Jokowi’s policy of sinking vessels that fish illegally in Indonesian waters as well as his unyielding approach towards drug convicts has drawn regional concern and consternation.

By Jonathan Chen and Emirza Adi Syailendra*

A hundred days into his presidency, the Joko Widodo (Jokowi) Administration’s no-nonsense approach towards illegal fishing within its waters as well as its uncompromising stance on drug trafficking had sparked strong reactions and debates outside Indonesia.

The deliberate orchestration of a highly public sinking of three empty Vietnamese vessels last December was unflatteringly portrayed as “shock therapy”. At the same time, not granting clemency for drug convicts currently on death row ruffled a few feathers. It also led to the recall of the Brazilian and Dutch ambassadors from their diplomatic posts. Two of the “Bali Nine” convicts from Australia are also slated to face the death penalty.

A legal issue

In these decisions, President Jokowi had shown himself to be an unflinching and determined leader despite mounting outside pressure. However it had also led to spirited debates on the audacity and harsh treatment that appeared to be a sharp departure from former president Yudhoyono’s more laissez-faire attitude. Reeling from the apparent shock value from an Indonesia that once espoused a policy of a “thousand friends and zero enemies”, the legality and propriety aspects of these brazen acts of the new government have been called into question.

Based on Article 69, Paragraph 4 of Law No. 45/2009 on Fisheries, Indonesian authorities exercised their right to burn or sink foreign fishing vessels that have been fishing illegally within Indonesian territorial waters. Referred to as the “Indonesian fishing management area”, this is understood as comprising Indonesian waters (both internal waters and the territorial seas) as well as the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of Indonesia. Undoubtedly, recent actions taken by Indonesia to blow up trespassing vessels were well within the praxis of Indonesian domestic law.

On the other hand, Paragraph 114 of Law No. 35/2009 on Narcotics stipulates that drug couriers trafficking up to one kilogram or more is seen as a serious offence and will be liable for death penalty by firing squad. Offenders currently on death row have clearly exceeded the stipulated amount leaving little recourse for leniency. The Bali Nine incident in particular saw the attempted smuggling of 8.3 kg of heroin out of Indonesia.

While an unofficial moratorium on executions were granted temporarily from 2008 to 2013 under the Yudhoyono Administration, this did not mean that ultimate reprieve was achieved. Yudhoyono did not institute a blanket clemency for the drug traffickers when leaving office in 2014, leaving the potentially contentious issue in the hands of his successor.

A matter of propriety?

Admittedly, actions taken under the Widodo Administration have not been received with much fanfare. The sinking of vessels policy, some have asserted, was incompatible with Indonesia’s reputation as leader of ASEAN and undermines good neighbourly relations.

There were concerns that Indonesia’s new preoccupation with territorial integrity along its maritime borders would raise alarming memories of an Indonesia during the staunchly anti-colonial Sukarno era. While these assertions are seen as more hyperbole than reality, the highly publicised sinking event is a deterrent to opportunistic illegal vessels attempting a run in the expansive waters under the jurisdiction of archipelagic Indonesia.

In furthering Indonesia’s international standing, the country under Yudhoyono enjoyed an unprecedented period of amnesty. However the same could not be said of current president Jokowi whose interests have been perceptibly more domestic with a tinge of nationalism.

While Jokowi’s uncompromising stance on the drug penalty may affect bilateral relations with affected nations in the short run, it is not likely to be a stumbling block for cooperation in the long run. On this issue, it can be ascertained that Jokowi is merely following convention.

A false expectation

Disappointments with the actions of the Widodo Administration so far rest on the premise of Jokowi as a reformist president. Instead of quibbling over the legal or propriety basis of his tough actions it is perhaps more prudent that attention be directed to the ultimate aims of Jokowi’s Working Cabinet (Kabinet Kerja).

A strong underlying motivation is Jokowi’s identification and peculiar interpretation of the Sukarnoist principle of Trisakti, seen as a major component driving his policies. While its tenets are decidedly abstract, priority of Indonesia’s foreign relations has clearly shifted away from the equally nebulous ‘dynamic equilibrium’ approach that had characterised the Yudhoyono cabinet.

While not overtly nationalistic, Trisakti demands that Indonesia pays special attention to issues of national pride and honour that inevitably revolves around the idea of sovereignty (kedaulatan).

This amalgamation ties in with Jokowi’s Sanskrit pledge of “Jalesveva Jayamahe” (in the sea we are victorious) and the reification of the concept of a ‘global maritime fulcrum’. Years of unnoticed trespassing and unpublicised illegal fishing will have to make way for a pronounced enforcement of its maritime borders.

Although blowing up illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) vessels is a conventional practice undertaken even by other countries in the region, the decision to highlight the event with full publicity speaks volumes of the serious intent by the administration of combating this perennial scourge.

If Jokowi’s calls for ‘mental revolution’ are any indirect indication, the same rationale applies to his stance on capital punishment. A total of 66 prisoners out of 129 currently on death row are drug convicts. Furthermore in a ruling of 2007, the Indonesian Constitutional Court rejected the claim that capital punishment violated the Constitution.

While it has been an issue long swept under the carpet by the Yudhoyono presidency, it is clear that Jokowi relies on convention and consistency rather than a veiled amnesty, with the primary aim of ‘enforcing the law’ (penegakkan hukum) – yet another tenet of Trisakti. Domestically, these decisions were well-received by Indonesians themselves.

It may be conjectural to view Jokowi’s decisions as an opportunistic attempt to rally domestic support in order to assuage suspicions of being indecisive and soft. Although Jokowi’s action has the backing of local legitimacy, its motive as a form of popularity incentive remains weak. Issues of maritime sovereignty and law enforcement remain non-negotiable precisely because it is the raison d’etre of Jokowi’s ‘Working Cabinet’.

*Jonathan Chen and Emirza Syailendra are respectively Associate Research Fellow and Research Analyst at the Indonesia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Jokowi’s Vessel Sinking Policy: A Question Of Propriety – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Oladiran Bello and Ross Harvey*

On 26 January 2015, President Jacob Zuma provided reasons for referring the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill (MPRD-AB 2014) back to Parliament. The Bill had been shepherded through parliament shortly before the 2014 national elections, and has been on the President’s desk since then.

Commendably, the president cited some crucial problems with the Bill as rationale for sending it back to the National Assembly (NA). First, he highlighted concerns over constitutionality, which commentators had warned about during the parliamentary public hearings of late 2013.

Second, there was a risk that the Bill would violate international trade agreements to which South Africa was party. Third, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had insufficient time to consult provincial legislatures as to the Bill’s suitability. The big question, as Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi put it, is whether the final bill will meet South Africa’s socio-economic development goals while simultaneously maintaining investor-friendliness.

The original Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 was enacted in 2004 as a means of reversing the 1991 Minerals Act. The latter transferred mineral rights exclusively to private owners – apartheid’s last-ditch attempt to keep capital in white hands. The 2002 Act, in accordance with the ANC’s Freedom Charter of 1955, made the state the custodian of the country’s mineral resources. On the premise that South Africa’s mineral wealth belongs to all her people, the state now allocates prospecting and mining licenses for limited periods.

Few would quibble with the spirit of the principal MPRDA – it attempted to reverse historic injustice so visibly manifest in the mining industry. From at least 1886 (when gold was discovered) onwards, mining entrenched institutional inequality in South Africa. This worked predominantly through oscillating migrant labour.

However, the Act created difficulties for governing the country’s mineral wealth. Amendments to the Act were gazetted in 2008. Those amendments were only signed into law in June 2013, a month after proposed changes to existing legislation arrived in parliament. The government averred that the amendments were necessary both to remove definitional ambiguity and excessive ministerial discretion. Critics argued that both sets of amendments did exactly the opposite.

There are at least three compelling reasons why the bill rejected by the president needs further refinement.

First, the minister possesses broad discretionary power to ‘designate’ any mineral as ‘strategic’, for the purpose of limiting exports to provide raw material for local beneficiation. The minister would be able to set limits by regulatory fiat. Furthermore, the Bill makes provision for the designated raw material to be purchased at ‘mine gate or agreed prices’. These terms remain undefined and are alleged to make investors nervous. Moreover, it seems an unworkable imposition on the South African economy, as Eskom is unlikely soon to be able to provide the power required for energy-intensive manufacturing.

Second, the criteria by which exploration and prospecting rights are allocated are now unclear. The proposed amendments remove the ‘first-in-first-assessed’ principle, which processes applications on order of arrival, and replace it with ministerial discretion to invite applicants. The process by which decisions will be made thereafter is not clearly stated.

Third, the government is entitled to a ‘free-carry’ interest of 20% in new oil and gas ventures, with the remaining 80% available for purchase at an ‘agreed price’, which remains undefined. A Business Day editorial argued that this would be ‘highly detrimental to investment and the potential for job creation’ in the nascent sector. Given these concerns, it seems appropriate that the president acquiesced to Minister Ramatlhodi’s request to send the Bill back to Parliament.

Related to the legislative agenda for the coming parliamentary session, a decision is pending on government’s nuclear procurement plan, which has assumed greater urgency owing to the dire energy constraint in the economy. Whilst president Zuma’s last state of the nation address strongly endorsed nuclear procurement – followed by a raft of memoranda of understanding with suppliers – no concrete funding commitment has been forthcoming. Greater clarity is needed on this and related economic plans to signal positively to an energy sector that rejected outright the MPRD-AB.

At this critical juncture in South Africa’s energy planning, care ought to be taken to hear the concerns of the emerging oil and gas sector, which could play a pivotal role in realising the game-changing potential of shale and conventional energy finds in South Africa. Many will be watching carefully to see whether government separates energy provisions from the minerals bill.

In the context of a mining industry that is struggling to regain momentum after crippling strikes and falling commodity prices, it is desirable to clarify legislation to attract investments. There are generally two important criteria to follow in this respect. The first is to craft legislation that unambiguously respects the rule of law in accordance with section 1 of the Constitution. The second is to make a credible commitment to ensuring security of tenure for investors (as established in section 25 of the Constitution). In this respect, ministerial discretion should be minimised.

Moreover, the process by which mineral rights are allocated should be made clear in order to eliminate incentives for unproductive rent seeking. These steps will help to grow the industry, a necessary condition for achieving the socio-economic objective of reversing historical injustice. As the 2015 Mining Indaba approaches, government should signal to the mining world that it will take the road less travelled.

*Dr Oladiran (Ola) Bello is head of SAIIA’s Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme (GARP). Ross Harvey is a Senior Researcher with the same proramme. This article was first published with AllAfrica.com and with the Business Day.

Source: SAIIA

The post Will South Africa’s Minerals Bill Take The Road Less Travelled? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Daniel Tost

(EurActiv) — A FOCUS survey reports that 48% of Germans are in favour of Greece leaving the eurozone. 29% of respondents said they supported Greece keeping the euro, and 23% is undecided.

