Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Waiting For Obama To Wake Up On Thailand – OpEd

0
0

Finally people are talking about the Obama administration’s lackluster response to the brutal military coup in Thailand which toppled an elected government. This is an issue that deserves far more attention.

From the Diplomat:

In the days following the coup, the State Department said the right things. However, as little serious attention was being paid to Thailand, given more deadly events elsewhere, the junta saw that it paid no price for continued repression. To demonstrate the value the Obama administration places in Asia and the principle of one-man-one-vote, the junta leaders should receive an asset freeze and visa ban, a tool the administration has used everywhere from Hungary, a NATO ally, to Venezuela.

The absence of any U.S. response to the rollback of liberty and democracy in Thailand sends the wrong message to Myanmar; which President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have visited and on which they pin much of their hope as a legacy foreign policy success. Military rule in Thailand could also have repercussions for the new democratically elected leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia. They may find themselves more susceptible to pressures from their military or Beijing, convinced that Washington will stay on the sidelines. It will also make progress with the TPP difficult. Congress and the American people will not want to link U.S. markets more closely to a country experiencing marshal law, military rule, a shrinking economy, and instability.

Is it really so controversial for State Department to insist that emergency rule is suspended and that elections are held in 2015? I don’t think so.

The post Waiting For Obama To Wake Up On Thailand – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Is The Islamic State A Secessionist Movement? – Analysis

0
0

Is the so-called Islamic State more than just a secessionist movement? Tanisha Fazal believes so. While the group controls territory and challenges the authority of existing states, it also represents a formidable challenge to the Westphalian international system.

By Tanisha M. Fazal*

The Islamic State’s brutal tactics against civilians and hostages, along with its rapid military successes, have forced the international community to consider whether this group will respond credibly to carrots or sticks. To this end, understanding the group’s war aims is important because war aims shed light on how rebel groups will conduct themselves during a conflict as well as the avenues for conflict termination.

The obvious designation for the Islamic State might seem to be as a secessionist movement. The word ‘state’ is in its name. It controls significant territory. It has its own currency.

It imposes a political – really, theocratic – regime where it reigns. It collects taxes and provides some social services . It challenges the authority of existing states, from Iraq to Syria to Libya.

But the Islamic State is not a secessionist movement.

What groups want determines their behavior

The scholarly literature on civil war tends to categorize rebel groups in one of three ways: center-seeking, or revolutionary, rebels; resource rebels; or, secessionists. Center-seeking rebels aim to overthrow and replace the existing government of an existing state. The Free Syrian Army is a center-seeking group, as were the FMLN in El Salvador and Mao’s communist insurgents in China. While all types of rebel groups engage in civilian targeting, center-seeking rebels often do so for the purpose of weeding out potential government collaborators, as in Algeria in the 1990s. When wars with center-seeking rebels do not end in military victory, they tend to conclude in negotiated settlements where power is shared.

Resource-driven rebel groups challenge the authority of the state for mercenary reasons – they aim to control territory so that they can plunder natural resources, especially those that are easily tradeable on a global market, such as kimberlite diamonds. These groups do not necessarily have a political agenda, but rather seek to perpetuate war for the purpose of lining their own pockets. While purely resource-driven rebels are rare, the RUF in Sierra Leone is one example of a group that fought to control diamond mines that funded rebellion for years. Rebels funded by contraband are often especially cruel to nearby civilian populations , as they do not depend on civilians for food, comfort, or political support. There is a lack of consensus on whether wars funded by primary commodity exports tend to last longer or end more quickly than wars not funded in this way. They mightlast longer because of the incentive to perpetuate war economies, or they might end sooner because belligerents seek to protect future earnings from natural resource stocks.

Secessionist rebels seek an independent, internationally-recognized state. Secessionists are typically, although not necessarily (consider the Confederacy during the US Civil War), ethnically distinct from the rest of the population in the country from which they wish to secede. They tend to be geographically concentrated, and already located near an international border. At various times, the Chechens in Russia, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Zapatistas in Mexico, and Acehnese in Indonesia have all fought secessionist civil wars. Notably, none of these groups has won an independent state. Successful secessionism is rare . Compared to other types of rebels, secessionists are unlikely to target civilian populations, for two reasons. First, the civilian population easiest for them to target is the population that is meant to comprise their new state; attacking co-ethnics would be counterproductive. Second, secessionists are increasingly aware of the international community’s preferences that they not violate the laws of war, and, unlike center-seeking or resource rebels, secessionists require the support of the international community in order to achieve their political aim of membership in that community.

The Kurds vs. the Islamic State

The Kurds are a good example of a modern, politically savvy, secessionist movement. They also serve as a useful comparison to the Islamic State. Both groups span internationally-recognized boundaries and, indeed, both control significant territory in Iraq and Syria today. Beyond the transnational nature of their territorial aims, however, the two groups have little in common, and, in fact, are fighting against each other. One factor that distinguishes them is the Kurds’ explicitly secessionist war aims.

In pursuit of an independent Kurdistan, the Kurds have engineered an impressive diplomatic offensive. Like the Kurds, the Islamic State also boasts an enviable public relations machine. But the messages they send and their intended audiences are markedly different.

The Kurds, for example, have clearly rejected the strategy of targeting civilians, and the evidence suggests that they have kept this promise. They have also signaled their intention to abide by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They host dozens of consulates, including from major NGOs such as the ICRC, in Erbil. They have signed public “ deeds of commitment” pledging not to use land mines or child soldiers. The official program of the Kurdish Democratic Party commits to achieving Kurdish regional and international goals “by way of general international law and peace” and in accordance with the principles laid out in the UN Charter. The Kurds have partnered with Western nations against Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, and the Islamic State. While these partnerships no doubt benefit the Kurds by helping to protect the territory they claim, the Kurds have also been reticent to declare independence formally, in part because of the international community’s general aversion to unilateral declarations of independence.

Kurdish decision-making with respect to international humanitarian law, military partnerships, and restraint in diplomacy is driven by the political aim of an internationally-recognized independent state. Statehood is valuable. Groups that have states are eligible for loans from international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, and are protected, at least in theory, from international aggression by collective security agreements such as those laid out in the UN Charter. By contrast, groups that lack international recognition cannot engage in normal international trade, nor do they have strong recourse to international law if threatened.

The Islamic State does not seek these benefits of statehood. Its vision of sovereignty is at odds with the prevailing order of Westphalian states. Because it does not seek to join this group of states, it has little incentive to appeal to the international community. The Islamic State does not appear to want a seat at the United Nations, nor does it abide by the existing international rules of the game. We define secessionists by their political goals – independence and international recognition – and while the Islamic State might aim for the former, it does not seem interested in the latter. Indeed, rather than seeking to please the international community so that it can be let into the club of states, the Islamic State appears to enjoy flaunting international norms by broadcasting brutality.

Challenging the state system

If the Islamic State is not a secessionist movement, what is it? It does not fit the profile of a center-seeking rebel group. While it might be happy to topple the Syrian or Iraqi regimes, it does not appear eager to take over the apparatus of government in those states. Nor does it seem to be primarily driven by the war economy of resource extraction; while the Islamic State has, notably, taken over oil fields in Syria and even sold oil to its enemies for profit – oil is not its primary motive for war.

Instead, the Islamic State – along with its sub-Saharan cousin, Boko Haram – is something that is both old and new: a group that seeks to replace politics with religion as the foundation of sovereignty. The caliphate envisioned by the Islamic State is not delimited by national borders or ethnicity . This vision is reminiscent of the pre-Westphalian international order, which was characterized byoverlapping sovereignties and loyalties to emperors, popes, and tribes.

The system of international states is sufficiently well-entrenched that it is unlikely to be remade in the face of the challenge from the Islamic State. But the successes that the Islamic State has enjoyed point to an important weakness in the state system: too many internationally-recognized states lack the capacity to govern effectively. Degradation and destruction of the Islamic State’s capabilities is thus a short – at best, medium – term solution. In the absence of an effective state, the territory now ruled by the Islamic State will always be vulnerable to challenge.

*Tanisha M. Fazal is Associate Professor of Political Science and Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

The post Is The Islamic State A Secessionist Movement? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Somalia: Al Shabab Targets Officials, Deputy PM Injured

0
0

An attack Friday against Mogadishu’s Central Hotel left at least 11 dead, including two members of parliament, and numerous injured. According to the online Mareeg newspaper, also the Deputy Prime Minister was among the injured.

Police from the scene reported that there were two blasts, the first caused by a car bomb straight after Muslim Friday prayers and the second a suicide-bomber. Gunmen then blasted their way into the building.

The attack was claimed by the al Shabab Islaist group, whose spokesman Abdulaziz Abu Musab confirmed in a statement that the aim was “to kill the apostate officials.

The post Somalia: Al Shabab Targets Officials, Deputy PM Injured appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia Ratifies $100 Billion BRICS Bank

0
0

The Russian State Duma has ratified the $100 billion BRICS bank that will serve as a pool of money for infrastructure projects in Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa, and challenge the dominance of the Western-led World Bank and the IMF.

The New Development Bank is expected to start fully functioning by the end of 2015, according to the Russian Finance Ministry.

Russia has agreed to provide $2 billion dollars from the federal budget for the bank over the next seven years.

It will have three-tiers of corporate governance, with a Board of Governors, Board of Directors and a President.

The bank’s board of directors will hold its first meeting in Ufa in Russia in April. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov is likely to become the bank’s first Chairman of the Board of Governors, according to Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak talking on the Russia 24 TV channel.

The decision to establish the BRICS bank, along with a $100 billion reserve currency pool, was made in July 2014. Each of the five member countries is expected to allocate an equal share of the $50 billion startup capital that will be expanded to $100 billion.

The bank will be headquartered in Shanghai, India will serve as the first five-year rotating president, and the first Chairman of the Board of Directors will come from Brazil.

The post Russia Ratifies $100 Billion BRICS Bank appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jihad Against Somali Music Under Way – OpEd

0
0

By Bashir Goth*

‘Whoever says that all music is prohibited let him also claim that the songs of birds are prohibited.’ – Imam Abu Hamid Al Ghazali

While Daesh was burning the Jordanian pilot alive, Boko Haram creating killing fields in the villages and towns of Nigeria and neighbouring countries, and Al Shabab executing Somali women by firing squads for committing no other crime than being the weakest and most defenseless members of society, a group of Somali Mullahs itched to do something equally dramatic but fortunately less earthshaking; due to circumstances, however, they could find no better cause than waging a jihad against Somali music in North America and Europe.

It seems these Mullahs, most of whom live in the West and enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to them by the secular laws of their adopted countries, could not see the barbaric and heinous crimes committed in the name of Islam by the terrorist groups as repulsive actions that deserve their wrath and condemnation, but instead found their noble duty in strangulating Somali music. In what seems to be a well-defined division of labor, they assumed the role of the fifth column of Al Shabab by carrying out covert operations of spiritual purification while the terrorist militias were doing the physical slaughtering. Their aim is to obliterate the collective memory of the Somali people and the most treasured common heritage of all Somalis and indeed humanity at large: their voice.

