation between jihadist groups,” Long War Journal, July 2, 2014.
12. “AQAP praises Ayman al Zawahiri, defends jihadist scholars against ‘slander,’” Long War Journal, July 8, 2014.
13.”AQAP ideologue praises jihadi victories in Iraq, comments on Berghdal release,” Long War Journal, August 13, 2014.
14. “Yemeni Qaeda leader hails Islamic State’s gains in Iraq,” Reuters, August 13, 2014.
15. “AQAP announces support for ISIL,” Yemen Times, August 19, 2014.
16. “Yemen’s AQAP calls on Islamists to target America after Iraq air strikes,” Reuters, August 14, 2014.
17. For example, see “AQAP Sides With ISIS,” Foreign Policy, August 19, 2014; “Al Qaeda in Yemen declares support for ISIS,” The Hill, August 19, 2014; “AQAP announces support for ISIL,” Yemen Times, August 19, 2014; and “ISIL and Al Qaeda, the dangerous terror love affair,” Yemen Post, August 15, 2014.
18. “Al Qaeda branches urge jihadist unity against US,” Long War Journal, September 16, 2014.
19. “AQAP official calls on rival factions in Syria to unite against West,” Long War Journal, October 1, 2014.
20.”Yemen’s Al-Qaeda denounces ‘barbaric’ beheadings,” Al-Arabiya, December 8, 2014.
21. “Al Qaeda portrays US-led bombing campaign as ‘Crusade’ against Islam,” Long War Journal, October 17, 2014.
22.”Zawahiri makes another attempt at reconciliation in Syria,” Long War Journal, May 2, 2014.
23. “Al-Qaeda groups offers support to ISIS,” Financial Times, September 17, 2014.
24. “AQAP’s emir also serves as al Qaeda’s general manager,” Long War Journal, August 6, 2013.
25. “ISIL recruits ‘underwear bomb’ creator: Al-Asiri pledges allegiance to terrorist army,” Washington Times, July 1, 2014.
26. Gregory D. Johnsen, “A Profile of AQAP’s Upper Echelon,” CTC Sentinel, July 24, 2012.
27. “Fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates to join Islamic State, U.S. officials say,” Washington Post, August 9, 2013.
28. “AQAP announces support for ISIL,” Yemen Times, August 19, 2014. <
29.”US kills 3 AQAP operatives in Yemen,” Long War Journal, March 3, 2014.
30. For example, see “Syria infighting indicates discord among AQAP and al-Qaeda leadership,” Al-Shorfa, April 22, 2014; “ISIS overtakes al-Qaeda as biggest threat to the West,” The Times, July 1, 2014; “Senior al-Qaeda leader calls for followers to support Isis,” Channel 4 News, July 3, 2014.
31.Thomas Joscelyn, “Murder Vids Help ISIS Lure More Monsters,” Daily Beast, November 16, 2014.
32. “AQAP announces support for ISIL,” Yemen Times, August 19, 2014; “Who is Jalal Baleedi,” Yemen Times, August 14, 2014.
33. “Gulf of Aden Security Review,” AEI Critical Threats, September 4, 2014.
34.”Email declares pro-Islamic State group in Yemen,” Yemen Times, October 14, 2014.
35. “IS Releases Five Statements of Allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Within 24 Hours,” SITE Intel Group, November 10, 2014.
36.”AQAP rejects Islamic State’s ‘caliphate,’ blasts group for sowing dissent among jihadists,” Long War Journal, November 21, 2014.
37. “French Probe Terror Suspect Links; New Attacks May Be Ahead”, New York Times, January 9, 2015; “Paris gunman Amedy Coulibaly declared allegiance to ISIS”, Guardian, January 12, 2015.
38. For example, see “Were Paris attacks the first case of al-Qaeda and Isis working together?”, Independent, January 13, 2005; “Al Qaeda, ISIS vie for glory after Paris attacks”, CBS News, January 14, 2005; and Max Boot, “ISIS and al-Qaeda’s Deadly Rivalry”, Commentary, January 14, 2015.
39.”Al Qaeda, ISIS vie for glory after Paris attacks,” CBS News, available at January 14, 2005.
40. Barak A. Salmoni, Bryce Loidolt and Madeleine Wells, “Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon,” Rand Institute (2010), p. 74.
41. “United States Designates bin Laden Loyalist,” United States Treasury, February 24, 2004.
42. “Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen,” Rand Institute, p. 74.
43. Ibid., p.95. .
44. Ibid., p.98. .
45. Gregory D. Johnsen, The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda and the Battle for Arabia (Oneworld Publications, 2013), p. 145-147.
46. Adam Baron, “Yemen’s fragile truce in tatters,” Al-Jazeera, October 9, 2014.
47. “Yemen: Parties Agree to Federalism,” New York Times, December 24, 2013.
48. Alexis Knutsen, “Sana’a Under Siege: Yemen’s Uncertain Future,” AEI Critical Threats, September 25, 2014.
49. “Thousands of armed rebels flood Yemen capital,” AFP, August 20, 2014.
50. “Yemen to reduce fuel subsidies to get IMF loan,” Yemen Times, May 20, 2014.
51. “Sana’a Under Siege: Yemen’s Uncertain Future,” AEI Critical Threats, September 25, 2014.
52. “Talks on new Yemeni government collapse over Shi’ite Houthi subsidy demands,” Reuters, August 24, 2014; “Sana’a Under Siege: Yemen’s Uncertain Future,” AEI Critical Threats, September 25, 2014.
53. “Al Qaeda Militants Flow Into Yemen’s Capital,” Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2014.
54. “Sana’a Under Siege: Yemen’s Uncertain Future,” AEI Critical Threats, September 25, 2014.
55. Ali Mohsen’s current whereabouts are unknown, though it is possible that that he may have retreated to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Houthis now claim to be in control of his house in Sana’a and eventually raided his coastal home. Even if it is only temporary, his departure will weaken al-Islah’s influence, and is a further sign of how comprehensive the Houthi victory has been.
56. “The Houthis Are Battling al Qaeda Amid a ‘Slow-Burning Coup’ in Yemen,” Vice News, October 28 2014.
57. “Yemen interior ministry website urges ‘no confrontation’ with rebels,” Daily Star, September 21, 2014.
58. Danya Greenfield, “President Hadi’s Gamble with the Houthis,” Atlantic Council, September 23, 2014.
59. “Houthi victory is defeat for Yemen’s Islah,” Al-Monitor, September 29, 2014.
60. “President Hadi’s Gamble with the Houthis,” Atlantic Council, September 23, 2014.
61. “Yemen PM appointment rejected by rebels holding capital,” Reuters, October 7, 2014.
62. “Yemen appoints new PM,” Asharq al-Awsat, October 13, 2014.
63. “Yemen rebel movement in charge of oil ministry,” UPI, October 27, 2014.
64. “Houthi expansion threatens Yemen’s strategic Bab al-Mandab strait,” Financial Times, October 23, 2014.
65.”Yemen’s Shiite rebels win another stunning victory,” Associated Press, October 14, 2014.
66. Ibid.
67. “The Houthis Are Battling al Qaeda Amid a ‘Slow-Burning Coup’ in Yemen,” Vice News, October 28, 2014.
68. “Yemen’s Houthis hold secret meet with Iran,” Al-Arabiya, December 13, 2009.
69. “09SANAA1669, BRENNAN-SALEH MEETING SEP 6, 2009,” WikiLeaks.
70. “09SANAA1662, IRAN IN YEMEN: TEHRAN’S SHADOW LOOMS LARGE, BUT,” WikiLeaks.
71. “Yemeni Government Investigation into Iranian-Supplied Weapons Cache,” United States Department of State, February 9, 2013.
72. “Iranian support seen crucial for Yemen’s Houthis,” Reuters, December 15, 2014.
73. “Iran backs Ansarullah struggles in Yemen: Velayati,” Press TV, October 18, 2014.
74. Farea al-Muslimi, “Yemen’s Houthis proxy, not ally for Iran,” Al-Monitor, November 19, 2014.
75. “Fears Grow Over Yemenis’ Ties to Iran,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2013. .
76. “Yemen releases Iranian military officers as Houthis seize capital,” Yemen Post, September 25, 2014.
77. “Gulf Arabs demand return of state authority in Yemen,” Reuters, October 2, 2014.
78. “Fears Grow Over Yemenis’ Ties to Iran,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2013.
79. “The spreading sectarian rift,” The Economist, July 9, 2013. <
80. Charles Schmitz, “Who lost Yemen?” Politico, October 15, 2014.
81. “Gulf Arabs demand return of state authority in Yemen,” Reuters, October 2, 2014.
82. “After overrunning Yemen’s capital, rebel leader vows to fight al-Qaeda,” Washington Post, September 23, 2014.
83. “Al Qaeda Militants Flow Into Yemen’s Capital,” Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2014.
84. “Suicide bomber in Marib targets Houthis,” Yemen Times, September 30, 2014.
85. The Tahrir Square attack was the most devastating AQAP attack since the suicide bombing on a military parade in May 2012, which killed nearly one hundred people. “AQAP suicide attacks kill scores in Sana’a and Hadramout,” Long War Journal, October 9, 2014.
86. “AQAP claims credit for series of attacks in Yemen,” Long War Journal, October 20, 2014.
87. “Qaeda seizes Yemen town to counter advancing rebels,” AFP, October 16, 2014. <
88. http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-yemen-tribal-al-qaida-kills-shiite-rebels-/2492558.html. Ironically, despite a popular Houthi slogan including the line “Death to America”, the Houthis have been inadvertently assisted by the U.S.’ recently launched multiple drone strikes against AQAP in al-Bayda.
89. “Yemen’s AQAP says Houthis will pay for push into country,” Reuters, November 21, 2014. <
90. “AQAP Fights Back Against Houthis in al-Baida,” Yemen Times, November 24, 2014.
91. Bombing in Yemen Targets Iranian Envoy’s Home,” New York Times, December 3, 2014; “Two Car Bombs Kill 25 in Yemen,” Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2014.
92. Nadwa al-Dawsari, “Sectarian war going unnoticed in east Yemen,” Atlantic Council, September 17, 2014.

