Does the entertainment industry have an Uncle Tom clause for black performers? That certainly seems to be the case, with endless jaw dropping comments uttered by famous black people recently. One may call himself “new black,” another doesn’t mind being called “nigger,” and another says the end of racism depends upon black people showing love to white people.

The days when entertainers were in the forefront of the liberation movement are long gone. It isn’t really surprising, because the era when black people asserted their own politics is also far in the past. There is a generation with literally no way to discuss their experience in a way that truthfully speaks to the reality of black people’s lives. As a result we are now left with coonery and buffoonery from people whose successes may or may not make us proud, but certainly should not be embarrassing either.

Neither the pleasure we derive from popular culture nor the desire to see black people do well, ought to give license to slander and lies. Pharrell Williams’ success shouldn’t allow anyone to forget his bizarre assertion that he is a “new black.” He spoke this nonsense in a 2014 interview with Oprah Winfrey, a setting ready made for foolishness.

“The new black doesn’t blame other races for our issues. The new black dreams and realizes it’s not about pigmentation: it’s a mentality and it’s either going to work for you or it’s going to work against you. And you’ve got to pick the side you’re going to be on.” Underneath the Oprahish nonsensical words is an old clarion call. Choose white people for a chance to succeed. Stand with your own people and fall. And by no means never ever call white people to account. That is the death knell for anyone wanting to achieve.

Unfortunately Williams has succeeded commercially and so has rapper, song writer, actor Common. Fresh off of his Oscar win for the Selma movie theme song, Common declared that racism was akin to a quarrel between lovers and that black people should extend “a hand of love” to white people. It is hard to know where to begin in dissecting the danger that comes from listening to such stupid and untrustworthy people.

“I’m…extending a hand. And I think a lot of generations and different cultures are saying ‘Hey, we want to get past this. We’ve been bullied and we’ve been beat down, but we don’t want it anymore. We’re not extending a fist and saying, ‘Hey, you did us wrong.’ It’s more like ‘Hey, I’m extending my hand in love. Let’s forget about the past as much as we can, and let’s move from where we are now. How can we help each other? Can you try to help us because we’re going to help ourselves, too.’ That’s really where we are right now.”

“Me as a black man, I’m not sitting there like, ‘White people—y’all did us wrong, I mean we know that that existed. I don’t even have to keep bringing that up. It’s like being in a relationship and continuing to bring up the person’s issues.”

Even the flawed film Selma makes it clear that black people quite loudly stated they were being done wrong and didn’t put any limits on how often they had to make their demands. Common is perhaps the first person in American history to say that the oppression of black people is akin to a romantic relationship gone bad. As for extending a hand in love, it isn’t clear why black people are the ones who must do the loving. Like Pharrell Williams, Common has chosen sides. He has chosen white people over black people because that is where he sees his bread being buttered.

Does the corporate entertainment industry really require such craven and servile behavior or is there an unwritten rule that these people know they must follow? It seems that no matter how great their success, black people fear they can be taken down at any moment. Academy awards and record sales aren’t protective charms. They can be turned into nobodies as quickly as they were turned into stars and that is why the Uncle Tomism is so blatant.

Movies and music are harmless in and of themselves, they are popular because they give us enjoyment and can produce great artistry. But there is great harm when black people excuse the wrongs done to them and place the onus of justice solely on themselves. Even at this late stage of history the black face in a high place can be an irresistible drug. The Pharrells and the Commons of the world would be ignored and despised if they did not represent the levels of achievements so intoxicating to a people still yearning for recognition.

The television series Empire is the latest popular culture drug for black people. Its star, Terrence Howard, joined the Uncle Tom clique when he said that he hopes the word “nigger” is used on the new hit show. Not content to make this dubious demand, Howard added that he doesn’t mind when his white friends direct the word at him. “Did white people invent this word?” the dim-witted actor inquired. (Note to Terrence: yes they did.)

These stupid, shallow people should not have the last word. What good are awards and ratings and record sales if the people who gain these successes stab us all in the back the first moment they fear that white people will take back what they have given?

If Pharrrell and Common were afraid of offending white people they could just as easily have made bland, neutral statements. It would not have cost them anything if they had not thrown black people under the bus. Instead they decided to unambiguously take sides against black people, their history and their politics in order to gain favor with white people who can make them rich.

In a just world, these people would be rejected by their bosses because they were first rejected by consumers. Ideally they should all know that the punishment for their inexcusable words was a loss of market share. Unfortunately, they have no reason to fear that their fans will reject them. We haven’t heard the last back-stabbing minstrelsy from Hollywood.

The post Uncle Tom Celebrities – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

10. This sort of argument for debunking Islam in the media as the best way to “defeat” ISIS/ISIL misses the fact that ISIS recruits from the United States make up almost certainly much less than 1% of recruits, so that 99% of the problem, even on its own terms, remains completely unsolved.

9. Even if failure to expose Islam and other religions as ancient myths lacking basis in reality were a significant cause of people joining ISIS, it would not approach the primary cause without which ISIS would not exist, namely U.S. violence in the Middle East. Explaining to would-be ISIS martyrs that there aren’t really 72 virgins and isn’t really a heaven couldn’t possibly do as much to reduce ISIS recruitment as explaining to active and would-be members of the U.S. military that arming and bombing and drone-striking distant lands doesn’t actually protect the United States but rather generates so much hostility against it that groups like ISIS produce full-length films imploring the U.S. military to attack it.

8. Of course religion is often a huge part of what motivates members of the U.S. military as well. Congressman Sam Johnson has introduced the “Preserve and Protect God in Military Oaths Act of 2015,” to force cadets at the Air Force Academy to say “so help me God” in their oaths. Ted Cruz just announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency at Liberty University, where students learn to drone-murder for Jesus. What is “our best weapon” against that?

7. U.S. recruits to ISIS enamored of Muslim martyrdom could just as well have risked their lives preaching Islam in Alabama. Why choose to risk their lives attacking U.S. troops? The reason is not simply a variety of Islam. Rather it is alienation from the United States. Anwar Al-Awlaki was plenty Muslim when he supported U.S. wars. It was U.S. racism, bigotry, brutality, and militarism that drove him into opposition to the U.S. — which tragically took the form of advocating violence.

6. Bill Maher pushes racism and bigotry, even concentration camps. The idea that such attitudes are the best response to Islamic hostility and violence is outrageously naive. Were Maher advocating inclusiveness and community at home and abroad, I might take seriously the idea that he was helping.

5. Who is the group to which “Our” is applied in the phrase “our best weapon”? As a human I want an answer to ISIS that works for people in the United States, Europe, Iraq, Syria, and the rest of that region, including Sunnis, and including members of ISIS. The idea that a new war on ISIS is going to repair the damage of the previous wars, which created ISIS, is sadly delusional (but if it leads President Obama to make peace with Iran, I’ll take that result gratefully).

4. What is the “weapon” in “our best weapon”? When speech is understood as a weapon it ceases to be useful as speech. Religion is declining in the West and even in the United States, but thinking of those still clinging to it as wartime enemies is exactly the wrong way to advance that process. Thinking of an actual war that has numerous motivations as a struggle over religious beliefs will, likely as not, cause those sympathetic to one side or the other to adopt those beliefs or to hold them more firmly.

3. Highlighting stories of a small number of would-be U.S. recruits is propaganda aimed at instilling fear and suggesting a local presence and an actual threat from what is after all a small and very distant group of people.

2. Such propaganda hides actual motivations and causes. Causes hidden include: past wars on Iraq, sectarian divisions created by those wars, poverty and desperation, regional power grabs, international power grabs, the flow of weapons into the region (largely from the United States), the brutality and cruelty and incompetence of the government of Iraq, the weapons and trainers provided by the United States to the “moderate” groups that cease to be moderate or that surrender to those that are not. Motivations include: rage, hunger, fear, the desire for revenge, the desire to see the United States leave the region, the desire to achieve power or safety or riches, the profit motives of the weapons sellers and oil barons, and the belief that violence can be used to end violence.

1. Hiding the primary problems keeps us from seeing the primary solutions. Each of these steps would work wonders compared to telling U.S. television viewers that Islam isn’t true: Ceasing to ship weapons to the region; urging an arms embargo on all parties; negotiating a ceasefire with all regional parties including Iran and Russia; sending in a major contingent of nonviolent peaceworkers and human shields, independent journalists, aid workers, and nonviolent activist trainers; providing reparations and aid on a Marshall Plan scale; negotiating a WMD-free Middle East. If those steps were being taken well, I’d be all for finding time to critique religions.

The post Top 10 Reasons Bill Maher Is Not ‘Our Best Weapon Against ISIS’ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Singapore’s governance model is widely touted to be world-class. Much of it is due to the brand of its political leadership which is studied by many countries around the world, not least China.

By Benjamin Ho*

Despite being the last country in Southeast Asia to formally recognise the People’s Republic of China in 1990, Sino-Singapore relations are highly advanced; the city-state engages deeply with China in multiple dimensions of bilateral ties – economic, cultural and political. Both countries’ heads-of-state are also scheduled to visit each other this year to commemorate 25 years of bilateral relationship.

The relationship was built up in large measure by the first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, beginning with his path-breaking visit to China in 1976 when he called on Chairman Mao Tse-tung. In his condolences to the Singapore government over the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Chinese president Xi Jinping described Lee as an “old friend to the Chinese people [who is] widely respected by the international community as a strategist and a statesman” as well as the “founder, pioneer and promoter of China-Singapore relations”.

Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership as a model for China?

Notwithstanding his opposition to the Communist Party of Malaya in the 1950s and 60s, during the early years of the People’s Republic of China, his friendship and goodwill with subsequent Chinese leaders grew, most notably Deng Xiaoping, whom he first met in Singapore in November 1978. Lee described Deng as the “most impressive leader I have met”. In his memoirs, Lee recollected that he had “never met a communist leader who was prepared to depart from his brief when confronted with reality…At 74, when he was faced with an unpleasant truth, [Deng] was prepared to change his mind.” This included changing China’s view of Singapore, which till then, was perceived as a “running dog” of the West.

As noted by Harvard’s Ezra Vogel: “A few weeks after Deng visited Singapore, this description of Singapore disappeared…Instead, Singapore was described as a place worth studying for its initiatives in environmental preservation, public housing, and tourism.” And Lee went on to persuade Deng to call off the CCP’s support for the CPM’s insurgency in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore.

Indeed, China’s benevolence towards Singapore over the past two decades should not be explained as simply for securing markets for its economic exports or for geo-strategic reasons. The focus, instead was on domestic governance in so far as Singapore represented a model of efficient and effective government that provided prosperity and stability for its people. In 2012, President Xi ordered China Central Television to produce a series on Singapore for the benefit of Chinese learning.

Studies in Chinese leadership patterns have shown that a paternalistic leadership model to be most reflective of indigenous Chinese preferences. Defined as a type of leadership that combines strong and clear authority with concern, consideration, and elements of moral suasion, such a leadership style is identified with transformational leadership, one that places the leader as the agent of transformation, whereas the organisation and the followers are the target of the transformation.

Transformational leadership also obliges the leader to transcend the individual interests of the followers, while at the same time uniting them behind the collective interests of the organisation, a posture that befits the Confucian ideal of the sagely king or the superior gentleman. The Chinese saying, “If a leader sets a bad example, subordinates are likely to follow suit” (shangliangbuzheng xialiangwai) relates well to both Singapore and China, societies that are – in varying degrees – influenced by Confucian thought patterns.

Indeed, the need of a strong – and upright – leader features prominently in Chinese politics, more so when at stake is the effective governance, survivability and prosperity of a country of 1.3 billion people. Not merely as servants of the state reflecting and representing the will of the people, the Chinese leader is expected to lead the nation, to the extent of over-riding popular will, if he deems necessary.

