The death of King Abdullah in January 2015 confirmed the contradictions at work in Saudi politics. The architect of Abdullah’s destructive policies, President of the Royal Court Khalid al-Tuwaijri, was immediately dismissed, replace by Prince Muqrin.

Tuwaijri was the key player in foreign intrigues — to subvert the Egyptian revolution, to send in the troops to crush the uprising in Bahrain, to finance ISIL in Syria in the early stages of the civil war along his previous ‘ally’ Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

As Abdullah lay dying, the Zaidi Shia Houthis in Yemen were occupying the presidential palace in Sana, a plan plotted by former Yemeni dictator Saleh and the United Arab Emirates (Saudi allies), keen to undermine the democratic transformation of Yemen that Islah, the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood, was trying to effect.

The entire focus of Abdullah’s foreign policy after 2011 was to stop the Arab spring in its tracks in Tunisia and Egypt, bribe their leaders with Saudi billions, and crush all forces capable of mounting an effective opposition in the Gulf States. Everything else, including the rise of Saudi’s foremost regional rival Iran, became subservient to that paramount aim to crush democratic political Islam.

The Yemen plan backfired when Islah refused the bait to take up arms to resist the Houthi advance. As a result, the Houthis took more control than they were expected to, and Yemen now looks like Syria in reverse. Al-Qaeda’s claim to be the only fighters prepared to defend Sunni tribesmen, has just been given a major boost.

Obsession with Iran

The elephant in the room here is Iran. Why are the Saudis so hostile to Iran? Iran has never publically called for their overthrow. It has made countless offers of dialogue over many long decades. It’s more a question of the Saudis trying to use Sunni-Shia sectarianism to hide their irrelevance to the Muslim world (and the world at large)

What they fear is the example the Iranians provide. Their relevance to the Muslim world, despite the Shia-Sunni differences, continues to grow. The thought of a ‘Shia crescent’ terrifies the Saudis, not because it means war or some apocalypse, but because it would lead to a stable Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Did I hear you mention Pakistan? It too would also be revealed as irrelevant to the region’s peace if Iran were let back in the fold.

When the US figures this out, the days of the Saudi dictatorship/ monarchy will be numbered. Iran will take its place as the more reliable, sensible—Islamic—state in the region, the only state not afraid of genuine democracy.

The Shia revolution in Iran had echoes in the Sunni world from the start in 1979. It inspired a young Egyptian Muslim Brother, Essam el-Erian (now imprisoned Freedom and Justice Party vice-chairman and MP), to say at that time, “Young people believe Islam is the solution to the ills in society after the failure of western democracy, socialism and communism to address the political and socio-economic difficulties.” It prompted Saudi rebels to occupy the Kaaba that same year in an attempt to spark revolution, Syrian Islamists to rise against their secular dictator Hafez al-Assad in 1980, and future al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri to conspire to assassinate Egyptian president Sadat in 1981.

Pakistan adds its two cents

Most of the terrorists (those implicated in the 9/11 hijackings, the foreign fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s and now in Syria/ Iraq) were/are understandably disaffected Saudis, rich on oil wealth, educated at western universities (or unemployed), yet disgusted by the Saudi alliance with imperialism (and by implication, with Israel) that was blessed by the Wahhabi establishment—so-called neo-Wahhabis. They found allies in their Pakistani brothers, betrayed, first, at ‘independence’ when the British handed Muslim Kashmir over to India, and then again when Reagan declared ‘victory’ over the Evil (Soviet) Empire in 1990 and decided they were really terrorists after all.

CIA analysts coined a term for this type of counterproductive outcome resulting from attempts to manipulate political developments—“blowback”—in its internal analysis of its own orchestration of the 1953 coup in Iran, warning of future anti-Americanism as a result of the coup. The neo-Wahhabis provide another, even more serious instance of blowback, where the revolutionaries, angry with Muslim official complicity with imperialism, started using strategies of revolution and the arms of the imperialists against both the US and their own leaders and peoples.

They are the bitter fruits (for us all, Muslim and non-Muslim) now being reaped in the so-called Global War on Terror, which targets all Islamists, lumping together genuine terrorists, teenage Palestinian rock-throwers, Hizbullah resistance fighters, and elected Hamas, Iranian and Egyptian politicians.

Egypt was a ray of hope

Like the Iranians, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood tried hard to square the circle with the Saudis but Saudi chauvinism trumps belief. The willingness of the Saudis to sacrifice thousands of Egyptian Muslims is shocking, though not out of character. Remember the1979 seige of Mecca by French Special Forces, who killed hundreds, possible some of the same ‘Spetsnaz’ who are murdering Muslims on the streets of France today.

Foreign relations under Egypt’s MB were shifting towards a more confrontational stance with Israel, defying Israel on Gaza, and moving towards more cooperation with other Islamic governments and movements, in particular Iran, but also throughout the Muslim world, while avoiding any open challenge to the Saudi monarchy.

President Mohamed Morsi was not oblivious to Saudi concerns. He made no sudden overtures to Iran. His first stop was Saudi Arabia, which initially promised support. The Morsi government delayed and delayed on the ‘generous’ IMF loan, finally proposing a compromise that included a demand to cancel part of what it termed the ‘odious debt’ from Mubarak years—which it was. The Islamists’ constitution—accepted by a popular vote, but post-coup replaced by another authorized by the military—put the family squarely at its heart, confirming both individual rights regardless of belief, status or ethnicity, and responsibilities.

These tantalizing developments confirm the validity of the MB strategy of confronting imperialism, coincidentally exposing the venality of the Saudis. All the sweet words of Morsi fell on deaf ears.

Guardian of the Holy Places

So do the Saudis at least protect the holy places? Ninety percent of pre-twentieth century architecture in Mecca and Medina has been razed, with more to come. According to the Washington-based Gulf Institute. Saudi authorities maintain they have the sole right to decide what should happen to the historic sites in Medina and Mecca.

In 1925, they leveled the cemeteries in Medina (where the Prophet’s grandson Hasan and Imam Jafar al-Sadiq are buried), and Mecca (where the Prophet’s grandfather and other ancestors are buried). They built the 600m tall Abraj al-Bait (Royal Hotel Clock Tower, second tallest building in the world after the Dubai Khalifa tower) beside the holy mosque of Mecca. It houses luxury hotels and apartments and is located on a five-storey shopping mall, where the Ottoman Ajyad fortress (1781) once stood, built to defend Mecca from Bedouin bandits like the Saudis.

Currently, as part of their plans to turn the Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina into the world’s largest building (capacity 1.6 million), they are threatening to destroy the thirteenth century green dome which holds the tombs of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar, mosques dedicated to Abu Bakr and Umar, and the Masjid Ghamama, built to mark the spot where the Prophet gave his first prayers for the Eid festival. The Saudis have announced no plans to preserve or move the three mosques, which have existed since the seventh century and are covered by Ottoman-era structures. A pamphlet published in 2007 by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and endorsed by Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, called for the dome to be demolished and the graves of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar to be flattened.

There is surely a tidal wave of anger and despair among all Muslims over this betrayal of Islam, including among Saudis. We can only shudder as the slow motion train wreck proceeds.

The post Saudi Elephants – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ivan Angelovski, Aida Ramusovic and Lawrence Marzouk

Serbia’s government has quietly granted citizenship to Mohammed Dahlan, a key rival of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and adviser to the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN, can reveal.

Dahlan, his wife and four children, a nephew and five key political supporters were all granted citizenship between February 2013 and June 2014, according to documents from the state’s Official Gazette analysed by BIRN.

The government is able to grant citizenship during closed cabinet sessions to foreigners when it is deemed to serve “state interests” without offering any detailed public explanation.

Dahlan is credited with facilitating Abu Dhabi’s promised investment of billions of euros in Serbia. However, the government in Belgrade has refused to explain whether this is the reason it has gifted citizenship to 12 Palestinians since 2013, all of whom are linked to the powerful politician.

Palestine’s Mahmoud Abbas

Seasoned Middle East observers have suggested that Dahlan could be planning to use Serbia as a base to launch his leadership challenge against Abbas, the current Palestinian Authority, PA, leader.

Dahlan, a former PA security chief, was seen by many as Yasser Arafat’s heir apparent but lost out to Abbas. He was kicked out of the political party Fatah in 2011 after Abbas accused him of corruption and even hinted he may have been involved in Arafat’s death.

The PA launched a defamation action against Dahlan, then living in exile in the United Arab Emirates, UAE, after he criticised Abbas’ leadership and PA security forces in the West Bank. He was sentenced to a two-year jail term in March 2014 following his conviction in absentia.

Thousands of his supporters took to the streets of Gaza in December to protest the opening of another court case against Dahlan, this time for alleged embezzlement of $22m. There have been further clashes in Gaza this week between Fatah supporters and Dahlan’s backers.

A spokesman for President Abbas told BIRN it also had evidence that Dahlan had ordered the murders of six fellow Palestinians, allegations which were due to be tried in a criminal court from February. He added the Palestinian authorities were to write a protest letter to the Serbian government urging them to reconsider the granting of citizenship.

He said: “This is not talk, there is a case in court with all the witnesses and documents.”

Dahlan has publicly denied the accusations but refused to respond to questions sent to him by BIRN. His backers dismiss the court cases as nothing more than politically-motivated “show trials”.

BIRN can also reveal that Dahlan is now renting a luxurious villa in an exclusive Belgrade neighbourhood favoured by diplomats.

Until recently the home of former Serbian President Boris Tadic, the villa has seen its security beefed up ahead of Dahlan’s arrival in Belgrade.

Citizenship ‘a sign of gratitude’

The Serbian government has refused to respond to requests from BIRN for an explanation of why it has granted citizenship to Dahlan, his family and five supporters.

However, Dusan Simeonovic, former ambassador to Egypt and Palestine, told BIRN the move was “clearly a sign of gratitude for Dahlan’s role in implementing investments from the UAE”.

Bypassing the standard naturalisation process, the government can grant citizenship to an individual if it is deemed to be in Serbia’s national interest, according to the Law on Citizenship.

Under this system, a minister puts forward a name which is then voted on in a closed government session. The decision is signed off by the prime minister or his deputy and published in the Official Gazette.

This process has attracted controversy on a number of occasions, including last year when Sergey Kurchenko, a Ukrainian businessmen under EU sanctions, was made a Serbian national following a government decision. The Serbian interior minister did not respond to our requests for confirmation of media reports that Kurchenko’s citizenship had been revoked following the outcry.

This system has been used 52 times in the past five years, most often to grant passports to musicians and sportsmen and women.

BIRN was unable to find any evidence that those granted citizenship in Dahlan’s entourage, bar Dahlan himself and his nephew Shadi, had any connection to Serbia or had even visited the country.

All are, however, closely linked to Dahlan (see infographic below).

A worldwide study of citizenship rules reveals schemes to hand out passports for “special achievements” are common.

But the research by the European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship also shows the vast majority of countries apply other criteria, such as residency, a clean criminal record or language proficiency.

Serbia’s position differs in that politicians can approve citizenship as long as it serves the “state interest”, with no further conditions.

Montenegro dropped its plans to award citizenship in exchange for a 500,000 euro investment under EU pressure and instead runs a similar programme to Serbia.

A spokesman for the Palestinian President told BIRN that they will be writing to the Serbian prime minister and president calling for the government to “stop” its decision to award citizenship to Dahlan and his cohort.

He said: “According to all national and international rules, when somebody wants to take a passport from another country, they [the government] should check to make sure that they have a clean file and clean history and not just give it. They have not asked the Palestinian side about their history or whether they are criminals or not.”

Dahlan’s Montenegrin citizenship

Dahlan’s interest in the Balkans appears to have blossomed in 2006 when he, his elder brother Abdrabou and nephews began to open real estate and construction firms in Serbia and Montenegro.

According to company registry documents obtained by BIRN, Abdrabou Dahlan established the real estate company Alfursan in 2006 in Belgrade before selling some of his shares to his sons, including Shadi Dahlan.

Shadi also runs a business in Montenegro owned by his uncle Mohammed called Levant International.

Little is known of their business activities in the Balkans. They have made no public statements and documents lodged at company registers in both countries, which BIRN has collected, show that while the firms have significant capital their turnover is minimal.

In addition, members of the Abu Dhabi royal family began visiting Montenegro in 2008 looking for investment opportunities and, according to press reports at the time, Dahlan was among the entourage.

In 2010, Dahlan and his wife were granted Montenegrin citizenship, although his children were refused it on the grounds that economic dependants do not form part of the “state interest” scheme. Official documents show that the gift was at the behest of Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic, who has described Dahlan as a “friend” in parliament.

In his letter recommended Dahlan, his wife and four children for citizenship, Djukanovic wrote that the Palestinian was responsible for building bridges with Abu Dhabi’s Al Nahyan royal family and “for their arrival in Montenegro”, which brought significant investment.
“Mr Dahlan is one of the most respected people in that part of the world [Middle East] and therefore I think we should grant him and his family Montenegro citizenship,” PM Djukanovic wrote.

Dahlan and Abu Dhabi

Dahlan’s attention then seems to have shifted to Serbia, where he helped forge new diplomatic and economic ties between Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and the government – led in July 2012 by socialist Ivica Dacic and his powerful deputy from the Progressives, Aleksandar Vucic, now prime minister.

Dahlan was decorated by President Tomislav Nikolic with the Medal of the Serbian Flag in April 2013 for his role in “the development and strengthening of peaceful cooperation and friendly relations between Serbia and the United Arab Emirates”, according to the decree.

The president’s office refused to elaborate on this when questioned by BIRN, adding only that Dahlan was “a close associate of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed who had contributed to investments from the UAE”.

Vucic and the then finance and economy minister, Mladjan Dinkic, visited Abu Dhabi in October 2012, where they met with the crown prince.

Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed then visited Belgrade in January 2013, when he met Nikolic and took a tour of the Red Star Belgrade stadium with Vucic and Dahlan.

Vucic returned to Abu Dhabi in February and October 2013, as did Dinkic in March 2013.

Serbia opened an embassy in Abu Dhabi in August 2013.

Middle East-Balkans ‘common interests’

Perhaps the most striking illustration of the close relationship between Dahlan, Djukanovic and Vucic emerged in March 2014 on Inlight Press, a pro-Dahlan Arabic news website which was reportedly blocked in the West Bank by Abbas in 2012.

