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

New Tapes Leave Macedonia Minister Red-Faced

0
0

By Goran Rizaov and Sinisa Jakov Marusi

Macedonia’s Finance Minister Zoran Stavreski on Monday said the opposition’s latest slew of wiretapped telephone conversations were aimed at sowing discord in the ranks of the government.

In new recordings that the opposition Social Democrats presented earlier on Monday, the minister is heard slating Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski’s policies as mad and irresponsible.

Stavreski did not deny the authenticity of the recordings but suggested they had been “spiced up a little… to insert discord…and disagreement within the government’s economic team”.

Earlier on Monday, opposition leader Zoran Zaev published covertly-recorded conversations allegedly between Stavreski and Interior Minister Gordana Jankuloska.

In one, a voice attributed to Stavreski calls Prime Minister Gruevski a man “who has lost the sense of reality” when it comes to economics.

“We are constantly adding new [budget] expenditures. Even the United States could not withstand this… pedestrian tracks, aqua parks, this and that… this is insane!” the voice says.

“We are lunatics! We are spending on chocolate when we don’t have bread,” the same voice added.

The minister yesterday said the recordings were “selective” and there was nothing wrong with healthy debate on policies. “It is not good if we all think and act the same,” he said.

“There are many things on which we agreed with the Prime Minister and where we had identical opinions on certain reforms,” he added, “but those kind of recordings have never been shown to the public.”

While declining to dispute the authenticity of the conversations, he denounced them for having been “obtained, created and owned illegally”.

Stavreski yesterday insisted that the Macedonian economy was doing well, adding that the government always paid wages and pensions on time.

“Again and again we have heard the same thesis and the same opposition accusations that the economy and the country are in collapse and bankruptcy. They have repeated that for the past nine years,” he said.

“After all those attacks, the Macedonian economy is stronger and citizens gave their trust to [Gruevski’s] VMRO DPMNE [party] at each following election,” Stavreski added.

The Social Democrats held their first press conference on the subject of telephone surveillance on February 9, when they declared that over 20,000 people in the country of 2 million had been wiretapped.

Zaev said top government figures and as well as its opponents had been subjected to eavesdropping orchestrated by Gruevski and the secret service chief, Sasa Mijalkov.

Five more press conferences have been held since then at which the opposition released further conversations.

Gruevski, who has been in power since 2006, has denied the allegations, blaming the scandal on an unnamed “foreign secret service” that has been collaborating with Zaev.
He has also acccused Zaev of trying to blackmail him in order to grab power.

Zaev has denied collaborating with foreign spies, insisting that all the conversations that he received and has since revealed come from the domestic intelligence services.

The post New Tapes Leave Macedonia Minister Red-Faced appeared first on Eurasia Review.


South Ossetia Leader Tells Citizens Don’t Go To Georgian Hospitals

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — The leader of breakaway South Ossetia, Leonid Tibilov, has again spoken out against breakaway region’s residents traveling to Georgia for receiving medical treatment.

Speaking at a meeting with members of his government, Tibilov said on March 2 that “in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no need whatsoever for patients to go to the neighboring country,” Tskhinvali-based RES news agency reported.

“We have to develop our own medical centers and attract specialists. We are already doing it actively – we are launching construction of a modern medical center with relevant equipment,” Tibilov said.

This is not the first time when the breakaway region’s leader raises the issue. In July, 2013 he called on his government to address, as he put it, increasing number of cases of South Ossetian patients going to hospitals in Georgia and recalled a government decree allowing this practice only in “exceptional cases” when a condition of a patient does not allow a lengthier travel to Russia’s North Ossetia.

In 2013 interview with the local newspaper, breakaway region’s healthcare minister, Grigory Kulidzhanov, said that in most of the cases patients “are ignoring” this decree of the government.

“Often people appeal [to the healthcare ministry] insisting on sending them to hospitals in Georgia, ignoring offered alternative to receive medical treatment on the territory of Russia,” Kulidzhanov told Respublika (Republic) newspaper in April, 2013. “Of course we can help a person when it is a life-and-death issue and we are doing it, turning a blind eye on political aspects, but in most of the cases requests for sending them to Georgia have no clear justification, meaning that similar treatment can also be provided on the territory of Russia, including in North Ossetia.”

The post South Ossetia Leader Tells Citizens Don’t Go To Georgian Hospitals appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran: Judiciary Reiterates Ban On Reporting About Former Iranian President

0
0

The spokesman for the Iranian judiciary stressed once more that the media is not to report on former president, Mohammad Khatami, a senior reformist figure, as he is officially under a media ban by order of the judiciary.

Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei told reporters on Monday March 2 that a number of digital and print media that did not comply with the ban on Khatami’s media coverage had been shut down. Those who have signed commitments not to repeat the violations have been allowed to resume their activities, Mohseni Ejei added.

Last week, the Jamaran and Bahar News websites were blocked briefly. Both sites were said to have covered news of Mohammad Khatami and other reformists, according to the Fars News Agency.

Mohseni Ejei confirmed the media ban on Khatami two weeks ago and said this week: “The judicial order remains in force until it is officially rescinded, and if the media outlet violates this order, it will have to deal with the consequences.”

Mohammad Khatami is linked to the election protests of 2009 and is heavily criticized by the Islamic Republic hardliners for that reason.

The post Iran: Judiciary Reiterates Ban On Reporting About Former Iranian President appeared first on Eurasia Review.

What We Talk About When We Talk About ISIS – OpEd

0
0

By Eamon Murphy*

As the U.S. prepares to re-engage more deeply in the Iraq War, including the likely deployment of ground troops to help retake Mosul from Islamic State, we are being asked to recommit to an ideological view of our military campaigns in the Muslim world. Roger Cohen fixates on “Islam and the West at War”, denouncing the “empty talk” of Western leaders who eschew his clash-of-civilizations framing. David Brooks proposes a poorly-defined “nationalist solution”, arguing that only “a more compelling heroic vision” can counter the glorious spiritual ardor of radical Islam. And a splashy cover story in The Atlantic, “What ISIS Really Wants”, offers an intellectual foundation for the reenergized War on Terror, presenting full recognition of ISIS’s “very Islamic” nature as a matter of urgent strategic significance.

This push to name the enemy of the West as Islam is in fact a defense of our own side’s troubled ideology. The guiding principle of post-World War II foreign policy — that the course of world events should be influenced, wherever possible, by force — is imperiled by the spectacular failure of the War on Terror, which actually succeeded in creating a transnational army of Islamic terrorists. That Islamic State rose in Iraq, then spread to Syria and Libya, threatens to give war a very bad name: it’s starting to look like destroying a country naturally empowers extremists.

One way to avoid confronting this reality — which might cause us to ask painful, demoralizing questions about who we are and what we believe — is to focus on the decontextualized ideology these newly empowered extremists profess so vehemently. This is The Atlantic approach. Author Graeme Wood gestures towards the importance of other factors in the rise of ISIS, with one eye-popping omission:

In the past, Westerners who accused Muslims of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics — notably the late Edward Said — who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them. Look instead, these scholars urged, to the conditions in which these ideologies arose — the bad governance, the shifting social mores, the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil.

Without acknowledgement of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing it for religious reasons.

Missing from Wood’s list of “conditions” is the critical event that precipitated ISIS’s rise: the destruction of Iraq’s political order, which caused untold civilian suffering and left one-fifth of the population — the Sunni, with their ties to Saddam’s “security-obsessed totalitarian regime” — suddenly disempowered and vulnerable. This was a recipe for violent resistance.

Ignoring Iraq

“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change,” observed Milton Friedman, who, whatever the merits of his economic theories, certainly understood practical politics. “When that occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” The U.S. occupation of Iraq, at once abusive and ineffectual, was an enormous crisis, especially from the perspective of the Sunni. And there happened to be a fighting ideology available to them, one that could draw from the strength of foreign fighters incensed by the spectacle of Muslim suffering at American hands: the Salafist jihadism of al Qaeda, which dreamed of a reconstituted caliphate but was in no position to make that happen as of 2003.

Although this ideology dates back decades, there was no jihadist movement in Iraq before the US invasion. Islam was not anathema to Saddam — after Gulf War I he launched a so-called Faith Campaign, to shore up support for his regime in the face of fundamentalist opposition and economic hardship — but religious extremism was his enemy. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq in 2002, he found safe haven not in Saddam country but in semiautonomous Kurdistan, under the no-fly zone. It was the next year — when the Americans smashed the regime, disbanded the army, enacted de-Baathification, and created a Shia-dominated Governing Council — that al Qaeda operatives found an opening among Iraq’s Sunni tribes. As Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan recount in their new history ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, “Disenfranchised Saddamists, who had melted back into their native cities and villages along the Euphrates River, were only too happy to accommodate the new arrivals, seeing them as agents for the Americans’ expulsion and their own restoration. The jihadists, however, had different ambitions for Iraq.”

At first, al Qaeda was just one among many factions fighting the Americans, who gave Iraqis plenty of reasons to hate them. But the dynamics of the occupation, which played out like Osama bin Laden’s wildest fantasy, favored the jihadists. Zarqawi’s ruthlessness — he was a violent criminal before he discovered Salafism — gave his group a natural advantage, bequeathing to the world the revolting propaganda triumph of the beheading video. The resulting US emphasis on al Qaeda as the source of resistance in Iraq raised its profile further. And the prisons of the occupation, which housed countless young men caught up in the American dragnet, facilitated proselytizing and networking. Among those locked up was the previously unremarkable Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; according to an Islamic State commander who did time with the future self-proclaimed caliph at Camp Bucca, “If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”

Putting the Blame on Islam

Almost none of this history appears in Wood’s essay, which purports to answer (among other key questions) where ISIS came from. Instead of attending closely to the circumstances of the group’s creation, which are still highly relevant to the state of play in Iraq, Wood spoke with people in the West who admire ISIS or claim to be experts. The picture that emerges seems at times close to fantasy:

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for the cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.”

If this characterization (by Princeton professor Bernard Haykel) sounds suspiciously sweeping and confident, there’s a reason: it does not match the reports of actual experts. Didier François, a French journalist who spent 10 months in an ISIS prison, has said that among his captors,

“There was never really discussion about texts or — it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion. It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran. We didn’t even have the Quran; they didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”

According to Weiss and Hassan, “Those who say they are adherents of ISIS as a strictly political project make up a weighty percentage of its lower cadres and support base.”

This isn’t to suggest there aren’t many intensely religious ISIS fighters, including Baghdadi, who has a doctorate in Islamic studies and reportedly used to preach. But beyond a tidbit or two — like the significance of Rome and Dabiq in ISIS propaganda — Wood has little of interest to say about the group’s religiosity. When he writes, “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic,” he means simply that ISIS is fundamentalist — committed to literal interpretation of sacred texts and harsh enforcement of doctrinal laws — which comes as news to no one. But since cover stories are about getting attention, that familiar term appears not once in 10,000 words, nor does the related but less precise “extremist”. Instead, in keeping with The Atlantic’s editorial commitment to Islamophobia, there is an implicit claim that ISIS represents a more authentic version of Islam than does your garden-variety, non-bloodthirsty Muslim. Quoting Haykel, Wood informs us that these mainstream types “who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically…‘embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion’ that neglects what their religion has historically and legally required.’ Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an ‘interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.’” This is New Atheist-style churlishness, affording higher religious status to fundamentalism and thereby reproducing the position of ISIS itself.