Lee Kuan Yew as leader par excellence

Lee’s decision-making process can be best summed up on the basis of “what works” – often defined by stability and orderly progress – rather than “what is demanded” by popular opinion. Lee’s disdain for the “marketplace of ideas” was also seen in the manner in which he selected his inner circle of political confidantes regarding policy-making matters. Lee’s “three orbits of leadership” as observed, comprised of an inner ring whose members were Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, and Toh Chin Chye; the second and third orbits consisted of allies he respected and trusted and those who have proven themselves competent.

In Cabinet meetings, he valued quality of opinions more than the quantity of votes, as Lee himself puts it, “In the Cabinet, I would say there were about five or six strong ministers with strong views. And you want to get a consensus if you can. If you can’t, then you get the majority in numbers: I would prefer the strong ministers to back the policy. If one or two strong ministers strongly felt, very fervently, against the policy, I would postpone it because I would take their objectives very seriously”.

Strong leadership, in Lee’s mind, also meant not bending to the pressures and interests of external powers, particularly that of more powerful countries. This was crucial in the early years of Singapore’s independence in which it had yet to establish deep ties with the international community.

Former head of the Singapore public service Lim Siong Guan, who served under Lee, relates how Lee had instructed him in the conduct of the country’s foreign affairs: “Lee told me that in the course of my work, I would be dealing with foreigners, and advised: “Always look the foreigner in his eyes. Never look down. You are dealing with him as a representative of Singapore. Conduct yourself as his equal.”

Leadership transition in both Singapore and China

Given Lee’s towering influence on Singapore’s political scene, Singapore’s political transition from first to third generation of leaders has been remarkably smooth – an attribute that is also shared by the ascension of President Xi Jinping to power, notwithstanding the factional differences that are the hallmark of one-party systems. This is where comparisons between Singapore and China end.

Given the changing social demographics in Singapore and the opening up of its socio-political space, the one-party model that has served Singapore for the past 50 years since its independence cannot be indefinitely taken for granted, as various scholars have observed.

But for China to acquiesce to such proposals for liberal political reforms is unimaginable, given the present climate where President Xi is said to wield unprecedented power, both personal and within the party. As Elizabeth Economy puts it in a recent Foreign Affairs article, if Xi’s reforms could yield a “corruption-free, politically cohesive, and economically powerful one-party state with global reach”, it would be like “a Singapore on steroids”. Whether China is able to achieve the Chinese Dream remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the political legacy bequeathed by Lee is instructive for China’s future.

*Benjamin Ho is an Associate Research Fellow in the Multilateralism and Regionalism Programme, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. This is the fourth in the series on the Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew.

The post Lee Kuan Yew’s Leadership: Model For China? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By B. Z. Khasru*

There have been rumblings lately in certain Western circles — and a faint echo inside Bangladesh — that the military of the South Asian country could take over power to end a two-month long political unrest that has killed more than 100 people and bruised its thriving economy.

The unsettling history of the nation of 165 million Bengalis, which came into existence 44 years ago through a bloody civil war and has seen 19 military coups and assassination of two presidents since its birth, gives fodder to such speculation.

But given the current regional power equation and the Bengali army’s internal dynamics, the armed forces are highly unlikely to enter the fray unless and until the civilian administration crumbles and frightened people start fleeing into neighboring India in droves.

If such an eventuality indeed unfolds, although at this moment it seems improbable, New Delhi will command Bangladesh’s military to move to halt the chaos and control mass migration. The giant neighbor will be especially alarmed if the catastrophe resembles the exodus witnessed during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 after Pakistan’s military scorched what was then East Pakistan, forcing ten million Bengalis to take shelter in India.

Unless the situation gets to that extreme, Bangladesh’s army will turn a blind eye to the battle of two power-hungry and stubborn begums — Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, who leads the main opposition group, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Khaleda, who was prime minister twice, started the current round of protests in January to force the government to resign and hold new parliamentary polls, saying last year’s elections were fraud. But the prime minister has vowed not to budge. Foreign diplomats in Bangladesh have been holding talks with politicians and business leaders in search of a solution to the mess.

The generals are fuming over “speculative and false” stories in foreign and domestic news media hinting at a possible army takeover of government to stop the nation from descending into anarchy. The military marched quickly to quash the rumor and made its position crystal clear in a recent press statement: The army “is totally respectful to the country’s constitution and laws.” Armed rebellion against the government is high treason.

The military issue came to limelight again in late February when the government arrested a well-known former student leader, Mahmudur Rahman Manna, who now leads a fringe opposition group, on sedition charges. He reportedly told a fellow opposition politician over the phone that he intended to discuss the crisis with top military generals in an attempt to find a solution.

Army mindful of failures

The military has found itself mired in bloody upheavals since the nation’s bloody birth in 1971. The army remembers very well its miserable failure with the most recent experiment in politics from 2007 to 2009. During the period, army-generals-turned-king-makers unsuccessfully sought to banish the battling ladies from politics. They intended to force the begums into exile to eradicate what is dubbed in Bangladesh as dynastic rule.

Hasina joined politics after her father President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s assassination in Bangladesh’s first military coup in 1975. Khaleda jumped into the ring following her husband President Ziaur Rahman’s killing in a failed putsch in 1981. Neither was previously active in politics; they were housewives. Both are grooming their sons as heir apparent.

In 2007, 17 years after military ruler Gen. H.M. Ershad’s debacle, a bankrupt political process had given the army a chance to take political power and become the savior of democracy. Bangladesh then seemed ready to accept the army’s interference in politics so long as military influence was neither too overt nor overbearing.
This time around such an environment is nonexistent. The nation, which has already had enough of dysfunctional politicians, has no appetite for misguided military rulers.

By all accounts, the army’s stint was marked by dismal failures. In the end, the military leaders had to find a face-saving way for a retreat, surrendering their ambitious-but-fallacious plans at the feet of the very politicians they despised. This retreat by the armed forces has created an unexpected positive outcome for the
nation’s political process by diminishing prospects for future military maneuvers into politics.

Furthermore, the internal dynamics of Bangladesh’s armed forces are immensely different today from years ago. Military involvement in politics benefits the top brass. Mid-level officers and enlisted men, on the contrary, reap profits when they get lucrative UN peacekeeping jobs overseas. There is simply no incentive for lower-level officers to support a military coup. Citing this factor, retired Major General Mahabbat Jan Chowdhury, former head of the military intelligence unit, once told U.S. diplomats in Bangladesh that the military would do nothing to risk its participation in peacekeeping missions.

U.S. opposes military coup

When it comes to taking over the government, Bangladesh’s military routinely consults the United States in advance. Washington has consistently opposed military coup in Bangladesh, at least since President Zia’s killing in 1981. After the popular military-strongman-turned-politician was gunned down by his fellow military
officers, America warned then army chief Ershad against imposing martial law. When the general sent Zia’s successor, President Abdus Sattar, packing home one year later, Washington grudgingly accepted the military takeover realizing there was nothing America could to reverse Ershad’s power grab.

But when Gen. Nooruddin Khan sought blessings to topple Khaleda Zia in 2004, Ambassador Harry Thomas told him point blank that Washington “would not under any circumstances support a coup against the Bangladesh” government. Not only that, he warned that the United States would “ensure that any military action against Prime Minister Zia would result in sanctions against the successor government.”

Khan, a former army chief and minister in Sheikh Hasina’s previous administration, told Thomas that Bangladesh’s only way out of dynastic rule was to draft a new constitution based on the presidential system that would prevent Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina from holding office.

With changes in global power balance, America’s voice in Bangladesh is feeble now. Today, India enjoys the upper hand. Hasina ignored Washington’s advice and held parliamentary elections last year excluding Khaleda after the prime minister got green signal from New Delhi. Washington’s diplomatic onslaught to push her to include Khaleda into the political process has poisoned Hasina’s mind. Hasina is suspicious of U.S. intentions. She believes the United States was involved in her father’s killing and that Washington intends to send her too into political oblivion.

Washington had pressed her hard to leave Muhammad Yunus alone, whom she ousted from Grameen Bank three years ago against America’s wishes. Hasina aims to finish both Khaleda and Yunus, politically speaking. She suspects Khaleda’s husband was involved in the coup in which her father was killed, and Yunus, a 2006 Nobel prize winner, conspired with the United States and the World Bank to float corruption charges against her government and family. The bank suspended a $1.2 billion loan to build a vital bridge in Bangladesh after allegations surfaced that Hasina’s former communications minister, Abul Hossain, and her sister, Sheikh Rehana, took bribes to hire a Canadian company to work on the project.

Hasina enjoys India’s backing

To be sure, India — like the United States — will do business with any government that comes to power in Bangladesh. New Delhi offered financial support to both Hasina and Khaleda during 2001 elections. RAW, India’s spy agency, funded Tariq Rahman, who pledged to deliver his mother — Khaleda Zia — on gas exports and water-sharing differences, but failed to do so. New Delhi worked hard to bring Hasina back to power in 2008. India has made it abundantly clear that it strongly supports the prime minister. It favors Hasina because of her Awami League party’s nonreligious political philosophy and her government’s India-friendly posture.

India has been under fierce criticism at home for failing to assert its regional dominance and abdicating its rightful destiny in favor of the United States. Stung by such attacks, the government has assumed an assertive role in Bangladesh affairs. New Delhi, which fears China’s inroads into Bangladesh, now single-mindedly pursues
its interests, even if it means defying Washington. India’s support for Hasina’s decision to hold elections last year illustrates the point. When it comes to military interests, India is likely to be even more forceful going forward as far as Bangladesh is concerned, especially with Narendra Modi in power in New Delhi, who is hell-bent upon asserting India’s regional primacy.

To this end, India is seeking to forge stronger ties with Bangladesh’s army to cringe any diplomatic or military gains by Beijing. China was Bangladesh’s biggest arms supplier between 2009 and 2013, accounting for 82 percent of Dhaka’s defense imports, according a 2014 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. New Delhi also wants to keep U.S. role in Bangladesh to its strategic advantage. India’s military consequently closely watches domestic scenes in Bangladesh. It would coordinate its moves with Bangladesh’s army to contain any likely spillover that might engulf both countries. Bangladesh abuts seven restive states in northeastern India, where New Delhi fears China can foment trouble.

Unlike in 2001, when 16 Indian soldiers were killed inside Bangladesh, an event that many Indians fumed was orchestrated by the then chief of the Bangladesh border guards in an attempt to sink Indo-Bangla relations — and thus boost Khaleda Zia’s chance of election victory — the Bangladesh army today finds in Hasina a very
generous patron. She has spent huge sums of money for the military, including $1 billion to buy arms from Russia. As a result, the army’s loyalty is no longer one-sided; Bangladesh’s military is now a more professional force than ever.

*B. Z. Khasru, is editor of The Capital Express in New York and author of “Myths and Facts Bangladesh Liberation War” and “The Bangladesh Military Coup and the CIA Link.” He is working on a new book, “The King’s Men, One Eleven, Minus Two, Secrets Behind Sheikh Hasina’s War on Yunus and America.”

The post Why Military Coup Unlikely In Bangladesh – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

UN Human Rights Council members on March 26, 2015, took an important step in global efforts to protect privacy on the internet, as well as more broadly, Human Rights Watch said today. The council unanimously agreed to appoint a new UN special rapporteur, or expert, on the right to privacy.

“How privacy is protected online is one of the most pressing issues of our time,” said Eileen Donahoe, director of global affairs at Human Rights Watch. “Our hope is that the Human Rights Council resolution marks the beginning of a serious global reckoning with mass surveillance and its effects.”

The council’s decision was the culmination of sustained efforts by Germany and Brazil to bring new focus to threats to privacy on the Internet. President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil raised the importance of privacy in the digital context at the UN General Assembly in 2013 following reports that both Rousseff and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany were victims of US espionage. Following Rousseff’s address, UN institutions actively pursued the topic, with two resolutions in the General Assembly, a high-level panel at the Human Rights Council, and a report by the then-UN high commissioner on human rights, Navi Pillay.