The accompanying news story reported that Dahlan had arrived in Belgrade from Cairo to meet members of the government, two days after Vucic’s Progressives swept to victory in parliamentary elections.

In one photo accompanying the article, he is seen reclining on a sofa with newly-elected Prime Minister Vucic and the Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic. In another photo published in the same article, Dahlan is seen grinning with Vucic.

According to the story, they discussed “common interests” in the Balkans and the Middle East.

This blossoming relationship played a key role in finalising a series of intergovernmental deals signed between Serbia and Abu Dhabi, promising billions of euros of investment through companies connected to the ruling family.

But the deals have proved controversial.

Etihad Airways bought 49 per cent of shares in the airline JAT in 2013, although concerns have been raised about whether the Serbian taxpayer received value for money from the sale of almost half of the state-owned firm.

Al Dahra Agriculture was due to invest 150m euros through state-owned farms, according to a published pre-contract agreement signed with the Serbian government. But, after the deal sparked protests, the Abu Dhabi firm decided to buy a stake in a firm owned by Serbian tycoon Vojin Lazarevic instead.

Other huge deals related to agriculture, arms, electronics and ports have been signed with firms linked to the royal family, according to statements by the Serbian government. A 2.8bn euro real estate project called Belgrade Waterfront, a joint venture between the Serbian government and a Dubai-based firm, has also been announced.

Despite the impressive proposals, little concrete investment has been visible on the ground.

Officials from the United Arab Emirates embassy in Belgrade insist that delays with projects of this scale are normal and that investments will follow.

Dahlan’s future

Jonathan Schnazer, vice president of Washington DC think-tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, provided a detailed description of the Dahlan-Abbas conflict in a statement to Congress which cited reports that Dahlan’s assets in Jordan “amounted to USD 14.1 million or more”.

“The allegations of Dahlan’s corruption are not easily refuted,” he wrote in the report. “During the heyday of the Oslo process in the 1990s, he and a cadre of Arafat loyalists controlled Gaza’s border with Israel, extracting taxes from every truck that entered”.

Schnazer also notes that a 118-page report issued by the Abbas-camp alleged Dahlan stole “$300 million in aid from the United States”.

Dahlan has always maintained his innocence but refused to respond to BIRN’s questions sent via his Parisian lawyer Sevag Torossian.

The lawyer told BIRN that the corruption allegations against Dahlan which had been presented to the court amounted to “accounting issues”.

He said: “Concerning the charges and what we heard at the trial, any lawyer or even student in law would have the same question : what the hell does it have to do with “corruption” ?”

He added: “I do not get involved with politics but I do note that he [Dahlan] is the main political opponent and potential successor who is in Mr Abbas’s sights. This is his [Abbas’s] third attack [on Dahlan] which has only one objective: prevent the return of Dahlan to Palestine.”

Grant Rumley, a colleague of Schnazer‘s and an expert in Palestinian affairs, said BIRN’s revelations suggest Serbia may have provided a base for Dahlan from which he can launch his “quest to dethrone Abbas”.

“Abbas knows that Dahlan is his biggest rival, and biggest threat,” he told BIRN.

“That Dahlan would court a country such as Serbia is noteworthy because the Palestinians have had a long and close relationship with the Serbians, and Dahlan might be trying to sway a traditional Abbas ally to his side.

“Having Serbian citizenship has the advantage of giving Dahlan and his entourage another base of operations. The Middle East is turbulent and Dahlan may not always be in the good graces of the UAE, so having a haven in Europe for him and his colleagues strengthens his hand.

“In addition, it also makes it easier for Dahlan to meet with Western and Israeli officials in European capitals, as he has reportedly been doing.”

With Serbian passports, Dahlan and his coterie can take advantage of visa-free travel across the EU, bar the UK and Ireland. The Ministry of Interior refused to tell BIRN whether any of the new citizens had taken up passports.

Internationally-renowned journalist Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine in January about a recent, secret meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Dahlan in Paris.

Did Dahlan travel with his Serbian passport? We may never know, but the fact the question can be posed is remarkable in itself.

This article was produced as part of a programme titled “A Paper Trail to Better Governance”, with funding from the Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC) and implemented by BIRN. The content does not reflect views and opinions of ADC.

The post Serbia Quietly Grants Citizenship To Abbas Rival appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Gulgiz Dadashova*

European energy security is gaining a new guarantee as Turkmenistan is planning to join the new gas supply race with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Turkmen gas will be able to reach the European markets soon and the three countries have already agreed to make it a reality.

Top diplomats of Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan sat at the table on January 29 in Ashgabat to discuss the gas supply of Turkmenistan, the holder of world’s fourth largest natural gas reserves, to Europe.

The Ashgabat meeting of the three foreign ministers also saw an agreement to enhance cooperation on energy and transportation projects. “The parties agreed that it is necessary to hold a meeting between the transportation ministers and relevant agencies of the countries,” the joint statement added.

The EU aspirations to avoid the dependence on dominating Russian gas supplies and Turkey’s increasing rush to benefit its quite beneficial geo-position brought Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan in the topic of hot discussions.

Energy-rich Azerbaijan has already approved itself as a reliable partner in energy deals to the West, and as the country’s leader Ilham Aliyev said in one of his recent interviews Azerbaijan could be “a reliable source of gas for European customers for at least 100 years”.

The rapidly developing gas movements also actualized the rivalry between the Trans-Anatolia Pipeline project, which is in the process of realization, and a new-initiative Turkish Stream.

However, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu dismissed “bad expectations”, saying TANAP is an indispensable project for Turkey that will be completed within three years.

“Both Turkey and Azerbaijan want Turkmenistan to be included in TANAP,” Cavusoglu further added, underlining the need for diversification of energy resources and energy security, Anadolu Agency reports.

For now, the idea of bringing the Turkmen gas to Europe could be realized only through TANAP, a Turkey-Azerbaijan project aimed to bring the Shah-Deniz gas to Europe via joining the Trans Adriatic Pipeline.

The initial volume of Azerbaijani gas that will be flowing through TANAP will be 16 billion cubic meters annually in 2018. The capacity will increase to 23 billion cubic meters by 2023 and it is anticipated to be 31 billion cubic meters by 2026. The Turkmen gas will fill the necessary gap.

Europe has been eager to access the Turkmen gas for a long time. The West has been pushing hard to break the dominance of Russian natural gas and have been trying to sanction Russia over its actions in Ukraine.

Turkmenistan along with Kazakhstan considers delivering its huge natural gas reserves to the West via the Trans-Caspian pipeline project, a proposed project which would run under the Caspian Sea to reach Azerbaijan, then Georgia, and finally connect with TANAP.
The Trans-Caspian pipeline project is not a new idea, but the Caspian countries have yet to reach a resolution on the issue at a time when Russia is opposing any undersea project.

Still, the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan state that the route for a pipeline project under the Caspian could be agreed by Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan without consent of the other littoral states.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly expressed readiness to establish transit facilities and infrastructure to realize the project.

What is clear today is that the Turkmen gas flowing through TANAP will be a favor for Turkey, which also advocates the Russia-backed Turkish Stream. Turkey surely seeks to take the advantage of its strategic location, as the countries located on the east side of Turkey possess 65 percent of the world’s entire energy resources while the West consumes 65 percent of the world’s total consumption.

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

The post Rivalry For European Gas Market Gaining New Speed – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United Kingdom (UK) is considered to be one of the planet’s pre-eminent constitutional monarchies. It’s not without its problems but its longevity & stability are based on the absolute split between the elected persons who make the laws and the head of state, the monarch, who acts as the functionary to sign them onto the statute book.

This relatively simple arrangement is neatly summed up on the official website of the British monarchy in that – “The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch.”

It’s a very clear premise. The ability to pass legislation in a functioning constitutional monarchy doesn’t reside with the army, royally appointed senators or a vast network of palace associates in unpopular political parties but with an elected Parliament.

And, of course, a functioning constitutional monarchy does not have to enforce itself via the terror of appallingly draconian censorship laws or hate campaigns that refer to critics of the monarchy as “human garbage” and whose supporters routinely call for murder and torture of said critics.

Another way or understanding a constitutional monarchy is as a “crowned republic”. This term first gained currency during the debate in the 1990s on whether Australia should renounce the British monarch as head of state and become a full republic.

What was noted by the committee looking into the constitutional changes Australia would need to make to become a republic was how little would actually need to change.

“Australia is already a state in which sovereignty derives from its people, and in which all public offices, except that at the very top of the system, are filled by persons deriving authority, directly or indirectly, from the people. The only element of the Australian system of government which is not consistent with a republican form of government is the monarchy.”

Needless to say in Thailand things are very far from being the accepted international understanding of a “constitutional monarchy”.

The most obvious factors that undermine “constitutionality” are the roles of the Army – who exercise power beyond any constitutional or legal norm or framework, acting as a “deep state” whose only sovereignty is gained from their ability to organise violence, hence their numerous coups – and that of what British academic Duncan McCargo described as the “network monarchy”.

According to McCargo the “network monarchy” can be understood as “a form of semi-monarchical rule” led by “the Thai King and his allies” which is “inherently illiberal, because it advocates reliance on ‘good men’, and the marginalization of formal political institutions or procedures.“ Moreover it involves “active interventions in the political process by the Thai King and his proxies”.

So what prevents an active participation of Thais in a discussion about how the actions of the network monarchy or the extra-legal and coup-happy Army have disrupted their democracy? Thailand‘s draconian and appalling lese majeste law.

As anyone interested in Thailand will tell you “lese majeste” is the “crime” of making statements “against the monarch”. It is listed as law number 112 in Thailand’s Criminal Code and states, “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years”.

Unlike other Thai laws anyone can instigate an investigation into a breach of the lese majeste law and with such draconian punishments attached to it and vague, irrational and cruel interpretations of it applied by the Thai courts, it has become the “legal” terror weapon of choice of both the contemporary form of the network monarchy and the present Thai military junta.

People, such as Thai journalist Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, have received lengthy prison sentences even for publishing allegorical and metaphorical references to the monarchy whilst an elderly man, Ampon Tangnoppakul, was given a 20year jail term for sending sms messages critical of the monarchy to a member of Thailand’s Democrat Party with even the presiding judge admitting that Mr Tangnoppakul’s guilt was not fully proven.

Mr Tangnoppakul later died in prison in the most terrible and tragic circumstances.

More recently the coup regime of General Prayuth has sought to extend the terror of lese majeste further, with critics and academics being forced into exile and multiple arrests being made under the auspices of this law. The most extreme case has involved the arrest and imprisonment of two young members of a theatrical troupe who were involved in the performance of a play entitled “The Wolf Bride” which was deemed to have uttered metaphors and allegories that were insulting to the monarchy.

These two young people were then forced under duress to “confess” to their crime and are now awaiting sentencing – it should be pointed that those who refuse to “confess” to lese majeste are refused bail and kept for years in the filthy overcrowded conditions of Bangkok’s remand prison.

In conclusion what is clear is that Thailand is now a military dictatorship. One of the clearest indications that Thailand remains beyond internationally accepted norms of “constitutionality” is the continuation of the lese majeste law and its application as a form of terror in the Thai body politic.

Whilst 112 remains Thailand will always remain less that it could be.

The post Thailand: The Unconstitutional Monarchy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The European Commission has offered Sri Lanka assistance in meeting the regulatory requirements that would enable an early lifting of the ban on fish exports to the European Union.

The European Commission has assured to help Sri Lanka meet the EU requirements when Minister of External Affairs Mangala Samaraweera met with the officials of the European Commission in Brussels.

Minister Samaraweera Thursday concluded a two-day official visit to Brussels where he held talks with the European Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, Mr. Karmenu Vella, and the European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Mr. Neven Mimica.

He also met with the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Didier Reynders and members of the European Parliament.

Discussions focused on strengthening Sri Lanka’s relations with the European Union and Belgium, the steps Sri Lanka has taken and will take to comply with international fishing regulations and the process of requalifying for GSP+ tariff concessions, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

The European Commission October 2014 proposed to ban imports of fisheries products from Sri Lanka, the second biggest exporter to the bloc, due to Sri Lanka’s failure to demonstrate that it sufficiently addressed illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The ban went into effect from 14 January 2015.

Sri Lanka is the second biggest exporter of fresh and chilled swordfish and tuna to the EU with Euro 74 million of imports in 2013.

During the meeting with the Sri Lankan External Affairs Minister, the European Commission has offered Sri Lanka assistance in meeting with the requirements for lifting the ban.

“During the fruitful meetings the European Commission offered Sri Lanka assistance in meeting the regulatory requirements that would enable an early lifting of the ban on fish exports to the EU and displayed strong interest in expanding socio-economic ties and development programs,” the Foreign Ministry said.

Minister Samaraweera was accompanied by Secretary to the Ministry of Fisheries, Mr. Nimal Hettiarachchi, and former Ambassador to the EU, Mr. P.M. Amza.

The post Sri Lanka: EC Could Help To Lift EU Ban On Fishing Exports appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Louisa Reynolds

On Jan. 31, 1980 a peasant organization, the Committee for Campesino Unity (CUC) together with a group of students from the Robin García Student Front (FERG) occupied the Spanish embassy. Long before the advent of social media and with news corporations heavily censored by Romeo Lucas García’s military regime (1978-82), occupying embassies was a desperate strategy often used by guerrilla organizations to draw the world’s attention to the massacres perpetrated by the Guatemalan army in the highlands.

Shortly after they entered the building, residents of Guatemala City’s zone 9 district, where the Spanish embassy was located, saw a thick cloud of smoke coming out of the building and heard the screams of agony of those trapped inside. As they watched the scene in horror, police officers cordoned off the building and prevented firemen from entering the premises.

They were following strict orders from their superiors: no one should be allowed to leave. No one should be spared. Those orders were given by dictator Lucas García who died whilst in exile in Venezuela in 2006; Interior Minister Donaldo Álvarez Ruíz (currently sought by Interpol); the head of the National Police, colonel Germán Chupina, who turned himself in to the police in 2006 and died in hospital in 2008; and former special investigations chief, Pedro García Arredondo,

Thirty seven people died in the fire, among them peasant leaders such as Vicente Menchú, Spanish consul Jaime Ruiz and former vice president Eduardo Cáceres. Only two people survived: a peasant, Gregorio Yujá Xona, and Spanish ambassador, Máximo Cajal. Yujá was kidnapped from hospital the day after the fire and his body was dumped on the campus of the University of San Carlos with a note threatening Cajal with the same fate. The ambassador narrowly escaped death after he sought refuge in the US embassy and was smuggled out of the country.

