Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73599 articles
Browse latest View live

Why College Isn’t (And Shouldn’t Have To Be) For Everyone – OpEd

$
0
0

I know a high school senior who’s so worried about whether she’ll be accepted at the college of her choice she can’t sleep.

The parent of another senior tells me he stands at the mailbox for an hour every day waiting for a hoped-for acceptance letter to arrive.

Parents are also uptight. I’veheard of some who have stopped socializing with other parents of children competing for admission to the same university.

Competition for places top-brand colleges is absurdly intense.

With inequality at record levels and almost all the economic gains going to the top, there’s more pressure than ever to get the golden ring.

A degree from a prestigious university can open doors to elite business schools and law schools – and to jobs paying hundreds of thousands, if not millions, a year.

So parents who can afford it are paying grotesque sums to give their kids an edge.

They “enhance” their kid’s resumes with such things as bassoon lessons, trips to preserve the wildlife in Botswana, internships at the Atlantic Monthly.

They hire test preparation coaches. They arrange for consultants to help their children write compelling essays on college applications.

They make generous contributions to the elite colleges they once attended, to which their kids are applying  – colleges that give extra points to “legacies” and even more to those from wealthy families that donate tons of money.

You might call this affirmative action for the rich.

The same intensifying competition is affecting mid-range colleges and universities that are doing everything they can to burnish their own brands – competing with other mid-range institutions to enlarge their applicant pools, attract good students, and inch upward on the U.S. News college rankings.

Every college president wants to increase the ratio of applications to admissions, thereby becoming more elite.

Excuse me, but this is nuts.

The biggest absurdity is that a four-year college degree has become the only gateway into the American middle class.

But not every young person is suited to four years of college. They may be bright and ambitious but they won’t get much out of it. They’d rather be doing something else, like making money or painting murals.

They feel compelled to go to college because they’ve been told over and over that a college degree is necessary.

Yet if they start college and then drop out, they feel like total failures.

Even if they get the degree, they’re stuck with a huge bill — and may be paying down their student debt for years.

And all too often the jobs they land after graduating don’t pay enough to make the degree worthwhile.

Last year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 46 percent of recent college graduates were in jobs that don’t even require a college degree.

The biggest frauds are for-profit colleges that are raking in money even as their students drop out in droves, and whose diplomas are barely worth the ink-jets they’re printed on.

America clings to the conceit that four years of college are necessary for everyone, and looks down its nose at people who don’t have college degrees.

This has to stop. Young people need an alternative. That alternative should be a world-class system of vocational-technical education.

A four-year college degree isn’t necessary for many of tomorrow’s good jobs.

For example, the emerging economy will need platoons of technicians able to install, service, and repair all the high-tech machinery filling up hospitals, offices, and factories.

And people who can upgrade the software embedded in almost every gadget you buy.

Today it’s even hard to find a skilled plumber or electrician.

Yet the vocational and technical education now available to young Americans is typically underfunded and inadequate. And too often denigrated as being for “losers.”

These programs should be creating winners.

Germany – whose median wage (after taxes and transfers) is higher than ours – gives many of its young people world-class technical skills that have made Germany a world leader in fields such as precision manufacturing.

A world-class technical education doesn’t have to mean young people’s fates are determined when they’re fourteen.

Instead, rising high-school seniors could be given the option of entering a program that extends a year or two beyond high school and ends with a diploma acknowledging their technical expertise.

Community colleges – the under-appreciated crown jewels of America’s feeble attempts at equal opportunity – could be developing these curricula. Businesses could be advising on the technical skills they’ll need, and promising jobs to young people who complete their degrees with good grades.

Government could be investing enough money to make these programs thrive. (And raising taxes on top incomes enough to temper the wild competition for admission to elite colleges that grease the way to those top incomes.)

Instead, we continue to push most of our young people through a single funnel called a four-year college education — a funnel so narrow it’s causing applicants and their parents excessive stress and worry about “getting in;” that’s too often ill suited and unnecessary, and far too expensive; and that can cause college dropouts to feel like failures for the rest of their lives.

It’s time to give up the idea that every young person has to go to college, and start offering high-school seniors an alternative route into the middle class.

The post Why College Isn’t (And Shouldn’t Have To Be) For Everyone – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


RUSA: A Fresh Hope For Higher Education In India – OpEd

$
0
0

By Swaleha Sindhi*

Undoubtedly higher education is one of the fastest growing sectors, not only in India, but in several other nations. However, alongside this there are a plethora of concerns, such as the poor status of the State higher education system, inadequate financing, ineffective planning at the State level and lack of autonomy, etc.

To overcome a few of these issues and challenges, particularly in India, the government has proposed certain notifications, policies, and various regulatory developments like the policy for entry of Foreign Universities, the policy regarding academic collaborations in higher education, regulations regarding AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) powers over technical education, Dissolution of Distance Education Council, CSR(Corporate Social Responsibility), and most importantly the newly launched Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan, or what is generally called RUSA. RUSA is a centrally sponsored scheme by the government of India for the Universalisation of Higher Education and it can be understood in English as the National Higher Education Scheme.

Milestones Achieved & Future Prospects

Innovative educational policies and missions adopted by the Government of India have been a huge success. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) basically a flagship programme launched by the government of India for the Universalisation of Elementary Education in 2001  and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), a flagship programme launched by the government of India for the Universalisation of Secondary Education in 2009 produced satisfactory results in  educational development.

In the sphere of higher education at present the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) is 19%, and that needs to be rise to the international standard of 30%. Additionally, gender disparity needs to be reduced, issues and concerns related to the funding of higher education need to be streamlined and at the same time sincere efforts need to be employed to list some of the Indian Universities in world’s best universities. Recognizing this requirement, as well as the basic fact that institutions of higher learning have to perform multiple roles like creating new knowledge, acquiring new capabilities and producing an intelligent human resource pool for which the Indian higher education system has to brace itself to address the global challenges by channelizing teaching, research and extension activities, and maintain the right balance between the need and the demand.

RUSA

To efficiently meet all these requirements, the government of India launched Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) in 2013 as a comprehensive CSS (Centrally Sponsored Scheme) for higher Education. The scheme aims at providing strategic funding to eligible state higher educational Institution. The central funding (in the ratio of 65:35 for general category States and 90:10 for special category states) would be norm based and outcome dependent. The funding would flow from the central ministry through the State Governments/ Union territories to the State Higher Education Councils before reaching the identified institutions. The funding to states would be made on the basis of critical appraisal of State Higher Education Plans, which would describe each state’s strategy to address issues of equity, access and excellence in higher education.

Thus, RUSA aims to improve access, equity and quality in higher education through planned development of higher education at the state level. Through RUSA, it is proposed to improve the GER from 19% at present to 32% by 2022, while incentivizing states to increase Plan investments in higher education.

The salient Objectives of RUSA

According to the Annual Status of Higher Education (ASHE) (2013), “RUSA will introduce a significant shift in the approach towards development of higher education in India, with the emphasis on reforming state higher education systems. Some of the key provisions of RUSA which seek to address the issues under the current higher education system are scope, funding mechanism, planning, equity, access, academics and examination, faculty recruitment, research and innovation, accreditation, administration and governance, and infrastructure.

To address these issues RUSA ensures that the state higher education system conforms to prescribed norms and standards and adopt accreditation as a mandatory quality assurance framework, thereby bringing an overall improvement of quality in state Institutions. To usher in transformative reforms in the state higher education system it aims to create and facilitate institutional structure for planning and monitoring and promoting autonomy and improving governance in institutions in State universities. To achieve the target of enrollment and correcting regional imbalances in access it aims to establish new institutions in un-served and underserved areas by providing adequate opportunities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) and socially and educationally backward classes and promoting inclusion of women, minorities, and differently abled persons. Thus RUSA aims to create new universities through up gradation of existing autonomous colleges and conversion of colleges in a cluster.

Creating new model degree and new professional colleges and provide support for recruitment, infrastructure, faculty improvements programmes and leadership development of educational administrators. In order to enhance skill development the existing central scheme of Polytechnics has been subsumed within RUSA. A separate component to synergise vocational education with higher education has also been included in RUSA. Besides these, RUSA also supports reforming, restructuring and building capacity of institutions in participating state.

Last Word

It is highly expected that RUSA will bring a new and fresh look to  Indian Higher Education by ensuring proper and timely funding. With timely and proper efforts, RUSA may achieve its target of increased enrollment and may achieve access, equity and quality in Higher Education in India. Instead of unplanned expansion which is an important issue to be solved, there will be a focus on consolidating and developing the existing system adding capacities as greater emphasis is laid on the improvement of the quality of teaching-learning processes, on research and innovations. RUSA could become a turning point for the Indian higher education system as it seeks to achieve higher enrollment rates and address access, equity and quality related concerns. However, the success of the scheme will depend on whether it can be managed and executed effectively.

Thus, the demand for higher education and the magnitude of planned reforms over the next ten years in India will provide the largest opportunity in the world for international higher education institutions and education businesses as the Indian higher education system is facing an unprecedented transformation driven by economic and demographic change. India will have the largest tertiary enrollment in the world and will be a key source of intellectual capital the world universities will need to tap India’s talent pipeline to engage with the best researchers in the world.

Ms. Swaleha Sindhi

Ms. Swaleha Sindhi

*Ms. Swaleha Sindhi is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration, Faculty of Education & Psychology at The M.S.University of Baroda, Gujarat, India. Her PhD.is on the area of Quality Assurance System in the Secondary Schools of Gujarat State. She is the Vice President of (IOCES) Indian Ocean Comparative Education Society. Her area of interest in research is Educational Management, Educational Administration, Economics of Education, Quality Assurance in Education and Secondary Education. She can be emailed at;swalehasindhi@gmail.com

The post RUSA: A Fresh Hope For Higher Education In India – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Delegation Encouraged By Sri Lanka’s Progress In Religious Freedom

$
0
0

A delegation of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which visited Sri Lanka to assess the climate for religious freedom, other human rights, and tolerance is encouraged by the progress Sri Lanka has made since the country’s 2015 election.

The USCIRF delegation comprising Commissioner Eric P. Schwartz and USCIRF Senior Policy Analyst Sahar Chaudhry visited Sri Lanka from March 15-17, 2015.

Upon their return, the Commissioner, Eric P. Schwartz said the delegation was encouraged by statements made by officials with whom they met.

“In particular, we welcome comments in support of national reconciliation among all Sri Lanka’s religious and ethnic communities. After a devastating war and reports that religious minority communities were increasingly subjected to attacks in recent years, the new government’s engagement with religious minorities is an important step forward in the effort to promote national unity and increased space for all religious groups,” the Commissioner said.

During their visit, the delegation has met with Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mangala Samaraweera, Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa, Minister of Buddha Sasana Karu Jayasuriya, and Minister of Muslim Religious Affairs Abdel Halim Mohamed Hasheem, as well as representatives from Sri Lanka’s diverse religious communities, among others.

The Commission welcomed other measures by the Sri Lankan government, in the areas of freedom of expression and association in particular, which tend to create a climate conducive to religious freedom.

“We are very pleased to hear that reports of abuses perpetrated against minority religious communities have diminished over the last few months. We encourage the government to hold perpetrators of such crimes accountable. We believe accountability will encourage a critical sense of security and well-being among affected communities,” Schwartz stated.

While welcoming recent government measures, representatives of civil society with whom the delegation met have expressed continued concerns about the ability of religious communities to practice their chosen faiths without restriction. This includes the ability to build houses of worship and to be free of any acts of intimidation or harassment.

The Commissioner expressed hope that Sri Lankan officials will address these issues in the weeks and months to come.

“Nonetheless, we leave Sri Lanka with a sense of great encouragement, and we look forward to further progress on these critically important issues,” Schwartz said.

The post US Delegation Encouraged By Sri Lanka’s Progress In Religious Freedom appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Soccer Riots Reflect Long-Standing Discontent In Iran’s Predominantly Arab Khuzestan – Analysis

$
0
0

Long-simmering discontent in Ahwaz, the soccer-crazy, predominantly ethnic Arab capital of Iran’s Khuzestan province that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein unsuccessfully tried to exploit when he launched the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, exploded on the pitch earlier this month during an Asian championship League qualifier between the city’s state-owned Foolad FC and Al Hilal of Saudi Arabia.

Anti-government protests during the match in which Iranian fans declared support for the Saudi opponent of their home team defied the fact that Saudi Arabia is fighting across the Middle East a proxy war with the Islamic republic that the kingdom frames in terms of sectarian differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Soccer fans defiantly expressed support for Al Hilal during the match and burnt pictures of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late spiritual leader who spearheaded the 1979 Iranian revolution that toppled the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Fans also sported banners emphasizing the Arab character of Ahvaz. Scores were arrested as fans fought police near the stadium for three hours after the match.

The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran said that fans further carried banners declaring that “We are all Younes,” a reference to a street vendor who immolated himself a few days before the match in the nearby city of Khorramshahr. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) established by Iranian activists said the vendor set himself on fire after municipal officials seized his grocery kiosk. The agency said Mr. Younes was operating his kiosk although he had yet to have his application for a license approved.

Support for the Saudi team by fans in Ahvaz whose ethnic Arab population is Shiite in majority took on greater symbolic value against the backdrop of Saudi efforts to forge an alliance of Sunni nations and groups to counter the feared expansion of Iranian influence in the region if and when it reaches agreement with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany on the future of its nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic republic. The negotiators hope to achieve agreement before a deadline at the end of this month.

Habib Jaber Al-Ahvazi, a spokesman for the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA), a group that demands independence for Ahvaz and is believed to be responsible for a series of bomb attacks in the city in 2005, 2006 and 2013, told online Arab nationalist Ahvaz.tv that the soccer protest was part of an “ongoing confrontation between demonstrators and the forces of the Persian occupation.” Mr. Al-Ahvazi said the immolation of Mr. Younes had sparked the protest.

Iran’s state-run Press TV has broadcast confessions of captured ASMLA members who said they had carried out scores of attacks. The detainees said they had received funding and training in Dubai. They said the targets of their attacks had been pipelines and other oil infrastructure.

ASMLA operat ives have maintained contacts with rebels fighting the Iranian-backed regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. A no-longer existent unit of the defunct Western-backed Free Syrian Army named itself the Al-Ahwaz Brigade while the ASMLA used references to the anti-Assad rebels to identify their attacks in Khuzestan. ASMLA has also expressed support for insurgents in Iran’s Baluchi and Kurdish provinces whom the government in Tehran sees as part of US covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Islamic republic.

Ethnic minorities in the oil-rich but impoverished province of Khuzestan that constitutes part of Iran’s border with Iraq have long complained that the government has failed to reinvest profits to raise the region’s standards of living. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified Ahwaz in 2013 as Iran’s most polluted city.

Iranian Arabs further charge that they are being discriminated against because of government suspicions that they are susceptible to foreign Arab inf luence. That suspicion is rooted in Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s bloody eight year war against Iran that ended in 1988. Saddam falsely expected that Iranian Arabs would welcome the opportunity to gain independence from Iran.

The Iranian Arab refusal to side with Saddam failed to earn Arabs in Ahwaz the credit they deserved despite the fact that criticism of government policies is often framed in ethnic and nationalist terms. Government suspicions have been fuelled by recent conversions to Sunni Islam of a number of Iranian Arabs, a move that largely constitutes individual efforts to escape perceived discrimination.

Unrest in Ahwaz has been long simmering. The popular revolts of the Arab world in 2011 that toppled the autocratic leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen reverberated in Khuzestan were protesters commemorated anti-government demonstrations in 2005. Activists who called in April 2011 for a ‘day of rage’ in Ahvaz were confronted by security forces who reportedly killed and wounded scores.

Iran’s crackdown earlier this month on the protesting soccer fans was as much in line with its intolerance toward expressions of anti-government sentiment as it was a response to references to Ahwaz in Saudi media as Arab territory.

Writing in 2012 in Asharq Al Awsat, Amal Al-Hazzani, an academic who has since been dropped from the paper’s roster after she wrote positively about Israel, asserted in an op-ed entitled ‘The oppressed Arab district of al-Ahwaz’ that “the al-Ahwaz district in Iran…is an Arab territory… Its Arab residents have been facing continual repression ever since the Persian state assumed control of the region in 1925…

The Iranians believe that it is an urgent priority to eradicate the Arab race in al-Ahwaz; a necessity for the state to be stabilized. This means that the authorities do not hesitate to tighten their grip on the district’s residents, prompting them to flee the country through various means of intimidation such as summary executions, detaining citizens, confiscating their salari es, depriving them of employment, and preventing them from speaking their mother tongue… It is imperative that the Arabs take up the al-Ahwaz cause, at least from the humanitarian perspective,” Ms. Al-Hazzani wrote.

The post Soccer Riots Reflect Long-Standing Discontent In Iran’s Predominantly Arab Khuzestan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Brazil’s Weapons Industry – Analysis

$
0
0

By W. Alejandro Sanchez*

Latin America does not depend solely on exports from extra-regional powers for military equipment. On the contrary, the region boasts its own thriving domestic weapons industry. The crown jewel of Latin America’s defense industries is arguably Brazil’s, which has made a name for itself by domestically producing military equipment for export. Case in point is the Super Tucano, a light military aircraft that can be utilized for either training or combat operations, which is produced by the Brazilian aerospace conglomerate Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica (EMBRAER) and enjoys significant prominence in the field. According to the latest headlines, the Portuguese-speaking nation is predicted to have a good year in weapon sales, bolstering Brazil and Latin America in terms of capital and relevancy in the global arms market.

Recent Transactions

Over the years, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) has monitored Brazil’s budding military industry. This includes a report published in 2009, entitled: “EMBRAER: Brazilian Weapons Industry becoming a Global Arms Merchant?” The report discusses the history and recent activities of EMBRAER, the aforementioned Brazilian aerospace conglomerate. The company’s origins can be traced back to the Brazilian military junta that ruled the country from 1964 to1985. General Emilio Medici was head of the military junta in 1969 when EMBRAER was initially founded. Medici wanted the country to have its own self-contained aircraft-manufacturing company, with the state in control of 51% of the shares. COHA’s 2009 report features an interview with Dr. Thomaz Costa, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University. Costa explains, “[Embraer’s] business philosophy seems to reflect a market position defined by producing platforms with technology, electronic components, and had a large array of private stock of parts available in its on-site global market. Its products directed to civilian markets are based in cost-effectiveness of product life cycle.”[i]

Since the release of COHA’s “Global Arms Merchant” report, EMBRAER and Brazil’s arms industry have accomplished some significant achievements.

One interesting development occurred in mid-2014, when the Brazilian media reported that Brazil had sold its first batch of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), commonly known as drones, to an African nation. It remains unclear which African nation bought the drones, though it is known that three FT-1000 Horus were sold, produced by the Brazilian company FT Sistemas S.A.[ii] Drones for military use are becoming increasingly popular among defense forces across the world, presenting an opportunity for Brazil to make a name for itself as a producer of reliable and efficient UAVs.

In addition to military aircraft, Brazil also produces and exports land equipment. In early February, the Italian-based Industrial Vehicles Corporation (IVECO) signed an agreement with Lebanon to sell that nation around 80 military and police vehicles. It is important to note that ten of these armored vehicles will be manufactured in Brazil.[iii] Specifically, the vehicles that will be produced in the South American state are the Guarani (VBTP-MR), a 6×6 armored personnel carrier that can carry up to eleven troops.[iv] They will be assembled in IVECO’s plant in Sete Lagoas, located in Brazil’s Minas Gerais state, which will boost the local workforce.[v]

Moreover, in November 2014, the Brazilian company AGRALE reached a deal with the government of Namibia for the sale of 141 Marrua, four-by-four wheeled transport and utility vehicles.[vi]/The African defense news website DefenceWeb explains that AGRALE has had a foothold in Namibia’s defense forces since 2011, when Namibia’s state owned Windhoeker Maschinenfabrik (WMF) company partnered with the Brazilian company to assemble its vehicles, including tractors.[vii]

Furthermore, in late-2014 the Angolan Navy ordered seven Macae-class patrol boats from Brazil. This came about via an agreement between the defense ministries of the two countries, with four of the vessels to be constructed in Rio de Janeiro by Brazil’s Empresa Generencial de Projectos Navais (EMGEPRON).[viii]

Finally, in response to an e-mail query by COHA, DefenceWeb also mentioned the A-Darter missile project between South Africa and Brazil. Just this past February, the Brazilian Air Force reported the successful firing of an air-to-air A-Darter missile. The defense news portal Defense Industry Daily has generally praised this partnership, explaining that “there’s a new advanced dogfighting missile coming to town, and it won’t be coming from any of the standard players.”[ix] The missile is a partnership between the Brazilian Air Force, the Brazilian Ministry of Defense and the South African-based Denel Dynamics (a subsidiary of Denel SOC Ltd) which dates back to 2006.[x]

The aforementioned examples of confirmed orders highlight the growing presence of Brazil as a global arms merchant not only when it comes to warplanes, but also manufactures land and sea equipment. The independent geopolitical risk consultant Milena Rodban explained to COHA that “Brazil’s defense industry is protected as part of the country’s National Defense Strategy, which stresses the need for an autonomous national defense industry to keep Brazil from becoming reliant on other countries to equip its armed forces.”[xi]

The U.S.-Super Tucano Deal

The sale of Super Tucano planes to the U.S. deserves an in-depth discussion in itself. In recent years, Washington-Brazil relations have been at times tense, particularly due to the 2013 discovery that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on President Dilma Rousseff’s telephone and e-mail accounts. But prior to the diplomatic tensions, the two countries had reached an agreement over the transaction of 20 Super Tucanos. According to a September 2014 article in AviationWeek.com, the U.S. Air Force has begun receiving the first of the A-29 Super Tucanos purchased by the U.S. government.[xii] EMBRAER has teamed up with Sierra Nevada Corp., an electronic systems provider and systems integrator headquartered in Nevada. This was a very important order as it was EMBRAER’s first successful venture in the U.S. defense market.”[xiii]

It is worth noting that the U.S. is merely a stopover for the Super Tucanos, as they will be eventually taken to Afghanistan to be flown by the local Air Force. In fact, renowned Jane’s Defense Weekly reports that as early as this January, the U.S. Air Force has “begun training Afghan pilots and maintainers on the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft at Moody Air Force Base (AFB) in Georgia.”[xiv] It is certainly a great honor for EMBRAER to have its flagship aircraft chosen by the U.S. Air Force, and even more so that it will be utilized by the Afghanistan military to bring security and order back to the troubled Central Asian state.

Nevertheless, the question remains whether current chilly Washington-Brasilia relations will affect future deals. Geopolitical risk consultant Milena Rodban argues that “Embraer’s plans to sell more planes to the U.S., for use in border surveillance and counter-narcotics missions, may be affected. I personally think that the likelihood of chilly relations resulting in fewer sales remains low. If Embraer loses out on bids, it’ll be because other companies are in a better position to provide adequate equipment, and not because of the fallout from the NSA scandal.”[xv] The opinion is shared by Inigo Guevara, a specialist in Latin American defense affairs. In an interview with COHA, Guevara explained that “the first Super Tucano deal was agreed upon before the NSA scandal. The question now is whether the U.S. government will want a second batch of these planes.”[xvi]

Sales Speculation

As is generally the case with the global arms trade, there is plenty of speculation regarding future prospects for Brazil’s weapons industry. For the sake of the argument, we will mention the most prominent rumors.

One possible future for the Super Tucanos is Guatemala, as the country’s government has considered purchasing them for quite some time. In fact, Guatemala and EMBRAER signed an agreement in 2013 for a transaction including six Super Tucanos. Nevertheless, in 2013, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina announced his decision to withdraw from the original order. The Guatemalan head of state argued at the time that the aircrafts were overpriced, hence his decision to cancel the deal.[xvii] As a penalty, Guatemala paid around 600 thousand USD dollars in fines.[xviii] It appears that Guatemala City still desires the planes, but only two instead of six. However, some concerns remain regarding the planes’ cost. Specifically, the Guatemalan Minister of Defense, General Manuel Lopez, has declared that purchasing the two Super Tucanos, along with three radars and two interceptor speed boats, will cost around $13 million USD. The highly regarded defense-news agency Infodefensa.com argues that even in the best of cases, this amount is too low, considering one new Super Tucano with basic-equipment costs around $10 million USD alone.[xix] The Guatemalan media has widely quoted Minister Lopez on the issue, who emphasizes that regardless of the cost, Guatemala is committed to obtaining several Super Tucanos this time around.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are involved in rumors surrounding the notorious Super Tucanos. Senior military official Brigadier General Juniti Saito, Commander of the Brazilian Air Force, has declared that the UAE is interested in acquiring twenty-four A-29 Super Tucanos. This particular speculation may turn out to ring true in the near future, as the UAE government apparently aims to acquire some aircraft directly from the Brazilian Air Force’s inventory for a speedy delivery.[xx]

Another agreement over the Super Tucanos which is currently in the works is tied to Indonesia. The Asian nation originally wanted to purchase an aircraft, but relations between the two governments have soured since January when Indonesia executed Mario Archer, a Brazilian citizen who had been found guilty of smuggling 13.4 kilograms of cocaine into the country. Prior to the execution, President Rousseff herself called Indonesian President Joko Widodo, pleading for mercy on behalf of her citizen, but the Indonesian government continued with his execution and other prisoners, some of them also foreigners. In retaliation, Brazil called its ambassador back to the country for consultations and also did not recognize the credentials of the new Indonesian ambassador.[xxi] In response to this, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla declared that his government was considering canceling the purchase of 16 EMB-314 Super Tucano warplanes for the Indonesian Air Force.[xxii] (For another perspective on this affair, it is worth noting that Indonesia is a long-time customer of EMBRAER, as it purchased 18 of their aircrafts in 2010.[xxiii])

It should be noted that there is another Brazilian citizen, Rodrigo Gularte, on death row in Indonesia. Like Archer, Gularte is also accused of smuggling cocaine.[xxiv] If Gularte is also executed, this could further tarnish relations, damaging any hope for the Super Tucano deal.

Analysis

In 2014, the major news regarding Brazilian arms sales was related to Brazil’s decision to purchase 36 Gryphen warplanes from the Swedish company Saab.[xxv] This decision was a shock formany because it was widely believed, that the Brazilian government would choose the Rafale warplanes, produced by the French company Dassault.[xxvi] But while Brazil’s purchase of weapons from the exterior is certainly noteworthy – the Gryphen deal will cost some $4.5 billion USD – the Brazilian weapons complex has not fallen behind. Recent deals over Super Tucanos with the U.S. and Afghanistan, the sales of combat and armored vehicles to Lebanon and Namibia, and even the sale of a small quantity of drones to an unidentified African nation, highlight that several governments, even major military actors like the U.S. and UAE, are interested in Brazilian-made weapons. Should new deals occur in the coming months, like with the UAE, this will only strengthen Brazil’s pedigree when it comes to the manufacturing of reliable weaponry that nations across the world desire.