The post AQAP’s Ideological Battles At Home And Abroad – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

2015 Index Of Economic Freedom: Global Economic Freedom Expands, Only Two Regions Decline

$
0
0

The world economy is “moderately free,” with a slight rise in economic liberty leading to a third annual global increase, according to the editors of the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, released Tuesday by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.

The world average score of 60.4 is only one-tenth of a point above the 2014 average, but represents a 2.8-point overall improvement since the inception of the Index in 1995. Thirty-seven countries, including Taiwan, Israel, Poland and Colombia, achieved their highest-ever Index scores. Among the 178 countries ranked, scores improved for 101 countries and declined for 73. Ninety economies, or about half of all nations and territories graded in the Index, provide at least a moderate level of economic freedom for their citizens.

Yet the number of people living in economically “unfree” countries remains high: 4.5 billion, or about 65 percent of the world’s population. More than half live in just two countries: China and India. Twenty-six countries have “repressed” economies (scores below 50), while only five have earned the Index’s designation of “free” (scores above 80).

“The fundamental relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is readily apparent worldwide,” the editors write. “No matter the region, per capita income levels are consistently higher in countries that are economically freer.”

Despite being the only North American economy to improve in the 2015 Index, the United States remained stuck in the 12th spot globally and the second one regionally (behind Canada, which is once again No. 6 globally despite a 1.1-point drop in its score). The 2015 Index reports modest gains in six categories for the U.S., including control of government spending, which outweighed a small decline in business freedom.

Hong Kong and Singapore finished first and second in the rankings for the 21st consecutive year, although only two-tenths of a point separate their overall scores. New Zealand, which logged almost a full-point improvement last year, moved up two slots and reclaimed third place in the rankings, outperforming Australia (4th) and Switzerland (5th).

Chile’s score declined slightly, but it took seventh place. The score for Mauritius, the only Sub-Saharan country to rank among the top 10, declined one-tenth of a point, and it slid from eighth place globally to 10th. Estonia, meanwhile, rode an improved score into the world’s No. 8 slot, while Ireland again finished ninth.

Launched in 1995, the Index evaluates countries in four broad policy areas that affect economic freedom: rule of law; limited government; regulatory efficiency; and open markets. There are 10 specific categories: property rights, freedom from corruption, fiscal freedom, government spending, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, trade freedom, investment freedom, and financial freedom. Scores in these categories are averaged to create an overall score.

Based on an average score, each of 178 countries graded in the 2015 Index is classified as “free” (i.e., combined scores of 80 or higher); “mostly free” (70-79.9); “moderately free” (60-69.9); “mostly unfree” (50-59.9); or “repressed” (under 50).

The world’s most-improved country is São Tomé and Príncipe, which saw its score rise 4.5 points, thanks to improvements in seven of the 10 economic freedoms, including regulatory efficiency and the rule of law. But it remains a “mostly unfree” economy with an overall score of 53.3. Equatorial Guinea’s Index score declined the most worldwide (4.0 points) due largely to an increase in government spending. This dropped it further in the “repressed” category and placed it among the world’s “bottom 10” economically.

The Index also studies economic freedom on a regional basis. In the 2015 Index, economic freedom levels rose in all but two regions: North America, and South and Central America/Caribbean. Middle-East/North Africa, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa charted regional improvements, with The Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan in particular helping the Asia-Pacific region post the biggest gain.

Asia-Pacific countries dominate both the top and the bottom of the 2015 Index rankings. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia took four of the top five slots worldwide. North Korea remains least economically free in the world, and Uzbekistan, Burma, Kiribati, Timor-Leste and Turkmenistan all rank 160th or lower.

Hong Kong maintained its status as the world’s freest economy, but a 0.5 drop in its score narrowed the gap between it and Singapore, (whose score remained unchanged from the 2014 Index) to only 0.2 points. Hong Kong’s “failure to deliver promised meaningful electoral reform has galvanized greater pro-democracy sentiments … and undermined trust and confidence in the government,” the editors note.

Europe continues to boast a large number of economically free countries: nine of the world’s 20 freest are in Europe, and the vast majority in that region are considered at least “moderately free.” But, the editors say, Europe “still struggles with a variety of policy barriers to dynamic economic expansion,” such as costly labor regulations and higher tax burdens, leading to stagnant economic growth, fiscal deficits and mounting debt.

Three Baltic economies (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) have made good strides and are experiencing greater economic freedom as a result. Overcoming severe recessions following the global financial turmoil, these countries have maintained their openness to global markets and competition, further reformed their economies, and made their governments smaller. Each has advanced economic freedom and moved up in the global rankings every year since 2012.

North America is still the world’s freest region. Yet Canada, which has led the region since 2010, lost 1.1 points and slid into the “mostly free” category. The United States is also a “mostly free” economy; Mexico is “moderately free.” The U.S. recorded modest gains in six of the 10 Index-measured freedoms, but it still has much work to do (in the area of business freedom, for example) before it can regain a spot among the world’s 10 freest economies.

The South and Central America/Caribbean region as a whole countered the positive direction charted in the 2015 Index. Of its 29 countries, 13 recorded gains in economic freedom, 15 declined, and one stayed the same. Despite a small drop in its score, Chile easily retained the top spot in the region, joined by Colombia (which logged its highest Index score ever) and Saint Lucia as the region’s only “mostly free” economies. Haiti’s score improved by 2.4 points, lifting it out of the “repressed” category. Argentina and Venezuela continued to drop in the rankings, edging closer to the region’s least free economy, Cuba.

Most of the 15 countries graded in the Middle East/North Africa region are in the “moderately free” or “mostly unfree” categories, with two repressed (Iran and Algeria ) and four “mostly free” (Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Israel, whose 2.1-point gain lifted it into the “mostly free” category). Bahrain remained the region’s top performer in the Index at No. 18, despite a 1.7 point loss, and an overall score of 73.4 points. Morocco posted a 1.8-point rise in its score, pulling it out of the ranks of the “mostly unfree.”

Sub-Saharan Africa’s overall level of economic freedom remains low, yet the region recorded the most widespread gains in economic freedom over the last year, according to the Index editors. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to six of the 10 biggest score improvements (São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo, Senegal, Burundi and Zimbabwe), although a majority of the region’s economies are either “mostly unfree” or “repressed.”

Twenty-seven of its 46 economies posted improved Index scores. São Tomé and Príncipe’s 4.5-point gain moved it out of the “repressed” category, while the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 4.4-point improvement lifted it out of the world’s bottom 10 economies. Mauritius, despite a slight decline in its score, remains the region’s leader, followed by Botswana, which lost 2.2 points, dropping it into the “moderately free” category.

The post 2015 Index Of Economic Freedom: Global Economic Freedom Expands, Only Two Regions Decline appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamic State Names Leader In Pakistan, Afghanistan

$
0
0

(RFE/RL) — The Islamic State (IS) militant group says it has appointed a former Pakistani Taliban commander as its leader for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, a spokesman for the group, said in an audio message posted on Twitter this week that Hafiz Saeed Khan would lead IS militants in the region.

Khan, reportedly in his early 40s, was once a spokesman for Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, an umbrella organization for several militant groups.

The authenticity of the audio file could not be verified by independent sources.

The development came weeks after several Pakistani Taliban leaders pledged allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

It also came amid reports that a former Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Rauf was recruiting for the IS in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province.

The post Islamic State Names Leader In Pakistan, Afghanistan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamic State Captures 30 Civilians Near Mosul

$
0
0

A source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Daesh kidnapped 30 citizens in the strife-torn city of Mosul, located some 400 kilometers (248 miles) north of the capital, Baghdad, in the early hours of Tuesday after accusing them of cooperating with units of Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

The development comes as a senior Iraqi legislator has said “sleeper cells” made up of the nation’s former military and police officers are tipping off Iraqi authorities about Daesh strategies in Mosul.

“Those patriotic groups, some operate from inside the city of Mosul and others from the areas surrounding it, are now giving us information about the military preparations being made by Daesh in order to face any attack by government forces to retake the city,” the head of Iraqi parliamentary committee on security and defense, Hakim al-Zamili, said on January 26.

He added, “We receive a lot of useful information from Mosulis who are becoming fed up with the militants and this is the reason why the [Daesh] blocked all mobile phone networks in the city.”

Daesh has threatened all Kurdish families in Mosul to leave or face death.

The residents of the areas on the southern and western edges of Mosul, which are currently controlled by Daesh, have recently discovered five mass graves containing the remains of some 320 people believed to have been killed by the terrorists.

Original article

The post Islamic State Captures 30 Civilians Near Mosul appeared first on Eurasia Review.


J&K: Nailing The Lies – Analysis

$
0
0

By Shujaat Bukhari*

When 46-year-old Liaqat Shah of frontier district Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir was arrested on March 23, 2013 at the Indo-Nepal border as a “suspected” Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) terrorist, it created a furor in Kashmir. From a commoner to the then Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, the arrest was seen as a concocted story since Liaqat was returning home from the other side of Kashmir along with his family under the rehabilitation policy. The policy, announced by the government, is for the youth who had crossed over to Pakistani side of Kashmir in early 1990s who now want to return home and live a dignified life.

Amidst resistance from the Jammu and Kashmir Police that was in loop in case of his return and pressure mounted by Omar Abdullah, the case was handed over to National Investing Agency (NIA) since people’s faith in Delhi Police has shattered over a period of time. Though Liaqat was granted bail, the investigations were taken up by NIA that finally exonerated Liaqat and recommended punishment for the policemen who had framed him as HM militant who was sent to guide a fidayeen attack in Delhi.