The advancement in digital technology has had many positive social effects. But the inexorable move toward the digitization of information also has meant that governments have enhanced ability to monitor citizens’ movements, censor speech, block or filter access to information, and track communications, Human Rights Watch said.

Human rights defenders in particular increasingly face threats, insecurity, and attacks as a result of digital surveillance and collection of their personal data, Human Rights Watch said. Privacy is a gateway right that affects the ability to exercise almost every other right, in particular freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association.

“When everything you say or do can be intercepted, monitored, or become the object of surveillance, it has a chilling effect on what people feel free to say, where they feel free to go, and with whom they choose to meet,” Donahoe said. “For human rights defenders, these questions are urgent because they often delve into problems or raise issues that governments would rather keep hidden. Their ability to do their work is at risk, as is their basic safety and the safety of victims and witnesses.”

The new special rapporteur has a broad mandate to cover all aspects of privacy and will be able to take on these concerns through a variety of means, including:

• systematically reviewing government policies on interception of digital communications and collection of personal data and pinpointing policies that intrude on privacy without compelling justification;
• identifying best practices to bring global surveillance under the rule of law and helping ensure that national procedures and laws that have bearing on privacy are consistent with international human rights law obligations;
• examining private sector responsibilities to respect human rights under the “Protect, Respect, Remedy framework” of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, in the specific context of digital information and communication technology;
• helping develop international norms that more effectively address the interaction between privacy, freedom of expression, and other human rights in the digital context; and
• bringing focused attention to factors that facilitate overbroad surveillance, including widely varying practices and levels of transparency about what data businesses retain, and how those practices in many instances have a direct bearing on what governments are able to collect and monitor; and working with other UN experts on protecting free expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and human rights defenders, to identify specific threats to rights in the context of indiscriminate mass surveillance, leading to a more comprehensive approach to the protection of privacy.

“The appointment of a UN expert on privacy in the digital age means that we now have someone to watch those that are watching us,” Donahoe said.

The post UN Takes Major Step On Internet Privacy, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Louise Redvers

The UN refugee agency has placed an order for 10,000 flat-pack refugee shelters designed by a social enterprise arm of furniture giant IKEA, with first delivery planned within months to camps across Iraq, where some 2.5 million people have been displaced by conflict.

Work on the Better Shelter units began more than five years ago and a prototype was unveiled in 2013.

Now, after an 18-month pilot involving 40 families in refugee camps in Ethiopia and Iraq, UNHCR says the design is ready to be rolled out to scale. Each shelter is designed for a family of 5 or 6.

“The units comprise the best elements of a tent in that it’s pre-packed, of minimal weight and produced to core standards, but it also has a rigid, self-supporting frame and it provides more physical security and dignity for its occupants,” explained Shaun Scales, chief of shelter and settlement at the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, making the roll-out announcement at the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid and Development (DIHAD) conference.

With floor space of 17.5 square metre and made from a lightweight steel frame and plastic panels, the shelters have been designed to withstand both extreme heat and severe cold.

They are 1.75 metres high and, unlike tents, allow people to stand up straight inside. They have lockable doors, ventilation, solar panels, mosquito nets and lights.

Anders Rexare Thulin, managing director of Better Shelter, the non-profit social enterprise funded by the IKEA Foundation to design and produce the structures in partnership with UNHCR, told IRIN: “The refugees have been involved in the process from the beginning.

“We have received regular feedback from families living in the structures, and we made sure we incorporated their comments in our design.”

At a cost of US$1,150 each, the shelters cost three times more than a standard UNHCR tent, but while tents are designed to last for just six months, these new shelters last for a minimum of three years in harsh conditions, and up to 20 years in more temperate climates.

“They may cost more initially, but they last a lot longer and are therefore better value,” Olivier Delarue, UNHCR Innovation lead told IRIN.

He added: “This is a real example of how the private sector and public sectors can come together to make something new. UNHCR shouldn’t be designing shelters, we should be harnessing the expertise of others, and who better to make a flat-pack shelter than IKEA.”

The IKEA shelter is not the first non-tent solution for refugees and IDPs: the Norwegian Refugee Council is piloting a similar type of structure in a refugee camp in Jordan and elsewhere in Jordan a number of Syrian families are living in container homes provided by Gulf donors.

More than 2.5 million people have been internally displaced in Iraq since January 2014, the majority fleeing the territorial advance of the group calling itself the Islamic State. The country is also hosting more than 220,000 Syrian refugees.

The post Iraq: 10,000 Flat-Pack IKEA Shelters For Displaced appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mohammad Ghazal

Custodian of Two Holy Mosques King Salman vowed on Saturday that the military intervention Saudi Arabia is leading against Houthis in Yemen will continue until it brings security to the Yemeni people.

The campaign will continue until it achieves its goals for the Yemeni people to enjoy security, the king said at the 26th Arab Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh.

The king’s pledge came as heads of Arab states said the Saudi Arabia-led operation in Yemen is fundamental to safeguard the region’s stability and the Arabic identity of Yemen.

Arab leaders also voiced their strong support to the Saudi-led operation against the Iran-backed group, saying their coup is a threat not only to the security of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, but also to the Arab world and to international peace.

Operation Decisive Storm, in which several Arab and international countries are taking part, including the US, comes after the Houthi rebels’ insistence on destroying the country and serving regional agendas, they said at the opening of the summit.

In his address, King Salman said: “Saudi Arabia did not spare any effort to address the situation in Yemen. Houthi intransigence, pursuit of power and control, rejection of all initiatives and their aggression against the Yemeni people led to the military operation.”

“The Houthi militants elicited support of foreign powers to threaten the region’s security,” he said.

“We hoped not to resort to this decision (the operation) … The Houthi’ aggression is the biggest threat to the stability and security of the region,” said King Salman. The Saudi-led operation against the Houthi militants will continue until security is restored, he said.

In his address, Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi called for continued airstrikes against the Houthis — whom he labeled as the “stooges of Iran” — until they surrender.

Calling on his supporters to rise up in peaceful protests, Hadi said airstrikes should continue until Houthis return the heavy and medium weapons they looted from army depots.

Hadi accused former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Houthis of attempting a military coup after fighters loyal to the ousted president allied with the Houthis.

Voicing support to the airstrikes, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sissi said the Houthis resorted to using weapons to spread panic among Yemenis and jeopardize regional stability.

“They took to weapons, neglecting the legitimacy of the presidency, and violating all previous understandings and pacts.”

The Egyptian leader described the Houthis as opportunists seeking to marginalize the remaining segments of Yemeni society.

“It was a crucial for Arabs to take action via a coalition to preserve the stability of Yemen and its Arabic identity, and to ensure that the legitimate leadership restores power over all Yemen,” he said.

Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, who noted that Kuwait was among the first countries to support the operation, said the Houthi aggression against the legitimate leadership, threatens the entire region.

“After all peaceful means to find a solution failed, and upon a call by the Yemeni president for intervention, and in line with the GCC Defense Pact and the Arab Treaty of Joint Defense, all Arabs stood up to defend Yemen,” said the Kuwaiti emir.

The issue of forming a joint Arab military force to fight terrorism and preserve the security of Arab states was one of the priorities of leaders at the summit.

Referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they reiterated commitment to Arab Peace Initiatives and voiced rejection of Israeli settlement activities and violations against Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The escalating situation in Syria and Libya also dominated the summit.

The post Saudi Arabia King Salman Vows To Continue Yemen Campaign appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aron Lund for Syria Comment*

On March 28, Syrian rebels and jihadi fighters announced that they had captured the city of Idlib, posting pictures and videos online that showed them in control of government buildings and other landmarks. This followed a lightning offensive of several days, by a coalition of Sunni Islamist militias that assaulted the city from several directions.

After the security forces of President Bashar al-Assad violently put down protests inside the city in 2011 and 2012, resistance had been relegated to the countryside. With most of the surrounding Idlib Province captured, rebels had in the past year slowly but surely increased pressure on the city itself. They repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to block access roads as a way to force concessions and prisoner exchanges, which must have been a demoralizing experience for pro-Assad forces inside the city. In December 2014, the bell tolled for Idlib City, when the opposition overran the long-besieged Wadi Deif base, freeing up hundreds of crack rebel fighters for new campaigns.

At the time of writing, the situation remains unstable and it cannot be ruled out that Assad’s forces will launch a counterattack from areas still under their control. The government-run SANA news agency only speaks of “repositioning forces” in the southern neighborhoods of the city. Still, the apparent collapse of government defenses in Idlib has punched a gaping hole in the government’s narrative of approaching victory and boosted the opposition politically as well as militarily, spelling trouble for Bashar al-Assad.

A Sign of Government Overstretch

Out of thirteen provincial capitals, Idlib is only the second to be lost to the government, after the northeastern town of Raqqa was captured in early 2013. And like Raqqa, Idlib is a regional center rather than a major city – it would not fit on a top-five list over Syria’s most important cities. But the blow is heavy nonetheless.

The government remains much stronger than any rebel group on the national level, controlling perhaps two thirds of the population. Assad’s semi-cohesive central leadership and his control of a fully functional air force makes him Syria’s by far most powerful political actor, but his regime suffers from serious shortcomings nonetheless. It lacks enough reliable troops to conduct multiple offensives while also controlling its current territory and has been forced to farm out sensitive security tasks to local militias and Iranian-backed Shia Islamist foreign fighters.

Meanwhile, the state-run economy is withering, with a currency crisis and increasingly debilitating lapses in the fuel supply system and electricity production. The falling oil price is likely to cap Russian and Iranian support at levels too low to sustain the current ambitions of their Syrian ally. In short, it seems that Assad is still trying to bite off more of Syria than he can swallow, and the recent defeat in Idlib underlines how dangerously overstretched his regime has become.

The Islamic Emirate of Idlib?

The fall of Idlib is not without its risks for the rebels. Previous attempts by opposition groups to govern urban areas in Syria have been disastrous failures. Of course, a major reason has been Assad’s systematic bombings of civilian areas and infrastructure, which have killed and maimed tens of thousands of Syrians and forced millions out of their homes – a treatment now likely to be extended to Idlib. Even so, the rebels themselves are far from blameless. They have by and large failed to produce anything other than chaos and economic collapse, with what they refer to as liberated territory now suffering from chronic infighting, predatory criminal bands, and the brutal imposition of ultra-conservative Islamist norms. Most infamously, Raqqa has since its capture in 2013 transformed into a local capital of sorts for the self-declared Islamic State.

In the case of Idlib, many different groups were involved and all of them are hostile to the Islamic State, but the offensive appears to have been spearheaded by jihadis from the al-Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front and the large Islamist faction known as Ahrar al-Sham. While there are important sources of friction between these two groups – Ahrar al-Sham refuses to endorse al-Qaeda’s anti-Western attacks and is seeking local allies to avoid being swallowed up by the Nusra Front’s increasingly bold bid for hegemony in Idlib – they are both overtly anti-democratic, hostile to religious minorities, and committed to establishing a Sunni Islamist theocracy in Syria.

There is already great concern in the United States and Europe over the riseof jihadi groups in Syria. Now, early headlines in the Western press speak of a city that has “fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda,” which is hardly the kind of coverage that Syrian rebels were looking for.

This will be a serious problem for the rebels in the coming weeks and months. If Idlib becomes the scene of public floggings and streetside executions of “immoral” women, such as the Nusra Front has committed elsewhere in Idlib Province, or if it collapses into a turf war between rival groups, it would not only weaken more moderate rebel factions – it would also provide Bashar al-Assad with an opportunity to turn military defeat into political gain.

Where Next?