The sinister campaign of these Mullahs came to light when the legendary singer Hibo Mohamed Nuura announced in an interview with the BBC Somali Service that she had decided to quit music as she was convinced by Somali Ulema that music was haram (prohibited) in Islam. She declared that she disowned her musical heritage and career that had spanned nearly 50 years, during which she had become one of the most respected and most admired female singers of the Somali people. She also made an appeal to her fans not to listen to her music; seemingly oblivious to the fact that her music is a national heritage; is the collective product of song writers, musicians, public resources and the audience who engage with it and endow it with its real value and longevity.

Shocked by this incident of tragic proportions, I started my own investigation to find out how this could have happened. I came to learn that a group of Somali Mullahs from around the world but mostly living in North America meet periodically in a teleconference to launch a war on Somali music through a concerted and well-coordinated effort aimed at locating and targeting Somali artists and inviting them to their clandestine sessions. The Mullahs, who mostly use pseudonyms during the call to hide their identities from authorities, select their victims with precision by starting with the celebrated singers, musicians and artists who are in the twilight days of their careers. Once these unsuspecting victims come into their orbit, the Mullahs grip them with their fangs and bombard these mostly unlettered poor souls with horror stories about the hellfire waiting to roast their bodies and souls if they do not repent and disown their past and their indulgence with music. Overwhelmed by the severity of the attack and being elderly individuals with one foot in the grave, these vulnerable victims quickly succumb to the deadly venom of the Mullahs.
This is what happened recently when a group of Mullahs, many of them well-known religious figures including a celebrated Sheikh from my hometown Borama, which was paradoxically the birthplace of Somali music over 70 years ago, met in their scheduled global teleconference to grill several icons of Somali music, arts and broadcasters. They included Hibo, Cabdi Cali ‘Bacalwaan’,Faadumo Haldhaa, Cadar Kaahin and Luul Cali Xasan.

Under controlled conditions and being put on the spot, the artists found themselves in a state of inquisition; they had no other option but to relent and fulfill the wishes of the Mullahs who they thought were genuine scholars of Islam, not aware that these clerics where only pushing their own narrow interpretation of Islam down their throats. The artists were too intimidated to ask questions such as if music was haram, why such a ban was not applied to all of the 1.6 billion Muslims living in the world; why Al Azhar Sheikhs had to listen to and even praise Umm Al Kalthoum; why the music of Muslims from Sudan, Mali, Senegal and other West African countries is one of the most popular in the world; why countries ruled by regimes bearing the Islamic banner such as Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan did not prohibit music. Without even going into the fruitless debate over the different interpretations of what Islam says about music, which usually ends up in ‘my Islam against yours’, the Mullahs could have seen that out of 1.6 billion people they were definitely not the only learned men who had the absolute truth in their hands.

Whereas these Mullahs usually like to quote Wahhabi and Salafist Sheikhs with narrow interpretations, one can also quote hundreds of eminent Islamic scholars such as Imam Al Ghazali, Ibn Hazm Al Andalusi, and contemporary scholars such as Sheikh Khalid Al Jundi, Sheikh Muhammad al-Shawkani and many others who could not find any Islamic text prohibiting music. One would have thought these Mullahs would have learned enough to heed the words of the Prophet (PUH) who said:
‘Indeed this religion is strong so delve deeper into it but gently. And do not make Allah’s worship to be repulsive to his worshippers. For the one who portrays it [religion] harshly will be like a traveler who did not spare any effort but reached nowhere.’

But obviously taking this soft approach would have deprived them of the personal power they have in using religion as a cover for controlling people’s lives. Remember, those who burned the Jordanian pilot alive were quoting religious sources; Al Shabab and Boko Haram also regurgitate Quranic verses and Islamic traditions to justify their heinous crimes. So anyone can use the holy text according to their wishes, which makes the Quran the most abused holy book in modern times. This was prophetically seen by Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph of Islam, when he advised Ibn Abbas, a member of his negotiating team with Muawiya Ibn Abi Sufyan, not to debate with the enemy on Quranic verses, underlining that the Quran was liable to different interpretations (حمّال أوجه ).

The fact that the Prophet (PUH) said ‘Deeds will be judged according to intentions, and everyone will get what he intended’, has also been conveniently ignored by the Mullahs because for them people’s intentions don’t count; what counts for them is what they tell you to do.

What made their action even more painful was the timing. They timed their action to coincide with a period when most of the cultured Somali people were mourning the death of two cultural and music icons, Mohamed Ahmed Kulluc, a veteran and renowned singer whose songs have inflamed Somali nationalistic feelings during the struggle for independence, and Hussein Sheikh Ahmed Kadare, a cultural scholar, dramatist, poet and a man remembered for his pivotal role in the writing of the Somali script and Somalization of scientific and cultural foreign words.

It seems as if these Mullahs are telling us that these cultural giants have died in vain and that they were obliged to warn those still alive against falling into the fires of hell. They insinuate that if you do not live the way they tell you to, you are doomed in the afterworld. But they also know that long after they are gone from this world, the names of the singers and artists will still be remembered and celebrated. They are deadly sure that Somali people will be enchanted by the music and words of our playwrights, singers and musicians for generations to come. They know that the names of such giants as Ali Sugule, Hussein Aw Farah, Xasan Sh. Muumin, Maxamuud Cabdillaahi Sangub, Xasan Ganay, Saxardiid Maxamed Cilmi (Jabiye), Xasan Cilmi, Cabdillahi Qarshi, Cumar Dhuule, Magool, Maandeeq, Dalays, Baxsan, Maryan Mursal, Farxiya Cali, Maxamad Suleyman, Axmad Cali Cigaal, Sahra Axmad, Amina Feer, Saado Cali, Amina Cabdillaahi, Fadumo Qasim, Khadiija Qalanjo, Khadra Dahir, Ahmed Naji, Nimco Jaamac, Cabdinuur Allaale, Maxamed Mooge, Xasan Adan Samatar and many others will ring with precious memories for the Somali people. And people who are remembered with cherished memories by their fellow human beings will definitely be handsomely rewarded in the hereafter.

I think the Muslim world has more than its share of ugliness if the Mullahs want to put their efforts to good use. I have never seen them condemning the barbarity committed in the name of Islam by terrorist groups like Daesh, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda and their ilk. But on the contrary, they seem to be in cahoots with them by carrying out such cultural cleansing campaigns.

It might help to remind these Mullahs that a number of eminent Egyptian Islamic scholars had enjoyed the songs and music of Umm Kalthoum, the most celebrated Arab woman singer of all time. These clerics included Sheikh Mohamed Al Ghazali, Sheikh Ali Tantawi, and Sheikh Mustapha Abdirazik, who sheltered her and protected her from the onslaught of ignorant clerics. There are also famous Quranic reciters such as Sheikh Mohammad Sdeq Al Menshawy who described her voice as having ‘soft power and the sweetness of music’, Sheikh Abd AlBasit Abd AlSamad who used to call her ‘the star of the east and the west’, and others.

This is how the enlightened scholars value singing and music as a God-given talent that has to be nurtured, enjoyed and admired. But it seems that the Somali Mullahs are trapped in a time capsule of their own to the extent that they never heard the words of the great theologian and eminent Sufi, Al Rumi, who said ‘There are many ways to reach God; I have chosen dance and music as my path’. And this is exactly what Professor Ahmed Ismail Samatar, an eminent scholar who I call the Singing Professor, demonstrates every time he lectures in a Somali public forum. Knowing the sublimity and power of music, he never misses the opportunity to perform a song or two and never without the presence of the Oud (lute) at the end of the gathering. Just like Rumi, Professor Samatar must have realized that the beauty of music is the best way to be closer to the heavens. Why did Allah give Prophet Dawood the beauty of singing and music as his miracle and command the mountains and birds to sing with him? And was it not the Prophet of Islam who after being delighted by Abu Musa Al Ashari’s recitation of the Quran said about him ‘…You are in fact endowed with a sweet voice like that of [the Noble Prophet of Allah] Dawood himself’.

Music is one of the first things that babies learn through the mother’s lullabies. It is also how nature communicates with us. You cannot miss hearing music wherever you turn. The sound of rain, of waterfalls and waves; the singing of birds, the howl of wind, the rustle of leaves and the rhythmic movements of the planets, are all parts of the universe’s gigantic musical orchestra. No wonder Imam Al Ghazali said ‘Whoever says that all music is prohibited let him also claim that the songs of birds are prohibited’.

Music is also used for a therpeuaitc purposes and academic degrees are offered in music therapy. I would love to see if any of these Mullahs could refuse such treatment if their life depended on it.

But despite this concerted onslaught on music, it is heartwarming to see the herculean efforts carried out by some individuals like Dr Jama Musa Jama and Ayan Ashour for their distinguished service to Somali music through many initiatives such as London Somali Cultural Week and the Hargeysa Cultural Center. The recently opened Hiddo Dhow Center in Hargeisa, pioneered by the famous singer Sahra Halgan, is another shining initiative that warms the heart of Somali culture and music lovers. One cannot but also praise the dedication of some of our iconic cultural custodians such as Said Salah Ahmed, Boobe Yusuf Du’ale, Ahmed Farah Cali (Idaajaa), Dr Mohamed Dahir Afrah, Saeed Jama Hussein and others who are veteran warriors for the preservation and handing over of Somali culture and music to future generations.

Definitely, we should also applaud all the public and private Somali television stations and websites that constantly celebrate and delight us with Somali music despite the pressure exerted on them by the Wahhabi Mullahs. I must give special salute to Caasha-Luul’s program ‘Erayga Abwaanka iyo Odhaahda Fanaanka’ on Somaliland National Television and Nicmo Samriye’s ‘Tartanka iyo Fanaaniinta’ of Horn Cable TV, which reminds us of the successful 1970s production ‘Heesaha Hirgalay’, held at the National Theatre, which produced a number of today’s famous singers such Hassan Adan Samatar. These two courageous women are doing commendable service for Somali music and culture. History will also not forget the enormous attention and resources given by Djibouti’s Government and the government of the Somali region of Ethiopia in filling the void vacated by the Somali government in promoting and spreading Somali music, poetry and folklore.

It is a matter of great regret, however, that Somali businesses, which are mostly dominated by religious people, do not extend any support to music or cultural activities. I know some Somali television stations owned by such businesses that have succumbed to the blackmailing of the religious establishment and made it a policy not to play music. I am not sure how they would avoid playing the Somali National Anthem when covering national events.