The NIA probe has surely raised the hope for those who have been jailed and condemned, unheard by Delhi Police’s special cell in past over two decades. It has helped to restore faith and credibility in the institution of justice. But Liaqat’s case was a unique case in which the state government took extraordinary interest in seeing that the probe is done by an elite agency such as NIA. It was perhaps about the credibility of the state itself that had unveiled the much ambitious policy for rehabilitation of youth under which more that 300 people crossed back to Kashmir through the Indo-Nepal route that is not designated as per the policy. It was an unwritten agreement between the state and Central government and facilitated duly by the government in Pakistan, that would have come under flak from extremists for draining out the strength for a “cause that needed to be seen as indigenous”. But restlessness among these youth who had been away from their families for long time was increasing and it was difficult for any government to stop them.

However, in the backdrop of Liaqat’s acquittal, the larger issue that merits a debate is how scores of innocent Kashmiris have fallen prey to machinations of certain agencies particularly Delhi Police, which has been framing the young people in false and fabricated cases. When a Kashmiri is arrested or booked in such a case outside the state, it becomes extremely difficult for him and his family to get a defence.

In a hostile environment that works under the smokescreen of so-called national interest it defeats the very logic of civil liberties. Even the lawyers are not prepared to take up the cases fearing reprisals from the agencies that are responsible for these false and concocted cases which finally fail the test of the law. We have seen in the past how a respected journalist Iftikhar Gilani was framed despite being known to the media corps of Delhi as a genuine scribe.
There are ample evidences that suggest how lives of many Kashmiri youth were ruined by the cops who went scot free. To cite a few examples : Only in October 2014, Delhi High Court acquitted Farooq Ahmad an engineer from South Kashmir after 18 years. He had been falsely implicated in Lajpat Nagar blasts of 1996. Mushtaq Ahmad Kaloo of New Colony, Sopore, accused of conspiring to bomb New Delhi Railway Station in 2006 was acquitted of all charges by Delhi High Court in May 2013. In November 2012, Delhi High Court acquitted Mohmmad Ali Bhat and Mirza Nasir Hussain of Srinagar of all charges leveled against them in Lajpat Nagar blast case of 1996. In April 2014, a Lucknow court acquitted Gulzar Ahmad Wani of North Kashmir along with two others in a bomb blast case of 2000.

In a detailed investigative report in 2012, titled “Framed, Damned and Acquitted”, Jamia (Milia Islamia) Teachers’ Solidarity Association nailed the “lies” in 16 high profile cases and concluded that all those arrested were framed by various security agencies. Most of those framed were Kashmiris. Calling it as “proverbial tip of iceberg” the JTSA maintained that its investigation was purely based on court judgments. “We document here 16 cases in which those accused of being operatives of various terrorist organizations (Al Badr, HUJI, Lashkar-e-Toiba), arrested in main by the Special Cell of Delhi Police, were acquitted by the courts, not simply for want of evidence, but because the evidence was tampered with, and the police story was found to be unreliable and incredulous” reads the preface of 171-page report. In its demand note JTSA had asked the government to take corrective steps to arrest this growing trend.

Among other things it sought public apology from the government and the investigating agency to those who had suffered wrongful arrests, prosecution and incarceration and scrapping/disbanding of the Special Cell of Delhi Police.

Cases like that of Liaqat is an eye-opener in respect of both sides of the story. While it unravels the impunity with which the innocent youth have been framed in fabricated cases and in the manner the mechanism going without any notice so far, it also generates hope that even the sections of the system could work in bringing the justice. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of fake encounter at Pathribal in March 2000, when five Kashmiri youth were branded as foreign terrorists and burnt to death by Army in the aftermath of killing of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had charged five Army officers with murder. It is a different issue that they got relief from Supreme Court when the CBI’s plea for trying them in civil court was rejected.

Even as it is difficult for these acquitted young men to compensate for the lost glory of their lives, but NIA’s investigation has a potential to set a benchmark for justice in such cases. The circle can only be complete when the fabricators are punished under the law, which they tried to misuse apparently to get rewards and punishments. According to Liaqat’s statement at least 1500 families were discouraged to return after his case. This is how the systems fail when accountability is given a damn by those who think they are above law and have protection in the “national interest”.

*Shujaat Bukhari
Editor, Rising Kashmir

Originally published in Rising Kashmir on 27 January 2014

The post J&K: Nailing The Lies – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Obama Visit: India-US Relations Stand Re-Energised – Analysis

$
0
0

By C. Uday Bhaskar*

US President Barack Obama looked at Delhi’s Siri Fort audience in the eye on Tuesday (Jan 27) and softly intoned: “Senorita…bade bade deshon mein….” and tapered off, saying “you know what I mean.”

That perhaps was the moment when Obama smashed (the ball) out of the park and hit a ‘chakka’ (sixer) in local cricket parlance and connected not just with the Siri Fort and Delhi but all of India. Invoking a popular vignette from the hugely successful Shah Rukh Khan film ‘Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge’, the US president capped a very successful three-day visit to India that included many historic punctuations.

This was the first time that a US president had been invited to grace the Indian Republic Day parade as the chief guest, unthinkable till it happened, and the first time that a White House incumbent had visited India twice in his tenure.

The context was perhaps even more telling. A year ago in early 2014, the bilateral relationship had become very sour due the deplorable treatment meted out to an Indian woman diplomat in New York (the Devyani Khobragade case) and few could have imagined that with the year, India would receive a US president in such a warm and enthusiastic manner. And the fact that his host was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who till recently had been denied a visa by the US for the 2002 Gujarat violence is revealing about the radical change that has been brought about in a troubled and sluggish bilateral relationship.

A review of the Obama visit would indicate a very rich mix of politico-diplomatic symbolism and reasonably adequate substantive content which have served to reset and re-energize India-US ties. Prime Minister Modi is a consummate communicator and his natural flair for demonstrating an innate ability to connect with his peers at a personal level is a complete contrast to his more subdued and phlegmatic predecessor – Dr. Manmohan Singh. This was on full display from the time he broke protocol to receive his friend ‘Barack’ on arrival at the airport to the many joint appearances the two leaders engaged in, including another first, the joint radio broadcast.

The substantive content of the visit was announced in the resolution of the stalled civilian nuclear agreement (erroneously in my view referred to as the nuclear ‘deal’) which has been stuck since late 2008. The liability clauses that India wanted and the inspection arrangements the US sought had become intractable obstacles and these were cleared by the high-level political nudge of the two principals – Obama and Modi. The road block no doubt has been cleared but the road ahead remains undefined and a lot of detailed work has to commence before there can be any meaningful civilian nuclear commerce between the two countries.

However, this breakthrough has had a positive cascading effect on other areas of potential bilateral cooperation and engagement, and these details were spelt out in the three documents/statements that were jointly agreed to. These include: a Joint Statement; the Delhi Declaration of Friendship; and a Joint Strategic Vision for Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region. Predictably, the focus was on two areas of potential engagement viz: the clean energy spectrum, which is linked to the civilian nuclear sector as also new technologies to enable Indian endeavour in alternate sources such as solar, bio-mass et al; and the defence trade and technology sector.

India has a very urgent need for the infusion of technology, investment and know-how in these two areas and it is a priority for the Modi government. If the Indian emphasis is on ‘Make in India’, the US president was exploring possibilities to enhance US economic and strategic interests and a certain correspondence of interests can be evidenced.

In summary, India’s development effort and the improvement of the socio-economic and human security indicators for millions who remain impoverished is inexorably linked to the availability of affordable and environmentally compatible energy options. Power cuts and taking recourse to inverters and diesel generators has become the norm in India and this is the tip of the energy challenge iceberg that India faces.

India’s defence and military inventory is in dire need of modernization that is not just a case of importing foreign military hardware. Broad trends would suggest that over the next decade, India would allocate upto US$600 to $700 billion towards its overall defence expenditure. As much as 40 percent of this would be available for acquisitions and modernization and the Modi government has indicated that it is determined to create appropriate indigenous manufacturing and hopefully design capability.

While India has a traditionally robust military hardware relationship with Russia, engaging with the US private sector offers a viable synergy that could animate the Indian manufacturing sector and the possibilities in new areas like cyber, space and the maritime domain are considerable.

The most significant area of focus in the Obama visit has been in relation to the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean and the Joint Strategic Vision document though pithy is laden with significant strategic import. While this matter has been referred to in the past, this is the most comprehensive articulation at summit level and provides some contours of what could become the framework to flesh out the partnership that India and the US are seeking to forge to better manage the uncertainties of the early decades of the 21st century.

Even if not stated explicitly, the rise of China is of global concern and abiding strategic interest and the first responses from Beijing about the Obama visit have been a mix of being disparaging and conveying displeasure. But at the end of the day, the prevailing imperative of globalization mandates that the US, China and India will have to manage the contradictory impulse of greater economic and trade engagement against an underlying hedging and insurance in the security and strategic domain.

*Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar (Retd), is Director of the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in

The post Obama Visit: India-US Relations Stand Re-Energised – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Lies And Deception In Ukraine’s Energy Sector – Analysis

$
0
0

By Robert Bensh

The Ukrainian government has repeatedly claimed it is doing its best to improve the oil and gas investment climate, but official statements are the opposite of the reality, as Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is leading the great deception.

According to Prime Minister Yatseniuk, Ukraine has taken a number of important steps to reform the energy sector, and has even achieved success in the formidable fight against rampant corruption, as well as signed open and transparent contracts for purchase of the natural gas from EU member states. Now he claims Ukraine is looking forward to Western companies’ investment in Ukraine’s gas transportation system.

“I would like to point out where we have succeeded: we have succeeded in overcoming corruption in the energy sector. Billions of dollars, which previously used to flow into the pockets of Ukrainian oligarchs, are now being brought out of the shadows. At present, Ukraine purchases gas under transparent and open contracts with European companies,” Yatseniuk recently told a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin.

Even the President has made misguided and naïve statements this past week in Davos, declaring that “…Ukraine will build new ways for receiving Norwegian gas and gas from Europe, and Ukraine will also produce shale gas.”