Burnt alive with a flame thrower

Thirty five years later, García Arredondo walked into a courtroom in Guatemala City, the First High Risk Tribunal B, handcuffed. He faced charges of homicide and crimes against humanity.

Nobel Peace laureate Rigoberta Menchú, daughter of peasant leader Vicente Menchú, watched the proceedings from the front row. In 1999, she launched a lawsuit against García Arredondo and all of those responsible for the murders but the wheels of the justice system have moved sluggishly and it wasn’t until Oct. 1, 2014 that she came face to face with one of the men who ordered her father and 36 other innocent civilians to be burnt alive with a flame thrower.

For years, the military establishment denied responsibility for the murders and insisted that peasant leaders had immolated themselves using hand grenades. However, during the course of the trial, photographs, videos and eyewitness testimonies proved that García Arredondo’s assistant had burst into the embassy with a flamethrower. Forensic evidence also showed that the victims’ bodies were charred from the knees upwards but that their feet had remained intact, proving that they couldn’t have been killed as a result of hand grenades exploding on the ground.

One of the firemen who attended the emergency calls made by bystanders told the court that when he arrived at the scene, the police forcibly prevented him from entering the building.

The court also heard Cajal’s testimony, recorded in Spain in 2012, in which he likened the assault on the embassy to a “horror movie” and stated that the police busted through the roof and broke the door down, armed with guns and axes.

The water that would quench the flames

On Jan. 19 this year, Judge Jeannette Valdez began the sentencing hearing with a metaphor: a fire had been blazing since Jan. 31, 1980 and the sentence would be the water that would quench those flames.

As protesters outside chanted “Murderer! Murderer!,” Valdez read the sentence: García Arredondo will serve 90 years in prison although it is likely that he will only have to serve 30 years because thtat was the maximum possible sentence at the time of the assault on the embassy.

“I have fulfilled my duty towards my loved ones,” Menchú told Guatemalan reporter Rodrigo Veliz after the sentence was read. “We are exhausted after all the hearings. It’s been very hard but we’re happy. This shows that we should resort to justice and work towards achieving it. The length of the sentence is not what’s most important to us; for us what’s importance is that the truth came to light.”

In a separate trial in 2012, García Arredondo was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for the 1981 disappearance and torture of university student Edgar Sáenz Calito.

Throughout the proceedings, the former special investigations chief sat alone with no relatives or friends to offer support, unlike former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt (1982-83) who was accompanied by a large entourage of family members, attorneys and army sympathizers throughout the entire trial that sentenced him for genocide in 2013.

Referring to the way in which the verdict against Ríos Montt, who was acused of genocide against the Mayan Ixil people, was overturned in May 2013 as a result of intense pressure from President Otto Pérez Molina — a retired army general — and Guatemala’s wealthy business elite, Salvadoran journalist Rodrigo Baires tweeted: “When Arredondo stood trial, I didn’t see the private sector react, I didn’t see paid adverts in the newspapers and I didn’t hear government officials ranting. A pawn is still a pawn.”

The post Guatemala: Former Police Chief Sentenced For Assault On Spanish Embassy appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Patrick Litanga*

Apparently inspired by last year’s massive protests in Burkina Faso that ended the regime of President Blaise Compaore who wanted to extend his rule, Congolese citizens last week poured out into the streets to oppose perceived attempts by President Kabila to hold onto power. The people won. But will Kabila still pursue his ambition?

The Congolese political saga resembles an alcohol-laden early morning bar brawl in which one is forced to punch through or duck for cover. In the last week Congolese people, fed up with the government attempt to modify the electoral law descended on the streets in Kinshasa and other parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Cars were burnt or overturned, buses were stoned, and tires were lit in public squares while protestors, armed with sticks and stones, defiantly chanted “Kabila degage! Kabila Degage! (Kabila get out! Kabila get out!). These violent protests originated in Kinshasa and spread to other parts of the Congo between January 19 and 22, 2015. According to to the official account, four Congolese were killed as an outcome of violent protests. Unofficial accounts have reported over 28 deaths, with many more people missing and hundreds arrested. One easily sides with the unofficial accounts because often the Congolese government has misrepresented facts to minimize their probable social and political implications. Perhaps you wish to know why Congolese descended on the streets, stoning, overturning and burning cars while chanting, “Kabila gets out!” and risking their lives in the process.

ELECTORAL SLIDING?

The immediate event that triggered the violent protests in Kinshasa and other parts of the Congo was an attempt by the Congolese political majority to modify the electoral law and cunningly prolong Joseph Kabila’s presidency. In the Congolese political jargon this type of maneuver is called “glissement electoral” (electoral sliding). Electoral sliding is an instance where administrative inadequacies and political calculations delay the electoral calendar for few months or years. The current constitution does not allow Kabila to run again for the highest office in the country, everybody knows that. He is serving his second term. As of now Kabila’s best option to stay in power is through delay of the presidential elections, or electoral sliding. If Kabila stubbornly clings to power there is a great chance that the Congo might descend into chaos. The violent protests of last week indicate what might happen if Kabila and his political clique hold onto power. For Kabila to stay in power beyond 2016 it would require the old game overused by African political dinosaurs: changing the constitution or suspend it altogether. We have heard that tune quite often in African politics: Omar Bongo (Gabon), Sassaou Nguesso Republic of Congo), Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) and many others have overstayed their presidencies by re-moulding the constitution to their political liking.

Unfortunately for Kabila the constitution is clear about the presidential term limit, and the successful protests that toppled Blaise Compaore in Burkina Faso provides a cautionary tale. What drove Congolese to the streets was the realization that Kabila’s entourage was seeking to manipulate the electoral law so as to extend their political horizon. In order to fully understand where Congolese indignation against a potential modification of the electoral law came from, one needs to examine the origin of the bill proposing the modification of the electoral law. As early as 2012, barely a year after Kabila’s contested reelection, Congolese political observers, media, and academics began examining potential strategies that Kabila could consider for a third term presidential run. The key hindrance for such possibility was the Article 220 of the Congolese constitution. That article places the limit for the presidency at two terms, five years per term. Seizing the opportunity, Kabila’s proponents, also known as Kabilistes in the Congolese political parlance, went to task. They devised strategies to open the Pandora’s box of constitutional revision.

Kabilistes’ essential argument stipulated that, as a living document, the constitution was susceptible to modification, reflecting the changing Congolese political and legal reality. In other words Kabila’s strategists argued that it was not unconstitutional to propose a constitutional revision. While Kabila’s People Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD) and members of the political majority announced their overture for a potential constitutional revision, Dr. Evarist Boshab, one of Kabila’s diehard supporters and the current vice primer of the DRC went a step further and wrote a book, “Entre Revision de la Consititution et L’inanition de la Nation.” (Between the Constitutional Revision and the Nation’s Inanition). Boshab took it to the Congolese court of public opinion and vehemently argued that without a constitutional revision the DRC faced serious political inefficiencies.

While he was highly criticized by the political opposition, Boshab failed to articulate what conditions had substantially changed between 2011 and 2013 to cause the need for a constitutional revision. Although some of Boshab’s arguments could be substantiated, the question of presidential term limit, stated in Article 220 of the Constitution, was clear. Perhaps, the only defensible and imaginable argument that could override Article 220 could be a proven absence of alternative eligible presidential contenders in DRC. In other words, insisting that presidential terms be extended implies that the DRC faces a shortage of capable political leaders. Considered as an insult, Boshab’s attempt didn’t fly well in some Congolese intellectual circles, especial in the Congolese political opposition. They swiftly counter-argued that Boshab’s case was a strategy aimed at prolonging Kabila’s political horizon. Aware of what might happen Congolese politicians went on the offensive, examining and counter-arguing any proposal tangentially related to the proposed constitutional revision.

It is not a secret that Kabila has toyed with the idea of staying in power. In the hope of learning something from Blaise Compaoré’s political maneuvering, he dispatched his emissaries to Burkina Faso in October 2014 to witness how constitutional revision was “tactfully” conducted in order to stretch presidential limits. Of course, that did not go as well, we all know what happened to Blaise Compaoré. The Burkinabe people drove him out of the country from the back door. Incidentally, as the Burkina Farso saga was unfolding, Congolese were wondering whether they could learn something from the Burkinabe people. It appears that Kabila learned that a full constitutional revision was out of the question. And the Congolese people learned that they could put up a fight, if the political majority sought a constitutional revision to accommodate Kabila.

Thus, elected twice in 2006 and 2011, Kabila is not longer eligible to run for the highest office in the DRC. It is also pertinent to remember that Kabila has been leading the Congo since 2002, seeking a third term is conterminous with saying that no other Congolese is capable of leading the Congolese people. Realizing that the Congolese people have no stomach for a full-blown constitutional revision, the same Evarist Boshab wrote a bill proposing to modify the electoral law. As the parliament began debating the bill on January 19, Congolese took their voices to the street. At the heart of the debate about the bill proposing modifications of the electoral law stood the infamous Article 8. That article proposed that the presidential elections be conditioned by a general census and identification of Congolese living in the Congo and abroad as well as expatriates living in the Congolese territory. General elections are scheduled for the end of 2016 and the Congolese government is only now proposing to count its people and foreigners residing in the Congo. For the DRC, a gigantic and impoverished country with inadequate technical and administrative infrastructures, a general census could take years. Some have estimated between three to four years. That means that if such a law passed, the Kabila government would stay in power in order to ostensibly carry out the census.

Objecting to a potential third run by Joseph Kabila, Congolese descended on the streets, while political leaders debated the bill proposing modifications to the electoral law in the parliament. After three days of violent protest, the Congolese parliament passed a modified version of the proposed electoral law. The provision of the law stipulates a general census, and the identification of Congolese living abroad as well as expatriates living in the Congo was changed to the collection of available demographic data. At least now the electoral law does not subordinate the presidential elections to a monumental general census. The demographic data will be collected through voters registration. In this way the country will not have to spend invaluable time and resources in numbering Congolese who will not be voting by choice or by ineligibility. At least now the Congolese 2016 presidential elections are still in the realm of possibility. But I have a hunch that the debate is not over yet. Even though the venomous language of Article 8 in Boshab’s bill has been watered down, and some Congolese protesters have chanted victory songs, I believe the fight is not over yet. So long as Kabila doesn’t clearly explain whether he intends to seek reelection in the 2016, tensions will persist in the in the Congolese political landscape.

HIS ACCIDENCY

Observers of the African Great lakes region would certainly attest that exogenous forces rather than Kabila’s IQ and political shrewdness facilitated Kabila’s ascendance and maintenance in power. By any analysis Kabila is an accidental president. We remember too well how on January 18, 2002 the then thirty-year old Joseph Kabila was secretly sworn in as the new president of the DRC. Two days earlier his father, Laurent Désiré Kabila, the president of the DRC, had been brutally assassinated in his palace in Kinshasa, allegedly by Rachidi Kasereka, his personal bodyguard. It has been argued that the choice of Joseph Kabila to replace his father was a strategic move from Kabila’s entourage and other external interests. The DRC had been in a second civil war since August 1998 and the sudden death of Laurent Kabila created the risk of worsening the crisis, which by then had already claimed the deaths of approximately 2.5 millions Congolese, while millions of others were internally displaced or were seeking asylum in neighboring countries. I am willing to make the case that in 2002 a combination of external interests saw in the young Joseph Kabila a potential leader for the “stability” of the African Great Lakes region, not necessarily for the wellbeing of the Congolese people.

Unfortunately, once again the future of the Congolese people might depend more on exogenous forces than on endogenous ones. However, it appears this time that Congolese are willing to put up a fight. “Have we learned something from Burkina Faso?” some Congolese have asked. While certain opposition leaders such as Vital Kamerhe (from the Kivu and former collaborator of Joseph Kabila) have cautioned about the possibility that Congo might find itself in the vortex of a generalized conflict if it doesn’t learn from Burkina Faso. Some representatives of the political majority, such as Francis Kalombo, had made the case that the DRC was historically, politically and socially different from Burkina Faso to expect similar outcomes. It is true that the DRC and the Burkina Faso are different; still the desire to manipulate legal provisions in order to overstay in power is the same. And when people are fed up, they will take to the street.

I have often heard Congolese intellectuals claims that “we are not a subspecies of humans. We are fully capable of governing ourselves if they leave us the heck alone”. This statement represents a profound sense of frustration in the Congolese psyche, dating back to the time Leopold II owned and disposed of the Congo, its people and its riches as his private property. Since then the Congolese political reality has been heavily subjected to exogenous factors. Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba’s assassination, Mobutu Sese Seko serving the Cold War cause, Laurent Kabila acting like the show man for Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni, and now Joseph Kabila serving for the “stability” of the Great Lakes region at the expense of the Congolese people. It is pertinent to wonder if the next Congolese president will follow his/her (wishful thinking, the DRC is not ready for a female president yet) predecessors’ footsteps.

It is not impossible that Kabila stubbornly seeks a third term – I’d rather say a fourth term since Kabila has been leading the Congo for the last 13 years. But I believe there are strong indications that Kabila go on with this push: 1) He has no guts to openly trample Article 220 of the constitution, 2) he has failed to incite an “electoral sliding”, and 3) perhaps more importantly for Kabila, he his experiencing signs of political defections.

Kabila will not be able to mess with Article 220 of the Congolese constitution. Though often criticized for its lack of unity and backbone, the Congolese political opposition has done a colossal job of warning the Congolese people about the pertinence of Article 220. Political opposition leaders such as Victal Kamerhe have incessantly insisted that Article 220 is off limits in any conversation regarding constitutional revision. A president can only serve two terms, they have insisted.

“Electoral sliding” through a modification of the electoral law has forced radical resistance, as last week’s violent protests have shown. And more pertinently, important figures in Kabila’s political coalition are beginning to go against the grain. For instance there are credible rumors that the national deputy Francis Kalombo, a vocal supporter of Kabila and member of the political majority, has gone to exile in Europe, possibly France. Members of Kabila’s political party, the PPRD have been beaten and jailed for publicly speaking in support of the immutability of Article 220. And the most famous member of Kabila’s entourage, Moise Katumbi, a wealthy businessman, president of the legendary Congolese football team, Mazembe, and governor of Katanga, has publicly suggested distancing himself from Joseph Kabila.