It’s also philosophically incoherent. Wood goes on to quote an exasperated Haykel complaining that “People want to absolve Islam. It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such as thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Neither Haykel nor Wood seems to recognize the blatant contradiction: if there is no such thing as “Islam”, no authoritative interpretation, then what is it that mainstream Muslims have “a cotton-candy view of”? What is it that “historically and legally requires” the atrocities of ISIS? If it’s true that Islam is “what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts,” then given that the vast majority of Muslims don’t participate in ISIS-style barbarity, Islamic State must be “deviant” (as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, the mentor of Zarqawi, has dubbed it), or un-Islamic.

Of course it isn’t, necessarily, because the world’s religions are all heterogeneous, defined by a core of characteristic beliefs but encompassing numerous sects, denominations, practices and styles. It’s very unlikely that the president doesn’t understand this; Obama is obviously practicing rhetoric, with an eye toward the very real intra-Islam struggle, when he says that ISIS isn’t made up of true Muslims. But for Wood, Obama’s public pronouncements “reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.” This is Wood’s justification of his inquiry, the claim that what he has to impart about Islamic State’s theology could make the difference between our strengthening the group or facilitating its self-destruction. And yet, despite his criticisms of Obama’s misunderstanding, Wood winds up endorsing the strategy the president has pursued so far: “Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears to be the best of bad military options.”

Give War a Chance

The case for escalation against ISIS based on Wood’s argument is obvious (he toys with it himself), and has been taken up by the usual suspects — Max Boot, for instance, writing for Commentary: “Wood is compelling in analyzing the ISIS threat — less so in suggesting a solution. His work points to the imperative for the US to do more to deny ISIS territorial control. That is why I have suggested the new [sic] for more than 10,000 US personnel to be deployed…”

Only a neocon could embrace the argument that heedlessness of the enemy’s Islamist ideology helped pave the way for ISIS. What about Gen. Stanley McChrystal, architect of the US killing machine in Iraq, who brought his counterinsurgency strategy to ISAF headquarters in Afghanistan? According to an army officer who was McChrystal’s roommate at West Point, “He was someone who saw this global ‘Caliphate’ as a tremendous enemy, and kept beating the drum for that.” The officer continued: “Boykin and Cambone and McChrystal were fellow travelers in the great crusade against Islam,” naming two Pentagon intelligence bigwigs in addition to the general. “They ran what was for all practical purposes an assassination campaign.” (See Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars, pp. 109-10.) And what did we gain by stacking up the corpses of al Qaeda commanders in Iraq? In a word, ISIS:

“Zarqawi was very smart. He was the best strategist that the Islamic State has had. Abu Omar [al-Baghdadi] was ruthless,” Abu Ahmed said, referring to Zarqawi’s successor, who was killed in a US-led raid in April 2010. “And Abu Bakr is the most bloodthirsty of all.

“After Zarqawi was killed, the people who liked killing even more than him became very important in the organisation. Their understanding of sharia and of humanity was very cheap. They don’t understand the Tawheed (the Qur’anic concept of God’s oneness) the way it was meant to be understood. The Tawheed should not have been forced by war.”

This account, given by an ISIS commander who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed to The Guardian’s Martin Chulav, encapsulates a lesson the U.S. refuses to learn: in a conflict like the so-called War on Terror, our violence is counterproductive. Smash al Qaeda, and you get something worse. Smash Islamic State, and God knows what will happen. Wood may resist the conclusion, but it follows from his argument — ISIS is an implacable, apocalyptically-minded enemy — that there is no remedy for our latest predicament except more killing. Follow this reasoning, and we can expect the situation to deteriorate further (hard as that is to imagine now).

Abu Ahmed’s story also demonstrates the folly of presenting the phenomenon of ISIS as essentially Islamic. His complaint about declining religious standards among the leadership is echoed in Weiss and Hassan’s account of “the internal story” told by “two disgruntled al-Qaeda members”, several years after Baghdadi occupied the top spot in 2010:

The reason they were disgruntled was that their perception of the rise of al-Baghdadi, whatever his level of education, represented the takeover of the Salafist-Jihadist movement within ISI of people without strong Salafist-Jihadist credentials — Baathists.

That’s another word you won’t hear from Wood, though it’s critical to understanding ISIS’s takeover of so much territory. Islamic State went from an urban guerrilla group to a full-fledged army not because of Western recruits without military experience, but because of a rapprochement with the Baathists, including Saddam’s former officers. These were not jihadis, though some of them took up Islam in the wake of the U.S. wrecking ball. “It was never clear that he would turn out like that,” the governor of Anbar province said of one such officer, a former student of his who joined al Qaeda and spent time in U.S. detention. “He was from a simple family, with high morals, but all his brothers went in that direction… all those guys got religious after 2003.” Weird coincidence. Another commander, formerly a major general in an elite unit, tried to rejoin the Iraqi Army but was turned down because of de-Baathification. After ISIS sacked Mosul, he telephoned the official who rejected him: “We will reach you soon, and I will chop you into pieces.” Not exactly a religious scholar with esoteric motivations.

We should dismiss the fanciful notion that countering ISIS is primarily a matter of understanding Islam. Wood quotes “confidential comments” by the U.S. special ops commander in the Middle East, “admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal: ‘We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.’” As though the military would be capable of changing the personal convictions of foreigners, if only we could figure out out what those are. In fact, the appeal of ISIS is obvious enough (though no U.S. commander could admit this and continue to do his job): the grievances of Sunni in Iraq and Syria, and of their sympathizers worldwide, are not mysterious, and jihad is the recourse available to them. Even if every fighter were purely motivated by Islamic extremism, an ideology can’t be destroyed. Wood mentions Hitler and the appeal of fascism; decades after one of the most resounding political failures in world history, driven by crushing military defeat and incurring unparalleled disapprobation, there are still people who identify with Nazism. What we can do — or ought to be able to do, at least — is avoid creating or contributing to the crises that empower dangerous ideologues.

At present the U.S. seems poised to do the opposite. In Syria, bombing both ISIS and its wayward offshoot, Jabhat al-Nusra, seems like a policy designed to draw the two back together. In Iraq, pushing Baghdad to retake Mosul in a matter of months could well herald a return to the worst days of sectarian slaughter, given the record of the Shia militias. With characteristic grandiloquence, Wood mentions the prospect that ISIS will “self-immolate in its own excessive zeal,” but we seem determined to keep on fanning the flames in which extremist movements are hardened.

About the author:
*Eamon Murphy is a journalist in New York City. Follow him on Twitter @epmurph.

Source:
This article was published at Mondoweiss.net here.

The post What We Talk About When We Talk About ISIS – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Spain Sees Largest Drop In Unemployment In 14 Years

0
0

The number of unemployed registered with the Public Employment Services in Spain fell by 13,538 in February 2015, putting the total figure at 4,512,153. This is the best figure for unemployment in a month of February since 2001. In the last 7 years, recorded unemployment in February has increased on average by 90,000 people.

In seasonally-adjusted terms, unemployment fell by 49,653. This is the best February figure since current records began. With the exception of July 2014, the number of unemployed in seasonally-adjusted terms has been falling month by month since May 2013 and has now fallen for the last 22 months straight.

In the last 12 months, recorded unemployment has fallen by 300,333, the largest year-on-year reduction to unemployment in a single year since 1999, with a 6.24% year-on-year rate of reduction.

By sector, unemployment among workers whose latest activity was in the construction sector fell by 10,091 (1.9%), in industry by 6,535 (1.4%) and in the services sector by 223. Meanwhile, unemployment among workers from the agriculture and fisheries sector increased by 467 (0.2%). Finally, the number of first-time job-seekers rose by 2,844 (0.8%).

Recorded unemployment fell in 14 autonomous regions, led by Cantabria (-3,242), the Balearic Islands (-2,771) and Extremadura (-2,666). In contrast, unemployment rose in three regions, led by the Region of Madrid (2,411 and Andalusia (2,121)

Permanent employment contracts rose by 23%

The number of new employment contracts recorded in February amounted to 1,226,950. This represents an increase of 12.47% on the same month of 2014.

A total of 120,281 permanent employment contracts were recorded in February 2015, an increase of 22.98% on February 2014. The year-on-year increase in permanent full-time employment stands at 30.58%.

Training and apprenticeship contracts increased by 23.8% year-on-year in February with 11,247 such contracts reported. In addition, 5,676 work experience contracts were signed, a year-on-year increase of 36.3%. There were a total of 2,416,786 unemployment benefit recipients in January 2015, with the amount of benefits paid out by the system amounting to 1.96 billion euros.

Solid trend in job recovery

The State Secretary for Employment, Engracia Hidalgo, stressed that the data published on Tuesday “clearly show the positive trend of the labour market” and are in line with recent trends in the Spanish economy as a whole.

“This solid trend inspires us to continue working so that the recovery of stable and quality employment increasingly affects a greater number of people in our country”, remarked Engracia Hidalgo, who reiterated her wish to see 2015 as the year that saw a boost in job recovery.

The post Spain Sees Largest Drop In Unemployment In 14 Years appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lanka: UN Committed To Assist Process Of Accountability And Reconciliation

0
0

The United Nations is encouraged by the new government of Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights and it is committed to assisting in the process of accountability and reconciliation in the island nation UN Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman said.

Issuing a press statement during an official visit to Sri Lanka, Mr. Feltman said that the recent election of a new government has given Sri Lanka an historic opportunity to seize to address the accountability and bring the reconciliation to the island.

The UN official, who arrived in Sri Lanka on February 28 for a four-day official visit, said he had a series of positive, constructive discussions with the President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Acting Foreign Minister Ajith Perera, the leadership of the JHU, SLMC, TNA, and the diplomatic community in Colombo.

Feltman has also visited Jaffna and met with the Governor and the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council.

The official said he was able to listen to, and compare notes with, a divergent group of civil society representatives both in Colombo and in Jaffna.

“Those I met over the past four days inspired me with their visions for a prosperous, democratic country, at peace internally and with positive, close, mutually beneficial relations regionally and internationally,” Feltman said.

Addressing the issues faced by the communities in conflict-affected areas, the official underscored that despite the work of many commissions, the list of grievances and unresolved issues remains long.

Feltman said the UN is encouraged by this government’s commitment to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights.

“In our view, credible, tangible progress in these areas is a prerequisite to the achievement of sustainable peace and prosperity in Sri Lanka,” Feltman noted.

The UN official has urged government leaders to take steps in the short term to address issues regarding land, detentions, disappearances, and the military posture in civilian areas.

Over the longer term, he has underscored the expectation by the UN and by the international community that the government will – as it has promised – develop in the coming months a strong framework for accountability that meets international standards and norms and that is seen as credible across Sri Lanka.

“These are not easy tasks, but we believe that they are essential tasks, expected by the international community and also – more importantly – by the citizens of this country themselves,”  Feltman said.

Noting that there is still a wide trust deficit between communities in Sri Lanka, especially between the Tamil and the Sinhalese, the official said the UN encouraged the national leaders and political stakeholders to work on all of these issues in the spirit of inclusion and consultation.