The stark reality is that these official statements are in no way reflected by government action, and the gas market players in Ukraine recognize the deception as does the energy industry as a whole.

The real story is that while gas has been received from Norway in reverse flows, Ukraine’s current energy strategy, taxation and fiscal regime has forced Ukraine’s current producers of oil and gas to stop drilling new wells and curtail production.

The development of Ukraine’s potential shale gas is even further afield with Chevron announcing its departure from Ukraine and only Cub Energy remaining in the country as an operator with both technical and local expertise in developing the shale. Even if shale can be developed in Ukraine it will be extremely challenging given the highly service-oriented logistical train, which does not presently exist in Ukraine.

In the course of the last year the Ukraine’s private gas producers were doing their best to overcome, if not merely survive, the consequences of the government’s move to significantly increase fiscal and administrative pressure on the industry without any consultations with the latter. The government failed to deliver on its promises, and the only thing it managed to achieve was an undermining of any trust the industry may have had in it.

Ukraine’s current regulatory and fiscal systems governing the energy sector are overly complicated and non-transparent, even without the major political and military conflict with Russia and annexation of the Crimea. The implications have been significant. Since last year, all major oil and gas projects in Ukraine have significantly slowed down at best, and been suspended entirely at worst.

Issue by issue, the lies continue to mount.

Rising Taxation

The government recently raised the tax burden on private natural gas producers twofold (55% of the sales price – for the natural gas extracted from deposits up to 5km, and 20% – for the natural gas extracted from deposits deeper than 5km), instead of implementing long-awaited market reforms. Notwithstanding its own promises for this to be a temporary measure by 1 January 2015, at the initiative of the Ministry of Finance, just a few days before the New Year, Parliament rendered the tax increase permanent–in violation of the Parliament majority’s Coalition Agreement.

It is interesting to note that the practicability of these high rates was based on the calculations and official data of the Ministry of Finance for the old huge fields that had been explored and developed in Soviet times by state-owned oil and gas companies, while the gas producers were deprived of the opportunity to present their own figures and assessments for the new wells drilled on their smaller fields. The government simply brushed the matter aside, stating that the costs and expenses claimed by the investors were inflated.

Most poignantly here, the figures suggested by the Ministry are so wildly out of line with the facts that even state-owned oil and gas companies refuse to acknowledge them. Recently state-owned Naftogaz calculated the economical production cost of natural gas extracted by its subsidiary, Urgazvydobuvannya, up to UAH 5,430 [USD 344] for 1,000 cubic meters (excluding VAT), which is much higher that the data submitted by the Ministry of Finance (according to which the gas production expenses do not exceed UAH 230-240 [USD 14.6-15.2] per 1,000 cubic meters).

Investors Are Ready for Cooperation, Not the Government

Private gas producers have been open about their costs and expenses. Some of them are actually publicly traded companies (JKX Oil & Gas, Serinus Energy, Regal Petroleum and Cub Energy), and their financial data is open, transparent and publicly available. Over and over again investors sent letters to the Ministry of Finance, with a call for cooperation and open dialogue, demonstrating the relevant figures and presenting underlying documents and statistics. For some reasons the Ministry chose to ignore their efforts and declined any suggestions to establish a joint working group on this matter.

Instead of working closely with the industry the Government has already pushed independent businesses out of the gas market by introducing Naftogaz’s monopoly on gas supplies to large industrial consumers. This is because the government has been trying desperately to ensure financial support for the eternally cash-starved Naftogaz. Forcefully redirecting the financial flows from gas consumers in favor of Naftogaz was a small-minded, short-sighted remedy. Such administrative measures shocked the Energy Community, which demanded explanations from Ukrainian officials as such measures completely contradict European 3rd Energy package.

Corruption in the Energy Sector

No need to say that such a state of affairs only encourages corruption in the country. In spite of the Prime Minister’s promises and assurances to the contrary, the energy sector is still the biggest source of corruption in the Ukrainian economy.

Repeated reports by the IMF, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency (IEA) bring up the issue of corruption in the energy sector. They strongly recommend abolishing price subsidies and cross-subsidization, as well as raising gas prices to a level that will at least cover the production costs of the state producers. Ukraine’s system of gas subsidies for households has long been abused by the gas distribution companies that are able to buy gas intended for households at subsidized prices and sell it to businesses at much higher market prices, with a 200-400% margin. The estimated budget losses exceed hundreds of millions of dollars per year. No need to say that the existing system only further destabilizes Ukraine’s economy and puts enormous pressure on Naftogaz and its subsidiaries, at whose cost these subsidies are cross-directed by the Government.

No Reforms, No Success

It is obvious that the measures and steps taken by the Ukrainian Government have nothing in common with successes and reforms claimed by Arseniy Yatseniuk, as neither doubling tax rates and serving the oligarchs’ interests nor corruption and monopolization of the gas market correspond to the recommendations given by the Energy Community and IMF to Ukraine. Despite repeated announcements, implementation of the reform has been held back by fear of losing the electorate’s support and approval of the oligarchs’ groups. Under the mask of nominal fight with the oligarchs the Government takes populist decisions and the Parliament adopts killing laws. One must admit that the Government seems to be unwilling to undo the money-making mechanisms in the energy sector.

Given the desperate situation in which Ukraine finds itself today, it should have become extremely committed to the proper development of its domestic gas production, as that would introduce some extra volumes of the gas produced, in addition to 20 bcm domestically, into the local market to satisfy Ukraine’s ever-hungry annual consumption of around 53 bcm. This would also allow Naftogaz to save some foreign currency reserves on buying imported gas in lesser volumes, including gas coming from Russia. As a result, financial pressure on the state budget and government (which attempts to plug Naftogaz’ deficit by any means necessary – including loans from state-owned banks, international financial institutions and currency reserves of the National Bank of Ukraine) could have been significantly lowered.

Instead, the government has directed its actions against independent gas producers and the continuing crackdown is severely affecting both the country’s energy independence and its currency reserves. The massive fiscal and administrative burden and lack of investment in the national gas extraction industry will only result in further decline of gas production, worsening of economic conditions and a higher degree of Ukrainian dependence on Russia. Ukraine’s short sighted policy moves ensure that investment in the sector will cease and attracting new capital will become nearly impossible as Ukraine will be viewed as hostile based on it’s treatment of businesses currently operating in the country.

The revenues that the government hoped to generate from taxation of the oil and gas companies with the concomitant politically popular taxation of the oligarchs is proving to be a failure, as its actions are not only killing the independent gas production industry in the country, but are in fact depriving Ukraine of the opportunity to become a strong, energy independent economy. Without implementation of the necessary reforms, the Ukrainian energy sector will continue to be the nursery of corruption and playground for blackmail, which Russia enjoys greatly.

Source:http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Lies-And-Deception-In-Ukraines-Energy-Sector.html

The post Lies And Deception In Ukraine’s Energy Sector – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Let’s Have Empathy – OpEd

$
0
0

By Aziz Amin Ahmadzai and Mona Naseer*

For years now Pashtun lands have been a battleground for competing interests, but the last 50 years have possibly been the darkest in its history.

Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand line has been the worst victims of the great game of the 20th Century. While the period of 1980s saw a huge influx of Afghans, mainly Pashtuns, into the northwest of Pakistan, we now see the Pashtuns from FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) Pakistan border area, being internally displaced in their own country. They are living in camps battling extreme poverty, and squalor, just like their brethren from Afghanistan living in various camps of Pakistan. In fact, the internally displaced Pashtuns from FATA Pakistan are now occupying one of the largest refugee camp known as Jalozi some 30 kilometres away from Peshawar, and was previously set up for their Afghans brethren in 1980s .

However, the most ironic side of this political and humanitarian tragedy for both sides of the Pashtuns is their growing divide in terms of animosity and blame game for each other on the recent social media trends, despite both sides being the victims.

There have been recent observations on how media, social media on both sides are now driving this agenda of alienation for one and another purposes. The most pathetic manifestation of which was observed on the social media, when certain elements from Afghanistan were smug and jubilant about the Peshawar tragedy and many so-called educated Afghan nationals questioned “what is so special about Peshawar murdered kids getting all the international attention,” while another voice from Afghanistan said “how does it feel to be hurt so much,” referring to the 140 children brutally massacred.

Pakistan also has this particular wedge of hate mongers in abundance, not of course forgetting the suspicion and mistrust many Afghans feel for the Pakistani government and its continuous meddling in Afghanistan politics. Here, however, we are concerned with the views of the ordinary people (Pashtuns) on both sides of the border.

Immediately after the brutal killing of hundreds of children in an army public school, a narrative was set on its course and that is that Afghans refugees should be kicked out of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Peshawar (a city north west of Pakistan which hosts the bulk of the 1979 migration of Afghans) should be cleansed of all the Afghan elements. One clip shown on a Pakistani mainstream TV channel was of a parent victim of the army public school massacre, crying and lamenting  why don’t we change our foreign policy, and why are we not asking Afghans to leave this country. A sad political obfuscation of the facts, shown by Pakistani media. When media, social media on both sides is involved in narrative building which only molds the ordinary people views, those views can only be tainted.

Afghan Pashtuns are mostly of the view that Pashtun from Pakistan have over the years developed apathy towards Afghans’ miseries, and Pakistani Pashtun suffered from compassionate fatigue towards Pashtuns brethren in Afghanistan. Pashtuns from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa lost nearly 70 thousand people in roughly the last ten years, and predominately Pashtuns have been displaced from FATA, so do they suffer from the same apathy and compassionate fatigue towards their own people too then? Pashtun Afghans and other forces from Afghanistan and their ability to paint ordinary Pashtun in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or FATA in the same light of being their oppressor has come to dominate the social media, completely oblivious to the facts that it is the both sides ordinary Pashtuns who are the worst victims of this great game. Although the only difference at the moment is that the Pashtun of Pakistan carries a different identity card of being called Pakistani. Tragedies continue to haunt both sides of the Pashtuns along with this growing resentment for each other, giving into the agenda that was set some few decades ago successfully. One wonders about the voices from 1979 on both sides, when the slogan of mujahedeen, the concept of Madinah mohajir and Ansar and pashtunwali were raised to unite Pashtuns of both sides to fight the evil of the USSR Empire. These voices benefited a certain section of the Pashtun elite on both sides at that time, and the ordinary people suffered. Millions of dollars poured into the region and went into the coffers of the elite from both sides, and continues to do so now in the name of good and bad Taliban.