AT THE CROSSROAD

In today’s Congolese politics Moise Katumbi is the most effective political leader. An accomplished businessman, Katumbi brought his managerial skills and experience to the region of Katanga. During his tenure roads have been paved, schools have been rehabilitated, the worn down Kasumbalesa border office, between Zambia and the Congo, has been transformed into an ultramodern administrative infrastructure for efficient processing of goods and people on the border. Based on his record Moise Katumbi would be a formidable presidential contender. Recently there had been allegations that Katumbi was poisoned; for three months or so he was abroad, supposedly undergoing medical treatment. When Katumbi returned home to his beloved Katanga in December 2014, speaking in public for the first time, he used a soccer analogy to describe his political positioning, or repositioning to be correct. Katumbi said that there had been two false penalties to which we did not react. Now they were seeking a third false penalty. “On this one we will react.” Most people, if not everybody, who follow Congolese politics interpreted Katumbi’s third penalty analogy as Kabila’s attempt to seek a third term, the two first false penalty being Kabila’s two terms, outcomes of controversial elections.

Another potential problem for Kabila is the conditional release of Jean-Pierre Bemba, the Congolese businessman turned rebel, senator, and vice-president on January 23, 2015. The International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Jean-Pierre Bemba under the allegation that his troops, while soldering for Ange Felix Patase in the Central African Republic, had committed criminal acts, including allegations of cannibalism. While traveling to Portugal Jean-Pierre Bemba was arrested and jailed at The Hague. He was held responsible for crimes committed by his troops in a foreign land. While criminal acts were committed by Jean-Pierre Bemba’s troupes in the Central African Republic, I have always suspected that that the ICC, in its infinite wisdom and majestic selectivity, indicted Bemba to give leverage room to Joseph Kabila. The evidence used to jail Bemba is circumstantial at best, when compared, for example, to the trail of evidence linking Paul Kagame to atrocities committed both in Rwanda and in eastern Congo. Yet the ICC hasn’t indicted Paul Kagame. For me the release of Jean-Pierre Bemba is an indication that exogenous forces are once again at the center of the DRC political future. Without sounding conspirational, it is worth to assk: Is Jean-Pierre Bemba being released now just in time for him to join the debate about the 2016 presidential elections?

The DRC may not be ready for a civilian and ultra-nationalistic president. Considering the level of militarization of the country, the recent history of armed conflicts and the interest in the general stability of the African Great Lakes region, I am willing to bet my money on a candidate who has a military background and has shown minimal nationalistic inclination. A candidate like Jean-Pierre Bemba would fit the bill. Even though Moise Katumbi has the class and a business-like mind, I wonder whether he can withstand military factions in order to consolidate power.

The Congo is at a pertinent crossroads of its history. Since its independence in 1960, there has never been a peaceful regime transition. Joseph Kabila has the opportunity to set the Congo on the right path. Most Congolese hope that Kabila pronounces himself on the question of the 2016 presidential race. Hence, for Kabila the question is to run or not to run for 2016. Certainly this question is critical for Kabila’s political entourage, especially considering that in the Congo politics is largely a zero-sum game. Once powerful political contenders have lost they risk losing political relevance and the lofty advantages that come with it. What would they do if they lose? Will they break down in armed factions and seek to re-conquer power by force? What happens in Congolese politics in the next two years may have profound implications for the Great Lakes region. The Congo is at a critical crossroads of its history.

* Patrick Litanga is a Congolese PhD student at American University in Washington DC.

The post Blood On The Streets: Understanding Popular Uprising In Congo – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In an interview on Telecinco, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy committed to “consolidating the recovery” so that within two years “there are a million more people in work” in Spain. Rajoy also expressed his conviction that “Greece will remain in the Euro” because “the government that has just been formed will meet its commitments”.

Rajoy said last Monday night in an interview on Tele 5, that his main concern and objective is “to consolidate the economic recovery and increase the number of new jobs created from 400,000 in 2014 to 600,000 in 2015, meaning that a total of one million more people will be in work over the final two years of the legislature, although we still have a lot more to do in the future”.

In this regard, Rajoy recalled that unemployment is the most important problem affecting Spain and that, between 2008 and 2011, 3.4 million jobs were shed in our country.

“After seven years of job destruction, last year over 400,000 jobs were created. Rest assured that this was one of the happiest days of my life”, Rajoy said. Despite this, Rajoy underlined that this figure is “clearly insufficient” and that we must push on with an economic policy that is leading to the results we need – albeit a complicated and difficult policy. “I am convinced that Spain will shortly recover the levels of well-being it enjoyed for so many years”, he added.

In his opinion, the government is developing an economic policy that not only produces results but that is also laying “sound bases” for the future. Rajoy recalled that in 2012, “Spain was the sick man of Europe, but that now we are growing more than Germany and we are the country creating most new jobs”. “This makes sense; it has been tough and difficult, but the good part now begins”, he claimed, after highlighting that these figures “help encourage us to keep working”.

“The Spanish people knew how to hold on and found a way to avoid a bailout which would have forced us to reduce pensions by 10% as happened in other countries”, he added. In his opinion, this was the best social policy decision that has been taken and demonstrates that in Spain there are many people who are both determined and courageous.

Greece will remain in the Euro

The Spanish Prime Minister also referred to the results of the elections in Greece.

In Rajoy’s opinion, this country “will remain in the Euro” and expressed his “absolute conviction” that the new Greek Government will meet the commitments made by Greece because, if it does not meet them and if every time there is a change of government in Europe we have to change everything, it would make it impossible for Europe to ever move forward.

According to Rajoy the economic crisis has led to the rise of radical parties but defended the argument that it has been the traditional parties that have made Europe great and which govern in those countries where there are the highest levels of well-being and wealth. “It is very easy to complain but very difficult to govern”, he said.

Elections in Andalusia

Regarding the early elections in the Spanish province of Andalusia, Rajoy argued that elections should be held every four years and that “elections should not be held incessantly”. In his opinion, these four years of government are necessary and early elections should only be called when a government is unable to approve the budget. For this reason, he highlighted that the holding of elections in March in Andalusia “makes no sense” although they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Rajoy said that the elections could have been held to coincide with the municipal and regional elections in May, because “we are starting down the road of economic recovery and hence generating factors of instability is hardly positive”.

The post Spain PM Rajoy Says ‘We Were The Sick Man Of Europe, But Are Now Country Creating Most Jobs’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mary Rezac

Disneyland is supposed to be the Happiest Place on Earth, not the place where you contract a highly contagious, once-eradicated disease.

Unfortunately, that is what happened at Disneyland in California, starting back in December. The measles virus, likely carried by a tourist from a foreign country, started a chain of infections that has now reached at least 87 people in seven states and Mexico. The outbreak has also resurfaced arguments surrounding the vaccination of children.

At least 73 of the reported cases are in California, a state with large pockets of people opposed to vaccination. Some places in southern California reach unvaccinated rates of double digits, sometimes tripling the state and national averages, which are around 3 and 5 percent respectively.

Dr. Paul Cieslak is a Catholic parent of six who has overseen the Acute and Communicable Disease Prevention section in the Public Health Division of the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) since 1995. He is also a member of the Catholic Medical Association, an organization committed to upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church while advancing the profession of medicine.

According to Dr. Cieslak, opposition to vaccines largely comes from misinformation regarding side effects.

“It is true that occasionally you can get a nasty side effect from a vaccine, as from any medicine,” he told CNA. “That said, the vaccines are very safe, tens or hundreds of millions of doses of this thing have been given with very little problem.”

Others who oppose vaccines fall into the category of religious or conscientious objectors. Many who oppose vaccines on religious grounds do so because the cell lines of some vaccines were developed from cells of aborted fetuses.

Dr. Marie T. Hilliard is a canon lawyer and the Director of Bioethics and Public Policy at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), a non-profit research and educational institute committed to applying the moral teachings of the Catholic Church to ethical issues arising in health care and the life sciences.

The NCBC, along with the Pontifical Academy for Life — a Vatican body established to provide information about issues in law and biomedicine — have studied the moral issues surrounding vaccines and have determined that it is morally licit, and even morally responsible, for Catholics to use even those vaccines developed from aborted fetus cells.

“There’s a whole formula for examining these dilemmas in terms of what we call cooperation in evil, and there are certain things that are always wrong, and there are certain things that are tolerable,” Dr. Hilliard told CNA.

The Pontifical Academy for Life determined that the good of public health outweighs the distanced cooperation in the evil of the abortions performed in the 1960s from which the cell lines were developed. No new abortions have been performed to maintain these vaccines, and no cells from the victims of the abortions are contained in the vaccines.

Currently the vaccine lines for rubella, chicken pox, and hepatitis A are the remaining vaccines that have been developed from aborted fetal cells and for which there is no alternative available.

“One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion,” reads a document from the NCBC based on the findings from the Pontifical Academy for Life. “The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.”

Those particularly susceptible to disease who can benefit from “herd immunity” (when the majority of a population is vaccinated) include children too young to be fully vaccinated, pregnant women, and those with suppressed immunity such as cancer patients.

The document goes on to say that Catholics should express their opposition to vaccines developed from aborted cells, and that there is an obligation to use alternative vaccines, should they exist.

Dr. Cieslak said he has vaccinated his children and encourages his patients to do so as well.

“As a parent, I don’t want my kids to get sick, I want them to feel confident when they go into school or crowds or other settings that they don’t have to fear whatever disease,” he said. “As a doctor and especially as a public health guy, I like to see the disease rates go down, I like to see the population healthier, I like to see less money being spent on treating diseases that are preventable.”

Still, Dr. Cieslak believes that people should be allowed the freedom to refuse vaccines if they yet cannot reconcile them with their consciences.

“I think we are not cooperating in the evil of abortion by vaccinating our kids because we had nothing to do with the original abortions, that’s a done deed,” he said. “But still I know parental consciences are bothered by this and I think some rightfully so, and so I think we need to respect that.”

Barbara Loe Fischer, Co-Founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Center, believes all parents should have the right to informed consent and should be allowed to determine which vaccines, if any, are right for their children.

“Informed consent means that you have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and the risks of medical intervention, and be able to exercise voluntary decision making, you’re able to make a voluntary decision without being coerced or harassed or punished for the decision you make,” Fisher told CNA.

“It’s an ethical principal, it’s a human right, and that means it should apply to vaccines as well.”

Fischer said she is concerned about the “blame and shame” being poured out on the unvaccinated in the wake of the recent measles outbreak, and encourages parents to read the product manufacturer inserts of vaccines as well as medical literature and information available on sites such as the CDC’s website.

“I think that when people are judging the quality of information, they only need to look at it and see are the statements backed up?” she said. “And if they’re backed up with good resources, then they can take that more seriously.”

While the new measles cases are cause for concern, the outbreak isn’t nearly as bad as it could be, and that is thanks to vaccinations, Dr. Cieslak said.

“The fact that it doesn’t spread to everybody is a testimony to the fact that most of them are immune, and most of them got that way through vaccinations,” he said. “And when we have seen transmission of multiple cases, it’s been largely among unvaccinated people.”

“As a Catholic I would argue that it’s a socially conscious thing to do,” Dr. Cieslak said. “It’s not only good for you, it’s good for your fellow man.”

Frequently asked questions about vaccines from a moral standpoint can be found on the National Catholic Bioethic’s Center website at: http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1284

The Pontifical Academy for Life’s statement on vaccines can be found here.

The post Disneyland, Measles And Catholic Teaching Regarding Vaccines appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An estimated 6 million people are living with HIV in Asia and the Pacific and only 33 percent of them are receiving treatment, often due to legal and policy barriers in accessing HIV services.

Against this backdrop, some 30 countries from the region pledged this week to accelerate the pace of change and committed to ending the AIDS epidemic in the region by 2030 during the Asia-Pacific Intergovernmental Meeting on HIV and AIDS.

Organized by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in cooperation with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and other United Nations entities, the three-day meeting in Bangkok reviewed progress toward implementing transformative reforms on HIV prevention, treatment, care and support agreed to by national governments in 2012.

Government delegates and civil society organizations reviewed measures to enhance financial sustainability and effectiveness of the region’s HIV response and to strengthen regional cooperation. They focused in particular on addressing legal and policy barriers to accessing services for key populations at higher risk of HIV and persons living with HIV, which include discrimination in employment, health care, education, travel and insurance.

Opening the meeting United Nations Under-Secretary-General and ESCAP Executive Secretary, Dr. Shamshad Akhtar said: “We must promote laws, policies and practices that are evidence-based and firmly grounded in human rights. We must continue to identify and remove legal and policy barriers to universal access to HIV services.”

“I believe that Asia and the Pacific can, if effectively mobilized, be a pathbreaker in meeting the commitment to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.”

The new regional framework of cooperation for ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 seeks to fast-track the HIV response with specific actions.

Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of UNAIDS said: “Asia and the Pacific is moving the world forward into new frontiers of development. You have all the right tools in your hands, beginning with political commitment. I challenge you to be the first region to end the AIDS epidemic.”

The President of Fiji and chair of the intergovernmental meeting, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau highlighted: “In the Pacific, a more robust human rights-based approach to HIV and sexual and reproductive health and rights is urgently required. In the 21st century countries must adopt legislation that recognizes sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The AIDS response in Asia and the Pacific has witnessed some of the world’s greatest successes. Nevertheless, the course of the HIV epidemic in the ESCAP region shows that current efforts need to be refocused to ensure that all countries are able to meet the commitments made at regional and global levels.

Responding to these commitments, the regional framework for action on HIV and AIDS beyond 2015 endorsed today builds upon the ESCAP roadmap endorsed in 2012 and seeks national reviews and consultations on barriers to accessing HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.

The framework includes a move towards sustainable financing of AIDS response and ensuring affordable access to life-saving medicine and diagnostics. By September, governments will decide on a new set of sustainable development goals (SDGS) for the period after 2015, as the Millennium Development Goals come to an end. The regional framework will provide important input to the global review of progress and help shape the future of the HIV response worldwide post 2015.

“Let us remember that the true test of a humane and inclusive society is marked by its commitment to protecting the most vulnerable,” said Nicholas Rosellini, Director of the UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub.

“As we move towards the Post-2015 Development era, let us reaffirm our common commitment to Leaving No One Behind.”