As requested by Sri Lanka, the United Nations is committed to assisting in the process of accountability and reconciliation, through the Peace building Fund and other facilities, as appropriate, he assured.

“But it is first and foremost for Sri Lankans themselves to shape how to address issues of the past in order to find a common future,” the official emphasized.

“With regional allies and the world focused in a positive way on Sri Lanka, and with the citizens of Sri Lanka having drawn from Sri Lanka’s strong democratic history and traditions to promote a peaceful transition, this is a historic moment to seize,” the Under Secretary-General said.

Feltman assured that the “Secretary-General himself and the UN system more broadly will stand with the people and leaders of Sri Lanka, as they address credibly and thoroughly the accountability and reconciliation issues that, once resolved, will contribute to Sri Lanka’s long-term peace and prosperity.”

The post Sri Lanka: UN Committed To Assist Process Of Accountability And Reconciliation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Remote Control Or Local Talent? The Future Of International Assignments

0
0

Global sporting-goods maker Adidas is headquartered in Herzogenaurach, a small town in the south of Germany.

German execs at HQ may be sent to work in any of the 160 countries where Adidas operates. Yet it’s just as likely that managers of varying nationalities working for Adidas around the globe will be sent to HQ — or that they will be sent to other countries.

Transferring employees in all directions for international assignments helps Adidas managers broaden their horizons and diversify the company, insiders say.

IESE’s Sebastian Reiche and Anne-Wil Harzing cite Adidas in their chapter for the textbook International Human Resource Management precisely because its approach is atypical. While an “HQ bias” is still apparent in most multinationals’ staffing policies, Adidas stands out for its decentralized approach.

Reiche and Harzing recap the research on international assignments in this chapter intended for students of management. Reviewing the traditional models of staffing for multinationals, the co-authors also highlight newer alternatives that look promising for the demands of the future.

The ABCs of Multinational Staffing

Multinationals tend to fill key positions at their foreign subsidiaries in one of three ways:

  • Parent country national (PCN), where the nationality of the employee is the same as that of the firm headquarters. For example, a German employee of a German company working at the Chinese subsidiary.
  • Host country national (HCN), where the employee has the same nationality as the local subsidiary. A Chinese employee working at the Chinese subsidiary of the German company.
  • Third country national (TCN), where the employee’s nationality is different from that of both the headquarters and the subsidiary office. In the above scenario, this might mean an Indian employee working at the Chinese office of the German company.

PCNs and HCNs are the most popular profiles to fill positions, according to the research available on the subject. PCNs offer familiarity with the home office’s goals and effective communication with HQ, but they tend to be expensive and do not know the subsidiary’s local context like a native. HCNs offer familiarity with the local context, but they do not know HQ like a PCN. Trade-offs are always necessary, but in some situations one or the other staffing choice is systematically favored, research by co-author Harzing shows.

Where the PCNs Rule

Harzing finds that the particular home country of a multinational influences its subsidiary staffing decisions. Notably, in her study of 2,689 subsidiaries of multinationals, over three-quarters (76.5 percent) of the managing directors of the subsidiaries of Japanese multinationals were themselves Japanese. Meanwhile, Italians occupied only 18.2 percent of the managing director positions at subsidiaries of Italian multinationals. In sum, home country matters.

Not only did the country of origin matter, but the location of the subsidiaries had an influence, too. PCNs were most likely to occupy managing director roles when the subsidiaries were in the Middle East (66.7 percent). Meanwhile, PCNs occupied only a third of subsidiary management positions located in Western Europe and only 14.6 percent of those located in Scandinavia.

The study also indicated that companies in the financial and automobile sectors were more likely to staff with PCNs. Meanwhile, the percentages of HCNs were higher in food and services industries.

Based on Harzing’s findings, the figure below summarizes the factors influencing the choice of a PCN over a HCN, with “+” indicating a positive relationship.

assignementsSource: International Human Resource Management (London: Sage Publications, 2014), p. 152, based on data from Harzing, A.-W. (2001), “Who’s in Charge? An Empirical Study of Executive Staffing Practices in Foreign Subsidiaries,” Human Resource Management, 40(2): pp. 139-158.

Changes Afoot

The authors highlight several influential trends in multinational staffing, some of them challenging the old “HQ bias.” For example:

Self-starters. A growing segment of the workforce is making their own arrangements to find work abroad, facilitated by the introduction of freedom of movement in the European Union and other economic regions.

These self-starters are more likely to be younger, single and female. They tend to also be motivated to work abroad by an interest in internationalism and poor employment situations in their home countries.

Inpatriates. Another interesting trend identified by the authors is the growing number of inpatriate assignments, where foreign subsidiary managers are sent to corporate HQ for a fixed amount of time, reversing the typical expatriate assignment of the past. The authors note that the use of inpatriates is expected to rise, especially in Europe. Adidas is one example of this.

Virtual Assignments. Companies have begun to make use of virtual assignments to save money. A virtual assignment does not require relocating overseas. Instead the assignee uses email, video-conferencing and other IT tools to manage remotely. However, the authors are quick to note that the use of virtual work arrangements remains limited by the fact that face-to-face communication remains crucial in many circumstances. Virtual assignments are often short-term solutions.

To the Future and Beyond

More pluralistic approaches to staffing should mean that there will be many more ways to have a truly international career going forward.

One future challenge for HR will be linking international assignments more directly to organizational career paths — capitalizing on the experiences and skills developed during transfers.

The post Remote Control Or Local Talent? The Future Of International Assignments appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Germany: Merkel Cuts Short Debate Over New Immigration Law

0
0

By Daniel Tost

(EurActiv) — Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent.

“What is more urgent at the moment is the issue of the many refugees that we have. According to everything we can foresee, the number will be higher this year,” Merkel said on Tuesday (3 March) in Berlin.

The centre-right alliance and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) are working “very, very well” together to accomplish this task, she indicated. “For this reason I want to get some common ground, with regard to the issue of refugees,” said the Chancellor, who hails from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Together, the CDU and its smaller Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) make up the centre-right alliance (Union) in Germany’s political party system.

Regarding the proposal of SPD faction head Thomas Oppermann for an immigration law, Merkel only commented that it must be examined. But since this is not a part of the coalition agreement, there is likewise no conflict within the grand coalition, she said.

“Now we will look at what can be done in connection with immigration. First, I have to form an opinion on it,” she continued. Previously, the centre-right alliance’s leadership rejected Oppermann’s proposals for an immigration law with a point system.

Oppermann officially presented his plan on Tuesday. He called for more incentives to promote long-term immigration of skilled workers. Germany will only overcome the demographically-driven decline in the labour supply “if we are able to keep immigration at the same level it was in recent years”, Oppermann’s position paper reads.

In the paper, he calls for an immigration law that would drive immigration of workers from non-EU countries by means of a point system, similar to the system used by Canada. Selection would be oriented according to age and education, as well as the demand for skilled workers.

Purely in terms of figures, Germany is expected to lose 6.7 million people of working age, Oppermann indicated in his 6-page paper, which was distributed Monday night.

Of course Germany’s own labour potential should be exhausted by increasing the number of women and seniors who are working and improving qualifications among young people, he explained.

“But at the same time, we must create better conditions for immigration of skilled workers from abroad,” Oppermann continued. “Both are necessary.”

The debate takes place amid a shortage of skilled workers, but also the upsurge in anti-Islamist demonstrations of the Pegida movement, which rejects immigration.

With an immigration law, the SPD especially hopes to emphasise the importance of foreign workers for the German economy and shed a positive light on immigration. In 2014, Germany recorded the highest immigration rate in 22 years, with a net gain of 470,000 people mostly coming from EU member states. But the latter already enjoy full freedom of movement within the EU.

Translated from German by Erika Körner

The post Germany: Merkel Cuts Short Debate Over New Immigration Law appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Pakistan: Diamer Bhasha Dam Stuck In Funding Trap – Analysis

0
0

By Priyanka Singh

In mid-January 2015, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) asked for a four month extension to consider Pakistan’s long pending request for funding the Diamer Bhasha Dam (DBD). ADB’s deferment yet again is a serious setback to Pakistan’s relentless efforts to obtain funds for constructing the mega hydro-power project on River Indus. The ADB decision was announced after a meeting between Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and the ADB Country Director Werner Liepach in Islamabad. This despite the fact that the ADB has agreed to support other energy, communications and infrastructure projects inside Pakistan.

The DBD, with a projected capacity of 4500 MW, is slated to be one of the largest dams in the world. Conceived as part of the Wapda (Water and Power Development Authority) Water Vision 2025, the DBD project has faced unprecedented delay. The project site is located in Gilgit Baltistan, part of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Considering its size and design, the project necessitates external funding, especially in view of the dismal state of Pakistan’s economy.

Mounting frustration and an indefinite delay has pushed Pakistan to look for alternative sources of funding. Sometime in mid-2014, it was suggested that Pakistan would convert the project into a Public Private Partnership (PPP), based on which a DBD company would be formed. To realise this goal, a focussed marketing plan showcasing the project to potential international donor agencies was conceived.

After coming to power, the PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz) dispensation under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif renewed efforts to speed up the project and it was reported that Sharif would personally monitor its progress. Gaining funds for the DBD has been for long on the priority agenda of successive Pakistani governments.

The governments headed by Musharraf and Zardari had also tried their best to realise this dream power project. But Pakistan’s comprehensive efforts to secure funding for the project have been meeting dead ends for more than a decade now.

The United States and China

Pakistan has taken up the issue with the United States (US) on several occasions including during the working group meetings under the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogues. After several spells of negotiations, the US has been sending out mixed and rather confusing signals on the DBD, and has been largely non-committal.

Though the US acknowledges Pakistan’s intensifying energy requirements and has offered limited assistance by funding the project’s preliminary assessment study, it has steered clear of making any significant financial commitment towards the DBD.

Nevertheless, the government of Pakistan has doggedly pursued the US on this score. In the past, there have been reports that part of the development assistance under the Kerry Lugar Berman package could be legitimately diverted towards DBD. This has, however, not happened so far. Overall, the US has been reluctant to fund the project and has suggested that Pakistan focus on smaller projects. It has maintained that funding a huge project such as the DBD falls outside the US assistance paradigm. Notably, several IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank meetings in Washington held over the last couple of years have served as fund raising exercises for Pakistan.

Amidst widespread conjectures that the project may be held up for an indefinite period owing to funding deficit, in July 2014, the US agreed to assist Pakistan in securing funds for the DBD. Subsequently, an investors’ meet with potential funders was held at Washington in October 2014. At this meeting, jointly organized by the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the US-Pakistan Business Council, US officials were seen convincing investors by projecting the DBD as Pakistan’s “smartest choice”.1.

As for China, it is regarded as the only all-weather friend of Pakistan and it has committed a whopping $ 45 billion towards the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor). But the Chinese have been distinctly non-committal on the DBD. Given China’s risk-averse investment behaviour, it is unlikely that it would overstretch itself by putting a huge chunk of investment in a single project like the DBD.