The Pashtun economy, which is already reeling under the effect of Taliban onslaught, will suffer further if Afghan labour and business that is so integrated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa economy are asked to evacuate. Pakistani Pashtuns’ contemptuous words for their Afghan brethren like mohjair (refugee) and asking to send them home is a narrative that won’t help the faltering economy of this province and the ordinary people of both sides. Peshawar had in the 1980s emerged as a hub of cross-border trade and its commercial sector benefited greatly both sides of Pashtuns.

Now, however, with the rise of social media use among our people this can spell disaster if the negative voices are not countered with more positive one, advocating understanding and empathy for the ordinary Pushtun on both sides of the border. Educated Pashtun on both sides should play responsibly, because the growing divide on social media can only have negative effects on the already politicised and complicated bond which both sides of Pashtun share.
These negative voices needs to dwell on some questions before they voice their frustration on social media.

The fact is that Peshawar and its surroundings, and the bordering regions of Afghanistan, are virtually a single market. Borders are open not only for the movement of people, but also for the movement of goods and these negative voices can only create distances. In Afghanistan rehabilitation and reconstruction of the ordinary Pashtuns from Peshawar and Quetta have an equaly important role to play. Ordinary people are just people on both sides, whether a Pashtun kid dies in Paktia or another of his brethren die in an army public school in Peshawar, both are victims. Pashtun solidarity might have died on both sides of the border, but at least humanity should live. And if we stand helpless against the tides of politics, let’s have empathy please at least. Spinoza once said the blame game is one of the more useless human responses.

*About authors:
Aziz Amin Ahmadzai is a writer based in Kabul. He tweets on@azeezamin786 and can be reached by email at talk4right@gmail.com.

Mona Naseer is from FATA, a political and social commentator on Pak-Afghan region & tweets on @Mo2005

The post Let’s Have Empathy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Greece: Tsipras Promises Radical Change, Markets Tumble

$
0
0

(EurActiv) — Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras threw down an open challenge to international creditors on Wednesday by halting privatisation plans agreed to under the country’s bailout deal, prompting a third day of heavy losses on financial markets.

A swift series of announcements signlled the newly installed government would stand by its anti-austerity pledges, setting it on course for a clash with European partners, led by Germany, which has said it will not renegotiate the aid package needed to help Greece pay its debts.

Tsipras told the first meeting of his cabinet members that they could not afford to disappoint the voters who gave them a mandate in Sunday’s election, which his Syriza party won decisively.

After announcing a halt to the privatisation of the port of Piraeus on Tuesday, for which China’s Cosco Group and four other suitors had been shortlisted, the government said on Wednesday it would block the sale of a stake in the Public Power Corporation of Greece (PPC).

It also plans to reinstate public sector employees judged to have been laid off without proper justification and announced rises in pension payments for retired people on low incomes.

Uncertainty over the new government’s relations with the European Union went beyond economic policy. A day before the EU is expected to extend sanctions against Russia for six months, it was unclear if Athens would back its European partners on this move, after dissenting over a joint statement from the bloc on Ukraine on Tuesday.

Tsipras, who met Russia’s ambassador to Athens on Monday and the Chinese envoy the next day, told ministers that the government would not seek “a mutually destructive clash” with creditors. But he warned Greece would not back down from demanding a renegotiation of debt.

“We are coming in to radically change the way that policies and administration are conducted in this country,” he said.

Financial markets have taken fright. Greek bank stocks plunged more than 22 percent on Wednesday, taking their cumulative losses since the election to 40 percent.

The overall Athens stock market fell almost 8 percent , while Greek five-year government bond yields hit around 13.5 percent. This marked their highest level since a 2012 restructuring which wrote off a large proportion of Greek debt held by private investors.

Newly-appointed Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, who meets Jeroen Dijsselbloem, head of the eurozone finance ministers’ group on Friday, said negotiations would not be easy, but he expected they would find common ground.

“There won’t be a duel between Greece and Europe,” he said, in his first meeting with reporters since taking office.

Varoufakis said he would meet the finance ministers of France and Italy – both countries which have pressed for a change of course in Europe from rigid budget orthodoxy – in the coming days.

France has ruled out straight cancellation of Greece’s debt, about 80 percent of which is held by other eurozone governments and multinational organisations such as the IMF. However, Paris has said it would be open to talks on making Greece’s debt burden more sustainable and Tsipras is expected to meet President Francois Hollande before an EU summit on 12 February.

The response from Germany was frosty. Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Athens should have discussed the halt to privatisations with its partners before making an announcement.

“Citizens of other euro states have a right to see that the deals linked to their acts of solidarity are upheld,” he said, adding that it would be the “wrong solution” for Greece to quit the euro but that it was up to Athens to decide.

Asset sales halted

Fears that talks between the new government and its creditors would break down, with unforeseeable consequences for Greece’s future in Europe, fuelled the third successive day of f turmoil on the markets.

“The floor is zero if things go badly in the negotiations between the new government and the rest of the eurozone,” said Simon Maughan, head of research at OTAS Technologies.

Tsipras said the government would pursue balanced budgets but would not seek to build up “unrealistic surpluses” to service Greece’s massive public debt of more than 175 percent of gross domestic product.

Priorities would be helping the weakest sections of society, with policies to attack endemic cronyism and corruption in the economy, reduce waste and cut Greece’s record unemployment.

The new government also confirmed it would stop the planned sale of state assets, in line with its election pledges.

Shares in PPC, which is 51 percent owned by the state and controls almost all of Greece’s retail electricity market, were down nearly 13 percent, while Piraeus Port stock fell nearly 8 percent.

“We will halt immediately any privatisation of PPC,” Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis told Greek television a few hours before officially taking over his portfolio. “There will be a new PPC which will help considerably the restoration of the country’s productive activities,” he said.

The previous government of conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras passed legislation last year to spin off part of PPC to liberalise the energy market under a privatisation plan agreed under the EU/IMF bailout.

The post Greece: Tsipras Promises Radical Change, Markets Tumble appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India: Predictability And Transparency In Governance – Analysis

$
0
0

By Manoj Kumar*

As the curtains come down of one of the best Republic Day ceremonials in 65 years, focus shifts to the way forwards. Prime Minister Modi’s promises of large scale reforms to make ‘doing business’ in India simple alongside making governance transparent and predictable have been welcomed by Obama and the America Inc. contingent, being wooed by Modi to buy-in into the ‘Make In India’ initiative of the Modi administration.

Truly, a CEO style functioning of the top administration has shown its advantages of speed, delivery, accountability and communications with the masses.

However, is the time bomb ticking on pockets of perceived discretion who are acting converse to the tone and direction set by Modi, as discussed above.

Lets take the example of the Telecom sector. Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC), commonly understood as a charge payable by the call originating telecom operator to the terminating telecom operator. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which is the authority to fix the IUC, is busy flip flopping on the issue and keeping stakeholders on their toes, for reasons unknown.

The IUC for local calls from mobile to mobile had been initially fixed at 40 paise per minute in 2003 and thereafter had been reduced to the present 20 paise per minute since 2009. This 20 paise was determined on the basis of a methodology of Fully Allocated Cost (FAC).

Present IUC regime in India

At present, India has a relatively high ratio of IUC to retail price, at 40 per cent, compared to less than 10 per cent in the UK and less than 1 per cent in China. It is obvious that retail prices will drop if Mobile Ttermination Charge (MTC) is eliminated.

High termination rates are basically anti competitive and harmful to consumer interest. Thus being exploited by incumbent operators to subsidize on-net traffic is leading to discriminatory practices and non-level playing field for new entrants. This is also one of the main handle being usd by existing operators to slow pace entry of new operators into the market.

Ultimately, the consumer has to suffer.

TRAI recommendations on IUC in 2011

In 2011, TRAI had published a consultation paper on IUC and thereafter filed its recommendations in an affidavit in the Hon Supreme Court in October 2011 following detailed consultations and public hearings.

In the 2011 affidavit, TRAI had recommended to reduce the IUC to 10 p in 2012 and thereafter to zero in 2 years upon being convinced that the IUC should be reduced over a period of time to zero – also known as ‘Bill and Keep regime’.

TRAI had listed out numerous advantages of lower IUC and Bill and Keep regime i.e (i) improved capacity utilization leading to lower telecom tariffs (ii) generally in the interests of consumers, (iv) IUC acts as a barrier for reducing tariff . If IUC is removed there will be tariff innovations leading to lower tariffs. Over 3 years later, the recommendations are yet to be implemented, though stakeholders have been looking out for the roll-out.

Why it is important for India to reduce IUC to zero

A mobile telecom operator sets up a network for acquiring new customers who originate calls from his network. Therefore a business plan of an operator has to be based on the income from tariff for calls originated from his network. It cannot be based on income from call terminations. It is only because IUC is prevalent that now existing operators are crying hoarse over reduction of IUC. But an unbiased opinion would be that there is no place for IUC, had the consumer and stakeholders interest found a place in the sheme of things.

IUC acts as a barrier to competition as new operators will be reluctant to set up networks, and thus reluctant to enter the market.