Nevertheless, a word of caution is necessary. Although arms sales continue, they have fallen beneath the projections of what Brazilian weapons companies desire. Furthermore, not all aspects within these companies are ideal. Specifically, Sami Hassuani, CEO of Avibras Aeroespacial, a producer of military equipment, acknowledges that some 1,500 employees were not promptly paid this past December.[xxvii]

COHA interviewed Mauricio Santoro, a professor of International Relations at Candido Mendes University. Professor Santoro explained to COHA that during the Rousseff presidency, there have been “many cuts in the federal budget, and these companies experienced serious setbacks. Avibras´ situation is controversial. The Minister of Defense [Jacques Wagner] says that the problem is its management, and not lack of contracts.”[xxviii] As a way to assure its customers and employees of its current situation, Avibras released a press release just this past March 11, explaining that it is paying its collaborators and missing salaries.[xxix] It is a positive development that the company is paying its dues, but it is troubling that the company felt the need to publish a communiqué arguing that its management is in control of the company. While sharing his thoughts with COHA, independent analyst Inigo Guevara highlighted that “in the 1990s, ENGESA produced and exported armored vehicles and it went bankrupt,” highlighting how companies that are having successful sales can undergo major turmoil.[xxx]

Ultimately, there is the obvious concern of whether Brazilian arms manufacturers will be able to maintain their momentum regarding exports. The aforementioned sales exemplify that various countries desire to purchase Brazilian military technology. However, the global arms trade has a plethora of suppliers. Apart from the usual suspects like the U.S., Russia, and China, various other nations also produce high-tech weaponry. Sweden, for example, which is not usually regarded as a European military powerhouse, produces the Gryphen warplanes that Brazil recently purchased. Even Peru, which houses a smaller industry than Brazil, jumpstarted its weapons industry in recent years with positive results. For example, Servicios Industriales de la Marina (SIMA), a state-owned Peruvian company with multiple shipyards, produces vessels for the Peruvian Navy, including a new training vessel, the BAP Union.[xxxi] Furthermore, SIMA recently reached an agreement with Panama to open a SIMA subsidiary shipyard in the strategic Central American nation.[xxxii]

Geopolitical risk consultant Milena Rodban explained to COHA that one crucial factor that makes Brazilian weapons, and those produced by other Latin American countries, attractive, is the “willingness” of these governments “to sell to customers without imposing rules on resale, use, etc. This latter point is very important, since it greatly expanded the pool of potential customers, allowing Brazil to sell to countries including Libya and Saudi Arabia, which were willing to buy, but only if there were no strings attached to the sale.”[xxxiii] Professor Santoro adds that “Brazil has been trying hard to build an arms industry since the 1960s, but this project only advances when the State has enough resources to support the companies in a very competitive international market.”[xxxiv]

Ultimately, there is the question of how much of a “splash” is Brazil making in the global weapons market. The renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has released a new report with updated data on the arms trade. A March 2015 SIPRI Fact Sheet, “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2014,” states that the top 10 largest exporters of weapons nowadays are the U.S., Russia, China, German, France, the UK, Spain, Italy, Ukraine and Israel.[xxxv] In other words, even with the Super Tucano sale to the U.S. and sales to Namibia and Lebanon, Brazil is not considered within the top 10 of global weapons exporters.

On March 16, the Stimson Center, a Washington DC-think tank, hosted an event to celebrate the SIPRI report, which included speakers from SIPRI, the Forum on the Arms Trade and an expert from Stimson.[xxxvi] During the Q&A section, a COHA military analyst asked the speakers for their thoughts on Latin America as an emerging exporter of weapons, with Brazil as the crown jewel. The SIPRI expert, Dr. Aude Fleurant, spoke about South-South cooperation, while Jeff Abramson, from the Forum on the Arms Trade, spoke about countries having “niche markets” for their products. Moreover, it was highlighted that emerging powers with strong militaries are having troubles placing their domestically-made products in the global market, like for example India.

It seems that experts in general agree that several Brazilian companies, EMBRAER chief among them, are going to continue their weapons exports abroad; with the no-strings-attached sale certainly helping. Nevertheless, even the major sale of 20 Super Tucanos to the U.S. Air Force is not enough to break Brazil into the Top-10 list of major weapons exporters in the world. With that said, smaller sales to other developing nations will continue to enrich these companies’ coffers.

Conclusions

The early months of 2015 put the Brazilian weapons industry in an interesting situation. Several deals have transpired that should qualify the country as an admired and respected global arms merchant, best exemplified by its deals with Lebanon, Namibia, and even the U.S. and Afghanistan as a final destination for the planes. Nevertheless, there are obstacles. The issue of unpaid salaries is a troubling matter that may indicate managerial problems in some of these companies. Moreover, the 2013 annulment of the Guatemala deal and inter-governmental tensions that threaten the deal with Indonesia stress the subjectivity of speculation over agreements; even finalized agreements are at risk for cancellation. Professor Mauricio Santoro concludes that in Brazil, “there are some very dynamic companies, such as Embraer and Condor (which produces less-lethal weapons) and good perspectives for firms engaged in the Navy expansion program. But the future of many other companies, including Avibras, is still a difficult question to answer.”[xxxvii]

Finally, as Brazil’s weapons industry grows, the question becomes to which countries it is willing to sell weapons. The obvious concern is that Brazilian weapons may be acquired by governments that are accused of human rights abuses, such as genocide, or engaged in illicit activities. As a signatory of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the Brazilian government has the duty not just to its domestic companies to ensure that they flourish, but also to humanity to ensure that Brazilian weapons are not used for evil.

With that said, Brazil continues to grow as a major weapons supplier to nations across the world. The country’s Super Tucano cannot be compared to the highly-advanced, and very costly, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter warplane (constructed by Lockheed Martin and funded by the U.S. and several of its allies), nor can the Horus UAV be compared to an armed Predator, but Brazil is also capable of meeting the demand for cheap and effective weapons on a global scale.

*W. Alejandro Sanchez, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References
[i] W. Alejandro Sanchez. “EMBRAER: Brazilian Weapons Industry Becoming a Global Arms Merchant?” Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Report. September 1, 2009. http://www.coha.org/embraer-brazilian-military-industry-becoming-a-global-arms-merchant/

[ii] Angelo Young. “Brazil exports first military drone: Flight technologies FT-100 hours heads to unnamed African country.” International Business Times. August 4, 2014. http://www.ibtimes.com/brazil-exports-first-military-drone-flight-technologies-ft-100-horus-heads-unnamed-african-1647774 Also see: “Brazil sells UAV to Africa.” DefenceWeb. August 1, 2014. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35695:brazil-sells-uav-to-africa&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

[iii]“Brazil logra en Libano el primer contrado de exportacion del blindado Guarani.” Infodefensa.com. January 30, 2015. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2015/01/30/noticia-brasil-logra-libano-primer-contrato-exportacion-blindado-guarani.html

[iv]“Brazil logra en Libano el primer contrado de exportacion del blindado Guarani.” Infodefensa.com. January 30, 2015.http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2015/01/30/noticia-brasil-logra-libano-primer-contrato-exportacion-blindado-guarani.html

[v] “Lebanon orders armored vehicles from Brazi.” Defense-Update. January 1, 2015. http://defense-update.com/20150101_lebanon-orders-armored-vehicles-from-italy-and-brazil.html#.VQLyCI54otc

[vi]Roberto Caiafa. “La empresa brasileña Agrale exporta a Namibia vehiculos militares Marrua.” Infodefensa.com. November 28, 2014. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2014/11/28/noticia-empresa-brasilena-agrale-exporta-namibia-vehiculos-militares-marrua.html

[vii] “Namibia Defense Force orders Marrua vehicles.” DefenceWeb. December 11, 2014. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37339:namibia-defence-force-orders-marrua-vehicles&catid=50:Land&Itemid=105

[viii] “Angolan Navy acquiring seven patrol vessels from Brazil.” DefenceWeb. September 9, 2014. http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36188:angolan-navy-acquiring-seven-patrol-vessels-from-brazil&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106

[ix] “South Africa, Brazil’s A-Darter SRAAM Hits Target.” Defense Industry Daily. February 13, 2015. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/south-africa-brazil-to-develop-adarter-sraam-03286/

[x] “South Africa, Brazil’s A-Darter SRAAM Hits Target.” Defense Industry Daily. February 13, 2015. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/south-africa-brazil-to-develop-adarter-sraam-03286/

[xi] Milena Rodban. Geopolitical risk consultant. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xii] Amy Butler. “First Tucano Accepted into U.S. Air Force.” Aviation Week. September 25, 2014. http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-super-tucano-accepted-us-air-force

[xiii] Amy Butler. “First Tucano Accepted into U.S. Air Force.” Aviation Week. September 25, 2014. http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-super-tucano-accepted-us-air-force

[xiv] Gareth Jennings.” USAF begins Afghan Super Tucano training.” HIS Jane’s Defense Weekly. January 11, 2015. http://www.janes.com/article/47801/usaf-begins-afghan-super-tucano-training

[xv] Milena Rodban. Geopolitical risk consultant. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xvi] Inigo Guevara. Latin American defense affairs specialist. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xvii]“Guatemala da marcha atras en la compra a Embraer de aviones SuperTucano.” Infodefensa.com. November 19, 2013. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2013/11/19/noticia-guatemala-marcha-atras-compra-embraer-aviones-super-tucano.html

[xviii]“Guatemala insiste en comprar aviones SuperTucano a Brasil.” La Nacion (Guatemala). January 23, 2015. http://www.lanacion.com.gt/guatemala-insiste-en-comprar-aviones-super-tucano-a-brasil/

[xix]Alberto Lopez. “ Guatemala insiste en comprar dos aviones SuperTucano tras cancelar un contrato de seis.” Infodefensa.com. January 27, 2015. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2015/01/27/noticia-guatemala-insiste-comprar-menos-aviones-super-tucano-cancelar-contrato.html

[xx]“Emiratos Arabes Unidos quiere comprar 24 cazas SuperTucano a Embraer.” Infodefensa.com. January 22, 2015. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2015/01/22/noticia-emiratos-arabes-unidos-quiere-comprar-cazas-super-tucano-embraer.html

[xxi] “Brazil ‘outraged’ by Indonesia drug trafficking execution.” BBC. Latin America & Caribbean. January 17, 2015.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30866752

[xxii]Paula Ferreira. “AposRetaliacao de Dilma, Indonesia pode cancelar compra de avioes de Embraer.” Oglobo. February 24, 2015.http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/apos-retaliacao-de-dilma-indonesia-pode-cancelar-compra-de-avioes-da-embraer-15420471

[xxiii] No title. EMBRAER. Press Release. August 6, 2012. http://www.embraer.com/en-us/imprensaeventos/press-releases/noticias/pages/embraer-entrega-os-quatro-primeiros-a29-super-tucanos-para-a-forca-aerea-da-indonesia.aspx

[xxiv] Hugo Bachega. “Brazilian family’s fight to stop execution of Rodrigo Gularte.” BBC. Latin America & Caribbean. March 11, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31831000

[xxv] W. Alejandro Sanchez. “Brazil’s warplane choice not a Saab story for France.” Blouin News. Blouin Beat: Politics. December 19, 2013. http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatpolitics/2013/12/19/brazils-warplane-choice-not-a-saab-story-for-france/

[xxvi] W. Alejandro Sanchez. “Brazil’s warplane choice not a Saab story for France.” Blouin News. Blouin Beat: Politics. December 19, 2013http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatpolitics/2013/12/19/brazils-warplane-choice-not-a-saab-story-for-france/

[xxvii]Roberto Caiafa. “El turbulento inicio de ano para las empresas de defensa de Brasil.” Infodefensa.com. Perspectivas. January 21, 2015.http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2015/01/21/opinion-turbulento-inicio-empresas-defensa-brasil.php

[xxviii] Mauricio Santoro. Professor of International Relations at Candido Mendes University. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xxix] Avibras. Press Release. March 11, 2014. Republished by Defesanet.com.br. http://www.defesanet.com.br/bid/noticia/18391/AVIBRAS—Nota-Oficial/

[xxx] Inigo Guevara. Latin American defense affairs specialist. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xxxi]“SIMA botara el nuevo buque escuela a vela BAP ‘Union’ el 22 de diciembre.” Defensa.com. December 4, 2014. http://www.defensa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14065:sima-botara-el-buque-escuela-a-vela-bap-union-el-22-de-diciembre&catid=203:fidae-news&Itemid=691

[xxxii]“SIMA Peru instalara un astillero subsidiario en Panama. Infodefensa.com. April 24, 2014. http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2014/04/24/noticia-instalara-subsidiaria-panama.htmlAlsosee: “SIMA instalara filial en Panama para desarrollar proyectos navales.” Andina – Agencia Peruana de Noticias. April 16, 2014.http://www.andina.com.pe/agencia/noticia-sima-instalara-filial-panama-para-desarrollar-proyectos-navales-502498.aspx

[xxxiii] Milena Rodban. Geopolitical risk consultant. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xxxiv] Mauricio Santoro. Professor of International Relations at Candido Mendes University. Interview with the author. March 2015.

[xxxv] Pieter D. Wezeman and Siemon T. Wezeman. “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2014.” SIPRI Fact Sheet. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. March 2015.

[xxxvi] “Global Arms Trade, Recent Trends & Looking Ahead.” The Stimson Center. Event. March 16, 2015. Held at the Stimson Center, Washington DC. http://www.stimson.org/events/global-arms-trade-recent-trends-looking-ahead/

[xxxvii] Mauricio Santoro. Professor of International Relations at Candido Mendes University. Interview with the author. March 2015.

The post Brazil’s Weapons Industry – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ron Paul: After Twelve Year Mistake In Iraq, We Must Just March Home – OpEd

$
0
0

Twelve years ago last week, the US launched its invasion of Iraq, an act the late General William Odom predicted would turn out to be “the greatest strategic disaster in US history.”

Before the attack I was accused of exaggerating the potential costs of the war when I warned that it could end up costing as much as $100 billion. One trillion dollars later, with not one but two “mission accomplished” moments, we are still not done intervening in Iraq.

President Obama last year ordered the US military back into Iraq for the third time. It seems the Iraq “surge” and the Sunni “Awakening,” for which General David Petraeus had been given much credit, were not as successful as was claimed at the time. From the sectarian violence unleashed by the US invasion of Iraq emerged al-Qaeda and then its more radical spin-off, ISIS. So Obama sent the US military back.

We recently gained even more evidence that the initial war was sold on lies and fabrications. The CIA finally declassified much of its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the chief document used by the Bush Administration to justify the US attack. According to the Estimate, the US Intelligence Community concluded that:

‘[W]e are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed…’ And: ‘the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.’

But even as the US Intelligence Community had reached this conclusion, President Bush told the American people that Iraq, “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” and “the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Likewise, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda was contradicted by the National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that there was no operational tie between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.

Even National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice’s famous statement that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was purchasing “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” was based on evidence she must have known at the time was false. According to the NIE, the Energy Department had already concluded that the tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.”

It is hard to believe that in a society supposedly governed by the rule of law, US leaders can escape any penalty for using blatantly false information – that they had to know at the time was false – to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country that posed no threat to the United States. The fact that they got away with it simply makes it all the easier for Washington’s interventionists to try the same tricks again. They already did with Libya and Syria. It is likely they are also doing the same with claims of a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine.

Last week President Obama correctly blamed the current chaos in Iraq on the Bush Administration’s decision to invade. He said, “… ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

However, if the US intervention in Iraq created the “unintended consequences” of ISIS and al-Qaeda, how is it that more US intervention can solve the problem?

A war based on lies cannot be fixed by launching another war. We must just march home. And stay home.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: After Twelve Year Mistake In Iraq, We Must Just March Home – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Let The US Budget Battles Begin – OpEd

$
0
0

The announcement of a new fiscal budget for the U.S. government always sets the stage for struggles between the spenders and those trying to put some limits on the spending. The spenders usually win because politicians—particularly progressive ones—love to tap the national treasury in order to reward their supporters.

As the Speaker of the House John Boehner said on the occasion of the March 17 announcement, “For 53 of the last 60 years, the federal government has spent more than it has taken in. It is unacceptable.” Not so unacceptable that one Congress after another has not seen fit to ignore common sense and fiscal prudence.

The sheer enormity of the budget tends to overwhelm and I suspect that most voters pay little attention to it and the issues it represents except to want assurances that their benefit check arrives. Rarely mentioned or largely unknown is the size of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, long term obligations in Medicare and Social Security. In 2014 they reached nearly $49 trillion with a “T”.

Our annual Gross Domestic Product, (GDP) what the U.S. takes in for goods and services is about $14 trillion. Our current national debt is $18 trillion and growing. Regarding the unfunded liabilities, Romina Boccia of The Heritage Foundation noted last year that they were “nearly three times the size of the total national debt or more than $150,000 for every person in the U.S.” He predicted that “even the most vulnerable Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries would see their benefits drastically cut after 2030.”

Here’s another way of looking at our debt. When interest rates return to normal WE are going to be paying several hundred billion in interest on our current $18 trillion debt. In short, we have to desperately start cutting spending NOW to reduce that debt. Or else!

The 2016 budget announced by House Budget Chairman Tom Price represents Republican values. As the Wall Street Journal noted, it “would cut spending by $5.5 trillion relative to the status quo over the next decade, reducing federal spending to 18.2% of the economy by 2024. The share today is 20.3% and is headed toward 22.3% in a decade on present trend.” It’s useful to keep in mind that every dollar the government collects and spends is one less dollar that the private sector can spend on starting and expanding businesses large and small.

All that money represents opportunities for waste that are mind-boggling. A recent article in CNS News reported that “Medicare and Medicaid made a combined $77.4 billion in improper payments in fiscal 2014, a 20.4 percent increase from fiscal 2013, according to data published by the Government Accountability Office and the federal paymentaccuracy.gov website.” Twelve government programs that wasted money made the Government Accountability Office list including the school lunch and public housing/rental assistance programs.

The good news about the new fiscal budget is that it openly calls for repealing ObamaCare. It also outlines deregulating Medicaid to give governors more flexibility. It is a terrific fiscal burden. The budget took note of the fact that there are too many duplicative government programs such as 92 antipoverty programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that consolidating such programs would increase real GDP per capita by 1.5% in 2015. Eliminating a whole bunch of them would save even more.

Jane M. Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, warned that “there seem to be some good first steps, such as block-granting Medicaid to the states. But even Republicans aren’t admitting that their budget also involves fighting over money that we don’t have, that the Federal Reserve will create out of faith and credit.”

“Also absent,” said Dr. Orient, “is recognition of the crushing burden of regulation, especially EPA rules to destroy a huge portion of our electrical generating capacity, with heavy subsidization of costly, unreliable, environmentally destructive wind and solar projects that can’t possibly replace coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Or recognition of the destructive impact of the Department of Education. How about devolving environmental protection and education back to the states, too, along with Medicaid?”

“This new House budget,” said Peter Ferrara, a Heartland Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy, “shows the passing of the Age of Obama and the broad gulf of difference between today’s conservative Republicans and the modern, ultra-Left, extremist, neo-socialist Democrats. Reagan-life, the plan would balance the budget without tax increases, while modernizing our increasingly dangerously lagging military.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out that, “As important, failing to pass a budget would also depri ve Republicans of the procedural tool known as reconciliation. This allows the GOP to pass a final budget with a simple majority in the House and Senate, and thus it will be crucial to putting larger reforms of ObamaCare or taxes on Mr. Obama’s desk. A vote against the budget is in that sense a vote for the ObamaCare status quo.”

In sum, the proposed budget represents a serious effort to enact reforms that are long overdue. These and other measures are needed to encourage economic growth, the heart’s blood of the nation.

The post Let The US Budget Battles Begin – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Radical Environmentalism’s Death Campaigns – OpEd

$
0
0

The terms racism, white supremacy, crimes against humanity are bandied about so often that they have become almost meaningless. But they are absolutely appropriate in an arena where they are too rarely applied: radical environmentalism’s campaigns that perpetuate poverty, disease and death, by denying Earth’s most impoverished and powerless people access to modern life-saving technologies.

Imagine activist groups preventing you from having your child vaccinated against polio or hepatitis, or from starting her on chemotherapy for leukemia – because they are “concerned” about “possible side-effects” and the “ethics” of permitting such “risky” procedures. Absurd! you say. Outrageous!

Of course it is. But that is what radical environmentalists are doing to Third World countries. By denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, modern fertilizers and biotech seeds, and especially DDT to prevent malaria and other insect-borne diseases, they are killing millions every year.

Many of my articles have documented this. Now a new film written, self-financed and produced by Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor, MD graphically presents powerful new evidence of how the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, other predominantly white environmentalist pressure groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conspired to hide and discredit scientific evidence, and wage a campaign of disinformation and outright lies, to ban the most effective weapon yet devised to prevent malaria and other vicious diseases.

3 Billion and Counting: The death toll is mounting shows how DDT was invented on the eve of World War II and became a secret weapon that kept Allied soldiers on the battlefield, instead of in hospitals or graves. After the war, it was sprayed on millions of Europeans to prevent typhus. It then eradicated malaria in Europe, the United States and other developed nations. No one ever got sick from DDT.

Available on demand and through Amazon.com, You Tube, Google Play, iTunes and elsewhere, the film chronicles how Rachel Carson’s wildly inaccurate book Silent Spring helped persuade the Audubon Society to launch the Environmental Defense Fund for the sole purpose of demanding a DDT ban.

Why would Audubon do such a thing? Its own research and Department of the Interior studies showed that bird and animal populations were exploding during the two decades when DDT was used most widely. Countless other studies documented that the life-saving chemical was safe for humans and most wildlife, including bald eagles. People actually tried to kill themselves with DDT – and repeatedly failed.

An EPA scientific panel conducted six months of hearings, compiled 9,312 pages of studies and testimony, and concluded that DDT was safe and effective, was not carcinogenic, and should not be banned. Nevertheless, without attending a single hour of hearings or reading a single page of the panel’s re port, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned U.S. production and use of DDT in 1972 – at a time when over 80% of the chemical was being exported for disease control.

Then why the attacks? As EDF scientist Charles Wurster said 1969, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.” When asked later how he justified human deaths from pesticides that replaced DDT, versus the “mere loss of some birds,” he said “organophosphates act locally and only kill farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.”

Ruckelshaus said he had a political problem, and fixed it. He never considered the plight of malaria victims, and anti-DDT activists still ignore their agony and deaths. Audubon, EDF, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Pesticide Action Network, Natural Resource Defense Council and other radical groups that oppose DDT just don’t give a damn – even as they have become filthy, callously rich by opposing the life-saving chemical and other technologies.

Sierra Club executive director David Brower, Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich and other arch-environmentalists believed the biggest problem facing Planet Earth was “uncontrolled growth” in human populations. Ehrlich argued that the “instant death control” provided by DDT exports was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in underdeveloped countries. Those countries were not practicing a “birth rate solution” – and thus needed to have “death rate solutions” imposed on them, via campaigns against energy, Golden Rice and other biotech crops, and especially DDT.

Almost 3.5 billion people worldwide are at risk of getting this horrific disease, 207 million are actually infected every year, and over 800,000 die year after year from malaria. The vast majority are children and pregnant women, and some 90% of them are in Sub-Saharan Africa. In that region, a child still dies every minute from malaria, and most African children ha ve been brain-damaged to some degree by malaria. Worldwide, nearly 80% of all infectious diseases are spread by insects.

Malaria is certainly a disease of poverty. But poverty is a disease of malaria. It leaves victims too sick to work or care for their families, for weeks on end. Medicines and hospital stays drain families’ meager savings. The disease costs tens of millions of lost work hours, billions in lost wages, and tens of billions for medicines and care in antiquated hospitals. It leaves entire nations impoverished.

However, spraying small amounts of DDT on the walls and eaves of cinderblock and mud-and-thatch homes, once or twice a year puts a long-lasting mosquito net over entire households. It keeps 80-90% of mosquitoes from even entering the homes; irritates any that do enter, so they leave without biting; and kills any that land. No other chemical, at any price, can do all this.

In response to these facts, anti-DDT pressure groups rail about risks that are trivial, illusory or fabricated. DDT is associated with low birth-weights, slow reflexes and weakened immune systems in babies, and could cause premature birth and lactation failure in nursing mothers, they claim.

Not one peer-reviewed scientific study supports any of this fear-mongering. Every one of these alleged problems is definitely associated with malaria and other endemic Third World diseases. And compared to the death and devastation that DDT could prevent, the alleged DDT risks are irrelevant.

However, constant deception and harassment by these groups have caused many health agencies and aid organizations to not use or fund DDT, and often other pesticides. Instead, they focus on bed nets, education, “capacity building,” and treatment with drugs that are too often unavailable, counterfeit, or ineffective because the malaria parasites have become resistant to them.

Still, the efforts have been somewhat successful. Millions of women and young children now sleep under insecticide-treated nets. Millions now get diagnosed more quickly and receive better care and medicines, often at clinics where two doctors examine up to 400 patients a day. In 2010, the World Health Organization and Roll Back Malaria boasted of an 18% reduction in child mortality, compared with 2000.

But that is not nearly good enough. We would never tolerate 18% as “good enough,” if American or European children’s lives (or Greenpeace and EDF kids’ lives) were at stake and a 90% reduction were possible – as it would be, if health workers were also eradicating mosquitoes and spraying DDT.

Instead, they protect Africans and Asians from minimal or illusory risks, by condemning them to agonizing deaths from readily preventable diseases. “They are using us in anti-DDT experiments,” say s Ugandan human rights activist Fiona Kobusingye. “They are playing with our lives.”

They are also playing with American lives. Spraying clothes with DDT once a year would keep infected ticks away and prevent Lyme disease that leaves tens of thousands battling chronic, debilitating pain and illness for years, Dr. Taylor explains. But the same anti-pesticide radicals are dead-set against that.

Dr. Taylor ends his film by drinking 3 grams of DDT … in 2008 – with no ill effects, then or today.

Watch 3 Billion and Counting. Then contact these Big Green pressure groups and their staffs and board members, and the foundations, politicians and bureaucrats who support them. Tell them it’s time to end their eco-manslaughter.