It is true that soon after the Washington conference, China Development Bank agreed to fund yet another investors’ conference for the DBD. Nothing significant has emerged from such conferences, however. Given China’s hesitation to fund some other hydro-electric projects, like the 969-megawatt Neelum-Jhelum project, so far it was considered unlikely that it would change its behaviour dramatically in the short or medium term. But the fact remains that both the US and China have now offered to help Pakistan raise funds from external sources to build the DBD.
International Financial Institutions (IFIs)

In May 2014, the World Bank unveiled the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) under which it promised to funnel $11 billion for Pakistan’s public and private sector, although the DBD was not included in the strategy plan. The World Bank has been consistently disinclined to the idea of funding a dam located in a disputed region. Hence, it urged Pakistan to furnish a NOC (no objection certificate) from India, which claims Gilgit Baltistan as part of J&K. Interestingly, the World Bank has shown a clear preference for smaller upcoming projects such as the Dasu dam to be built in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Similarly, the ADB’s positon on the DBD has been rather stringent. Initially, the bank set out preconditions and demanded surety on compensation and rehabilitation of the people affected or displaced. It also suggested that Pakistan should mobilise indigenous resources for the project. ADB was originally slated to provide the bulk of the funds and lead the funding consortium, but, as stated above, it has dragged its feet over the DBD.

Domestic pulls

The delay in the project has cost Pakistan heavily in terms of a steep hike in the estimated project cost. The revised estimate stands somewhere between $12 (2008) and 14 (2013) billion, while the initial estimate had stood at $ 8 billion. A peer reviewed study conducted by a group of Oxford researchers in 2014 termed the DBD a “non-starter”, raising pertinent questions on the cost effectiveness of the project.2. Wariness is apparent in official statements fed by growing energy woes and Pakistan’s desperate attempt to deal with the crisis.

Days before the October 2014 Washington meet, the ECNEC (Executive Committee of the National Economic Council) expressed reservations on the escalating cost figures of the DBD, noting its inability to approve Rs 101 billion for land acquisition. Already bound by the tough entailing conditions of the IMF loan, Pakistan is hard selling the DBD project by underscoring its vitality to energy requirements and how, upon fruition, the project will render huge profits to all those who invest. Besides, stiff demands to revise the rates of compensation for land acquisitions have recently added to the government’s worries.

Assessment

Recent developments on the DBD further complicate funding issues for Pakistan. It remains to be seen how the Sharif government handles the current phase of the logjam. It is more or less clear that both the US and China will avoid getting directly involved in the project, even as they are willing to help Pakistan in urging other investors to fund the project. Pakistan is likely to market the DBD as a high yield project to potential investors.

Against the backdrop of a grim internal security situation and an ailing economy, that may not be easy though to invoke confidence among investors. The Sharif government is fully conscious of the fact that giving up the DBD could cost not only in terms of adding to domestic discontent but also causing political and diplomatic discomfiture due to India’s oft-stated reservation against the DBD being built in a disputed region. The simultaneous shift of focus to smaller projects such as Dasu reflects Pakistan’s endeavour to come to terms with the harsh realities of funding deficit to get mega-projects like DBD going.

At the same time, Pakistan may continue to cast the net wider and try its best to rope in potential funders for the DBD project. Overall, however, the prospects appear bleak as evident in the updated DBD brochure on the Wapda website, in which the section on funding channels is relegated to the last page and ends inconclusively with expressions like the ADB has shown “interest”, USAID’s “encouraging” response and the pending request with the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP).3.

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

1. Anwar Iqbal, “Diamer-Bhasha ‘smartest choice’ for Pakistan: US,” Dawn, October 9, 2014, at http://www.dawn.com/news/1136749.

2. Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier, and Daniel Lunn, “Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development,” Energy Policy, March 2014, at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2406852, p. 13.

3. Diamer Bhasha Dam Project, at http://www.wapda.gov.pk/htmls/future-index.html (status updated up to August 31, 2014).

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/DiamerBhashaDamStuckintheFundingTrap_psingh_030315.html

The post Pakistan: Diamer Bhasha Dam Stuck In Funding Trap – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Satanism, Pompeii And The Rosary: Bizarre Tale Surrounds Pope Francis’ Next Trip

0
0

By Elise Harris

Later this month Pope Francis will head to Pompeii: a city which lays claim to the curious story of a former Satanist priest – now on the way to sainthood – and his miracle-working Marian devotion.

Blessed Bartolo Longo is considered the founder of modern Pompeii, which was established in 1891 after he commissioned the building of the city’s sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Holy Rosary.

The sanctuary is home to a miraculous image of Our Lady of the Rosary, which was given to Longo by his confessor, Father Alberto Radente, in 1875.

Originally born into a devout Roman Catholic family, Longo fell away from his faith while studying law in Naples in the 1860s – a time when the Catholic Church faced opposition from a nationalist movement fighting for Italian unification, and which viewed the Pope as an antagonist to their cause.

In addition to political problems, the Church was also fighting against the growing popularity of involvement in the Occult, which at that time had a strong presence in Naples.

Longo himself became involved in a Satanist cult, and eventually claimed to have been ordained as a Satanist priest.

However, after struggling with anxiety and depression, at times even suicidal thoughts, over the next few years, a university professor from his hometown urged Longo to abandon Satanism and introduced him to his future confessor, Fr. Radente.

Under Fr. Radente’s guidance Longo began praying the rosary and converted back to Christianity.

He developed a great devotion to the rosary, and became a third order Dominican in 1871, working to restore the faith of the people in Pompeii by promoting Marian devotion, particularly to the rosary.

The image of Our Lady of the Rosary that hangs in the sanctuary at Pompeii is a work from the school of Luca Giordano in the 17th century. It portrays Mary seated on a throne holding the child Jesus and handing a rosary to St. Dominic and St. Catherine of Siena, who are standing at her feet.

Originally an old, worn-out painting belonging to the Rosariello Convent in Naples, the image was delivered to Longo by way of a cart, which in those days were used to transport manure.

A few months after he received the image of Our Lady of the Rosary given to him by Fr. Radente, miracles started to happen.

The first miracle took place the same day Longo exposed the image to the public after scrounging funds for its restoration when 12-year-old Clorinda Lucarelli was completely healed of epileptic seizures, after being deemed incurable by distinguished doctors at the time.

Pope Paul VI later crowned the image in St. Peter’s Basilica, and it was restored again by the Vatican Museums in 2012.

Pompeii’s Archbishop, Tommaso Caputo, told CNA Feb. 28 that Longo “made an immense work of promoting devotion to the Virgin, inviting the faithful to pray to her so that she would spread her mercy.”

“And so it was. This is a testimony to the numerous offerings by faithful donors from the entire world in a sign of gratitude for received mercy.”

Longo died in Pompeii in 1926, and was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1980. He is known as the “Apostle of the Rosary.” His last words were: “My only desire is to see Mary who saved me and who will save me from the clutches of Satan.”

Pope Francis visit to the sanctuary will mark the third time a Pope has stopped to pray there, the first being St. John Paul II in 1979, followed by Benedict XVI in 2008.

Francis’ decision to stop at Pompeii’s renowned Marian shrine ahead of his March visit to Naples is a move the archbishop said shows the Pope’s devotion to Mary, and will root the trip in prayer.

“This seems to be a unique pilgrimage, from which this city of Mary will lead through the gateway of prayer.”

“The road that leads to Mary is a fertile land for every pontificate,” he said, noting that this is all the more true for Francis, “the Pope who does not take a step of his travels in the world without first relying on Mary.”

It has become a habit for the Pope to entrust all of his apostolic and pastoral visits to Mary. Each time he goes on a trip, Francis stops and prays at his favorite Roman parish – the Basilica of St. Mary Major – when he returns, before heading to the Vatican.

Before heading to Naples March 21, where he is scheduled to meet with the sick, youth, prisoners, priests and religious of the diocese, Francis will spend an estimated 30 minutes in Pompeii in order to pray at the Marian shrine.

Archbishop Caputo said that it is “a great joy” to welcome Pope Francis to his city, particularly because the pontiff hails from Argentina, where devotion to the Virgin of Pompeii is “very vivid.”

“We all know (Francis’) personal devotion to Mary, which has been manifested from the first moments of his election,” the archbishop noted.

One of the Pope’s greatest strengths is his love of praying the rosary, he said, noting how Francis has often referred to it as “the prayer that always accompanies my life, also the prayer of simplicity and of the saints and the prayer of my heart.”

The post Satanism, Pompeii And The Rosary: Bizarre Tale Surrounds Pope Francis’ Next Trip appeared first on Eurasia Review.

UN Envoy Urges Israel To Investigate Civilian Deaths During Gaza War

0
0

Israel should investigate the killing of more than 1,500 Palestinian civilians, one third of them children, during the war on the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2014, and should make the findings public, according to a report submitted Tuesday to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The report was issued by Makarim Wibisono who has recently become UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territory. It was his first report since he replaced Richard Falk.

In his report, Wibisono, a former Indonesian ambassador, said that 2,256 Palestinians were killed during the military confrontation in the Gaza Strip in July and August 2014 of whom 1,563 were civilians including 538 children. Israel, he added, says its army launched a military offensive in response to rockets fired from the Hamas-run coastal enclave at Israeli towns bordering the area. Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and five civilians were killed.

“The stark disparity in casualty figures on the two sides … reflects the (skewed) balance of power and the disproportionate cost borne by Palestinian civilians, raising questions as to whether Israel adhered to the international law principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions,” Wibisono said.

The report added that most victims “were families killed in missile strikes on their own homes, usually at night,” and not just “bystanders on the street in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The findings were based on interviews Wibisono did with witnesses and victims in Amman and Cairo as well as video calls with victims in the Gaza Strip. He couldn’t make face-to-face interviews in Gaza because Israel denied him entry.

The post UN Envoy Urges Israel To Investigate Civilian Deaths During Gaza War appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamic State In Af-Pak: The ‘Wilayat Khurasan’ Conundrum – Analysis

0
0

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy*

In January 2015, the Islamic State (IS), in a statement, called on the militants operating in the Af-Pak region to pledge their allegiance to their chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ‘Caliphate’. They declared ‘Wilayat Khurasan’ as active, and appointed former Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander Hafiz Saeed Khan as the ‘Wali’ of Khurasan.

The IS identifies ‘Khurasan’ as certain areas in present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, India, and China. At the heart of this region lies the troubled Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and IS entry into this region will undoubtedly change several long-standing dynamics in the region’s many conflicts involving State and non-State actors.

The IS poses a serious threat to an Afghanistan that has just begun to take baby steps towards normalcy – because several terrorists strewn across the country have pledged allegiance. The IS has potential inroads in Western Afghanistan via Farah and Faryab Provinces. In eastern Afghanistan, IS supporters are already indulging in violence in Logar, Ghazni, Parwan and Zabul provinces.

However, despite the seriousness of the threat that Afghanistan faces from the IS, it is via Pakistan that a possible solution to halt and end the IS ingress can be found. It is not child’s play to enter and establish a terrorist outfit in the Af-Pak region without the patronage of the Pakistani army – which is far from keen on having a new group enter the fray.

A Musical Chair of Regional Dynamics

The IS’ entry has brought to fore an important issue: jihadists in the Af-Pak region, Pakistan in particular, have for long been in flux due to the frustrations rising from identity-crises, endgames, loyalties and relevance. This has resulted in a tendency to factionalise frequently.