Militarily, however, the Idlib defeat puts Assad in a difficult spot as he needs to foresee the next rebel assault and deploy accordingly. Rebels already controlled most of the Idlib Province, but some pro-regime pockets remained apart from the provincial capital – notably the twin Shia towns of Fouaa and Kefraya, near the Sunni Islamist-controlled town of Binnish to the northeast of Idlib City. On March 27, Ahrar al-Sham announced that it had cut the last remaining supply route via Idlib City to Fouaa and Kefraya, meaning that these towns will now have to sue for peace with the rebels or risk destruction and perhaps a sectarian massacre.

To the south of Idlib City, the government controls a string of towns in the northern Jabal al-Zawiya region, the largest being Ariha, that served to supply forces inside Idlib. If that is no longer an objective, the regime may decide to abandon some of them to focus on defending territory of larger strategic value. However, at the other end of the road controlled by Ariha, we find the city of Jisr al-Shughour which connects the Idlib province to the Sunni-populated and rebel-friendly northern areas of Latakia Province. While Jisr al-Shughour is of little value in itself, Assad will presumably be reluctant to allow for increased pressure on his strongholds on the Alawite-majority coast. According to some sources, the government transferred its provincial government offices from Idlib to Jisr al-Shughour already two weeks ago.

South of Jisr al-Shughour lies the Ghab area of Hama, a heavily irrigated agricultural plain that butts into the Idlib Province alongside the Alawite Mountains. This religiously mixed powder keg has seen fierce fighting and may be of particular value to some rebel groups – for example, many of the founding fathers of Ahrar al-Sham hailed from villages in the Ghab. It is also possible that rebels from Idlib could move further south past Khan Sheikhoun and the battleground town of Morek, thereby attempting to put pressure on Hama, Syria’s fourth-largest city. It is a Sunni stronghold that has remained under Assad’s rule but could prove difficult to control once rebels gather critical mass on its outskirts. A rebel advance on Hama would certainly force the army to concentrate forces there, even at the expense of other fronts.

To the east, there is another very attractive target: the Abu Duhour air base. Capturing it would not only hobble Assad’s air campaign, it would also open up an area of coherent rebel control from the Turkish border to the desert south of Aleppo. In so doing, the rebels would also expose Assad’s only remaining supply line into Aleppo, a desperately improvised logistics trail through the rural towns of Khanaser and Sfeira that would be tremendously difficult to defend against multi-pronged attacks, especially if air cover falters. Under that scenario, the rebels could turn the tables on Assad in Aleppo, threatening his control over the city by cutting it off entirely from the rest of Syria.

At the end of the day, however, Idlib City is of limited value in itself. It is possible that the regime will counterattack or that none of the scenarios sketched out above will materialize. But considering the military and economic resources invested by Bashar al-Assad in its defense over the past four years, the loss of Idlib would undoubtedly signal to many of his supporters that the government’s current strategy is untenable in the long term.

*Aron Lund is a freelance writer on Middle Eastern affairs and the editor of Syria in Crisis, a website published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Affairs.

The post Syrian Rebels Capture Idlib – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari*

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and officially its largest economy as of April 2014, is holding presidential and legislative elections on 28 March 2015, which bear in equal measure the hallmarks of continuity and potential ruptures.

‘South Africa and Nigeria are critical countries in Africa and must work together so that Africa can move forward in the drive to boost the standard of living of our people’ ~ President Goodluck Jonathan on his visit to South Africa, 7 May 2013.

As Africa’s perennial promising nation, Nigeria has failed to live up to continental expectations in recent years. The forthcoming elections ought to provide a markedly different loadstar for Nigeria’s continental diplomacy and Africa’s collective future. In sync with some of its significant domestic assets, Nigeria has since independence framed its hegemonic destiny in continental terms. This grand association has often implied a foreign policy that has anchored its national heritage and assets in a continental vision.

It is why Nigeria has succeeded – irrespective of its own internal frailties – to provide support to liberation movements across Africa by leading diplomatic efforts in decolonisation, and specifically against apartheid South Africa. Manifestly, and notwithstanding the distance between Pretoria and Abuja, the destinies of Africa’s largest economies have been, and continue to be intertwined.

Therefore, if President Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) is re-elected, the elections in Nigeria are bound to confirm an existing relationship. On the other hand, the election of General Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) could translate into the charting of a new path between President Jacob Zuma and his Nigerian counterpart.

The success or failure of partnerships is not only the stuff of the material internal assets that states bring to the external environment. The personal rapport between men and women at the summit of states could lead to shifts in continental processes and new directions when visions, values and norms are shared.

At its zenith, the South Africa-Nigeria relationship during the terms of Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo, recast continental integration on a positive trajectory from the late 1990s until their departure at the end of the last decade. This golden era has not been emulated since. Yet, a solid Nigeria-South Africa partnership has the unique and unmatched potential to serve as a catalyst for more innovative policies and continental problem solving. After all, both countries have framed their foreign policies in ambitious sub-regional and continental terms. Moreover, as democracies, albeit a struggling one in the case of Nigeria, both countries have regional diplomacies that are normatively driven, with a strong focus on stability and democratic governance.

Until recently, Nigeria’s political and financial investments in its immediate neighbourhood, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), led to the relative stabilisation of the errant states of Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia. For its part, South Africa’s continental footprint in peace diplomacy and its search for normative policy convergence has had modest, but desired effects in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar and Lesotho.

However, in the absence of a strong bilateral Nigeria-South Africa partnership, efforts at continental peace have been residual in light of conflicting national interests and the wear-and-tear of internal malfunctions in both countries.

South Africa’s domestic challenges, notably xenophobic attacks, an economy failing to shift to a higher gear, and widening inequalities, have had a corrosive effect on the country’s prestige as an exporter of tolerant, humane values as enshrined in its white paper on foreign policy, Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu. Moreover, signs of institutional stresses in its security cluster and ongoing service delivery protests are stunting South Africa’s ability to project itself on the continent as a sound beacon of democratic governance, worthy of emulation.

Oddly, for an anchor state, Nigeria, which ought to serve as a guarantor of security, has now become an exporter of insecurity in the sub-region. The reign of terror inflicted by the Islamic fundamentalist Boko Haram in North-eastern Nigeria has violently displaced populations along the Niger-Chad-Cameroon border. Valuable, but scarce, financial and human resources have had to be mobilised in these countries and on the continent to counter this terrorist insurgency.

In light of these domestic dysfunctions, Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council since 2014, has lost a large chunk of its allure as a purveyor of solutions to African problems, despite the rebasing of its economy as the largest in Africa. As Nigerians head to the polls on 28 March 2015, the country’s chronic contagious insecurity is embarrassingly an agenda item at the summits of key multilateral institutions. It begs the question as to how Africa’s two major powers can lead in addressing continental challenges when Nigeria’s domestic circumstances overshadow robust continental engagement.

Evidently, in the current state, the forthcoming elections will not be about what Nigeria (with South Africa) can do better in Africa. Rather, they are about the more insular and institutionalised fault-lines of region, religion and ethnicity inherent to Nigeria and the inability of the political system and leadership to properly channel and address expectations. These are issues that have hamstrung Nigeria’s African potential and the country’s ability to purposefully navigate its foreign policy and diplomatic efforts through strategic partnerships to pursue the prosperity of all Africans. On the eve of these crucial elections, the limitations of Nigeria’s ability to lead on the continent have never been so stark.

Still, notwithstanding the pitfalls in its relationship with South Africa, this election and its aftermath should create more, not fewer, opportunities for meaningful collaboration between the two countries. During his state visit to South Africa in May 2013, President Jonathan emphasised that co-operation between Nigeria and South Africa was key to Africa’s economic and political development. Prosaically, he also went on to say: ‘The world expects so much from us, we must co-operate and work together, so that we will not fail the world about these expectations’. This rhetoric suggests that there is agreement between South Africa and Nigeria on what the partnership and its consolidation should mean for the African continent. Giving concrete expression to the aspirations is crucial.

The relationship has been institutionalised through a high-level Bi-national Commission, which has opened up avenues to deal with some of the contentious bilateral issues such as market access and visas for Nigerian business leaders and tourists. However, this institutional basis should be geared to further deepen political co-operation in Africa, thereby opening up more opportunities for joint continental problem solving.

In the absence of a purposeful Africa focused partnership between South Africa and Nigeria, and mutually reinforcing continental initiatives, Africa’s integration and development risk being indefinitely postponed.

*Dr Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a Senior Research Fellow in the Foreign Policy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs. This article was first published with AllAfrica.com.

Source: SAIIA

The post Pitfalls And Prospects: Nigeria And South Africa In Africa – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Scollon

(RFE/RL) — Yemen is at the center of a proxy war between regional heavyweights Iran and Saudi Arabia. It’s the source of fears of a broader Sunni-Shi’ite conflict. And it has implications far beyond its borders.

Here is a look at the stakeholders in the fight.

The Playing Field

The Yemen conflict is a tale of twos:

Two leaders: Former President Ali Abdullah Saleh (a Shi’a), who was replaced amid the Arab Spring uprising by his deputy, current President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi (a Sunni)

Two regions: North Yemen and South Yemen, which merged in 1990, with Saleh as president

Two capitals: Sanaa in the north, and Aden in the south

Two branches of Islam: Yemen is more than 99 percent Muslim, of which 65 percent are Sunnis of the Shafi’i school of thought, and 35 percent are Shi’as of the Zaydi school.

Two powerful extremist groups: The Huthis are Shi’ite rebels who first took control over north Yemen, forcing President Hadi to flee, expanded their control through most of the country, and are now moving on his refuge in Aden.

On March 27, the group put a bounty on Hadi’s head, and used the Yemeni Air Force it largely controls (with Saleh’s help) to strike Aden, forcing Hadi to go into hiding. The Sunni militant group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the most active Al-Qaeda franchise, controls large areas of north-central Yemen, and is pitted against the Yemeni government, Saudi Arabia, the Huthis, southern separatists and, ultimately, the United States.

Two regional backers: Iran supports the Huthis, materially and militarily; Saudi Arabia backs the Yemeni government headed by Hadi, and on March 25 led air strikes involving 10 Arab countries against Huthi rebels, leading Tehran to denounce the intervention.

Sunni Solidarity

The countries involved in the Saudi-led air strikes are Sunni, underscoring broader Sunni solidarity centered on Gulf Arab countries but which extends to Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, and Turkey, among others.

Yemen is the main topic of discussion at an Arab League summit in Sharm-el Sheikh, Egypt, this weekend, and Hadi will attend. Aside from participants’ role in the current Yemen intervention, the gathering of foreign ministers may move closer to establishing a joint Arab military force. The idea has been spearheaded by Egypt and the Gulf states as a way of combating terrorism and staving off Iranian influence.

Saudi Arabia has deployed about 100 aircraft in the Yemen intervention, dubbed Storm of Resolve, and planes from Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain are also contributing.

Saudi Arabia is also is contributing as many as 150,000 troops to the campaign, and Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan have expressed their readiness to take part in a ground offensive as well.

Sudan, which has had traditionally good relations with Tehran, also said it was ready to send ground troops.

Oil Prices

Global oil prices immediately surged on news of Saudi Arabian-led strikes in Yemen.

Benchmark Brent crude prices rose nearly 6 percent on March 26 (to near $60 a barrel), before easing a little due to fears that the military intervention could spark a broader regional conflict and disrupt oil supplies. On March 27, prices fell more than $1 a barrel (midday low $57.76) after Goldman Sachs said the Yemen campaign would have little effect on global oil supplies.

In kind, global stock indexes dipped, including the U.S. Dow Jones (down 0.6 percent) and London’s FTSE (down 1.2 percent).

Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the Middle East, has been a central figure in the global fall in oil prices that began in 2014. Oil accounted for some 90 percent of Saudi Arabia’s budget in 2013, according to Reuters, yet Riyadh has steadfastly refused to cut production to buoy prices.