The post Asia-Pacific Countries Commit To Ending AIDS By 2030 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By K. P. Fabian

On January 25, the Greek electorate gave a verdict that has raised questions about the survival of the Euro, and even of the European Union (EU). The Greeks voted for a leftist party (Syriza), led by Alexis Tsipras. An acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left, Syriza contested elections first in 2004 and gained only 3.3 per cent of votes. In contrast, in the recent elections, it gained 36 per cent of the vote, capturing 149 seats in the 300-strong parliament. Tsipras has taken over as Prime Minister with the support of a right wing party, the Independent Greeks, which is virulently opposed to the European Union. Syriza and the Independent Greeks have nothing much in common except for their hostility to EU and its harsh treatment of Greece – imposing austerity as the price for the ‘bail out’ in 2010.

The rise of Tsipras is a clear defeat for German Chancellor Angela Merkel who did not promptly send the customary congratulatory message to him. The Chancellor’s office issued a statement sternly reminding Greece that it had to abide by the commitments of the previous Samaris government, commitments which led to the latter’s humiliating defeat. In other words, the message from Berlin is that despite the verdict of the people of Greece the new government is bound to follow the policy of the defeated government.

It is necessary to examine the wisdom of the austerity policy advocated by Germany and, because of Germany, by the EU. The basic approach was that Greece has sinned by living beyond its means and by borrowing beyond its capacity to repay; and, therefore, it should be punished. The Greek government should cut expenditure, sack employees, reduce pensions, and reduce allocations to schools and hospitals. The bailout of $ 270 billion was given by a troika of EU, ECB (European Central Bank) and IMF. The troika thought that they were physicians treating a patient who should have no say in the prescription. It had confidently calculated that the patient will respond to the stiff medication and start recovery by 2012, when the budget would be balanced if interest payments are excluded. Instead, the budget got balanced only by 2014. The prognosis was that unemployment will go up from 9.4 per cent in 2010 to 15 per cent in 2012 and then come down. As a matter of fact, unemployment shot up to 28 per cent by 2014.

What the pundits ignored, only because they wanted to ignore, was the plight of the people who lost all hope. Live births declined by 20,000 during the first three years of austerity. Miscarriages doubled. Married women rushed to brothels but were rejected because legal brothels cannot employ married women; as a result, many took to the streets. Some women doctors doubled up as escorts. 20,000 lost their homes and for them and many others the soup kitchens run by the church and others prevented death by hunger. The policy makers in Brussels, Berlin, and Washington knew all this, but they couldn’t care less. What mattered was balancing of books irrespective of the human cost, and there was no need to change the medication.

Tsipras as candidate had said that if he comes to power he would default on debts. Naturally, as Prime Minister, he has to be more responsible. He has categorically denied any intention to default, but has demanded “a just, viable, mutually beneficial solution.” He has promised to his people a series of measures to reverse the austerity policy. 300,000 new jobs would be created, especially for the young among who half are jobless. The minimum monthly wage would be raised from Euro 580 to 700. Those below the poverty line would get free 300 kWh of electricity and food subsidies.

Would Prime Minister Tsipras be able to deliver on these promises? Where will he find the money? What will be the response of the troika? There are signs that the troika’s solidarity is weakening despite tough statements from Germany. While Merkel was tardy in greeting Tsipras, the French President has invited him to Paris. As a matter of fact, not all in the Eurozone shared Germany’s advocacy of austerity. But, since Germany provides a huge share of the money, the others maintained a respectful silence. Italy and Spain are inclined to be less tough with Greece. Germany can count on support from the Netherlands and Finland, at least for a while.

If Germany does not budge, Greece might default and walk out of the Euro. Pundits in Germany and elsewhere have argued that such a walk out is a desirable outcome. With Greece out, the Eurozone can look forward to good health since the former accounts for only two per cent of the EU. But, sadly, the pundits are going to be proved wrong once again. If Greece defaults and walks out, the EU will be in crisis. Speculators will go for Spain and the EU will not be able to find the money to bail out a large economy such as that of Spain. Moreover, the Spanish government might not agree to austerity. And if it agrees, it will lose the election due in December 2015.

The implications of Germany’s policy failure need careful study. The first ambassador to call on the Greek Prime Minister was the Russian. Tsipras had recently gone to Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. EU solidarity against Russia over Ukraine will be dented. Hungary is not abiding by the sanctions imposed by the EU. Greece will speak out against the policy of sanctions.

Merkel’s worry is that if Tsipras has his way and discards austerity with the concurrence of the troika, in the December 2015 election in Spain, Podemos, a Spanish version of Syriza, will seize power. But the question is whether Germany can persist with a flawed policy?

In conclusion, the EU can survive the lightning stroke from Greece if it responds with reason and prudence. But the answer to the question whether it will survive, is not that clear. There is a chance that Germany, with its mind set of punishing those who live beyond their means, might persist with the flawed policy. Incidentally, there might be a demand from Greece for repayment of a loan that Nazi Germany took from its client government in Greece way back during the Second World War. That loan works out to $11 billion in current terms. Germany has to act with prudence. One of the banners after the declaration of the Greek election results read: Das ist eine wirkliche gute nacht, Frau Merkel (This is a good night to you, Mme Merkel). Tsipras will be attending a EU summit in February. He will be the only one without a tie. Greece has asked for an international conference on its debt, recalling that a similar conference held in London in 1953 wrote off half of Germany’s debt. In the duel between Tsipras and Merkel, the younger leader has a better chance to win.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheLightningfromGreeceStrikesGermany_kpfabian_300115.html

The post The Lightning From Greece Strikes Germany – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Montesano

In impeaching a prime minister who left office more than eight months earlier, Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) may have made legal history.

But this curious exercise was not so much about Ms Yingluck Shinawatra’s impeachment for running a botched rice subsidy programme as it was about stripping her of her political rights for five years.

With their verdict, the soldiers and civilians, whom the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) junta appointed to the NLA, have sidelined a woman who emerged during her premiership of almost three years as a popular and rather effective politician in her own right.

Against all expectations, that is, she became more than a mere proxy for her older brother Thaksin. This may explain the NCPO’s determination to ban her from politics. It may also explain the further criminal charges, also relating to her government’s rice policies, now pending against Ms Yingluck.

Conviction on these charges could see her sent to prison for a decade. Thailand is under authoritarian rule, and authoritarian regimes make a habit of neutralising their opponents by means of specious legal processes.

Some observers have begun to speculate about the future of Ms Yingluck’s Puea Thai party, and the impact of its leader being banned from politics, on the party’s prospects in the elections that may occur next year.

Others see the NCPO’s persecution of Ms Yingluck as its way of throwing a bone to those segments of Thai society who have for years felt blinding and visceral hatred for the Shinawatras.

The naked praetorianism of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o- cha’s government, we must bear in mind, has meant that many among Thaksin’s long-time civilian opponents find themselves denied political influence today. Punishing Ms Yingluck may leave them feeling less alienated for a while.

But focusing on these matters is to miss the point. It is by no means sure that the Thai political order the NCPO has set out to build – above all, by means of the Constitution whose drafting is now under way – will allow for the existence of large political parties like Puea Thai.

Neither is it clear what role such parties will be able to play, even if they do reappear. A powerful and perhaps unelected Senate, and strong extra-parliamentary bodies under military, judicial and bureaucratic control, may well turn the elected Lower House of Thailand’s Parliament into nothing but a debating society.

Little could more effectively discredit Thailand’s civilian political class than the spectacle of its members devoting their energies to participation in an irrelevant talking shop.

And this should be clear: The goal of the NCPO is nothing less than rendering that political class both impotent and discredited. The objective of the restructuring of Thai politics, which the junta and those civilians who now serve it have embarked on, has all along been much broader than just the elimination of the Shinawatras’ influence over Thailand’s politics and economy.

It is largely for this reason that the junta has marginalised the mass movement that sought to drive Ms Yingluck from power in late 2013 and early last year.

General Prayut and his fellow soldiers have no interest in “reform” that will result in the political ascendancy of members of Bangkok’s newly politicised, Democrat Party-leaning, “yellow shirt” middle classes. Rather, the junta’s vision is fundamentally one that is centred on depoliticising Thailand.

It is in this context that we must understand the NLA verdict against Ms Yingluck on Friday last week. The courage with which the former prime minister has confronted her antagonists notwithstanding, this verdict represents one more milestone on the road towards sustained authoritarian rule that the NCPO has mapped out for Thailand. Continued deliberations on Thailand’s next Constitution and the junta’s subsequent efforts to shape the environment in which Thais will next go to the polls will see the country pass more such milestones.

What remains to be seen is whether, as it pursues its dispiriting agenda, the junta will begin to encounter significant bumps in the road or whether it will realise that agenda as smoothly as its appointees have driven Ms Yingluck from politics.

The post Thailand: Junta’s Agenda Clearer After Yingluck Verdict – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aziz Amin Ahmadzai*

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia inhabits an extraordinary place and reputation within the Muslim world because the KSA is home to Islam’s most holy sites. Additionally, the Kingdom is considered a leader in the pursuit of Islamic solidarity across the globe.

The Kingdom has played significant role in the Muslim world and in regional politics and enjoys great influence over many countries, mostly Muslim. For many, the Kingdom is considered to be the most powerful and dominant nation in the Muslim world due to its historical sacredness for Muslims and it is undoubtedly the most powerful, most rich and economically stable Muslim State in the world.

Pilgrims at the Masjid al-Haram, Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Source Al-Haram mosque, Wikipedia Commons.

Nevertheless, the Kingdom’s dedicated interest and involvement in both regional and international politics is not veiled due to its involvement in resolving different conflicts. Despite having great influence over regional and world politics it has utterly failed to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Muslim people under the reign of the late King Abdullah. The Kingdom has also failed to preserve and maintain the glory it once enjoyed worldwide, in particular among Muslims.

Saudi Arabia’s Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah. File photo.

Unfortunately the Saudi regime under the late King Abdullah utterly botched reaching a regional consensus with respect to bringing regional stability and security. It did not play the role it should have in the Middle East crises, as well as in crises in other Muslim States, particularly Afghanistan.

In the crisis of Egypt, Saudi Arabia played a dubious role that hurt the entire pro­-democracy movement by tacitly supporting a dictator that purged an elected government in that country. Former President Mohammad Morsi — from the Muslim Brotherhood Party — overwhelmingly won an election and put an end to Hosni Mubarak’s rule, after almost 30 years, until he was removed in the mass demonstrations in 2011.

Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. File photo.

Saudi support for the Army Chief Al­-Sisi, to initiate a coup in Egypt, took the lives of thousands of pro­-democracy Egyptians and in the process democracy was derailed once again when a threat to the Saudi Monarchy was perceived due to the popularity of Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab region.

In the Syrian crisis, Saudi Arabia jumped in to play its own version of hardline Salafi factions against President Assad — who was also democratically elected. Additionally, the Saudi’s could not tolerate Qatar and Turkey playing a leading role in the eyes of the Sunni Muslim world and thus roiled political waters in a cold war bid with both Turkey and Qatar, which resulted in more chaos and division among the rebels groups who are fighting against President Assad, and which has given succor to ISIS, a supremely violent group born out of US operations in Iraq.

The Kingdom’s role in the conflict of Palestine was not up to the expectations of the Palestinians and others from around the world. Saudi Arabia could play a significant role in bridging gaps between the PLO and Hamas, but instead it has supported one fraction and denounced another, which has resulted in more suffering for the Palestinian people. The recent bloodshed by Israel in Gaza could have easily been stopped if the Kingdom had used its leverage of influence on regional politics …  but it utterly failed to do so.

Yemen

The Kingdom also failed to succeed in a political settlement among factions and secure its neighboring country, Yemen.

Today, Yemen emerges as a weak and fragmented State afflicted with civil war right at the border of an expansive Kingdom located in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula. The Kingdom’s policy towards Yemen has contributed, for decades, to weakening the tribal country with an ubiquitous arms culture. Moreover, the Kingdom’s cold war with Iran has resulted not only in a civil war, but the American-backed government of Yemen has unexpectedly collapsed and Houthies, who are openly financed and backed by Iran, control the capital. It is crystal clear that the presence of instability in Yemen exacerbates the Kingdom’s fears that it may export the crisis into the country as Saudi security is directly linked to its neighbor. If the Saudis had played their cards wisely and in the interest of Yeminis, today we would not witness a fragmented and divided Yemen due to the civil war.

Instability in Iraq was another failure of the Kingdom, as Saudi Arabia could not convince the US and its allies to form a consensus government that  would not undermine the rights of anyone. Rather, Saudi Arabia became involved with Iran in a cold war to fuel tensions due to their arch rivalry and thus opened a new window for the insurgents, which we see today have jeopardized the security of not only Iraqb but almost entire region, ie: ISIS.

Bahrain

The Saudi regime has also been instrumental in quelling pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, by supplying the Kingdom with arms to suppress the population. This has been a vicious attack on the freedoms of Bahraini protestors. The Bahraini revolution began in February 2011, and the people were inspired by the successful Arab Spring revolutions. In March of that year, Saudi Arabia and the UAE invaded Bahrain. The protesters initially wanted political reform and a constitutional monarchy. However, because of the regime’s brutal crackdown on protest, the Bahraini people began to demand that the Royal Al Khalifa family step down. Since then, scores of people have been killed and hundreds of others arrested in the crackdown.

Afghanistan has been at war for the last 37 years. The Saudi Government both backed financially and provided arms to the Afghan guerrilla fighters, or Mujahideen, along with the Western countries including the USA. The Saudi regime had close ties with the Afghan Taliban during their time of government and it is a widely accepted notion that the Kingdom had good leverage over the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani government.

Afghanistan

The Afghan leadership in the past decade paid numerous visits to the Kingdom to seek out their support in bringing a durable peace to this country, in an effort to make better use of their leverage. That said, the Saudi government, being too conservative, did not support, nor bring pressure to bear over some factions of the Taliban and neither on the Pakistani government to encourage Taliban peace talks with the Afghan Government. If the Saudi Government, under the leadership of the late King Abdullah could possibly have convinced the Taliban, and succeeded in supporting the Afghan Government peace initiative, it would definitely have increased its graph of success, rather than again failing to do so.

We also do need to acknowledge the West’s help in all of the above conflicts to understand the role Saudi Arabia plays in the destabilization of Muslim lands for Western Imperialism.

Way forward:

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Photo by Mazen AlDarrab, Wikipedia Commons.

These points mentioned are indicative of the failure of the Kingdom’s foreign policy. The new ruler of the Saudi Arabia, King Salman bin Abdul Aziz needs to pursue a more vibrant and result-oriented foreign policy.