The post Radical Environmentalism’s Death Campaigns – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Why It’s Still Difficult To Ignore The Story Of Zimbabwe’s Economic Decline – OpEd

$
0
0

That things are bad for Zimbabwe financial and economic markets is no secret at all. In fact, it has become a tired narrative to keep writing about. It almost seems that there’s nothing new that could possibly be spoken about that people do not already know, nor heard about.

You can almost feel for the Zimbabwean business writer, economist or financial analyst, they have heard such a barrage of negative economic developments that it would not be an overstatement to say that their minds could potentially go into fits, if ever they had to analyze or report about a positive economic development in the Southern African country. While their counterparts in other Sub-Saharan Africa regions have over the last couple of years been either reporting or analyzing the rebasing of GDP growth statistics, increase in FDI flows, rise in IPOs and Eurobonds, sadly de-industrialization, deflation and indigenization developments have been the bread-and-butter of the typical Zimbabwean reporter or financial analyst.

However milked out the story of Zimbabwe’s economic morass may be, it is still very difficult to ignore. Wave after wave of signs showing how the country`s economy is tanking still hit you at every turn, no matter how hard you try to run away from them. What is scary is how perhaps due to willful ignorance or stubbornness, the Zimbabwean authorities seem oblivious to the harsh economic realities that the country once touted as the ‘jewel of Africa’ is encountering.

As a result, you have an executive that for all intents and purposes, appears like it couldn’t even be bothered in the slightest least, and would much rather concentrate on internal party politics, while the economy’s wheels fall off, well not just the wheels, but the axles and suspension too, quite frankly.

Such has been the disjointedness of the approach to tackling Zimbabwe`s economic problems that even President Robert Mugabe and his government do not seem to be singing from the same hymn book.

Consider the comments by President Robert Mugabe about the EU and the US as he spoke to a Japanese TV station following his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe whilst attending the United Nations 3rd World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction earlier this week.

“They want things done their own way. They’re the cause of many of our political troubles, and they want regime change in several African countries. They want me to go, them and not my people. We’ve got to build resistance against them; they use some people they buy amongst us who become disloyal. But we’ve got to be organized politically; and in terms of security.”

This is very ironic given that the same EU derided by Zimbabwe’s President recently availed $1,.28 million through a support program to fund Zimbabwe’s constitutional realignment exercise which had been hamstrung by a lack of financial resources.

And it also interesting to note that Harare is making monthly token payments of $150,000 towards clearing a $145 million debt with the IMF, as Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa is making efforts for Harare to normalize relations with several International Finance Institutions. With such support, or lack thereof from the top echelons of power, minister Chinamasa’s task is a highly unenviable one.

In just under 60 days into 2015, two locally owned banks collapsed on the back of failure to meet the regulatory capital requirements, liquidity and solvency issues as well as high non-performing loans. The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange’s daily turnover in 2014 plummeted to an average of $801,000, an amount which by comparison is the average daily turnover of certain counters on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE).

In fact such has been this free fall that early this week, daily turnover on the stock exchange fell to its lowest level in 6 years. For most of the year, out of a total of 59 active counters on the bourse, only 10 counters have been witnessing significant trading as liquidity challenges continue crippling the ZSE spurred by waning foreign investor participation.

Unsurprisingly, the ordinary folk on the street has borne the major brunt of this economic decline, as several studies show. A recent study by the Finmark Trust partnering with Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Finance and its central bank revealed that 76% of Zimbabweans earn $200 per month or less – including 7% who do not have an income at all. Not that bad one may think, but compare that figure with Zimbabwe’s poverty datum line for an average family of 6 which is $503, and it becomes clear how people are struggling to make ever diverging ends meet in Zimbabwe.

The same report further reveals that only 29% of Zimbabweans have access to piped running water and that last year alone, 44% of the country’s population had to skip a meal because of lack of money for food.

The inflation rate has remained in negative territory for quite some time since last year, with the recent year-on-year inflation for the month of February coming in at -1, 40%. Even Zimbabwe’s state media has conceded that the continued stay of the country’s inflation rate in negative territory is a sign that the country is now in wide-scale recession.

The country’s monetary authorities, however, still insist that Zimbabwe is not in deflation, as many worry, but rather a mere downward correction of prices.

Then there is the matter of the downward revision of the country’s growth forecasts from 3.2% to 2. 8% by the IMF as commodity prices continue weakening and agricultural output declines.

Additionally, with a drought looming in Zimbabwe following a poor rain season this year, clearly things are looking less than impressive for the country. Some have even suggested that the country is well on its way back to the 2008 economic crisis, given how things are unfolding. Just how bad things will get in Zimbabwe or whether the country will see a change in fortunes remains anybody’s guess.

The post Why It’s Still Difficult To Ignore The Story Of Zimbabwe’s Economic Decline – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

From Basic Income To Social Dividends: Sharing The Value Of Common Resources – Analysis

$
0
0

It’s time to broaden the debate on how to fund a universal basic income by including options for sharing resource rents, which is a model that can be applied internationally to reform unjust economic systems, reduce extreme poverty and protect the global commons.

By Rajesh Makwana*

Few debates highlight the many complex issues around how governments should share a nation’s wealth and resources as much as the current discourse on basic income. Also referred to as a citizen’s income, the policy generally refers to the unconditional and universal payment of a regular sum of money to a country’s residents, usually as a replacement for a range of existing state benefits such as pensions, child allowances, tax credits and unemployment payments. Unlike many other policies that challenge the status quo, the scheme commands substantial support across the political spectrum – from progressives who hope it can reduce inequality and improve social justice, to neoliberals seeking to further diminish the role of the state in delivering a full range of welfare services. The idea also has a long historical precedent, with Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills, Martin Luther King and Milton Friedman featuring among the numerous prominent figures who have supported the idea, in one form or another, since the late 1800s.[1]

More recently, financial and economic circumstances such as mounting unemployment rates, social and economic insecurity and unprecedented levels of inequality, have pushed the proposal back up the political agenda. A Swiss campaign for a citizen’s income gained enough support in 2013 to trigger a forthcoming referendum on instituting the policy, which could result in every citizen receiving the equivalent of $34,000 dollars every year. By January 2014, over 285,000 people had signed the European Citizens Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income, which sparked a much needed public debate on the pros and cons of the policy. With the UK’s Green Party also supporting the measure (despite concerns around how it could be funded) it’s clear that the conversation about how to implement and finance such a scheme is set to expand considerably in the years ahead.

At face value, the idea of receiving an unconditional lump sum of money from the state each week, month or year presents a fair and inclusive solution to the financial constraints many people face in a consumerist society – especially at a time when unemployment and inequality are on the rise. In addition, a basic income could give people the freedom to work fewer hours if they choose, while streamlining inefficient and complicated tax and benefits systems. In response to an escalating environmental crises that extends far beyond the popular discourse on global warming, the measure has also been proposed alongside other policies to pave the way towards a ‘steady state economy’ that is not predicated on endless growth.[2]

However, it is not at all clear whether a state administered citizen’s income would ultimately help or hinder the creation of truly sharing societies, in which ‘freedom from want’ can be achieved within a redistributive economic framework that reinforces the social ties that bind people and communities together. As discussed below, the policy could ultimately play into the hands of those whose idea of individual freedom includes minimising government programs and further deregulating markets, which would ultimately work against the ethic and practice of sharing. There are also important questions around how to fund a basic income that should be explored more fully, especially if the scheme is to be beneficial to citizens in developing countries or even implemented on an international scale to help end world poverty or protect the global commons.

Questioning the political context

A convincing case for an unconditional basic income has long been put forward on the basis of personal liberties and freedoms. As outlined in various international agreements, access to food, shelter, healthcare and a decent standard of living is a basic human right, together with economic security during retirement or when unable to work.[3] Since the state is the primary guarantor of these rights, it is reasonable to propose that an unconditional income is a viable route to securing these fundamental entitlements and achieving a degree of social security. In line with this perspective, Professor Guy Standing argues that basic security for all as an unconditional right is fundamental to securing personal freedom, especially at a time when a new ‘precariat’ class of disaffiliated migrants and temporary workers suffer from systemic insecurity across the globe – largely as a consequence of economic globalisation.[4]

This idea that a basic income can increase freedom by enabling people to work less and devote themselves to more creative pursuits or unpaid work in the ‘core economy’ has a common sense  appeal, particularly when job insecurity is on the rise and people are increasingly questioning how to balance their work-life commitments. In his book Sacred Economics, Charles Eisenstein sets out a convincing case for creating the conditions in which people can pursue work that doesn’t necessarily generate a return, as this will give us the freedom to act on the desire to give freely without financial incentives.[5] Philippe Van Parijs takes a similar perspective on basic income as a route to freedom, arguing that in order to be truly free, people need to have access to the means needed for “doing what they might want to do”.[6] These are convincing philosophical arguments that add further credence to the premise that a citizen’s income would promote equality and social integration, as everyone would receive an equal level of state benefits regardless of their personal circumstances.

However, there are several reasons why the issues of rights, freedom and equality need to be considered from a broader perspective, especially by those who are troubled by the encroachment of neoliberal ideology in policymaking. For example, the New Economics Foundation emphasise a key ideological difference between benefit systems based on social insurance and the provision of a guaranteed basic income for all. As they explain, a basic income is “an individualised measure, not a collective one, focusing resources on providing everyone with an income at all times rather than on pooled risk-sharing mechanisms which provide help for everyone when they need it. This may reduce people’s capacity to act together, by encouraging them to provide for themselves with their income rather than promoting social solidarity, collectively funded services, and shared solutions.”[7]

Given the huge costs associated with providing citizens with an unconditional state income, we should also be concerned that the scheme could compete for funding with other government funded services, such as healthcare, education, childcare support and social housing. Together, comprehensive welfare services such as these ensure that certain basic needs can be universally met without having to rely on commercial alternatives. Rather than implementing new basic income schemes, the aim should perhaps be to scale up social protection along the lines of a proposal by Barbara Bergmann, who recommends that a universal basic income is only considered after a well-funded ‘Swedish-style’ welfare state has first been established. This would include, for example, far more generous allowances for children, pensioners, the unemployed, and those with a disability, or even more generous work leave policies and free university education.[8]

Under the current trajectory of public policy in which welfare services are being subjected to increasing waves of neoliberal reforms, there is clearly a risk that existing mechanisms of redistribution and social solidarity could be severely undermined if replaced by a basic income. Introducing the scheme during a period when welfare services are being dismantled by economic austerity could mean that individuals would be left to pay for essential services at market rates instead, which could of course fluctuate substantially over time and weaken the monetary value of the basic income. Although this approach might appeal to those who favour freedom and personal choice, the individualistic nature of a citizen’s income is also the reason why many free marketeers favour the measure as an alternative to state funded social services. For these reasons, it is prudent to be wary of any attempt to implement the scheme within a political context characterised by laissez-faire capitalism.

The coming era of leisure

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes famously posited that standards of living would be between four and eight times higher in a hundred years’ time, and that people would need to work a mere 15 hours a weeks.[9] Although Keynes’ era of leisure is still a pipedream for most people despite the tremendous improvements in living standards he rightly predicted, there is evidence to suggest that formal working hours will have to be dramatically reduced in the years ahead. The reductions in wages that would follow such a dramatic shift in employment patterns provides a pragmatic case for the state to provide a supplementary unearned income to all citizens. There can be little doubt that patterns of work are already going through a dramatic transformation: robotic automation, digitalisation, the internet and other technological developments are responsible for significantly reducing the availability of jobs. Much of what is produced is now shared for free – including software, journalism, film, information and music. Although corporate profits are at an all-time high, demand for labour is falling and wages as a share of GDP have been in decline for the past three decades in the UK and the US. People are also living longer and retiring later, while part-time or temporary work, insecure casual contracts, and self-employment are increasingly the norm for those who find themselves precariously underemployed.

As people in developed countries adjust to an economic reality in which there is much less available work, reducing the length of the formal working week might be unavoidable. Since it is unlikely that wages would increase proportionately as we work less, an additional form of income could be necessary in order to prevent millions more people falling below the poverty line. A citizen’s income would also acknowledge and help sustain the indispensable unpaid work that currently takes place in the core economy, including raising children and caring for the elderly, maintaining community relationships and support networks, as well as the various voluntary services provided by individuals and civil society organisations. Paying a basic income to facilitate a shift towards fewer formal working hours or to support the core economy would strengthen interpersonal sharing and reciprocity within communities, and it could mean that people would no longer be forced to do menial or difficult jobs that they would otherwise undertake reluctantly for fear of survival.

Of all the arguments for a universal income scheme, this one is perhaps the most convincing – especially since there is evidence to suggest that working less and sharing available work more equitably across society would have a range of additional benefits, such as reducing levels of consumption and markedly improving quality of life.[10] However, the overall impact that the policy could have on the labour market is far from clear cut. For example, there is the claim that a citizen’s income could be a disincentive for workers, which might be especially problematic in relation to necessary but menial tasks that workers would avoid if they had an alternative source of income.

Putting aside these disputed concerns, the main impact of a citizen’s income on jobs would be to deregulate employment laws. In other words, employers would have little obligation to pay a living wage if governments are already supplementing incomes, and workers would be more prepared to leave their jobs as unemployment would no longer be such a concern for them. Francine Mestrum convincingly argues that the policy would effectively shift labour costs that are currently borne by companies to society as a whole. A basic income could therefore become a subsidy to employers who would no longer feel obliged to pay decent wages or provide adequate benefits to their employees.[11] As such, it is possible that a citizen’s income could be particularly problematic in developing countries that are working towards enhancing working conditions and employment rights.

Streamlining the benefits system

The most practical reason for introducing a citizen’s income is to overhaul and simplify complex means tested benefit systems that are failing their targeted claimants. According to a number of basic income proposals, a new agency could not only provide a standardised benefit but also coordinate a simplified income tax system in order to help recoup costs associated with the scheme. In the UK, for example, a single weekly payment could replace child allowances and the state pension, while eliminating the need for various tax allowances, credits and reliefs. The aim would be to integrate the tax and benefits system and treat everybody in the same way rather than have different rules for claimants and tax payers.[12]

Apart from the obvious financial savings that streamlining the benefit systems would generate, a single universal payment to all citizens would address a range of issues that currently plague welfare services across the world. These include abolishing complex administrative procedures associated with testing the eligibility of claimants, as well as preventing the ‘benefit trap’. Means testing is also widely regarded as a demeaning and socially divisive process that can leave claimants feeling stigmatised or branded as scroungers or even cheats. Many people aren’t even aware of their entitlement to benefits, or they can be confused by the eligibility rules and put off by the possibility of receiving increasingly harsh ‘benefit sanctions’. With almost a third of people not claiming the state payments they are entitled to in the UK alone (amounting to around £10 billion of unclaimed aid a year), it is fair to conclude that means testing is simply not providing the economic security it was designed to deliver.[13]

Despite these unequivocal arguments for redesigning and simplifying state benefits, the big hurdle for implementing a citizen’s income is the problem of cost as the scheme appears unaffordable when translated into concrete figures. The income would need to be high enough to ensure that those who are no longer able to claim most other state benefits could survive above the national poverty line, and this same amount of money would need to be provided to every citizen regardless of their financial circumstances. Even though this would be a huge financial commitment for cash-strapped governments, the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust have detailed how a basic income scheme can be designed to be ‘revenue and cost neutral’, even though they recently conceded that an unacceptable proportion of poor households would lose out under their proposal.[14] Research suggests that even a revised scheme that reduces any negative impacts would not be sufficient by itself to keep households above the relative income poverty line.[15] Although such a scheme might be more politically palatable, it would also defeat the objective of simplifying the benefits system as a number of means tested allowances would still be necessary.

The great tax shift

Unless alternative means are found to fund a basic income, a truly comprehensive scheme for sharing a nation’s financial resources is likely to remain unaffordable, while a less costly version may not provide a worthwhile alternative to existing benefits. But if funding is the primary issue, why not link the policy to wider reforms for how governments raise public revenue? Campaigners in countries across the world have long advocated for numerous ways in which states could raise huge quantities of additional income for urgent social and environmental purposes, such as implementing higher taxes on extreme wealth and very high incomes, closing tax havens, ending corporate tax avoidance or implementing a financial transaction tax. Alternatively, governments could divert a percentage of their colossal military budgets, or withdraw a proportion of the vast subsidies currently paid to agribusiness and the fossil fuel industry.[16] Similarly, new levies on environmental ‘bads’, such as pollution or waste disposal, could help raise revenues while providing a disincentive to ecologically destructive activities.

While countless civil society campaigns continue to focus on these and other redistributive proposals, a number of even more radical approaches to reforming the way governments raise public revenue are also being more widely discussed by progressives. For example, may proponents of systemic tax reform argue that levies on earnings, employment and profits disproportionately impact those already on low incomes, while encouraging environmentally damaging activities, and penalising the contributions that people and companies make to society. Land value taxation is widely regarded as a logical and fairer alternative to existing methods of raising revenue and, like basic income, it has considerable support among both progressives and conservatives. In accordance with the need to dramatically reform both fiscal and benefit systems, James Robertson has proposed a new social compact in which land value taxation would play a central role in funding a citizen’s income.[17] Robertson’s proposal illustrates the possibility of funding a more comprehensive basic income scheme that would also enable governments to take decisive steps towards creating a more just and sustainable economy. Nonetheless, the political will to pursue these widely supported measures remains conspicuously absent, which points to the need for a more visible public debate about the various means governments can employ to pool and share a nation’s financial resources.

Social dividends from shared resources

In light of the inherent difficulties connected to reforming established tax and benefit systems, it is also worth considering alternative options for establishing a citizen’s income that could have much wider implications for creating a sharing society. Although this approach is rarely part of the popular discourse on implementing a basic income scheme, there are a growing number of proposals for instituting a ‘social dividend’ that is based firmly on the principle of sharing as it recognises that all citizens have a right to income from ‘natural property’, such as land and other resources that are either inherited or co-created by society. The idea can be traced back to the work of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, who stated that “the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race”.[18] The notion that the earth is our common inheritance was also central to the ideas of the social theorist Henry George in the 19th century, and still maintains strong support among Georgists as well as commons theorists.[19]

As explained by Peter Barnes in his book ‘With Liberty and Dividends for All’, the majority of the wealth that is inherited or created together by society is captured and extracted by the rich rather than distributed fairly among citizens. Meanwhile, the damaging social and environmental costs of this process are largely borne by the public or the biosphere. The simple idea at the heart of most proposals for a social dividend is therefore to charge user fees on shared resources, which can then be distributed to all citizens as a basic right. Although an agency would initially be set up by governments to administer the program, it would operate independently of the private and public sector as a ‘commons trust’ that could conceivably manage a range of shared resources – from land, fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon storage, to the electromagnetic spectrum and intellectual property. According to a calculation by Barnes based only on a specific selection of shared assets, the programme could provide every American citizen with as much as $5,000 a year.[20]

Given the various problems associated with existing basic income schemes, not least of which is funding, issuing social dividends from user fees on shared resources could be a sensible alternative to the tax-funded benefit programs considered above. The social dividend approach would address a number of the concerns that drive proponents of a citizen’s income, such as providing a non-labour supplement to falling wages and incomes, or reducing social and economic exclusion. Moreover, sharing the value of co-owned resources in this way would not necessarily interfere with existing systems of welfare and social protection, which could still be reformed independently to address some of the failings highlighted previously.

Barnes also reminds us that while the idea of reforming tax systems remains problematic and contentious, distributing income from user fees appeals to both liberals and conservatives. The programme could be set up as a self-financing commons trust that operates outside of the public and private sector, and managing the fund would neither inflate nor deflate the size of government. Like taxes, user fees on ecologically damaging activities would also provide a disincentive to both producers and consumers, effectively internalising environmental costs into the price of products. Additionally, a social dividend would be an effective way to integrate the principle of sharing into the way nations govern the use of co-owned assets, as it gives form to the notion that natural resources should be managed in the interests of all people and future generations – which is clearly a prerequisite to creating a more equal and sustainable world in the 21st century.

From national to global dividends

Sharing the value of co-owned resources is not just a theoretical premise; the practice has long existed in Alaska where 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, bonuses and other payments received by the state are placed into a permanent fund that is currently worth over $53 billion.[21] The fund was initially set up by the government of Alaska in 1976 and is now managed on behalf of its citizens who receive an annual dividend from the income it generates, which amounted to $1,884 in 2014. Unsurprisingly, the fund is popular with residents and acts as a crucial economic stimulus, while being transparent and cost effective to manage. Moreover, in stark contrast to when the fund was first established, Alaska now has one of the lowest rates of inequality and relatively low levels of poverty compared to other US states. For these reasons, the Alaska Permanent Fund provides a unique example of the benefits of sharing resource dividends directly with citizens, and is regularly referred to by campaigners working on a wide range of progressive causes.

The Alaskan model also has important applications for low income countries, particularly those that struggle to reduce extreme poverty or are afflicted by the ‘resource curse’ – the paradox of countries being rich in mineral wealth but unable to achieve sustained economic development. For example, the economist Paul Segal argues that governments in developing countries should distribute rents due on their natural resources directly to all citizens as an unconditional cash transfer.[22] Such a program would provide incentives for people to register with the fiscal system, strengthen state capacity, help ameliorate the institutional causes of the resource curse, and reduce corruption. Sharing the value of resources in this way would be entirely in accordance with universally adopted human rights covenants which state that “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”.[23] Most importantly, Segal highlights the considerable impact that a social dividend derived from resource rents could have on extreme levels of human deprivation. According to his calculations, this measure alone could halve global poverty if implemented internationally by all developing countries, and he concludes that the scheme “would be easier to implement than most existing social policies”.[24]

This same model could also be applied to fund basic income schemes in developed countries that have sizable reserves of oil, gas and other industrial minerals, such as the US. As Segal notes, prior to the systematic privatisations that characterised the 1980s, just such a proposal for ‘A People’s Stake in North Sea Oil’ was floated in the UK by Samuel Brittan and Barry Riley. More recently, economists have proposed similar models for a basic income funded by resource revenues for Nigeria, Iraq and Bolivia. According to a study by World Bank economists, a universal basic income in the form of a ‘direct dividend payment’ derived from just 10 percent of national oil revenues would be sufficient to close the poverty gap in Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, and could half the poverty gap in larger countries such as Mozambique and Nigeria. The report’s authors explain how it would also be possible for a proportion of these revenues to be used by governments to fund public goods, which could further help reduce poverty and enhance social welfare.[25]

The discourse on how to fairly distribute the value of a nation’s co-owned resources is critical, especially in relation to creating effective sharing societies without poverty or extreme inequality. But the process of deriving social dividends from shared resources need not be confined to the nation state, and could even be used to fulfil the entitlement of every human being to a fair share of the global commons. For example, Alanna Hartzok outlines how a Global Resource Agency could feasibly collect resource rents from the exploitation of shared resources such as ocean fisheries, the sea bed, the electromagnetic spectrum, and even outer space.[26] The resulting fund could be further bolstered through levies on activities that damage the commons, including carbon emissions and other forms of pollution to the oceans and atmosphere. In a globalised economy characterised by a vast array of economic processes that fall outside the jurisdiction of national territories, such a mechanism could clearly be an indispensable source of finance for underfunded global governance bodies such as the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. The finances raised could also support the provision of global public goods or help meet other international priorities such as providing disaster relief, ending hunger or mitigating climate change. Furthermore, this international model of economic sharing could also distribute a proportion of the revenues generated as a global citizen’s income based on an equal share of the value of global resources.

Another international route to raising the resources needed to eradicate extreme poverty is suggested by Professor Thomas Pogge, who proposes that each nation redistributes a small proportion (1% during the initial phase) of the value of natural resources that are used or sold within its borders in order to finance a Global Resource Dividend.[27] Pogge’s proposal does not constitute a universal citizen’s income, as it selectively targets the cash transfer to provide those living in extreme poverty with up to $250 a year. Nonetheless, it is feasible to adapt his model to provide an unconditional global payment to citizens in all countries, although the dividends would be considerably smaller as the initial fund would be shared among more people. Alternatively, a greater proportion of the value of used resources could be redistributed by nations in order to fund a  global citizen’s income scheme with a larger dividend. Yet even if the dividend generated was as low as $100 per person every year, it would still have a transformative impact on those who live below the global poverty line of $1.25 a day. Since citizens in rich countries are responsible for the vast majority of resource consumption and pollution, dividends raised through user fees on the global commons would also amount to a sizable redistribution of wealth in favour of citizens in the Global South.[28]

Expanding the public debate on basic income

If the ultimate intention of a citizen’s income is to secure the basic right of all people to live in dignity and fully develop their capabilities, it is clearly in relation to the very poorest in society (and across the world as a whole) that any form of basic income would be most beneficial. In this respect, the evidence suggests that a citizen’s income based on resource dividends presents an important systemic solution to poverty that has the potential to counterbalance the injustice of a global economic model in which wealth predominantly flows to the richest 1% of the world’s population. The policy also has significant ecological implications in relation to the emerging ‘degrowth’ debate on the impossibility of pursuing endless economic growth without irreversibly harming the environment.[29] In line with this perspective on the limits to growth, resource dividends for all could facilitate the necessary shift away from unsustainable patterns of production and consumerism, and stimulate a much needed public debate on the nature and purpose of work.

There are clearly many convincing arguments for how a citizen’s income based on resource rents could play a pivotal role in establishing a truly sharing society in which the fulfilment of people’s basic rights are not limited to their capacity to earn wages. However, it should also be apparent that any form of basic income or social dividend is not a panacea and should only be implemented as part of a comprehensive program of progressive reforms. As Share The World’s Resources emphasises, the objective of public policy should be to establish systemic forms of sharing that decentralise and devolve political power and embody the fundamental right of all people to a fair share of all the wealth and resources that are created by nature or society as a whole.[30] At the very least, this means implementing both national and global forms of redistribution and economic sharing that can prevent social exclusion and address the structural causes of inequality and environmental crises.

Although there is growing support for social dividends funded by user fees, any call for reforming the way collective resources are managed is unlikely to gain political traction at a time when the institutions of central government increasingly embody market principles, and proposals for radically restructuring economic systems are still generally outside of mainstream political debates. Furthermore, it is difficult to overstate the power and influence that fossil fuel corporations could wield over policymakers who are considering setting aside a proportion of co-owned wealth for the benefit of citizens, especially in resource rich countries where user fees would have a negative impact on corporate profits.[31] Clearly, if resource dividend schemes are to be implemented more extensively, it would be necessary to challenge the neoliberal consensus that currently dominates public policy at the governmental level as well as in global institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

But despite the expected resistance from those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it is reasonable to assume that policies seeking to share the value of common pool resources would be extremely popular with voters, especially if they were more closely linked to existing calls for a citizen’s income. If the proposition also had more support from within civil society and among progressive parties, there is every chance that such policies could rapidly move up the political agenda. As the media continues to highlight basic income schemes with increasing frequency, there has never been a better time to broaden the public debate to include alternative ways to fund the proposal – particularly if this draws attention to systemic methods of supplementing personal incomes through policies based on redistributive justice and the principle of sharing.