Divided according to party affiliation, the survey showed most of the Grexit-supporters belonged to the Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD). 82% of AfD followers responded in favour. Results among centre-right voters was at 47%, with 43% among Social Democrats. A majority of supporters of the Green party (47%), Left party (41%) and the liberal FDP (40%) were for Greece remaining in the eurozone.

Regarding the debt haircut currently up for debate, 44% of Germans expects such a write-off, with a majority of respondents from almost all parties predicting this: 42% of Social Democrats, 48% of the liberal FDP, 54% among Greens and 58% in the Left Party.

Only a majority of centre-right voters does not expect a debt haircut to come about. 40% of this group responded that the debt write-off would take place, with 45% predicting the opposite.

Economic affairs analyst Lars Feld warned Greece against leaving the eurozone. “The Greek government is continuing to play the cowardly game, without recognising that it is about time for cooperative behaviour,” Feld told Handelsblatt.

“A factual Grexit as collateral damage of this policy is harmful for Greece, first and foremost,” he pointed out. The eurozone would be able to deal with such a scenario, Feld said.

“Without a [reform] programme, it is difficult for Greece,” said German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble in Istanbul at the G20 meeting of finance ministers.

If Athens wants a financial bypass from its European partners, “we need a programme”. Otherwise, Schäuble said, it is not clear to him how the country expects to continue. “I do not understand how the Greek government hopes to stem that,” the Finance Minister commented. He indicated his readiness to provide assistance, “but if my assistance is not wanted that is also alright”.

“Time is running out for Greece and Europe,” explained Udo Bullmann, chairman of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) MPs in the European Parliament on Tuesday (10 February).

“Of course debts must be serviced, but apparently dogmatic adherence to crisis policy has not helped so far. No negotiating partner can be interested in ‘continuing as is’. Neither the EU nor the Greek government can be interested in a Grexit,” Bullmann commented.

State Finance Secretary Steffen Kampeter emphasised the German position that Greece cannot one-sidedly terminate a contract. There is room for negotiation in this condition, but Greece must still move, he said on the television broadcaster ARD.

The European Finance Minister made his position clear. “It is not up to Europe to consider what should be done, but the Greeks to reconsider their position,” he said. He said he hopes there will be a signal to this effect on Wednesday (11 February).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Greece to present a clear plan for solving the debt crisis.

The eurozone’s finance ministers will come together for a special meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. There, Yanis Varoufakis is expected to present a concrete plan for financing Greece in the near future. In addition, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is expected to take mediation initiative.

The current bailout programme is scheduled to expire on Saturday, 28 February. As a result, no new funds would be made available to Greece starting in March. Insolvency threatens to take hold. An extension of the bailout programme, even by only one day, must be approved by the creditors.

Beginning on 11 February, the European Central Bank (ECB) will no longer accept Greek bonds as securities, making it considerably more difficult for Greek banks to receive funding from the central bank.

Translated from German by Erika Körner

The post Grexit Supported By 1 In 2 Germans appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The city of Almería in Spain is set to pioneer efficient new water management methods as part of an EU-funded project. Scheduled for completion in May 2015, the URBANWATER initiative will enable consumers to use water more responsibly; help water utilities meet increased demand at reduced costs; and establish the European water sector as a global leader in resource efficiency.

Central to the project will be the installation of thousands of smart meters, which will enable customers to assess their water consumption in real time and make necessary adjustments to their consumption habits if necessary. The technology will also allow consumers to test and validate innovations such as automatic billing.

Mobile notifications concerning consumption, as well as alerts and messages, are also being developed, to help users achieve greater control over their use of utilities like water. A website containing games and simple tips to help customers save water at home is being created.

The project, which is receiving some EUR 3 million in EU funding, aims to demonstrate that the application of ICT can improve water management in urban areas, at all levels of the supply chain. For example, new solutions are being developed to help authorities predict water demand, along with better data management systems and improved detection of internal leakage to ensure that wastage is kept to a minimum. This is an important consideration, given that cities account for some 17 % of freshwater consumption in the EU.

Achieving higher levels of water efficiency has been recognised by the EU as essential for overcoming increasing water scarcity and droughts. These problems are no longer limited to Mediterranean countries; apart from some sparsely-populated northern regions with abundant water resources, this is a growing issue that affects almost everyone in the EU.

Integrated urban water management is a key strategy in this battle, and EU-funded projects such as URBANWATER are crucial to helping shift urban water management away from ad hoc solutions to a more integrated approach that involves users as well as suppliers. The URBANWATER consortium includes ICT companies, research organisations, water utilities and authorities with complementary capacities necessary to oversee the successful completion of this innovative, and vital, project.

The implementation of URBANWATER in Almería will begin in March 2015, with the assistance of water service FCC Aqualia. Once the results of the Almería installation are collected, the consortium, which includes 11 organisations from eight European countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and the UK) will disseminate the results at European level.

It is expected that the project’s findings will have relevance for energy management as well as water management, and thus positively impact the overall usage of natural resources across Europe. This could lead to enhanced collaboration between energy and water management schemes in the future.

Source: CORDIS

The post Spanish Town Showcases Smarter Way To Manage Water appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Boko Haram terrorist actions in north-eastern Nigeria are becoming a growing threat not only for the peace and security of Nigeria but to the whole region including Cameroon, Chad and Niger, according to the EU Foreign Affairs Council.

In light of this, the Council stressed the importance of an urgent, comprehensive response to the insurgency, to prevent further terrorist and criminal acts perpetrated by Boko Haram, including stronger governance and economic development.

Recalling the European Union’s (EU) Statement of January 19, 2015 and its Conclusions of May 12, 2014, the Council condemned the continuing violence and appalling atrocities committed by Boko Haram on civilians, including women and children.

Additionally, the Council expressed its sincere condolences to the people and governments of countries affected.

“The perpetrators of these gross violations of international humanitarian law, human rights and dignity must be held to account. The international community cannot rest while such outrages are being committed and stands united against such acts of cruelty,” the Council said.

The Council said it is particularly concerned about the humanitarian consequences of the attacks and their impact on Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger and recalled the primary responsibility of States to protect civilians on their territory in accordance with the obligations under international law.

“Thousands have been killed. Over one and a half million people have been displaced within Nigeria and hundreds of thousands to neighbouring countries. Families have been separated, girls abducted, children orphaned and women and girls sexually abused,” noted the Council, while adding that the EU pledges to continue providing immediate relief to those in need and to increase its efforts at regional level.

Additionally, the Council said there is a need of the Nigerian government to increase the response to the urgent humanitarian crisis caused by the Boko Haram insurgency and recalled the EU’s readiness to assist. International humanitarian efforts should be appropriately coordinated by the United Nations (UN)  to enhance delivery capacity and prevent the refugee crisis from escalating out of control, the Council said.

“The scale of the Boko Haram extremist threat requires a Nigerian, as well as a collective and comprehensive response to defeat terrorism in full respect of human rights,” the Council said, adding, “The European Union notes that the responsibility to address the immediate security challenges lies primarily with the countries most affected, and calls upon them to urgently intensify their cooperation and coordination. In this respect, it commends the Chadian army’s recent assistance to the Cameroonian forces already engaged in the fight against Boko Haram.”

The Council said it welcomes and supports the decision of the States in the region, endorsed by the African Union (AU), to deploy a multinational force, to be endorsed by the UN Security Council, once the concept of operations is finalised. In this regard, the Council saluted the AU preparatory meeting that was held in Yaoundé from 5 to 7 February. It also welcomed actions already undertaken under the aegis of the Lake Chad Basin Commission, following high-level security conferences held in Paris, London, Abuja and Niamey since May 2014.

The post EU Foreign Affairs Council Sees Growing Threat From Boko Haram appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Saudi Arabia plans to deport 27,000 Indonesian workers, who overstayed their work permits, over the next few weeks.

Government agencies are working with the Indonesian diplomatic missions in Riyadh and Jeddah to deport the workers in groups.

“Most of the workers awaiting deportation are in Jeddah,” said Ahrul Tsani Fathurrahman, spokesman for the Indonesian Embassy, here Tuesday. Those repatriated would include maids and children currently stranded in cities across the country, said Fathurrahman.

“About 5,000 of these 27,000 workers have already left for Indonesia,” said a source. Those deported would not be able to return to the country under new regulations recently introduced by the Kingdom, he said.

Saudi Arabia would pay for those workers unable to afford their airfares home. This year’s figure exceeds the 20,379 workers sent home last year, said a report quoting Indonesian Deputy Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohammad Fachir.

“For this repatriation, we have prioritized vulnerable people including children, infants, the elderly and the sick.” He said there are an increasing number of Indonesians overstaying their visas every year.

Meanwhile, Jeddah police have arrested 49,000 foreigners for violating residency and labor regulations over the past three months. They have been handed over to authorities concerned.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian government has appealed to Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman to pardon a maid on death row after it paid SR7 million in blood money to the victim’s family.

Satinah Binti Jumadi Ahmad, 41, has been on death row since 2011. She had been found guilty for the 2007 murder of her employer’s 70-year-old wife and stealing SR37,970. Family members of the victim have already accepted the blood money and pardoned her.

The post Saudi Arabia To Deport 27,000 Indonesians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Osama Al Sharif

Jordan is a wounded nation in the wake of the brutal execution of the Jordanian pilot, Maaz Al-Kasaasbeh. Intensive efforts to secure his release reached a dead end when the so-called Islamic State (IS) refused to provide evidence that he was still alive. Jordanians feared the worst but the manner in which Kasaasbeh was killed shocked and infuriated the world. If the militants hoped to divide and intimidate Jordanians they were proven wrong. The nation rallied behind its leadership and armed forces as King Abdallah vowed to avenge Kasaasbeh’s death and hunt down the militants wherever they are.

An angry and saddened nation cheered on as the kingdom’s air force carried out successive raids against IS targets in Iraq and Syria. Jordan took the lead in the international and regional coalition fighting the terrorist organization and the US promised additional military assistance to Amman. Jordan’s swift reaction was lauded by governments and people all over the world. The tragic death of Kasaasbeh silenced voices that had been questioning Jordan’s participation in the war against IS. For now Jordanians accept the fact that this has become their war and that taking the battle to the militants is the only way to make sure that they don’t expand their presence closer to the kingdom’s borders.

There is no doubt that Kasaasbeh’s death is a turning point for Jordan in its fight against the terrorists. But it is also important to remember that Jordan is part of an international and regional coalition and that coordinated action will be required to win this long and costly war. King Abdallah had outlined the three phases needed to defeat the extremists; military in the short term, security in the medium term and ideological in the long term. His prognosis has been spot on and his vision will be crucial as governments intensify their efforts to contain and eventually destroy this evil menace.