Finally, I cannot find better words to conclude this piece than to echo the words of Imam Al Ghazali, a man known as Mujadid, reviver of Islamic scholarship, and the author of some of Islam’s canonical books such as the Ihya’ Ulum al-Din or Ihya’u Ulumiddin (The Revival of Religious Sciences). Commenting on music, he said:

‘He who is not moved by the spring and its flowers; the Lute (Oud) and its tunes, has a sick mood that cannot be cured.’ And now let me leave you with Raaxeeye and the legendary voice of Maxamad Axmad Kuluc and let the Mullahs plug their ears: (Raaxeeye )

* Bashir Goth blogs at www.hanua.blogspot.com

The post Jihad Against Somali Music Under Way – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Western Intervention In Libya A Recipe For Disaster – Analysis

0
0

By Alessandro Bruno

Libya is in chaos; it has been since the West (especially France) and Qatar-aided civil war that brought an end to Colonel Qadhafi’s regime, which had lasted 41 years and guaranteed, if not democracy, the kind of stability that is now sorely missing from the North African country.

The emergence of Islamic State (ISIS) in Libya is just the latest, if predictable, iteration of Libya’s anarchy. The increased numbers of migrants venturing to reach European (Italian) shores, whom traffickers have been forcing aboard crafts unsuitable to navigate stormy winter waters, are but one example of the fertile ground that Libya offers for criminal activity. Over 300 migrants went missing last week trying to reach the Italian island of Lampedusa, while the survivors who made it across spoke of an increasingly difficult situation in Tripoli. The reported beheading of 21 Egyptian Copts, kidnapped by an ISIS-linked group in Derna (in the east) only served to highlight Libya’s deepening crisis.

The country continues to be divided politically by two governments and two parliaments. And in recent weeks, ISIS affiliates have strengthened and conquered new territories, which Egypt has already attacked following the killing of its 21 citizens. A diplomatic solution in the short-term seems impossible (there is no credible interlocutor) and, encouraged by Egypt’s President Mohammed al-Sisi, who seems highly motivated to lead a major military campaign (perhaps to distract his people from chronic social and economic problems), the EU and United States appear increasingly interested in pursuing a military solution.

A military solution, however, would be at best ill-considered and at worst catastrophic; after all, it was outside military intervention that is largely responsible for Libya’s current mess.

The main reason why a military intervention, even one in the guise of a peacekeeping mission, is unwarranted is the sheer complexity of its crisis, which, Islamic State aside, had already become more complicated and difficult over the course of the last year. One of the main problems is that by intervening, any international force would necessarily have to adopt a local political ally – either the Eastern ‘government’ in Bayda led by Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani (and backed by General Haftar) or the Western government in Tripoli led by ‘Dawn of Libya,’ a group related to the Muslim Brotherhood and backed by Islamist militias. Both are threatened by ISIS, but foreign military intrusion would be biased and rather than restoring the conditions for the resumption of a political process extended to all of Libya’s social and tribal components, it would likely choose to back General Haftar’s forces and ultimate rule.

Indeed there is some blame to be dispensed involving Libya’s descent into its present catastrophic situation. The idea to make Libya, intended as a union of the three former Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan, into a single state was the brainchild of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1932. After the fall of the Qadhafi regime in 2011, Libya has suffered a ‘bit of everything.’ There were two parliamentary elections (2012 and 2014), even though Libya remained effectively under the control of dozens of militias. Many political entities, under militia influence, refused to recognize the electoral results of 2014, deciding to establish an alternative government and parliament in Bayda. Then there is Libya’s geography: Libya has six million inhabitants and covers an area six times Italy or five times France. Most Libyans live on the coast, the rest of the territory is practically desert. There are two major regions, separated by the Gulf of Sirte: Tripolitania in the west and Cyrenaica in the east. The current struggle, in broad terms, is between the Bayda government, in eastern Libya, recognized by the international community and the “Dawn of Libya” in Tripoli. The foreign coalition would have to decide which of these two governments to support, once again causing excessive interference in Libya’s affairs. Moreover, there are divisions within the divisions. Gen. Khalifa Haftar (who was once a Qadhafi ally, participating in the 1969 coup against the monarchy), at first seemed willing to lead a coup against al-Thinni. Today he is his “ally,” which is true insofar as fighting Islamist militias (his forces have control of some aircraft, which have been used to conduct bombardments against enemies).

And what of Islamic State and its presence in Libya? There are two Libyan cities controlled at least in part by militias considered close to the Islamic State: Derna in eastern Libya not too far from Beyda, and Sirte, not too far from Tripoli, which has been under attack in the past few days. It seems that ISIS in Libya is formed mainly by Libyans who have returned from the war in Syria, and according to some counts, there are about a thousand of them.

Egypt openly supports General Haftar and the legitimate government and has launched a series of bombings on targets believed to be ISIS training camps and weapons depots; what’s to stop him from attacking the Tripoli government? The threats to Europe are mainly to Italy, whose government hinted that Italy would be willing to send a military contingent in the framework of international law, under the UN and possibly as a peacekeeping mission. Italy is the European country closest to Libya, geographically and economically. Italy imported at least a fifth of its oil and a tenth of its natural gas from Libya (although supplies have been erratic over the last two years). However, of great concern is that the current Libyan situation has served as one of the main causes of the increase in arrivals of immigrants through the central Mediterranean (more than one hundred thousand in 2014, twice the amount of 2013). Nevertheless, armed intervention in Libya would pave the way for a new bloody war that would fuel ever more terrorism, increase instability, and not help the victims.

After the dramatic failure of the intervention against Qadhafi in 2011- which opened the current Pandora’s Box – a Western war in Libya would not lead to any solution, though it would give ISIS and other jihadist factions a chance to re-launch their “holy war” against the new crusaders. The political and military authorities of two, if not three, governments claiming sovereignty are already dealing with dozens of jihadi militias fighting each other, often on swiftly changing fronts– and all this before ISIS got involved. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have played their role in backing some of the militias, fighting each other by proxy (as in Syria), while Egypt’s President al-Sisi, not really a champion of democracy, is eying the possibility of gaining some Libyan territory and/or is using Libya as a distraction from Egypt’s many problems. Current military solutions discussed by the West suggest the deployment of a few thousand troops, perhaps comparing the mission to that of UNIFIL in Lebanon.

However, UNIFIL is totally different. There is an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah that, at the time, has allowed for the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force; in Libya there is total anarchy, and Western forces would only add to that anarchy. It is impossible to intervene with a peacekeeping force if there is no peace to keep. An intervention of this type requires at least an agreement between two parties fighting over a territory. In Libya, there are multiple parties and no agreements. It would take tens of thousands of troops to have any real impact. Military intervention makes no sense and, as impossible or difficult as it sounds, a political solution is the only way – even if it means breaking Libya into a federation as it was in the years before Qadhafi. The West has confronted the problem of terrorism since 2001 through military means, achieving absolutely nothing but military occupation of so-called ‘rogue’ states, generating even more terrorism. Finally, the interventions against Qadhafi, misguided as that was in hindsight, cannot be used as an excuse to intervene again now. The one against Muammar Gaddafi was an intervention against a state that no longer exists. Now the West would be intervening in a country torn by civil war, like Somalia.

ISIS flags may be flying in Tripoli, trying to take over where the Muslim Brotherhood began, but Qadhafi did ‘tell us so.’

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com.

The post Western Intervention In Libya A Recipe For Disaster – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US And Middle East After The Islamic State – Analysis

0
0

By Emile Nakhleh*

As the Congress ponders President Barack Obama’s request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), U.S. policymakers must focus on the “morning after” before they embark on another potentially disastrous war in the Levant.

The president assured the nation at his press conference on February 11 that IS is on the verge of being contained, degraded, and defeated. If true, the United States and the West must address the future of the region in the wake of the collapse of IS to avoid the rise of another extremist threat and another “perfect storm” in the region.

The evidence so far that Washington will be more successful than during the Iraq war is not terribly encouraging.

The Iraq War Parallel

George Tenet, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote in his book At the Center of the Storm that in September 2002 CIA analysts presented the Bush administration with an analytic paper titled “The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.” The paper included “worst-case scenarios” of what could go wrong as a result of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

The paper, according to Tenet, outlined several negative consequences:

  • anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq
  • regime-threatening instability in key Arab states
  • deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States that produced a surge of global terrorism against US interests

The Perfect Storm paper suggested several steps that the United States could take that might mitigate the impact of these potentially negative consequences. These included a serious attempt at solving some of the key regional conflicts and domestic economic and political issues that have plagued the region for decades.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration spent more time worrying about defeating Saddam’s army than focusing on what could follow Saddam’s demise. Ignoring the Perfect Storm paper, as the past decade has shown, was detrimental to U.S. interests, the security of the region, and the stability of some key Arab allies. The U.S. and the region now have to deal with these consequences—anarchy, destruction, and refugees—of the Bush administration’s refusal to act on those warnings.

The past decade also witnessed the resurgence of radical and terrorist groups, which happily filled the vacuum that ensued. U.S. credibility in the region plummeted as well.

When CIA analysts persisted in raising their concerns about a post-Saddam Iraq, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith dismissed the concerns as “persnickety.”

If the Obama administration wants to avoid the miscalculations of the previous administration about Iraq, it should make sure the land war against IS in Iraq and Syria does not become “enduring” and that the presence of US troops on the ground does not morph into an “occupation.”

Defeating IS might be the easy part. Devising a reasonably stable post-IS Levant will be more challenging because of the complexity of the issues involved. Before embarking on the next phase of combat, U.S. policymakers should have the courage and strategic vision to raise and answer several key questions.

1. How will Sunni and Shia Muslims react to the re-entry of U.S. troops on the ground and to the likelihood that US military presence could extend beyond three years?

The “liberation” of Iraq that the Bush administration touted in March 2003 quickly turned into “occupation,” which precipitously engendered anger among the population. Iraqi Sunnis and Shia rose up against the US military. The insurgency that erupted attracted thousands of foreign jihadists from the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world. Bloody sectarianism and vigilantism spread across Iraq as an unintended consequence of the invasion, and it still haunts the region today.

During the Iraq war, the Iraqi Sunni minority, which has ruled the country since its creation in the early 1920s, perceived the United States as backing the Shia majority at the expense of the Sunnis. They also saw the United States as supporting the sectarian policies of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, especially as he excluded Sunnis from senior government positions. This feeling of alienation pushed many Iraqi Sunnis to support the Islamic State.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to admit that an insurgency and a civil war were spreading across Iraq. By the time he admitted that both were happening, it became impossible to defend the “liberation” thesis to Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims.

2. If the U.S.-led ground war against IS extends to Syria, how will Washington reconcile its announced policy favouring Assad’s downfall with fighting alongside his forces, and how will the Arab public and leaders react to such perceived hypocrisy?

