Many believe that poor people deserve to be poor because they’re lazy. As Speaker John Boehner has said, the poor have a notion that “I really don’t have to work. I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around.”

In reality, a large and growing share of the nation’s poor work full time — sometimes sixty or more hours a week – yet still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

It’s also commonly believed, especially among Republicans, that the rich deserve their wealth because they work harder than others.

In reality, a large and growing portion of the super-rich have never broken a sweat. Their wealth has been handed to them.

The rise of these two groups — the working poor and non-working rich – is relatively new. Both are challenging the core American assumptions that people are paid what they’re worth, and work is justly rewarded.

Why are these two groups growing?

The ranks of the working poor are growing because wages at the bottom have  dropped, adjusted for inflation. With increasing numbers of Americans taking low-paying jobs in retail sales, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, childcare, elder care, and other personal services, the pay of the bottom fifth is falling closer to the minimum wage.

At the same time, the real value of the federal minimum wage is lower today than it was a quarter century ago.

In addition, most recipients of public assistance must now work in order to qualify.

Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996 pushed the poor off welfare and into work. Meanwhile, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage subsidy, has emerged as the nation’s largest anti-poverty program. Here, too, having a job is a prerequisite.

The new work requirements haven’t reduced the number or percentage of Americans in poverty. They’ve just moved poor people from being unemployed and impoverished to being employed and impoverished.

While poverty declined in the early years of welfare reform when the economy boomed and jobs were plentiful, it began growing in 2000. By 2012 it exceeded its level in 1996, when welfare ended.
At the same time, the ranks of the non-working rich have been swelling. America’s legendary “self-made” men and women are fast being replaced by wealthy heirs.

Six of today’s ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined.

Americans who became enormously wealthy over the last three decades are now busily transferring that wealth to their children and grand children.

The nation is on the cusp of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in history. A study from the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy projects a total of $59 trillion passed down to heirs between 2007 and 2061.

As the French economist Thomas Piketty reminds us, this is the kind of dynastic wealth that’s kept Europe’s aristocracy going for centuries. It’s about to become the major source of income for a new American aristocracy.

The tax code encourages all this by favoring unearned income over earned income.

The top tax rate paid by America’s wealthy on their capital gains — the major source of income for the non-working rich – has dropped from 33 percent in the late 1980s to 20 percent today, putting it substantially below the top tax rate on ordinary income (36.9 percent).

If the owners of capital assets whose worth increases over their lifetime hold them until death, their heirs pay zero capital gains taxes on them. Such “unrealized” gains now account for more than half the value of assets held by estates worth more than $100 million.

At the same time, the estate tax has been slashed. Before George W. Bush was president, it applied to assets in excess of $2 million per couple at a rate of 55 percent. Now it kicks in at $10,680,000 per couple, at a 40 percent rate.

Last year only 1.4 out of every 1,000 estates owed any estate tax, and the effective rate they paid was only 17 percent.

Republicans now in control of Congress want to go even further. Last Friday the Senate voted 54-46 in favor of a non-binding resolution to repeal the estate tax altogether. Earlier in the week, the House Ways and Means Committee also voted for a repeal. The House is expected to vote in coming weeks.

Yet the specter of an entire generation doing nothing for their money other than speed-dialing their wealth management advisers is not particularly attractive.

It puts more and more responsibility for investing a substantial portion of the nation’s assets into the hands of people who have never worked.

It also endangers our democracy, as dynastic wealth inevitably and invariably accumulates political influence and power.

Consider the rise of both the working poor and the non-working rich, and the meritocratic ideal on which America’s growing inequality is often justified doesn’t hold up.

That widening inequality — combined with the increasing numbers of people who work full time but are still impoverished and of others who have never worked and are fabulously wealthy — is undermining the moral foundations of American capitalism.

The post The Rise Of The Working Poor And The Non-Working Rich – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Recently, I was delighted to be interviewed for the Montevideo Portal website by a Uruguayan journalist, Martin Otheguy, who wanted to know my thoughts about the situation facing the six former Guantánamo prisoners who were given new homes in Uruguay in December. I wrote about the negotiations for their release here and here, and I also wrote about the men following their release, here and here. In addition, I looked at the stories of their difficulties adapting to their new lives just a few weeks ago, which was the spur for Martin approaching me for an interview.

The interview is below. I translated it from the Spanish via Google Translate, and then tried to reconstruct it so that it reflects as accurately as possible the original interview, which was in English. I hope you find it useful, and will share it if you do:

Strangers in a Strange Land
Andy Worthington interviewed by Martin Otheguy for Montevideo Portal

Andy Worthington, documentary filmmaker and author specializing in Guantánamo, told Montevideo Portal that a dedicated team of psychologists should treat the men released from Guantánamo in December. “They are in a unique and horrible position in which nobody can understand what they went through,” he said.

Andy Worthington is a British investigative journalist (also a writer, filmmaker and photographer) who has devoted much of his work to Guantánamo Bay.

He co-founded the influential “Close Guantánamo” campaign, co-directed the documentary “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” and is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (which includes references to the six refugees who are now in Uruguay).

Through his website, he has closely followed how the six Guantánamo prisoners released in our country have adapted to their new home and their new lives, while continuing to actively demand the release of other prisoners held without charge or trial in Guantánamo.