Back home those who stood on the sidelines or sympathized with the militants are now a small group. The Muslim Brotherhood has condemned Kasaasbeh’s killing and prominent members have come out to denounce IS and its actions. The atrocities carried out by this group have denied it support even among key Salafist jihadist figures. The national trauma has united Jordanians in a remarkable manner.

Jordanians realize that standing up to the militants will test their national unity and resolve. They are proud of their armed forces and security bodies, which have an excellent track record in defending the kingdom against potential threats. The role of these institutions will be crucial in the coming phase of this war. It is vital that they receive the necessary support from Jordan’s allies in the coalition. Spearheading the fight against the militants will mark the country as a possible target for the terrorists. The vigilance of Jordanians at all levels is an essential requirement.

But winning the war against the militants requires major initiatives. Supporting the central government in Iraq and rebuilding the Iraqi army so that it can wage a land war against IS strongholds is key to changing the balance of power on the ground. Urging countries, like Turkey, to control the flow of would be terrorists across the border is necessary to deny the group of men and munitions. And in Syria the allies must move ahead with the training of moderate rebel groups so that they stand up to the militants. The lack of a political solution in Syria has allowed this group to enhance its presence and extend its control of territories across the border into Iraq.

Furthermore, winning the ideological war will take time, but it is probably the most important component in the fight against extremism. In this regard Jordan can do a lot as a moderate Muslim country whose leader enjoys the respect and admiration of millions around the world. King Abdallah’s call for an Arab-Muslim coalition to fight extremism must be acknowledged by leaders, clerics and academics. It is a battle that must be won in the classrooms and mosques.

This leading role must be enhanced as Jordan moves to the forefront in taking the battle to the militants. Jordan’s contribution to the regional and international campaign to fight terror in the name of religion goes beyond the current air raids on IS targets. Moderation and wise leadership set Jordan apart from many countries in the region. The decision to go to war against the militants has not distracted attention from the main objectives of the regime that rest on nation building, political and economic reforms and addressing socioeconomic challenges.

The post Jordan Fights Back – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Nobel Peace Laureate President Barack Obama, the guy who once campaigned claiming one US war — the one against Iraq — was a “bad” one, and the other — against Afghanistan — was a “good” one, turns out to be a man who, once anointed commander-in-chief, can’t seem to find a war he doesn’t consider to be a “good” idea.

Obama turned out, on taking office, to have a hard time saying good-bye to the occupation of Iraq, only leaving when he was forced out by an Iraqi government that refused to continue giving US forces legal immunity for killing Iraqi civilians. In Afghanistan, he decided to copy the same “surge” — a massive increase in targeted assassinations and violence — that he had once condemned in Iraq. Then he stepped up drone-launched rocket attacks and bombings in seven other countries.

More recently he has begun an air war against Syria (okay, he says it’s against the so-called Islamic State, but the whole world, with the exception of a lot of ill-informed US citizens, knows it’s ultimately against the Syrian government), and now his Secretary of Defense (sic) Ashton Carter and his Secretary of State John Kerry are pushing for sending heavy arms and, inevitably, US “advisors” to Ukraine to escalate US involvement in the civil war there. What makes that latest war particularly dangerous is that all the while, Peace Laureate Obama makes it clear that the “enemy” is Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military.

Never mind that it is the US that originally orchestrated and encouraged the fascist coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, setting in motion a huge pogrom against ethnic Russians in the east of that country and provoking the current armed conflict, and never mind that Russian concern about the Ukraine stems from a decades long history of the US pushing NATO ever closer to Russia’s western border, with Ukraine kind of the last straw.

Anyone looking objectively at the warmaking and war-promotion of this administration would have to conclude that President Obama is one of the most bellicose Chief Executives in the history of the United States.

The post Obama The War President – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The number of large foundations has been consistently increasing. Some of these foundations are bulging with billions of dollars in assets that could be contributed to nonprofit “good works.” It is potentially the golden age of philanthropy, but unfortunately many areas of recognized need are too often ignored by foundation boards and their executives. Organizations with track records of effective advocacy and accomplishment stand ready to take on neglected problems of our society. Unfortunately, these groups lack adequate foundation support.

When foundations do donate to important areas, such as energy policy, they often award grants to the same organizations that are not original, motivating or making necessary waves. Year after year, these bland organizations are seen as the “safe choice” for donors who are timid about new ideas and groundbreaking approaches. Cushy relationships, as has been demonstrated in the energy/environmental field, often amount to an annuity of contributions for lackluster studies and reports from the same old recipients futilely running over the same old ground.

What author and philanthropist Peter Buffett called, in a widely discussed op-ed in the July 26, 2013 New York Times, the “charitable-industrial complex” is in need of serious introspection. Is it just treading water or, in Buffett’s words, immersed in “a crisis of imagination” and not putting “foundation dollars on the best ‘risk capital’ out there?”

After decades of observing effective groups with untapped potential suffering from a dearth of funding, I can point to 15 specific missed opportunities by indifferent foundations. Even funders who acknowledge the importance of the problems these groups are grappling with almost always reply to funding requests by saying the proposals “do not fit within our guidelines.”

I say “almost always” because there were a number of pioneering moves by large foundations that serve as compelling contrasting examples. About forty-five years ago, Ford Foundation funded the startup of public interest law firms. Little more than a decade ago, the Rockefeller Foundation, followed by Ford and MacArthur Foundations, funded controversial NGO efforts, already underway, to break monopolies for pharmaceutical drug treatments for HIV/AIDs, which lowered prices from more than $30 per day to less than a dollar per day, leading to the inclusion of nearly 10 million persons on treatment from developing countries.

Here is my short list of areas where funding is needed, but lacking:

1. The area of pension rights and the shredding of pension assets by Wall Street machinations involves trillions of dollars and receives miniscule support from foundations (http://www.pensionrights.org/).

2. Pressing for action regarding corporate governance, corporate welfare, and corporate crime, fraud and abuse is largely underfunded. Years ago, a study by Archibald Gillies found less than 5% of foundation donations go to nonprofit groups working in this massive arena.

3. Over five hundred billion dollars a year are spent on all federal government purchasing of goods and services from corporations, including weapons systems, health care, energy, paper and more. In 1988 we hosted “The Stimulation Effect: A National Conference on the Uses of Government Procurement Leverage to Benefit Taxpayers and Consumers.” This successful symposium dealt with one aspect of this largely ignored subject.

4. Freedom of Information advocacy and litigation receives a pittance; but should be an easy grant focus. Information is the currency of democracy. Past and present advocacy has proven to be extremely cost-beneficial. Foundations that want to reduce chronic government secrecy should take a close look here.

5. Racial redlining is the practice whereby mortgage lenders figuratively draw a red line around minority neighborhoods and refuse to make mortgage loans available there. Mortgage and insurance redlining leads to the deterioration of communities. In 1993 we produced original GIS maps with detailed data on financial institutions that were redlining minority neighborhoods in cities all over the country. Yet, our researcher, John Brown, could barely scrape together financial support from foundations ostensibly committed to confronting racial discrimination and related poverty.

6. Auto, railroad, aviation and bus safety are terra incognita for foundation grantmakers who undoubtedly use these forms of transportation. One aviation safety group of long-proven merit, the Aviation Consumer Action Project, had to close down, while another, the Center for Auto Safety, has worked wonders, but on a tiny budget. Furthermore, advocacy groups for railroad and bus safety are rarely seen in Washington, D.C.

7. The indifference to occupational health and safety is astonishing. Foundations may think labor unions should be bearing the load in this field. Unfortunately, the AFL-CIO has very few people monitoring the weak Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Protecting worker health and safety would be a good project for a consortium of foundations to fund. Imagine—advocacy organizations focused on the companies that produce mayhem on workers. There are over 54,000 workplace-related fatalities each year. The number of injuries and illnesses is much greater.

8. Hospital-acquired infections take over 200 lives a day in the U.S.! Only recently have some foundations shown an interest in funding civic associations that work on this largely preventable tragedy.

9. Legendary foundation critic Pablo Eisenberg makes a strong case that these tax-exempt institutions should be doing far more about poverty in America (see Helping the Poor Is No Longer a Priority for Today’s Nonprofits).

10. Advocacy for tax reform is much needed considering there are hundreds of billions of avoided and evaded tax dollars every year. You can count the number of national citizen tax reform groups on one hand. This is another of the ‘starvation fields’ for worthy groups suffering from foundation indifference. (See what one group has done – Citizens for Tax Justice.)

11. Wars can often be prevented. The Iraq invasion might not have occurred if a well-staffed secretariat had been funded to organize retired prominent military, security and diplomatic officials who had openly opposed that reckless war of choice. Requests for funding for such an initiative in 2002-2003 prior to the unlawful Iraq War were ignored.

12. Some foundations avidly favor civic engagement. What better illustrates civic engagement than the hundreds of little local groups training themselves to successfully fight toxic environments facilitated by Love Canal activist, Lois Gibbs, turned national leader? Lois Gibbs is now the director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justiceand has had to lay off workers because of insufficient foundation grant support.

13. Encouraging consumer cooperatives, as does the National Association of Student Cooperatives (NASCO), should be an easy one for foundation support. This organization does many things right on college campuses and provides materials on the advantages of co-ops.

14. Organizing alumni classes to advocate for justice has been pioneered by Princeton University’s class of 1955 and the Harvard Law School class of 1958. The motivating affinity group known as the alumni class—out over 35 years—is an exciting model foundations should eagerly support. Yet, funding to stimulate such groups has received very little foundation support in the last 25 years.

15. The tumultuous technologies known as genetic engineering and nanotechnology receive less annual civic funding for ethical and safety monitoring than the annual salaries of one giant foundation’s executive suite. There are only three small national civic groups with a focus on questioning genetic engineering and fewer focused on the invisible nanotech industry. Nanotech and genetic engineering research has been heavily funded by taxpayers. But, holding government and corporate researchers accountable is almost impossible because of a lack of funding.

Consider the beneficial impact when foundation funding enabled, starting in the early seventies, new environmental groups to perform their historic work or the significance of foundation funding for the “real news” of independent media. More creative and bold philanthropy is needed across the spectrum of our faltering democracy; more foundations need to be interested in the justice of prevention.

Remember, increased justice lessens the need for charity. It’s time for an introspective symposium.

The post Ralph Nader: Large Foundations: Rethink Your Priorities – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Daniel McAdams

It must have been like one of those annoying telemarketing calls, ringing up over and over saying the same thing. Today President Obama called Russian president Vladimir Putin to once again harangue him about the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine.

One can even picture Putin, working out with weights or maybe wrestling a bear somewhere, being handed his cell phone and told, “it’s Obama.”

“Aw man, tell him I’m not here…”

“You gotta take this call…”

According to the White House “read out” of the call, Obama called Putin to, “reiterate… America’s support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,”  and to “underscore… the rising human toll of the fighting and underscore… the importance of President Putin seizing the opportunity presented by the ongoing discussions between Russia, France, Germany, and Ukraine to reach a peaceful resolution,” according to the White House release.