About the author:
Rajesh Makwana is STWR’s director and he can be contacted at rajesh [at] sharing.org – See more at: http://www.sharing.org/users/rajesh-makwana#sthash.9JD8ctdt.dpuf

Source:
This article was published at Share The World’s Resources (Sharing.org)

[1] For an historical perspective on an unconditional basic income, see <www.basicincome.org/basic-income/history>

[2] See for example, Clive Lord, Citizens’ Income and Green Economics, The Green Economics Institute, 2011.

[3] For example, see Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

[4] Guy Standing, The Precariat: A New Dangerous Class, Bloomsbury, 2014.

[5] Charles Eisenstein, Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, Evolver Editions, 2011, see Chapter 14.

[6] Philippe Van Parijs, Real Freedom For All, Clarendon Press, 1995.

[7] New Economics Foundation, People, planet, power: towards a new social settlement, February 2015.

[8] Bruce Ackerman, Anne Alstott and Philippe Van Parij, Redesigning Distribution: basic income and stakeholder grants as alternative cornerstones for a more egalitarian capitalism, 2003, see Chapter 7 by Barbara Bergmann.

[9] John Maynard Keynes, Essays in Persuasion, 1930. See Part V, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren.

[10] New Economics Foundation, 21 hours, February 2010.

[12] Citizen’s Income Trust, Citizen’s Income: A brief introduction, 2013.

[13] Dan Finn and Jo Goodship, Take-up of benefits and poverty: an evidence and policy review, Inclusion / Joseph Rowntree Foundation, July 2014.

[14] In 2013, the UK’s Citizen’s Income Trust (ibid.) estimated in the total cost for a basic income at £276 billion per annum, which it suggests is the same as the cost of benefits, tax reliefs and allowances in 2012-2013. According to their illustration, most adults would receive £71 per week, while younger people would be due less and pensioners would receive twice as much.

[15] Malcolm Torry, Research note: a feasible way to implement a Citizen’s Income, Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), September 2014.

[16] For an example of how governments could raise funding for progressive causes, see Share The World’s Resources, Financing the global sharing economy, October 2012.

[17] James Robertson, Beyond The Dependency Culture: People, Power And Responsibility, Adamantine Press, 1998.

[18] Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1795.

[19] See for example the Henry George Institute <www.henrygeorge.org>; The Institute for Economic Democracy  <www.ied.info>; and the collection of essays in The Wealth of the Commons, edited by David Bollier and Silke Helfrich, Levellers Press, 2013 <www.wealthofthecommons.org>.

[20] Peter Barnes, With Liberty and Dividends for All, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2014.

[21] For more information about the Alaska Permanent Fund and its history, visit <www.apfc.org>

[22] Paul Segal, Resource Rents, Redistribution, and Halving Global Poverty: The Resource Dividend, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, June 2009.

[23] See the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1.

[24] Paul Segal, op cit.

[25] Shantayanan Devarajan, Marcelo Giugale et al., The Case for Direct Transfers of Resource Revenues in Africa, Centre for Global Development working paper 333, July 2013.

[26] Alanna Hartzog, The Earth Belongs to Everyone, The Institute for Economic Democracy, 2008. See chapter 9 p. 127, chapter 14 p. 172, and chapter 30 p. 334.

[27] Thomas Pogge, Eradicating Systemic Poverty: brief for a global resources dividend, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2001.

[28] For more information on a global citizen’s income, see James Robertson, Sharing the Value of Common Resources: Citizen’s Income in a Wider Context, 2009.

[29] Giorgos Kallis, The Degrowth Alternative, Great Transition Initiative, February 2015.

[30] Share The World’s Resources, A primer on global economic sharing, June 2014.

[31] Transnational Institute, State of Power 2014: Exposing the Davos Class, January 2014.

The post From Basic Income To Social Dividends: Sharing The Value Of Common Resources – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Massive Amounts Of Fresh Water, Glacial Melt Pouring Into Gulf Of Alaska

$
0
0

Incessant mountain rain, snow and melting glaciers in a comparatively small region of land that hugs the southern Alaska coast and empties fresh water into the Gulf of Alaska would create the sixth largest coastal river in the world if it emerged as a single stream, a recent study shows.

Since it’s broken into literally thousands of small drainages pouring off mountains that rise quickly from sea level over a short distance, the totality of this runoff has received less attention, scientists say. But research that’s more precise than ever before is making clear the magnitude and importance of the runoff, which can affect everything from marine life to global sea level.

The collective fresh water discharge of this region is more than four times greater than the mighty Yukon River of Alaska and Canada, and half again as much as the Mississippi River, which drains all or part of 31 states and a land mass more than six times as large.

“Freshwater runoff of this magnitude can influence marine biology, nearshore oceanographic studies of temperature and salinity, ocean currents, sea level and other issues,” said David Hill, lead author of the research and an associate professor in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University.

“This is an area of considerable interest, with its many retreating glaciers,” Hill added, “and with this data as a baseline we’ll now be able to better monitor how it changes in the future.”

The findings were reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, by Hill and Anthony Arendt at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. It was supported by the North Pacific Research Board.

This is one of the first studies to accurately document the amount of water being contributed by melting glaciers, which add about 57 cubic kilometers of water a year to the estimated 792 cubic kilometers produced by annual precipitation in this region. The combination of glacial melt and precipitation produce an amount of water that’s larger than many of the world’s great rivers, such as the Ganges, Nile, Volga, Niger, Columbia, Danube or Yellow River.

“By combining satellite technology with on-the-ground hydraulic measurements and modeling, we’re able to develop much more precise information over a wider area than ever before possible,” Hill said.

The data were acquired as an average of precipitation, glacial melting and runoff over a six-year period, from 2003 to 2009. Knocked down in many places by steep mountains, the extraordinary precipitation that sets the stage for this runoff averages about 6 feet per year for the entire area, Hill said, and more than 30 feet in some areas.

The study does not predict future trends in runoff, Hill said. Global warming is expected in the future, but precipitation predictions are more variable. Glacial melt is also a variable. A warmer climate would at first be expected to speed the retreat of existing glaciers, but the amount of water produced at some point may decrease as the glaciers dwindle or disappear.

Additional precision in this study was provided by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE satellites, which can make detailed measurements of gravity and, as one result, estimate the mass of glaciers they are flying over. As the glacial mass decreases over time, the amount of melted water that was produced can be calculated.

The close agreement of land-based measurements also help confirm the accuracy of those made from space, a point that will be important for better global understanding of water stored in a high-altitude environment.

Some of the processes at work are vividly illustrated at Glacier Bay National Park, where some of the most rapidly retreating glaciers in the world are visited each year by hundreds of thousands of tourists, many on cruise ships.

The post Massive Amounts Of Fresh Water, Glacial Melt Pouring Into Gulf Of Alaska appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jordanian Salafism And The Jihad In Syria – Analysis

$
0
0

By Kirk H. Sowell*

The conflict which erupted in Syria in 2011 began as an opening for Jordanian Salafists, but it has morphed into a challenging dilemma: caught between two competing Salafist-Jihadist movements in Syria and an increasingly tough crackdown at home, Jordanian Salafists wanting to support the jihad in Syria have been forced to weigh their words and actions carefully. In fact, due to geographical proximity and historical ties, Jordanian Salafists have made one of the largest manpower contributions to Syria’s sectarian war. Yet the Jordanian government’s increasingly tight rein on both the movement’s leaders and its rank-and-file has forced Salafists to trade rhetorical restraint for operational freedom. In turn, these rhetorical concessions threaten to alienate the Salafist youth from its leadership. Moreover, from the government’s point of view, the tacit entente by which Salafists are granted a margin of freedom in exchange for a guarantee of peace at home has always carried within it the danger of the pro-jihadist current growing.

Salafism is an Islamic movement whose contemporary form stems from Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi religious establishment. Like Saudi Arabia, Jordan developed a pro-government Salafism referred to as “traditionalist Salafism.” In response, there arose in the 1990s a “Salafi-Jihadist current” (the Saudi equivalent became al-Qaeda and emigrated from the Gulf). The godfather of this current is a Palestinian known as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who by the 1990s had emerged as a key intellectual architect of global jihadism. But even this radical wing split between Maqdisi and a faction led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who post-2003 transformed the faction into al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Maqdisi was Zarqawi’s mentor in the 1990s; the split within this wing continues, and was on global display during the drama over the captivity and filmed immolation of Jordanian airman Moaz al-Kassasbeh in early 2015.1

This study focuses on the impact of the “Arab Spring” – or “Salafi Spring” – and the subsequent rise of Salafi-Jihadism in Syria on Jordanian Salafi-Jihadism. The repression of Syria’s protest movement in 2011 gave birth to an armed insurgency which became ever more Islamist and Salafist over time. Simultaneously, Jordanian Salafists in 2011 focused their efforts at home on demands for Islamic law and the freeing of Salafist prisoners.

The rise of Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN) as the dominant jihadist wing of the Syrian rebellion in 2012 marked a second stage in the Syrian uprising; before long, Jordanian Salafists began making their way to Syria. During 2012 and 2013, Jordanian Salafist leaders became increasingly open in their support for “jihad” in Syria, even while holding to Maqdisi’s doctrine of “peaceful mission” at home in Jordan.

A third post-2010 stage began in April 2013 with the split between JAN and the organization that began calling itself Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The leader of ISIS, an Iraqi named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is the organizational and ideological successor to Zarqawi, renewing the conflict in Jordan between the Maqdisi and Zarqawi factions. Most senior members of the Salafist current sided with JAN, including Maqdisi and Abu Qatada, a Jordanian citizen close to the Salafi-Jihadist current’s other famous spiritual guide, Osama bin Laden. But a large segment of the rank-and-file sided with the Zarqawi wing, and after ISIS’ dramatic victories in eastern Syria and Iraq in 2013 and 2014, it appeared that Maqdisi and other “realists” of the current were faltering, a perception driven in part by an openly pro-ISIS demonstration in the city of Maan last April.

The past year has proven tumultuous for both Maqdisi and Abu Qatada: both increased their criticism of ISIS, were released from prison for a time, and were suspected of having betrayed jihadist Islam in order to escape the ire of the Jordanian authorities and jail. While the grisly murder of Kassasbeh has turned many Jordanians hard against ISIS, Maqdisi’s failed attempt to secure Kassasbeh’s release served only to raise more questions about his credibility. At the same time, the Kassasbeh incident may also raise questions over the Jordanian government’s judgment for giving free reign to the openly pro-al-Qaeda Maqdisi. Today, with traditionalist, pro-government Salafists marginalized and “Zarqawists” on the defensive, Maqdisi and like-minded Salafi-Jihadists may have an opportunity to rebuild.

Jordanian Salafism Prior To 2010

Salafism in Jordan has long mirrored trends in the region. Prior to the 1970s, Salafism was primarily associated with reformist efforts to draw upon Islam’s origins to address contemporary concerns in a practical way. However, with Wahhabi educational and religious propaganda flooding the region under Saudi Arabia’s King Faysal, Salafism increasingly took on the theologically militant but politically quietist bent of the Saudi kingdom’s own establishment.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan gave this Saudi brand of ruler-friendly Salafism wide scope as a way of checking the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing Salafists to gain a notable, albeit not mass, following in the 1980s. The founder of Jordanian Salafism was an Albanian scholar, Muhammad Nasr al-Din al-Albani, who first joined the “Damascus wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood close to the Salafists in Syria. In the early 1980s, after a period in Saudi Arabia, he moved to Jordan.2 Albani then recreated in his adopted homeland a Salafism based on the Saudi model: conservative, non-violent, and pro-government.

In the 1990s, even as Jordan welcomed apolitical Salafism, a new Salafi-Jihadist movement rose across the region. In Jordan, this trend was most prominently embodied by the West Banker and Jordanian citizen, Asim al-Barqawi, known as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi.3 Maqdisi’s family moved to Kuwait from the West Bank when he was young, but he spent time studying in Saudi Arabia with brief sojourns to Mosul, Sarajevo, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These travels exposed him to, and allowed him to connect with, other Islamists.

Maqdisi created the Salafi-Jihadist current in Jordan. His two most important books, both in circulation by the 1990s, made him an intellectual architect of al-Qaeda’s global jihad through his concepts of “loyalty and disassociation” and “not seeking the aid of the infidels.” These doctrines were pillars of al-Qaeda’s theological assaults on Arab governments, especially Saudi Arabia and its alliance with the United States.4 Maqdisi arrived in Jordan in 1992; like many Palestinians, his family was evicted from Kuwait in retaliation for Palestinian support of the Iraq invasion. Upon his arrival, Maqdisi encountered a militant scene that peppered Jordan with night club attacks and the like, but lacked ideological coherence and vision. He moved to fill the void, providing an ideological framework for those Islamists who favored Islamist law and jihad over elections and peaceful relations with non-Muslim powers.5

Over the ensuing decade a split emerged between Maqdisi and his most prominent pupil, a Jordanian from Zarqa named Ahmad al-Khalayaleh, known to the world as the infamous Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Maqdisi’s jihadism incorporated what he called silmiyat al-dawa, or “the peaceful mission”; if Salafists could not hope to defeat the state, as in Jordan, Maqdisi believed that they should focus on converting a critical mass of society first. Zarqawi, a much more confrontational personality, instead opted to take up arms immediately, leading to a split between the two while imprisoned in the late 1990s. After their release in 1999, Zarqawi took his faction to Afghanistan and Iraq, where he launched bloody attacks until his own death thanks to a U.S. airstrike in 2006.6

As the Zarqawi-driven bloodletting escalated in post-2003 Iraq, Maqdisi publicized his dissent in a letter from prison, al-munasira wa al-munasiha, “Aid and Counsel.”7 Maqdisi criticized Zarqawi’s jihad for its cost in Muslim lives (weighed against the likelihood of success), its targeting of civilians, and its use of suicide bombers. In July 2005, after his release from prison, Maqdisi escalated his criticisms in an interview with al-Jazeera. Maqdisi broadsided Zarqawi on a range of issues, rejecting his attacks on civilians, including Shia, and arguing that suicide bombers could only be used “exceptionally, in case of necessity,” and then only against military targets. Consistent with his “peaceful mission” in Jordan, Maqdisi supported jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine against foreign powers, but said in Muslim countries Salafists should focus on preaching rather than “blowing up cinemas.”8

Importantly, however, Maqdisi was still advocating war against countries with which Jordan was at peace, a crime defined in the Hashemite kingdom as “undermining relations with other states.”9 Moreover, his release was thought to have been conditioned on a general media ban, which his al-Jazeera interview had blatantly violated. As a result, authorities promptly arrested him again. On November 6, 2005, just as Maqdisi was settling into his prison cell, Zarqawi’s organization launched spectacular terrorist attacks against three hotels in Amman, killing 60 people. The attacks sparked popular outrage against the Salafi-Jihadists across the kingdom, and put them on the defensive.

As soon as he was released in March 2008, Maqdisi launched an effort to rehabilitate the current and guide it back toward the path he had envisioned in the 1990s, a project made easier by Zarqawi’s death. Maqdisi focused on three priorities: returning to the “peaceful mission” inside Jordan so as to build up a network; warning against “extremism” in takfir, or “excessive killing of Muslims by declaring them apostates”; and, shifting the focus of jihad to Palestine, which meant preparing for war against Israel. Despite Zarqawi’s death, however, Maqdisi faced a range of competitors and obstacles. Unlike in the 1990s, Maqdisi was suddenly confronted with the global jihadist polemics of the internet era, which allowed many Zarqawists to target him relentlessly. One online tract, mockingly entitled “Islamic Judgment on Ruling While Fleeing from the Field of Jihad,” sarcastically referenced Maqdisi abandoning the jihad in Afghanistan and later criticizing the jihad in Iraq from the safety of his Jordanian prison cell.10

Maqdisi is not in any real sense a “moderate Islamist.” He praised the 9/11 attacks and has not broken with al-Qaeda. He also remains an advocate of jihad. Indeed, his professed reason for leaving Afghanistan rather than staying to fight is illustrative. During a series of lectures after his release in 2008, Maqdisi spoke about an open disagreement he had once had with the revered Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden’s mentor. According to Maqdisi, when Azzam instructed young men to overlook “polytheistic practices” by locals in order to ensure the unity of jihad, Maqdisi defied him in front of the other students by arguing that he could not tolerate the “polytheism” of Afghan Muslims who venerate tombs, among other practices.11 By contrast, Zarqawi’s split with bin Laden appears to have been motivated by wanting to fight and lead his own group.

Maqdisi was arrested again on December 23, 2010 for recruiting individuals to join the Taliban.12 Given Maqdisi’s open advocacy of “jihad” in Afghanistan, his August 2011 conviction was predictable.13 The key implication of this event was that Maqdisi was sidelined and in prison just as the popular revolts of 2011 seized the Arab world. This allowed more junior members of the Salafi-Jihadist movement to come to the fore.

Indeed, multiple actors filled the void created on the Jordanian Salafist scene by the death of Zarqawi and the imprisonment of Maqdisi. Their actions are significant indicators of the shifts between the wings of the current Zarqawi and Maqdisi represent. The most well-known is the Palestinian Umar Mahmud bin Umar, or Abu Qatada al-Filistini. Abu Qatada represented Osama bin Laden in Europe, and was embroiled in a long extradition battle with Great Britain. He spent only a short period in Jordan in the 1990s, and did not return until 2014. Nonetheless, he and Maqdisi alone are habitually described in Arabic media as al-munathir al-salafi al-jihadi, or “the Salafi-Jihadist Guide.” Other key actors include Muhammad al-Shalbi, or Abu Sayyaf, and Saad al-Hunayti. Abu Sayyaf is the leading Salafist of Maan, a southern province which along with Zarqa is a Salafist stronghold; like Abu Qatada, Abu Sayyaf positioned himself within the pro-Jabhat al-Nusra Maqdisi wing and by 2012 had gone from being a local personality in Maan to the current’s key spokesman nationwide.14 Hunayti, on the other hand, hails from Irbid, north of Amman, and is the most prominent Jordanian to join Islamic State.

Jordan’s Limited Salafi Spring: 2011

In less than two months in late 2010 and early 2011, the Arab world’s political map changed decisively. In Tunisia, President Ben Ali was driven from power, followed by Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In both cases Salafists were marginal players; in Egypt, Salafists had been close to the government and initially did not even participate in the uprising. Once it became clear change was inevitable, however, Egyptian Salafists joined the “revolution” in an effort to Islamize it and institute Islamic law. As a power void developed, Tunisian and Egyptian Salafists focused their energies on checking secularists; meanwhile, in Jordan, the protest movement showed no likelihood of overthrowing the monarchy. Secular activists and rival Muslim Brothers sought only to “reform the regime” and return to the 1952 constitution, which was closer to a genuine constitutional monarchy than the 2011 status quo.15

So when Jordanian Salafists held their first protest on March 2, 2011 in Amman, they narrowed their focus on Islamic law and the release of 300-odd prisoners who they claimed had been mistreated in prison. Salafists took up the Tunisian and Egyptian slogan – isqat al-nitham, “overthrow the regime.”16 At that point Jordan’s Salafists were still focused inward, inspired by events in North Africa, but not yet engaged regionally. Another protest in Amman on March 20 similarly employed chants demanding the release of imprisoned Salafists, and “No Bail Except the Law of God,” while waving the flag of Islamic State (which Jordanian Salafi-Jihadists had taken as their own).17

With the jihadi wing activated, Salafi traditionalists could not stay silent for long. Ali al-Halabi, the leading student of Shaykh Albani, who had founded Jordanian Salafism, issued a video lecture on March 12 criticizing the protests as “far from the law of God” and driven by materialistic motives.18 By June, Halabi felt compelled to provide a more detailed statement in which he approved of protests in the case of apostasy (takfir) by the ruler or when in the interests of the Islamic nation, but he saw neither criteria met in Egypt, just chaos and suffering brought about by “party activists (hizbiin), takfirists (al-Qaeda-style Salafists) and Qutbists (Muslim Brothers).”19

The traditionalist Mashhur Hassan had already spoken out on February 5, even before the jihadist wing had activated, arguing that what was happening in Egypt was a “conspiracy” that “brings divisions among the people which is the worst form of fitna.” He added that while change was necessary, it should come through individual spiritual change, rather than the protesting ways of “communists, nationalists and party activists.”20 Mashhur was also the Jordanian representative to a group of clerics – dominated by Saudis – which in January had issued a statement declaring the protests un-Islamic.21

The Salafi-Jihadists moved on April 13, 2011, holding a press conference that launched a frontal attack on regime-loyal Salafists. According to Saad al-Hunayti, the traditionalists were “allied with the oppressive, dictatorial regimes and are in turn allied with the Jews and the Americans.” Hunayti added that “there is a deal between that current and the regimes,” and the fatwas opposing anti-Hashemite protests “are entirely contrary to the beliefs of Sunni authorities.” He added that “their doctrine is flawed to the point that even Saudi clerics have critiqued them.” Abd al-Qadir Shahada, a Salafi-Jihadist from Irbid who is called Abu Muhammad al-Tahawi, described the traditionalist wing as “those who represent one of the regimes’ organizations, like a tourism commission or other institution which governments create.”22

Shortly thereafter, on April 15, the first direct clashes between Salafi-Jihadists and the government broke out in Zarqa. Salafists blamed pro-government baltajiya (an Egyptian word for “thugs”) for attacking and provoking peaceful protesters, thereby giving the security services a pretext to intervene.23 The following day, the Jordanian government arrested three key Salafists –Tahawi, Hunayti, and Jirah al-Rahahala.24 Activists filmed the ensuing street melees, and issued a series of videos juxtaposing public comments from government officials with footage of riot police beating unarmed individuals in the streets.25 For Salafists, Zarqa remains a touchstone to this day.26

One notable Salafist preacher who participated in these events was Ayman al-Balawi. The imam of the Sanjaqiya Mosque in Amman, Balawi is known for being the brother of Humam al-Balawi, the Jordanian who conducted the infamous 2009 suicide bombing at the CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan that killed seven CIA officers and a member of the Hashemite royal family. Authorities arrested him shortly after the clashes.27 He was later released, and then rearrested in April 2013. According to his attorney, he was detained after questioning by the security services and after the Waqf Ministry – which had barred him from preaching – had allowed him to resume his activities.28

Wisam al-Amush, a former Guantanamo detainee and Jordanian Salafist, cleverly argued that it wasn’t in the interest of the Jordanian government for Salafists to go peacefully “because it benefits from what is referred to as the war on terrorism, thus viewing Salafist groups as like oil wells from which they can gain large sums of money from the West and America.” According to Amush, the clashes in Zarqa were precipitated precisely because the movement had turned to peaceful tactics.29 In June 2011, about 300 prisoners at three separate prisons began a hunger strike.30 Amush’s reasoning is an extension of Maqdisi’s “peaceful mission” doctrine, focusing on building the movement rather than wasting lives in a pointless fight with the state.

In September, the Salafists picked up efforts to find a way to work within the Hashemite state framework. From prison, Maqdisi called for the cessation of public sit-ins in order to improve the environment for talks with the government. Moreover, public reporting indicated that Maqdisi had “prohibited the formation of an armed wing or the conduct of operations on Jordanian territory.” Abu Sayyaf, who had been in prison for alleged terrorist organizing but was freed at the beginning of the month, quickly moved to narrow the gap with the Muslim Brotherhood. Brotherhood leader Humam Said visited him in Maan, and Abu Sayyaf conducted an interview with the Brotherhood’s newspaper, al-Sabeel.31

September was a busy month for the Salafists. Until this point they had merely been a current with no formal structure, but now they began openly discussing the possibility of forming a Shura Council. Abu Sayyaf announced that the council would have two offices, comprising an executive branch and a media center. He said it would focus on Islamic law and prisoner releases.32 Two weeks later, Abu Sayyaf denied any intention of forming a political party, arguing that such a move was un-Islamic. At the same time, however, he blurred the lines between Salafi-Jihadists and traditionalists by declining to declare takfir against Muslims with different views. He also said that he had visited Maqdisi in prison, and gained his blessing for these moves.33

Perhaps most interestingly, Syria is not mentioned in any of the source reporting on the Shura Council during this period. As of late 2011, Jordanian Salafists remained focused on their own affairs. They never received the general amnesty they sought, although some prisoners were released gradually on an individual basis. But while the prisoner issue never went away, events in Syria soon took precedence.

Jabhat al-Nusra and the Turn Toward Syria

The emergence of Jabhat al-Nusra in 2012 was a turning point for Jordanian Salafists. Individuals began emigrating to Syria to fight, but there was neither an open declaration of jihad nor a statement of support from the Salafi-Jihadi current’s leadership, as this could have meant arrest. However, over the course of 2012, press reports began to appear of Jordanians fighting and dying in Syria.

Illustrating the current’s two-fold strategy of jihad abroad and “peaceful mission” at home as expounded by Maqdisi, Abu Sayyaf publicly proclaimed in April 2012 that Salafists “will never give up on jihad against the Syrian regime,” while also emphasizing jihad against Israel, which he claimed was being stymied only by security forces. Inside Jordan, Abu Sayyaf continued, “the government and security services fear we will enter the movement for reform, and so they arrest our members.”34 That same month authorities arrested a prominent Salafist from Maan, Abdullah Qaba’a, and eight others as they sought to cross the border into Syria.35 Given Abu Sayyaf’s prominence in Maan, it is clear that the government would tolerate jihadi rhetoric – something that would change by 2014 – but arrest those acting on it.