The significance of Saudi Arabia being a major power is its ability to make strong allies out of smaller countries, if it wishes to have peaceful surroundings. The Saudi Government, under the leadership of the new ruler, needs to realize the fact that a radical transformation is required in their policies.

Saudi Arabia being the spiritual leader and a dominant Muslim country should do its best to gain its lost glory by developing consensus among the Muslim world and playing a facilitating role to bring peace in troubled Muslim countries and region, not igniting them. If Saudi Arabia can make better use of its leverage over different fractions it supports in different countries, it can result in an ultimate peace. With this, the Saudis will win the hearts and minds of the people and can play a more positive, proactive role in global politics.

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

The post Saudi Arabia’s Lost Glory? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Cheryl Pellerin

The US Defense Department is moving its data to the cloud, driven by cost reductions, technical efficiencies and security considerations, Acting Chief Information Officer Terry Halvorsen told military and industry leaders.

Halvorsen’s office hosted the first of what it characterized as a series of DoD CIO Cloud Industry Days – meetings intended to promote a continuous, open dialogue with industry that will shape DoD’s approach to the business of information technology, or IT, and cyber.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, cloud computing is a model for enabling on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources — networks, servers, storage, applications and services.

For users, cloud resources can rapidly be provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction, NIST says, providing efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

Modernizing and Streamlining Government IT

Cloud computing is part of a government-wide effort to modernize and streamline government IT, and Halvorsen said that in the early stages of transitioning to the cloud, and moving as much as possible into the commercial cloud, it’s important to communicate with defense industry partners.

“Industry needs some consistency,” Halvorsen added, “so I’ve got to … let industry know ahead of time [what we need],” and when a baseline changes.

Such an interactive process with industry, he said, will be critical to avoiding “putting industry in a place where they think they’ve got it right, they spent their money, they’ve come in and said this is [our solution], and we have to tell them … that we’ve found new security threats and [their solution] is not going to work.”

The cloud is as new an environment as anything out there, the CIO said, and for each element of the cloud the department has new decisions to make new.

One of these has been to move as much nonsensitive data as possible to the commercial cloud, Halvorsen told the audience, because costs there are lower.

Leveraging Against a Larger Population

“We’re leveraging against a larger group population in this business. E-mail, particularly, is commoditized, and any time you can share more pricing and more capability with a commoditized environment, you’re going to drive down the price,” he added.

The CIO said commercial companies will be able to meet DoD’s security requirements for nonsensitive data.

“I see the national cyber bar coming up,” he added, “and we’re such a big market that they’ll be willing to adapt their security to meet us. I’m hoping this comes out to be 25 percent or 30 percent more efficient when we’re done.”

Two important programs involved in DoD’s transition to the cloud are FedRAMP and the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, or FDCCI.

A Standardized Approach to Security

FedRAMP is a government-wide program that offers a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services.

FDCCI aims to reduce the number of federal data centers by optimizing them, consolidating them or closing them.

About FedRAMP, Halvorsen said that if industry wants to do business with DoD they have to meet FedRAMP security requirements, plus extra security requirements if DoD calls for them.

“I think there’s an opportunity for national, commercial and government [entities] to set some very common standards,” the CIO said. The medical industry has done that, he added, and the same could be done in other areas to “raise the national bar” together.

He added, “We actually could have some national standards that apply to everyone.”

The milCloud Suite of Capabilities

Another element of the move to the cloud is milCloud, a cloud-services product portfolio managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency, or DISA.

milCloud offers an integrated suite of capabilities that can make the development, deployment and maintenance of secure DoD applications more agile, according to the DISA website. It leverages a combination of mature, commercial off-the-shelf and government-developed technology to produce DoD-tailored cloud services.

Halvorsen said DoD has to do a better job of internal marketing so everyone understands the pricing differences between standard storage of sensitive but not classified data and storage in the cloud.

“It’s 20 percent to 25 percent less … in the milCloud now, and this milCloud data is data that, by everything I see right now, is going to stay inside the government,” he said. “It’s not classified in many cases but it is so sensitive that I’m probably not ever going to put that data into a public [cloud].

Wrestling with Data Security

The CIO says he’s wrestling with how much of DoD’s data is truly sensitive, using the example of budget data from 1949, which was sensitive at the time but is not sensitive now. Yet it is still stored with data that has relatively high security protection.

“I think [relatively sensitive data] is a much smaller portion of our data than we think it is,” he added.

Where DoD is in its transition to the cloud is hard to measure, Halvorsen said, adding, “but I can tell you this, I’m not where I want to be.”

In the near future, the CIO envisions situations in which a defense contractor might put data inside a data center located on federal property.

Pushing the Model Forward

“The other group I see that would probably want to do that is financial institutions. We are not there yet [but] that’s what we’re looking to push the model forward on,” he added.

In this scenario, federal systems and commercial systems would have to move beyond interoperability, Halvorsen said, and into interconnectivity and become part of the same structure.

“I can make things interoperable a lot of times by kluging them together. I want to get past the klugde so it’s a seamless, interconnected structure. How am I doing that? With lots of help from all the services,” he said.

“All the service CIOs get that we’ve got to go there. Top leadership gets that we’ve got to go there,” Halvorsen added. “One of the chairman’s top priorities is the whole [DoD Joint Information Environment], which gets us there.”

Making it Work

Now, he said, it’s time to take the technical engineering solutions and make them work, and do it in a cost-effective way.

In 10 years, the CIO said, DoD will have a much better distributed data network.

“It’s all data distribution,” he said, “it really is.”

Halvorsen added, “I think what you’ll have in 10 years is a lot fewer physical facilities, much more virtual cloud data that from our standpoint is accessible on whatever the new technology brings.”

The CIO doesn’t think the platforms will be laptops or smart phones, but perhaps smaller devices connected to big-screen entertainment systems accessible at home.

Wearing the Future

“You’ll probably have a watch-type device that gives you some level of data, and you’ll be wearing the rest of it,” he speculated.

“Wearable IT is going to be an interesting phenomena for DoD. Think about what you could do, how you could [suit up] a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine with wearable IT — monitor health, monitor location,” he said.

“That’s the growth area to me,” he added, “but you’ve got to get the data distribution right.”

The post US Defense Dept Moves Data To Cloud To Lower Costs, Improve Security appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ordinary people, and sometimes experts as well, tend to overreact to short-term economic changes. The current economic malaise in the United States and Europe has brought forth a bevy of commentators convinced that this time the economy has taken a permanent turn for the worse. Never again, they declare, will we enjoy growing prosperity as we did in days of yore. Some of these Chicken Littles do see a possible means of escape from the impending doom, but only if the government carries out an extraordinarily bold economic rescue program, flush with such Keynesian measures as unprecedented monetary “quantitative easing” and large ongoing deficits in the government budget. Anything else, they insist, condemns us to languish indefinitely in a “liquidity trap” characterized by diminished rates of employment and slow, if any, economic growth. Economic historians know, however, that such declarations are hardly new and that the economy’s long-run trend has continued to tilt upward for two centuries despite the short-run ups and downs around the trend line.

Nevertheless, even the experts perceive some ominous longer-term changes and appreciate that people, in the conduct of their economic affairs, may have limits to how many burdens they can bear. These burdens take the form of taxes, regulations, and uncertainties loaded onto them by governments at every level. Each year, for example, federal departments and regulatory agencies put into effect several thousand new regulations. Only rarely do these agencies remove any existing rules from the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, the total number in effect continues to climb relentlessly. The tangle of federal red tape becomes ever more difficult for investors, entrepreneurs, and business managers to cut through. Business people have to bear not only a constantly changing, ever more complex array of taxes, fees, and fines, but also a larger and larger amount of regulatory compliance costs, now estimated at more than $1.8 trillion annually. Governments at the state and local levels contribute their full share of such burdens as well. Small wonder that the economic freedom rank of the United States among the world’s nations has fallen substantially in recent years.

So it is scarcely a wild-eyed question if we ask, as economist Pierre Lemieux does in a probing article in the current issue of Regulation magazine, whether the U.S. economy is now reacting to these growing burdens by undergoing “a slow-motion collapse.” A substantial body of evidence supports the answer that indeed such is the case.

To examine some of the most important such evidence, I have divided the U.S. economy’s post-World War II history into three periods: 1948-1973, 1973-2007, and 2007 to the present (or the most recent date for which appropriate data are available). These periods are defined by apt demarcations in that each of the years 1948, 1973, and 2007 was a business-cycle peak. Measuring longer-term changes between business cycle peak years is a time-honored way in which economists guard against drawing faulty conclusions by comparing conditions in essentially noncomparable years, between, say, a cyclical peak year and a cyclical trough year or between a peak or a trough and an intermediate year somewhere in the intervening contraction or expansion.

Consider first the average annual rate of growth of real (that is, inflation adjusted) GDP per capita. From 1948 to 1973, this rate was 2.5 percent. Between 1973 and 2007, however, it was only 1.8 percent. And between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2014, it was a mere 0.4 percent per annum. Thus, the average rate of real economic growth has slowed substantially during the past 67 years, and the current anemic recovery from the cyclical trough reached in mid-2009—the weakest recovery of any since World War II—may be only a continuation and worsening of a deteriorating growth performance that stretches back more than 40 years.

Let us examine next, therefore, the long-run growth performance of the major economic input, which is hours of labor applied in production processes. It is easy to muddy the water in this regard if we include all workers, because a a substantial number of workers are, and long have been, employed by governments, which need not make the same kinds of economic calculations and appraisals that private employers must make. No dispassionate observer can deny that much government employment is, and always has been, make-work—employment created for political motives by public-sector employers who need not worry about a bottom-line constraint and can rely on the capture of funds via taxes, fines, fees, and forfeitures to meet their payrolls. Indeed, many government employees—for example, tax collectors, drug warriors, vice cops, domestic spies, and most regulatory enforcers—are engaged not so much in make-work as in anti-work, efforts that serve only to harass and harm the public at large, and, truth be told, they subtract from rather than adding to the true social product. In assessing the economy’s long-term health, therefore, we must confine our attention to private workers, who help to produce goods and services that are genuinely valued by consumers in free markets.

Consider then the number of persons engaged as wage and salary earners in private nonfarm employment. Between 1948 and 1973, the average annual rate of growth of such workers was 1.9 percent. Between 1973 and 2007, it was only slightly less at 1.8 percent. Between December 2007 and December 2014, however, this rate of growth collapsed to a mere 0.3 percent per annum. Whatever else we may say about the current recovery, it has scarcely touched the heart of the problem in the labor markets. Indeed, millions of potential workers have dropped out of the labor force entirely, surviving on savings, disability insurance benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, other welfare benefits, and the generosity of kinfolk. Whatever the most accurate description of recent events in the labor markets may be, there is no gainsaying the reality that potential workers who are no longer working are doing nothing to assist in the overall economy’s genuine recovery.

Growing prosperity depends not only on a growing volume of employment but, more important, on the growth of labor productivity brought about by capital accumulation, technological and organizational changes, and improvements in the health, education, and training of the labor force. Again, to see what has happened on this critical front, we must concentrate on the private sector. Here we find that between 1948 and 1973, the average annual rate of growth of real output per hour worked in the business sector was 2.7 percent. From 1973 to 2007, however, this growth rate was only 1.9 percent per annum, and between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2014 it was even less, just 1.3 percent per annum. Clearly many employers who have been reluctant to hire new workers since the economy’s cyclical trough in mid-2009 have been able to squeeze more output from the same number of workers during the past five years, but notwithstanding these efforts the rate of growth of labor productivity has been substantially slower than it was during the preceding 60 years. Perhaps we are indeed witnessing more than a weak cyclical recovery. In Figure 1, which I have plotted on a logarithmic scale, the declining rate of growth of private output per hour can be seen clearly as a reduction in the slope of the line after 1973 and, even more so, after 2005 or thereabouts.

Figure 1. Real Output per Hour in the U.S. Business Sector, 1947-2014

There is much more to this story than I have space to mention here. It must suffice to say that the present anemic recovery fits into a much longer-term pattern of declining economic robustness in the U.S. economy’s performance. (A similar story can be told about western Europe.) Although various hypotheses may plausibly be advanced to account for this pattern, it makes good economic sense to interpret the economic history of the past several decades as the tale of a camel on which, without a doubt, more and more straws have been piled. Although the beast’s back is not yet broken, his powers have surely been tested severely, and as additional burdens continue to be loaded onto him year after year it is an open question as to how much longer he will be able to make any headway at all. Adam Smith wisely observed that “[t]here is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” but he did not say that there is an infinite amount. It is a mistake to suppose that no matter how greatly the governments of the United States burden the nation’s private sector, they can never crush the life out of it.

The post How Much Longer Can US Economy Bear The Burdens? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Reports over the past two days have confirmed a rising tide of anger against the ploy organized by Israel’s ambassador Ron Dermer and House Speaker John Boehner to arrange for an address by Bibi Netanyahu to Congress.  The speech, originally scheduled five weeks before the upcoming Israeli election, was moved back to two weeks before, so it would have maximum impact on both the election and P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.  As you all know, the speech was announced publicly before either the President or any Democratic Congressional leadership knew about it.  The Israelis even kept the Israel Lobby and Israeli diplomatic community in the dark.  Aipac has been uncharacteristically silent about the matter, which is astonishing in itself.

The NY Times yesterday reported that the Obama administration is furious with Ambassador Dermer and that he is all but persona non grata in Washington.  If it wouldn’t entirely blow up Israel-U.S. relations, Obama would’ve already sent him packing.  Dermer himself is implacable and unapologetic.  In fact, Dermer isn’t a diplomat.  He’s a political infighter.  Instead of apologizing or smoothing over the episode, Dermer has doubled down:

“I have no regrets whatsoever that I have acted in a way to advance my country’s interests.” He said he never meant to slight the White House by keeping the confidence of the House speaker, who had suggested the invitation. He said he left it to Mr. Boehner to notify Mr. Obama’s team.

“My understanding was that it was the speaker’s prerogative to do, and that he would be the one to inform the administration,” Mr. Dermer said. “The prime minister feels very strongly that he has to speak on this issue. That’s why he accepted the invitation, not to wade into your political debate or make this a partisan issue, and not to be disrespectful to the president.”

Unlike Israelis, Americans mind being lied to.  And they can smell a lie a mile away.  Dermer wins no points for his performance.  Not to mention that he now appears to be trying to lay the blame for the fiasco at the feet of Speaker Boehner.  When the ship’s going down even the rats scurry to blame each other, I guess.