Sounds a lot like langue de bois.

What is interesting about the above is the obvious: the United States — the one indispensable nation according to Obama — is not at all involved in the potentially breakthrough talks of the European quartet. Could it be that the Europeans have an idea how to solve a European problem without the US demanding obedience or threatening a world war?

It was a new study released last week by a US defense industry-funded consortium of “think tanks” urging direct US military involvement in the Ukraine crisis that spooked Hollande and Merkel into action. While Washington had a collective swoon-fest over the report’s conclusion that $3 billion worth of US weapons should be sent to US client regime in Kiev, the Europeans suddenly remembered their last 100 years of history and realized that the scorched earth left by the war that would likely follow US direct involvement would not leave Washington or L.A. charred, but Brussels. And Munich, Paris, and so on.

So Merkel and Hollande decided to leave Obama home alone and travel to Kiev and Moscow themselves.

The separate but related “Minsk 2” talks today also proceeded without US involvement and seemingly produced another possibility for a pullback of heavy artillery on both sides.

In other words, while Obama was reading from the same tired old script, the countries most affected by the unrest were trying to find a solution to the horrific conflict. In other, other words, US involvement is an impediment, not a catalyst for a positive outcome.

All Obama could do is ring up Putin again and again threaten war. According to the White House read out, Obama threatened Putin:

…if Russia continues its aggressive actions in Ukraine, including by sending troops, weapons, and financing to support the separatists, the costs for Russia will rise.

Again Washington’s interventionists have led the United States down the path of isolation and irrelevance. The total war they demand over bankrupt, destitute, bleeding Ukraine, is being roundly rejected by US allies. The US empire, producing nothing but chaos, is perhaps finally recognized as being without clothes.

This article was published by The RonPaul Institute.

The post When Barack Called Vladimir – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Lawrence Husick*

On February 10, 2015, Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism announced the formation of yet another agency under the aegis of the Director of National Intelligence: the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC) will be modeled on the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and will serve as a center of analysis for cyber threat and cyber protection for the United States.

“The cyberthreat is one of the greatest threats we face, and policymakers and operators will benefit from having a rapid source of intelligence,” said Ms. Monaco. “It will help ensure that we have the same integrated, all-tools approach to the cyberthreat that we have developed to combat terrorism.” Recent “hacks” against Anthem, JPMorgan Chase, Target, Home Depot, and Sony have highlighted the need for a rapid, cogent, and proactive strategy.

At present, a variety of agencies have overlapping responsibilities in the cyber domain. The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the National Security Agency all have cyber-operations centers, and the Air Force has its own CyberCommand, which is tasked with intelligence, offensive and defensive roles. Both the FBI and the NSA integrate threat information and pass it along to other agencies, as well as state, local and tribal officials, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology has been assigned the task of establishing voluntary cybersecurity frameworks for both the public and private sectors. Most of these roles are not expected to migrate to the CTIIC, and no reductions in budget or staff have been announced in any of the existing agencies.

Instead, the CTIIC will begin with a staff of about 50 and a budget of $35 million. If the early history of the NCTC is used as a guide, much of that funding will be used to secure office space and a state-of-the-art command center with dozens of large, bright video displays, reminiscent of NASA’s Mission Control.

If the organizational model of NCTC is used, much of the time of the staff will be spent in consultation with partner organizations including the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Dept. of Health & Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Nat’l Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Security Agency, Transportation Security Administration, and the U.S. Capitol Police.[1]

While the organizational hurdles of establishing and running the new Center are great, the technical task list is not simply Herculean, it is Sisyphean. There are now more than 285 different antivirus programs for the Microsoft Windows environment, alone. As of today (February 10, 2015) computer security company Symantec catalogs 32,875,320 unique computer virus signatures. That number increased by 37 in the last 75 minutes.

Computer virus attacks, however, are the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Flaws in operating systems, application software, embedded controllers, industrial systems, and chip microcode are a perhaps greater threat, and the human element – susceptibility to “social engineering” attacks such as phishing emails, popup websites, and poor “cyber hygiene” including sloppy password management threaten government and private computers and networks, alike. It should be clear that even the most adept 50 government cyberwizards can’t and won’t stay even modestly informed about the full range of danger facing our cyber-dependent economy, government, and world. Leaks from government and private information systems show that we have yet to implement a useful way to secure electronic information while making it available to those who legitimately must access and use it. These technologies exist (I have personally helped to patent some) but have been roundly ignored — information security is not a “sexy” technology and not a high priority for most decision makers.

All of this should not be taken as a criticism of the impulse that brought today’s announcement. The range and severity of cyberthreats is increasing, and the consequences of cyber disruption should not be underestimated. If we merely assume that our adversaries, regardless of whether they are criminal or state-sponsored, have capabilities that are similar to the catalog of NSA goodies published by Der Spiegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog), then we should recognize that every electronic system is at risk for both data theft and disruption. Because the private sector in the United States has been notably lax in its response to these threats, more often covering up after attacks than spending the amounts necessary to install even a moderate level of protection, it is high time that government take real action.

Unfortunately, after repeated attempts by the President to get a cybersecurity bill through the US Senate were thwarted by holds and threatened filibusters, only a watered-down set of voluntary “frameworks” were proposed by NIST, and even these were criticized as government meddling in the business affairs of the private sector. It is likely that today’s creation of a new Center does little to promote actual progress in national cyber defense – the task is too large, the established responses too fragmented, and the new effort, both too small and intrinsically subject to internecine turf wars.

The new Center must yoke gigantic information flows in time that is measured in nanoseconds, to enable responses to “zero day” vulnerabilities lurking in diverse systems built by millions of coders and engineers all over the world. One cannot help but envision the 50 new CTIIC employees, standing next to that brand new wall of video displays, frantically shoving their virtual fingers into millions of virtual holes in an electronic dike, unable to stem the approaching cyber tsunami. For the United States, which invented the Internet and leads the world in computer technologies, there must be a better way.

About the author:
*Lawrence Husick is an FPRI Senior Fellow, Co-Chair of FPRI’s Center for the Study of Terrorism, and Co-director of FPRI’s Wachman Center project on Teaching about Innovation.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] http://www.nctc.gov/partnerships.html

The post A New US Cyber Agency Is Born – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The ASEAN Community is to be established this year. ASEAN should convey, very early in the new year, a coordinated message on what exactly the ASEAN Community 2015 is and what the people can expect come 31 December 2015.

By Raman Letchumanan*

Many people have a vague idea of what the ASEAN Community 2015 (AC15) is all about and how it benefits or impacts them. The lack of clear coherent messaging by the authorities leads some to benchmark the AC15 with the European Union (EU), while others have the impression the AC15 is all about the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) which invariably gets the most attention in public discourses.

ASEAN must make a concerted effort to convey in specific quantitative, if not qualitative, terms what it had planned to achieve and how well it is doing, regularly throughout the year. Otherwise the public who are being primed to expect “delivery” of the AC15 on 31 December 2015 will be greatly disappointed if they are anticipating a Cinderella-like transformation on that day. ASEAN, under Malaysia’s Chairmanship, has a heavy transformative agenda this year, namely (i) delivering on the AC15 (ii) designing the post-2015 agenda which spans a decade to 2025 and (iii) hopefully reviewing the ASEAN Charter which was due in 2014. This commentary deals with the first task.

Framing ASEAN Community 2015 (AC15)

The ASEAN Leaders have declared that the 2009-2015 Road Map consisting of the three Community Blueprints – Economic (AEC), Political-Security (APSC), Socio-Cultural (ASCC) -shall form the basis of the overall ASEAN Community (AC15). Of course, the ASEAN Charter and other subsequent key initiatives would also define the AC15. By focusing on the broader goals, objectives, strategies, and targets set in these instruments, the contours and key markers of the AC15 can be easily framed, both in quantitative and qualitative terms as appropriate.

However, assessing the establishment of AC15 based on the implementation of the 1000-odd mostly operational actions – which at recent count by authorities averages 90% – is just not right nor valid. The achievement of regional and national development goals is a combined effort from all sources particularly national efforts; it is certainly not only from the Blueprint’s regional actions which is just a drop in the ocean.

Describing AC15 as “work-in-progress” so early in the year seems apologetic and back-tracking. Indeed the successes so far should lay the foundation for future work on ASEAN community building, while learning from failures and what works and what doesn’t.

Building the foundation: Prosperity, peace and people

The AEC is on track to eliminate tariffs on almost all goods by the end of the year. However, the share of the intra-ASEAN trade in total GDP (2009-2013) has been stuck at about 24%, even lower than the previous corresponding period. While intra-ASEAN investment (2009-2013) has increased, the rate of increase is less than for extra-ASEAN. AEC is not fully utilising its own single market and production base.

More work needs to be done on trade facilitation, expedited uniform customs clearance, removal of non-tariff measures, and facilitated movement of skilled persons. The Open Sky policy has clearly benefitted the people resulting in a dramatic increase in air travel, physically bringing ASEAN people closer for meaningful interaction and regional integration.

The fact that ASEAN has been a relatively peaceful region compared to the rest of the world should score high for APSC. The Preah Vihear Temple, Sipadan and Ligitan Islands, Pedra Branca, and even development issues such as the Malayan Railway Land deal between Malaysia and Singapore have shown the States’ maturity in using bilateral, regional and international mechanisms to resolve disputes amicably while accepting the verdicts gracefully.

Such multiple channels of dispute settlement should be pursued concurrently for the South China Sea disputes.

ASEAN has also been affected by terrorism and transnational crimes. Ensuring a drug-free ASEAN by 2015, on hindsight, is way off the mark, but with recent record-breaking seizure of illegal drugs, coordinated enforcement, and severe penalties we should be moving steadily towards that goal. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights is already operational, and more needs to be done on human rights protection.

Surprisingly, ASCC gets the least attention though the issues are all about the people and their daily lives. It is making its mark on disaster response, becoming more resourced, capable, and confident and being recognised as the essential first responders in the region. The ASCC is already operating on the basis of higher targets than that of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG Plus).

The region has well-coordinated response mechanisms for pandemics based on the experiences of SARS and Avian Influenza. The haze situation is still hazy, dictated by the vagaries of weather, but countries are responding through well-coordinated regional and national mechanisms through legislation, enforcement, and preventive activities on the ground.

AC15: Measuring and communicating progress

Contrary to its name, the AEC Scorecard is just a monitoring and compliance tool of agreements and actions which, though necessary, does not articulate the impacts and benefits of the AEC. However, to its credit, communications such as the AEC’s 2014 publication; AEC 2015: Thinking Globally, Prospering Regionally setting out key messages and explaining clearly the impact of the AEC, quoting real examples of how businesses and people have benefitted, should be ratcheted up this year.