Since June 2014, the Pakistani government has been carrying out Operation Zarb-e-Azb, a systematic offensive targeting and eliminating militants and terrorist groups along the Durand Line. The Operation has seen some positive results – and the Pakistani military appears to be making the most of the divisions underway among various terrorist outfits in the region. However, while this factionalism is proving useful for the Pakistani military in eliminating terrorists, the same fault-lines are being harnessed by the IS to gain a foothold in the region. Those militants who were flushed out of Pakistan due to this Operation are among many, along with some disgruntled former Afghan Taliban members, who have pledged allegiances to the IS.

The Afghan Taliban and the IS supporters in the region are already at loggerheads and the battle for control of the regions between the various groups is getting serious. More importantly, the Khurasan Council comprises mostly of Pakistani jihadists. Mullah Omar is the Afghan Taliban’s Amir-ul-Momineen, whereas the IS rejects Omar’s credentials. The al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the TTP and other groups all have varying priorities.

And for the several young terrorists who are evidently frustrated by the lack of clarity in the agendas of al Qaeda and the Taliban, the IS is an option that offers structure and set goals and targets.

If the Pakistani army continues to exploit factionalism among the terrorists, it risks sending them straight into the IS’ hands. In fact, the cover story of the 6th issue of the IS’ official magazine, Dabiq, titled ‘Al-Qa’idah of Waziristan’, is an elaborate account by a former al Qaeda operative who lambasts the group by elaborating on its ‘flaws’.

The IS too also realises that that which is advantageous for them at the moment – factionalism – has the potential to bring great disadvantages in the future. The IS statement therefore addresses this issue by calling on the militants to “abandon disunity and factionalism.”

Regional Geopolitical Shuffle

The IS’s apparently steady entry into the region is likely to shuffle relationships not just between non-State actors but also State actors. Pakistan and Afghanistan have already set forth towards cooperation on counter-terrorism. The Pakistan-Iran relationship, long defined by their individual relationships with Saudi Arabia, will have to take a new character – one that is defined by mutual interests; neither party can afford otherwise. There is no good or bad Taliban. Pakistan must start thinking laterally for solutions. They will have to balance their fight with the IS while also curbing radicalism and extremism from within – especially vis-à-vis the sectarian schism. Counter-strategies must be simultaneously coordinated, nationally and collectively as a region. The roles of Iran and the Central Asian States are vital, and cannot be overlooked.

The IS will tread a delicate line in Af-Pak, especially in Pakistan. If they manage to establish themselves firmly in Pakistan, they cannot continue without uniting all the militant groups in Pakistan; and simultaneously, the easiest way to acquire support is by exploiting the burgeoning factionalism within the militant groups in the Af-Pak region. An alternative route the IS could adopt is to take measured steps and not gamble away the goldmine they want to acquire.

But, will the IS take the quick route in or is it willing to wait it out? Regional responses to the looming IS threat will have to be charted on these lines. Interestingly, in Af-Pak, the IS is following the same trajectory al Qaeda did two decades ago. Does that mean those charting counter-strategies are working on familiar territory? Or will the IS treat the South Asian jihadists as expendable assets?

More importantly, answers must be found for why the IS is attempting to establish control in regions geographically separated from its headquarters and that are not under its control.

 *Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy
Research Officer, IReS, IPCS

The post Islamic State In Af-Pak: The ‘Wilayat Khurasan’ Conundrum – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran Says Netanyahu Trying To Have Disruptive Effect On Nuclear Talks

0
0

Iran’s foreign minister says the Israeli prime minister is trying to have a disruptive effect on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear negotiations with world powers.

“But I don’t think trying to create tension and conflict helps anybody,” the top Iranian diplomat noted.

Reflecting on the talks, Zarif also said “we’re starting to move forward, but it’s a lot of work.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister has also dismissed US President Barack Obama’s recent comments on Iran as unacceptable, stressing that Tehran will not give in to excessive demands by the other side in the nuclear negotiations.

“It is clear that Mr. Obama’s comments are meant to win the US public opinion and counter the propaganda campaign by the Israeli Prime Minister and that of other radical parties opposed to the negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear energy program,” Zarif said, describing the American president’s latest remarks on Iran as “unacceptable.”

“The remarks by Mr. Obama clearly point to the fact that the US, which has over the past decades, either directly or indirectly threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran and imposed many cruel and illegal sanctions [against the country], has come to the conclusion that the policy of threats and sanctions is a failed policy,” Zarif added.

Iran’s top diplomat further emphasized that neither threats nor sanctions could dent the country’s determination to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

Zarif said Iran entered into the talks with the P5+1 countries – the permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany – with an honest approach and will continue the negotiations to restore the Iranian nation’s rights.

Iran will not give in to excessive demands and irrational approaches by the opposite side, he stressed.

Iran’s Foreign also slammed the West for ISIL crimes in Europe and the Middle East.

“Why quite a sizeable number of individuals and groups espousing extremist ideologies and engaged in acts of brutal terror and heinous violence, in Europe and on a much bigger scale in Iraq and Syria, happen to be second generation citizens of “Western democracies?” Zarif asked.

“It is frightening that Da’esh (ISIL) terrorists, beheading innocent civilians, speak European languages with native accent. The high rate of terrorist recruitment signifies a systematic failure, which has led to marginalization, alienation and disenfranchisement of individuals and groups born, raised and educated in Western democracies,” he added.

He commended the UN agency for its efforts to establish peace in the world, but criticized the international body and some other regional and Western countries for politicizing all world issues and their double standard policies.

He added that such duplicitous approaches have stepped up the spread of acts of terrorism in the world.

The Iranian foreign minister also said Islamophobia is an insult to Muslim sanctities.

“We should thus join hands to contain, control and defeat Islamophobia as well as extremisms of other varieties,” said the minister.

The Iranian foreign minister also declared Iran’s readiness to cooperate with the United Nations agencies in promoting the human rights.

The Iranian Parliament speaker also said the Israeli prime minister’s speech at the US Congress shows that the Tel Aviv regime is concerned about its waning power.

“His very speech shows the regime’s frustration and concern, and it’s no surprise that it is concerned because the regime’s power has been on the decline day by day over the past three decades,” Ali Larijani said.

Netanyahu’s speech proved that the Israeli regime’s main concern is not the Iranian nuclear program, but the Islamic Revolution’s growing influence in the Middle East, Larijani said.

He also described the hawkish Israeli premier’s speech as a “political show,” adding that the US Congress is serving the interests of a “tin-pot regime.”

The Iranian official also warned against any military action against the Islamic Republic, saying Iran will give a crushing response to any act of aggression against the country.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has also called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial address to a joint session of the US Congress “Iranophobic” and part of Israeli hardliners’ electoral campaign.

Marziyeh Afkham called the speech a deceitful show and part of the hardliners’ political propaganda in Tel Aviv.

Afkham said the address reflected the abject weakness and isolation of radical groups even among the supporters of the Israeli regime and their attempt to impose radical and illogical agendas upon the international politics.

She said “there is no doubt that the international opinion does not consider any value or standing for a child-killing regime” like Israel.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman further called the Israeli premier’s recurrent fabrication of lies about the intentions of Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program very platitudinous and tedious.

“With the continuation of nuclear talks and Iran’s serious will to diffuse the fabricated crisis over its nuclear energy program, Iranophobic policy has met with serious problems and the founders of such propaganda and the planners of the fake crisis have started struggling.”

The Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has also reiterated that it wants Western sanctions against the country lifted.

Marzieh Afkham said that the Islamic Republic reiterated its demand in the recent round of negotiations with the P5+1 group over Tehran’s nuclear program that the Western bans against the country need to be removed.

No final deal will be made until all issues on the agenda of the talks are agreed upon, Afkham further quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as saying.

She also said “Iran has always rejected excessive demands in the nuclear talks,”

Afkham highlighted that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and must enjoy its rights under the accord, including peaceful nuclear work.

Deputy foreign ministers of Iran and of the P5+1 countries will resume nuclear talks on Thursday, Afkham noted.

Elsewhere in her remarks, she pointed to the Iraqi army’s battle against terrorists, saying Iran “as a neighboring country has acted responsibly” and offered advisory assistance to the Iraqi government to help it fight terrorists.

She then turned to the disagreements between Egypt and the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, urging Cairo officials to hold talks with Hamas to settle their disputes.

On the situation in Yemen, Afkham underlined that Iran is against foreign interference in Yemen, saying a domestic solution is required to settle the problems in the country.

She then touched upon Iran’s humanitarian assistance to Yemen, saying, “This is not the first time Iran is sending humanitarian aid to Yemen.”

She also announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin is due in Iran in the near future.

The post Iran Says Netanyahu Trying To Have Disruptive Effect On Nuclear Talks appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Netanyahu’s False Narrative Of Self-Defense – OpEd

0
0

On March 3rd, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued an impassioned plea to Congress to protect Israel by opposing diplomacy with Iran. Referring to “the remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States” which includes “generous military assistance and missile defense,” Netanyahu failed to mention that Israel has an arsenal of 100 or 200 nuclear weapons.

The Six-Day War

The day before he delivered that controversial address, Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments to AIPAC, Israel’s powerful U.S. lobby. He reiterated the claim that Israel acted in the 1967 Six-Day War “to defend itself.” The narrative that Israel attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in self-defense, seizing the Palestinian territories in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula in 1967, has remained largely unquestioned in the public discourse. Israel relies on that narrative to continue occupying those Palestinian lands. And the powerful film “Censored Voices,” which premiered at Sundance in February, does not challenge that narrative.

But declassified high-level documents from Britain, France, Russia and the United States reveal that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were not going to attack Israel and Israel knew it. In fact, they did not attack Israel. Instead, Israel mounted the first attack in order to decimate the Egyptian army and take the West Bank.

Censored voices uncensored

For two weeks following the Six Day War, Amos Oz and Avrahim Shapira visited Israeli kibbutzim and recorded interviews with several Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who had just returned from that war. Largely censored by the Israeli government for many years, those reels have finally been made public. “Censored Voices” features the taped voices of young IDF soldiers, as the aging, former soldiers sit silently beside the tape recorder, listening to their own voices.

The testimonies documented in the tapes reveal evidence of targeting civilians and summarily executing prisoners, which constitute war crimes. A soldier asks himself, “They’re civilians – should I kill them or not?” He replies, “I didn’t even think about it. Just kill! Kill everyone you see.” Likewise, one voice notes, “Several times we captured guys, positioned them and just killed them.” Another reveals, “In the war, we all became murderers.” Still another says, “Not only did this war not solve the state’s problems, but it complicated them in a way that’ll be very hard to solve.” One soldier likens evacuating Arab villages to what the Nazis did to Jews in Europe. As a soldier watched an Arab man being taken from his home, the soldier states, “I had an abysmal feeling that I was evil.”

In what proved to be a prescient question, one soldier asks, “Are we doomed to bomb villages every decade for defensive purposes?” Indeed, Israel justifies all of its assaults on Gaza as self-defense, even though Israel invariably attacks first, and kills overwhelming numbers of Palestinians – mostly civilians.  Each time, many fewer Israelis are killed by Palestinian rockets.