Much to the detriment of consumer interest, IUC acts as a barrier to reduction in Tariffs. Lets take the example of one such operator ‘V-Mobile’ as a test case : V-Mobile in one of its plans offers a tariff of 30 paise per minute for V-Mobile – V-Mobile calls and 45 paise per minute for calls to any other operator. The tariff is 15 paise more only because V-Mobile has to pay IUC to the terminating operator. In both the cases network utilisation of V-Mobile is same. Ironically, demands by some existing operators for increasing IUC to 35 paise per minute is sure to raise the tariff from 45 paise per minute to 60 paise per minute.

It is therefore clear that on net calls (that is calls which originate and terminate in the same operator network) are priced less than off net calls (that is calls originating in one operator network and terminating in another operator network). This is the effect of IUC and will hamper compettion which is anti-consumer. It creates an artificial barier for new entrants into the market.

A clear example of benefits of non IUC regime is that of dta services. Data usage and traffic is increasing multifold. There is no IUC anywhere in the world for data traffic termination. Voice when carried in Internet Protocol (IP) mode is also data and therefore benefits in net pricing for consumers. IP based voice calls are being increasingly used as a result of no IUC.

Unlike in India where the IUC is static since year 2009, IUC has fallen rapidly over the last 10 years due to determined efforts by the regulators. Especially Europe has witnessed a significant decline in MTRs at a CAGR of 30.6 % (-ve) over the last five years. (2009-14)

A large number of countries worldwide have already moved to a pure Long RUN Incremental Cost LRIC model, with an envisaged glide path to “Bill and Keep” regime

The Fully Allocated Cost (FAC) method, which is being implemented in India, has become out dated and being used only in few countries like Finland, Brazil. Regulators have realised non-sustainability of MTC based on these historical methods and therefore globally there is clear shift away from FAC.

It is also worth mentioning the fact that TRAI itself had decided abolishing MTC completely in two years time from year 2012 and now when the world is understanding the benefits and following suit, there can be no justification for India to reconsider its stand.

There are sound economic reasons which necessitate the need to move towards a ‘Bill and Keep’ interconnect regime namely

  • Compatible with new technological innovations and emerging technologies like IP networks
  • Necessary for Convergence of telecom and is the most supportive IUC regime to ensure that targets of Digital India programme will be met
  • Will arrest the increase in prices and will ensure further lowering of telecom tariff in India due to greater retail pricing flexibility with Operators under BAK and increased competition
  • Will promote technology neutrality since this regime will not provide benefit to any particular technology
  • Will make new investment in Telecom non-prohibitive, more and more new players can enter the market and ensure more benefits to rural India

The Current IUC regime is not compatible with the technological evolutions / IP based networks – BAK is the only option for future proofing. The advent of new technologies & diminishing boundaries between networks question the need for interconnect charges that are currently levied.

Traditional distinction between fixed and mobile voice services, and between voice and data services, are likely to become less relevant in the future. The growing and universal trend towards IP based networks further makes the existing interconnect regime irrelevant. Extending regulations from circuit switched networks to IP networks is not a rational approach as cost drivers in these next generation networks will be bits/s and not minutes. The future IP based networks will necessitate a need to establish” bill and keep”.

Voice will be delivered in the data packets in an IP Network and there cannot be any termnation charges in a data network. Realising these benefits there has been a relentless trend globally towards lowering of termination rates nearing to zero

Therefore, in the interest of the telecom industry, its stakeholders and consumer, IUC has to be done away with to achieve the Bill & keep Regime.

TRAI U-TURN in 2014

Even before implementing its existing recommendations and sitting on them for over 3 years, TRAI, has now filed another consultation paper in the Supreme Court with its Affidavit of 2014 reversing its recommendations leaving stakeholders at a complete loss on transparency and predictability of regulations and rule of law.

TRAI has not just stopped here to shake the foundations of transparency & predictability in governance, it seems to have gone way beyond, in as much as:

  • No stakeholder consultations or public hearings have been done to seek inputs for any change;
  • Stakeholders have been caught complete unaware of a new impending regime, without even a right to be heard, as in the past;
  • Has not even disclosed any deliberations at any board meeting approving the change in recommendations concerning IUC regime;
  • Has not even bothered to explain reasons for changing its recommendations i.e whether the earlier recommendations were wrong, and if so – how. In fact, it merely mentions that in November 2011 recommendations were submitted to the Supreme Court, not a word beyond this.
  • Sets out a case that views of TRAI can change simply upon the change of its Chair, in complete disregard to due process of law;

It is incubent upon our regulators such as TRAI fuction within the realms of due process of law and in the present case to forthwith disclose the following to allow transparency and predictability in governance to prevail :

(a) the minutes of Board meeting in which TRAI took the decision to issue a fresh consultation paper;

(b) all the internal notes evidencing the reasons due to which it was decided to discard the earlier recommendations.

Any blatant departure from due process of law and governance will shake the very confidence of stakeholders and consumers, let alone overseas investors to whom Prime Minister Modi has been trying to woo for the past 6 months to invest in India under the ‘make In India’ Initiative.

Apart from this, the credibility of regulatory bodies such as TRAI would come down in the eyes of consumers and the motive and rationale for unilaterally issuing new consultation paper will be in question. I sincerely hope, the TRAI will rise to the occasion and not allow such damage to be done so that the credibility of TRAI itself, remains in tact by corrective action.

‘Digital India’ and truly empowering rural India

The Government of India has launched “Digital India” – A programme to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. Under this initiative, government is aiming that every Indian will have a smartphone by 2019 and to use mobile as delivery mechanism to offer one stop shop for all governmental schemes. The programme has key focus on Broadband highways, mobile connectivity, e-governance and public internet access.

The single unifying factor that can help in achieving these goals is the holistic deployment and ubiquitous access of Information and communication technologies (ICT) as worldwide ICTs are reshaping many aspects of the world’s economies, governments, and societies.

The backbone for ICTs is all pervasive broadband, which is not only ubiquitously available but also affordable. Once the affordable broadband is accessible all across the country, the accessibility to ICTs will follow suit.

The IP based networks have the potential to give a considerable impetus to broadband proliferation. The IP based networks will help the telecom service provider to converge their network infrastructures, provide huge bandwidth, consolidate terminating traffic and reduce costs in general.

The IP based networks primarily connect on the principle of free peering and there are no interconnection charges in IP networks that can connect globally without any need of interconnection. These networks will necessarily be under a Bill and Keep regime with Zero IUC.

In view of the above, it is obvious that to attain the laudable goals of Digital India and truly empower rural India the Bill and Keep regime for IUC should be adopted. This would also be in line with Hon’ble Prime Minister’s express philosophy of Minimum Government but Maximum Governance. It would not only help galvanise the telecom sector but also bring the fruits of Digital India to the rural India.

Irrespective of TRAI’s actions, questions remain to be answered from the perspective of stakeholders and consumers alike, whether:

  • Any review is at all required – of the earlier 2011 recommendation of TRAI to reduce the IUC to 10 paise per minute and to Zero (that is a Bill and Keep regime) in two years; and
  • If the answer to the above is yes, then to consider how either of (a) keeping the IUC at the same levels or (b) increase the same would benefit the consumers and stakeholders;
  • If the answer to (i) is no, then whether the 2011 recommendations should not be implemented forthwith.

Be it from the:

  • consumer’s perspective
  • stakeholders perspective
  • cometition or level playing filed perspective
  • global trends prespective
  • overseas investor confidence perspective
  • transparency & predictability perspective

The answer is only one – India should move to Bill and Keep Regime.

Stakeholders, both within India nd outside are looking up to us – to take the right decisions and instill investor confidence in having a governance that is transparent and predictable.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

The post India: Predictability And Transparency In Governance – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India-US Arrive At Modus Vivendi On Nuclear Deal – Analysis

$
0
0

By C Uday Bhaskar*

The much awaited and long-delayed modus-vivendi between India and the US over the finalization of the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that began in July 2005 has finally been achieved Sunday (Jan 25) on the first day of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India.

The major obstacles were the nature of the liability clauses in the event of any nuclear accident or incident which India wanted and the nuclear-reactor inspection rights that the US had sought. India had introduced a nuclear liability law in 2010 — as it happens, at the behest of the BJP which was then in the opposition — that placed the liability on the supplier in the event of a nuclear accident. This is at variance with the global norm which places the liability in such exigencies on the operator. However, this stipulation was not acceptable to the US.

The US, in turn, sought to impose ‘flag rights in perpetuity’, meaning that in the event India acquired a US nuclear reactor, the US would retain the right in perpetuity to inspect any material or equipment that was being used in or associated with the said reactor. India saw this as an infringement of its nuclear sovereignty and resisted such a clause.

Consequently, the much anticipated civilian nuclear cooperation commerce between the US and India remained a non-starter and the issue continued to fester from late 2008 when the (George W.) Bush administration had gone the extra mile to tweak its domestic legislation to accord India an exceptional status in the global nuclear domain.

The BJP-led NDA government, which assumed office in May 2014, had prioritized the nuclear issue and Prime Minister Narendra Modi indicated that this matter would receive the highest political attention when he visited the US in September 2014 for his first meeting with President Obama. However, despite a series of meetings between the officials on both sides over the last few months, it appeared that a compromise on the nuclear issue remained elusive.

The dramatic “breakthrough” – as Obama himself described it – announced Sunday is to be welcomed and is indicative of the joint political resolve that the Modi-Obama combine has been able to demonstrate to redress a long festering issue that has prevented the India-US bilateral relationship from realizing the potential benefits embedded in the radical breakthrough of July 2005 that had ended India’s nuclear isolation in the global comity.

It may be recalled that even in July 2005, when then prime minister Manmohan Singh had met with then US president George W. Bush in Washington, the radical civilian nuclear cooperation agreement needed the last minute high level political nudge to reconcile the differences between the two sides. History may have been repeated this time in Delhi.

The impact of this Delhi breakthrough on the nuclear issue will re-energize and reset the moribund India-US bilateral relationship and this will in all likelihood have a beneficial ripple effect on all the other issues that are awaiting traction during the current Obama visit.