The ASCC has developed its own comprehensive Scorecard based on key impact indicators related to the ASCC Blueprint goals, strategies and targets. It should now work on those agreed indicators and quickly publish the 2015 ASCC Scorecard Report which should give a clearer perception of what the ASCC, and consequently the AC15, is and how it has impacted the people.

Diverse voices speaking as one

Malaysia and the ASEAN Secretariat should lead and coordinate the framing, scoping, delivery of targeted information, and assessment of the AC15. Only recently the ASEAN Secretariat has opened a tiny window on AC15 on their website; the Malaysian website could be more than an event management site.

The wide-ranging multifaceted efforts of community building should be properly classified into clusters, subjects, or thematic areas targeting the main interest groups – businesses, intellectual community, and the general public – for a year- long constructive discourse on the AC15. Greater use of social media should make these platforms fully interactive to generate interest, engagement, discussion, feedback and effective participation.

Malaysia could emulate the well-structured communication strategy of its National Transformation Policy for AC15. All other member states should equally do so, for example, pitching AC15 on their national commemorative events such as Singapore’s SG50.

ASEAN may well engage relevant stakeholders for working level interactions during its over 1000 official meetings this year; and all these meetings should singularly focus on generating key outputs and messages for AC15, and planning for the post-2015 agenda.

In other words, ASEAN should seriously start implementing the ASEAN Communication Master Plan which has elaborated in detail what should be done for communicating AC15 – beginning right now.

*Raman Letchumanan is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. The views expressed here are strictly his own. Dr. Raman served as a senior official at the ASEAN Secretariat for 14 years.

The post What Is The ASEAN Community 2015? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande flew to Moscow on Friday for an emergency meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to put an end to the spiraling bloodshed in East Ukraine. The negotiations lasted five hours and were held “without the presence of aides and officials” to ensure confidentiality and to prevent leaks to the media. The striking absence of a US representative at the confab, when US Secretary of State John Kerry was less than an hour away in nearby Kiev, suggests that there may be a split between leaders in the EU and Washington on their approach to the crisis in Ukraine. While US politicians and diplomats are nearly unanimous in their support for providing so called “defensive” weapons to Ukraine, leaders in Europe oppose the idea. Merkel has been particularly outspoken on the topic, saying on Monday:

“I am firmly convinced this conflict cannot be solved with military means. I cannot imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily. I have to put it that bluntly.”

That’s a good call on Merkel’s part. Sending weapons to Ukraine will only add fuel to the fire. There’s also reason to believe that if Washington is allowed to move forward with its plan, the fighting will intensify and spread, the US will gradually increase its military and logistical support to Kiev, and a strategically-located state on Europe’s easternmost perimeter will descend into Somalia-like anarchy. While this scenario may be beneficial for the world’s only superpower, it’s hard to see the upside for Berlin or Paris both of who believe that their future prosperity depends on better relations with emerging markets in Asia. If Washington is allowed to take the lead and set policy, then Putin and Merkel’s shared dream of a free trade area “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” will be doomed, mainly because the US will position itself between the two continents where it will extort tribute on the transfer of energy, demand that business transactions be denominated in dollars, and maintain a lock on regional security. Europe does not need a rent-seeking hegemon –skimming dimes off every barrel of oil and meddling in regional security issues–to act as mediator with its business partners. Europe and Asia are quite capable of handling their own affairs, thank you very much. Here’s a little more background on Friday’s emergency meeting in Moscow:

“All the talk in the Western media yesterday and this morning is of a split between Europe and the US. That is going much too far. However for the first time there is public disagreement in Europe with Washington on the Ukrainian question. Whether that crystallizes into an actual break with Washington leading to a serious and sustained European attempt to reach a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis against Washington’s wishes is an altogether different question. I have to say that for the moment I very much doubt it.

I remain deeply pessimistic about this whole process. The best opportunity to settle this conflict diplomatically was last spring. I cannot help but feel that … the train has now left the station…

The besetting problem of this whole crisis is that the Europeans have never shown either the resolve or the realism to face the hardliners down though it is certainly within their power to do so. In Merkel’s case one has to wonder whether her heart is in it anyway. My view remains that this situation will only be resolved by war, and that the negotiations in Moscow will prove just another footnote to that.” (Talks in Moscow – a two-part analysis, Alexander Mercouris, The Vineyard of the Saker)

While it’s clear that Merkel is inflexible on the weapons issue, she is still solidly in the US camp. On Saturday, at the annual Munich Security Conference, Merkel expressed pessimism about her negotiations with Putin and proceeded to blast Moscow for alleged violations to “the foundations of our living together in Europe”… “first in Crimea, then in eastern Ukraine.” She also added that the “territorial integrity of Ukraine as well as its sovereignty have been flouted.” So, while the rhetoric might be a bit less incendiary than, let’s say, John McCain’s; there’s only the slightest difference in content.

On Wednesday, a meeting of the ‘Normandy Four’ (Putin, Merkel, Hollande, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko) will take place in the Belarus capital of Minsk if–as Putin says, “we manage to agree on our positions.” This could turn out to be a sticking point since the terms of the original Minsk agreement will need to be altered to reflect changes on the ground. The Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) have recently captured territory that they have no intention of giving up since it was seized after Poroshenko broke the terms of the original truce by launching an attack on the Donetsk airport in mid-January. Kiev will dispute this point, but probably not as vigorously as another provision introduced by Putin (which was leaked on Sunday by Hollande) for “a 50km-70km demilitarised zone along the front line.” Putin will probably insist that Russian troops maintain the DMZ between East and West Ukraine to discourage Kiev from future adventurism and to prevent further NATO expansion. The fact that neither Obama nor Merkel mentioned this key point in their press briefing on Monday suggests that both sides are miles apart on the issue. While Obama will probably veto the proposal on the grounds that it is a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Merkel might see the idea as the only reasonable way to separate the warring parties and bring the conflict to a swift end. (Although she would surely push for international peacekeepers to monitor the DMZ.) In any event, the issue is bound to be a bone of contention at Wednesday’s meeting which means that the Obama team will have tell their puppet Poroshenko what to say when the proposal comes up.

The question is whether, on this particular point, Merkel and Hollande will deviate from the US position and offer their reluctant support for Putin’s demilitarized zone?

Why would they do that?

Because the Ukrainian economy is collapsing, (The country needs $50 billion in emergency funding.) the currency is in freefall (The hryvnia lost half its value just last week) and the Ukrainian army is at the brink of annihilation. At present, a small army of 7,000 Ukrainian regulars is holed-up in a strategic railway-hub called Debaltsevo in east Ukraine. The troops have been cut off from their supply-lines and are surrounded by heavily-armed battle-hardened veterans of the NAF who are tightening the loose by the day. The impending bloodbath could take place at any time.. According to the Financial Times, a defeat in Debaltsevo could be a “breaking point” in the war in Ukraine. “At stake is control over regional railway shipments of coal mined in rebel-held territory on which Ukraine’s electricity generators and export-oriented steel sector depend.” The situation is desperate and likely to get worse. Kiev is very close to losing the war in the east. The losses to the army, the economy and to morale are bound to be devastating.

So time is running out for Poroshenko and his crew. If Merkel doesn’t push through a peace agreement on Wednesday–even one she doesn’t like or that may be politically unpopular–then hostilities will resume, the hawks will get the upper hand, the Obama administration will sends weapons and trainers to the theatre, and the US will use the deepening crisis as an excuse to seize the initiative and take things to the next level, a level that will inflict so much damage on the Donbass, that Putin will be forced to deploy troops to protect Russian-speaking people in the conflict area. That will transform a manageable proxy war on the eastern perimeter into a full-blown confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries.

Merkel must see the danger or she wouldn’t have rushed off to Moscow last Friday. But seeing isn’t enough. Something has to be done. What’s she going to do about it? Will she use her influence to muscle through a peace deal that will keep events from spinning out of control or will she sit on her hands and let the opportunity pass her bye?

Carpe diem, Angela. Carpe diem.

The post Will The German Chancellor Bring Peace To Ukraine? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ömer Faruk Topal

Islamic State (formerly known as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham) has exceeded all of its predecessors and similar groups in terms of the violence it has inflicted. Considering the huge amount of violence, IS is often described as medieval or primitive. It is generally argued that mass atrocities and displacements perpetrated in IS-controlled areas, beheadings, post-mortem humiliations, and enslavement of women and children are barbaric reactions to the current course of humanity. Although it is an incontrovertible reality that IS’ actions are inhumane, incentives behind these actions are far from medieval. IS is an anti-traditional, anti-clerical, and unitary organization with an individualistic agenda. It aims to trigger social mobilization and employs rationally designed violence.

The Modern Face of IS

IS is anti-traditional. By no means does it aim to return to the past. IS members’ strong and continuous references to the age of the Prophet Mohammed operationalize an idealization of a certain period of history for ideological reasons rather than for a nostalgia for the past. IS a member practice a religious understanding different from that of their parents, decrying the latter’s as cultural ritual, not pure religion. They oppose traditional and cultural aspects of Islam, such as Sufi orders or shrines, razing the latter whenever the opportunity arises.

IS is also anti-clerical. Although IS declared the establishment of a Caliphate with its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi using the title of “Caliph”, it should be noted that Caliph is a political term that is more related with political affairs rather than religious ones. Many members of IS are neither learned in Islam nor devout Muslims at all. The case of two IS militants who ordered the book Islam for Dummies from Amazon before their departure to Syria is now a quite well-known example of this reality. MI5’s Behavioural Science Unit summarizes in their findings that “far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practice their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could be regarded as religious novices.” Ideologues of the group can be likened more to powerful speakers rather than saintly preachers.

Mainstream religious authorities in the Muslim world such as grand-muftis, imams of great mosques and prominent scholars of eminent universities have come to form alliances with the established political authorities, even if they are dictatorial, unjust or corrupt. These mutual relations have been consistently questioned by numerous voices from a variety of social strata and have lost their credibility and prestige to some extent in the process. IS and like-minded groups portray these religious figures as collaborators of despotic regimes who abandon Allah’s way for their own personal gain and desires.

IS is individualistic. IS addresses individual responsibilities and accountabilities in realizing Islamic values and goals. Joining IS or fighting for its cause is an individual choice and “jihad”, the main dynamic behind the IS propaganda machine, is an individual duty. According to IS ideology, the individual is responsible to Allah and Allah alone, not to primordial loyalties like religious orders, tribes or families. IS members often regard secular Arab regimes or pro-democracy movements as taghuts, an Islamic term used to denote idolatry or the worship of anything except Allah. By using this terminology, IS seeks to portray that it is opposed to the enslavement of the human being and that it seeks to liberate people from false gods. In addition to this, IS exploits the personal woes of its recruits, offering oppressed, repressed, deprived individuals the chance to become heroes of the Muslim ummah and holy warriors, or the chosen sect. IS gives its members a sense of belonging, moral and spiritual security and legitimacy to fight against Shia Muslims in the current chaotic sectarian war. As anthropologist Scott Atran pointed out in his testimony to the US Senate in March 2010: “[w]hat inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Quran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world.”