It’s foolish to argue that the US-led war against IS in Syria is not indirectly benefiting the Assad regime. Assad claimed in a recent BBC interview that the coalition provides his regime with “information” about the fighting. Regardless of the veracity of his claim, Assad has enjoyed a breathing room and the freedom to pursue his opponents viciously and mercilessly, thanks to the US-led coalition’s laser-like focus on IS.

Sunni Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are already urging the Obama administration to increase substantially its military support of the anti-Assad mainstream opposition. These regimes, which are also fighting IS, argue that the United States could simultaneously fight IS and work toward toppling Assad.

If this situation continues and Assad stays in power while IS is being contained, Sunni Arab populations would soon begin to view the United States as the “enemy.” Popular support for radical jihadists would grow, and the region would witness a repeat of the Iraq scenario.

The territorial expansion of IS across Iraq and Syria has for all intents and purposes removed the borders between the two countries and is threatening the boundaries between Syria and Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, and Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

If U.S. policymakers are interested in creating political stability after IS, they should explore how to re-establish a new political order on the ashes of the century-old Sykes-Picot Levant political architecture. Otherwise, the “Iraq fatigue” that almost crippled U.S. efforts in Iraq in recent years, especially during the Maliki era, will surely be replaced by a “Levant fatigue.”

It will take a monumental effort to redesign a new Levant based on reconciling Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Kurds, and Arabs on the principles of inclusion, tolerance, and respect for human rights, economic opportunity, and good governance. If the United States is not prepared to commit time and resources to this goal, the Levant would devolve into failed states and ungovernable territories.

3. If radical Sunni ideology and autocracy are the root causes of IS, what should the United States do to thwart the rise of another terrorist organization in the wake of this one?

Since the bulk of radical Sunni theology comes out of Saudi Arabia and militant Salafi Wahhabism, the United States should be prepared to urge the new Saudi leadership, especially the Deputy to the Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, to review the role of Salafi Wahhabi preachers and religious leaders in domestic public life and foreign policy. This also should certainly apply to Saudi education and textbooks.

Whereas in the past, Saudi officials have resisted any perceived foreign interference as an encroachment on their religion, this type of extremist, intolerant ideology has nevertheless given radical jihadists a religious justification for their violence. It now poses an undeniable threat to the national security of the United States and the safety of its citizens in the region.

Autocracy, corruption, repression, and anarchy in several Arab states have left millions of citizens and refugees alienated, unemployed, and angry. Many young men and women in these populations will be tempted to join new terrorist organizations following IS’s demise. The governments violate the rights of these young people at whim, imprison them illegally, and convict them in sham trials—all because of their political views or religious affiliation or both—in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

In Egypt thousands of political prisoners are languishing in jail. In Bahrain, the regime has been stripping dozens of citizens of their citizenship because of their pro-democracy views. Once their passports are taken away, Bahraini citizens are deprived of most government services and opportunities. When visiting a government office for a particular service, they are required to show the passport, which the government has already taken away, as a proof of identity—a classic case of “Catch 22” leaving these citizens in a state of economic and political limbo.

Partnering with these autocrats in the fight against IS surely will reach a dead end once the group is defeated. Building a new Levant cannot possibly be based on dictatorship, autocracy, and corruption. Iraq and Afghanistan offer stark examples of how not to build stable governments.

The Perfect Storm paper warned the Bush administration about what could follow Saddam if critical questions about a post-Saddam Iraq were not addressed. The Bush White House did not heed those warnings. It would be indeed tragic for the United States if the Obama administration made the same mistake.

*Emile Nakhleh is a Research Professor at the University of New Mexico, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of “A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service.

Edited by Roger Hamilton-Martin

The post US And Middle East After The Islamic State – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Are Ruling Elites In China Now More Pro-Market Than Ruling Elites In US? – OpEd

0
0

The current issue of the Cato Policy Report (January/February 2015) contains a short article about a book by Zhang Weiying called The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform, which was originally published in Chinese (and said to be a best-seller in China in that form) and was recently translated into English. The author is the director of Peking University’s Center for Market and Network Economy and is described as a leader among pro-market economists in China, a description that accords well with the quotations given from his writings. In the article, a quotation from a recent Wall Street Journal interview with him states: “He [Zhang] says that when he recently wrote an article praising the late Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, the Communist Party secretary of Shanghai—a fairly high-level apparatchik—told him he liked it.”

I ask you: Has anyone high in the U.S. government ever praised any writing that lauds Rothbard’s views, not to mention Rothbard’s writings themselves? To me it is inconceivable that any such figure would do so. Moreover, is anyone in U.S. academia with a position comparable to Zhang’s position in Chinese academia likely to praise Rothbard’s views? To me it is inconceivable that any such figure would do so.

Once upon a time, the Chinese were the enemies of private property rights and free markets, and the Americans were the enemies of the Chinese and purported to cherish the institutions that the Chinese hated. Today no such clear-cut difference exists. If anything, today’s Chinese in high places seem to be more inclined to say kind words about private property rights and the free market than are comparably placed Americans. And when such Americans do speak favorably of these institutions, they do not really mean what they say, as their actions consistently attest.

The post Are Ruling Elites In China Now More Pro-Market Than Ruling Elites In US? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


How To Really Contain And Defeat Perverted And Violent Islamic Fundamentalism – OpEd

0
0

If perverted and violent Islamic fundamentalism (PVIF) in all of its manifestations is to be contained and defeated there’s one thing above all others that must happen – Western leaders, starting with President Obama, must open their minds to the fact that consequences have causes and then address the causes.

There are two main and related causes of PVIF.

(1) American-led Western foreign policy for the Arab and wider Muslim world including its double standard as demonstrated by refusal to call and hold Israel to account for its defiance of international law and rejection of the Palestinian claim for justice.

(2) The corruption, authoritarianism and repression of most if not all Arab and other Muslim regimes. In most cases they are regimes supported/endorsed by American-led Western foreign policy.

1 and 2 cause/provoke Muslim hurt, humiliation, anger and the despair of no hope. Generally speaking these feelings do not of themselves turn Muslims into killers/terrorists or even supporters of those who do the killing and/or order it. The real problem is the exploitation and manipulation of these feelings by deluded/mad preachers and other self-styled leaders who misinterpret and pervert Islam for their own purposes.

Regarding (1) above… There are some commentators who assert that American-led Western foreign policy created Al-Qaeda and ISIS. I think a more accurate summary statement of what happened is that American-led Western foreign policy created the environment and the conditions in which PVIF could emerge and grow.

Fawaz Gerges put it this way:

“Between 2003 and 2010, the power vacuum and armed resistance triggered by the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s former ruling Baath party and the Iraqi army, provided a fertile terrain for Al-Qaeda’s growth and an opportunity to infiltrate the increasingly fragile body politic.”

He added, and I agree with him, that ISIS is “a manifestation of the breakdown of state institutions, dismal socio-economic conditions and the spread of sectarian fires in the region.”

John Feffer’s take on events, with which I also agree, is that “ISIS is decidedly a homegrown product of the turmoil that has engulfed two states: Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003 and Syria since the aborted Arab Spring uprising that began in 2011.”

I stand by the view I expressed when President “Dubya” Bush had a premature political ejaculation and claimed victory in Iraq. I wrote at the time that he and Prime Minister Tony Blair were the best recruiting sergeants for violent Islamic fundamentalism. (The question arising is did they know what they were doing – I mean were they committed to the neo-con agenda and wanting to create an enemy, or, were they just ignorant and stupid?)

Regarding (2) above… With words President Obama himself has gone some way to acknowledging that the corruption, authoritarianism and repression of Arab and other Muslim regimes is one of the main causes of the rise and growth of PVIF.

In an editorial for the Los Angeles Times the day before the opening in Washington D.C of the three-day summit on combating extremism he wrote:

Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL exploit the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives. The world has to offer today’s youth something better.

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies. Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.

 

Unfortunately they were only words. And the question I would put to Obama is this. Can you name me one Arab country in which citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies?

An honest reply would be “NO!”

If President Obama and other Western leaders were prepared to get to grips with the causes of PVIF instead of addressing only its consequences, there are two things they could do to vastly improve the prospects of containing and defeating it.

One would be to use their influence with leverage as necessary to persuade Arab leaders that it really is time for authoritarianism to give way to democracy. If Arab leaders agreed (no matter how reluctantly) this would rob PVIF of its most persuasive argument – that the Arab and other Muslim masses have nothing to gain from politics and non-violent demands for change.

The other would be to use as necessary the leverage they have to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law. The double standard of Western foreign policy which allows Israel to commit crimes with impunity is the cancer at the heart of international affairs. If it was cured a major cause of Arab and other Muslim hurt, humiliation and anger would be removed, and that would make closing the vast majority of Arab and other Muslim hearts and minds to PVIF propaganda a mission possible.

The above should not be taken to mean or imply that I have more than the smallest amount of hope that Western leaders will have the good sense to come to grips with the main causes of PVIF. I am only saying what I think could happen if they did.

The post How To Really Contain And Defeat Perverted And Violent Islamic Fundamentalism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Alleged Jihadi Terrorist Arrested In Istanbul At Request Of Spanish National Police

0
0

Turkish police this week arrested Mohamed Amine Aissaoui in Istanbul (Turkey) under an International Arrest Warrant issued at the request of the Spanish National Police by the Central Investigation Court number two of the Spanish National High Court.

According to the Spanish government, Aissaoui was flagged under the Schengen Information System (SIS) by both France and Spain, countries where he had been a resident in the past, suspected of being a foreign combatant.

The Spanish investigators believe that Mohamed Amine Aissaoui is a “returning fighter” who had fought in Syria in the ranks of the terrorist group DAESH.

The post Alleged Jihadi Terrorist Arrested In Istanbul At Request Of Spanish National Police appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Tony Blair Advising Serbian Government 16 Years After Bombing Of Belgrade – OpEd

0
0

By Ivan Angelovski, Lawrence Marzouk and Emma Graham-Harrison

Tony Blair has added Serbia to the list of countries he is paid to advise, despite his role as the chief proponent of the bombing of Belgrade in 1999.

Blair will counsel the Serbian prime minister, Aleksandar Vucic, who was information minister during the war and was once such an outspoken critic of the British politician that he was listed as an editor of a book titled English Gay Fart Tony Blair.

Now Vucic and Blair find themselves on the same side, under a contract sealed by Blair’s private consultancy to set up a “delivery unit” paid for, according to Serbian official sources, by the United Arab Emirates.

It is likely to infuriate not just Serbs who resent Blair’s role in the bombing campaign against the former Yugoslavia, but also opponents of his expanding business interests in the Middle East. Critics say personal concerns, including financial ties to Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, are undermining his posting as official envoy in the Middle East for the Quartet – the UN, US, Russia and EU.

Two senior Serbian officials have said Abu Dhabi is funding Tony Blair Associates’ latest advisory role with their government.