In August 2012, Syrian television ran a program featuring “confessions” from young Jordanian Salafists claiming to have been sent to Syria. Despite its past public sympathies for the war effort, the current rejected any ties to the individuals.36 Interestingly, the program also cited Abu Sayyaf as having sent people for “jihad” to Syria, although it framed his statement as the current “announces sending terrorists to Syria.”37

Over time, Salafi-Jihadist rhetoric grew bolder. In early September 2012, before a crowd of 200 in Amman, Abu Sayyaf reportedly boasted that there would be more attacks in Syria, expressly confirming that Jordanians were going to Syria to join Jabhat al-Nusra.38 In public, Salafist leaders adopted a nuanced position, offering general statements of support for the war against the Syrian government – sometimes even described as “jihad” – while denying any and all operational involvement. By October, leaders acknowledged “more than 100” Jordanian Salafists had died in Syria, and the Jordanian al-Watan News noted that local activists were holding memorial services for the fallen in Irbid, Maan and Baq’a.39 In November, when the Salafist Imad al-Naturi of Irbid executed a suicide bombing in Dara, just north of the Jordanian border, Abu Muhammad al-Tahawi commented that Naturi had “obtained the honor of martyrdom.”40

Tahawi illustrates this shift in focus. As mentioned, Tahawi participated in the April 15, 2011 protest in Zarqa. That evening, speaking to al-Jazeera, he vehemently denied any armed intentions, arguing that photos showing Salafists with light weapons (knives, etc.) were fabricated.41 The next day, the government arrested him. Tahawi was later released, and with the rise of Jabhat al-Nusra he shifted the focus of his preaching to jihad in Syria. On February 24, 2012, he issued a video lecture with instructions for those going to Syria, drawing on examples from Afghanistan to identify the kinds of groups to avoid (e.g. mercenaries and secular actors).42

At that point, in early 2012, Jabhat al-Nusra was still low-profile, but as late as December 2012 Tahawi denied that the current was tied to JAN. That same month, however, he attended a “martyr’s funeral” for a Jordanian Jabhat al-Nusra suicide bomber, and praised the group: “To our heroes in Jabhat al-Nusra…[you] will first conquer the Levant, and then after that Tel Aviv.”43 The Jordanian authorities arrested him on January 17, 2013.44

By September 2012, the Jordanian role in Syria was also attracting more pan-Arab media attention. Al-Jazeera interviewed various Salafists on and off the record, concluding that while the number of Jordanians in Syria was not large, “they constitute special significance since most of them fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.” In other words, they were viewed as Zarqawists. The report quoted Abu Sayyaf as saying Jordanians were going to Syria “after a number of scholars issued fatwas saying that jihad in Syria had become an individual duty fard ayn upon every Muslim.”45 The use of the phrase fard ayn is significant, as it casts the jihad in Syria not as an offensive jihad requiring only the participation of some Muslims, but as a defensive one defending Islam and thus incumbent upon all.

Quoting the Jordanian Islamism expert Hassan Abu Haniya, the report identified not only Jabhat al-Nusra but also the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Fatah al-Islam, Jund al-Sham and the Faruq Battalions as destinations for Jordanian fighters. Notably, Abu Haniya was quoted making reference to the Maqdisi-Zarqawi split, implying that Maqdisi opposed jihad in Syria, although Maqdisi himself – then still languishing in prison – had not said this.46 Over the course of the next year it would become clear that Maqdisi did in fact support Jabhat al-Nusra.

The professional and ideological trajectory of Saad al-Hunayti is also quite important, as he would first join JAN and then move to Islamic State. Appearing on a talk show in October 2012, Hunayti mocked official statements about the threat of Salafists returning from Syria, but danced around the core issue of what the current’s actual position was on the jihad in Syria while strenuously denying any domestic armed activity and voicing general support for the Syrian uprising.47 Even as late as January 2014, Hunayti, speaking to al-Jazeera, was only somewhat more explicit, praising a recent statement by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for his “reconciling tone with the jihadists,” and the “healing of wounds” for the sake of “jihad in Syria.”48 Indeed, while still in Jordan, Hunayti remained taciturn.

Jordanians appear to have assumed an important role in Jabhat al-Nusra’s operations in the southern province of Dara, which sits between Damascus and the main crossing into Jordan. In fact, one June 2013 article cited different sources in claiming that 500 to 5,000 Jordanians were active in Syria. While this range is so large as to be virtually meaningless, there was agreement among the sources cited that the key Jordanians in the south are Mustapha Abd al-Latif, known as Abu Anas al-Sahaba, and Iyad al-Tubasi, known as Abu Jalibib. Abu Anas, like Maqdisi, resides in Rasifa, a Palestinian-dominated suburb of Zarqa (in fact, he is reportedly Maqdisi’s next-door neighbor), and is variously described as JAN’s commander in Dara, its emir in west Dara, or, by al-Hayat, as “the military commander in the southern area.”49 As for Abu Jalibib, he stems from Zarqa, and is allegedly the brother-in-law of the late Zarqawi. Jalibib was reportedly dispatched by Baghdadi to Dara in the early phases of Islamic State’s intervention in Syria, when it was still just Jabhat al-Nusra.

There is a great deal of confusion among Arabic sources as to which man is most senior, and it is not clear if this is due to inaccuracies or perhaps to evolving roles being reported out of sequence over time. However, one February 2014 paper by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identifies Jalibib as JAN’s commander for both Damascus and Dara, which some Arabic reporting during the 2012-2013 period seems to substantiate.50

As an indication of the confusion surrounding the matter, one ultimately discredited but widely circulating report in mid-December 2012 claimed that JAN leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani was in fact a second pseudonym for Tubasi/Jalibib. Moreover, the report speculated that he had been killed, forcing the Jordanian Salafist Shura Council to replace him with Abu Anas. Tahawi refuted the report, claiming that he was “startled” since such actions would constitute “interference” in JAN’s affairs.51

It appears that this speculation originated with United Press International, which quoted an unnamed Jordanian Salafist who claimed that a Jordanian “Mujahidin Shura Council” had appointed Abu Anas.52 Al-Jazeera repeated the claim, based on its own Amman-based reporting, but eventually issued a retraction.53 However, the wording of Tahawi’s denial and the apparent independent sourcing for the claim suggests that there may in fact have been a failed attempt by some Jordanians to take over Jabhat al-Nusra.

What makes Abu Anas’ role in JAN notable is his recent ties to the Jordanian Salafi-Jihadist movement; whereas Jalibib had reportedly been in Iraq during the entire 2006-2011 period, Abu Anas was active in Jordan. Having been arrested in Syria – like many jihadists, after the Syrian government began to perceive those it has been sponsoring in Iraq as a threat to its own survival – Abu Anas was transferred to Jordan, released, and then rearrested after the Zarqa clashes.54 In fact, Abu Anas was standing behind Hunayti during the key Salafi-Jihadist press conference in April 2011.55

Between Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra

In April 2013, Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani surprised the jihadist world by announcing Islamic State as “Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham” (ISIS). This also apparently surprised JAN leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, as he promptly declared JAN to be an independent organization and pledged baya (allegiance) to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While some media described the move as a “merger” between the two groups, Adnani made clear that ISIS had dispatched Jolani to Syria, and that the announcement simply served as confirmation of existing circumstances. Any remaining ambiguity disappeared in June when a letter from Zawahiri confirming Jolani in his authority was published. ISIS defied Zawahiri, and Zawahiri later disclaimed any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq.

This turn of events would have two key consequences for Jordan’s Salafi-Jihadist movement. One was to intensify government pressure on its leaders, since JAN now openly affiliated with al-Qaeda, thereby eliminating the “plausible deniability” of pro-JAN Salafists. While Salafist leaders were diplomatic in their public statements, the implications of their sympathy for Jabhat al-Nusra was now clear. But a second and perhaps even more profound consequence of the ISIS-JAN split was that it reopened the split between the Maqdisi and Zarqawi wings of the movement. While Zarqawists seem to have made up most of those going to Syria, the Maqdisi wing was supporting JAN as well. Immediately after the split they appear to have tried to avoid an open break, although this may have been in part due to the fact that in April 2013 Maqdisi was still in prison, Abu Qatada was in Britain, and others were carefully weighing their words. That soon changed.

Abu Qatada spoke out first. In July 2013, Britain extradited him to Jordan, and in October he appeared before the State Security Court. In court, Abu Qatada accused the judge of corruption; afterward, he praised Jolani: “It was an excellent interview [with al-Jazeera], and his speech was befitting his nickname, al-Fatih” (the Conqueror). When asked about the issue of ISIS’ declared caliphate, Abu Qatada was more measured than he would later become, but nonetheless expressed his displeasure: “This matter requires a lengthy explanation, but I call the leaders of IS [al-dawla, or “the state”] and Jabhat al-Nusra to unify, and comply by hearing and obedience in regard to what Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri has demanded.”56

In a missive the following month entitled, “Letter to the Jihadists of the Levant,” Abu Qatada was sharper in his criticism of ISIS. He argued that jihadists must “learn the lessons of the past,” a clear reference to Zarqawi, and reject “fatwas which call for fealty to this caliphate.” At this point, Abu Qatada did not yet attack Baghdadi by name.57 Before long, however, Abu Qatada was even criticizing ISIS on its imposition of the jizya, or Islamic tax for minorities, on Christians, arguing in April 2014 that a caliphate would have the obligation to protect Christians and their property in exchange for the jizya, and this ISIS could not do. On the same occasion Abu Qatada also condemned ISIS for killing Abu Khalid al-Suri, a prominent member of Islamic Front, a coalition of rebel groups that is Salafist but not jihadist.58

Abu Qatada launched his most lengthy missive against ISIS, “Cloak of the Caliph,” in July 2014. The 21-page letter blasted the group on a long list of issues, but made two core arguments as to its illegitimacy. First, Abu Qatada argued that Islamic precedence required disputed caliphates to submit to arbitration by qualified scholars, and that only they could voluntarily declare a caliphate. Baghdadi had expressly refused to take this step despite the urging of Syrian Salafists, including Jabhat al-Nusra. Second, Abu Qatada essentially belittled ISIS as ignorant, charging that in his conversations with key ISIS figures he had found them lacking on basic matters of Islam. Notably, he referenced Maqdisi multiple times, emphasizing that he had spoken with Maqdisi before setting pen to paper.59

However, with Maqdisi in prison since December 2010, and Abu Qatada joining him in Jordanian custody in July 2013, there were strong indications by November 2013 that Jordanian Salafists were losing control. Al-Hayat, quoting mostly anonymous local sources, reported on November 21 that “a majority of Jordanian Salafists who left for Syria to fight were fighting for Islamic State.” One major figure who openly rejected Abu Qatada’s critique was Omar Mahdi Al Zaydan of Irbid, who issued a letter saying that Abu Qatada had attacked Baghdadi unjustifiably, since “Abu Qatada is a prisoner shaykh, and a prisoner cannot issue fatwas because his personal legal status is compromised, and his fatwa can bring about ruin.” Zaydan continued his analysis: “We all know that Shaykh Jolani was a soldier of Commander of the Faithful [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Shaykh Abu Bakr is the commander, and Shaykh Jolani the commanded. The difference between the two is clear: Baghdadi’s emirate is great, and Jolani’s emirate was simply to wage war.”60

As reported by Al-Hayat, Maqdisi responded by reiterating that “Zawahiri is the leader, and how can a leader be demanded to give fealty (baya) to his soldier?” Commenting on Zaydan, Maqdisi wrote condescendingly, “he has become unbalanced beyond his capacity, to the point of distributing orders to the commander of jihad,” Zawahiri. Maqdisi continued:

I have heard that he has addressed the commander of the mujahidin, our brother, our dear Jihadist Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, may God preserve him, ordering him and demanding from him an oath of loyalty to one of his soldiers, sticking his nose into what does not concern him, speaking on something in which he lacks the jurisprudence or the knowledge to speak, leading simply to wailing laughter.61

The article went on to quote the University of Jordan’s Muhammad Abu Rumman, who assessed Maqdisi and Abu Qatada as representing the “realist” wing of the movement that enjoys the support of several prominent clerics, including Saad al-Hunayti, Munif Samara and Jarah al-Rahahala. However, as Abu Rumman pointed out, the “extremist Zarqawi wing” also had “major personalities,” who despite personal obscurity were able to recruit more fighters “because so many belong to the Zarqawi wing.”62

Within a week in November 2013, Maqdisi distributed a second letter through Abu Sayyaf in which he not only criticized Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIS, but also Bakr bin Abd al-Aziz, a Bahraini ISIS Salafist based in Aleppo known as Abu Humam al-Ithri. Maqdisi insulted Ithri: “I call Abu Humam al-Ithri and others who are calling for fealty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the general imam of Muslims, to deliberate further before publishing fatwas which purport to oblige the Islamic nation in great matters which require the study of a great scholar.” Maqdisi went on to declare it “important that Ithri and his brothers not be the cause of a division in the eyes of the world, for it is the intent of the Sharia to unify and not divide.”63

In light of Maqdisi’s condescending tone to Ithri, it is especially interesting that according to al-Hayat’s “Jordanian jihadist sources,” Ithri had become the “Islamic legal advisor” for Maqdisi’s “Tawhed” site, formally “Pulpit of Monotheism and Jihad.”64 In other words, Ithri had supposedly taken over Maqdisi’s place in the global jihadist publishing space.

A review of “Tawhed” suggests a substantial amount of writing from Ithri, but nothing since the time of Maqdisi’s reproof. In fact, the website announced a reorganization, “Reestablishing the Fatwa Forum,” on August 16, 2014. It noted that “in addition to the presence of Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi – may God preserve him – at the head of the fatwa forum, the council also includes” other “editors”: Abdullah al-Hassani, Sami al-Aridi, Abu al-Iz al-Najdi, al-Muatasimbillah al-Iraqi and Abu Abdullah al-Madani.65

The movement’s alignment with JAN reached a key juncture on February 4, 2014, when al-Ghad reported that the movement’s Shura Council had formally banned Jordanians from fighting with ISIS in Syria. One al-Ghad source emphasized that this came after four members had left for Syria the previous week with the express intention of joining Jabhat al-Nusra, effectively formalizing “an alignment toward Jabhat al-Nusra, due to the support of Maqdisi and Abu Qatada for them.”66

Yet the movement would not openly endorse JAN, as even facilitating travel to JAN is a criminal offense in Jordan. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Abu Sayyaf repeatedly emphasized that individuals traveling to Syria to fight were doing so of their own accord. In early April he downplayed the current’s role in the war, estimating that about 2,000 Jordanians had traveled to Syria to fight, of whom about ten percent were dead. Abu Sayyaf noted that increased security made it difficult for members to cross the border.67

Unfortunately for Abu Sayyaf, that same week news broke of Hunayti crossing to Syria via Turkey, ostensibly to bring about reconciliation between ISIS and JAN. Hunayti, who had been released from prison on bail in August 2013, said that he was giving baya to Baghdadi “in preparation for mediation,” framing it as a necessity. Remarkably, Hunayti had already rejected the movement’s Shura Council decision to boycott ISIS, even though he was a member of it.68

Then on June 20, 2014, Abu Sayyaf’s home province of Maan became the scene of the only openly pro-ISIS march in Jordan. Marching with ISIS flags, hundreds chanted for jihad.69 The demonstration came only three weeks after ISIS had published a video, “Message to Our People in Maan,” that featured ISIS rhetoric about jihad and the un-Islamic nature of the Jordanian regime and its security services.70 But the 16-minute production also featured two additional notable elements. The first was a veiled attack on Maqdisi that chastised “those who fled jihad” and oppose ISIS. The second was the explicit reference to an Iraqi woman – “our sister Sajida al-Rishawi, may God end her imprisonment” – who had participated in the 2005 Amman hotel bombings but survived when her bomb failed to detonate. This April 2014 reference was notable as Rishawi, who had not been in the Jordanian media since 2005, would reenter public consciousness in January 2015 during the Kassasbeh crisis.

The only reported incident of violence in Jordan between ISIS and JAN occurred around this time; notably, it involved the famous Maqdisi-aligned Imam Ayman al-Balawi, who was allegedly the victim of ISIS violence. As noted, Balawi was arrested in April 2011, released, then rearrested in April 2013. According to Erem News, in August 2014 authorities arrested three men for physically assaulting three Salafist preachers, including Balawi.71 Since the men were attacked separately and left alive, the likely goal was intimidation.72

The leadership’s clear preference for JAN, the events in Maan, and anecdotal observations from eyewitnesses suggest Jordanian Salafists were losing their grip on the rank-and-file. Al-Hayat concluded in July that two factors favoring ISIS were morale and geography: ISIS’s stunning victories in Iraq inspired young men to believe that they were joining the winning side, and increased security along the Jordanian border had the perverse effect of helping ISIS vis-a-vis JAN, since it forced Jordanians to travel to Syria via Turkey and ISIS controlled areas.73 On August 5, the independent Jordanian daily al-Ghad reached the same conclusion. A member of the Maqdisi wing, speaking off the record, expressed dismay that “Zarqawists” seemed to be winning the battle for hearts-and-minds among Jordanian Salafi-Jihadists, while “reformists” were losing ground. The same article quoted Abu Rumman, the Jordanian expert, as saying that while precise numbers were impossible to pin down, the Zarqawists seemed to be winning, a trend he attributed to ISIS’ more explicitly sectarian rhetoric as compared to Jabhat al-Nusra and other Syrian Salafists.74

In October 2014, ISIS announced the defection of Hunayti and Jaafar al-Shami from Jabhat al-Nusra, along with “40 fighters” in Aleppo.75 Hunayti himself had previewed this development on his Facebook page, posting that he was “now in the land of the Caliphate.” The same month, the aforementioned Zaydan made it across the border to become a judge for ISIS at its eastern Syrian base of Raqqa. At the time, Middle East Online noted that Zaydan had become known as one of the few leaders of the Jordanian Salafi-Jihadist current supporting ISIS.76 Media reports indicated that the imprisoned Tahawi, like Hunayti and Zaydan from Irbid, had also given baya to Baghdadi.77 Since this ensured Tahawi continued imprisonment, his swing to ISIS was mainly significant as it coincided with growing tension between his supporters in the Irbid Palestinian camp and Maqdisi’s, as reported by al-Arab al-Youm on August 18.78

The formal defection of the most prominent pro-ISIS leaders within the Jordanian movement only consolidated its remaining leadership’s alignment with Jabhat al-Nusra. Abu Sayyaf threw caution to the wind, and in April even invited some western journalists to attend the funeral celebration of a “martyr” who had died in the service of JAN.79 In July, Jolani had appointed the Jordanian Sami al-Aridi as the group’s chief jurist to take the place of Maysira al-Jiburi, an Iraqi known as Abu Mariya al-Qahtani. As noted, Aridi was listed as a member of the editorial board for Maqdisi’s website, a position he continued to hold.80

Whatever lure ISIS’s victories in Iraq and propaganda may hold, Maqdisi and Abu Qatada suffer from the growing perception that they have folded to government pressure. In December 2014, one Salafi-Jihadist community leader in Amman told me that this was especially the perception with Abu Qatada, and that because the current’s rank-and-file is so strongly anti-government, merely the perception of bending to the government has driven youth toward Baghdadi. The perception was hardly new; as far back as November 2013 a journalist for al-Quds al-Arabi wrote that Abu Qatada appeared to be getting better treatment than other inmates due to his stance on ISIS.81

In fact, Maqdisi was released from prison in June 2014 and Abu Qatada on September 24, 2014. The two, however, would react differently to the crisis involving the international coalition, with Maqdisi taking center stage.

Between Islamic State & Hashemite State

The flip-side of the Maqdisi wing’s increased struggle with ISIS was its increased support for Jabhat al-Nusra. This posed a legal problem, since JAN remained an al-Qaeda affiliate, a fact that was publicly announced in April 2013. Salafist leaders attempted to straddle this dilemma by disavowing any operational ties; even then, however, they only occasionally stayed out of prison.

Shortly after JAN’s al-Qaeda affiliation became public, Omar Assaf argued in Amman Net that the declaration encouraged the government to take a harder line domestically. He asked rhetorically, “Are the Jordanians of Jabhat al-Nusra the Seed Corn for Islamic State of Jordan?” Assaf argued that the government had not been credible in its previous efforts to stem the Salafists, but had instead viewed the Syrian war as a way to get rid of them. Assaf argued that Abu Sayyaf’s declaration that a Jordanian had succeeded Jolani “had perturbed the government more than anything.” JAN’s response, indicating that Abu Anas al-Sahaba (Jolani’s alleged successor) and Abu Jalibib were “field commanders” in the group, had a similar impact.82

In September 2013, Maqdisi issued a short letter from prison through his attorney, Musa Abdillat, that gave “counsel” to the Jordanian government. Maqdisi wrote that “these arrests and pro-forma prosecutions will have no impact on the Salafi current, and it is the obligation of the regime’s institutions to take responsibility for its actions.”83 That same month, the imprisoned Tahawi issued a letter condemning the Jordanian legal system. The one non-Jordanian topic which Tahawi indirectly referenced was Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi’s toppling of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that summer; addressing the Salafist Nur Party in Egypt, he urged them not to “trade God’s law for the law of the world,” and to recognize that what had happened in Egypt was in fact a coup targeting Muslims.84

Maqdisi completed his sentence for Taliban recruitment on June 16, 2014. His release from prison came at an opportune time given his ongoing struggle with ISIS. But Maqdisi also encountered a much tougher security situation from when he had last been free, as the Jordanian government had cracked down on foreign fighters. Throughout 2014, the press frequently reported on small groups of Jordanians being arrested and tried in the State Security Court for attempted travel to Syria.

Maqdisi’s release came just ahead of the international coalition’s war on ISIS over its repeated massacres of civilians in Iraq as well as its brutal execution of journalists and aid workers in Syria. But this posed a dilemma for Maqdisi, given his past record of unqualified support for any Muslim group fighting non-Muslim forces in the Arab world. Salafists held protests in Jordan against the coalition airstrikes in September and Abu Sayyaf criticized the attacks as “crusader” in the media, adding that “it would be better to direct these strikes at the Jews who target Gaza and its people.” This stance was not simply that of the Salafi-Jihadists; Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Guide Zaki Bani Arshad essentially took the same position, arguing that “this is not our war nor do we have any interest in being involved in it for the benefit of others.”85 Indeed, al-Quds al-Arabi reported on September 24 that Maqdisi had already told them that in case of “a crusader campaign,” he would stand with ISIS, despite disagreements with them.86

The government arrested Maqdisi again on October 27 during efforts to secure the release of the American hostage Peter Kassig from ISIS. As a result, the moved raised questions. A December 18 article in The Guardian described Maqdisi as playing a key role in the negotiations with ISIS. The article’s narrative gives the impression that Maqdisi was arrested in violation of a protocol agreement by which he would be able to contact ISIS members without being arrested for communicating with terrorists.87

The arrest seems especially odd given not only its timing but Maqdisi’s well-established opposition to ISIS. But an alternative explanation lurks, one as simple as Maqdisi violating the law. Under Jordanian law, it is a criminal offense to make statements which “harm the country’s relations with other states.”88 The authorities interpret this as including statements attacking other states. Bani Arshad, the Muslim Brotherhood leader, is currently facing prosecution for criticizing the United Arab Emirates for its ban on his organization in that country.

Given the laws’ ambiguous and broad wording and Maqdisi’s views, he could probably be arrested for any statement he makes on international affairs. For example, on September 9 Maqdisi purportedly posted a statement to an ISIS-sympathetic social media page which spread to jihadist forms.89 This could be judged as communicating with terrorists. Maqdisi was quoted on one pro-jihadist forum on September 24 as saying that the armed campaign against ISIS “must unite Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra” and that coalition partners were “apostate armies” participating in a “crusader war.” The forum also quoted a statement from Maqdisi’s own website – since taken down, if legitimate – that “today they bomb Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, and tomorrow they will bomb every faction which wants the face of God and victory for his religion and the implementation of his law.”90

On September 30, Maqdisi’s website published “An Initiative and Call for Truce Among the Factions in the Levant.” The statement referred to the war as a “crusader campaign.”91 Maqdisi was among the signatories, as was Abu Qatada. Why the former was arrested and the latter was not is unclear; Maqdisi’s alleged posting to pro-ISIS websites may have been the trigger, or it may have been Abu Qatada’s stronger stance on ISIS, as some suggest.92 Al-Rai al-Youm quoted Maqdisi explaining that it was “because of my call for jihadist reconciliation.” The same source reports that Maqdisi denied having made the posts to pro-ISIS websites, but then refused to make a formal declaration to that effect.93

Whether Maqdisi had made the post on the pro-ISIS site or not, his September 30 statement was enough to get him arrested. In fact, his opposition to airstrikes against ISIS, in which the Jordanian air force was participating, was strong enough to temporarily reconcile him with Tahawi; in early December, he and Tahawi – both in prison – issued a joint statement calling on Abu Qatada to cease his attacks on ISIS.94

Maqdisi was still in custody on December 24 when it was reported that the Jordanian fighter pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh had been taken captive by ISIS after crashing over Syria. The Kassasbeh case has been widely reported; ISIS burned him alive in early January, but then later tried to use its Japanese hostage, Kenji Goto, to ransom Sajida al-Rishawi, the aforementioned failed Iraqi suicide bomber from the 2005 Amman hotel attacks. After ISIS executed Goto, it published the immolation of Kassasbeh, causing outrage across Jordan and calls for revenge.

Maqdisi’s initially hidden role and dramatic appearance on Jordanian television on February 6 is the key matter here. It quickly became clear that Maqdisi had secretly been involved in talks for a substantial period, and had even written a letter to Baghdadi, not knowing Kassasbeh was already dead.95 The noted expert on Islamist affairs Joas Wagemakers suggests that Maqdisi himself was responsible for raising the fate of Rishawi as a key issue.96 It is hard to be sure; the June 2014 Maan video might be evidence of ISIS’ interest in her fate, or it could be that Maqdisi pushed that angle because of the video. Irrespective, ISIS immolated Kassasbeh without negotiating over Rishawa, perhaps indicating that such a sensitive prisoner exchange was undoable.

Maqdisi made the most of his 16 minutes on al-Roya, Jordan’s main independent channel, reprising his 2005 al-Jazeera performance attacking Zarqawi, but this time targeting Baghdadi.97 Maqdisi cited early Islamic precedent to show that the exchange of prisoners was proper, and cited ISIS’ deceit as evidence that they were not true jihadists. His main goal was to disassociate the current from ISIS, repeating several times that “the Salafi-Jihadist current” had no relation to the organization, a demonstrably false claim since much of it has supported ISIS. But given the nation’s fury, it was Maqdisi’s opportunity to take the high ground in defending Islamic civilization.