IS’ violence is modern. This extreme violence is neither irrational nor unplanned. It is a strategy designed to appeal to radicals worldwide, to show local people what might happen if they do not obey IS and to attract attention and therefore remain on the global agenda. Moreover, violence is not new in this area. Al Qaeda in Iraq inflicted almost the same amount of violence on local residents, but the actions of IS are more apparent because the group has become a global problem that has come to draw greater attention from the media. Moreover, the political and military clique that dominated the Iraqi state and military in the Saddam era also used violence as a chief instrument in the implementation of their policies. Similarly, IS commits violence in line with a strategy, not for the sake of pure barbarity.

IS aims for social mobilization. When Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the spokesperson of IS, declared the establishment of a Caliphate, he urged Muslims to come to Iraq and Syria not just to fight but to live. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has also made the same call. He called on “scientists, scholars, preachers, judges, doctors, engineers, and people with military and administrative expertise of all domains” to come and settle in IS-ruled territories. IS has institutionalized its struggle through extensive and integrated networks. It is well organized, amply resourced and attractive for many. In his address to the Muslim ummah during Ramadan in 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claimed that emigration to the land of Islam is obligatory and exhorted all Muslims to come and settle in Islamic State.

IS is unitarist and state-centric just like modern nation-states. As can be understood from its name, IS claims statehood and it deserves to be labeled as at least a pseudo-state or rudimentary state. They have a flag, implement law, have built effective military power including tanks and training camps, provide road safety, run schools and clinics, and manage to operate oil wells and a refinery. Moreover, it is generally accepted that IS-controlled bureaucracy is less corrupt than many regimes and even other rebel groups. For IS, the establishment of a state and Caliphate means the return of dignity, might, rights and leadership. It is also a prerequisite for the imposition of Shari’a and the restoration of an honor that was ravaged after the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924. Other militant groups in Iraq and Syria are more practical. They do not see themselves as the sole sovereign of Syria and they cooperate with other rebel groups if need be. They are more local, a fact that is often emphasized by their leaders to show that they represent the native inhabitants. On the other hand, IS is more ideological and transnational in nature. Many foreign fighters are fighting for IS and the group excludes other groups for the sake of the creation of an Islamic caliphate. For IS militants, IS is not an organization; it is a sovereign state. So, external intervention or concession on any issue is utterly unacceptable.

In conclusion, IS is not a simple terrorist organization; in comparison to other rebel groups it has relatively well-defined interests and methods. It is in Iraq and Syria to stay. Reducing IS to a simple group of barbarians works to prevent the development of comprehensive strategies that would help to defeat the constellation at large.

The post Beyond A Barbaric Organization: Modernity And IS – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The president is requesting Congress to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) resolution against ISIS. Congress has not issued a similar resolution since 2002, when President Bush was given the authority to wage war against Iraq. The purpose of this resolution is to give official authority to the president to do the things that he has already been doing for the past six years. Seems strange but this is typical for Washington. President Obama’s claim is that he does not need this authority. He claims, as have all other recent presidents, that the authority to wage war in the Middle East has been granted by the resolutions passed in 2001, 2002, and by article II of the Constitution. To ask for this authority at this time is a response to public and political pressure.

It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years.

Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.

The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.

We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.

Even if our policies led to no boots on the ground, the unintended consequences of blowback and the enemy obtaining more American weapons will continue. The CIA has said that 20,000 foreigners are on their way to Iraq and Syria to join the ISIS. Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams. Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

It’s my opinion that giving additional authority to wage war in the Middle East is a serious mistake. Instead, the authority granted in 2001 and 2002 should be repealed. A simple and correct solution would be for our elected officials to follow the rules regarding war laid out in the Constitution.

Ironically there may well be some Republicans in the Congress who will oppose this resolution because of their desire to have an all-out war and not be limited in any way by the number of troops that we should be sending to this region. The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it’s in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.

There is no doubt that ISIS represents a monstrous problem – a problem that should be dealt with by the many millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region. ISIS cannot exist without the support of the people in the region. Currently it is estimated that their numbers are in a range of 30,000. This is not the responsibility of American soldiers or the American taxpayer.

Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts. Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire. Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: Obama’s Force Authorization Is A Blank Check For War Worldwide – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Timur Toktonaliev*

Syrian jihad won’t be replicated by returning combatants, but fundamentalist ideals are long-established in Central Asia and won’t go away, regional expert says.

A leading expert on Central Asia has told IWPR that even though Islamic State has recruited many fighters from the region, their return home does not automatically mean they will launch a jihad against regional governments.

Despite this, Alexei Malashenko said, the idea that corrupt, malfunctioning secular institutions should be replaced by an Islamic system has deep roots in Central Asia and is likely to endure, so it is important for national governments to find responses other than wholesale repression.

Malashenko, a Central Asia expert with the Carnegie Centre in Moscow, spoke to reporter Timur Toktonaliev about the dangers that Islamic State poses to Kyrgyzstan and the wider region.

Could Islamic State’s violent militancy be exported to the Central Asian region?

The threat from Islamic State isn’t really as great as people say. First, there is the geographical distance between the two regions, and second, the Central Asian countries have clearly defined themselves as different from the Middle Eastern region – psychologically, culturally, politically and otherwise…. I would say that based on that alone, the threat is exaggerated, although fears do exist – principally because combatants are returning and might start a war against the authorities here.

So far their activities haven’t come to much; it’s been more talk than action. However… if the social and economic position of people in the region begins to deteriorate sharply, these guys will naturally find a role for themselves.

No one knows the numbers; it’s reported that 200 or 300 have gone [from Kyrgyzstan], although that may only be from the north, and more may have gone from Osh [in southern Kyrgyzstan].

So there are undoubtedly potential threats to Kyrgyzstan. But I would stress that the source of threats is primarily domestic, as well as [the impact] of sudden changes in the situation in neighbouring Tajikistan or Uzbekistan.

A recent report from International Crisis Group suggests that the people recruited by Islamic State include uneducated young people from impoverished backgrounds, but also people who are not badly off, for example those who have their own businesses. What does that say? Is it possible to identify a common reason why Islamic State attracts people?

The radicals themselves are well-educated. They are people who have studied abroad and who come back home and stir things up. By contrast, the religious education offered in Central Asia and Russia is poor.

It is true that socially-based protests are primarily driven by the poor. But there isn’t a direct correlation between Islamism and radicalism and poverty. There are well-off, educated people involved, too. Why is Islamic State attractive? These people aren’t attracted by Islamic State per se, but by radical ideas which are political and are about seeking social justice. It gives them an increased sense of self-worth. It is one thing to just sit in a mosque and believe in something, but quite another to take part in the activities of a party or organisation and get involved in the process.

Why are they returning home even though the war in Syria isn’t over?

First, there’s a degree of disappointment with Islamic State. Second, it’s hard to fight continually, day in, day-out. You need a rest from it – and I mean that quite seriously.

There are also internal disagreements within Islamic State, plus there is ethnic strife – Uzbeks don’t like Chechens, Chechens don’t like Tajiks and so on. It’s unclear how things will develop from here.

Third, Islamic State has passed its peak, which was in October and November [2014]. Now things are more complicated. If the [United States-led] coalition strikes at them…. there are two possible scenarios – either they come together, or they don’t have time to do so. But Islamic State supporters will continue to exist either way. They will exist as cells and in the mosques, because the idea they stand for is an eternal one.

How dangerous are those who return home?

Within Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security, there are two views on those who return – some say they should be arrested and kept locked up, whereas others argue they should be freed and left alone. There’s nothing particular [to be concluded] from the fact that they’ve been fighting over there and come back. They won’t gain much prestige here from the wartime murders which we’ve all seen video footage of. If some lad comes back to his home country from Islamic State, the first thing he needs to do is sort out his own situation and find a way of earning a living. He won’t have much time to get involved in brainwashing others. So I don’t see them as posing a great danger.

At the same time, the security services are detaining some of those who have returned, and also some who haven’t been abroad. Yet there’s little to be gained from this, because the problem isn’t Islamic State, but the idea which lives on and is spreading. Whether Islamic State exists or not, the idea will always spread everywhere. This is parallel Islam which has no loyalty to the state. They might be called Islamists, Salafists, fundamentalists or whatever, but the essence remains the same.

The idea of creating a state based on sharia [Islamic law] has always existed here. They [supporters of this] have been hidden; they haven’t been very visible. But as secular models of development have failed… people have started thinking, “Why not try Islam?” [They wonder] what is bad about an Islamic state when compared with authoritarian regimes, economic crisis, corruption, nepotism and a lack of democracy. What are the downsides?

I’m not saying everyone who lives in the Ferghana Valley thinks that way, but there’s a definite trend. I hasn’t come from nowhere…. It is impossible to stop. It is certainly wrong to suppress it, as happened in the North Caucasus. The more you push, the harder it will come back and hit you.

When this radicalism started appearing, they [governments] should have initially heard them out rather than fighting against them. These people should have been engaged in some way, and then they would have become more moderate. And other methods could then have been used against those who refused [to engage].

Islamic radicalism is potent in Central Asia… because Islamic radicals represent a response to social and economic problems, an attempt to find solutions.

Why have so many people been moved to join Islamic State? This didn’t happen when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started.

The situation was different in Iraq…. Iraq wasn’t a war for Islam.

The slogan now is different – it’s about having a righteous state…. In addition, there are a range of logistical routes through easy-to-get-to countries, there is a well-developed network of recruiters, and all this works towards mobilising people for Islamic State.

How serious are reports that Islamic State has a specific group set up to fight the Central Asia regimes?

At the moment, Islamic State doesn’t have time to do this since it has to sort out its internal differences first. It may be continuing to recruit, but that isn’t on the same scale as before…. They are more engaged in fighting in Europe and Turkey than in Central Asia.

It has to be clearly understood that the gravest threat to Central Asia’s secular regimes comes from within, from their own populations. External factors come second.

How do you view efforts by Central Asian governments to tackle Islamic State recruitment and the spread of jihadist propaganda?

At the moment they are just about coping, because it isn’t on a mass scale. However, it’s impossible for them to monitor every citizen who leaves the country, as there are lots of ways to travel undetected. But they do need to identify and track how people get dispatched to Islamic State from Central Asia – who’s recruiting them, and whether it’s done individually or via local branches of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or other groups. This is run-of-the-mill work for law-enforcement agencies, and they need to do it thoroughly.

Each country is tackling this problem on its own. There is no cooperation. As for the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, nothing is being done, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is even less effective. They mostly just talk.