Blair and his team have made regular visits to Belgrade in recent months, Serbian government sources say, including for a lecture by the former Downing Street head of press Alastair Campbell at the end of January.

Rival Serbian politicians say Blair is a “bizarre” choice of adviser to Vucic, given the previous fierce criticism. “How can you say such things about someone and now present him as a key factor in making our government more efficient?” asked Borko Stefanovic, leader of the largest opposition group in parliament.

The colourfully titled book, published in 2005 with Vucic listed as an editor, was written by Vojislav Seselj, a politician and suspected war criminal, when both were senior members of the Serbian Radical party.

Vucic has since tried to distance himself from his past, breaking away from the Radicals with Tomislav Nikolic, now Serbia’s president, in 2008 to form the Progressive party, which has cast itself as pro-European.

Balkan insiders say they may be counting on domestic political fallout being outweighed by the boost that Blair’s credentials could bring to their campaign for membership of the European Union, or on improvements his team could bring to their governing skills.

Blair himself may also face political fallout from the deal, because of links between Abu Dhabi, Serbia and a controversial Palestinian exile, Mohammed Dahlan, which are likely to make the deal extremely unpopular among officials in the West Bank.

An arch-rival of President Mahmoud Abbas, Dahlan has made no secret of his desire to become the next Palestinian leader. He is currently living in Abu Dhabi and serving as economic and security adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

He played a pivotal role in negotiating billions of euros worth of promised investment in Serbia through a series of state-level agreements. As a result, he, six family members and six political supporters were awarded Serbian citizenship in 2013 and 2014, the Guardian and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network revealed this month.

Dahlan, a former Palestinian security chief with close links to the US, was expelled from the Fatah movement, led by Abbas, in 2011 for a range of alleged misdemeanours.

He was sentenced to two years’ prison in absentia in March 2014 for criticising Abbas’ leadership and PA security forces in the West Bank.

Another court case against him is expecting to conclude in February, this time for alleged embezzlement of $22m. Dahlan denies all the allegations.

Palestinian officials have been angered by Abu Dhabi’s refusals to hand over Dahlan and its alleged bankrolling of his campaign to unseat Abbas, pouring money into refugee camps and Gaza to win over his supporters.

Nimar Hamad, Abbas’s political adviser, told BIRN from the presidential complex in Ramallah that relations with Abu Dhabi were “very poor”. He added: “It began when Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed asked not to take any measures against Mohammed Dahlan.”

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said Blair needed to decide between pursuing his business interests and his post as Quartet envoy.

“There is no clear division between Blair’s diplomatic dealings and business dealings in the Middle East,” he said. “In his role as Middle East envoy, his relationship with Abbas is crucial in building the Palestinian economy and administration. [His ties] with Abu Dhabi could undermine this.”

A senior Serbian minister, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed that Tony Blair Associates’ work, including the recent Alastair Campbell lecture, was covered by Abu Dhabi but said the exact nature of the deal was a closely guarded secret.

“No one told us any details since it’s all been agreed in very close circle,” the minister said. “There were some people giving some lectures, but to be honest I don’t see any point in the project. They haven’t told us anything we don’t already know.”

Another source from the prime minister’s office said Abu Dhabi was footing the bill for the project, but said he had no further details. “I just know that people came and they told us that it was paid by Abu Dhabi.”

Blair has already drawn fire for his business ties with Abu Dhabi, including a contract worth more than £1m a year advising the emirate’s sovereign wealth fund Mubadala.

When asked whether Blair remained an “honest broker” in the peace process, Abbas told BIRN in an exclusive interview: “Tony Blair was nominated by the Quartet committee as the Middle East envoy and we accept that as the Quartet’s decision.” But he added that he had “lost hope” in the current round of the negotiations.

He is close to the crown prince, who shares Blair’s concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood and is believed to be behind the UAE’s more forceful role in the region, including unilateral bombing raids on eastern Libyan.

A spokeswoman for Tony Blair Associates refused to confirm or deny that Abu Dhabi was funding the project, but said it would not affect Blair’s work for the Quartet in the Middle East.

“This project was directly negotiated and agreed between Serbia and TBA (Tony Blair Associates) following meetings between Tony Blair and the Serbia prime minister and was not part of any wider agreement,” she said in a statement. “The work of the delivery unit has no bearing on Tony Blair’s role in the Middle East for the Palestinian economy.”

Blair’s office told reporters last July that there was “no project in, or contract with, Serbia”, following a visit by the former prime minister to Belgrade. Blair’s spokeswoman said the Serbian deal had not been signed at the time of the denial. She refused to say when the contract was agreed.

Blair does not publish his earnings, but the Financial Times put his income for 2011 at around £20m. He is paid up to $300,000 (£195,000) a session on the lecture circuit, aides have said.

In the past he has advised countries as diverse as Rwanda, Albania, Mongolia and Kuwait. His Africa Governance Initiative has worked with the governments of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Senegal on a non-profit basis.

He stoked controversy by advising the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan on how to manage the fallout from a massacre of civilians by police, and by consulting on a pipeline project initiated by Azerbaijan’s president.

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

The post Tony Blair Advising Serbian Government 16 Years After Bombing Of Belgrade – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Singapore: Blogger’s Conviction Violates Free Speech, Says HRW

0
0

A Singapore court’s conviction of a prominent blogger for contempt of court violates his right to freedom of expression. Alex Au Wai Pang faces a fine and imprisonment when he is sentenced on March 5, 2015.

Singapore’s parliament should revise the penal code to eliminate the archaic, colonial-era offense of “scandalizing the judiciary,” Human Rights Watch said.

“Alex Au’s blogging on judicial accountability in Singapore furthers the public’s right to information,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Sending him to prison would merely highlight the injustice of Singapore’s archaic crime of ‘scandalizing the judiciary.’”

On January 22, the High Court convicted Au of contempt of court for a blog posting in October 2013 on his website Yawning Bread. The blog, “377 Wheels Come off Supreme Court’s Best Laid Plans,” deals broadly with two cases involving the criminalization of consensual sex between adult men as defined in penal code section 377A.

The charge against Au focused on his published observations about court scheduling. He wrote that a court challenge to section 377A in a case involving a man named Tang Eng Hong, who was arrested in a public toilet with another man, was filed before another challenge, involving the case against the gay couple, Kenneth Chee and Gary Lim. Au pointed out the discrepancy that the couple’s case was to be heard at the Court of Appeal before Tan Eng Hong’s case, which had been filed first. He raised questions about the role of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in setting the court’s calendar to ensure his participation in hearing the constitutional challenge against section 377A.

During the trial, Au’s lawyers argued that “innuendo, insinuation, and imputation” do not make for contempt. They noted that in a similar case against the author Alan Shadrake in 2011, the sentencing decision stated that comments considered to be “scandalizing to the judiciary” had to not only pose a credible threat to the reputation of the judiciary but also qualify as unfair criticism – that is, irrational, dishonest, or abusive. As Au wrote on his blog, “I take the view that my writings constituted fair criticism, and that the concept of fair criticism is to protect the individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression.”

International human rights law protects the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is broadly recognized as reflective of customary law, states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media.”

International standards only allow content-based restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances, such as defamation or threats to national security or public order. Restrictions must be provided by law, strictly construed, and necessary and proportionate to the interest protected.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34 on the right to freedom of expression, states that “the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties.” The Human Rights Committee monitors the compliance of states parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Singapore has not ratified.

In addition, Singapore, as a member of the Commonwealth, should take into account the Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government, which state in article 7(b) that “criminal law and contempt proceeding should not be used to restrict legitimate criticism of the performance of judicial functions.”

Several months before Au’s blogs were posted, the British parliament, noting that the offense was last prosecuted in the United Kingdom in 1931, passed the Crimes and Courts Act of 2013, which abolished “scandalizing the judiciary” as a form of contempt of court. Other Commonwealth countries, including New Zealand, Canada, and Brunei Darussalam, have also long since ceased to prosecute this contempt charge.

“Singapore’s courts, like any other public institution, are strengthened, not weakened, by open debate on issues of general concern,” Robertson said. “The prosecution of Alex Au for speaking out is just one more example of Singapore’s willingness to misuse law to gag its critics.”

The post Singapore: Blogger’s Conviction Violates Free Speech, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Are American Courts And Universities Targeting Iran? – OpEd

0
0

Were one to credit some current predictions of book-makers in the world’s top five gambling loses per capita countries, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, and Finland, on whether there will be an agreement on the Iranian nuclear file next month, a prudent person would likely not bet one Iranian Rial that there will be. This caution is widespread even though the wager would involve a rather limited risk. One friend of this observer, a casino manager in Macau emailed this week that a main reason for the lopsided odds is because the Israeli pushed & US-led sanctions have collapsed the Iranian Rial which as of this week remains the world’s least valued currency unit, selling yesterday for 27,628 per 1 USD. And for more than double that on Tehran’s black market alleys. Apparently, and not alone, bookies reason that despite hopes for an acceptable agreement in the White House, in parts of Washington as well as in parts of Tehran, the geostrategic gaps over the numbers of enrichment facilities and time table for sanctions relief are simply too wide and unbridgeable given current domestic political constraints. Not helping US-Iran nuclear agreement prospects are headlines this week in Western media outlets that scream: “Iran still stalling UN nuclear inquiry as deal deadline looms: IAEA!” and “IAEA says Iran not addressed specific issues and is withholding full cooperation with UN watchdog investigation.”

But, bookies have been wrong before.

And so have U.S. Federal Courts and American University administrators particularly when nudged by the rabidly anti-Iranian anti-Muslim Zionist lobby. Two recent examples illustrate how American courts and Universities are participating in, and indeed promoting, anti-Iranian sentiments among the US public for political purposes while damaging their respective institutions.

One is an egregious ruling handed down this month by Richard J. Leon who since 2002 has served as a Federal Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A graduate of Suffolk University night law school in Boston, Judge Leon is known around DC legal circles for his tough courtroom demeanor which sometimes intimates lawyers, especially new ones. The judge often interrupts an objecting lawyer during trial, ordering him to “sit right down.” Many lawyers just get used to Judge Leon’s judicial demeanor.

Still, it reportedly surprised many to learn of the Judge’s ruling in the case against Fokker Services BV, for exporting U.S. origin aircraft parts to Iran. The defendants have been charged with a five-year conspiracy to violate and evade United States export laws for the benefit, largely, of Iran and its military during our post-9/11 world when the US government is busy fighting at least two global wars on “terrorism.”

As the case headed to trial, as often happens, a Deferred Prosecution Agreement was worked out between the Federal prosecutors and defendants Fokker Services BV for several reasons, including the fact that the defendants cooperated with the government in wheeling in bigger fish allegedly doing sanctions-busting business with Iran and because the U.S. government’s case appeared fairly weak.