On February 10, Maqdisi’s forum published an article, “The Lying Organization Whose Lies Reach the Horizons.”98 (The phrase tanthim al-dawla, “organization of the state,” is often used in Arabic media for ISIS, and the words “lying” and “horizons” here rhyme in Arabic.) The article indicted ISIS for its deceit, blaming it for the death of Rishawi, whom the government executed shortly after it confirmed Kassasbeh’s death. ISIS responded with a video of its own; having surreptitiously recorded Maqdisi’s calls, they put together a satirical presentation in which the leader of “the so-called Salafi-Jihadist current in Jordan” starred as “an American agent.” The recordings feature Maqdisi saying apologetically, “I was wrong in accusing you of extremism.”99

Jordan’s Salafists After Kassasbeh

Maqdisi’s startling television appearance marks a possible new beginning for Jordan’s Salafi-Jihadists. Released from prison, Maqdisi is back to his 2008 starting point, trying to rebuild and remold the Salafi-Jihadist movement. Then as now, Maqdisi faces criticism from hardcore jihadists that he has sold out to the Hashemite dynasty. Most of all, his appearance on al-Roya was an amazing opportunity for a man who remains an unequivocal supporter of al-Qaeda. Indeed, in the days after Maqdisi’s appearance, officials made clear to the press that he would not be allowed to speak to the media, feigning to have been surprised by his public performance. In truth, while al-Roya is part of Jordan’s semi-independent media, there is no real possibility that they would have conducted such an interview without an official green light. The most likely explanation is that Jordanian officialdom made a mistake, and only afterward realized the dangers in allowing Maqdisi to assume the face of tolerance and moderation.

Jordan’s Salafist Spring was killed by the Jihad in Syria. Through 2011, the Maqdisi wing – represented by Abu Sayyaf – showed every intention of using the “Arab Spring” to build an organization peacefully within the kingdom in order to be well-placed for any regime change along Egyptian lines. But Maqdisi’s preference for “peaceful mission” over armed action always depended on circumstances where a martial approach was either likely to be fruitless due to the security environment, or in principle wrong due to targeting Muslims. The emergence of Jabhat al-Nusra changed that, and from 2012 onward Salafist leaders were increasingly direct in their support for the al-Qaeda affiliate.

While some commentators have described Salafists as on the rise in Jordan, their roughly 3,000-strong protest in March 2011 was a high point in mobilization; subsequent protests, especially after Zarqa, focused on freeing prisoners and drew hundreds, at best.100 Never a mass movement, Salafi-Jihadists were increasingly either fighting in Syria, dead in Syria, or imprisoned in Jordan, with the remainder infighting over the JAN-ISIS split.

Islamic State’s brutal killing of Kassasbeh has had a dramatically negative impact on its standing among the general Jordanian public. A poll by the University of Jordan’s Center for Strategic Studies, published on February 27, found that 95 percent of Jordanians now considered ISIS to be “terrorist,” whereas in the same poll the previous August only 62 percent thought so.

This does not mean that things will necessarily be easy for the “two Salafi-Jihadist guides.”101 Ibrahim al-Asas, a noted Salafist teacher in Amman, said that prior to Kassasbeh they had lost most of the youth to ISIS, and that despite some loss among Salafists emotionally impacted by their brutality, the hardcore was sticking with Islamic State. Asas, who refused to identify himself with a current of the movement but said he had long known Abu Qatada personally and spoke positively of him, said the youth were impacted by ISIS’ victories, its attractive video propaganda and the existence of an “Islamic State.” Regarding Abu Qatada, Asas said that they had studied Islamic law together as students and that he had “matured” during his time abroad, adding that it showed Abu Qatada’s superior knowledge of Islam that he was critiquing ISIS early on, whereas “superficial people had to see their crimes on video to realize they were misguided.” Regarding Maqdisi, Asas rejected the suggestion that he had been compromised by the state, saying that Maqdisi was too principled, and that the state had made a calculation to use him against ISIS.102

Traditionalist, pro-government Salafists on the Albani-Halabi line disappeared from the narrative after 2011 due to lack of evidence that they had any substantial influence on events. However, Osama Shahada, an Amman-based traditionalist Salafist, confided after the Kassasbeh crisis that violence from the takfiris – followers of Maqdisi and Zarqawi – would have been even greater had it not been for the traditionalists. Although he conceded that his line’s open following – “those wearing the dishdasha, the beard, and the rest” – is small, he argued in an recent interview that many more attend mosques controlled by traditional Salafists. There is no way to confirm whether or not he is right, but Shahada interestingly emphasized that Maqdisi seemed more concerned for “our sister Sajida,” the failed suicide bomber, than Kassasbeh himself.103

The Maqdisi Salafists’ challenge after their split with ISIS and the Kassasbeh crisis is to put the pieces back together in a forbidding security environment. The popular vilification of Baghdadi’s ISIS presents an opportunity to reunify the movement, and even threaten the Jordanian state. If past is prologue, the 2005 Amman hotel attacks suggest the story does not end here – outrage at those attacks was almost as great as over Kassasbeh, yet the movement survived to play a major role in recent years. Going back to the old deal of allowing Salafi-Jihadists on the margin in exchange for a guarantee of peaceful behavior could lay the seeds for future conflict. So expect the Hashemite state and the Maqdisi Salafists to engage in a wary face-off in the years to come.

About the author:
*Kirk H. Sowell, Principal, Uticensis Risk Services

Source:
Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, and published here at the Hudson Institute.

Notes:
1. For the most authoritative study of Maqdisi, see Joas Wagemakers, A Quietist Jihadi: The Ideology and Influence of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); for a broader historical review of Islamism in Jordan, spanning Salafism to the Muslim Brotherhood, see Muhammad Abu Rumman and Hassan Abu Haniya, The Islamic Solution in Jordan: Islamists and the State With Democracy and Security in the Balance (al-hal al-islami fi al-urdun: al-islamiun wa al-dawla, rihanat al-demuqratiya wa al-aman) (Amman: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012), PDF available; for background, see also International Crisis Group Report, “Jordan’s 9/11: Dealing with Jihadi Islamism,” available online. Note: The ICG report misrepresents Maqdisi’s early work in Jordan in the 1992-1996 period as having been focused on domestic violence.
2. Muhammad Abu Rumman and Hassan Abu Haniya, The Islamic Solution in Jordan: Islamists and the State With Democracy and Security in the Balance (al-hal al-islami fi al-urdun: al-islamiun wa al-dawla, rihanat al-demuqratiya wa al-aman) (Amman: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012) p. 230-242. The source is vague about precisely when Albani arrived in Jordan.
3. All Palestinians of West Bank origin automatically have Jordanian citizenship, whether they have ever set foot in Jordan or not. As a Salafi-Jihadist, Maqdisi is naturally indifferent to borders, and in his interviews and writings he acts as if the Jordanian government does not even exist, neither supporting it nor directly attacking it. It is clear, however, that he does not view the Jordanian government as legitimate. This rhetorical silence has had the advantage of helping him stay out of prison at least some of the time. Maqdisi’s birth name was Isam al-Otaybi, after his tribe, but he changed his first name to “Asim” and used “Barqawi” after his family’s hometown of Barqa. The appellation “Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi” is so widely used that most Jordanians would not recognize his real name, although he is well known.
4. Maqdisi’s two key early books were Millat Ibrahim (The Community of Abrahim) and Al-Kawashif al-jiliya fi kufr al-dawla al-saudiya (Clear Indications of the Unbelief of the Saudi State). For more information, see Joas Wagemakers, A Quietist Jihadi: The Ideology and Influence of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), chapters 1-3.
5. For more on Maqdisi’s role in Jordan, see Joas Wagemakers, A Quietist Jihadi: The Ideology and Influence of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), chapters 8-9.
6. Muhammad Abu Rumman and Hassan Abu Haniya, The Islamic Solution in Jordan: Islamists and the State With Democracy and Security in the Balance (al-hal al-islami fi al-urdun: al-islamiun wa al-dawla, rihanat al-demuqratiya wa al-aman) (Amman: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012) p. 296-308. Maqdisi’s 1996-1999 imprisonment related to an effort to organize attacks on Israel, referred to as the bayat al-imam case. He was freed, along with many others, in a general amnesty following King Abdullah II’s ascension to the throne. However, Maqdisi was arrested later that same year in connection with an alleged plot to attack a series of hotels – the “Millennium Plot.” He denied involvement and was ultimately cleared in court, but remained in prison through June 2005.
7. A copy of Maqdisi’s “Aid and Counsel” letter, which is given an Islamic date corresponding with July-August 2004.
8. Maqdisi’s interview is available at on YouTube and at Aljazeera.net.
9. See, for example, Jordan’s State Security Court in the Zaki Bani Arshad case.
10. Muhammad Abu Rumman and Hassan Abu Haniya, The Islamic Solution in Jordan: Islamists and the State With Democracy and Security in the Balance (al-hal al-islami fi al-urdun: al-islamiun wa al-dawla, rihanat al-demuqratiya wa al-aman) (Amman: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012) p. 311-320.
11. Maqdisi’s lecture series recounting experiences in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
12. “Jordan Again Arrests Maqdisi, Spiritual Leader of Zarqawi,” al-Arabiya, December 23, 2010. Available at www.alarabiya.net.
13. Maqdisi’s stretches of freedom in Jordan: 1992-1996, part of 1999, a short period in 2005, March 2008-December 2010, June-October 2014, and February 2015 onward.
14. “Jordan’s Abu Sayyaf: A Key Islamist Actor in Maan,” Jamestown Foundation, November 30, 2011.
15. “Jordan Protests Demand Constitutional Monarchy,” al-Jazeera, February 25, 2011.
16. “Salafist Protests in Jordan,” al-Jazeera, March 3, 2011.
17. “Shaykh Abu Zayd Talks of Suffering of Prisoners,” March 20 2011. Available on YouTube.
18. “Lecture by Shaykh Ali al-Halabi,” March 12, 2011. Available on YouTube.
19. “Lecture by Shaykh Ali al-Halabi,” June 8, 2011. Available on YouTube.
20.”Lecture by Shaykh Mashhur Hassan,” February 5, 2011. Available on YouTube.
21.”Fatwa of the Scholars on Protests and Sit-Ins,” al-Sakina, January 13, 2011. <
22.”Jordanian Salafists Attack Salafist Traditionalists,” al-Jazeera, March 13, 2014.
23. “Jordan: Clash with Salafists and 83 Wounded Security Personnel,” al-Jaml, April 15, 2011.
24.”Confrontation in Jordan with Salafist Jihadists,” al-Jazeera, April 17, 2011.
25. Video series available on YouTube.
26. At the time, the split within the Salafi-Jihadist current between Maqdisi and Zarqawi wings was still latent.
27. “Jordan Arrests Brother of Khost Attacker,” al-Sakina, April 19, 2011.
28. “Arrest of Brother of Khost Bomber,” al-Sawasana, April 23, 2013.
29. “Jordanian Salafism Turns to Peace,” al-Jazeera, July 20, 2011.
30. “Hunger Strike by Jordanian Salafists,” al-Jazeera, June 12, 2011.
31. The original article from al-Quds al-Arabi for these quotes is no longer available, but the article is preserved in multiple websites, including here.
32. “The ‘Jihadists of Jordan’ Form Shura Council,” Khaberni, September 4, 2011.
33. “Abu Sayyaf: The Salafi Current in Jordan is Getting its Affairs in Order,” Amman Net, September 18, 2011.
34. “Abu Sayyaf: We Will Not Give Up on Jihad Against the Syrian Regime Even if it Were in the Interest of America and Britain,” Jordanzad, April 26, 2012.
35. “Killing of Two Jordanian Salafists in Syria, and Authorities Arrest Leader from Maan,” Amman News, April 23, 2012.
36. “Jordanian Salafist Denies Recruiting Jihadists to Fight in Syria,” Amman Net, August 8, 2012.
37. “The Jordanian Salafi-Jihadi Current Announces Sending Terrorists to Syria,” Syrian TV News.
38. “Jordanian Salafist Leader Abu Sayyaf Threatens Attacks in Syria,” al-Watan Voice, September 8, 2012.
39. “Arrest of 3 Jordanian Salafists Trying to Return Across the Border from Syria,” al-Watan News, October 18, 2012.
40. “Jordanian Salafist Conducts Suicide Attack,” al-Balad News, November 10, 2012.
41. “Interview on al-Jazeera with Abu Muhammad al-Tahawi.” Available on YouTube.
42. “Anam Media for Assistance to the People of the Levant by Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Tahawi.” Available on YouTube.
43. “Salafists of Jordan Promise Netanyahu Attacks in Israel,” al-Sawt, December 15, 2012.
44. “Arrest of Tahawi Abu Sayyaf: Prison Management Based on Double-Standards,” Ammon News, January 18, 2013.
45.”Jordanian Jihadists Join the Revolutionaries in Syria,” al-Jazeera, September 4, 2012.
46. Ibid.
47.Talk show with Saad al-Hunayti. Available here.
48. “Interview with Saad al-Hunayti on al-Jazeera,” January 2014.
49. “Appointment of Jordanian as Emir of Jabhat al-Nusra,” al-Jazeera, December 13, 2012. This is the original report which al-Jazeera later recanted, but it quotes “sources exclusive to al-Jazeera”; “Jordanian Salafists are the Lifeblood of Jabhat al-Nusra in the South,” al-Hayat, June 20, 2013.
50. “The New Generation of Jordanian Jihadi Fighters,” Carnegie Endowment, February 18, 2014; Muslim Forum posting.
51. “New Zarqawi Emir of Jabhat al-Nusra but Jordanian Salafists Deny Any Relationship to Appointment,” Sawt al-Mowaten, December 2012.
52. “Jordanian Salafists Appoint New Emir of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria,” Ammon News, December 13, 2012.
53. Report on al-Jazeera, December 19, 2012. Available on YouTube.
54. “To al-Jazeera: Abu Anas al-Sahaba New Emir to Jabhat al-Nusra.” Available on YouTube.
55. “Appointment of Jordanian as Emir of Jabhat al-Nusra,” al-Jazeera, December 13, 2012. This is the original report which al-Jazeera later recanted, but it quotes “sources exclusive to al-Jazeera.”
56. “Amman: Abu Qatada Calls in Court for Obedience to Zawahiri and Unity Between the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra,” al-Hayat, October 24, 2013.
57. Abu Qatada al-Filistini, “Letter to the People of Jihad in the Levant.” Available here.
58. “Abu Qatada Rejects Applying Jizya to Syrian Christians and Reiterates Support for Jolani Negotiating Stance,” CNN Arabic, April 6, 2014.
59. Arabic PDF; English PDF.
60.”Followers of Abu Musab Give Baya to the ‘State’ in Revolt Against Abu Qatada and Attack Maqdisi,” al-Hayat, November 21, 2013.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63.”Barqawi Argues for Deliberation Before ‘Baya to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,’” al-Hayat, November 25, 2013.
64. http://www.tawhed.ws.
65. “Reestablishing the Fatwa Forum.” Available
66. “Jordanian Salafist Current Prohibits Joining ‘Daesh’ in Syria,” al-Ghad, February 4, 2014.
67. “Abu Sayyaf: There is a Decline in the Number of Salafists Going to Syria,” Amman Net, April 10, 2014.
68. “Jordanian Salafists Leader Gives Baya to Daesh in Preparation for Mediation with Jabhat al-Nusra and the Opposition Factions in Syria,” Aks al-Sayr, April 11, 2014.
69. “March in Maan ‘to Support Daesh’ Entangle Jihadists in Jordan and Authorities Sound Warning,” CNN Arabic, June 22, 2014. video of march available on YouTube.
70. ISIS “Message to Our People in Maan.” Available on YouTube.
71. “Jordanian Authorities Arrest Three Members of ‘Islamic State,’” Erem News, August 18, 2014. .
72. “Salafi Shaykh Otaybi in Irbid: Dawaish [IS Members] Attempts to Assault Me,” Kermalkom, July 17, 2014.
73. “Salafi-Jihadists in Jordan on their Way to ‘Daesh’ After Years with Jabhat al-Nusra,” al-Hayat, July 4, 2014. .
74. “Observers: Daesh [IS] is the Majority of Salafi-Jihadists in Jordan,” al-Ghad, August 5, 2014.
75. “Split in Jabhat al-Nusra in Favor of Islamic State in Syria,” Aran News, October 23, 2014.
76. “Two Leaders in the Jordanian Salafi-Jihadist Current Join Islamic State,” Middle East Online, October 17, 2014.
77. “Jordanian Salafi-Jihadist Leader: Giving Baya to the Leader of Daesh is Ignorance,” Hawa Jordan, July 24, 2014.
78. “Official Source: We Have Our Eyes on the Irbid Camp over the Threat from Daesh,” al-Arab al-Youm, August 18, 2014.
79. “Gatekeeper of the Jihad,” Foreign Policy, April 18, 2014.
80. “Appointment of a Jordanian as General Legal Authority of Jabhat al-Nusra,” Secrets News, July 31, 2014.
81.”‘Daesh’ Videos Stir Division Among Salafists,” al-Quds al-Arabi, November 26, 2013.
82. “Are the Jordanians of Jabhat al-Nusra the Seed Corn of Islamic State of Jordan,” Amman Net, April 13, 2013.
83. “Maqdisi from Prison Advises the Jordanian Regime: Arrests of the Authorities of the Salafi Movement Will Not Intimidate Us or Break Our Will,” All of Jordan, September 15, 2013.
84. “Letter from Jordanian Salafist Leader By Way of al-Quds al-Arabi Condemning State Court with Counsel for the Egyptian Nur Party,” al-Quds al-Arabi, September 9, 2013.
85. “Jordanian Salafist Leader Prohibits Fighting ‘Daesh’ and Describes the War on it as ‘Crusader,’” al-Quds al-Arabi, September 24, 2014.
86. “Movement in the Jordanian Salafi Street Against the International Coalition,” al-Quds al-Arabi, September 24, 2015.
87. “U.S. Backed Talks Between Jihadi Clerics and ISIS in an Effort to Save Hostage’s Life,” The Guardian, December 18, 2014.
88. See, for example, Jordan’s State Security Court in the Zaki Bani Arshad case. Available here.
89. “Shaykh al-Maqdisi Confirms that Authorities Demand He End Incitement Against ‘The Crusader Coalition,’” al-Rai al-Youm, September 29, 2014.
90. The Fitn Forum. Available at here.
91. “Initiative and Call to Truce Among the Factions of the Levant,” Pulpit of Monotheism and Jihad, September 30, 2014. Available here.
92. “’Cloak of the Caliphate’… Transaction or Illness,” Sawalief, July 16, 2014.
93. “Maqdisi: My Arrest Was Solely Because I Sought Jihadist Reconciliation,” al-Rai al-Youm, November 9, 2014.
94. “Maqdisi and Tahawi Call on Abu Qatada to be Silent After Describing Baghdadi as ‘Misguided,’” al-Rai al-Youm, December 11, 2014.
95.> “Text of Letter from Maqdisi to Baghdadi,” al-Ghad, February 7, 2015.
96. “Maqdisi in the Middle: An Inside Account of the Secret Negotiations to Free a Jordanian Pilot,” Jihadica, February 11, 2015.
97. “Interview with Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi,” al-Roya TV, February 6, 2015. Available here.
98. “The Lying Organization Whose Lies Have Reached the Horizons,” Pulpit of Monotheism and Jihad, February 10, 2015. Available here.
99. ISIS video mocking Maqdisi available on YouTube. <
100. “Salafi Jihadists on the Rise in Jordan,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 5, 2014. While this article repeatedly describes Salafists as being numerous, there is no clear metric for demonstrating this.
101. This phrase in quotes is a common way these two men are referred to in Arabic – munathirayn al-tiyar al-salafi al-jihadi in Jordan.
102.Personal interview with the author in Amman.
103. Personal interview with the author in Amman. .

The post Jordanian Salafism And The Jihad In Syria – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Vows ‘Unwavering’ Commitment To Afghanistan

$
0
0

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has hailed a day of “productive” talks with new Afghan leaders at the presidential retreat of Camp David, in Maryland.

Kerry told a news conference that the meetings on March 23 “underscore the enduring nature of the friendship.”

His remarks came after day-long talks with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah.

Carter said Washington maintains an “unwavering commitment to a strong and strategic partnership with Afghanistan.”

He added that the administration would be asking Congress to fund the Afghan security troop levels at “an end strength level of” 352,000 through 2017.

Ghani has requested a slowdown of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, where around American 9,800 soldiers remain.

Ghani said any decision about future U.S. troop levels would be made by President Barack Obama.

The post US Vows ‘Unwavering’ Commitment To Afghanistan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pakistan: FATA Assessment 2015 – Analysis

$
0
0

At least 48 ‘terrorists’ were killed [with media access severely restricted, no independent confirmation is available, and the categorization of those killed cannot be verified] on March 13, 2015, as Pakistan Air Force (PAF) jets pounded alleged terrorist hideouts in the Kukikhel area of the Tirah Valley in the Khyber Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Military sources claimed that another 15 terrorists were also injured in the jet bombing. The attack comes after exactly a month of silence in the ongoing Operation Khyber-I in the Khyber Agency. On February 12, 2015, seven suspected terrorists were killed and another 15 were injured in PAF air strikes on terrorist hideouts in the Dwa Thoe, Sarrai, Sheikh Kot, Tor Darra, Nangrosa and Speen Drand areas of Tirah Valley in the Khyber Agency. The air strikes were part of Operation Khyber-I in the Khyber Agency launched on October 16, 2014, alongside the full-fledged Operation Zarb-e-Azb (Sword of the Prophet) going on in the North Waziristan Agency (NWA).

The air attack occurs at a time when various splinter groups of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are merging to counter the ongoing military operations in NWA and Khyber Agency. According to a statement issued by Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (JuA) ‘spokesman’ Ehsanullah Ehsan on March 12, 2015, the reorganized TTP would consist of members of his group, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI) and the remaining TTP elements. The head of the new set-up is yet to be named. Ehsan congratulated the “Mujahideen of Pakistan” on the unification of the various militant groups and disclosed that the decision was taken at a meeting attended by Mullah Fazlullah, Omar Khalid Khurasani and Mangal Bagh. Ehsan added that an organising committee had been formed to constitute a central supreme Shura (Council) and an organising body.

Earlier on the same day, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif and Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Tahir Rafique Butt together visited NWA, and were briefed about the ongoing Operation Zarb-e-Azb. General Sharif declared that the fleeing terrorists would be chased and eliminated, as there was no place for them to hide now. He added that Operation Zarb-e-Azb would not stop till the job was finished.

Operation Zarb-e-Azb was launched on June 15, 2014, in the aftermath of the attack on the Jinnah International Airport, Karachi, on June 8-9, 2014. At least 33 persons, including all 10 attackers, were killed in the Karachi attack. Operation Zarb-e-Azb has, according to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), thus far killed more than 1,516 terrorists and 204 soldiers (no independent verification of fatalities of identities of those killed is available, as media access to the areas of conflict is severely limited). Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa, Director General (DG) of Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), on January 16, 2015, claimed that SFs had killed 2,000 ‘terrorists’ under Operation Zarb-e-Azb, and also disclosed that 200 soldiers had been killed and another 800 had sustained injuries.

At least 411 persons, including 356 terrorists, 35 civilians, and 20 SF personnel, have already been killed in FATA in terrorism-related violence in 2015 (till March 15), according to partial data compiled by the SATP. During the corresponding period of 2014, terrorism-linked fatalities stood at 282, including 213 terrorists, 44 SF personnel and 25 civilians, indicating a rise of 45.74 per cent.

Though civilian and SF fatalities in FATA have recorded a seven years decline, overall fatalities have been higher due to the increase in terrorist fatalities under the ongoing military Operations in NWA and Khyber Agency. Total fatalities through 2014 stood at 2,863, including 2,510 terrorists, 194 SF personnel and 159 civilians; as compared to 1,716, including 1,199 terrorists, 319 civilians and 198 SF personnel in 2013.

Fatalities in FATA: 2006-2015*

Years

Civilians
SFs
Militants
Total

2006

109
144
337
590

2007

424
243
1014
1681

2008

1116
242
1709
3067

2009

636
350
4252
5238

2010

540
262
4519
5321

2011

488
233
2313
3034

2012

549
306
2046
2901

2013

319
198
1199
1716

2014

159
194
2510
2863

2015

35
20
356
411

Total

4375
2192
20255
26822
Source: SATP, *Data till March 15, 2015

The number of major incidents (each involving three or more fatalities) in the Province in 2014 increased by 48.87 per cent in comparison to the previous year, principally due to the counter-insurgency operations. The Province accounted for 198 major incidents of violence resulting in 2,709 deaths in 2014, as against 133 such incidents, accounting for 1,534 fatalities in 2013.

However, other parameters of violence, such as suicide attacks, explosions and sectarian attacks remained low throughout 2014. As against nine suicide attacks in 2013, in which 164 persons were killed and another 256 were injured, 2014 registered only three such attacks, resulting in 17 deaths and 17 persons injured. Similarly, there was a considerable decrease in incidents of explosion. In comparison to 122 blasts resulting in 385 fatalities in 2013, 2014 recorded 101 blasts resulting in 179 fatalities. Sectarian violence in the region also registered a steep decline. While both the year 2013 and 2014 had recorded only one such incident, the 2014 incident registered two fatalities and 28 injuries, while 62 were killed and 180 injured in the 2013 incident.

Under pressure from the United States (US) to act against terrorists, Pakistan resumed drone strikes in NWA on June 12, 2014, after a hiatus of nearly five and half months. The last drone target before this had been hit on December 25, 2013. The silencing of US drones coincided with Islamabad’s Government’s process of peace-talks with TTP, while the resumption of strikes followed the collapse of talks with TTP. Pakistan announced of long-pending military operations in NWA, where dreaded terrorists of al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network and Hafiz Gul Bahadur faction of TTP were sheltered, though reports indicate that the strikes have targeted TTP alone. All 19 drone strikes in 2014 have been concentrated in FATA, around the areas where the Army has been conducting its Operation. Nevertheless, Pakistan continues with its duplicitous policy on drone strikes, implicitly approving these, while it registers complaints at every possible international forum.

Meanwhile, terrorist attacks on NATO supply convoys through Pakistan continued, though, with the continuous decline in the Western presence in Afghanistan, and the consequent reduction of dependence on supplies through Pakistan, the numbers have reduced significantly. Out of 18 attacks on NATO supply trucks in 2014, nine incidents were reported from FATA alone. In 2013 FATA accounted for 10 out of 31 such attacks across the country.

TTP’s attacks on educational institutions in the region also registered a decline. As against 12 such attacks in 2013, there were six such attacks in 2014. On April 1, 2014, the Government claimed a limited increase in literacy rates in FATA. A handout quoting an official document stated: “Literacy rate for girls stands at a modest 10.5 per cent compared to 36.66 per cent for boys, despite considerable expenditure incurred by the FATA Secretariat to improve education statistics in the area.” Earlier, literacy rates for girls and boys were three per cent and 29.51 per cent, respectively.

An estimated 150,000 families displaced by the military operations in the NWA and Khyber Agency are still languishing in make shift camps at Bannu. More than 10 months have passed since the military operation began and Pakistan has failed to provide adequate assistance to the affected internally displaced persons (IDPs). While Army authorities had claimed the clearing of 90 per cent areas of terrorists by November 16, 2014, the FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA) observed, on March 2, 2015, that it had decided to tentatively send back IDP families to just 29 NWA and Khyber Agency villages by the end of March 2015.