Hopefully, India will be able to overcome some of its earlier inhibitions regarding the foundational agreements as regards the defence and military sector and this, in turn, will allow Delhi to begin actively reviewing the high technology possibilities that were first mooted in July 2005 and then signed October 2008.

This has been a long wait but the Modi-Obama ‘chai pe charcha’ (conversation over tea) has cleared the logjam. The eagle and the elephant may still tango!

*C. Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in

The post India-US Arrive At Modus Vivendi On Nuclear Deal – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Shifting Sands Of Sri Lankan Politics – Analysis

$
0
0

By S.N.M. Abdi

The first foreign envoy to call on the new Sri Lankan President, Maithripala Sirisena, within hours of his Jan. 9 victory over Mahinda Rajpaksa, was India’s High Commissioner in Colombo Yashwant Sinha. In contrast, China’s Ambassador Wu Jinaghao had to wait until Jan. 15 for his turn to shake hands with the island nation’s new boss.

Sinha pipping Jinaghao by as many as six days is being seen as proof of New Delhi suddenly gaining the upper hand in Sri Lanka where India and China have been jockeying for power and influence for decades. Rajpaksa was openly pro-China while Sirisena is close to India. After trouncing Rajpaksa, Sirisena not only dispatched his Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera to New Delhi on his first overseas visit but has declared that the first country he intends to visit as new Sri Lankan president is India, where preparations have begun in earnest ahead of his February state visit.

While Rajpaksa’s downfall is certainly a huge setback for China’s expansion into South Asia and a significant diplomatic victory for India in its strategic backyard, the blow to Beijing is a big relief for America too. New Delhi’s covert campaign to bolster Sirisena’s prospects by uniting a divided opposition against Rajpaksa enjoyed the blessings of Washington, which views China as its prime global challenger and competitor.

But India should watch its steps instead of gloating too much.

Sirisena did make a lot of anti-China noises and threatened to scrap mega development deals Rajpaksa struck with Chinese companies if voted to power. But electioneering is one thing, governance another.

And China’s financial muscle, which India simply can’t match, is capable of winning lost battles. China has invested a staggering $ five billion in Sri Lanka — 80 percent of it in the last five years after the civil war ended. So it’s bound to fight back to safeguard its huge investment. Moreover, Beijing enjoys immense clout in the United Nations where Sri Lankan human rights record can be exploited by a scorned or vindictive superpower.

There are already signs of the new government diluting its tough pre-election stand. For instance, Sirisena had threatened to scrap the $1.5 billion New Colombo Port City Project financed by China Communications Construction Co Ltd and inaugurated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September last year. But in a significant change of heart, the new regime says it will only reassess and renegotiate the deal — a far cry from the aggressive posturing during the poll campaign.

New Delhi is particularly touchy about the under-construction port city project because of the large number of India-bound cargo ships that pass through Colombo port. Indian diplomats say, “it isn’t just an infrastructure project but a key segment of the Chinese Maritime Silk Route — a new Beijing-dominated sea trade corridor — with deep security implications.”

But it seems India will now have to live with the “security threat” despite toppling Rajpaksa and ensuring Sirisena’s victory. The inking of the Maritime Silk Route agreement by Rajpaksa and Jinping in September stunned and angered India, which felt that the pact “legitimized China as a South Asian power stakeholder.”

China’s lengthening shadow over a region where India was once unchallenged, is straining Sino-Indian ties already bedeviled by decades of distrust and delaying normalization of relations between the world’s two most populated nuclear-armed neighbors.

Rajpaksa rubbed salt in India’s wounds by granting berthing permission to Chinese submarines in September and November violating the 1987 agreement between Rajiv Gandhi and J. R. Jayewardene, which laid down that no “port in Sri Lanka will be made available for military use by any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests.” It proved to be the final straw — and Rajpaksa’s undoing. New Delhi expects Sirisena to fast-track nearly a dozen strategic, infrastructural and strategic projects besides resuming ferry services with India. Among the projects Rajpaksa is accused of intentionally delaying is the $350-million Sampur Thermal Power Plant near Trincomalee for which India’s National Thermal Power Corporation signed an agreement way back in 2006. India is also keen to restore the Tiruketheeswaram temple and rebuild the war-ravaged Kankeanthurai harbor to make its presence felt.

After tasting blood in Sri Lanka, India is taking on China in Bangladesh — another neighbor it considers within its zone of influence. China Harbour Engineering Company, an early bidder for $8 billion deepwater port project in Sondadia, Bangladesh, will now have to contend with a counter proposal submitted by the Adani Group known to enjoy the backing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The post Shifting Sands Of Sri Lankan Politics – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Obama Visit: A Great Leap Forward – Analysis

$
0
0

By Simi Mehta*

President Barack Obama has become the first US president to grace the occasion of India’s Republic Day as the chief guest and also to visit India twice while in office. Strategic affairs pundits have termed President Obama’s upcoming visit to India as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘diplomatic coup’.

The White House statement that confirmed Obama’s acceptance of the invite also highlighted that the president would meet with the prime minister and Indian officials to strengthen and expand the US-India strategic partnership.

With a new Republican-dominated Congress, defence cooperation seems to be an extremely vital subject, especially with John McCain as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Modi has highlighted the need to modernise India’s armed forces and the US is poised to play a significant role in helping to fill Indian defence requirements. But both sides will need to show flexibility on their approach to plans for co-production and co-development of military equipment. Thus security issues remain high on the agenda as building military and defence cooperation, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, would help the national interests of India as China pursues its aggression and border interventions against India. It would also facilitate American interests as it sees a strong and vibrant India preferable to an aggressive China, which would simultaneously help in the creation and maintenance of a stable balance of power in the region.

President Obama’s visit presents an important opportunity for finding a compromise solution for the US-India Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) on technology transfer that meets US requirements for safeguarding technology and India’s desire to maintain its “strategic autonomy”.

A corollary of the defence cooperation is an unequivocal alliance for counter-terrorism cooperation, in order to defeat, dismantle and disrupt terrorist networks from Pakistan, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. This would signal implementation of the historic 2010 counter-terrorism agreement. At a time when the American troops are exiting Afghanistan, and where the progress seems to be fragile, it is important for President Obama to take India into confidence so that the purpose is fulfilled and the source of terror deracinated forever from across the world. This would also be important for Obama to set a historic precedent as his tenure and troop withdrawal deadline end in 2016. In order to gain the full benefits of their counter-terrorism cooperation, Washington and New Delhi must overcome their suspicions and deepen their intelligence exchanges.

As cyber warfare is increasingly gaining ground, the US wants India to pursue a multi-stakeholder democratic governance of the cyberspace in order to ensure freedom of speech and expression. Another consequence to defence and security cooperation on which President Obama must deliver on his visit to India is to garner India’s support for cyber security.

A major sign of the deepening ties between India and the US, is also sending out the signal that India’s obsession with the tradition of non-alignment is ending and that this “man of action” (Modi) is fearlessly demonstrating his inclination towards the ‘country that is hailed as the leader of the free-market economy’.

While Prime Minister Modi has made it abundantly clear that he is committed to economic reforms, with special emphasis on rectifying the obstacles in the way of ‘ease of doing business’ in the country, the ‘Make in India’ initiative becomes an important driver to bolster India’s economic growth. Through this initiative Prime Minister Modi has the necessary mechanisms to lure US investments into India to increase Indian growth rates and create jobs for the country’s rapidly expanding work force; and thus proactive measures to boost Indo-US economic ties remain high on the agenda of the upcoming Modi-Obama summit.

While the Trade Facilitation Deal is formally inducted into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rulebook in November 2014 and 2017 has been the target year by which both countries must resolve their contentions over domestic food subsides bilaterally, President Obama can make an historic impact by pushing for an early settlement of the issue, as agricultural cooperation has remained a fundamental and signature issue in Indo-US relations during his administration.

A re-evaluation of the Immigration Bill would help build the foundation for a mutually beneficial relationship that will bolster the partnership between the two great nations, especially because the bill contains a number of elements that could hurt India’s IT industry.

With a new climate change accord in place, President Obama who tended to side with China in Lima in December 2014 in taking a leadership role in assisting the attainment of global reduction of greenhouse gases, needs to put India at the forefront of tackling global warming and ensuring sustainable development. President Obama must incorporate India to play a leadership role on a finance-driven approach on clean energy based system, as it is of vital interest to India’s population and the developing world. The civil nuclear deal that was inked between the two countries in 2008, has now comeout as significant breakthrough in Obama’s visit. India could also push the US to support its bid for membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Conclusions:

As Joseph Nye said, India and the US are married to each other, yet there are occasions when the two partners quarrel over issues, but they are certainly not directed towards a divorce.

The structural aspect of the climate of Indo-US relationship is perfect on the upcoming Obama’s visit, as the let’s-get-to-know-each-other phase has been overtaken by the ongoing phase of we-understand-each-other-well. While there will surely be disagreements in the future and a need for patience as initiatives work their way through the bureaucracies of both countries, the two leaders are sending clear messages about their commitment to the relationship and their intention to move forward with an ambitious agenda of cooperation.

This second visit is an opportunity for President Obama to continue the view that US profits from India’s rise and economic success and must be reiterated before the Indian public. There is a need to forge a new kind of a major-power-relationship, and send out the message that Obama is here to implement the strategic relationship.

*Simi Mehta is a Ph.D, Scholar at the American Studies Division of the Centre for Canadian, United States and Latin American Studies, School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. She can be reached at simi53_isj@jnu.ac.in.

The post Obama Visit: A Great Leap Forward – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Flares Up In India – OpEd

$
0
0

By Alan Potter*

Barack Obama recently visited India, where he was received with open arms by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a lavish Republic Day celebration. But with Western countries badly needing to heal their rift with the Muslim world, the timing was not fortuitous.

In recent weeks, after all, the Indian government has been behind a number of anti-Muslim outbursts and renewed clashes with Pakistan.