Israel’s false self-defense claim 

The film begins by showing a map of Israel surrounded by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with arrows from each country aimed at Israel. The IDF soldiers felt those Arab countries posed an existential threat to Israel. “There was a feeling it would be a Holocaust,” one soldier observed. The Israeli media claimed at the time that Egypt had attacked Israel by land and by air on June 5, 1967. According to British journalist Patrick Seale, “Israel’s preparation of opinion” was “brilliantly managed,” a “remarkable exercise in psychological warfare.”

In his book, “The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War,” published by Cambridge University Press, Ohio State University law professor John Quigley documents conversations by high government officials in Israel, the United States, Egypt, the Soviet Union, France, and Britain leading up to the Six-Day War. He draws on minutes of British cabinet meetings, a French government publication, U.S. documents in “Foreign Relations of the United States,” and Russian national archives. Those conversations make clear that Israel knew Egypt, Syria and Jordan would not and did not attack Israel, and that Israel initiated the attacks.

Egypt was the only one of the three Arab countries that had a military of any consequence. Israeli General Yitzhak Rabin told the Israeli cabinet that the Egyptian forces maintained a defensive posture, and Israeli General Meir Amit, head of Mossad (Israeli’s intelligence agency), informed U.S.  Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Egypt was not poised to attack Israel. Both the United States and the Soviet Union urged Israel not to attack. Nevertheless, Israel’s cabinet voted on June 4 to authorize the IDF to invade Egypt.

“After the cabinet vote,” Quigley writes, “informal discussion turned to ways to make it appear that Israel was not starting a war when in fact that was precisely what it was doing.” Moshe Dayan, who would soon become Israel’s Minister of Defense, ordered military censorship, saying, “For the first twenty-four hours, we have to be the victims.” Dayan admitted in his memoirs, “We had taken the first step in the war with Egypt.” Nevertheless, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gideon Rafael reported to the Security Council that Israel had acted in self-defense.

“The hostilities were attacks by the Israeli air force on multiple Egyptian airfields, aimed at demolishing Egyptian aircraft on the ground,” according to Quigley. On June 5, the CIA told President Lyndon B. Johnson, “Israel fired the first shots today.”

Article 51 of the UN Charter authorizes states to act in collective self-defense after another member state suffers an armed attack. Although Jordan and Syria responded to the Israeli attacks on Egypt, they – and Egypt – inflicted little damage to Israel. By the afternoon of June 5, Israel “had virtually destroyed the air war capacity of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria,” Quigley notes. “The IDF achieved the ‘utter defeat’ of the Egyptian army on June 7 and 8.”

The United States empowers Israel 

U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that U.S. officials were “angry as hell, when the Israelis launched their surprise offensive.” Yet, Quigley notes, “Israel’s gamble paid off in that the United States would not challenge Israel’s story about how the fighting started. Even though it quickly saw through the story, the White House kept its analysis to itself.”

Although Security Council resolution 242, passed in 1967, refers to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” Israel continues to occupy the Palestinian territories it acquired in the Six-Day War.

Israel has abandoned its claim that Egypt attacked first. Yet the international community considers that Israel acted in lawful anticipatory self-defense. Quigley explains how the UN Charter only permits the use of armed force after an armed attack on a UN member state; it does not authorize anticipatory, preventive, or preemptive self-defense.

“The UN did not condemn Israel in 1967 for its attack on Egypt,” Antonio Cassese of the University of Florence explained. Quigley attributes this to Cold War politics, as the USSR supported Egypt. “For the United States in particular, Israel’s success was a Cold War defeat for the USSR. The United States was hardly prepared to condemn Israel after it performed this service.”

The United States continues to support Israel by sending it $3 billion per year in military aid, even when Israel attacks Gaza with overwhelming firepower, as it did in the summer of 2014, killing 2,100 Palestinians (mostly civilians). Sixty-six Israeli soldiers and seven civilians were killed.

If Israel were to mount an attack on Iran, the United States would invariably support Israel against Iran and any Arab country that goes to Iran’s defense. Indeed, Netanyahu intoned to Congress, “may Israel and America always stand together.”

 

The post Netanyahu’s False Narrative Of Self-Defense – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Azerbaijan: Rights Crisis Overshadows European Games, Says HRW

0
0

The Azerbaijani government should immediately release all wrongly detained activists and journalists, with only 100 days remaining before the first European Games begin, said Human Rights Watch, adding that a new photo essay highlights the plight of 12 people serving or facing long prison terms in Azerbaijan, apparently in retaliation for criticizing government policies.

Azerbaijan will host the first European Games, a multi-sport event, in the capital, Baku, from June 12 to 28, 2015. The games are anticipated to take place in a European country every four years.

“As the first country to hold this new major European sporting event, Azerbaijan is looking to project a progressive, modern image internationally,” said Jane Buchanan, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “If the European Games are to show that sport can leave a positive legacy, then every journalist and activist detained on politically motivated charges in Azerbaijan should be released well before the opening ceremony.”

European leaders should convey to Baku that they will not send high-level delegations to the opening ceremony unless those wrongly imprisoned are released and the crackdown on dissent ends.

A top official from the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee was quoted in media reports in late February as saying that the Azerbaijan government will cover the transportation and other costs for 50 teams to participate in the games. The British Olympic Team’s chief of mission acknowledged that the Azerbaijani organizers had effectively paid for its team to compete, the Guardian newspaper reported.

In the last year, the Azerbaijani authorities used a range of bogus criminal charges, including narcotics and weapons possession, tax evasion, hooliganism, incitement, and even treason, to arrest or imprison at least 35 human rights defenders, political and civil activists, journalists, and bloggers. The crackdown has prompted dozens of others to flee the country or go into hiding. Many of the activists face similar charges, suggesting the punitive and political nature of the allegations.

In recent months Azerbaijani authorities also froze the bank accounts of numerous independent civic groups and their leaders, forcing these organizations to suspend their work or close. The government has also refused to register foreign grants and increased government control of foreign funding, making it virtually impossible for groups that criticize the government to function. The government has for many years harassed independent newspapers and television stations and forced many independent media outlets to shut down.

The European Games are not an official Olympic event, but are owned, co-organized and regulated by the European Olympic Committees (EOC), an association of 50 European National Olympic Committees. Among EOC’s goals is to spread throughout Europe the Olympic ideals as defined by the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Charter.

Among those currently in detention facing strikingly similar trumped-up charges and long prison sentences is the human rights activist Rasul Jafarov, who was organizing a “Sport for Rights” campaign to highlight human rights concerns in Azerbaijan ahead of the European Games when he was arrested in August 2014. He faces criminal tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship, and abuse of authority charges.

Leyla Yunus, director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, and her husband, Arif Yunus, were arrested in July and August 2014, respectively, and charged with treason, tax evasion, and illegal entrepreneurship. Both have chronic health conditions that have deteriorated severely since their detention, their lawyers have said.

One of Azerbaijan’s best-known and most highly respected human rights lawyers, Intigam Aliyev, is also in detention and on trial for spurious tax-related charges, apparently in retaliation for his human rights work. Authorities have sealed shut the office of Aliyev’s organization, the Legal Education Society, effectively closing one of the few groups in the country that provided pro bono legal aid.

In December, the authorities arrested Khadija Ismayilova, Azerbaijan’s leading investigative journalist and an ardent government critic, on spurious charges of driving someone to attempt suicide, and then in January added charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship, and abuse of power. In December, police and prosecutors raided the office of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Baku, questioned employees, seized equipment and files, and sealed off the premises.

Even before the current crackdown, the government had taken numerous steps to limit independent media. All foreign radio stations, including BBC and the Voice of America, have been banned from FM frequencies since 2009.

The government’s intolerance for free media has direct implications for journalists covering the European Games, including their ability to move and speak freely with a range of people and to cover a variety of topics in Azerbaijan, Human Rights Watch said.

In 2012 Azerbaijan hosted the Eurovision Song Contest. Many journalists covering Eurovision also reported extensively on the human rights situation in the country, including through interviews with many of those now detained, imprisoned or in hiding.

“The government’s attack on journalists, news outlets, human rights organizations and others blatantly defies the letter and spirit of the Olympic Charter’s principles on press freedoms and human dignity,” Buchanan said. “The European Olympic Committees and National Olympic Committees should make clear to Baku that it is making a mockery of Olympic ideals and that it needs to free the imprisoned activists and journalists and end the severe restrictions on the media and free expression.”

The post Azerbaijan: Rights Crisis Overshadows European Games, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Netanyahu Addresses ‘Israeli Occupied Territory’– OpEd

0
0

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington to address “Israeli Occupied Territory”, like Pat Buchanan called the US Congress. This event has been cooked up between the GOP House Speaker John Boehner, an intimate enemy of President Obama, and the Israeli ambassador behind the President’s back. This move by a foreign leader to bypass the President of the United States in order to address Congress is unprecedented and bold. It’s a calculated insult to the United States. Netanyahu’s address was also directed at the Israeli people. In two weeks, Israel will elect a new parliament.
Netanyahu’s main aim is to derail the ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran about Iran’s peaceful civil nuclear program. He made crystal clear that the prospected deal is a bad, “a very bad one”, which will pave the road to an Iranian nuclear Bomb. The US would be better off without a deal, said Netanyahu.

The members of Congress gave Netanyahu a bombastic reception. When he entered the congressional floor they cheered and hooted as if a movie star entered the stage. Netanyahu enjoyed this warm reception, and as the speech proceeded it became clear that he has more influence on the vital question of war and peace than the American people. His speech was a recipe for war. His rant and demonization of Iran, including its leadership, made the Members of Congress to jump 20 times out of their seats.

Netanyahu caricatured the country in its darkest colors; Iran is a “dark and murderous regime”. It’s the greatest “exporter of terrorism” and a “great threat to peace to the entire world”. Iran is not only a “Jewish problem” anymore than Nazis were one. The country “will always be an enemy of America” and “can’t be trusted”. “Iran needs a deal more than you do.” Netanyahu formulated three conditions for the normalization of relations: Iran has to stop its aggression against its neighbors; stop the spread of terrorism around the world, and stop to annihilate Israel, the only Jewish state in the world.

Netanyahu not only pretended that he speaks for the “Jewish people” but also for the American people. He gave the impression that he judges the situation more realistic than Obama. To develop this audacity further, he seems more worried about America’s security than the president himself.

Actually, Netanyahu’s predictions concerning Iran are less accurate than the weather forecasts. Most of them are just politically motivated. For the last 25 years he has been warning of a nuclear Iran. If he would have listened to his own spy agency Mossad, he should have know better. Iran is still years away from the bomb and does not have the intention to build one. With his rants before AIPAC and the US Congress Netanyahu pushed the US into a corner, from which there is only one way out: war against Iran. Netanyahu was one of the most outspoken proponents of an attack on Iraq that ended in a disaster for the US Empire. If Netanyahu wants to attack Iran then he should do it alone.

Before Netanyahu started his tirades on the Iranian regime he flattered President Obama and the Members of Congress. Like the day before, when he addresses a huge crowd at the yearly AIPAC convention he said that he has respect for Obama and the office that he holds. He is deeply grateful for the support Israel gets. Israel should not become a partisan issue. Israel should always remain a bipartisan one. But Netanyahu’s and Boehner’s machinations has made Israel a partisan issue. He has taken sides with the most right-wing Republicans, which estranged many Democrats, although over 95 per cent of the American Jews vote for the Democratic Party.