Government infrastructures worth PKR one billion have been turned into rubble in conflict-stricken NWA, according to a FATA Line Departments (combining the Health, Education, Irrigation and Agriculture Departments) report of December 31, 2014. The Line Departments of the Civil Secretariat, FATA, carried out a damage need assessment survey of Government owned properties in Mir Ali and Miranshah sub-divisions of NWA. The survey of damaged infrastructure was conducted after SFs had cleared these areas of terrorists. The report claimed that 115 facilities, including education and health establishments, and 102 kilometres of roads, had been either completely or partially damaged in the areas surveyed.

Terrorism and the disproportionate use of force by the state have caused massive collateral damage to property (and to life) in other tribal agencies as well. In August 2014, a damage need assessment survey carried out under the supervision of the FATA FDMA revealed that over 60,000 houses had been damaged in Orakzai, Khyber, South Waziristan and Kurram agencies. A total of 31 educational institutions (six institutions 100 per cent damaged, nine institutions 50 per cent and 16 institutions 20 per cent), eight health facilities, two buildings of the works and services department, 13 facilities of livestock, seven agriculture, eight public health engineering, 35 municipal committee buildings, including 21 shops, two sports facilities and 19 irrigation department establishments had also been damaged.

Federal Finance Minister Ishaq Dar disclosed, on February 18, 2015, that the cost of ongoing Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan may exceed USD 1.3 billion. Dar claimed that the Pakistani Government had already spent USD 400 million on the operation and IDPs.

Despite the hype, the Operations in NWA and Khyber Agency have failed to destroy the organisational network and leadership of the terrorists. This has repeatedly been demonstrated in their capacity to perpetrate carnage, as in the Peshawar Army Public School attack and the bloodbath of innocent Shias at Imambargah (Shia place of worship) in Peshawar. Pakistan is yet to make a decisive break from its long sustained strategy of supporting terrorist groups operating against Indian and Afghanistan, and the linkages of these groups with domestic terrorists operating within the country are growing progressively deeper and more complex. Despite some losses that TTP has suffered, it is likely to rise again out of the rubble that bombardments and drone strikes have created in FATA.

The post Pakistan: FATA Assessment 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Time To Demand Medicare For All And Social Security Benefits We Can Live On – OpEd

$
0
0

With Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress, the current president already on record as having supported cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and all signs pointing to the likelihood that the 2016 election could bring us either a neo-liberal or a neo-conservative president, and an increasingly Republican-dominated Congress, it’s time for an aggressive mass movement built around defending and expanding both those critical public funding programs.

The first step is getting out the truth that Social Security is not broke or doomed, but simply needs to be better funded by ending the free pass given to the wealthy. Simply eliminating the cap on income subject to the FICA tax, currently set at the first $118,500 of earned income, would make the system fully able to pay all promised benefits for the next century or more. Extending the tax to cover unearned income — basically capital gains (a tax that only impacts the wealthy) would allow for an expansion of benefits.

There is today $2.8 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, a fund that was created by a compromise reform reached by President Ronald Reagan and a Democratic Congress led by House Speaker Tip O’Neill back in 1983. The idea at the time was to have Baby Boomers and their employers pay more into the system ahead of the time they would be retiring, when their numbers would place a burden on current workers (the Boomers’ kids and grandkids), since the system has always since its inception financed current retirees’ benefits through current workers’ FICA payroll tax payments. (The reform also raised the full retirement gradually from 65 to 66 and later to 67 for people born after 1964.)

That advance funding of Boomer retiree benefits is now starting to be tapped but that is what was supposed to happen to it, a point the doom-sayers and political scare-mongers fail to mention. It turns out, though, that the advance funding was not large enough for several reasons. One, very positive, is that people are living longer than projected because of improved nutrition and medical advances. Another is that a series of recessions and market collapses, especially during the “lost decade” of 2000-2010, caused in large part by corrupt investment banks in 2001 and by Wall Street’s mega-banks turned casinos in 2007-9, cut severely into FICA contributions, as well as into workers’ personal savings and net worth.

Right-wing and corporate propaganda to the effect that the Trust Fund is smoke and mirrors or just “IOU” scrips, is absurd. It’s true that Washington politicians promptly borrowed FICA tax revenues as soon as they came in the door to allow them to fund things like endless wars and Pentagon war-profiteers without raising taxes, but that debt is every bit as real as the federal debt held by investors in the form of treasury bills and notes. It will be covered, whether by rolling it over into new debt or by raising taxes.

In any event, as has been often pointed out, even were the fund to be exhausted in 2033 or 2034 because of inaction by Congress to boost revenue for Social Security, the system would, at the current FICA tax rate of 6.2% for employee and employer, still be able to fund 77-78% of promised benefits out into the distant future beyond the time when the last Baby Boomer has moved off to some Woodstock in the sky.

More importantly, there is no way that will happen. Why? Because the Baby Boom generation, in retirement, will constitute not just the largest block of elderly voters in the nation’s history (almost 78 million people!), but also will represent the largest elderly bloc proportionately, in history, fully 1.5 times as large a segment of the electorate as the already powerful current senior vote.

If the US is still even remotely a democracy in the 2030s, there is no way Congress would allow such a large, high-voting group of people to have their benefits cut. And this is not, as right wing critics try to claim, a war between generations. Fighting to improve Social Security and to expand Medicare to all is to benefit people of all ages. After all, what child or grandchild complains about the size of a grandparent’s Social Security check, and what grandparent wants to short change a child or grandchild? And expanding Medicare helps everyone.

And that brings us to the challenge we now face. The corporations that increasingly run Washington (thanks in no small part to the machinations of the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision), but also to the ossification of the two political parties which now are both beholden primarily to big business, know that the Boomer generation, once all at retirement age, will be a colossal force in defense of Social Security and Medicare, and that they will also be demanding an expansion of those programs, making them both more generous and also broader in reach. And employers hate Social Security because they hate having to pay that 6.2% FICA tax on every worker’s wages. That’s why pro-business groups like the Heritage Foundation and the US Chamber of Commerce and their allies in the Republican and Democratic parties are becoming increasingly shrill in their denunciations of both programs, and in their scare stories about how both programs are facing financial crisis and need to be cut back allegedly in order to “save” them. These pro-capitalist groups and lobbyists know that the best way to prevent future expansion of these programs is to kill off the programs early, so that instead of expanding them, the public would have to try to create them anew — a much bigger challenge.

That means we Americans, old and young, need to organize and fight like hell now to defend both programs, and to demand that they be expanded.

Taking on corporate America to Defend Social Security and Medicare

Doing so makes sense for many reasons. Besides the basic moral one that a nation should provide health care to all, and should protect its elderly and assure them a comfortable old age, making retirement more attractive would lead to people leaving their jobs earlier, opening up opportunities for younger workers. Want evidence? Just look at the current recession, where the lowest unemployment rate is among older workers, who are clinging to their jobs because they cannot afford to quit and depend on Social Security’s meager benefits.

In much of Europe, particularly in the the north — Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and the Scandinavian countries — national pension systems provide people with benefits that replace 60 percent or more of final working income, allowing them to retire without taking a hit in their living standard (lower-income workers actually get even more in retirement and may actually see their living standards rise when they retire). Compare this to the US, where the replacement rate is only about 37% of working income in retirement. And actually the difference between retirement in Europe and retirement in the US is even more dramatic because the European countries all have excellent national health programs that make health care essentially free. This means retirees in those countries have no medical costs to pay for. In the US, in contrast, retirees have Medicare premiums for doctors taken out of their Social Security checks, have to pay privately for costly Medi-gap premiums to cover the health care costs not funded by Medicare, and also have to buy prescription drug plans. By the time they’re done paying for health care or health insurance, and all the co-pays, deductibles and non-covered care costs, most US retirees who depend on Social Security for at least half of their income (that would be 90% of us), are living at subsistence levels.

Clearly it doesn’t have to be that way. Germany’s and Scandinavia’s populations are “grayer” than ours, yet they not only fund far more generous retirement programs for their elderly. They have higher living standards than we do, and manage to also compete better on world markets, actually producing goods that are sold overseas, instead of just shipping jobs abroad.

And that brings us to Medicare

The US stands almost alone in the developed world in not having a national health program of one kind or another. Not incidentally, it also has the most expensive health care in the world, gobbling up almost 18 percent of GDP. No country approaches that level of resources spent on health care for its citizens. The next closest countries, in the 10-11% range, are Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand and Portugal. These nations devote only two-thirds of what the US does of their national economic activity to health care, yet their health statistics (infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.) are if anything better than in this benighted country. And many countries with similarly good health statistics, like Britain, Ireland, Finland, Japan, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Sweden, Greece, Hungary and Israel, spend a good deal less — in some cases as low as 6-7% of GDP — and they all provide health care to all their citizens, not just some as we do here in the US.

Clearly, Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act), is not the answer, as it costs a fortune and still leaves some 30 million without access to affordable health care.

What is truly outrageous is that, as Dr. Robert Zarr, the head of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) points out in an interview on PRN.fm’s “This Can’t Be Happening” program [1], the US could easily move to a national health program like what all these above countries have by simply lowering the age for being eligible for Medicare — currently at 65. Now, the Medicare scare-mongers will of course immediately say this would mean higher taxes, and indeed it would. What they don’t say is that it would also eliminate health insurance premiums, for both employers and employees. As things stand, current Medicare costs taxpayers about $585 billion a year. That covers the hospital bills and other expenses for all people over 65, and for the disabled. But private insurance premiums are costing over $960 billion a year, mostly to cover the health costs of middle class Americans under the age of 65, plus the non-Medicare covered health costs of the elderly. Medicaid, a program for the poor, which is also funded by state and federal taxes, already costs another $450 billion a year. If we lowered Medicare eligibility to age zero, all those private premiums and Medicaid costs would be gone — $1.4 trillion a year — taken over by Medicare, so we could all easily afford to pay more in Medicaid payroll taxes (currently 1.2% for employees and employers). By the way, we could also wipe out $100 billion in federally funded Veterans health care, because veterans would all be covered by Medicare. And instead of blowing some 30% of national health care funds on the incredible paperwork required by private insurers, we’d be spending just 1-2% on paperwork under Medicare.

Studies show that at present, 90% of Medicare costs go for care to the 10% of the elderly who are the oldest — people in their 80s and 90s who are at the end of life. It doesn’t actually cost much, in other words, to pay for the health care of people in their early 60s or even in their 70s. It would cost even less to pay for people in their 50s, or 40s or 30s or 20s or teens. In fact, the reality is that the only group of people who have higher medical costs in their young years are women of child-bearing age. So it would actually be very inexpensive to expand Medicare downward to include everyone who isn’t old.

Why don’t we do this, creating what is essentially a Canadian-model health plan (it’s actually called Medicare in Canada, and has been working since the early 1970s, and has been backed by conservative national and provincial governments consistently through most of the intervening years because Canadian’s love it)? The answer is both ideology — conservatives hate the idea — and also control — corporations, while they complain bitterly about their health care costs, love to be the providers of health insurance. Why? Because it creates a kind of indentured servitude, on which workers are afraid to quit, afraid to risk being fired, and afraid to strike if unionized, for fear they and their families might lose their precious medical coverage.

This is a hidden cost of our obscenely expensive health care “system” in the US — a cost that workers in other modern countries don’t face, with their health care funded by the state and financed fully by taxation.

We need a new mass movement around health care and retirement

It’s time for us to organize all Americans to demand a public retirement program that will guarantee everyone a secure retirement fully funded by the government, and not dependent upon the whims of the stock and bond markets and the honesty of financial advisors and the profit-seeking investment houses who employ them. And it’s time for us to also demand a national single-payer health system that does away with the profit-sucking insurance industry by making the federal government the sole insurer and the payer, with the awesome power to negotiate reasonable fees for treatment with doctors and hospitals and other providers of health care.

If virtually every other developed country — and many less developed ones — can manage to provide cost-effective health care to all, and to fund retirement programs that people can actually live on, so can we here in the US. It’s not that government cannot do a good job of financing our health care and funding our retirement system — we see that Washington does a very good job of doing that with Medicare for the elderly and the disabled, and with Social Security. It’s that special interests like Wall Street, and right-wing ideologues in Congress and the White House eager to hand everything over to profit-making companies who bribe them, don’t want to let us do it.

That means we have to organize, retake the government, and make it happen. It’s insane that only a handful of people in Congress, like Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are calling for these things!

Washington needs to be regularly clogged with masses of demonstrators demanding “Medicare for all” and “Real Social Security people can live on.” Furthermore, no candidate of either party who opposes single-payer health care and a doubling of Social Security benefits through higher taxes on the rich should receive a single vote in future national elections!

 

The post Time To Demand Medicare For All And Social Security Benefits We Can Live On – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


China Cuts Its Energy Efficiency Goal – Analysis

$
0
0

By Michael Lelyveld

After claiming big gains in energy savings last year, China has sharply lowered its conservation target for 2015, signaling greater concern about economic growth.

As smog smothers its major cities, China has been struggling to control its “energy intensity,” the amount of energy consumed to produce each unit of gross domestic product (GDP).

Although the volume of China’s energy use keeps expanding along with the economy, the intensity index is a measure of efficiency and waste in creating economic growth.

And while China has regularly reported annual drops in its energy intensity, its largely coal-fired economy still lags behind the efficiency of other countries in both the industrialized and developing worlds.

The result is that China has recorded decreases in intensity year after year, but the volume of its consumption keeps increasing, giving citizens little relief from pollution and smog.

In 2011, for example, China used 3.3 times as much energy as the United States per unit of GDP, 5.4 times as much as Japan and 40 percent more than India, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) data for the most recent year available.

But in 2014, China cited major progress, cutting intensity by 4.8 percent, the most in at least a decade, at a time when its GDP growth of 7.4 percent slipped to its slowest rate in 24 years.

The efficiency gain exceeded the government’s revised annual target of 3.9 percent by a wide margin, putting China back on track to meet a five-year goal of a 16-percent reduction by the end of 2015 compared with 2010.

The improvement last year made up for less efficient energy performance in the early years of the current Five-Year Plan, offering hope for greater gains to come.

Energy savings target

But in delivering his government work report to China’s annual legislative session on March 5, Premier Li Keqiang set an energy savings target for this year of just 3.1 percent, the smallest of the past decade, over 20 percent below the goal for last year and 35 percent less than officially achieved.

The decision suggests that government leaders are more occupied with risks to the economy than the environment this year, as Premier Li lowered the government’s economic growth target from 7.5 to 7 percent.

“The government appears to be concerned that the slowdown is going beyond their expectations,” said David Fridley, staff scientist at the China Energy Group of the DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which has tracked the intensity data since the 1980s in support of China’s efficiency goals.

“Stimulus this year will support continued heavy industrial activity and thus the lower target, plus it simply gets harder and harder to reduce intensity as the low-hanging fruit are picked,” Fridley said.

The choice of the 2015 target appears to be the result of a precise calculation.

At 3.1 percent, it is just barely enough to meet China’s five-year goal of a 16-percent reduction, based on official estimates for the previous four years.

According to RFA’s calculation, the five-year figure would be 16.08 percent if the 2015 goal is achieved. Although it could be exceeded, the government seems to be easing pressure for conservation and encouraging the economy by setting a lower standard for the year.

The five-year target itself was lower than that for the previous five-year period, when the government set the bar at a 20-percent reduction in energy intensity and realized a savings of 19.1 percent.

The calculation over the 2015 target is a sign of the government’s delicate balancing act between environmental and economic concerns.

In his work report, Premier Li said the government would “fight to win the battle of conserving energy, reducing emissions and improving the environment,” without commenting on the reasons for the lower efficiency goal.

“Environmental pollution is a blight on people’s quality of life and a trouble that lays on their hearts. We must fight it with all our might,” Li said.

At a press conference on March 15 at the end of the legislative sessions, Li pledged to punish those who obstruct environmental policies, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

“We need to make the cost for doing so too high to bear,” Li said.

The reduced target also appears to be at odds with President Xi Jinping’s pledge of tougher measures in the “war against pollution” that the government declared last year.

“We are going to punish with an iron hand any violators who destroy ecology or (the) environment, with no exceptions,” Xi said at the legislative sessions, comparing environmental protection to “caring for one’s own eyes and life.”

Mixed reports on progress

Government reports on China’s progress in the war on pollution last year have been mixed.

The percentage of days with severe air pollution in 74 major cities fell to 5.6 percent last year from 8.6 percent in 2013, the official English-language China Daily reported, citing the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP).

But in February, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reported that 90 percent of 161 monitored cities failed to meet air quality standards in 2014, according to Xinhua.

China’s campaign to cut carbon intensity seems to be following a similar pattern, although a report from the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) on March 13 concluded that there was no global increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy last year, thanks in part to China’s efforts.

“In China, 2014 saw greater generation of electricity from renewable sources, such as hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal,” the IEA said.

On March 6, Xu Shaoshi, minister of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) planning agency, said China had lowered carbon intensity by a substantial 6.2 percent last year, in keeping with the improvement in energy efficiency.

But in his work report, Premier Li announced a 2015 target of just 3.1 percent for carbon intensity, without explaining the reason for the lower goal, which is only half the rate of last year’s reduction.

While official statements on carbon intensity have been infrequent, the lower target appears to be calculated to meet the government’s five-year goal of a 17-percent decrease compared with 2010, but not much more.

Ambivalence over the environment and economic development may also be the cause behind the government’s decision to ban “Under the Dome,” the popular documentary on air pollution, from video websites on March 6, shortly after the legislative sessions began.

David Fridley said there are major questions about the energy consumption and growth figures that seem to be the basis for calculating this year’s energy conservation goal.

Fridley noted that the recent NBS Statistical Communiqué for 2014 cites a 2.2-percent rise in total energy consumption from the prior year. But based on the consumption figures for 2013 from the previous communiqué and the recently-published China Statistical Yearbook, the increase would be 14 percent, he said.

“They can’t have it both ways,” Fridley said.

The inconsistency suggests that the NBS may be in the midst of revising the energy numbers. If that is the case, it may also have to change its claim to big gains in energy efficiency and carbon intensity last year.

That could affect the goals that the government has set for 2015, unless the NBS is also going to revise its GDP reports. In that case, all bets are off.

The post China Cuts Its Energy Efficiency Goal – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India’s Northeast: The Troubles Endure – Analysis

$
0
0

By Giriraj Bhattacharjee*

Insurgencies in India’s Northeast have seen repeated cycles of reverses and resurgence. Most States in the region remain poorly governed and, on a wide range of parameters… The recent conflagrations in Assam have demonstrated clearly that, however significant the gains of the state in a particular theatre, there is no space for the pattern of administrative incompetence, political corruption and neglect that has characterized governance in the Northeast – and, increasingly, much of India as well. The enemy waits, close at hand.
— SAIR Volume 11, No. 34, February 25, 2013.

There was a sharp spike in civilian fatalities in the Northeast Region in 2014, after four consecutive years of registering less than 100 fatalities annually. The IK Songbijit faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS) (Assam) which accounted for 184 fatalities [137 civilians, one Security Force (SF) and 43 of its own cadres] was the prime driver of the skewed trend. NDFB-IKS, led by Myanmar based Ingti Kathar Songbijit, is fighting for a ‘sovereign Bodoland’ for the Bodo tribesman of Assam.

There was also a surge in Meghalaya where splits in existing Garo militant groups fed a cycle of rising violence. Fratricidal killings among Naga militant groups, both within and outside Nagaland, however, declined. The trend for the other States in the region remained stable.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), 2014 registered a 84.52 per cent increase in overall fatality in the Northeast, as compared to 2013, primarily due to increased fatalities in Assam, where a 202 per cent rise in total fatalities (305) was recorded, in comparison to 2013 (101 fatalities). Assam accounted for 65.59 per cent of overall fatalities (465) across the Northeast in 2014; followed by Meghalaya (76 fatalities); Manipur (54); Nagaland (15); Arunachal Pradesh (nine); Tripura (four); and Mizoram (two). In 2013, Assam had registered 101 fatalities, followed by Meghalaya (60); Manipur (55); Nagaland (32); Arunachal Pradesh (four). No fatalities were recorded in Tripura and Mizoram in 2013.

Fatalities in Militants Violence in India’s Northeast 2005-2015*

Years

Civilians
SFs
Militants
Total

2005

334
69
314
717

2006

232
92
313
637

2007

457
68
511
1036

2008

404
40
607
1051

2009

270
40
542
852

2010

77
22
223
322

2011

79
35
132
246

2012

90
18
208
316

2013

95
21
136
252

2014

245
23
197
465

2015

18
6
29
53

Total

2301
434
3212
5497
Source: SATP, *Data till March 22, 2015

In Assam the trend in overall fatalities has remained erratic over recent years. According to SATP, a sustained decline was recorded between 2010 and 2012, with a marginal increase in 2013, and then a dramatic surge in 2014, when 305 fatalities were recorded, including 184 civilians, five Security Force (SF) personnel and 116 militants. This was the highest number of civilian fatalities in the State since 2008, when civilian fatalities stood at 224. In the worst incident of civilian killings, at least 69 Adivasis [central Indian tribesman settled in Assam] were killed by NDFB-IKS militants in Sonitpur, Kokrajhar and Chirang Districts on December 23, 2014. NDFB-IKS’s strategy of similar “soft target” killings also included the slaughter of 46 Muslim settlers in Baksa and Kokrajhar Districts in May 2014.

Meanwhile, in mid-February 2015, the Indian Army claimed that the entire top leadership of Karbi People’s Liberation Tigers (KPLT) had been arrested. An Army release stated, “The operation has decimated the organisation and almost completely wiped out the dreaded KPLT from West Karbi Anglong District of Assam facilitating return of peace in the poorly developed region.” Earlier, SFs had arrested ‘chairman’, ‘commander-in-chief’, ‘deputy chief’, ’finance secretary’, ‘auditor’ and ‘area commanders’ of KPLT in different operations. However, Superintendent Of Police (SP- Karbi Anglong), Mugdha Jyoti Mahanta, on February 1, 2015, observed, “But the KPLT now has been split into five groups – KPLT (Buche group), KPLT (Pratap), KPLT (Donri), KPLT (Symbon) and KPLT (Sojong). Some of these groups have six-seven members.”

Another six militant groups – Independent faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA-I), Kamatapur Liberation organisation (KLO), Harkat-ul Mujahideen (HuM-Assam unit), Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA), Communist Party of India (CPI-Maoist) and Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) – presently remain active in Assam.

13 other militant groups are currently under Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreements with the Government. The Assam Government has spent over INR 9 million on the maintenance of 3,930 cadres of these groups in 24 designated camps. However, no new SoO agreement was signed in 2014.

14 fatalities [three civilian, one SF personal and 10 militants] have already been recorded in 2015 till March 22.

Meghalaya is the second-worst insurgency affected State in the Northeast, with a total of 76 fatalities in 2014 according to SATP data, as compared to 60 in 2013, an increase of 26.67 per cent. In spite of the rise in fatalities, however, indices suggest a consolidation of peace in the State. Significantly, civilian fatalities, which had been rising continuously since 2009, registered a decline of 17.86 per cent in 2014, as compared to the previous year, dropping from 28 to 23. Incidents of civilian killing in both years remained at 20. Civilian killings in 2014 were reported from five Garo Hills Districts, which accounted for all the insurgency-linked fatalities in the year, leaving the remaining six Districts of the State outside the ambit of lethal violence. In 2013, fatalities were reported from the West Khasi Hills and South West Khasi Hills Districts, as well, outside the Garo Hills Districts.

Fatalities among SF personnel, which had increased sharply in 2013, over 2012, recorded a decline in 2014. Two SF personnel were killed in 2012; nine in 2013, as against six in 2014. On the other hand, the State recorded the highest single-year fatalities among militants since 1992, with 47 killed in 2014. SF action led to 27 militant fatalities [in 22 encounters], while another 13 rebel cadres were killed in internecine clashes; seven militants were lynched by angry villagers in 2014. In 2013, militant fatalities stood at 23 – including 15 killed by SFs; six lynched by villagers; one killed in a factional clash; and another one killed by his own group, according to SATP data.

Garo militant groups, A’chik National Volunteer Council (ANVC) and Breakaway faction of ANVC (ANVC-B), were disbanded at a function at the Dikki-Bandi Stadium at Dakopgre in Tura town of West Garo Hills District on December 15, 2014. 748 cadres from both factions – 447 [ANVC] and 301 [of ANVC-B] were present as the ‘chairmen’ of the two militant formations – Dilash Marak [ANVC] and Bernard N. Marak [ANVC-B] – signed the Affirmation Agreement at the disbanding ceremony.

Significantly, a Counter Insurgency (CI) operation, Hill Storm was launched on July 11, 2014, to neutralize the Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) and the Assam based ULFA-I. The Operation partially disrupted connectivity between Sohan D. Shira, ‘commander-in-chief’ of GNLA, and his immediate aides.

Multiple splits in militant outfits operating in the Garo Hills have led to an increase in abduction and extortion cases. Chief Minister Mukul Sangma, thus observed, “…..the new outfits are mostly groups of deserters from ANVC, GNLA and others, who are mostly engaged in extortion and kidnappings and have no specific demands or ideology”.

The general security environment in Manipur has seen marked improvement over the past six years. According to the SATP database, 54 fatalities [20 civilians, 10 SF personnel and 24 militants] were recorded in the State in 2014, as compared to 55 [21 civilians, six SF troopers, 28 militants] in 2013. Manipur had registered 485 insurgency-linked fatalities, including 131 civilians, 13 SF personnel and 341 militants, in 2008. Fatalities have registered a constant decline thereafter, with the exception of 2012, when there was a transient spike, primarily due to increasing militant fatalities. Fatalities among civilians have registered a continuous decline since 2008.

Fratricidal clashes among Naga militant formations in Manipur have also declined. There were just five such clashes in 2014 resulting in three fatalities, as against six such incidents, resulting in eight fatalities in 2013. These clashes occurred between the Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF) – at times a combined force of ZUF and Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland–Khaplang (NSCN-K) – and the NSCN-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), and between NSCN-IM and NSCN-Khole-Kitovi (NSCN-KK).

The spillover of the Naga insurgency has led to considerable loss of life in Manipur. Deputy Chief Minister Gaikhangam Gangmei, who also holds the Home portfolio, revealed on July 15, 2014, that over 100 persons had been killed in Manipur by NSCN-IM since the 1980’s. In 2014, at least 16 fatalities out of a total of 54 insurgency-linked deaths in the State, were linked to Naga groups.