On January 1, for example, the government blocked 30 popular websites in order to prevent publication by “jihadi activists.” The next day, reports came out of Modi’s home state of Gujarat of anti-terror drills involving mock terrorists dressed in traditional Muslim clothing.

Just a few days later, the government announced the discovery of a small ship along the Indian coast full of “suspected terrorists” from Pakistan, though there was no real evidence that the boat’s passengers were anything other than run-of-the-mill smugglers. On the same day, the government put all airports on high alert for potential hijackings due to unnamed intelligence reports.

Throughout this time, confrontations between Indian and Pakistani military forces increased, including an incident on January 1 in which Indian forces killed five Pakistanis.

Of course, Modi has a history of stoking communal violence against Muslims. In 2002, while chief minister of Gujarat, Modi was accused of failing to stop and perhaps even encouraging viciously bloody anti-Muslim riots. The U.S. government later banned him from entering the United States because of his involvement in the riots. His party, the BJP, is traditionally based on a Hindu nationalist, anti-Islamic platform.

But over time, Modi has been able to shed some of this negative reputation by rebranding himself as an economic technocrat and modernizer.

Gujarat became the prototype for attracting foreign direct investment under his leadership. And his 2014 campaign for prime minister was based on an economic program of growth and, to a lesser degree, liberalization. Because of this, pundits around the world began to overlook his past and, perhaps more importantly, the past of his party. The question now is whether we’re beginning to see Modi and the BJP turn back to their traditional Hindu nationalist policies — and if so, why?

Modi is often characterized as a typical politician (if a particularly shrewd one), more interested in polls than ideals. Because of this, the logic goes, he will not stoke Hindu-Muslim violence as prime minister — the backlash would be too great, and it wouldn’t provide the same kind of benefits that it did at the state level.

By the same logic, however, if Modi is unable to produce the economic gains he promised, then he might return to stoking communal violence. A sputtering economy, in other words, could prompt Modi to “wag the dog” by encouraging Hindu violence against Muslims and thus placating his Hindu nationalist base.

However, the present increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the government does not appear to be a function of a failing economy or a drop in Modi’s popularity. The Indian economy has shown signs of life after a particularly tumultuous first half of 2014. Furthermore, the BJP performed well in recent state elections in Jharkhand and, to a lesser degree, in Jammu and Kashmir.

Nor does the increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric seem to result from an upsurge in confrontation along the Pakistan border. Those tensions are more likely to be the result of Indian rhetoric and actions than a cause of them, particularly as initial reports indicate that India has been the aggressor in recent clashes.

Another possibility is that the BJP is pushing the issue and Modi is simply trying to keep up.

After all, it’s not Modi so much as other members of the BJP that have most pushed the envelope in recent weeks. A government minister, for example, recently asked her supporters at a rally to choose between children of the Hindu God Ram and “bastards.” Modi stated that he didn’t approve of the comments, but he didn’t sack her either. Another BJP member of parliament recently praised the killer of Gandhi, who was a Hindu nationalist.

Additionally, the RSS — a right-wing paramilitary politically allied to the BJP — has been accused of forcibly converting entire Muslim and Christian villages to Hinduism.

However, Modi himself has continued in his attempts to shed his anti-Muslim image. For example, he was the first Indian prime minister to invite the leader of Pakistan to his inauguration. And more recently, he made a direct appeal to all schools in India for two minutes of silence after the Taliban’s massacre of students in Peshawar, Pakistan last December.

If Modi is unable or unwilling to rein in his party’s instrumental use of Hindu nationalism, then this will portend trouble for nearly all aspects of Indian society. Religious minorities, specifically Muslims, will be in danger of mass violence and persecution. Additionally, India’s standing in the international community could drop precipitously.

But while Modi’s own role in the unfolding drama remains unclear, it was disappointing that on January 14 — just before Obama’s highly publicized visit to India — a U.S. court dismissed a case against Modi for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

If the new anti-Muslim rhetoric is coming from the BJP, then there’s still hope that Modi can rein in the extremists. If it’s coming from Modi himself, though, then the trend will likely worsen, as his own party will certainly not oppose him in on the issue. And the opposition, particularly the Indian National Congress, is in complete disarray after the last national election.

Modi has only recently begun to shed his nationalist reputation, and the international community is watching closely.

*Alan Potter is completing his PhD in politics at New York University. He is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

The post Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Flares Up In India – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Risk-Taking By Banks: The Impact Of Founders’ Logics

$
0
0

Which factors create a risk-seeking or risk-averse culture in banking? A new study by IESE’s Juan Almandoz of local banks in the United States explores their corporate priorities and values as influenced by their founding teams.

A key factor when it comes to risk, the study finds, is the founders’ driving logics — be they financially or community focused.

With the financial crisis of 2008 laying bare the consequences of risky bank practices, research into the factors that lead banks to take on increasing levels of risk are timely and important. Understanding and managing the founding teams’ motivations may help board members and regulators rein in risk going forward.

Local banks in the United States tend to be “hybrid organizations” that combine competing financial and community logics, as they vie with larger banks and pursue profits while serving community banking needs. The founding teams of local banks are often made up of some people motivated by a financial logic (who see the bank as an investment vehicle and seek to maximize profit) and some motivated by a community logic (who are driven to meet community needs and focus less on profits). Almandoz finds that where financial logics are better represented on founding teams, the bank is more likely to engage in risky activities. That risk profile is lower where community logics are better represented. Note that these trends are especially evident when the founding teams are larger, consisting of 12 members or more.

Risky Business

Between June 2006 and September 2009, 420 local banks were established in the United States. Almandoz examines 225 of those young banks via more than 2,100 documents to learn about the founding teams and the risk practices. Interviews were also conducted with 73 bank founders.

To learn about risk practices, Almandoz focuses on the banks’ use of brokered deposits — money the local banks received from outside brokerage firms rather than directly from their own customers’ regular checking or savings account deposits. Brokered deposits were considered “a quick and easy way to fund growth,” in the words of one interviewee. But they were also referred to as “hot money” in interviews because they entailed added risk, since these deposits were more likely to vanish or become much more costly in an economic downturn. Reliance on brokered deposits has become a red flag for bank regulators and a useful proxy for risk-taking.

In the study, the banks’ risk profiles were defined according to their position on brokered deposits, and these results were then analyzed along with their founding members’ backgrounds and associations.

Founders with financial careers — such as investment bankers, accountants or insurance providers — were counted as representing a financial logic. Those who were involved with many voluntary community associations — such as Boy Scouts, the Red Cross or country clubs — were seen to represent a community logic.

Team Players

Banks tend to be founded by groups of people, not lone individuals. The founding teams’ stronger internal representation — be it financial or community — influenced their policies on brokered deposits. Banks founded by more people with financial backgrounds tend to favor extensive use of brokered deposits. This reflects their interest in growing the bank’s business quickly, rather than waiting to build a local deposit base, because returns to investors are maximized when a bank reaches an appropriate size to sell faster.

By contrast, banks whose founders had more community involvement tend to shy away from such risks. More than short-term profit, they were motivated by the bank’s capacity to enrich the local community. The emphasis was therefore on running the bank sustainably, for the long-term.

When banks had larger founding teams, group influences aligned with financial or community logics were felt more strongly. This may be in part because individuals on larger teams may feel less accountable in group decision-making. Based on the statistical model he developed, Almandoz compares large teams, with 12 members, and small teams, with seven members. On large teams, financially and community-oriented individuals seem to adjust their views to be more in line with what they see as the appropriate attitude based on their backgrounds. Previous studies suggest that individuals on larger teams may rely more on cues derived from stereotypical institutional logics, such as those that may be associated with financial careers or community involvement, and less on individual discretion.

On the flip side, the effect of the founders’ logics was much less pronounced in predicting the risk profile of the bank when the group of founders was smaller.

Understanding Hybrid Organizations

This paper contributes to wider questions about the management of hybrid organizations that serve competing purposes. Like local banks, private schools and utility companies are examples of hybrid organizations that must contend with both profit-making and community obligations. How might the backgrounds of their founding members affect their business plans?

Meanwhile, back in the banking sector, there are many opportunities to do things better. Perhaps these insights about founding teams’ alignment with driving logics can help assess their predispositions toward risk.

The post Risk-Taking By Banks: The Impact Of Founders’ Logics appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Mexico: Attorney General Says Missing Students Are Dead

$
0
0

“The students were deprived of their liberty, killed, incinerated and thrown into the San Juan River. In this order. That is the historical truth of the events”.

The words of the Attorney General Jesus Murillo Karam were like a slap in the face for the parents of the 43 students of the Normal Rural de Ayotzinapa teachers college of the southern Guerrero State, missing since September 26 when they protested in Iguala for major funding.

Four months from the events, after mass demonstrations on Monday, the Attorney General, alongside the Criminal Investigations Agency chief, Tomás Zerón, told a news conference that testimony from 99 interrogations of those arrested and forensic evidence leave no doubt. Zerón disclosed passages of the confession of Felipe Rodríguez Salgado, alias “El Terco” or “El Cepillo”, who is the boss of the Guerreros Unidos drug cartel in the Iguala area, arrested on January 15. His confession, confirmed by his accomplices and forensic findings, according to Murillo, sets aside all doubts on the events of the tragic night.

Rodríguez Salgado claimed that on the night of September 26 he received a phone call warning him that a rival gang of the Guerreros Unidos, “Los Rojos”, was attacking Iguala. In that moment, the students were clashing with the municipal police of Iguala and Cocula, who responded to stone throwing with firearms, then hiding the bullet shells and covering up the evidence. At least six civilians were killed. Always based on Rodríguez Salgado’s account, the police later handed over the dozens of students who were arrested, including many injured, to his men in the area of Loma de Coyote. The Guerrero Unidos members took the students to the Cocula dump, killed them and burned them along with all their belongings, throwing their ashes into the River.

The post Mexico: Attorney General Says Missing Students Are Dead appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73702 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images