Iran has characterized the fall in oil prices as the result of a Saudi and U.S. conspiracy against Tehran, whose oil income has been hurt by sanctions over its contentious nuclear program, and Russia, which relies heavily on oil income and is at odds with the West over its intervention in eastern Ukraine.

Russia

Moscow, which stands to gain from any rise in oil prices, has been working the phones and playing the peacemaker role since the Saudi-led air strikes began.

On March 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and “expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in Yemen,” according to the Kremlin press service. He also stressed the importance of “intensifying international efforts to achieve a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in the country.”

In a telephone conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rohani on March 26, Putin called for the “immediate cessation of hostilities” in Yemen — read by the Iranian press as a call for Saudi Arabia to halt its intervention — and also expressed satisfaction with progress made in the ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers.

The negotiators are entering the end game of talks aimed at meeting a March 31 deadline to come up with a framework agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran

As Tehran tries to cut a nuclear deal in Switzerland that will result in sanctions relief and allow it to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, it must fend off criticism of a possible deal from regional players Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu has been openly critical of the talks, which he argues are not going far enough to ensure that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons, and has raised the alarm about Iran’s growing influence in the region.

Riyadh has expressed its own concerns about Iran’s encroachment in the region and has sparked fears of a nuclear arms race by saying that any deal that allows Iran to enrich uranium will lead Saudi Arabia to seek the same.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is also Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, on March 26 demanded an “immediate stop to the Saudi military operations in Yemen.” He was also quoted by the Arabic-language al-Alam news network as saying Iran would “spare no effort to contain the crisis in Yemen.”

Turkey

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is scheduled to visit Iran in April, has been outspoken in his criticism of Tehran’s role in Yemen.

“Iran and the terrorist groups must withdraw,” he told France 24 on March 27, alluding to Huthi militants.

“We support Saudi Arabia’s intervention,” Erdogan said, adding that Turkey “may consider providing logistical support based on the evolution of the situation.”

On March 27, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif responded to earlier remarks by Erdogan in which he accused Iran of trying to dominate the Middle East.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready for cooperation with its brothers in the region to facilitate dialogue between various groups in Yemen to maintain unity and return stability and security in that country,” Fars quoted Zarif as saying.

Iraq

Iraq finds itself in a tricky balancing act. It is relying on Iranian-backed militias to help beat back an incursion by the hard-core Sunni Islamic State group on the ground, and U.S. air support to strike IS from above.

This week, the United States agreed to conduct air strikes in support of Baghdad’s effort to retake the Sunni-stronghold Tikrit. Once Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and his Iran-loyal militias had left the scene, U.S.-led air strikes followed.

During the Arab League summit in Egypt this weekend, Iraq can also expect to hear calls for its participation in the establishment of a joint Arab military force, an idea it has been reluctant to endorse because of its ties to Iran.

United States

Yemen, once a poster child of success for Washington, now adds to the complex challenges facing the United States in the Middle East.

On the one hand, the United States is in the unlikely position of being on the same side as Iran in fighting IS in Iraq.

But in Syria — where it is also targeting IS — Washington is arming some of the groups fighting the Iran- and Russia-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad.

And now, the United States finds itself backing (not yet militarily, but with logistical and intelligence support) longtime ally Saudi Arabia against Iran-backed militants in Yemen.

All this at a time when Washington is trying to seal a nuclear deal with Iran.

The post Background: Who Has A Stake In Yemen Fight – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

After a protracted political slug fest and acrimonious protests, the new State of Telangana was created on June 2, 2014, bifurcating Andhra Pradesh. According to the arrangement, Hyderabad will remain the joint capital for both the States for ten years, after which Andhra Pradesh will have its own capital and Hyderabad will be transferred entirely to Telangana. While Telangana has 10 Districts, the residuary Andhra Pradesh has 13. Interestingly, even as the undivided Andhra Pradesh successfully broke the backbone of Maoist movement in the State, the Maoists managed retain a shadow of their presence in the State. That shadow remains visible in Telangana.

At the time of the creation of Telangana, there was some apprehension that the Maoists would find conditions in the new State favourable to engineer a comeback, particularly in view of the fact that the movement for the bifurcation of Andhra was deeply penetrated by Maoist elements. Eight months after the creation of the new State, however, the profile of Maoist activities has not changed significantly.

On February 14, 2015, the Bhadrachalam Sub-divisional Police claimed to have foiled a bid by Maoists to plant explosives in the Korkatpadu forest area in Charla mandal in Khammam District to kill policemen. Four persons were arrested, including Madakam Deva (20), a special guerrilla squad (SGS) member and Madakam Jogaiah (21), a ‘militia commander’. The Police team seized one directional mine and one landmine, 100 metres of electric wire, two electrical detonators and one electric battery from them.

On December 28, 2014, the Bhadrachalam Sub-divisional Police had thwarted a bid by Maoists to blast a cell phone tower, after a half- hour exchange of fire, at Satyanarayanapuram in Charla mandal. The Police recovered three weapons, live ammunition, bows and arrows, petrol cans and revolutionary literature from the incident site. SFs reached the spot after receiving specific information about the Maoist plan.

According to partial data compiled by South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), the new State of Telangana, since its inception, recorded two civilian fatalities and one Maoist fatality in 2014. Before the bifurcation, one civilian and one SF trooper had been killed in 2014 in the Telangana region. Thus, the area that now comprises the Telangana State recorded a total of five fatalities – three civilian, one SF trooper [an SPO from Chhattisgarh killed during a private visit] and one suspected Maoist – in 2014. The same area had recorded three fatalities – two civilians and one SF trooper – in 2013. There has, so far, been no casualty in 2015 in Telangana in Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-related incidents.

On December 29, 2014, State Director General of Police (DGP) Anurag Sharma observed that there was no current Maoist activity in Telangana, but that the ultras enter the State from neighbouring States to attempt mischief: “After bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the Greyhounds (anti-Naxal force) was divided and whatever units have come to us, they are good enough. We are also training the District Special Parties to tackle the Maoists.” Seven incidents of exchange of fire with Maoists took place during 2014, resulting in the death of one extremist, Sharma added, and as many as 68 Maoists surrendered before Police, while 18 were arrested. 166 Maoist cadres hailing from Telangana were still underground.

On the basis of underground and over ground activities of the Maoists, Khammam District remains moderately affected while Adilabad, Karimnagar, Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda Districts are marginally affected.

The Maoist, however, are unlikely to give up their efforts to revive the movement in Telangana – the region that was, for decades, their ‘heartland’. The Karimnagar Police foiled Maoists’ attempts to revive party activities in the District with the arrest of three persons, including a militant, and the recovery of a huge quantity of ammunition and INR 1.6 million in cash from their possession, on January 13, 2015. Karimnagar DSP J. Rama Rao disclosed that, on credible information, the rural Police arrested Botla Rajendra Kumar (48) of Cheelapur village in Bejjanki mandal (revenue area), Sunil Kumar (53), an illegal arms dealer from Kanpur, and his assistant Vikas Kumar (31), from the Railway Station, and recovered the ammunition and the cash.

Maoists are also making efforts to revive their old dalams (armed squads) in Adilabad District, though the area has not recorded significant rebel activity after the death of Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad in an encounter on July 1, 2010. According to sources, the Maoists have revived their Mangi and Indravelli dalams and are focusing on fresh recruitments. Police claim that they were involved in two exchange of fire incidents in and around Mangi Forest in September 2014. In both instances, the Maoists escaped unhurt. Sources indicate that the Maoists are trying hard to impress upon the people that the welfare programmes of the present Telangana Government were only due to the struggle waged by the CPI-Maoist in support of the poor. Some reports suggest that the Maoists are planning to remove Adilabad from the North Telangana Zone (NTZ) and merge it into the Dandakaranya Zone, as this would provide them with a shelter zone when SF pressure is exerted on the Andhra Odisha Border (AOB) area.

Telangana has not deviated from the anti-Maoist strategy followed by the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh, despite pockets of sympathy in the State’s political leadership. At best, the Maoists would like to use Telangana as a base for their activities in the highly affected and contiguous areas of Chhattisgarh and the Gadchiroli District of Maharashtra. There is little evidence, however, that Telangana would provide them the necessary space and licence to secure even this limited objective.

The post India: Telangana Assessment 2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition of Arab countries that conducted airstrikes in Yemen on March 26 and 27, 2015, killed at least 11 and possibly as many as 34 civilians during the first day of bombings in Sanaa, the capital, Human Rights Watch said Saturday. The 11 dead included 2 children and 2 women. Saudi and other warplanes also carried out strikes on apparent targets in the cities of Saada, Hodaida, Taiz, and Aden.

The airstrikes targeted Ansar Allah, the armed wing of the Zaidi Shia group known as the Houthis, that has controlled much of northern Yemen since September 2014. In January, the group effectively ousted the government of President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi. Human Rights Watch found that on March 26 warplanes struck populated urban neighborhoods in Sanaa and observed Ansar Allah forces who appeared to be firing anti-aircraft weapons from residential neighborhoods.

“Both the Saudi-led forces and the Houthis need to do everything they can to protect civilians from attack,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “Reports of air strikes and anti-aircraft weapons in heavily populated areas raise serious concerns that not enough is being done to ensure their safety.”

The governments of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan said that their warplanes also participated in airstrikes on March 26 and 27. Pakistan and Egypt provided naval support and the United States provided intelligence and logistical support, media reports said.

Interior Ministry officials linked to Ansar Allah shared with Human Rights Watch details of their final casualty count from the bombings in Sanaa on March 26. They said that warplanes bombed various parts of the city, including Bani Hawat, a predominantly Houthi neighborhood near Sanaa’s international and military airports, and al-Nasr, near the presidential palace. The officials said they had documented that 23 civilians had been killed and 24 wounded. Among the dead were 5 children, ages 2 to 13, 6 women, and an elderly man, they said. The wounded included 12 children, ages 3 to 8, and 2 women.

These numbers are consistent with information provided by two hospitals that Human Rights Watch visited. At the hospitals, Human Rights Watch documented the deaths of 11 civilians, including 2 women and 2 children, whose names were not included among those provided by Interior Ministry officials as well as 14 more wounded, including 3 children and 1 woman.

Amnesty International reported that bombing destroyed at least 14 homes in Bani Hawat.

Human Rights Watch has not been able to determine whether specific attacks complied with the laws of war, which apply to the armed conflict in Yemen. The laws of war prohibit attacks that target civilians or civilian property, or that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and fighters. Attacks that cause casualties or damage disproportionate to any anticipated military advantage are also prohibited. All parties to the conflict have an obligation to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians from harm, and not to deploy forces in densely populated areas.

Saudi Arabia’s past use of cluster bombs, which are indiscriminate weapons, raises concerns that they will be used in the current fighting, Human Rights Watch said. There is credible evidence that in November 2009 Saudi Arabia dropped cluster bombs in Yemen’s northern Saada governorate during fighting between the Houthis and the Yemeni and Saudi militaries.

Cluster munition remnants from the 2009 airstrikes, including unexploded submunitions, have been reported by a number of sources. In July 2013, Yemeni clearance personnel photographed unexploded US-made BLU-97 and BLU-61 submunitions. In May 2014, VICE News published photos and a video shot near Saada showing numerous remnants of US-made CBU-52 cluster bombs deployed in 2009.

Cluster munitions contain dozens or hundreds of submunitions. The submunitions are designed to explode when they hit the ground but spread over a wide area, often the size of a football field, putting anyone in the area at the time of attack at risk of death or injury. In addition, many submunitions do not explode on impact but remain armed, becoming de facto landmines.

The US provided Saudi Arabia with significant exports of cluster bombs between 1970 and 1999. Saudi Arabia possesses attack aircraft of US and Western/NATO origin capable of dropping US-made cluster bombs. Human Rights Watch has urged Saudi Arabia and Yemen to join the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits the use of cluster munitions in any circumstance.

“Saudi forces should publicly reject any use of cluster munitions and recognize that their use could have a devastating impact on civilians,” Stork said.