But as I’ve written here, if Dermer’s purpose isn’t to pursue a tempered relationship with the U.S., but rather to build a career as an implacable GOP-Likud political consultant both here in the U.S. and Israel, he’s positioned himself perfectly for a rich material future.  Sheldon Adelson is looking to shower his billions in ill-gotten gambling gains on just such pro-Israel street fighters.

But considering how sensitive the Israel-U.S. relationship is, it’s extraordinary Israel would appoint someone who would deliberately stoke the fires rather than manage a delicate dance between the two nations.

The Times article also notes that instead of rallying members of Congress to Israel’s cause in the Iran nuclear debate, the speech has backfired and accomplished just the opposite.  Ten Democrats who had supported added sanctions against Iran announced that they would postpone any action on this issue until March, thus giving the president more time to complete negotiations on a nuclear accord.

Today’s Times reports that Netanyahu, who apparently has a bit more seychel than his ambassador, has been calling Israel’s friends among Democrats trying to smooth over the disagreement.  But Democrats aren’t buying.  They told Bibi he’d made a catastrophic blunder.  Today, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-OR) announced that he would not participate in any speech Bibi gave to Congress.  Israeli former DC correspondent (Maariv) Tal Schneider flamed Boehner for the invitation.  I am only hoping this begins a groundswell of opposition.  It’s one thing for Democrats to denounce the speech and another to announce they’ll boycott it or sit on their hands if they attend.

The Israeli political psyche naturally overplays its hands in relations with its Arab neighbors and the international community.  There is no such thing as subtlety.  There is only chutzpah of the unadulterated kind.  And the only way to respond to chutzpah if with a firm rejection.  Unfortunately, Americans aren’t used to dealing with bullies (though we surely have acted as bullies ourselves throughout the world).  That, plus the power of the Lobby have forced restraint on our political class when firmness was required.

One may hope that miscalculations of this sort will make our politicians grow a pair when it comes to confronting Israeli affrontery.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

The post Backlash Grows Against Bibi’s Congressional Speech – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

(Dakar, Senegal) — Mr. President of the National Assembly,
Members of Government,
Members of the Parliament,
Members of the Diplomatic Corps and International Organizations,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good afternoon. Asalamu Alekum!

I would like to thank President Moustapha Niasse for his kind introduction, and members of the National Assembly and economic team for their warm hospitality.

Senegal

It is such a pleasure to be in Senegal—the land of Teranga [hospitality], land of culture and openness, where the boundaries between cultures and continents merge, like the Sine and the Seine rivers often do in Senghor’s poetry.

Senegal is a country of many achievements. Your democracy has been a model for Africa, as exemplified by the diversity of this Parliament. You are recognized for your education system, dynamic civil society, and strong civil service. You have achieved macroeconomic stability and made inroads against poverty.

Yet Senegal cannot rest on these achievements. Today it stands at a critical turning point. The foundations for growth have been laid, but growth is neither vigorous nor inclusive enough to unlock Senegal’s potential, significantly roll back poverty, and secure a brighter future for its youth.

Fortunately there is a roadmap. The government’s new development strategy – “Plan Senegal Emergent” – is an ambitious yet feasible path towards emerging economy status. Accelerating, broadening, and deepening the reforms required by this plan are integral to this vision. A vision that Senegal shares with many of its African peers.

Africa’s future has been very much a part of the IMF’s work of late. Last year, I took part in a conference that we co-hosted in Mozambique called “Africa Rising”. This event brought together political and business leaders and members of civil society from 42 African countries and other parts of the world.

For me, one message that came out loud and clear was the value of peer-to-peer learning as the way of going from prescription—what to do—to practice—how to do. With a membership of 189 countries, the Fund is a treasure trove for cross country experience and offers a unique platform for knowledge exchange.

There is a Wolof proverb that captures this idea: “Ku la jëkk ci néeg bi moo lay wax ni ngay tooge” – He who precedes you in a room will tell you where to sit.

So today I would like to discuss what lies ahead for Senegal through the lens of this popular Wolof wisdom drawing on the Fund’s knowledge “chest.” I will share my thoughts on three topics:

(i) First, the road forward for “Africa Rising” and the implications for Senegal;

(ii) Second, how Senegal can build on the success of peers—both positive examples and pitfalls to avoid; and

(iii) Finally, key policies to inject dynamism and propel Senegal toward emerging market status.

1. The Road Forward for “Africa Rising”—Implications for Senegal

Let me start with when we last met—in Mozambique, where we were witnessing a new narrative on Africa. One where many countries were marching forward— expanding steadily for ten years or more—and taking their rightful place in the global economy. One where sound policies and stronger institutions made African countries attractive to major investment flows from both advanced and emerging economies.

The conference also captured the essence of the challenges that confront Sub-Saharan Africa. There was a shared understanding of the importance of accelerating structural transformation, building badly needed infrastructure, and making growth more inclusive.

In my view, these priorities resonate well with Senegal. Why do I say that?

Let’s step back for a moment. Senegal has made significant progress in securing macroeconomic stability. Yet, delays in implementing reforms have resulted in an average growth of 3-4 percent annually—short of the vibrancy needed to encourage the private sector, create jobs for its people and secure prosperity for future generations. Here I am thinking of the 45 percent of your population under 14 years of age for whom action is urgent.

Fulfilling Senegal’s aspiration of middle income status will require a shift toward policies that will inject greater dynamism into the economy, and open space for small and medium enterprises and for foreign investment. This objective can become more challenging in an uncertain global environment.

According to our latest forecasts, global economic activity this year will be weaker than we had projected only a few months ago. And this is despite the boost from lower oil prices and firming activity in the United States and the United Kingdom. Momentum is slowing in many advanced and emerging economies, including China—one of Africa’s main trading partners. This will inevitably affect Africa as well.

In addition, the world economy will face a number of headwinds. The first is from asynchronous monetary policies in advanced economies—monetary normalization in the United States and easing in Japan and the Euro Area. Even if the process is well managed and well communicated – and I believe that it has been and will be – there could be negative effects for emerging markets and global financial stability. African economies could also be affected.

The second headwind is a potential “triple hit” for emerging and developing economies from higher interest rates, the stronger U.S. currency, and more volatile capital flows. A scenario of persistently lower oil prices would add to these risks, as oil exporters are likely to see increased external and fiscal pressures, including in Africa. For oil importers, however, lower oil prices provide governments the opportunity to reform costly and inefficient energy subsidies.

Of course, compounding these headwinds is the persistence of geopolitical tensions, as we have seen in Ukraine, the Middle East, and even in parts of Africa—Nigeria and Mali.

This outlook has implications for an Africa that is now more integrated into the global economy than ever before. Growth forecasts for Sub-Saharan Africa have been pared down due to lower oil and commodity prices. Still, the overall African outlook remains promising, and at close to 5 percent, the region is expected to post the world’s second highest growth rate in 2015 after emerging Asia.

Senegal can reinvigorate its economy and help place the region on the path to inclusive growth and poverty reduction. To end the chronic underperformance of the Senegalese economy over the last thirty years—when average growth hovered around 3.5 percent. At this growth rate, not only will inclusive growth be elusive but youth will not find their place in a modern Senegalese economy.

It is time for Senegal to start growing at faster rates—the 7 to 8 percent envisaged in the “Plan Senegal Emergent” and recorded by the Asian tigers and fast growing African economies. It is time for the “Red Lion” to roar.1

So how can this growth acceleration be achieved?

2. Building on the Success of Peers—What Lessons for Senegal?

This brings me to my second topic—what lessons can countries that have managed to sustain growth takeoffs offer to Senegal?

Overall, the wisdom of international experience offers two main lessons.

First, the ambition to rise to emerging economy status within the next two decades is achievable. The reforms involved are difficult, but doable.

Second, not all countries are successful in all reforms at all times. Each country has its own story to tell.

Senegal has defined the right track. Your announced development agenda indeed includes all the main components that led the others to success. However, the pitfalls on the road may also be substantial. Senegal has stumbled over them in the past. Minister Ba summarized it well at last year’s Consultative Group Meeting for Senegal: “We have had many strategic plans in the past. But we have often failed in the implementation.”

Today, Senegal can learn from other countries’ experience in pressing ahead and moving from plan to implementation.

Let me mention three key lessons to heed.

First lesson—focus on prudent fiscal management and macroeconomic stability. Countries that experienced growth accelerations typically embarked on important investment programs. Not all of them were successful. Some countries accumulated large debt burdens in the process.

So what did the successful countries do right—those that saw an increase of at least 5 percent in per capita growth rates? Think of countries like India, Guyana, and Sri Lanka, but also African lions such as Cape Verde, Mauritius, and Uganda.

To begin with, these countries improved their public spending, particularly public investment management. This helped unlock private sector investment, including foreign investment. Unless these components are in place, higher spending, including of donors’ money, generally has led to higher debt with sub-par economic outcomes.

Indeed, efficient public spending and private sector investment were the missing links in countries that saw large increases in debt. Even here in Senegal, limited private investment and poor returns from capital spending have been major factors holding back growth.

Second lesson—focus on export expansion through openness to foreign direct investment. During episodes of growth, most successful countries dramatically increased exports. This expansion was supported by two factors.

The first is a significant increase in foreign direct investment—typically from an average of 1 percent of GDP to about 4 percent. The second is the implementation of policies that facilitated entrance and growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises that are globally competitive. Improving the business climate was typically a key ingredient of these policies. Both these factors proved to be mutually reinforcing in expanding exports and accelerating structural transformation of the economy.

Finally—focus on building institutions and human capital. An ambitious growth rate is not a goal in itself. It should also support an increase in the well-being of the population – all the population.

International experience suggests that when this important dimension is disregarded, the outcome can be dismal. Lack of job opportunities and limited investment in human capital can result in growing imbalances in incomes between rural and urban areas, men and women, young and old. They ultimately can lead to social strain and undermine the reform efforts.

3. Senegal: Building to the Future—The Need for a “Big Push” Reforms

So what does this collective wisdom imply for Senegal—the last topic I want to discuss.

The good news is that all key components for success are in place. The government owns a strong development program and there is consensus on the need for reforms among political stakeholders.

The international community shares the authorities’ vision and has already pledged more than US$7 billion to help finance it.

But perhaps most important is heeding what is on everybody’s minds. That is, the need for a critical mass of reforms—a “big push”—to decisively break with the past and accelerate growth. And time is running short. People’s aspirations for rewarding jobs, better social protection, improved living standards, and brighter business opportunities should be honored.

Drawing on international experience, I can see three policy dimensions that are key to this “big push” agenda to inject dynamism into the Senegalese economy.

First, strengthen public financial management and bridge infrastructure gaps. Building public infrastructure and social spending will require more resources. Yet simply accumulating more debt is not the way to go. This fiscal space should instead be created by increasing revenues and rationalizing spending.

Spending, in particular, can be reallocated from low priority items to high priority ones. From poorly planned capital spending and untargeted electricity subsidies, which benefit mostly the rich—to well planned public infrastructure and investments in human capital, which benefit everyone but are particularly valuable for the poorest.

Second, strengthen the business climate to accelerate structural transformation. The arduous process of improving Senegal’s regulatory framework has begun. Senegal was amongst the top reformers in 2014 who improved most according to the World Bank Doing Business Indicators.

Even so, Senegal remains in the bottom ranks among African peers in terms of its investment climate. And the consequences are huge. For example, over the past few years, foreign direct investment in Senegal has been about 2 percent of GDP. This is much lower than the 7 percent of GDP levels recorded in many lower and middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Broadening the scope of the regulatory reforms that have started would be important in attracting much needed foreign investment. Policies should also focus on helping small and medium enterprises start up and flourish, so that youth can access productive jobs in the formal sector. This is a key pillar of the aspirations of youth around the world.

Finally, make growth more inclusive. Unlocking high growth is not sufficient. Pro-active social policies will be required to build up human capital and ensure that growth is inclusive.

Creating opportunities for a growing young labor force and women should be key elements of this strategy. It is crucial to bridge what in the words of Ousmane Sembene, one of the greatest African writers, referred to as “the terrible gulf between young people’s aspirations and their accomplishments.”

Senegal has taken some important steps in bolstering the status of women in political institutions. Laws that require lists for elective positions to include equal representation of men and women are credited for the gender diversity of institutions such as this parliament.

Still, a lot remains to be done to make gender equality a reality. Senegal ranks 77th out of 142 countries on the 2014 World Economic Forum Gender Gap ranking—far behind other peers such as Rwanda and Cape Verde. Many of the challenges are tied to the patriarchic structure of the society, exacerbating women’s limited access to justice, decision-making power, economic empowerment and security.

These challenges must be overcome—through deliberate policies, but also through a change in attitudes. As I often say, a healthy society needs gender equality. And as increasing research shows, a better gender balance is also good for economic growth.

Conclusion

Let me conclude. Senegal is indeed at a turning point. My meetings here instill optimism and high hopes.

The Government’s goals are ambitious, but achievable. Risks are substantial but manageable. The preconditions are in place, and the opportunities are vast. Now is the time to go further—to work together towards an inclusive, job-rich and sustainable growth strategy. Now is the right time to start reforming institutions building on the experience of many countries that have become emerging economies. This is the right time to empower the youth, women and the poor.

Rest assured that the IMF will be by Senegal’s side. Senegal is one of the largest users of our technical assistance and capacity building services, and we are proud to continue to help—through regular policy advice, peer-learning, or a new program engagement, should that be your desire.

The theme of our conference in Mozambique was Africa Rising. Senegal Rising to emerging economy status would be an important milestone in this direction. The journey maybe long and fraught with cross currents. Yet only if we sail together on this boat, “Sunugal”, can we fulfill the promise of the brighter, more inclusive future this country is destined to have.2

As Leopold Sedar Senghor so rightly said “the goal we have set ourselves can only be development through economic growth. I say development. I mean by that valuing all Africans and all Africans together. It is about the human being.”

Jereujef! Merci.

1 Senegal’s national anthem starts with “Le lion rouge a rugi” by Senghor.

2 Senegal comes from Sunugal, which means “our boat”.

The post Lagarde: Senegal On Way To Emerging Economy: Transformation, Inclusiveness, Equity – Speech appeared first on Eurasia Review.