At least 28 militant outfits remained active in Manipur through 2014, according to the SATP database, prominently including the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), United National Liberation Front (UNLF), Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL), NSCN-IM and ZUF. On August 29, 2013, the Union Government had declared that 34 militant formations were active in Manipur.

17 fatalities [five civilian, one SF trooper and 12 militants] have already been recorded in 2015.

The relative peace achieved in Nagaland was further consolidated through 2014, as insurgency-related fatalities continued to decline. According to partial data compiled by SATP, the State recorded a total of 15 fatalities, including 11 civilians (three incidents) and four militants in 2014, as compared to 32 fatalities in 2013, including 11 civilians and 21 militants, a decline of 53.12 per cent. As in 2013, there was no fatality among SF personnel in 2014. Fatalities were reported from five Districts in 2014 against seven in 2013. The deepening peace is principally due to the signing of the ‘Lenten Agreement’ on March 28, 2014, during a two-day reconciliation meeting of three Naga militant groups – NSCN-IM, NSCN-KK and Naga National Council/ Federal Government of Nagaland (NNC/FGN) – at Dimapur, under the banner of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR). The agreement, signed by six top leaders of the three groups, stated that, in accordance with the Naga Concordant signed on August 26, 2011, they agreed “in principle to form the NNG [Naga National Government]”. The joint statement, following the agreement, observed, “While this task is being carried out, we call for maintenance of the status quo, by vigilantly refraining from any unwarranted activities by the Nagas”.

According to SATP data Arunachal Pradesh recorded a total of nine fatalities, including three civilians and six militants, through 2014, as against four fatalities (all militants) in 2013. Civilian killing was recorded in the State in 2014, for the first time since October 25, 2007. Out of the three civilian killings, at least two occurred during an Assam Rifles- NSCN-IM encounter in Tirap District.

Tripura recorded four fatalities in 2014, including two civilians and two SF personnel. Both SF personnel were killed by cadres of the Biswamohan faction of National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT-BM) near the unfenced portion of the India-Bangladesh border in Dhalai and North Tripura Districts. The last SF fatality, before the 2014 killings, had been recorded on August 6, 2010, and NLFT-BM was responsible in that case as well. Taking cognizance of the killings, the Inspector General of the Border Security Force (BSF, Tripura Frontier), B.N. Sharma, stated on November 28, 2014, “After two ambushes on BSF troops, the operational strategy has been changed. We have decided to send jawans in strong numbers to foil their attempt.” Meanwhile, the NLFT-BM suffered a split in early December 2014, with ‘commander’ Prabhat Jamatya leaving the group’s camp in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) with more than 25 followers and a large cache of arms and ammunition. The NLFT-Prabhat faction (NLFT-P) is reportedly headquartered in the sprawling house of a retired Bangladeshi Policeman in Rajghat under the Chunarughat Sub-district of Habiganj District in Bangladesh. These militants have also started sending “tax notices” to Tripura residents from across the border.

In Mizoram the trend of low to zero fatalities recorded after 2007 continues, with no fatalities in 2013, and two civilians in 2014. However, other parameters of violence, such as explosions and abductions-for-extortion, registered a minor increase through 2014, as against the preceding year. Three explosions were recorded in 2014, as against none in 2013. Fifteen persons were abducted in 2014 against eight persons in 2013 in similar incidents (these are likely underestimates, as many such incidents go unreported).

Meanwhile, on January 30, 2015, Mizoram Home Minister R. Lalzirliana stated that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) had agreed to organise a final six-month repatriation process for internally-displaced Bru tribals, after which all those who do not return to their homes in Mizoram, from Tripura, would be removed from Mizoram’s electoral rolls and further relief to them would also be stopped. Official records show that almost 4,000 Bru families, who have voting rights in Mizoram, continue to live in relief camps in Tripura.

Long standing inter-state border disputes involving Assam-Nagaland and Assam-Arunachal Pradesh, which have periodically led to violence, resulted in 31 fatalities in Assam during 2014. The role of NSCN-IM and Tani Land National Liberation Tigers (TLNLT), a relatively insignificant group demanding a separate homeland for the Tani people in Arunachal Pradesh, was suspected in these killings.

The tentative and uncertain relief achieved in the Northeast over the past few years has overwhelmingly been due to increasing Bangladeshi cooperation with Indian security agencies after the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina Wazed, came to power in January 2009. This period of relief has, however, not been fully utilized by Assam to beef up policing capabilities.

On March 3, 2015, Union Minister of State for Home Affair Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary disclosed that, during 2009-14, the Bangladeshi security agencies had arrested and handed over 17 top militant leaders, including those from Meghalaya, Tripura and Assam. Eight others were forced to surrender before Indian authorities during the same period. The most prominent militants who were handed over or had surrendered included: Arabinda Rajkhowa [‘chairman’ undivided ULFA], Raju Baruah [deputy commander-in-chief’ of undivided ULFA], Chitrabon Hazarika [‘cultural secretary’ of undivided ULFA], Shasa Choudhury [‘foreign secretary’ of undivided ULFA], Ranjan Daimary [‘chairman’ NDFB-RD], G. Rifikhang [‘vice-chairman’ of NDFB-RD], Dorsang Narzary [‘finance secretary’ of NDFB-RD], Champion Sangma [‘chairman’ of GNLA], R.K. Sanayaima alias Meghen [‘chairman’ UNLF] Ranjit Debbarma [‘chairman’ of All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF)] and Naynbanshi Jamtiya [‘chairman’ of NLFT-NB].

Notably, on November 29, 2014, SFs in Bangladesh killed eight NLFT-BM militants in the Naraicherra area near Segun Bangan in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). The operation had been launched following intelligence inputs provided by Indian agencies. Similarly, Bangladesh SFs launched an operation between November 24 and 28, 2014, destroying several NLFT-BM hideouts in the Khagrachhari District of Bangladesh, forcing 36 NLFT-BM cadres to flee to the neighbouring Bandarban District (Bangladesh). This operation also led to the arrest of NLFT-BM ‘commander’ Kwaplai Debbarma aka Karna (33) from the house of a former ATTF ‘commander’ Jewel Debbarma, in the Char Mile area of Khagrachhari District.

Another two threats are crystallizing in the region: Left Wing Extremism (LWE) and jihadi terrorism. The Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) has been trying to establish organizational bases in the Northeast. On July 30, 2014, Union Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju noted, “The CPI (Maoist) has developed close fraternal ties with Northeast insurgent groups like the Revolutionary People’s Front, PLA of Manipur, NSCN-IM and ULFA. The outfit also forged tactical understanding with the RPF, PLA and NSCN-IM for procuring arms and ammunition and imparting military, communication training to its cadres.” Further, the transnational jihadi presence in Assam was further exposed through investigations into the JMB Burdwan Module in West Bengal. After the accidental blast at Burdwan on October 2, 2014, in which two people were killed and another was injured, a total of 17 persons were arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Significantly, after the announcement by Ayman al Zawahiri of the formation of Al Qaeda in the Indian Sub-continent (AQIS) reports indicated that 23 youth from the Lilong area of Thoubal District, Manipur, left to join the newly constituted group. Four of these returned shortly thereafter, while the remaining were reportedly untraceable.

The Union Government has announced its intention to complete peace talks with NSCN-IM within the current year under its strategy of time bound negotiations. On October 18, 2014, while commenting on peace talks with the Naga group, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval noted, “There should never be any feeling that it (talks) is protracted… The (peace) process is the means to an end and if there is an end, which is a desired end, it must be found in real time. There should be rule of law in the Naga insurgency-affected areas for which peace process must be completed as early as possible.” It remains to be seen how these declarations are translated into policy and process. Two other NSCN factions, the Khole-Kitovi and S.S. Khaplang factions, are also observing a ceasefire with the Government.

Similar negotiations for peaceful settlements are going on with other armed groups in the region, including: the Pro Talks Faction of NDFB (NDFB-PTF), Ranjan Daimary faction of NDFB (NDFB-RD), Karbi Longri North Cachar Hills Liberation Front (KLNLF), Pro Talks Faction of ULFA (ULFA-PTF), five Adivasi militant groups – Adivasi Cobra Military of Assam (ACMA), Adivasi People’s Army (APA), Santhal Tiger Force (STF), Birsa Commando Force (BCF) and All Adivasi National Liberation Army (AANLA); and four Kuki and Hmar outfits – Kuki Revolution Army (KRA), Kuki Liberation Organization (KLO), Hmar Peoples Convention Democratic (HPCD) and United Kukigam Defence Army (UKDA) [all Assam based]; as well as 19 groups under the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United Progressive Front (UPF) [Kuki groups based in Manipur].

In September 2014, the Prime Minister’s Office directed the Project Monitoring Group (PMG) of the Cabinet Secretariat to fast-track 21 development projects in the Northeast, including nine in Arunachal Pradesh, seven in Assam, three in Tripura and one each in Meghalaya and Manipur. The combined cost of these projects is projected at INR 1001.51 billion. 11 of these are power projects, including erection of transmission lines; another five are railway projects; four are related to petroleum and natural gas; and one cement plant. The Government also cleared INR 53.3618 billion under the Comprehensive Telecom Development Plan for the Northeast region. The project envisages providing second generation (2G) mobile technology coverage in identified uncovered areas and seamless mobile coverage along National Highways in the region. At present, there are 43,200 villages in this region of which 9,190 (21 per cent) are not connected to any mobile network. Under this project, the Cabinet has approved covering 8,621 villages by installing 6,673 towers.

On February 14, 2015, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh made an appeal to give “at least 10 years’ time to develop the Northeast. Development of Northeast India is the top priority of the incumbent Central Government”

The Government plan to enhance connectivity and boost development, however, faces obstacles due to the presence of external agencies, including Pakistan’s Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI), and unsecured international borders. On February 28, 2015, Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar warned, “The ISI is preventing militants of Tripura, who still have 20 camps in Bangladesh, from joining the mainstream… Their [ISI] ultimate agenda is to continue with disturbing peace in the region, which we need to counter with political ideology and administrative action.”

Earlier, on August 19, 2014, Sudesh Kumar, IG BSF (Meghalaya Frontier), had raised the issue of illegal arms trade, observing, “There are isolated instances of arms and ammunition entering into the country across the international border with Bangladesh, but a substantial quantity is coming from the international border with Myanmar and China.”

The Northeast presents many challenges unique to the region, with different militant and ethnic groups pursuing divergent and mutually exclusive objectives through a multiplicity of armed struggles. The situation is compounded by unsecured border, poor governance – both within the region and in neighbouring countries – the illegal arms trade, and external mischief. Despite the persistence of troubles in the region, there has been little coherence in response by State Governments, with the conspicuous exception of Tripura, and no sense of urgency or strategic vision displayed by the Centre. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Government has made some bold announcements suggesting that things are slated to change in the foreseeable future – but such declarations of intent by New Delhi are not unique. It remains to be seen whether implementation will progress with the necessary measure of efficiency or effectiveness to bring enduring relief to this violence wracked region.

*Giriraj Bhattacharjee
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

The post India’s Northeast: The Troubles Endure – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Redoing India-China Sums – Analysis

$
0
0

By C. Raja Mohan*

The first round of boundary talks with China under the Narendra Modi government, taking place this week, is an opportunity for New Delhi to explore the territorial compromises necessary to resolve the longstanding dispute. With strong leaders at the helm in Delhi and Beijing, there are rising expectations that the two special representatives – Ajit Doval and Yang Jiechi – will be able to find an early breakthrough on the boundary dispute. By their very nature, territorial compromises are not easy, despite the strong political will in Delhi and Beijing. Even the simplest of solutions to the boundary dispute – turning the status quo into a legitimate border – involves a notional exchange of territories and changing the way the two countries have long drawn their maps.

Given the difficulties of finding a final settlement, the two sides have focused, in the last few rounds, on ensuring peace and tranquility on the border. Repeated incursions by both sides across the claimed boundary line have raised tensions on the border in recent years and cast a political shadow over bilateral ties. Further, the lack of agreement on where the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is has complicated the effective implementation of many confidence-building measures for border stability that the two sides had negotiated in recent years. So, the clarification of the LAC has become an immediate political need for both countries.

Both these approaches – maintaining a peaceful border and clarifying the LAC – look beneath the boundary dispute by disaggregating the problem. But the greatest opportunity for the two governments today lies in looking beyond the boundary dispute and altering the broader context in which it plays out.

The Chinese have often said expanded bilateral cooperation across the board will set the stage, over the longer term, for addressing the intractable territorial problem left over by history. That long term might be too far down the road for India’s political comfort. A more productive approach would be to focus on promoting cooperation across the shared but disputed frontiers. This cooperation must necessarily be pursued in tandem with efforts to maintain peace on the border and purposeful negotiations to resolve the dispute.

There are three levels at which India and China can develop trans-frontier engagement. One is to promote trade and people-to-people contact across their borders. Tentative efforts in recent decades have not got real traction, thanks to the Indian focus on limited local trade. It is about time Delhi initiated comprehensive MFN trade across the borders. The Nathula Pass between Sikkim and Tibet is a good place to start. Inadequate infrastructure on the Indian side is often trotted out as Delhi to avoid substantive trade on the Indo-Tibetan frontier. Modi should turn this policy on its head. He could use the decision to deepen trade ties on the Tibetan frontier as a trigger for rapid modernisation of transport infrastructure across the southern Himalayas.

The promotion of tourism, including spiritual pilgrimage, has been a central theme of Modi’s regional policy. This approach has unlimited possibilities with China. Delhi and Beijing must now launch a joint initiative to develop religious and cultural tourism across the Indo-Gangetic plains and bordering regions in Tibet, Yunnan and Xinjiang.

Second, Delhi can build on China’s Silk Road initiatives, which call for trilateral and quadrilateral transport and industrial corridors between western China on the one hand, and northern and eastern India on the other. Beijing has been pressing Delhi to cooperate in the development of the BCIM corridor (running through the Yunnan province of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and India) in the east. It has also suggested a trans-Himalayan corridor between Tibet, Nepal and India. More recently, the Chinese ambassador to India, Le Yucheng, put out an intriguing idea – of extending the China-Pakistan economic corridor to India.

China is investing massively in the development of a corridor running from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar and Karachi on Pakistan’s Arabian coast. China has plans to connect this corridor to Afghanistan through new road and rail links. Speaking last week in Amritsar, Ambassador Ye saw all-round benefits in connecting the two Punjabs and linking them to the new Silk Road. Restoring economic cooperation between the two Punjabs through the Wagah-Attari border between Amritsar and Lahore has been a major goal of India’s effort to normalise trade relations with Pakistan.

Until now, India has viewed China’s Silk Road projects through a limiting geopolitical perspective. If it leavens its thinking with a bit of economic sense, Delhi might find that these initiatives are rooted in China’s massive accumulation of hard currency reserves and excess industrial capacity. If Beijing has a genuine domestic economic imperative to promote regional cooperation with India, Delhi should try and benefit from it, rather than finding clever ways to duck China’s Silk Road initiatives.

Finally, there is a new opportunity for unprecedented cooperation between Delhi and Beijing on regional issues, especially on the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan. If Delhi has had reason to see China’s ties with Pakistan as an enduring threat in the past, there is a case to view them today as a possible opportunity. As America ends its combat role in Afghanistan and religious extremism rises in Pakistan, China is deeply concerned about the impact on the restive Xinjiang province. If Beijing appears to be redoing its geopolitical sums on India’s northwest, Delhi too must suspend, at least for the moment, some of its certitudes on the China-Pak partnership.

As they prepare for Modi’s visit to China in May, Doval and Yang might find that expanding economic cooperation across their frontiers and launching political consultations on the vulnerable region they share might, in fact, create better conditions for stabilising an excuse in their own disputed border and exploring a practical territorial settlement in the near term.

*The writer is distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, and contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’

Courtesy: The Indian Express

The post Redoing India-China Sums – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Congress Demands War In Ukraine – OpEd

$
0
0

By Daniel McAdams

Just weeks after a European-brokered ceasefire greatly reduced the violence in Ukraine, the US House of Representatives today takes a big step toward re-igniting — and expanding — the bloody civil war.

A Resolution, “Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” stealthily made its way to the House Floor today without having been debated in the relevant House Committees and without even being given a bill number before appearing on the Floor!

Now titled H. Res. 162, the bill demands that President Obama send lethal military equipment to the US-backed government in Kiev and makes it clear that the weapons are to be used to take military action to return Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Kiev’s rule.

Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire!

The real world effect of this Resolution must be made clear: The US Congress is giving Kiev the green light to begin a war with Russia, with the implicit guarantee of US backing. This is moral hazard on steroids and could well spark World War III.

The Resolution conveniently ignores that the current crisis in Ukraine was ignited by the US-backed coup which overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine were a reaction to the illegal coup engineered by US officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt. Congress instead acts as if one morning the Russians woke up and decided to invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

There is no mention at all of US backing for the coup — or even that a coup took place!

Indeed, a read of the Resolution shows it is revisionism par excellence:

Whereas the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin has engaged in relentless political, economic, and military aggression to subvert the independence and violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine;

Whereas Russian aggression against Ukraine is but the most visible and recent manifestation of a revisionist Kremlin strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors, including NATO allies;

Shamefully, the resolution pins the blame for the thousands killed by Kiev’s shelling of civilian centers in eastern Ukraine on Russia:

Whereas this Russian aggression includes the establishment and control of violent separatist proxies in other areas of Ukraine, including arming them with lethal weapons and other materiel including tanks, artillery, and rockets that have enabled separatist militias to launch and sustain an insurrection that has resulted in over 6,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and more than a million displaced persons;

The Resolution goes even further, explicitly calling for the US to support regime change in Russia itself:

Whereas the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to expose and challenge Vladimir Putin’s corruption and repression at home and his aggression abroad;

“Expose and challenge” the elected Russian president at home.

During the Floor debate on the Resolution, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) even compared Russian “action” in Ukraine to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, demanding that this time the “Hitler” must be stopped before he goes further!

Not a single Member of Congress took the Floor to oppose this dangerous Resolution.

Passage of this Resolution should make it clear that the political leadership of the US will accept nothing short of war with Russia.

Update: The Resolution passed in the House, 348-48.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post US Congress Demands War In Ukraine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Security Dilemma In East Asia – OpEd

$
0
0

By Aaron Jed Rabena*

The current security environment in East Asia has become more insecure and unpredictable due to the tensions stemming from the so-called “potential flashpoints” in the East and South China seas. War of words, diplomatic protests, mass protests, military posturing, and increased defense spending have all been the common trends in recent years.

There have even been incidents of the scrambling of fighter jets between China and Japan, the ramming of maritime vessels involving Vietnam and China, and the Philippines’ cat and mouse-like game with Chinese Coast Guard vessels.

On this backdrop, China has accused the Philippines of being a “troublemaker,” while the latter, together with Vietnam, the United States (US) and Japan have accused the former of being a “bully” or “aggressive” in the neighborhood. Certainly, one cannot help but think that at the heart of the matter are the territorial disputes.

Security dilemma

According to John Herz, Security Dilemma is “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening.” In short: the perpetuation of a vicious cycle of insecurity.

The important question to be answered then is: Why is there a dilemma if all states say they are merely doing so for “defensive” and not offensive purposes?

Two reasons: disputes and tensions. The disputes exists because of the competing claims of sovereign states in the region. And since every nation claims that the area being contested by others is rightfully theirs, they make the “necessary steps” to secure and defend it, because doing otherwise would mean that one is weak, unpatriotic, and does not know how to safeguard one’s territorial integrity.

These necessary steps range from increased arms spending to enhancing military alignments to strengthening one’s foothold on the already occupied areas. Seeing that other nations are doing something to strengthen or defend their claim, others in turn counter by doing the same. And this is where the tensions come in. Because the counteractions could be seen by the other states as provocative, aggressive, offensive or disruptive of the status quo, this then, could spark another round of counteraction.

This now is where the tensions appear to be leading with regard to the current Dilemma, because each other’s defensive actions have caused insecurity to other states. This Dilemma is what could then cause or lead to nationalist rhetoric and sentiments, including blame games or finger pointing. In other words, the disputes and tensions are leading to a Security Dilemma. The symptoms of security dilemma can also be seen when military exercises are responded with military exercises — all done in the name of enhancing “defensive” readiness and is not aimed at any one country.

Currently, in East Asia, it can be observed that every state’s arms build-up is based on what they say is a response to certain threats in the region. Moreover, it is not unknown that some states view with suspicion China’s increasing military budget and its intentions for the future, especially when it launched its first aircraft carrier the Liaoning in 2012. In the same vein, China also views with suspicion the US’ and its other allies real intentions towards it.

China’s point of view

Ever since the US announced its ‘Pivot to Asia,’ many in China have believed that this is a confirmation of the US’ long-held agenda of containing the rise and influence of a rival power, with the use of its allies as offshore balancers. What further worried the Chinese was when then US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the US, by 2020, would deploy 60 percent of its military assets to Asia.

All of this, makes the Chinese believe that any activity sanctioned by the US is something that is provocative and is biased on the issue of the territorial disputes. Based on this and on China’s experience of the US’ intervention in East Asia especially during the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis, China realized that it had to develop an Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) strategy and forge closer strategic cooperation with Russia in order to have a more credible deterrence capability and prevent further interference in what it sees as its core interests.

As with Japan, China sees Japan as a country whose “active pacifism” as stated by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is actually “historical revisionism.” China, and also South Korea, believe that Japan continues to be unrepentant of its war crimes during World War II and has even exacerbated this by its political leaders’ frequent visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 Japanese Class-A war criminals are enshrined.

Due to these and Japan’s nationalization of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands in September 2013, the Chinese were made to believe that Japan is being led by ultra-right nationalists who want to relive a World War II-like remilitarized Japan. And so as a response, China stepped-up its maritime patrols, and consequently, imposed an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, but which, as a result, also drew alarm from the US and its other allies in the region.

China per se does not necessarily see the Philippines and Vietnam as direct threats, but perhaps, mere irritants at most. What it sees as threats are the US’ and Japan’s actions in the region and the way they involve other states to join their agenda — which, for China, is a vote of confidence on the US’ strategic designs of containment or guilt by ‘plurilateral consociations’ leading to an ‘accumulated threat’ which should warrant certain countermeasures.

The small powers: Vietnam and the Philippines

For the Philippines, which is a small state and sorely lacking in hard power, it feels that it must respond to external threats by aligning with bigger powers like the US, Japan, and Australia to fill in for its inadequacy. As a small state, it also sees no incentive in waging a war against China, because doing so would be outright suicide and devoid of any strategic merit.

And so with the ratification of the Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), of where more American troops would be accommodated and where Philippine military bases would be developed, the Philippines believes that, it, together with the “minimum credible defense” posture, would strengthen the country’s deterrence capability.

The same is true for Vietnam, which is why it seeks to develop closer mil-to-mil relations and maritime cooperation with the US, Japan, Russia, and India. For these two small states, their primary interest is to look for balancers or security providers, not necessarily containers. This is also why the two have eyed closer maritime and naval cooperation – out of a common geostrategic interest.

What further affects the judgments of these small states is that when compared with China, there is huge asymmetry in terms of military capabilities, which make them feel insecure and intimidated. From an outsider’s point of view, there is also an underdog mentality that if a big guy acts or moves against a smaller one, it would be a default response to side or sympathize with the smaller one.

Japan’s stance

As for Japan, Japan has explicitly identified China as a real threat. Prime Minister Abe, knowing that other countries face similar threats from China, had announced Japan’s willingness to assume a leading balancing role in East Asia’s security architecture. This is why he has called for the revision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, in order to entitle Japan to a right of collective defense, which would allow it to defend any ally under armed attack by a third party.

More specifically, Prime Minister Abe also called for an increase in Japan’s Self-Defense Force’s (JSDF) budget and a relaxation on the exportation of Japanese military hardware to other countries. Japan already volunteered to provide patrol vessels to any country that have disputes with China, such Vietnam and the Philippines, and even signed a closer defense cooperation agreement with Australia, which involves the joint development of a stealth submarine technology and the possibility of selling Soryu-class submarines to the latter.

The US as an Asian actor

The territorial disputes cease to be a pan-Asian issue because some states are aligned with the US. The demand for continued US presence in Asia is fueled by those states that feel threatened by China. This, by default, is what legitimizes US alliance leadership and continued presence in the region.

The US has mainly two things at stake in the region. First is its credibility of defending an ally under armed attack or under threat of armed attack. President Obama had, on many occasions, repeatedly touted the US as a Pacific power, which is why the ‘rebalancing to Asia’ policy must be followed through by consistent gestures that would reassure its allies in the region and dispel fears that America is backing down.

Second, is the US’ image and role as a leader and guarantor of public goods in the region. The US is doing this by helping its allies beef up their security in order to share more responsibility in the alliance and assume a greater role in the region. The US believes that, because of China’s behavior, it is threatening the freedom of navigation and overflight and thus gives it more reason to not only come to the aid of its allies, but also justify that its own strategic interests needed to be safeguarded as well.

For the US, knowing that China has an A2AD strategy, it, for its part, has devised an Air-Sea Battle (ASB) doctrine, which aims to defeat adversaries equipped with A2AD capabilities that could threaten America’s freedom of action in the region. In other words, for the US and some state actors in the region, the China factor has become a common issue or a strategic point of convergence.

What possible remedial action?

There are three ways to keep the peace. First is by ‘absolute peace,’ where two nations really don’t spend on arms build-up either because of the complete absence of or a very minimal level of distrust. Second is through deterrence, where either state can’t inflict harm on the other for fear of a mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario or fear of the formidable retaliatory capability of the other.

Everyone claims that they uphold peace, stability and order in the region and that war or armed conflict is in nobody’s interests. Clearly then, the problem arises due to trust deficit. And this trust deficit stems from the existing mindsets, hypes, and misperceptions.
Even then, these issues could be more understood by trying to put oneself at each other’s shoes and by exercising mutual restraint and mutual respect. In foreign policy analysis, it is said that, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Indeed, one’s judgment and views would always be clouded by what one is and where one is.

So perhaps, a third way, which could be tried, is through ‘practical peace’ wherein all the moderates or owls on each side could be invited to carve out to think of more creative ways as to how some functional cooperation could be possible, because only this modality of pragmatism does not know how to discriminate against sensitive national or political hues.

*Aaron Jed Rabena is a PhD Candidate in International Relations at Shandong University, Jinan, People’s Republic of China. He is also the current President of the youth organization Philippines-China Friendship Club (PCFC).

The post The Security Dilemma In East Asia – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73599 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images