The post Yemen: Saudi-Led Airstrikes Take Civilian Toll, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Indonesia’s confrontation of Malaysia in the 1960s saw a campaign of bomb attacks against civilian targets in Singapore including MacDonald House. Several Indonesians were captured, tried and hanged. What was the objective of Konfrontasi?

By Mushahid Ali*

On 10 March 2015 a memorial to Konfrontasi (Confrontation) was inaugurated on Orchard Road, opposite MacDonald House, which was bombed by Indonesian marines 50 years earlier, on 10 March 1965. The assault, in which three civilians were killed and 33 others injured, was the most serious bomb attack, but not the only successful one, in Singapore, as reported by Daniel Wei Boon Chua in his RSIS commentary of 16 March 2015 (KONFRONTASI: Why It Still Matters to Singapore).

There were several bombs that were set off and people killed and injured during the three year-long campaign by Indonesian saboteurs, aimed at demoralising the people and damaging Singapore’s economy. The low-intensity conflict was launched by Indonesia’s president Sukarno to “crush Malaysia”, of which Singapore was a part from 1963 to 1965. He was opposed to the formation of Malaysia, which also comprised Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah, which Sukarno described as a neo-colonialist plot.

Singapore in forefront of bomb attacks

While much of the conflict was fought along the Indonesia-Malaysia border in Sabah and Sarawak, Singapore was in the forefront of the bombings by Indonesian saboteurs engaging in hit-and-run attacks, such as the MacDonald House bombing. The latter incident was not the only attack which resulted in casualties during Konfrontasi.

Several bombs were set off in different parts of the island, with people killed and injured. Many Indonesians were captured and some tried and sentenced to death, besides the two marines who carried out the MacDonald House attack. In fact Singapore had commuted the death sentences of two other Indonesians and repatriated them to Indonesia.

The Indonesian bomb attacks on Singapore were targeted at civilians, as seen in the records of security authorities. At least 42 bomb incidents occurred throughout the conflict, resulting in the deaths of seven people and injuring more than 50 others. On 9 December 1963, a bomb went off under a car along Jalan Wangi, Sennett Estate, killing two shopkeepers. On 12 April 1964 another attack took place at a nearly-completed HDB block at Jalan Rebong; the impact killed a woman and her teenage daughter and injured six others in a house nearby.

On 30 May 1964 a bomb was detonated at the Changi RAF base with the intent to cause physical injury to people and damage to property. The perpetrator, an Indonesian Lamadi Ahmad, was sentenced to death. Despite appeals from Indonesia the sentence was upheld by the Federal Court of Malaysia and on 28 March 1965 Lamadi became the first Indonesian saboteur to be hanged in Singapore for an offence committed during Konfrontasi.

Not along after the MacDonald House bombing, two other Indonesian saboteurs were arrested on 14 April 1965. They were found with two bombs by a police patrol before they could carry out their intended attack. However one of the bombs exploded before it could be defused. The blast, which occurred at the junction of Meyer Road and Fort Road, injured two bomb demolition experts and a police officer.

The two, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, were tried and sentenced to death for possession of explosives. However the sentences were remitted by the Singapore President following appeals from the Indonesian Government and taking into account the fact that the incident did not cause any deaths. They were released and repatriated to Indonesia in April 1967.

The two perpetrators of the MacDonald House bombing, Harun Said and Osman Mohd Ali, contrary to the report that they were “put on trial and given the death sentence in 1968”, were tried in October 1965 for their role in the bombing. Following a 13-day trial, both of them were found guilty of three murder charges and sentenced to death on 20 October 1965. The sentence was upheld despite appeals to the Privy Council and clemency pleas submitted by the Indonesian government.

Both were subsequently hanged on 17 October 1968. The hanging of the two marines heightened tension between the two countries until then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sprinkled flowers over the graves of the two marines during his visit to Indonesia in May 1973.

Objective of Konfrontasi

Indonesia’s objective of Konfrontasi in Singapore was to disrupt Singapore’s trade and economy as seen in the targets of the bomb attacks. On 16 November 1964 an attempt by 10 Indonesian commandos to sabotage an oil installation was foiled. Also foiled were several incursions in December 1964. One of the last major operations was an attempt on 26 June 1965 by four boatloads of saboteurs to blow up power stations and military installations in Singapore. The four boats were sunk by security forces before they could carry out the attacks. Attacks on Singapore continued even after the 9 August 1965 separation of Singapore from Malaysia.

Besides the security forces, Singaporeans volunteered for the Vigilante Corps which was mobilised to look out for intruders and saboteurs out to harm their fellow citizens and properties. Singapore was also involved in the military defence of Malaysia against Indonesian forces. Two battalions in the Singapore Infantry Regiment took part in fighting insurgents in Sabah and invaders in Johore, peninsular Malaysia, incurring several casualties.

Konfrontasi, which had been launched by president Sukarno to oppose the formation of Malaysia, ended in 1966 following his ouster and the transfer of power to General Suharto, who went on to lead Indonesia for 30 years. Relations between Singapore and Indonesia improved after PM Lee’s visit to the marines’ graves in the Kalibata Heroes Cemetery in Jakarta and they became fast friends and solid partners in ASEAN.

The memorial to Konfrontasi in front of MacDonald House is a significant reminder of an important episode in Singapore’s history that accompanied its emergence as an independent nation. Besides overcoming the existential threat posed by Indonesia’s confrontation, the memorial serves as a marker of Singapore’s will to protect its people and defend its independence and sovereignty.

*Mushahid Ali is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

The post Konfrontasi: Why Singapore Was In Forefront Of Indonesian Attacks – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A bill giving France’s intelligence services new powers to monitor communications, which Prime Minister Manuel Valls submitted to the council of ministers last week, poses a grave new threat to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Unveiled on 19 March, the bill provides for intelligence gathering on an extremely varied range of grounds that include the “prevention of terrorism” and ensuring that “France (…) carries out its European obligations.”

The General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) and agencies attached to the economy, defence and interior ministries would be empowered to collect metadata, intercept telecommunications, place private places under surveillance, locate vehicles and access transport company data on “security” grounds.

According to Reporters Without Borders, all these measures are likely to give rise to abuses. In particular, by allowing agencies to gather metadata and to access to the content of communications, the bill would make it easy for them to identify journalists’ sources.

The agencies would also be allowed to intercept the content of mobile phone communications by using IMSI-catcher devices and to access instant messaging by various methods including the installation of spyware. If the bill is adopted in its current form, the intelligence services will have no trouble finding out who journalists are talking to and what about, according to Reporters Without Borders.

The intelligence agencies would be allowed to monitor not only suspects but also those who might be acting as “intermediaries” in violations of the law, whether “deliberately or not.” This would exempt them from having to justify spying on a journalist in any request made to the prime minister.

“We demand that this law include safeguards for the right of journalists to work without being spied on, or else it will constitute a grave violation of media freedom,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire said.

“The government must restore protection for the confidentiality of journalists’ sources by bringing reference to a judge back into the established procedures. It is vital that an exception be made for journalists in the system of surveillance envisaged in this bill.”

In his 2013 report on surveillance, the use of personal data and respect for privacy, Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said spying on the communications between journalists and their sources would have a disastrous effect (paragraphs 26 and 52).

La Rue stressed the need for judicial control of surveillance, especially over data gathering and storing (paragraph 54). But this bill makes no provision for referring decisions to a judge acting as guarantor of civil liberties. In fact, this bill includes absolutely no safeguards for the individual’s fundamental rights.

Finally, the bill allows the intelligence services to use techniques that until now were reserved for the judicial police. These include recording private or confidential conversations, photographing or filming people in a private place, intercepting computer data and locating people, vehicles or other objects in real time.

In the criminal code, such procedures are accompanied by special safeguards for persons with a special status such as journalists. But, as the National Commission for Information Technology and Freedoms (CNIL) noted on 5 March, this bill contains no safeguards for protected professions, including journalists.

Journalists are still awaiting a law providing more effective protection for the confidentiality of their sources – a campaign promise that President François Hollande reiterated in January. Meanwhile, the threats to the confidentiality of their sources continue to grow.

The post France: New Intelligence Bill Poses Threat To Journalists appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Lisa Ferdinando

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said he had “important and very productive conversations” with South Korean military officials on topics including integrated air and missile defense to deter North Korean aggression.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in a meeting with his counterpart, Adm. Choi Yun-hee, praised the ties between their militaries, saying the relationship is stronger than it has ever been.

“Our alliance, which is really more like a friendship than an alliance, certainly will outlive anyone of us, because of the way we have lived and worked together over the past 60 years,” Dempsey said in a roundtable meeting that included senior staff members from both nations.

“I am very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish,” he said.

Choi thanked the chairman for his commitment to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, noting the alliance has maintained stability in the face of North Korean aggression.

“For the last six decades, the [South Korea]-U.S. alliance has effectively deterred North Korean provocation, and this has been the driving force, the foundation of the miraculous economic industrial development that we have achieved here in the Republic of Korea,” Choi said.

Missile Defense Needed to Deter North Korean Threats

Just as terrorists use improvised explosive devices as the asymmetrical weapon of choice, Dempsey said, rogue states like North Korea rely on ballistic missiles.

To deter that threat, Dempsey said, close cooperation within the alliance and within the region is important to ensure effective interoperability of the integrated air and missile defense.

In a separate meeting, Dempsey told Defense Minister Han Min-koo the alliance had made progress in several areas.

Moving to a conditions-based approach for determining the time to transfer to South Korea wartime control of allied forces, known as operational control, was one key area. Others included missile defense and realistic military exercises that improved readiness, Dempsey said.

Honoring Fallen South Korean Sailors

Dempsey paused earlier today to remember the 46 sailors killed in a North Korean torpedo attack five years ago against the South Korean frigate Cheonan.

The chairman took part in a wreath-laying ceremony at the National Cemetery, to mark the March 26, 2010, attack. An investigation, led by South Korea that included experts from the United States and several other nations, concluded North Korea fired the torpedo.

The wreath-laying ceremony, Dempsey said earlier in the week, is a moving tribute to honor those killed in what he called “another indication” of the real danger posed by North Korea.

“I’m honored that I was asked to be part of that,” Dempsey said on his plane as he traveled to Asia. “It is a chance to express both our condolences to the families who are still suffering from the loss and also to our Republic of Korea colleagues.”

Dempsey, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, met yesterday with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, shortly after he arrived in the country.

The post US, South Korean Military Chiefs Discuss North Korea Threat appeared first on Eurasia Review.

When I lived in China, there was a story going around about a China Airlines flight in which both the pilot and the co-pilot had left the cockpit and then, on their return, found the door locked. They reportedly got a fire ax, and with the whole planeload of freaked out passengers watching in horror, started wailing in the metal door. The co-pilot then turned, and seeing the panic developing, calmly drew the curtain across the aisle, hiding their work from view. The axe’s bashing continued until they broke the latch and got back to the controls.

Lucky this was before the 9-11 attacks! Now, because some terrorists forced their way into crew cabins and took over a few planes, virtually all aircraft have reinforced cabin doors that cannot be broken into. Predictably, this panicky response has led to a new kind of risk: mass passenger deaths by pilot suicide. A young Lufthansa pilot, apparently with a death wish but wanting to have his demise make a murderous impact, waited until the pilot had left for the loo, then locked him out and sent the plane into the side of a French Alp.

So what do we do now? Put a toilet in the cabin of every plane so that neither pilot or co-pilot ever has to leave her or his colleague alone in the cabin during a flight?

Of course, we’ve already got a problem since another solution that the FAA came up with to terrorists on planes commandeering a flight was to allow pilots, most of whom are retired military pilots, to bring a gun on board. Of course that is only a good idea if the pilot is mentally stable and a good shot. What if the pilot is the whack job? The gun just makes the job of destroying the plane that much easier.