But to the surprise of both sides, Judge Leon rejected the DPA as too lenient because of 9/11 and Iran’s heretofore unknown role in that terror attack. In case some of we untutored, and lawyers who were in his courtroom when the Federal judge made the very bizarre ruling, thought good Judge Leon could not possibly be serious and was only joshing when he accused Iran of involvement in 9/11, he made his ruling a second time with more emphasis adding some rather stretchy dicta.

Did dear reader know heretofore that Iran attacked America on September 11? No, neither did I, but Judge Richard Leon indicated otherwise and made clear he thinks Iran was behind 9-11 and this belief appears to be the central reason he rejected the Deferred Prosecution Agreement in the case against Fokker Services BV.

Ruled the honorable U.S. Federal District judge: “After looking at the Deferred Prosecution Agreement in its totality, I cannot help but conclude that the DPA presented here is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Services’ conduct in a post-9/11 world. In my judgment, it would undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and promote disrespect for the law for it to see a defendant prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies.”

So, in the end the governments weak case, defendants Fokker’s voluntary disclosure, its cooperation with the government and its remedial actions mean nothing. Why? Because as Judge Leon instructs the public and the American judiciary, for sure Iran somehow or other did September 11. Obviously this observer graduated from the wrong Boston law school and didn’t fall asleep during evidence class as Judge Leon admits he sometimes did while attending night school.

Equally bizarre as the “Iran did it” ruling in U.S. Federal court this month, is a case which involves a Boston area institution of higher learning, the University of Massachusetts. If some American courts are obfuscating the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Separation of Powers provisions in the U.S. constitution, specifically, Article I, Section 1, Article II, Section 1 and Article III, Section 1 in order to target Iran, what has become of our institutions of higher learning when political pressures from some corners threaten to withhold funding in order to pressure college administrators to penalized Iranian students for wanting to advance their education?

A UMass (Amherst) decision this month to stop admitting Iranian nationals to certain engineering and science programs has stirred charges of discrimination and a backlash among students who say it was unfairly imposed and could hurt the school’s reputation.

The dispute stems from the United States’ efforts to prevent the Iranian government from developing a nuclear weapon, which prompted a 2012 law that excludes Iranian nationals from studying in America if they planned to work in nuclear or energy fields. UMass Amherst administrators based their decision on a law Congress enacted in 2012. The “Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012,” restricts Iranian citizens from education in United States if they were preparing for a career in the energy sector or nuclear science in Iran. The sponsors of the legislation, drafted by AIPAC, claimed that those students could then go on and work on Iran’s nuclear program.

Enforcement of that law is the responsibility of the State Department, which issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security, which investigates threats. Generally, universities have depended on those agencies to weed out potential students seen as risks and academic institutions do not get involved.

But apparently no longer.

Last week, the University of Massachusetts said that it would simply bar all Iranian nationals from enrolling in certain graduate programs in its College of Engineering and College of National Sciences among them physics, chemistry, microbiology, polymer science, chemical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, as well as mechanical and industrial engineering. The scope of these U Mass prohibitions is much broader than covered in the 2012 law. The university released a statement saying the ban was prompted by an inquiry from a student, who reportedly turned out to be from Hillel House, but UMass did not provide any details of who pushed to act against Iranian students but instead insisted that “We have no choice but to institute policies and procedure to ensure that we are in full compliance with all applicable laws.”

There is so much wrong and blatantly discriminatory about the U Mass policy decision that it was no surprise that just as its bizarre decision was likely to explode into a national education scandal that U Mass has just backed down. Apparently after consulting with the State Department and outside counsel, the university now says it will reverse the ban. A weak explanation from Michael Malone, vice chancellor for research and engagement at UMass Amherst who apparently sensed the odds changing for keeping U Mass disenfranchisement of qualified Iranian students from its programs was issued late last night. “Actually, we have always believed that excluding students from admission conflicts with our institutional values and principles. It is now clear, after further consultation and deliberation, that we can adopt a less restrictive policy.”

One UMass professor was quoted in the Harvard Crimson as saying that “All’s well that ends well. The UMass administration is satisfied that the Zionist lobby will keep channeling funds, the State Department is satisfied that a crisis was avoided that might have affected negatively the Iranian nuclear file and U Mass came out came out smelling like roses!”

Like roses?

Not according to a reported majority of the UMass student body and Americans who value academic independence, freedom of expression and keeping foreign political interests from corrupting American institutions of learning.

The post Are American Courts And Universities Targeting Iran? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukraine Is A Kind Of Iraq II: Won’t They Ever Learn? – OpEd

0
0

This is Iraq all over again. I’m talking about the deception of the American people about a threat that may not even exist. Iraq had its “weapons of mass destruction.” Ukraine has its alleged “invasion” by Russia and threat to the rest of Eastern Europe. I busted this myth in my book Ukraine in the Crosshairs. What I found in my research is that those trying to convince us of Putin’s dastardly role are lying.

In all honesty I don’t know whether or not Russia has played the role it’s been accused of. But I did find that those who are trying to convince us of that rely upon fabrications. I’ve got evidence of that.

Blaming the media for all this is like blaming the messenger. With Iraq, sure, many news people played along like puppy dogs. And they’re jumping through the same hoops now. It’s true that there are a handful of media commentators and a few media outlets that have made Russia bashing their forte. But that’s not what’s been propelling this story. There needs to be more focus on exposing the brains (or lack of brains!) behind the false stories about Ukraine.

In the U.S., the fabricated storyline about Russia’s role has been bipartisanly embraced. Jump back to the Council on Foreign Relations report of 2006. It was titled “Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do.” The task force that produced it was chaired by John Edwards (D) and Jack Kemp (R). Again, bipartisan.

This is an issue on which the two parties could reasonably disagree. But we find people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton on basically the same page. But, neither they nor their comrades-in-arms can formulate a factual basis for their positions. They rely upon innuendos and allegations based on falsehoods, past and present.

Perhaps the most honest of the bunch is Senator Lindsay Graham. When asked on national TV why he favored sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine, the best he could come up with was the statement, “It will make me feel better.” That may have made him sound like a nit-wit, but at least he was honest about it and didn’t just offer fabrications a la Clinton and McCain.

But now, however, the stakes are greater than Iraq. We’re not talking about just using weapons of mass destruction on a minority population, as bad as that surely is. Now the stakes border on global thermonuclear war.

American University in Moscow president Dr. Edward Lozansky, himself a nuclear scientist, has urged that parties in the Ukrainian crisis “step back from the brink of a nuclear confrontation that would destroy the entire northern hemisphere of the earth.” According to the Telegraph, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev has issued his own warning that “the world is at risk of a ‘nuclear war’ because of the tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine.”

But yet the drumbeat continues to spread fallacious stories to stimulate fear and to trick otherwise reasonable people to think the unthinkable. Make no mistake about it: sending lethal weapons to Ukraine would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. And that would be just the start of the trouble.

Many have tried to counter the specious accounts about Ukraine. One leading example is Professor Stephen F. Cohen, a long-respected historian who focuses on Russia. His efforts to set the record straight have netted him a hatchet-job attack in the venerable New York Times. For Cohen’s standing up for the truth, the Times characterized his reputation as “divisive.” Well, to that I say hooray for divisiveness and boo to the Times.

But being vocal about the truth and attempting to correct falsehoods will ultimately not be enough. The lesson of Iraq was not enough. Now it seems that the history of deception is repeating itself. It’s being enabled by the Clintons and McCains.

My own senator Chris Murphy has been suckered into the movement. Recently I wrote him and advised, “Think about what you are doing. Do you really want to create a world for your children to inherit based on a dangerous and ignorant mythology, or would you rather champion a more reality-based approach to peaceful U.S.-Russia relations?” He offered no substantive response to that.

In the midst of the Vietnam conflict, at a time when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were butting their nuclear heads, there was a popular song titled, “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” It bemoans the buffoonish tendency of humanity to repeat a destructive cycle of history that seems impossible to break. The ending line says, “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.”

I suggest that Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain and the rest who are engaged in repeating the mistakes of history listen to that song over and over again, and think about what they are doing. Are the short term rewards they seek for themselves by misleading the country really worth it? Indeed, will they ever learn?

The post Ukraine Is A Kind Of Iraq II: Won’t They Ever Learn? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ralph Nader On Walmart Announcement Raising Its Minimum Wage

0
0

After meetings with Walmart representatives, public letters to the company’s CEO, and picketing Walmart stores over the past several years (see timeforaraise.org and give1010avote.org), we see that Walmart now decides to be one step ahead of several pursuing state laws that are raising the minimum wage.

Still, Walmart’s increase to $9 an hour in April and to $10 an hour next February is less than what Walmart had to pay its workers in 1968, inflation adjusted. That would be $11 an hour.

Moreover, Walmart workers want more than part time hours to even try to partly make ends meet. Walmart’s announcement does not address this problem for their workers, beyond making part-time scheduling notices more predictable.

At $11,000 an hour plus lavish benefits, Walmart CEOs still have much to do to make it possible for their workers to make ends meet.

The post Ralph Nader On Walmart Announcement Raising Its Minimum Wage appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Why We’re All Becoming Independent Contractors – OpEd

0
0

GM is worth around $60 billion, and has over 200,000 employees. Its front-line workers earn from $19 to $28.50 an hour, with benefits.

Uber is estimated to be worth some $40 billion, and has 850 employees. Uber also has over 163,000 drivers (as of December – the number is expected to double by June), who average $17 an hour in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and $23 an hour in San Francisco and New York.

But Uber doesn’t count these drivers as employees. Uber says they’re “independent contractors.”

What difference does it make?

For one thing, GM workers don’t have to pay for the machines they use. But Uber drivers pay for their cars – not just buying them but also their maintenance, insurance, gas, oil changes, tires, and cleaning. Subtract these costs and Uber drivers’ hourly pay drops considerably.

For another, GM’s employees get all the nation’s labor protections.

These include Social Security, a 40-hour workweek with time-and-a-half for overtime, worker health and safety, worker’s compensation if  injured on the job, family and medical leave, minimum wage, pension protection, unemployment insurance, protection against racial or gender discrimination, and the right to bargain collectively.

Not to forget Obamacare’s mandate of employer-provided healthcare.

Uber workers don’t get any of these things. They’re outside the labor laws.

Uber workers aren’t alone. There are millions like just them, also outside the labor laws — and their ranks are growing. Most aren’t even part of the new Uberized “sharing” economy.

They’re franchisees, consultants, and free lancers.

They’re also construction workers, restaurant workers, truck drivers, office technicians, even workers in hair salons.

What they all have in common is they’re not considered “employees” of the companies they work for. They’re “independent contractors” – which puts all of them outside the labor laws, too.

The rise of “independent contractors” Is the most significant legal trend in the American workforce – contributing directly to low pay, irregular hours, and job insecurity.