At present only one military force is effectively combatting Islamic State (IS) on the ground – the Kurdish guerrilla fighting force known generically as the Peshmerga (“Those Who Face Death”). For weeks, IS has been losing ground in northern Iraq to Iraqi Kurdish fighters; now they are succumbing to Peshmerga troops in Syria. On January 27 it was announced that the Kurdish forces had “expelled all IS fighters from Kobane and have full control of the town”. After more than four months of intensive fighting, the Kurdish fighting force had chased IS out of the strategically important town situated on the Syrian-Turkish border.

In fact almost all of the recent victories over IS have been achieved by Kurdish guerrillas, willing to fight where others have collapsed – like Iraq’s security forces, with some million men under arms, which fled in the face of IS’s lightning advance last summer. More to the point, perhaps, the Peshmerga are the force with “boots on the ground”, unlike any of the 62-nation strong anti-IS coalition, established by President Obama. All of them promised, and many are providing, financial, logistical, military and humanitarian assistance by the bucketful, but not one fighting soldier on the ground, at least officially.

It is true that the Peshmerga’s military successes might not have occurred so quickly, or so conclusively, without the aid of substantial American support by way of air cover, training by US special forces (and perhaps something more than training, albeit unacknowledged) and the plentiful provision of weapons. For example, prior to the Kurds securing Kobane, US-led coalition aircraft pounded IS positions 17 times in just 24 hours.  Nevertheless, the Kurdish guerrillas are the ones actually undertaking the fighting, the victories are theirs to celebrate, and they deserve the congratulations of all nations opposed to the brutal and inhumane IS organization and its unacceptable ambitions for the future of the world.

How can the world repay these doughty soldiers, fighting on humanity’s behalf?

The Kurds yearn for the restoration of what might be called “Greater Kurdistan”. The Kurds are an ethnic group some 30 million strong who inhabit a distinct geographical area flanked by mountain ranges. It was once referred to as Kurdistan. No such entity is depicted on current maps. What was once Kurdistan, together with all its 30-plus million inhabitants, was carved up in the negotiations following the First World War, which dismembered the old Ottoman empire. Following the treaty of Lausanne in 1923, the territory that had been Kurdistan was divided up and allocated to the sovereign states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Kurds currently form the largest minority in Syria, while within Iraq, following the downfall of Sadam Hussein, they have developed a near-autonomous state across the north of the country which has taken the name Kurdistan.

Most Kurds, however, live within Turkey’s borders. They comprise about 20% of Turkey’s 77 million population and have long been a pressing political problem for Turkey. In the 1980s an armed insurgency challenged the Turkish state, which responded with martial law. In the subsequent, and on-going, conflict between Turkey and the Kurdish independence movement, the PKK, more than 40,000 people have been killed. Which is the most obvious explanation for why Turkey’s president, Rece Tayyip Erdogan, apparently preferred to see IS retain control of Kobane rather than assist Kurdish fighters to recapture it, and sat on his hands for months while the battle raged just over the Turkish border.

But the recapture of the town by the Kurds is precisely what has happened, with the aid and support not only of the US, but of the 62 nations who oppose IS and are dedicated to its destruction. In short, Erdogan has been backing the wrong horse – and not only Erdogan. World opinion as a whole has not been noticeably supportive of the idea of Kurdish independence in the past. Western policy in Iraq has been to attempt to retain the disparate areas – Sunni, Shia and Kurd – in one unified state, rather than permit the Kurds to transform their autonomous region into a sovereign entity.

One notable exception has been Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In a speech delivered on June 29, 2014 at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, he declared that Israel supports the transformation of autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan into an independent Kurdish state. “We need to support the Kurdish aspiration for independence,” he said. “They deserve it.”

Following that lead, in August 2014 Senator Conrad Burns urged the US government to support the Kurds in their aspiration. “The people of Kurdistan have been striving for independence and the right of self-government for generations,” he wrote. “They have been close several times only to be struck down by outside world powers. They have endured atrocities and have paid the price for freedom. It is therefore time that the United States took heed of these sacrifices and fulfilled its moral obligation to support the people of Kurdistan and their ambitions for freedom and national sovereignty.”

Britain’s traditional stance has been to back Kurdish autonomy, but to oppose statehood. In a recent editorial, the London Daily Telegraph asked whether that would remain the UK’s position after IS was beaten. “Britain should be thinking not just about how to defeat IS” it wrote, “but what might lie beyond.”

Meanwhile gallant Kurdish fighters are still putting their lives on the line, combatting the dark forces that glory in violating accepted standards of humane and decent behaviour in pursuit of their political and religious aims. The Kurds deserve the grateful thanks of each one of the 62 nations that have signed up to the anti-IS alliance. When the final battle has been fought and won – or even in advance of that happy event – supporting the Kurds’ desire for an independent sovereign state would be a suitable gesture of appreciation.

The post The Kurds: Standard Bearers For Humanity – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the recent defence technology cooperation deal with the U.S., India has prioritised the private sector over public sector units. If the government and business now work together productively, they can create a much-needed and robust long-term defence industrial base in India.

By Sameer Patil*

On January 25, India and the U.S. renewed their bilateral defence pact for 10 more years. The ‘2015 Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship’ strengthens cooperation between the two countries in the areas of defence technology, military exchanges, and counter-terrorism.[1]

For the first time, co-production and co-development are at the core of the defence engagement outlined in the framework, indicating the importance for India of technology transfers and indigenous manufacturing. The agreement makes India part of a group of nations that includes Japan, U.K., and Taiwan, with whom the U.S. cooperates on defence technology.

Specifically, four pathfinder projects for co-production and co-development were identified through the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative of 2012, which serves as the guiding principles for the framework for cooperation. All the projects are experiments in making simpler technologies and easy-to-produce equipment. If successfully executed, they will help India build advanced weapons systems in the future and co-develop other weapons technologies with the U.S.

The pathfinder projects are a real opportunity for India to move away from arms imports, which have so far constituted approximately 70% of the country’s defence expenditure—of approximately $47.4 billion in 2013. [2] Defence acquisitions from the U.S. itself have crossed over $10 billion in the last decade.[3]

Over the last decade, the India-U.S. bilateral defence cooperation has mainly focussed on purchases, including big ticket items such as the $4.1 billion acquisition of the C-17 transport aircraft. [8] The equipment the U.S. has currently offered India for co-production and co-development may appear less advanced in comparison. But, as India’s slow and difficult experience in indigenously developing and producing some of these basic technologies shows, they require significant amounts of R&D. Given India’s modest defence industrial base, the equipment being offered by the U.S. is easy to produce and a good start to boosting the defence industry.

Co-production will also mean a consistent availability of high-quality weapons to the Indian armed forces. For instance, the Mobile Electric Hybrid Power Sources system will be particularly useful for the army units deployed in the remote and high-altitude locations of Jammu and Kashmir and in the Northeast. Similarly, the Raven drones offer a 360° view of the proximate area for soldiers, providing valuable tactical intelligence.

The plans for India-U.S. defence cooperation also align well with the Modi government’s ‘Make in India’ framework and its efforts to promote the role of Indian business in defence production. In particular, two segments will benefit—the Indian partners of existing joint ventures, and small and medium enterprises, which constitute the larger defence industrial ecosystem.

Both AeroVironment and Lockheed Martin already have joint ventures in India with private defence companies—Dynamatic Technologies Limited[9] and Tata Advanced Systems,[10] respectively. Therefore, the go-ahead by India and the U.S. for these companies, which hold rights to the drone and the “roll on/roll off” technology, to undertake co-production, will give them a head-start. The plans to make Raven’s joint venture in India the global manufacturing hub for the product will help Indian companies become a part of the global supply chain.

While co-production implies manufacturing an existing product, co-development involves jointly conceiving and creating a new product. This will eventually be a significant opportunity for India to establish its R&D base—a basic requirement for a robust defence industrial foundation. It is what China did, and it enabled the country to transition from being the world’s largest arms importer to becoming the fifth largest arms exporter.[11] [12]

Since 2012, the U.S. government has offered defence technologies for co-development to India, after industry-wide consultations within the U.S. Unfortunately, the Indian side has not matched these efforts. India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) did identify advanced technologies—such as those related to lasers and hypersonic flights—for acquisition.[13] However, in doing this, the DRDO did not consult either public sector units or businesses in the defence sector. The Indian government must now comprehensively address these gaps.

Other potential R&D opportunities arising out of co-development with the U.S. must also be optimally utilised—including in naval systems, the shipbuilding sector, electronics, and semi-conductor industries,[14] which constitute the core of modern defence equipment. This potential can be realised if the government establishes a regular forum to consult with business, where larger national interests can be aligned with commercial interests.

By taking these necessary steps, India can strengthen its defence R&D and build a robust indigenous defence industrial base—and that ultimately is the goal of defence technology cooperation with the U.S.

*Sameer Patil is Associate Fellow, National Security, Ethnic Conflict and Terrorism, at Gateway House.

This feature was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References

[1] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Joint Statement during the visit of President of USA to India – “Shared Effort; Progress for All”, 25 January 2015, <http://mea.gov.in/incoming-visit-detail.htm?24726/Joint+Statement+during+ the+visit+of+President+of+USA+to+India+Shared+Effort+Progress+for+All>

[2] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Trends in world military

expenditure 2013, April 2014, <http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1403.pdf> pp. 2

[3] Embassy of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Washington D.C., Brief on India-U.S. Relations, January 2015, <https://www.indianembassy.org/pages.php?id=41>

[4] AeroVironment, UAS: RQ-11B Raven, <http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/raven/>

[5] Lockheed Martin, C-130 Roll On/Roll Off Capability, <http://www.lockheedmartin.co.in/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2010HOC-Presentations/Wed_1115_Roll-onRoll-Off-Del_Warman.pdf> pp. 8

[6] United States Marines, Department of Defense, Government of the United States, Brief to Industry Mobile Electric Hybrid Power Sources, 31 January 2013, <http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/160/FINAL%20MEHPS%20Brief% 20to%20Industry_0201.pdf> pp. 11

[7] Federal Business Opportunities, Government of the United States, Uniform Integrated Protection Ensemble Increment 1 (UIPE I1), <https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f3a6bc8235015be39e9c353b4b51a3e1>

[8] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Purchase of Transport Aircraft, 12 December 2011, <http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=78432>

[9] Dynamatic Technologies Limited, Homeland Security, <http://www.dynamatics.com/security.shtml>

[10] Lockheed Martin, India, <http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/global/india.html>

[11] Patil, Sameer, The upward swing of Beijing’s military-industrial complex, Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations, 17 May 2013, <http://www.gatewayhouse.in/the-upward-swing-of-beijings-military-industrial-complex/>

[12] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China replaces UK as world’s fifth largest arms exporter, says SIPRI, 18 March 2013, < http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/2013/ATlaunch>

[13] Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, List of Critical Defence Technology Areas and Test Facilities for Acquisition by DRDO through Offsets, <http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/List_of_Critical.pdf>

[14] Bhattacharjee, Subimal, “A launching pad for Indo-US defence ties”, The Hindu Business Line, 23 January 2015, <http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/a-launching-pad-for-indous-defence-ties/article6815677.ece> and *interview with the author

The post Business Underpins India-US Defence Deal – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian*

Former deputy head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for foreign policy has recently taken part in a meeting of American elites in the northeastern state of Maine to discuss reasons behind the failure of the United States diplomacy toward Iran during the past 35 years.

The meeting was organized by Mid-Coast Forum on Foreign Relations and was attended by a large group of American elites.

During his speech, Mousavian mentioned the following reasons as the main factors behind the failure of diplomatic efforts taken by Washington to improve ties with Tehran:

1. US strategy of only trusting allies: The basis of the US strategy in the Middle East is the notion that countries in this region are either with the United States or against it. Therefore, any country that is not a US ally, or in better words, is not under the influence of the United States, is considered enemy and should be done away with. The past regime of Iran was an ally of the United States and was toppled through the Islamic Revolution. Since that time, the United States adopted a hostile approach to Iran, which it has continued up to the present time. This strategy has been wrong from the beginning because most regional allies of the United States have been either toppled during the past few years, or their governments are in an unstable and shaky position.

2. Israel, a priority for US policy in Middle East: The interests of Israel form the main axis around which the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East pivots. This issue has made Iranians believe that Washington prefers the interests of Tel Aviv even over its own interests. The recent move by the US Congress to invite the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a speech despite strong opposition from the US President Barack Obama clearly proved that in the eyes of most members of the US Congress, the prime minister of Israel is more respected, reliable, and trustworthy than their own president.

3. Strategy of pressure and threat: This strategy has been an unwavering component of the United States treatment of Iran during the past 35 years. The White House and the US Congress have constantly believed that they can topple the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran through pressure or threat, or at least, weaken it or make it isolated. Today, however, following 35 years of pressure and threat, they have reached a different conclusion and have come to grips with the reality of an Iran which is more powerful, more stable, and more influential than any time before.

4. Using language of humiliation and insult: Positions taken on and the language used to address Iran by the majority of American politicians has been one of humiliation and insult. Using such labels against the Islamic Republic as sponsor of “state terrorism,” “rogue state,” or part of the “axis of evil,” are major instances attesting to the fact that the United States has been always talking to Iran using a language of insult and humiliation. Washington has apparently forgotten that Iranians are a nation with their own civilization and culture, which dates backed several thousands of years. Therefore, they are a proud nation and cannot tolerate this sort of humiliating discourse.

5. Inattention to rules of international law: Although the United States claims to be an advocate of the norms of international law, in practice, it doesn’t abide by those norms. A salient example of this can be seen during the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran in which, Iran has been insisting on an agreement within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while the United States has been making demands which are far beyond the limits of the NPT.

6. Focus on differences: Iran and the United States have both differences and important common interests. The diplomatic approach taken by Washington toward Tehran during the past 35 years has been putting the highest emphasis on those differences, while it would have been better for the United States to work with Iran on common interests while engaging in dialogue on points of difference.

7. Mutual distrust: Washington always believes that it has every right not to trust Tehran and has been raising claims against Iran. At the same time, that distrust has been mutual and Iran has had its own legitimate and documented reasons why it should not trust the United States. Therefore, to overcome this distrust, both countries should strive to understand this reality and take reciprocal steps to build trust.

*Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a research scholar at Princeton University and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiations. His latest book, Iran and the United States: An Insider’s view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, was published in May.

Source: Tasnim News Agency
http://www.tasnimnews.com/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

The post US And Seven Wrong Strategies In Diplomacy With Iran – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.