It is certainly a tragedy that 149 innocent people including a class of 16-year-olds and a couple of babies, went to their doom along with the deranged Lufthansa co-pilot, but the disaster shows how nuts our societies have become because of overblown fears of terrorism.

Just think about the insane delays, the fraught confrontations, the needless X-rays, the missed flights and the sheer nuttiness of the post-9-11 security screenings — especially in the US. We have to remove our shoes because one guy tried to light up a “shoe bomb” that probably wouldn’t have done anything to the plane anyhow. I remember waiting in line once as a TSA inspector removed the booties from a three-month-old baby in a carrier at Chicago O’Hare because the rules said shoes had to come off and go through the X-ray machine. Never mind that a dedicated bomber could down a plane by bringing in six 3 oz bottles of nitro in a sealed plastic bag without any problem — enough to blow out the side of the plane from his seat. (Thankfully, fears touted by the government two years back of alleged terrorist plans to stuff explosives up their colons for detonation in flight never materialized, or we’d all be getting proctological exams now before boarding!)

The post Fear Of Terrorism Is Making Us Crazy, Especially In The US – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nicholas Birns and Larry Birns*

As the seventh triennial Summit of the Americas’ prepares to convene in Panama City next month, tensions between the United States and Venezuela are at the fore in the hemisphere. A series of high power moves and counter-moves, culminating in the Obama administration’s perplexing executive order of March 9, has placed the existing animus between Washington and Caracas at the unmistakable zenith of the summit’s gathering. The March 9 executive order also implemented the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which banned seven Venezuelan public figures – all military officers, judicial personnel, and other civil servants – from entering or doing business in the United States.

What the US has to face at this juncture, though, is how little support its policies and tone have among various countries in the area. This is particularly true of Brazil, dating back to the days of World War II, at the time of Getúlio Vargas’ presidency, when countries such as Brazil energetically participated in the allied war effort. Argentina’s stance was far more skeptical, and its participation far more spotty. Successive changes in the nature of Brazilian policy, such as its democratization in the 1950s and 1960s, the profound setback symbolized by the 1964 military coup, another failed democratization episode that was later ditched in the 1980s, and the highly consequential and much more robust election of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva as president in 2002. These events have done little to even dent the bedrock amity between Brazil and the US throughout this period.

Brazil’s foreign ministry, the Itamaraty, was originally housed in Rio de Janeiro, but then moved to Brasilia when this artificially built city was designated as the national capital in 1960. Since then, Brazil proceeded to produce generation after generation of diplomats unrivaled in their professional acumen by any other such country in the hemisphere. Without the skill and expertise of the denizens of the Itamaraty, hemispheric diplomacy as a whole would be far less decisive and effective.

During the current presidency of Dilma Rousseff, relations between Brasilia and Washington markedly turned around, growing more assured and less hesitant. The WikiLeaks controversy and revelations regarding the NSA’s spying on President Rousseff have inhibited any cordial personal relationship between her and the US President. Lula was content to be exalted as a center-left member of the regional foreign policy establishment in opposition to the populist “pink tide” movement, which boasts such iconic figures as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, and Rousseff. As Sean Burges pointed out in an article published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in April 2013, Brazil has been housing various degrees of anti-US tone for a number of years, just as had been the case of Argentina, which had originally been more narrowly focused in diplomatic disputes. Meanwhile, Bolivia and Ecuador were more interested in forming friendly ties with these states in response to more benign ideological notions from Washington or Caracas’ economic brand.[i] Brazil is an example of this as a member of the international groupings UNASUR and MERCOSUR. The country has placed great importance on economic factors in the region and prominently featured the appeal of involvement with Pink Tide countries, importantly Venezuela. These emergent groupings have come in the way of a counterpoint to motivation for close ties to Brazil’s continuous membership in the OAS, and at least featured a theoretical maintenance of its signatory adhesion to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (from which even Mexico has withdrawn), which became unpopular due to its Cold War origins.

It is thus no surprise that the current Brazilian Foreign Minister, Mauro Vieira, hastily distanced the Itamaraty from Washington’s March 9 executive order, urging that any split in Venezuelan society be addressed through remediation achieved at the ballot box, and not by extreme external pressure[ii]. On a number of occasions, Vieira has made many statements critiquing the regime of the Maduro government. These have included his urging of clemency and proper treatment for any future legal procedures of detained opposition leader Luis López. Statements additionally condemn his proposed participation in the summit of UNASUR foreign ministers, which would include Colombia’s Marîa Angela Holguín and Ecuador’s Ricardo Patiño, who met in Caracas earlier this month in the hope of cutting off the rapid polarization of Venezuelan civil society, representing a sensitive issue considering the reality of Caracas’ streets[iii]. Of the three mentioned diplomats, Vieira hoped to serve as a referee between pro-Maduro’s Ecuador, Colombia, and other member nations that have respectively staked out well-defined positions sympathetic to the Maduro administration.

Brazil is seeking enhanced internal stability in Venezuela, but does not want the solution to strike the country’s fundamental welfare; nor that it be resolved from abroad or forced change. Moreover, Brazilian officials are acutely aware of Venezuela’s accelerating debt to Brazil, as a constant irritant that has only worsened with the precipitous worldwide decline in oil revenues and the fading of Venezuela’s once-invincible petroleum-driven economic strength. But the Rousseff administration has also continued to clarify that it shares the pro-social justice orientation of the Maduro government, even if Rousseff’s expression of this agenda is more in accord with the global market economy’s priorities. In fact, Brazil and Venezuela share strong day-to-day economic ties, another factor that equally tests the country’s relative strength in natural resources and industrial might. For example, Brazilian oil refineries are taking a leading role in the processing of Venezuelan oil.

Brazil and Venezuela share a border that, up till now, has only been spottily developed; citizens of the two countries can easily traverse what is essentially uninhabited jungle. The presence of the coastal states of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana serve as a buffer, marking a so-called border between Venezuela and Brazil, much as Uruguay and Paraguay have effectively served as a barrier between Brazil and Argentina. Traditionally, Brazil has opposed the creation of any additional borders. This territorial focus was sharpened by the 1897 arbitration between Venezuela and the then dominating colonial power of Britain. Thus the current cordial, but not overly close, relationship between Brazil and Venezuela is in harmony with historic precedents. The present sharp animosity between Washington and Caracas, on the other hand, has changed, and it could be argued that the dispute was not irreconcilable, due to developments that have occurred since 2002 when the Chávez government would not have been trained in accusing the Bush administration of fomenting such events as the failed coup in March of that year. Venezuela’s status as the US’s principal hemispheric antagonist is quite new, opposed to the relative chilliness of the US-Argentina relationship, where long-standing structural factors adversely contribute to one event or another, and can find its genesis in any financial or national security event between current personnel.

Having basically maintained an amicable relationship with both countries, Brazil is in the middle. Even as ties with the US have helped anchor its increasing role in the international world economy of global finances, Rousseff has been well aware that gestures supportive of Maduro’s populism can placate the restive working-class base of her Partido dos Trabalhadores. Repeated recent allegations of cronyism and corruption against the Rousseff administration, for reasons both inherent and practical, have illuminated general dissatisfaction throughout the country. However, Brazil often serves as an honest broker between contending hemispheric forces; although what this means in the twenty-first century is drastically different from what it has meant in the past.

Throughout the last century, it was widely anticipated that Brazil would some day become a major world power. Brazil possesses a considerable contemporary economic power, even as a founding member in BRICS, UNASUR and CELAC, in addition to hosting the World Cup and the Olympics. This is further evidenced by the promulgation of wealthy Brazilians in prosperous cities such as New York and Sao Paulo, where the prominence of well-to-do anti-Rousseff multimillionaire expatriates can be found second only to the number of Russian oligarchs who could be found along the gilded real estate coast liners of Central Park South and Beekman Place. As an incipient world power, year after year Brazil’s viewpoint on the roster of current disputes carries much more weight. From the beginnings of the Lula era, when Foreign Minister Celso Amorim made it clear that Brasilia would not support the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, Brazil proved that it possesses regional self-respect precisely because it was attempting good relations with all of its neighbors and hemispheric partners without jeopardizing its status as an independent broker. It was because of its status that it has the ability to try to bring some fair-minded resolution to the ongoing Washington-Caracas discord. However, given the gravity and depth of the current antagonism between Brasilia and Washington, hope that Brasilia will be able to use this capacity may prove unfounded.

*Nicholas Birns, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), Faculty at the New School, and Co-editor of The Contemporary Spanish American Novel (Bloomsbury) and Larry Birns, Executive Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] . “COHA Research – Brazil’s Foreign Policy: Putting the B in BRICS,” Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Published April 25, 2013, http://www.coha.org/22387/.

[ii] . “Nicolás Maduro governará por decreto na área de segurança por seis meses,” Brazil Post, Published March 12, 2015, http://www.brasilpost.com.br/2015/03/12/poderes-especiais-maduro_n_6856988.html.

[iii] . “Unasur llega a Caracas en un nuevo intento por reactivar el diálogo,” El Tiempo, Published March 6, 2015, http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/cumbre-de-cancilleres-de-la-unasur-en-caracas/15349755.

The post Brazil Between Caracas And Washington: Rousseff And Vieira Try To Chart Middle Course At Time Of Hemispheric Polarization – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“At a time like the present, European funds represent a great opportunity to drive the growth of the Spanish economy and, in particular, job creation”. These were the words of the State Secretary for Budget and Expenditure, Marta Fernández Currás, during the presentation of the Smart Growth Operational Programme 2014-2020, endowed with 3.94 billion euros, with the aim of supporting research, innovation and ITC, with special attention to the needs of Spanish SMEs.

Its geographic scope will cover the entire country, with a public and private contribution that is expected to deliver an investment of 6.7 billion euros in the coming years.

This Smart Growth OP forms part of the programmes using European Structural and Investment Funds that for Spain will represent aid worth 38 billion euros for the period 2014-2020, of which 19.4 billion euros correspond to European Regional Development Funds (ERDF). This is one of three Operational Programmes of a national scope that the State is to finance with ERDF, the other two being the Sustainable Growth Programme and the SME Initiative Programme.

The objective of this OP is to address factors that may help develop a smarter growth model in Spain. In terms of its geographic scope, the Programme covers Spain in its entirety, although it pays special attention to the most underdeveloped, outermost and transitional areas.

During the presentation, Fernández Currás explained that the sectoral scope of this OP is highly concentrated within three of the thematic objectives of the European Structural and Investment Funds that are directly linked to smart growth.

On the one hand, the so called Thematic Objective 1, designed to drive research, technological development and innovation, with a provision of 2.89 billion euros of ERDF aid. Thematic Objective 2 aims to enhance the use and quality of and access to information and communication technologies, with a total investment of 748 million euros. Finally, 269 million euros have been earmarked for Thematic Objective 3, designed to improve the competitiveness of SMEs.

Each of these Objectives involves a number of milestones, among which the Secretary of State highlighted those of achieving R&D investment equivalent to 2% of GDP, increasing the percentage of companies making technological innovations from the current 15% to 25%, fostering greater cooperation with public and private universities and research centres to enable this cooperation to grow from the present 18% to 41%, developing the digital economy, increasing the number of SMEs selling online from the current 14% to a little over 51%, and improving Internet connectivity of educational centres and their networks and infrastructures, thereby increasing the percentage of the national school population covered by public digital education services from 4.17 to 100%.

Fernández Currás -whose department is responsible for the management of European funds within the Ministry of Finance and Public Administrations – also explained that the Smart Growth Programme is the result of an intense negotiation process at a European and national level and stressed that now was the time to grasp the opportunity afforded by the funds, especially when Spain “has started to grow and create employment”. In this respect, she recalled that in the last quarter of 2014 Spain grew at a rate of 2% and that economic recovery is driving job creation. She also pointed out that there had been a significant improvement in competitiveness, reflected in encouraging figures for the export of goods (up by 2.5%), which for the first time topped 240 billion euros, an all-time record in annual exports.