What makes them “independent contractors” is the mainly that the companies they work for say they are. So those companies don’t have to pick up the costs of having full-time employees.

But are they really “independent”? Companies can manipulate their hours and expenses to make them seem so.

It’s become a race to the bottom. Once one business cuts costs by making its workers “independent contractors,” every other business in that industry has to do the same – or face shrinking profits and a dwindling share of the market

Some workers prefer to be independent contractors because that way they get paid in cash. Or they like deciding what hours they’ll work.

Mostly, though, they take these jobs because they can’t find better ones. And as the race to the bottom accelerates, they have fewer and fewer alternatives.

Fortunately, there are laws against this. Unfortunately, the laws are way too vague and not well-enforced.

For example, FedEx calls its drivers independent contractors.

Yet FedEx requires them to pay for the FedEx-branded trucks they drive, as well as the FedEx uniforms they wear, and FedEx scanners they use – along with insurance, fuel, tires, oil changes, meals on the road, maintenance, and workers compensation insurance. If they get sick or need a vacation, they have to hire their own replacements. They’re even required to groom themselves according to FedEx standards.

FedEx doesn’t tell its drivers what hours to work, but it tells them what packages to deliver and organizes their workloads to ensure they work between 9.5 and 11 hours every working day.

If this isn’t “employment,” I don’t know what the word means.

In 2005, thousands of FedEx drivers in California sued the company, alleging they were in fact employees and that FedEx owed them the money they shelled out, as well as wages for all the overtime work they put in.

Last summer, a federal appeals court agreed, finding that under California law – which looks at whether a company “controls” how a job is done along with a variety of other criteria to determine the real employment relationship – the FedEx drivers were indeed employees, not independent contractors.

Does that mean Uber drivers in California are also “employees”? That case is being considered right now.

What about FedEx drivers and Uber drivers in other states? Other truck drivers? Construction workers? Hair salon workers? The list goes on.

The law is still up in the air. Which means the race to the bottom is still on.

It’s absurd to wait for the courts to decide all this case-by-case. We need a simpler test for determining who’s an employer and employee.

I suggest this one: Any corporation that accounts for at least 80 percent or more of the pay someone gets, or receives from that worker at least 20 percent of his or her earnings, should be presumed to be that person’s “employer.”

Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law to make this the test of employment. Federal agencies such as the Labor Department and the IRS have the power to do this on their own, through their rule making authority.

They should do so. Now.

The post Why We’re All Becoming Independent Contractors – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Hispanics At Much Greater Risk Of Developing Alcoholic Liver Disease

0
0

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) refers to a broad spectrum of liver injuries, including alcoholic fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis, and alcoholic cirrhosis. ALD is among the most common liver diseases in the United States; however, it varies significantly by ethnicity. A new study examining the role of ethnicity in determining the age of onset and severity of ALD, and comparing risk factors for its progression among ethnic groups, has found that ethnicity is a major factor affecting the age and severity of different subtypes of ALD.

Results will be published in the March 2015 online-only issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research and are currently available at Early View.

“Alcoholic liver disease is a spectrum of conditions that range from hepatic steatosis, which is fat deposition in the liver and it is reversible with sobriety, to alcoholic hepatitis which is a more severe condition characterized by extensive and severe inflammation in the liver and often requires hospitalization,” explained Valentina Medici, associate professor of internal medicine at UC Davis Health System as well as corresponding author for the study. “The final stage is alcoholic cirrhosis, characterized by fibrosis or deposition of scar tissue in the liver. ALD develops in response to a long duration of high amounts of alcohol, but not all individuals develop ALD.”

“ALD is very common,” added Christopher L. Bowlus, professor and acting chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at UC Davis Health System, “and affects individuals of all ages, races, and socioeconomic status. It is the most common cause of liver-related death, accounting for over 15,000 deaths every year. However, not everyone is affected by alcohol the same way. Even if the same amount of alcohol is consumed, the liver damage from alcohol in some people can be more severe than in others, suggesting that other factors, such as genes and environment, can influence the development of liver damage.”

Medici and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with ALD who were admitted or were followed as outpatients at UC Davis Medical Center between 2002 and 2010. After excluding hepatitis-B infected and HIV-positive subjects, researchers reviewed the charts of 791 ALD patients, including 130 with alcoholic fatty liver, 154 with alcoholic hepatitis, and 507 with alcoholic cirrhosis.

“For the first time, we showed that Hispanics present at a four to 10 years younger age than Caucasians and African/Americans, and that ethnicity could predict the age of presentation of alcoholic fatty liver and alcoholic hepatitis,” said Medici. “In addition, alcoholic Hispanics tend to be more frequently obese and diabetic than the other ethnicities. Also, Hispanics with alcoholic cirrhosis were more likely to be hospitalized than Caucasians, indicative of a possibly more severe disease.”

“The development of ALD in Hispanics several years younger than whites … did not appear to be due to other possible factors such as chronic viral hepatitis C, diabetes or obesity, all of which are can cause liver damage,” said Bowlus. “Genetic and environmental factors may play an important role as they can accelerate the onset and progression of ALD. There might also be differences in the pattern of drinking and type of alcohol consumed.”

“The data in our paper showed that Hispanics with all stages of liver disease had greater body mass index in the obesity range and that those with alcoholic cirrhosis had increased incidence of type II diabetes and the metabolic syndrome,” said Medici. “The co-existence of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome that occurs with increased BMI is known to contribute to liver injury independent of alcohol use in the condition known as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Others have shown that the presence of diet-induced NAFLD contributes to the incidence and severity of co-existent alcoholic liver disease in alcohol consumers. However, it is important to notice that, when excluding subjects with obesity and diabetes from the analysis, Hispanics with ALD were still younger than Whites/Caucasians. Therefore, Hispanics have most likely many risk factors that contribute to the development of their liver disease.”

“The findings in this study are important for two reasons,” said Bowlus. “First, they demonstrate the difference ethnicity has on the clinical manifestation of ALD. Second, they lay the ground work for future clinical and laboratory studies to understand the interactions between alcohol, genes, and the environment.”

“Hispanics may find it important to know that heavy drinkers can develop ALD at a younger age, that obesity contributes to this risk, and that preventive steps should be taken if their relatives or friends engage in risky drinking behavior,” said Medici. “In addition, primary-care physicians in the community will want to screen regularly for the presence and extent of alcohol drinking, as well as the potential contributing factors of obesity and ethnicity as high risk factors for the development of alcoholic liver disease in their high alcohol-consuming patients.”

“No one should feel that they are free from ALD,” added Bowlus. “If you drink beyond a moderate amount, there is a risk you will develop serious ALD. If you are Hispanic, you should be particularly concerned because you may be at even greater risk of serious liver damage from alcohol.”

The post Hispanics At Much Greater Risk Of Developing Alcoholic Liver Disease appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Japan: Fresh Leak At Fukushima Nuclear Plant Sees 70-Fold Radiation Spike

0
0

Another radioactive water leak in the sea has been detected at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, the facility’s operator TEPCO announced. Contamination levels in the gutter reportedly spiked up 70 times over regular readings.

The sensors are connected to the gutter that pours rain and ground water from the plant to a bay adjacent to the facility.

The levels of contamination were between 50 and 70 times higher than Fukushima’s already elevated radioactive status, and were detected at about 10 am local time (1.00 am GMT), AFP reported.

After the discovery, the gutter was blocked to prevent leaks to the Pacific Ocean.

Throughout Sunday, contamination levels fell, but still measured 10 to 20 times more than prior to the leak.

“We are currently monitoring the sensors at the gutter and seeing the trend,” a company spokesman said.

He did not specify the cause of the leak.

It has proved difficult for TEPCO to deal with plant decommissioning. Postponed deadlines and alarming incidents occur regularly at the facility.

Earlier this week, the UN nuclear watchdog (IAEA) said Japan had made significant progress, but there is still a radioactive threat, and a “very complex” scenario at Fukushima.

About a month ago, TEPCO announced it would miss their toxic water cleanup deadline, suspending it until the end of May, after earlier pledges it would be done by March.

The post Japan: Fresh Leak At Fukushima Nuclear Plant Sees 70-Fold Radiation Spike appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia’s Quiet Annexation Of South Ossetia – Analysis

0
0

By Maia Otarashvili*

Russia and South Ossetia have ironed out final details of a “Treaty of Alliance and Integration.” The treaty was drafted in December 2014 and on January 31, 2015 Georgian news agencies reported that the leader of South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, had sent the finalized document back to Moscow. On February 18th Russia and South Ossetia signed a precursor to this treaty, called the “treaty on the state border.”  According to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the broader treaty is still under consideration, but “the approval process won’t take long.”

Once the Treaty of Alliance and Integration is signed, it is set to be implemented in a matter of three to six months, allowing Russia to absorb South Ossetia.  This comes less than three months after the signing of the Russia-Abkhazia treaty of a similar nature, although it is not as comprehensive. The international community and the Georgian government have condemned Russia’s actions and will not recognize either of the treaties but that is not likely to stem Putin’s expansionist policies – if Crimea is any guide.

What is South Ossetia?

The story of South Ossetia is very much a product of complex Russia-Georgia relations that date back to the pre-USSR era. Since 1783 Georgian lands have been under Russian rule, on and off, in one way or another. Czarist Russia, much like Putin’s Russia today, was expansionist by nature, never really giving up on the idea of establishing permanent dominance in the Caucasus.

South Ossetia is named after the ethnic group, the Ossetians. Until up to the second half of the 19th century the majority of ethnic Ossetians lived primarily in the North Caucasus (currently North Ossetia-Alania, one of the sovereign republics of the Russian Federation). Only smaller groups of Ossetians lived on the Georgian territory, in high elevation areas of the Caucasus Mountains. Today’s South Ossetia was previously known as Samachablo, or the fiefdom of the princely house of Machabeli, since the 15th century.

In 1861 the Russian Empire abolished serfdom. However, much like the post-Soviet privatization in 1990s, this was done in a way that benefitted only the elites. While the serfs did receive freedom and legal citizenship rights, most of them did not gain land ownership. The Ossetian serfs fell into a dire economic situation, leading them to seek labor elsewhere – in particular, into the Georgian territories of Inner Kartli and Samachablo. A majority of the migrants were willing to work for very little compensation, and were not afraid to set up homes on local farmers’ lands. This created a great deal of conflict between the locals and the newcomers. The local landlords did not get involved as they had begun to benefit from the virtually free labor of the Ossetians and were not ready to sacrifice their own financial gains in order to protect the local farmers. The Samachablo Georgians were left with two choices – either move away from Samachablo, or stay and live in turbulent conditions. Thus large groups of the locals chose to move away from Samachablo, and many of them ended up in the Gori[1] area.