Netanyahu even got theatrical: Both nations defend a “common civilization against common threats”. “We share the same dreams.” “The values that unite us, are stronger than the differences that divide us.” “As our region descends into medieval barbarism, Israel is the one that upholds these values common to us and to you.” “In the dark and savage and desperate Middle East, Israel is a beacon of humanity of life and of hope.” Despite disagreement, the friendship between Israel and the US grew stronger and stronger. Netanyahu’s slimy praises of Obama and the emphasis of common values, which both countries allegedly share, sound like pure hypocrisy viewing Israel’s reckless behavior in the region.

Netanyahu did not mention the ongoing occupation and strangulation of the Palestinians, the colonization of the occupied territories or Israel’s nuclear program that is not subject to international control. Not Iran threatens its neighbors but Israel with its huge nuclear arsenal. It bombs Lebanon and Syria on a regular basis, assassinates Iranian nuclear scientists or Hezbollah or Hamas officials through its own agents or hit man and is involved in the chaos in Syria and Iraq.

By the sabotage of the agreement between the US and Iran Israel maintains its nuclear hegemony in the region and can impose its will upon its neighbors. It can massacre the people in the Gaza Strip with impunity, because the US administration holds its protective hand over Israel and veto against any resolution critical of Israel in the UN Security Council. John Kerry even criticized the Human Rights Council for its critical view on Israel. Netanyahu having publicly humiliated the US President time and again, it’s about time to stop the preferential treatment of Israel. Do Obama and his staff have no self-esteem? Despite the weeks-long political excitement about the circumstances of Netanyahu’s speech, it seems as if this crisis will have no consequences for Israel.

The post Netanyahu Addresses ‘Israeli Occupied Territory’ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India: Mooring In Foreign Shores? – Analysis

0
0

By Manoj Joshi*

In the second week of this month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi plans to visit Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles. This is another version of his South Asian neighbourhood diplomacy, only the neighbours here are long neglected oceanic ones. Modi will be the first Indian PM to visit Sri Lanka in 28 years, and first to visit Seychelles since Indira Gandhi, the last prime ministerial visit to Mauritius was in 2005 and to Maldives in 2011.

Concern mounted in India in 2007 when Chinese President Hu Jintao rounded off his eight-nation trip to Africa with a stop at Seychelles. Last year, they reached a crescendo with the berthing of Chinese submarines in Colombo, and the visits of President Xi Jinping to Sri Lanka and Maldives, as part of his South Asian tour that brought him to India.

China is using economic, military and diplomatic tools to gain influence over coastal states and small islands in the IOR and is using its investments and aid to consolidate its strategic positions. In addition, there is the reality of China’s steadily growing influence in the littoral through military and economic ties with our immediate neighbours, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Just how intense the competition is became evident last month when Male’s main water desalination plant collapsed. Just a day after India sent five aircraft and two ships on an emergency mission to aid Maldives to overcome its water crisis, China pointedly sent a military vessel carrying 960 ton of fresh water and donated $500,000 for the repairs of the plant. Maldives is a particular area of concern to India since it was the object of back to back visits by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September and Defence Minister Chang Wanquan in November 2014. There have been persistent reports about China’s desire to construct a naval facility in the archipelago.

Chinese trade in the IOR has steadily grown in recent years. Beijing has important ties with resource-rich nations of East Africa and the Persian Gulf. It has a major role in the Gwadar port in Pakistan, at the mouth of the strategic Persian Gulf. Last November, China gave a call for the creation of a maritime silk route to enhance connectivity and trade among the Asian nations, and it has now operationalised a $40 billion fund to assist in the building of port and infrastructure in relation to it.

India can hardly object to the growth of Chinese trade and commerce in the IOR and its efforts to enhance connectivity. Indeed, it is not difficult to see why regional countries welcome Chinese interest and investment. But this has been accompanied by a significant stepping up of military activity as well. Last year, the PLA Navy carried out a special exercise on breaching the Lombok Strait that leads into the IOR from the Java Sea. It also sent a nuclear propelled submarine on a patrol across the Indian Ocean, ostensibly on an anti-piracy mission. Indeed, China’s robust participation in the anti-piracy task force off Somalia have given it a great opportunity to maintain a presence in IOR and familiarise itself with the region. But what has gotten New Delhi’s goat were the visits made by two Chinese conventional submarines to Colombo harbour. One of them, was clearly timed to coincide with the visit on September 7, 2014, of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, an important Indian ally, to Sri Lanka.

Geography and culture favour India in the IOR. The Indian peninsula juts out into the ocean and gives us unparalleled location astride important sea lanes. The Indian diaspora is scattered across the region from South Africa to Myanmar and the Persian Gulf. The Andaman & Nicobar Islands sit at the head of the Malacca Straits through which 30 per cent of the world trade passes which includes 50 per cent of oil being shipped. For this reason, China has been exploring the alternate routes via Lombok and Sunda Straits, as well as developing over-land pipelines to connect via Kyaukphyu (Sittwe) in Myanmar and Gwadar in Pakistan. There is an even grandiose talk of cutting a canal across the Isthmus of Kra.

The Indian Navy’s Maritime Doctrine describes its “primary areas of interest” to include our territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles, the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and their “littoral reaches”, the choke points at Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb, and the Cape of Good Hope. The southern IOR, Red Sea and its littoral, South China Sea and the West Pacific are areas of secondary interest.

The long-term goal of the IN is to exercise sea control and have the ability of power projects ashore in its region of primary interest. But India’s present challenge is to step up its game to maintain its presence in the region in the face of stiff Chinese competition. It has developed relations through naval diplomacy, which includes the transfer of patrol craft and reconnaissance aircraft and helicopters. Now it needs to consolidate these through enhanced trade and investment aimed at integrating the region into India’s economic sphere.

New Delhi cannot match Beijing in terms of resources, but what it does have is location, a great deal of goodwill and also friendly allies, especially the IOR’s hegemon-the US. Even so, India needs to up the ante by finding money to put into strategic investments and projects across the IOR-whether it is Myanmar, Iran, Sri Lanka or Mauritius. The way to do it is not governmental schemes which are all running late, but to draw strength from India’s entrepreneurial class and the private sector.

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

Courtesy: www.mid-day.com

The post India: Mooring In Foreign Shores? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Kashmir Gambit – Analysis

0
0

By C. Raja Mohan*

Although the comments of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, the new chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, on Pakistan’s “positive role” in the conduct of the state’s assembly elections late last year have drawn much flak, there is no denying the fact that Rawalpindi has long had leverage in the state through its support to separatism and militancy. All of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s predecessors, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh, have had to deal with this external dimension to Kashmir. What is more interesting than the CM’s infelicitous comments is the agreement between the BJP and PDP on a common approach towards Pakistan.

For one, it underlines the importance of engaging Pakistan. It points to the fact that “the Union government has recently initiated several steps to normalise the relationship with Pakistan. The coalition government will seek to support and strengthen the approach and initiatives taken by the government to create a reconciliatory environment and build stakes for all in the peace and development within the subcontinent”.

It is probably entirely accidental that the new understanding between the PDP and BJP on talking to Pakistan came just a couple of days before foreign secretary S. Jaishankar travelled to Islamabad. But Modi’s decision to send the foreign secretary to Pakistan to explore the prospects of reviving the peace process has certainly helped bridge some of the political distance between the BJP and PDP.

In juggling the internal and external dimensions of the Kashmir question, Modi is following the path cut by Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the tenure of the first NDA government and followed by Manmohan Singh. Modi, however, is in a much better position than either Vajpayee or Singh. India is a lot stronger than in the late 1990s, when Vajpayee launched the peace process under trying circumstances. Unlike Singh, Modi has the will and the capacity to make bold moves towards Pakistan. Even more important, Pakistan today is probably more vulnerable to terrorism than it was a decade and a half ago. During his talks in Islamabad, Jaishankar was expected to get a sense, first hand, of what the new political possibilities for a sustained dialogue with Pakistan are.

Hurriyat talks

The internal and external in Kashmir come together in the form of the Hurriyat, which has long acted as Pakistan’s voice in the Valley. The joint Kashmir agenda, which saw some hard negotiations between the BJP and PDP in recent weeks, notes that “Vajpayee had initiated a dialogue process with all political groups, including the Hurriyat Conference, in the spirit of ’insaaniyat, Kashmiriyat aur Jamhooriyat’”. Promising to seek a comprehensive peace process, the two parties say that their coalition government in Srinagar “will facilitate and help initiate a sustained and meaningful dialogue with all internal stakeholders, which will include all political groups irrespective of their ideological views and predilections.”

It may be recalled that Modi broke off talks with Pakistan last August, objecting to Islamabad’s engagement with the Hurriyat. Modi has made clear that negotiations on the external dimension must be strictly bilateral. There is no room for the Hurriyat there. But by agreeing to talk to the Hurriyat as an “internal stakeholder”, the Modi government has created some space for itself. New Delhi is now saying that it is ready for separate talks with Islamabad and the Hurriyat. Parallel they may be, trilateral they are not. Hardline factions of Hurriyat leaders have not sounded enthusiastic about talking to Delhi. But does it really matter what the Hurriyat thinks, if Delhi and Islamabad agree on a formula?

Line of control

In a meaty part of the shared vision for J&K, the BJP and PDP called for “enhancing people-to-people contact on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC), encouraging civil society exchanges, taking travel, commerce, trade and business across the LoC to the next level and opening new routes across all three regions to enhancing connectivity”. If the first cross-LoC confidence-building measures (CBMs) were initiated under Vajpayee, the UPA government significantly expanded them. But mounting military tensions along the LoC and the growing political mistrust between Delhi and Islamabad have taken away the spirit of these CBMs.

The BJP-PDP programme, however, does not talk about the most important CBM that the Vajpayee government negotiated with Pakistan — the ceasefire along the LoC. With the ceasefire breaking down over the last few years, the two parties have talked about humanitarian assistance to all those affected by the intense shelling across the LoC. If the Modi government can restore the ceasefire as part of the resumption of talks with Pakistan, strengthen the existing CBMs across the LoC and unveil new ones, the external dimension to J&K could change for the better and create a conducive environment for the ambitious internal agenda for development articulated by the BJP and PDP.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation and a Contributing Editor for ’The Indian Express’

Courtesy : The Indian Express, March 4, 2015

The post Kashmir Gambit – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Time For India To Stop Being A Reluctant Power? – OpEd

0
0

Is the ongoing Maldives crisis an opportunity for India to reinforce its influence in the Indian Ocean region?

By Jhinuk Chowdhury*

As the date for the Indian PM Narendra Modi’s four nation Indian Ocean tour – including Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka and Maldives, draws closer the political crisis in Maldives is intensifying sparking a major diplomatic dilemma in New Delhi over the question of how much to be involved.

In February, the former Maldivian president and current opposition leader heading the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Mohamed Nasheed was arrested on charges of terrorism.

Requesting India’s intervention, the MDP claims Nasheed’s arrest under anti-terrorism law – days before a planned protest rally scheduled on Feb 27th – was politically motivated.