*Alexei Malashenko was interviewed by Timur Toktonaliev, IWPR’s Kyrgyzstan editor. This article was published at IWPR’s RCA Issue 752.

The post Does Islamic State Threaten Central Asia? – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The second jailing of Anwar Ibrahim is expected to unleash a chain of repercussions that will affect both sides of the political divide. What looms is a new phase of uncertainty that may, however, throw into prominence new and younger leaders.

By Yang Razali Kassim*

As widely expected, the Malaysian Federal Court has dismissed the appeal of opposition icon Anwar Ibrahim against a sodomy conviction, triggering the start of a chain of events that could shake up Malaysian politics in the years to come. Serving immediately a jail term of five years for what he maintains was a political conspiracy by his enemies, the verdict could well end the 67-year-old Anwar’s political career. Besides losing his parliamentary seat, by the time he comes out, he would be 72 – a mite too old to make any political comeback. But the former deputy prime minister has in the past proven to be like a cat with nine lives – and might just be another.

In 2000, two years after he was sacked as deputy premier following a clash with then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad due to differences over the Asian financial crisis, he was jailed for his first sodomy conviction but released four years later when that conviction was overturned. Anwar countered his latest court verdict with a vow to continue his fight from behind bars, thus promising to turn himself into a potent political martyr.

What now?

His fractured opposition alliance, Pakatan Rakyat (PR), could close ranks and turn Anwar’s incarceration to its advantage; then Malaysian politics could enter an explosive phase at the expense of Prime Minister Najib Razak and the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition. But if the PR fails to overcome its internal divisions, Anwar’s jailing will come to nought and the opposition will find itself heading for its demise. Much depends on what PR will do next, but there is no clear alternative leader of Anwar’s stature, with his charisma and political acumen to pull the divided alliance together.

This leaves Anwar with no choice but to do the near-impossible of being the leader who pulls the strings from behind bars – something he had done before quite successfully. A leadership reshuffle is inevitable: Who will now lead the Opposition parliament; his own Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR); and more importantly, the broader PR alliance given its divided state? This is the time when a core of younger leaders whom Anwar has inspired and nurtured could well emerge in the opposition, such as his daughter, Nurul Izzah, as well as Azmin Ali, Rafizi Ramli and Saifuddin Nasution, to redefine Malaysian politics post-Anwar.

Anwar’s jailing: Good or bad for PM Najib?

His second jailing has two contrasting implications for PM Najib. On the one hand, Anwar will, by law, lose his parliamentary seat and will no longer be a major factor in the political equation. He will miss the next general election. This means the opposition PR will be leaderless to fight the polls, thus virtually assuring Najib’s BN of a return to power. But this assumes two things – that Anwar will remain ineffective behind bars and that the opposition allies will indeed fail to close ranks. But it would be a folly not to take the man seriously: he will be the political martyr that he has promised to be, and the opposition might just be galvanised out of anger – thus potentially becoming a more potent threat to Najib.

As it is, the prime minister is already looking at a tough year ahead as he gets buffeted increasingly on the political and economic fronts. He has entered the new year under the clouds of not one but three dramatic airplane disasters affecting Malaysian interests in a space of one year. He is probably the only Malaysian leader since independence to have come under such unprecedented misfortune.

Ominously, the new year was also ushered with one of the worst floods to hit the country’s peninsular east coast in a ‘mini tsunami’. Unfortunately for Najib, he was at the time photographed by the US media playing golf with President Obama during a private visit in Hawaii. The Malaysian leader could have done without this unforeseen problem, having been already saddled with a number of heavy issues.

He took the rap for losing the popular vote in the last general election to the Anwar-led opposition. A new sovereign wealth fund which he advises, 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), has been heavily criticised for amassing huge debts so soon after formation. The alarming debt size has drawn heavy fire from two UMNO stalwarts, Mahathir and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin.

Economically, this could not have come at a worse time either: Plummeting global oil prices has hit Malaysia as an oil exporter, forcing the government to revise downwards the national budget. The GDP growth forecast was trimmed from 5 to 6% to 4.5 to 5.5%. Najib, however, shied away from declaring the economy in crisis or recession. “We are neither in a recession nor a crisis (as) experienced in 1997/1998,” he said when revising Budget 2015.

On a related front, the sliding economy was piling on the country’s politics: the drop in oil prices was not accompanied by a corresponding decline in the prices of consumer goods. It led to one UMNO minister accusing “Chinese traders” of profiteering and calling on the majority Malay community to boycott Chinese businesses. There were even alarmist statements of economic sabotage by certain parties to profit from the falling national currency, the ringgit. This is probably the first time since the 1998 financial crisis that such talk has resurfaced.

Political risks

As he meets his challenges, Najib has to ensure that his ethnic-based ruling coalition remains stable. But a key partner, the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), broke into a public power feud, forcing Najib to step in. Another component party, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) had just recovered from its own power struggle. In the anchor party, UMNO, there are undercurrents against Najib’s own position, led by Mahathir, who however, may be somewhat mollified by the re-jailing of Anwar.

Najib cannot afford the new year taking a nasty trajectory, especially after Anwar’s conviction. Besides, 2015 will also be a year when Malaysia comes under the spotlight as chair of ASEAN. He needs to steer the ship of state through the stormy weather ahead. Will he display sufficient political skill to ensure his survival as leader?

At the same time, Najib will be watched whether he would manoeuvre to forge a “unity government” between UMNO and the opposition PAS in the state of Kelantan which was badly hit by the recent floods. All in all, there are driving forces which promise to make 2015 a year of conflict or a year of survival through wily compromises.

*Yang Razali Kassim is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. A version of this was due to appear in World Review.

The post Malaysian Politics In 2015: What Does Second Jailing Of Anwar Ibrahim Portend? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The African forces responding to the growing threat from Boko Haram with a multinational military offensive should protect civilians and respect prisoners’ rights, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday.

On February 7, 2015, regional governments, backed by the African Union (AU), created an 8,750-member Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF), consisting of security forces from Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Niger, and Benin to respond to Boko Haram. The Nigerian armed group’s attacks on civilians in the past year alone have resulted in thousands of deaths in Nigeria, and its lethal attacks in neighboring Cameroon and Niger are escalating.

“The regional force needs concrete measures to make sure civilians in the region are protected, along with the hundreds of abductees and child soldiers,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Respect for human rights, including the rights of prisoners, must not be lost in the urgency of the growing regional threat posed by Boko Haram.”

It is crucial for the new multinational force to fully abide by international human rights and humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said. This is essential not only to meet the obligations of AU member countries, but also because abuses committed in the name of fighting Boko Haram are only likely to increase the group’s appeal among residents within and beyond Nigeria who have already borne the brunt of abuse by all parties.

Regional governments are finalizing the operational mandate for the mission against Boko Haram. They are expected to seek a United Nations Security Council mandate, which could also include logistical support from other countries. In the meantime, thousands of soldiers, as well as jets and helicopter gunships from Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria are already fighting both in their own countries and on other fronts.

Serious past abuses by some security forces participating in the multinational force raise concerns about the need for all armed forces to minimize harm to civilians and ensure the humane treatment of all prisoners, in accordance with international humanitarian and human rights law, Human Rights Watch said. These concerns are heightened by the presence in Boko Haram of child soldiers and many abducted men and boys who have been pressed into a combat role.

The Nigerian security forces are of particular concern. In the course of responding to Boko Haram since 2009, they have used excessive force, torched homes and villages, and tortured and detained thousands of suspects in inhumane conditions. Many of the people they have detained died in custody or were killed.

Chadian troops in the Central African Republic have also been involved in abuses that are yet to be investigated. They include an indiscriminate attack on a market in Bangui in March 2014 that killed about 30 people and wounded several hundred others, according to the UN.

“We know that hundreds of men, women, and children have been abducted by Boko Haram and are in communities under the group’s control,” Bekele said. “The regional powers carrying out military actions need to take all feasible steps to protect these and other civilians.”

Since 2009, and increasingly since mid-2013, Boko Haram has carried out several hundred attacks against civilians and civilian structures in schools, marketplaces, and places of worship. An estimated 3,750 civilians were killed by Boko Haram attacks in 2014, in what likely amounts to crimes against humanity. The group has also abducted hundreds of women and girls and forcefully conscripted young men and boys. Nearly one million people have been displaced by the fighting within Nigeria and across its borders.

Boko Haram has also attacked villages in Cameroon, and kidnapped businessmen, religious representatives, and tourists, holding them for ransom. During an attack on February 4, 2015, in the town of Fokotol, its deadliest on Cameroonian soil, Boko Haram allegedly killed scores of people, burned churches and mosques, and used civilians as shields. On February 8, the group allegedly abducted numerous civilians from a bus taking people to a local market. Several were reportedly later killed.

Boko Haram has also carried out four attacks since February 6 on towns in southeastern Niger. In Diffa, the insurgents stormed a prison and allegedly set off a car bomb near a government office.

Under international law, civilians may never be the deliberate target of attack unless and only for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities; and warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. Attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians, are prohibited. Abuses of civilians and captured combatants such as murder, torture, and other ill-treatment may amount to war crimes.

As regional governments and the African Union finalize operational plans for the Multinational Joint Task Force, they should:

• Include lawyers with experience of applying the laws of war in non-international armed conflicts, war crimes, and command responsibility;
• Include military police – or those exercising the provost marshal function – mandated to respond to disciplinary lapses by soldiers;
• Include in the mandate of the international force the need to develop and publish rules of engagement that prioritize minimizing harm to civilians and civilian objects during military operations;
• Include a strong and well-staffed AU human rights monitoring team to work alongside the regional military force to monitor adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law by all parties, and report publicly and regularly to the AU Peace and Security Council or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on its findings and recommendations;
• Ensure that all credible allegations of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by any party are promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigated, and that those responsible for crimes are appropriately prosecuted. The investigators, prosecutors and judges should be outside the military chain of command;
• Establish a strategy to improve the treatment of combatants, many of whom have been abducted and pressed into service by Boko Haram, after they defect or surrender, including establishing reception points for these combatants;
• Ensure that any children captured or escaped from Boko Haram custody are promptly transferred to the care of UNICEF, or appropriate Nigerian or nongovernmental organizations, and reunited with their families as soon as possible, taking the best interests of the child into account; and
• Draw on and integrate expertise from relevant UN sources regarding human rights and civilian protection challenges, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict.

“Residents of northeastern Nigeria have been in a precarious position, caught between Boko Haram and Nigeria’s security forces,” Bekele said. “Any action taken on their behalf should strive to protect them from further harm.”

The post Rights Need Respected In Regional Boko Haram Offensive, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Spanish Minister for Home Affairs, Jorge Fernández Díaz, met this week with his Portuguese counterpart, the new Minister of Internal Administration of Portugal, Anabela Miranda Rodrigues, in Lisbon. This is the first official meeting held between the two ministers since the new Portuguese Home Affairs Minister took office in November 2014, but it is the seventh bilateral meeting held between Jorge Fernández Díaz and his Portuguese counterpart during this term of office.