She also stressed that public accounts have been restructured, with a significant reduction of public deficit, thereby meeting the targets set within the European Union. “There is still a lot to do, but we have achieved some excellent results at a time when the Spanish economy was declining, which is even more noteworthy, since Spain had never reduced its deficit to such an extent during a recession”. The State Secretary insisted that the purpose of fiscal consolidation was to ensure the financing and sustainability of essential public services of the welfare state, ensuring payment of pensions, unemployment benefits, education, health services, and other social services.

Finally, she explained that while the news on the revenue side in 2015 is fiscal reform, on the expenditure side it is the programme of measures to promote growth, competitiveness and efficiency (the CRECE Plan). This plan has been drawn up by the government to speed up the execution of European funds and maximise their application, through close cooperation and coordination with all the autonomous regions.

Also participating in the event, which was attended by representatives from the world of telecommunications, researchers, business people, SMEs, etc., were the State Secretary for Research, Development and Innovation, Carmen Vela, the State Secretary for Telecommunications and the Information Society, Víctor Calvo-Sotelo, the CEO of the Spanish Chamber of Commerce, Javier Carretero Manzano, and the Director of the European Commission’s REGIO General Directorate, Charlina Vitcheva.

The post Spain: 3.94 Billion Euros In Support Of SME Research And Innovation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“Business!” cries a repentant ghost in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. “Mankind was my business… charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence… The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

It’s a sentiment that is still echoed today, most recently in a 2015 book edited by IESE’s Domènec Melé, together with Martin Schlag. Humanism in Economics and Business is a call for humanism and ethics in business, aimed at a wide audience of entrepreneurs and managers.

The book makes the argument that the Catholic humanist tradition is best suited to promoting a kind of business that advances the common good and allows people to grow and flourish within society. It is a cross-disciplinary book, as IESE dean Jordi Canals points out in his preface, a book that serves to help us navigate the business world with an understanding of the human being and his or her motivations.

The volume is made up 13 articles, most of which were presented at the International Colloquium on Christian Humanism in Economics and Business, held at IESE in 2011. The contributions by international academics are organized into three parts: the first contributes to an accurate understanding of Christian humanism, the second details how Christian humanism relates to economic activity and the third addresses Catholic humanism in business practice.

Why Humanism?

The need for humanism becomes increasingly apparent in times of crisis, when a purely profit-driven model of doing business loses sight of the individual and his or her need for progress and development.

In his contribution to the book, the University of Michigan’s Lloyd E. Sandelands outlines the basic tenets of the dominant shareholder-value model of business, arguing that this abstraction leads to the false conclusion that employees are human resources or “assets” to be deployed on behalf of profit-seeking owners. Such a conclusion is wrong both factually and morally, he says, and we must remember that the shareholder-value model is not the only model out there. “The Business of Business Is the Human Person,” his chapter is titled, calling for a person-centered ethic for business administration.

Domènec Melé, in his chapter on Catholic humanism and economic activity, presents Catholic humanism as a guarantor of human dignity, human rights and human development. Applying these three core concepts to the practice of business, Catholic humanism helps engender fair treatment, an understanding of the value of the individual and a positive attitude toward diversity.

“Business should be oriented to people, to their development,” rather than mere profit maximization, he concludes.

Practicing Humanists

In his chapter, Antonio Argandoña of IESE asks: What makes a Catholic manager or entrepreneur different? Pursuing the answer, Argandoña reminds us that entrepreneurs often start businesses to produce things that others need and that managers organize people to work together on common goals. “Business enterprise, like other human activities, is good and the social function of an entrepreneur deserves recognition,” he writes.

Furthermore, Argandoña states: “The life of a human being revolves largely around work, which is not a punishment or a curse but an expression of the dignity of man.” Managers, following Catholic teachings, need to make work a concept that reflects our values and contributes to the good of society.

But what does a workplace operating on Christian humanist values look like? The book’s final chapter — by Geert Demunijnck, Kemi Ogunyemi and Elena Lasida — provides concrete examples. One is Kadick Integrated Limited, a telecommunications company in Nigeria that is intensely focused on human dignity and development. Kadick inducts new recruits into its company culture, including its norms for decorum, and provides on-the-job training.

Kadick also has a policy of complete transparency, and staff can see all bank details and assets. This creates a culture of trust, with “budgets proposed by the owners and defended; and everyone agrees.”

Another example is the Christian landscape-gardening firm Agrément du Jardin whose values lead to the refusal of under-the-table (tax-free) work in an industry rife with such transactions. The owner calculates that he loses 5 to 10 percent of his possible deals but stresses that it’s more important for the company to put its money where its mouth is and stand up for what’s right.

Ultimately though, the authors argue that it’s to everyone’s benefit if we move from a corporate culture that accepts such breaches toward one that doesn’t. Imagine going to work every morning for a company that you know has your best interests and personal development, as well as the common good, in mind. That’s worth more than just a paycheck.

The post The Business Of Mankind – Review appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Felicia Gustin*

This March, representatives from the United States and Cuba met in a third round of talks geared toward normalizing ties between the two long-estranged countries.

Ever since President Obama’s announcement last year that the diplomatic freeze was coming to an end, speculation has abounded on what this will mean. There’s no question that the Cuban people stand to benefit immensely from increased trade and tourism. But few seem to be talking about what the benefits might be for the people of the United States — except for access to Cuban cigars, rum, and beaches.

Yet this small, poor country has surpassed the United States in more than just nightlife and baseball. So here are three more serious ways the American people might benefit from lifting the embargo:

1. Disaster Preparedness

Cuba’s location puts it right in the path of devastating and frequent hurricanes. Yet the country’s disaster management infrastructure is considered an exemplary international model for disaster preparedness and relief by the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and Oxfam.

How is it that a country with fewer resources than the United States is better able to evacuate millions of people in the path of a hurricane and significantly reduce fatalities and property damage?

What sets Cuba apart is the level of grassroots community engagement before, during, and after a hurricane strikes. All Cuban adults take part in civilian defense training programs designed to edu­cate them on how to assist in evacuation procedures. And once a year, they participate in a hurricane drill in which these procedures are simulated and government officials are better able to identify vulner­abilities.

The level of national coordination is massive, and each of Cuba’s 14 provinces and 169 municipalities has intricate disaster plans in place. Strategic locations, such as hospitals, bakeries, food processing centers, tele­phone providers, and educational centers are pro­vided with power generators that operate independently for up to 72 hours.

In addition to preparing for natural disasters and providing immediate relief, the Cuban public health system, with its extensive network of hospitals and neighborhood clinics, has been fine-tuned to provide medical care to victims of hurricanes and other catastrophes.

There are elite medical brigades, specifically trained in the emerging field of disaster relief medicine, who have also been dispatched on numerous occasions to other countries.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Henry Reeve Brigade — made up of over 1,500 medical doctors and named in honor of the young Brooklyn man who fought alongside Cubans in their 1868 War of Independence against Spain — was poised to offer medical assistance to victims along the U.S. Gulf Coast. But Washington rebuked the offer, citing “national security concerns.”

Now, with the normalization of relations unfolding, the U.S. people can benefit from Cuba’s experience, expertise, and infrastructure, which can help save lives in the face of not only hurricanes but earthquakes, tornados, floods, and wildfires.

2. Health Care

Cuba has one of the most advanced medical biotechnology industries in the world. With 12,000 employees, including 7,000 scientists and engineers, it enjoys hefty government investment and prolifically produces new treatments and medications.

All told, according the World Health Organization, the Cuban biotech industry holds around 1,200 international patents and markets pharmaceutical products and vaccines in more than 50 countries — but not in the United States.

Ending the embargo on these products could make life better for millions of Americans suffering from a range of diseases.

For the 26 million people in the United States who have diabetes, this has special significance. Each year, some 80,000 American diabetics suffer amputations. Cuba has developed a safe and effective medication — Heberprot P — that reduces the risk of amputation by as much as 78 percent. It’s being used successfully by tens of thousands of patients in Cuba and in over 20 countries.

There’s also great potential to open up treatments for less familiar diseases.

Dengue fever, carried by the aedes aegypti mosquito, was previously only found south of the U.S. border. Yet according to Gail Reed — founder of the group Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba — due to climate change, the mosquito has been spotted in Florida, Texas, and California. “Cuba has the most expertise in dengue of any country in the hemisphere,” she pointed out. “They know more about this killer disease than the CDC.” Cooperation on dengue prevention and treatment is going to be crucial.

Cuba is also a leader in the development of therapeutic vaccines for lung, throat, and childhood brain cancer. A number of anti-cancer drugs and vaccines are in development at the Center of Molecular Immunology in Havana. Imagine the potential when these researchers are allowed to collaborate with their colleagues in the United States.

The list goes on and on. Cuban scientists have developed an advanced drug that effectively destroys coronary clots, an innovative burn treatment, and vaccines for meningitis B and hepatitis B and C. They’ve also made advances in developing a vaccine against HIV-AIDS.

“More than 90 new products are currently being investigated in more than 60 clinical trials,” says Dr. José Luis Di Fabio, head of the WHO Country Office in Cuba. “These numbers are expected to grow.”

For Americans who can benefit from these medical advances, ending the embargo isn’t just an ideological question. It’s a matter of their health, even life or death.

3. Arts and Culture

Art and culture help bring us together in ways that politics and ideology cannot.

Cuba and the United States, joined by shared histories and separated by just 90 miles of sea, have been exchanging art and culture for centuries.

In recent years, artists from both countries have found ways to circumvent the U.S. embargo.

U.S. musicians have performed at Cuban jazz festivals, U.S. ballerinas have danced in international ballet festivals Havana, and U.S. actors and directors have flown to the island to attend film festivals. Cuban bands have performed on U.S. stages, Cuban films have made their way into a few film U.S. festivals, and Cuban painters have exhibited in U.S. galleries.

From jazz to ballet, fine arts to folklore, and cinema to architecture, U.S. and Cuban artists have collaborated despite the limitations of the embargo and travel restrictions. The potential for expanding these collaborations as relations normalize is huge.

Edmundo Pino is a musician with the internationally acclaimed Cuban band Los Van Van. “The immense popularity of Cuban art and culture in Europe and throughout the world demonstrates how much we have to offer,” he says. He pointed to Cuba’s inexhaustible pool of musicians and its world-class bands and dance companies, who fill theaters and stadiums wherever they perform.

“For the American people to be able to enjoy Cuban artistic performances,” he adds, “to experience the evolution of our music for example, would go far in building people-to-people relations. The American people should have the opportunity to experience all that Cuban art and culture have to offer.”

These are but three examples of areas where normalization can benefit the U.S. people, but there are others — in the fields of agriculture, race relations, the rights of women and children, sports, education, and environmental sustainability, to name a few.

And there’s a great lesson in the fact that a country with significantly fewer resources can make major inroads in so many arenas. It’s about values that place people before profits, where taking care of the public is not market-driven.

Unfortunately, real collaboration won’t be possible with just presidential decrees. The embargo cannot be lifted without congressional action. Given the Republican-controlled Congress’ penchant for opposing everything President Obama favors and the superfluous influence of a handful of Cuban-American hardliners, overturning the laws that uphold the embargo is going to be a slow and lengthy process.

It’s going to take pressure on Congress by those who will benefit most from normal relations — that is, the American people themselves — to bring about these changes.

*Felicia Gustin is a writer who first visited Cuba in 1974. She lived in Havana for ten years, working as a journalist from 1982-92 and travels to the island regularly. She has been a blogger at War Times/Tiempos de Guerra, works at the educational organization SpeakOut, and collaborates with BASAT (Bay Area Solidarity Action Team) and SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice).

The post Three Big Benefits For Americans To Ending Cuba Embargo – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.