So far India, along with the US, has only issued statements of concern over the arrest and manhandling of Mr Nasheed.

However, given the strategic importance of the island nation for India in its efforts to reinforce its hold in the Indian Ocean region in the face of a growing Chinese influence, many in the diplomatic circle feel India’s stance should be more overt.

Nasheed, who had resigned in 2012 following a protest over his order to arrest Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed, had sought India’s help earlier too. In 2013, when an arrest warrant was issued against him in relation to the detention of the judge, he took refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male.

India intervened and mediated a deal with the Maldivian government which assured Nasheed being allowed to have his political space and also his obligation to follow legal procedure.

India had involved interlocutors from neighboring Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as well. This multilateral approach along with voices from the UN and the west helped giving India’s reputation a facelift in the region.

So observers feel rather than worrying about being projected as an interventionist, India could take a leaf out of this recent past and persuade the Maldivian government to hold a fair trial of its former president.

Many foreign policy experts see this as an appropriate time for India to come out of its ‘reluctant power’ postures and make its presence felt in the Indian Ocean.

The fear is any ambiguity now will further make way for other powers in Maldives, which has one of world’s densest maritime trade routes.

In this context Beijing’s response – which avoided showing any ‘concern’ and stated that it believes the Maldives government can deal with this issue – is seen as a tacit support to the current Maldivian President Mr Yameen Abdul Gayoom’s government and hence a stance much more direct compared to India’s.

Last year during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit the island nation signed up for Beijing’s flagship project – the Maritime Silk Route (MSR). Not just this, but Male even passed the contract of upgrading its international airport to China after calling off $511 million deal with India’s GMR Infrastructure few years back.

What is particularly worrying are the claims made by some in the opposition MDP about the real motive of the Chinese in Maldives being military under the guise of economic investment.

The Marao Island, leased by Maldives to China in 1999 for maritime traffic management, is believed to be used by Beijing to monitor Indian and US warships in the Indian Ocean with a possible plan of developing a submarine base in future.

India has been long wary of China’s strategic maneuvers to encircle it in the Indian Ocean region by building bases in Pakistan’s Gwadar naval base at the Arabian Sea, in Myanmar by setting up surveillance at the Great Coco Islands close to India’s Andaman and Nicobar islands and in Bangladesh with modernization of Chittagong naval port near the Bay of Bengal.

India has been particularly alarmed over reports of setting up of Chinese naval bases around the India Ocean region, which Beijing dismisses as ‘groundless’.

Indeed after the jolt in the Sri Lankan election with the win of a pro Indian president – Maithripala Sirisena and subsequent signing of a civil nuclear deal between the two, Beijing – though externally maintains its posture of non-interference – will be watching the developments in Male closely.

More so because Nasheed along with his party the MDP has been vocal about their pro-Indian stance and critical of the current Yameen government’s closeness to China. The MDP maintains Indian Ocean must remain India’s ocean.

But for now Male has clearly indicated its displeasure over the concern shown by India and the US stating that the Maldivian government will not take instructions from a foreign government on any issue in governing the country.

Without overriding Male’s right to independent foreign policy, New Delhi needs some deft diplomacy that will leverage the ‘natural’ closeness of the island nation with India, while at the same time not looking punitive.

Afterall, it was President Yameen who during his visit to India in 2014 had famously stated that while relations with China is important, with India it is far more ‘precious’.

*Jhinuk Chowdhury is an India based journalist who writes on South Asian affairs. Her Twitter handle is @jhinuk28

The post Time For India To Stop Being A Reluctant Power? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Imperative Of An EU-Russia Strategic Reset – OpEd

0
0

By Eirini Patsea*

Russia vs. the European Union. It is relationship based and built upon a long history of protracted political conflict. Lately, with the crisis in Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions imposed to Russia, the diplomatic relations between the two sides have reached a new historical low. But more importantly, the mistrust among the peoples residing in both sides has reached a new high. Unavoidably so. Since the Western and Russian media started to be viciously launching campaign-like news reports, there is nothing but confusion and loss of perspective by both the peoples and their representatives. The big question is whether this would be the case if the US politics were not involved in the game. Would still Russia and the EU have so many excuses to be driven apart; politically, culturally and ideologically?

Recently an unusual event on the “Imperative of an EU-Russia strategic reset”, took place in Vienna, in the UPF Austria headquarters in partnership with IFIMES and its fiery representative Prof. Anis Bajrektarevic. I say unusual, as for one thing, the panel was composed by two megatons of political and diplomatic status; Dr. Walter Schwimmer, former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and H.E. Anwar S. Azimov, former Russian ambassador to the OSCE HQ.

But even more importantly, the audience was composed of a rare mix, raging from young students, women associations, interfaith dialogue groups, experienced professors and diplomats to high rank military officials and foreign attachés. The outcome was intoxicating; thanks to the inflammatory panel inputs and the reality-driven, hands on, questions from the audience. An amazingly rare openhearted, attentive, non-finger-pointing or bully-blaming and constructive discussion on what drives EU and Russia together. Or as H.E. Azimov noted: ‘in a constructive natural alliance rather than a strategic partnership’.

After the warmhearted welcome by Peter Haider, UPF Austria President, Prof. Bajrektarevic made more than a challenging opening:

“The lonely superpower (US) vs. the bear of the permafrost (Russia), with the world’s last cosmopolite (EU) in between. Is the ongoing calamity at the eastern flank of the EU a conflict, recalibration, imperialism in hurry, exaggerated anti-Russian xenophobia or last gasp of confrontational nostalgia?”

Just 20 years ago, the distance between Moscow and NATO troops stationed in Central Europe (e.g., Berlin) was more than 1,600 km. Today, it is only 120 km from St. Petersburg. Is this a time to sleep or to worry? ‘Russia no longer represents anything that appeals to anyone other than ethnic Russians, and as a result, the geopolitical troubles it can cause will remain on Europe’s periphery, without touching the continent’s core’ – was the line of argumentation recently used by Richard N. Haass, President of the US Council of Foreign Relations. Is it really so?

Is there any intellectually appealing call originating from Russia? Is it a lonely champion of antifascism and (pan-)Slavism? Is Slavism, identity, secularism and antifascism being abandoned in Eastern Europe, confused perhaps by the mixed signals from the austerity-tired Atlantic Europe and über-performing Central Europe?

For the EU, Ukraine is (though important) an item of the Neighborhood Policy and for the US it is a geopolitical pivot. And for Russia, it is all this plus emotional attachment. Without Ukraine, to what extent is Russia Christian and European? Is the EU a subject or a hostage (like Ukraine) of the mega-geopolitical drama whose main stage is in the Asia-Pacific theater? What is the objective here – the final score (territorial gain) or an altered style of the game (new emotional charge added to the international relations)? What is a road map, an exit, a future perspective – relaxation or escalation? Hegemony, hegemoney, or a global (post-dollar) honeymoon?”

Consecutively, there were two statements on the table that were the cause of intellectual training. One came from the H.E Asimov, when suggesting that ‘Russia was never against Ukraine joining the EU, but it was against letting this move harming the economic and defense related interests of Russia’. Pointing out actually, the reality, that a sovereign country cannot make a sovereign decision without consulting all natural and strategic allies. Then he went to add, that Russia in this case is simply a Mediator in the conflict; a mediator who sympathizes with the people of Southeast Ukraine. As for Crimea, the referendum and the accession that followed, it was just a matter of historical justice; and exerted the willingness of his country to generously participate in a funding scheme for the reconstruction of the post conflict Ukraine. That is beyond doubt a narrative that people in Europe have not yet been afforded the chance to hear, process and evaluate.

On the other hand, Dr. Schwimmer, a veteran and master of diplomacy and proven enthusiast of the idea of Russia being viewed as a part of Europe, stated that he believes that Russia has not yet finished its transformation after the communist dictatorship. He illustrated the fact that Russia is, besides any strategic and geopolitical ideas, an indispensable part of the European culture and identity. Hence, when he made the provocative and pioneering hypothesis of Russia applying for an EU membership, he argued that the EU would have no grounds in rejecting it.

Russia joining the European Union. That is definitely food for thought and subject of perpetual intellectual puzzle. Both sides have flaws in their communication strategies towards each other. Both sides have flaws in their communication strategies towards their own people. Both sides are inextricably interwoven in all possible aspects, from culture to economy. Dostoevsky is Europe’s favorite, Russian Christianity is putting Russia on a different list than, let’s say, Turkey and 50% of Russian trade occurs with the EU; and these are only tiny examples of a long list of reasons suggesting not only natural alliance but true unity. Nonetheless, this idea seemed to shock everyone. Why?

Let us put things into perspective. Ukraine. An interesting aspect of the Ukrainian conflict is its multidimensional character; as it started as an intra-state social struggle and along its evolvement it transformed to an inter-state conflict. The interaction between parties caused new issues to emerge or single issues to create multiple issues.

Imagine the tensions in the form of a tree. On the roots of the Ukrainian conflict tree lie: 1) the weak Ukrainian state as a solidified democracy with clear goals, and means to achieve these goals, that enjoy the respect and support of the majority of the people; something that provides the ground for foreign interference; 2) the economic impoverishment of the Ukrainian people, that fuels social unrest; 3) the differentiated perception of history, as well as the, as such perceived, cultural differences of the Russo-phones and Galatic groups of Ukraine, that makes centrifugal powers within the society possible; and 4) the long history of inharmonious diplomatic relationship between Russia and the West, and especially the US.

The latter aspect is illustrated by what many see as a culmination of many years of grievances with what Putin sees as an unfair international system. “They say we are violating norms of international law … It’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never,”2 said Putin. Adding to this irritation is also a sense of injustice and unfair victimization from the west that has long been a feature of Russian political thinking. Sochi is a recent sore point. The 2014 Winter Olympics was Putin’s pet project, costing $50bn (£30bn), yet the build-up was permeated with noise about gay rights and security concerns from the west, and only a handful of heads of state visiting the games.

On the leaves of the tree lie: 1) the different form of communication and political conduct between Russia and the West (the Kremlin does not like win-win solutions. It likes outcomes in which it wins, and its detestable Western rivals lose; and the EU finds this notion of geopolitics old-fashioned and unappealing, when geo-politics are happening on its doorstep); 2) the financial dangers for all parties from further escalation and consequent destabilization of the region; 3) the crippled alliance between the US and the EU, as the fallout from Edward Snowden’s leaks of secret material from the National Security Agency has weakened the transatlantic alliance.

For the time being, everything seems as a dead end. For the time being, the EU seems trapped between the US and the Russian narratives. For the time being, Russia fails to see Europe independent from NATO. For the time being, the EU fails to find a constructive way to deal with Russia, forming a holistic approach that has a perspective of decades to come and be consistent to it; no wonder though, as the EU faces existential threats itself.
The idea of unity is out there though, and time shall come that Russia will not be an ‘outlaw-most wanted’. Everyone has flaws, but it does not mean that the world should be deprived of them; not just like that.

Eirini Patsea is a Guest Editor in ModernDiplomacy, and specialist in Cultural Diplomacy and Faith-based Mediation.

First published by www.moderndiplomacy.eu

The post Imperative Of An EU-Russia Strategic Reset – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images