According to the Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili, the migration of Ossetians into Samachablo led to significant assimilation between ethnic Georgians and ethnic Ossetians over time. Many Georgian family names were slowly transformed into Ossetian last names.   One study uses tombstones in South Ossetia as evidence of such assimilation. From the 1860s until 1921 the epitaphs on tombstones transition from mostly Georgian text into Ossetian writings in the Cyrillic alphabet and then finally Ossetian writings using Latin letters.[2]

Official Georgian government documents explain that despite the fact that Samachablo became predominantly ethnically Ossetian, no formal autonomy was ever demanded or given to the region, until after Georgia became a part of the USSR. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia declared independence and a National Council was formed and took the role of the main governing body. The Council allocated 26 seats for representatives of ethnic minority groups who lived on the Georgian territories, and two of these seats were dedicated to Ossetians. On February 21, 1921 the first democratic republic of Georgia adopted its first constitution, which was only valid for four days, as on February 25, 1921 Russia annexed Georgia. It was not until 1922 that the Bolshevik leadership adopted a resolution on the “creation of the autonomous unit of South Ossetia.” Between 1925 and 1927 there were talks of uniting the North and the South Ossetias but no serious attempts were made to do so.

Later, in 1991, after Georgia declared independence from the USSR, an ethnic conflict broke out first in Tskhinvali (capital of South Ossetia) and later in Abkhazia (in Western Georgia, bordering the Black Sea). At this point, Georgia was considered a failing state without functional governing institutions. As a result, the country was overrun by mob-style militia. This contributed to the escalation of both civil wars without any reasonable solution. Moreover, the first president of independent Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, was ousted in March 1992 and the country was left without a president until November of that year. The State Council of Georgia, headed by Eduard Shevardnadze, asked Russia to step in. The Russian government had been backing the separatists in both Tskhinvali and Abkhazia, and easily brokered a ceasefire deal, permanently moving its peacekeeping forces to the regions that would later be described as “frozen conflict zones.” South Ossetia and Abkhazia became de facto republics. Since then Georgia has worked towards reuniting with its breakaway territories, but without much luck, due primarily to Russian meddling but also to lack of willingness to compromise from both sides.

It was Russia’s close involvement in South Ossetia that triggered the Russo-Georgian war in August of 2008. There has been much speculation as to who started the war and why. However, the fact that the war went well beyond the Tskhinvali region as Russia ended up bombing Gori  and its surrounding villages leaves Russia at fault. The five day war ended after France and Poland brokered a cease-fire deal. The international community has often supported Geogia’s aspirations of achieving territorial integrity, yet Russia managed to walk away from this conflict entirely unpunished. This weak international response laid the groundwork for Russian aggression in Ukraine few years later.

Once the bombing stopped in August of 2008, the situation started to stabilize again, but soon after the war ended the Russian peacekeeping forces began building barricades, infringing upon the rights of those Georgian citizens whose lands happened to be on the Georgia-South Ossetia “border.” Additionally, since the Ukraine crisis broke out, the South Ossetian leadership in Tskhinvali began openly talking about closer integration with Russia. There were talks about a wide range of possibilities from “becoming a subject of the Russian Federation to forming an associated partnership.” The end product, created only a month after the drafting of the Russia-Abkhazia treaty of military integration (which was approved by the Russian parliament on January 23rd), looks less like an associated partnership agreement and more like annexation.

The Treaty

Drafted in December 2014, the “treaty of alliance and integration” is meant to “legalize South Ossetia’s integration with Russia.” Its clauses go well beyond the matters of military integration and include the Russian takeover of South Ossetia’s border control, finances, economy, education, healthcare, and social welfare systems. On the other hand the agreement removes borders and restrictions on movement of goods and people between Russian and South Ossetian territories. The language of this document in itself is all-encompassing, and once the terms of this agreement are implemented, Russia will have truly swallowed South Ossetia, likely irreversibly so.

Some of the particular clauses of this agreement include South Ossetia’s handing over all defense matters to Russia, including the defense of South Ossetian borders (Georgia is on the other side of that border). By the terms of the agreement, any aggression by Georgia against South Ossetia would be treated as an act of aggression against Russia.

Below are a few selected clauses from the treaty which have been translated from Russian.

  • The Contracting Parties shall conduct a coordinated foreign policy, which involves mutual interests of the Contracting Parties in various fields of cooperation, informing each other of the committed actions in this regard , as well as closely cooperate in promoting peace, stability and security in the Caucasus region.
  • The Republic of South Ossetia transfers to the Russian Federation the responsibility to ensure law and order, public safety, and control of drug trafficking, as well as management of the internal affairs agencies, investigative bodies, and penitentiary system in South Ossetia.
  • The Republic of South Ossetia agrees to transfer its responsibilities in the field of customs and customs regulation to the Russian Federation. The customs authorities of South Ossetia will become part of the customs authorities of the Russian Federation.
  • Citizens of one Contracting Party shall have the right to acquire a nationality of the other Contracting Party under the simplified procedure. The restrictions that the Russian Federation might pose on those who do not possess Russian citizenship will not apply to the citizens of South Ossetia.
  • Republic of South Ossetia, with the support of the Russian Federation shall gradually increase the average wages of employees of state and local government agencies to a level comparable with the level of remuneration of appropriate categories of workers in the North Caucasus Federal District of the Russian Federation.
  • [Summary of multiple clauses] Russian citizens permanently residing in the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia , are eligible for pensions, benefits and other forms of social security at a level comparable with average level of pensions and other social security in the North Caucasus Federal District of the Russian Federation. Russian laws and regulations as well as benefits of the Russian social welfare system will apply to all those individuals living in South Ossetia who take Russian citizenship.
  • The Central Bank of the Russian Federation will assist the National Bank of the Republic of South Ossetia in the implementation of monetary policy and strengthening the financial system of the Republic of South Ossetia.

Crimea, South Ossetia and More to Come?

While the Ukraine crisis continues to dominate the headlines, Russia’s quiet annexation of Georgian territories is going on practically unnoticed. Even Georgia is largely silent, given its preoccupation with its own currency crisis and economic troubles.

The Georgian government has been very spare in criticism of Russia’s expansionist policies in Ukraine, and hesitant to openly condemn Russian activities there. The Georgian government’s (reasonable) fear that Russia would retaliate if Georgia took a bolder stand to declare its solidarity with Ukraine has kept it from waging a full-on anti-Putin campaign. Now, less than a year since Crimea’s annexation, Georgia is experiencing painful losses of its own.

Earlier this month, during her official visit to the US, Georgia’s new minister of foreign affairs Tamar Beruchashvili told RFE/RL in an interview that for Russia “the next move is [South] Ossetia; there are signals that the Crimea-like scenario could be repeated and South Ossetia could be annexed.” Additionally, Ms. Beruchashvili warned that Russia’s involvement in Moldova’s Transnistria and Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia are components of one big Russian strategy. But at this point these statements carry no weight as it is probably too late to save South Ossetia from being swallowed up by Russia. If there is to be any reversal, it is crucial that the West look at the events in Ukraine and Georgia (and Moldova) not in isolation from each other but of a piece and address the broader issue of Russian expansionism.

About the author:
*Maia Otarashvili is an FPRI Research Associate and Program Coordinator for FPRI’s Project on Democratic Transitions. Her research has focused on democratic consolidation and regression in the EU-11 countries, as well as on fragile hybrid states such as Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and other former USSR states in the Black Sea and Caucasus region. Maia holds an MA in Globalization, Development and Transition from the University of Westminster in London, with emphasis on post-authoritarian transitions. All Georgian- and Russian-language material has been translated by the author.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Tskitishvili, Veshapeli and Gabelia in their 1990 book “Me, Joseph Stalin” (Tsbilisi: Literary Society), traced the roots of Stalin’s family all the way to Samachablo in mid-1800s. While doing so they gathered valuable information on the history of Samachablo itself, and on formation of what is now known as South Ossetia.

[2] Gori, the hometown of Joseph Stalin, is less than an hour away from Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi.

The post Russia’s Quiet Annexation Of South Ossetia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ron Paul: Interventionism Kills: Post-Coup Ukraine One Year Later – OpEd

0
0

It was one year ago last weekend that a violent coup overthrew the legally elected government of Ukraine. That coup was not only supported by the US and EU governments — much of it was actually planned by them. Looking back at the events that led to the overthrow it is clear that without foreign intervention Ukraine would not be in its current, seemingly hopeless situation.

By the end of 2013, Ukraine’s economy was in ruins. The government was desperate for an economic bailout and then-president Yanukovych first looked west to the US and EU before deciding to accept an offer of help from Russia. Residents of south and east Ukraine, who largely speak Russian and trade extensively with Russia were pleased with the decision. West Ukrainians who identify with Poland and Europe began to protest. Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the president came from the eastern region.

At this point the conflict was just another chapter in Ukraine’s difficult post-Soviet history. There was bound to be some discontent over the decision, but if there had been no foreign intervention in support of the protests you would likely not be reading this column today. The problem may well have solved itself in due time rather than escalated into a full-out civil war. But the interventionists in the US and EU won out again, and their interventionist project has been a disaster.

Flag at Maidan Nezalezhnosti, main Kiev, Ukraine square. Photo by Halibutt, WIkipedia Commons.

Flag at Maidan Nezalezhnosti, main Kiev, Ukraine square. Photo by Halibutt, WIkipedia Commons.

The protests at the end of 2013 grew more dramatic and violent and soon a steady stream of US and EU politicians were openly participating, as protesters called for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Senator John McCain made several visits to Kiev and even addressed the crowd to encourage them.

Imagine if a foreign leader like Putin or Assad came to Washington to encourage protesters to overthrow the Obama Administration!

As we soon found out from a leaked telephone call, the US ambassador in Kiev and Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, were making detailed plans for a new government in Kiev after the legal government was overthrown with their assistance.

The protests continued to grow but finally on February 20th of last year a European delegation brokered a compromise that included early elections and several other concessions from Yanukovych. It appeared disaster had been averted, but suddenly that night some of the most violent groups, which had been close to the US, carried out the coup and Yanukovych fled the country.

When the east refused to recognize the new government as legitimate and held a referendum to secede from the west, Kiev sent in tanks to force them to submit. Rather than accept the will of those seeking independence from what they viewed as an illegitimate government put in place by foreigners, the Obama administration decided to blame it all on the Russians and began imposing sanctions!

That war launched by Kiev has lasted until the present, with a ceasefire this month brokered by the Germans and French finally offering some hope for an end to the killing. More than 5,000 have been killed and many of those were civilians bombed in their cities by Kiev.

What if John McCain had stayed home and worried about his constituents in Arizona instead of non-constituents 6,000 miles away? What if the other US and EU politicians had done the same? What if Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt had focused on actual diplomacy instead of regime change?

If they had done so, there is a good chance many if not all of those who have been killed in the violence would still be alive today. Interventionism kills.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: Interventionism Kills: Post-Coup Ukraine One Year Later – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images