At the meeting, Jorge Fernández Díaz conveyed to his Portuguese counterpart Spain’s firm commitment to the fight against Jihadi terrorism and highlighted that Spain is currently updating a series of legislative instruments in order to prosecute new terrorist offenses and conduct in a more effective manner, which affects such issues as passive training, self-radicalization (‘lone wolves’) inciting the commission and justification of terrorism acts through new technologies and returning combatants.

At the meeting, Jorge Fernández Díaz and Anabela Miranda Rodrigues committed to stepping up the exchange of strategic information on the Jihadi phenomenon and the trends towards violent radicalization in both countries, as well as to maintaining close communication and coordination on home affairs issues within the framework of the European Union.

Fernández Díaz informed Miranda Rodrigues that on January 20, the Council of Ministers approved the National Strategic Plan to Fight Violent Radicalization (Spanish acronym: PEN-LCRV), and that on February 2, Mariano Rajoy and the Leader of the Opposition signed a State Pact to Fight Jihadi Terrorism. Furthermore, at this meeting, Fernández Díaz explained to Miranda Rodrigues that Spain decided, on January 7, to increase the terrorist threat risk level from “Level 2 – High Intensity Degree” to “Level 3 – Low Intensity Degree”, as a preventive measure following the terrorist attacks in Paris on January 7 and 9 in which 17 people died.

The Minister for Home Affairs,  Fernández Díaz, informed his Portuguese counterpart, Anabela Miranda Rodrigues, that Spain considers implementing the European PNR (Passenger Name Record) to be of the utmost importance in the fight against terrorism, and stressed that unblocking the stalemate in the European Parliament on this issue must be a priority to counteract the greatest terrorist threat that Europe has faced in recent years.

Moreover, the Minister for Home Affairs pointed out that Spain supports the legislative amendment to the Schengen Border Code to allow a systematic check of those people that enjoy the right to free movement in data bases, including the Schengen Information System (SIS) and other systems, at external borders.

Jorge Fernández Díaz also highlighted the importance of the role of Europol in the fight against terrorist content on the Internet, and in this regard underlined that it is necessary to seek common solutions and prevent radicalization and abusive use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.

Fight against illegal immigration

Fernández Díaz and Miranda Rodrigues, corroborated that bilateral collaboration in the fight against illegal immigration and maritime surveillance is intense and fruitful, as shown by the various projects on which the two countries have been working, such as the interconnection of the Spanish Integrated Foreign Surveillance System (Spanish acronym: SIVE) and the Integrated System of Surveillance, Command and Control off the Portuguese Coast (Spanish acronym: SIVICCI) which will be key in developing the EUROSUR system, “and which show the European Union the intensity of our joint collaboration in the fight against drug trafficking and illegal immigration”, said Fernández Díaz.

In this regard, Fernández Díaz praised the joint collaboration on the ‘PERSEUS’ and ‘CLOSEYE’ projects and on essential programs for maritime control in the Mediterranean, such as the ‘Seahorse Mediterráneo’ project and the Light Surveillance Aircraft. The two ministers agreed that illegal immigration constitutes one of the main challenges which the Member States and the European Union as a whole are currently facing.

The Spanish Minister for Home Affairs recalled that the documents drawn up by the European Commission and the Italian Rotating Presidency on the work of the ‘Mediterranean Task Force’ contain measures relating to the four core areas that Spain considers essential in order to tackle the successful management of migratory flows: prevention at origin, operational cooperation with third countries of origin and transit, the fight against criminal networks that traffic immigrants by adopting specific measures, and improving the management of both European Union and third country borders of origin and transit.

On this issue, the two ministers considered that now is the time to take decisions on these specific projects, finance them and implement them as soon as possible, and they highlighted that it is essential for the European Union to have a genuine common migratory policy as one of the priorities on the European political agenda. Fernández Díaz also brought up the importance of coordinating development policies together with immigration policies so that they can translate into action that complements the effective management of borders and the fight against illegal immigration through actions that help contribute to the socio-cultural and economic development of the countries of origin.

Fernández Díaz informed Miranda Rodrigues that the European Agenda on Migration drawn up by the European Commission should not focus preferentially on legal immigration and asylum. The Spanish Minister for Home Affairs underlined that it must also take into account the strong migratory pressure suffered by the European Union and devote a core part of this to the fight against illegal immigration and human trafficking, external border control and prevention at origin through close cooperation with countries of origin and transit.

Fight against organised crime

Fernández Díaz took the opportunity offered by this meeting to confirm Spanish-Portuguese bilateral cooperation in the fight against organized crime, which the two ministers described as of “great importance and which is already showing excellent results”.

The Minister for Home Affairs made special mention of the Telos Plan, which was designed to achieve coordinated actions by land, sea and air to combat hashish trafficking from North Africa to be distributed throughout Europe. On this issue, Fernández Díaz highlighted the cooperation with France and Morocco, and most particularly Portugal’s actions, and thanked Minister Miranda Rodrigues for the excellent law enforcement collaboration between the Guardia Civil and the Portuguese security forces in implementing the Telos Plan.

Police cooperation – European Police Stations Project

Fernández Díaz and Miranda Rodrigues analyzed the initial assessment of the five Police and Customs Cooperation Centers (PCCC) located on the border of Spain and Portugal. The two leaders agreed to underline the quality of work being carried on at the PCCCs as well as the good climate of cooperation that exists at the five centers, and committed to improving and bolstering the monthly coordination, support and advisory meetings between the PCCCs and the operating units, as well as the dissemination of the capabilities of these centers among the law enforcement services and improving their facilities and technical capacities.

The Ministers for Home Affairs of Spain and Portugal also highlighted the excellent acceptance of the European Police Stations Project in the two countries. They analyzed this project which resulted in the deployment of Spanish National Police Force (Spanish acronym: CNP) patrols in Lisbon and Braga in Easter Weeks of 2013 and 2014, and of the Portuguese Public Security Police in Benalmádena and Torremolinos (Malaga) to provide law enforcement services in their own language to Spanish and Portuguese nationals on their holiday stays during Easter Week.

Given the positive acceptance of this project, the two ministers committed to extending the European Police Stations Project to the upcoming Easter Week. Specifically, during Easter Week 2015, four National Police officers will visit Portugal from 1 to 6 March (two in Lisbon and two in Braga) while two members of the Portuguese Security Forces will travel to Benalmádena (Malaga), from 20 to 30 March 2015.

Civil Protection Cooperation

Fernández Díaz and Miranda Rodrigues highlighted that during the 11th Civil Protection Mixed Commission meeting held on 18 December 2013 in Lisbon, a technical committee was set up with the aim of speeding up joint cooperation on Civil Protection issues between the two countries. The two ministers also agreed to push through collaboration on training issues through this Mixed Commission.

Fernández Díaz informed his Portuguese counterpart that the European Commission has approved the “West Tsunami Project”, presented by the Directorate-General of Civil Protection and Emergencies under the Spanish Ministry of Home Affairs. This is a project that enables actions to be carried in Portugal, Spain and Morocco to be explored by the National Emergency Response Control Centers, in the event of a tsunami in the south-west of the Iberian Peninsula. This exercise is scheduled to be carried out in October 2015 in the waters of the Gulf of Cadiz.

The post Spain And Portugal Strengthen Exchange Of Information On Jihadis, Radicalization appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Following Craig Stephen Hicks’ cold-blooded murder yesterday of his neighbors, Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, and Abu-Salha’s sister, Razan Abu-Salha, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, it’s tempting to suggest that Richard Dawkins shares some culpability in the crime.

Hicks’ Facebook page makes it clear that he is an admirer of Dawkins and the ideology of antitheism.

But to hold Dawkins responsible — wouldn’t that be like holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few terrorists? After all, Dawkins advocates treating “all religions with good-humoured ridicule” — not murdering their adherents.

Dawkins is on the defensive and tweeted: “How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?”

So far I haven’t seen any condemnation of the murders coming from Sam Harris, so it remains to be seen whether in Dawkins’ opinion his closest cohort is a decent person.

Dawkins retweeted this comment: “Can these imbeciles not understand the difference between arguing against religious belief and hating believers?”

I’m not sure which imbeciles this refers to: People like Hicks? Or people who blame Dawkins et al for Hicks’ actions?

Dawkins, Harris, and other prominent atheists, while engaging in their crusade against Islam, invariably employ the same rhetorical device: It’s OK to hate Islam so long as you make it clear you have nothing against Muslims.

The question is: how can such a clean separation be made between people and their beliefs?

The New Atheists themselves are not quite as materialistic as they profess. They too are passionate about their beliefs.

Richard Dawkins would no longer be the man we know if he was “born again” and declared Christ was his savior. Atheism is not written in his DNA and yet his beliefs are just as integral a part of who he is as a person as is his genetic code.

Those who condemn Islam and yet claim they have no intention of promoting hatred of Muslims, are either being disingenuous or they are plain stupid.

On Hicks’ Facebook timeline he re-posted an image embossed with the American Atheists’ logo. In text over a satellite image of the Middle East are the words: “People say nothing can solve the Middle East problem. Not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism.”

On the page where the image was originally posted, someone comments: “Education takes time compared to, say, extinction or obliteration. One way or another it’ll come.”

If atheism is the ultimate solution, then as this commenter insinuates, in some people’s minds genocide might be the required method for dealing specifically with “the problem” of Islam.

Those who vilify Islam do indeed open the door to those who would murder Muslims, while those who claim that atheism might be the panacea for the world’s problems, are in fact indulging in an idle and sometimes dangerous fantasy.

How do they envisage the world’s religious believers — which include the vast majority of this planet’s population — might be persuaded or forced to abandon their faiths? Good-humored ridicule is unlikely to do the trick.

For a while it looked like science, empowered by The Enlightenment, would effortlessly push religion aside and faith would be replaced by reason, just as easily as the horse and buggy gave way to the combustion engine.

It didn’t happen and there’s little chance it ever will, because while none of us is genetically programmed to take to on any particular belief system, there is reason to think that the a need for belief systems of some kind is built into the architecture of the human mind.

Human life cannot be governed by reason alone and people are no more likely to discard religion than they are to abandon music or sports. Moreover, faith that the world would be more peaceful without religion — a dogma which is axiomatic to New Atheism — has no more solid a foundation than faith in an afterlife.

Thus it is evident that New Atheism, through blind ideology and social affiliations, already shares some of the trappings of religion.

Maybe with the appearance of Craig Stephen Hicks the movement should be seen as having fully entered the religious fold since at its margins, it too has its own murderous fanatics.

The post Craig Stephen Hicks: The New Face Of Militant Atheism? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.