In the midst of an ongoing controversy about how the former prisoners are adapting to life in Uruguay, focused on how they are still without work, and questions about how the men’s resettlement has been handled, Worthington chatted with Montevideo Portal on the backgrounds of the former prisoners, their problems adjusting to their new lives, and a couple of things that Uruguayan society tends to forget.

Martin Otheguy: In Uruguay some people are frightened by the former prisoners, even though the US government clued them for release. What is known about these six men?

Andy Worthington: They are people who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan from their countries as refugees — economic refugees more than anything else. They had been told that in Afghanistan the Taliban had established a pure Islamic state, and they believed they could find a new life there.

There was a significant number of people from North Africa and the Gulf who traveled to Europe to try to find work and settle there, but they found it very difficult, so they ended up going to Afghanistan, where they could live very cheaply. That was the situation when they were arrested. I understand that people worry because they are former prisoners, but in their case there are no genuine allegations of their involvement in military activities or indeed any kind of terrorism.

Martin Otheguy: But can they be considered religious fundamentalists, even though they have not been involved in terrorist activities?

Andy Worthington: I don’t think so. My impression is that they are not fundamentalists, there is no evidence of that. They are four Syrians, a Tunisian and a Palestinian who don’t behave as through they are fundamentalists. They appear to be happy with their civilian lives and have not insisted on devoting themselves to any kind of religious figures, for example.

Martin Otheguy: Former President Jose Mujica said that they were people who were not used to working hard. Do you think it was unfair?

Andy Worthington: I’ve seen different interpretations of what he said. For me it’s more appropriate to understand they were very damaged by their experience in Guantánamo, and I must say that these are people who were not only tortured and abused and held for 13 years without charge or trial; the process of detaining them in that manner has a tendency to create a state of weakness and impotence — and of people who, when released, are unable to act independently.

And especially in Guantánamo, the United States undertook a process that was designed to dehumanize the prisoners, to break them and make them completely dependent on the authorities. It is very clear to me that these men have post-traumatic stress disorder (PRSD), that they have psychological problems that must be addressed so that they can re-motivate. I know one of them mentioned how difficult it is to have to now make their own decisions because, as prisoners, they were completely powerless.

Martin Otheguy: Is psychological therapy necessary to prepare them for work and to have a normal life here?

Andy Worthington: I think it would be appropriate for them to have psychological help, and I also think that, in the meantime, financial support to keep them should come from the US. I don’t know really how that has worked so far; from what I have heard, though, it has involved the assistance of a Uruguayan labor union. It is the moral obligation of the United States to keep these men until they are in a position to move on with their lives.

Another thing that is very important is that they need to rejoin their families. They spent 13 years in a horrible, horrible prison where they were badly mistreated and separated from their families; nobody was allowed to see them, even if they could afford to travel the naval base, unlike any other US prisoner who has been convicted for the most terrible crimes. This is a unique situation.

Martin Otheguy: In the interviews there have been some complaints about the Uruguayan resettlement plan. Do you think it was not well planned?

Andy Worthington: I don’t know. I think the fact that former President Mujica has been so receptive about the need to help prisoners at Guantánamo is more positive than almost all other countries. Other nations have taken in other prisoners who could not be safely repatriated, but have not been as sympathetic as President Mujica.

I think the problem we all have is that this is a completely unique situation. These are men who were tortured, abused and wrongly imprisoned by the United States, and the US has refused to do anything about it. The US hasn’t offer new homes to any of these men, but expects other countries to be willing to help, countries that receive very damaged people who are then placed in unfamiliar surroundings.

I hope if they decide to stay in Uruguay they can get used to the Latin American hospitality, even though they are Muslims from the Middle East, and are unfamiliar with the language and the culture; It is a strange place for them.

I hope everything goes well, but I must say that the most important thing for me is that people understand how unreliable are the rumors and allegations about Guantánamo prisoners. People should be careful because there are documents on Guantánamo — the classified military files released by WikiLeaks in 2011 — which, if people see, they can say, “Such a person is such a thing or the other,” but most of that information is completely unfounded. It is not worthwhile for people to worry about those documents.

Martin Otheguy: You talked about adapting. Is it possible that eventually they will adapt to the country despite there being virtually no Muslims here, and despite the fact that there is not even a mosque for them to pray at?

Andy Worthington: I would say yes. These are people who understand that they have no other place to go. If you have to leave your country and go to another, there will always be a problem adapting. The main problem for Uruguay is knowing how damaged they are, and what their experiences were, but I would say that, as long as the men are in a supportive environment, I cannot see why they cannot adapt to it.

Martin Otheguy: Do you think that Uruguayan society and its politicians have to be more patient, that the refugees need more time before working?

Andy Worthington: Yes, clearly they need to overcome their PTSD. Some countries have organizations dedicated to dealing with victims of torture. I think that in Uruguay they should be treated by a team of psychologists who can help them to cope with what has happened. We must remember that, for the people in Guantánamo, no one else has gone through anything similar.

If you or I were to go to jail, it would be because we were accused of a crime, prosecuted and sentenced. These men were captured by the United States, who told the world that they were “the worst of the worst,” and they were held without rights and were given no opportunity to challenge the allegations against them. They are in a uniquely horrible position in which no one can really understand what happened to them except for other Guantánamo prisoners.

The post Strangers In Strange Land: My Interview About Struggles Of Six Men Freed From Guantánamo In Uruguay – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jamal Kanj*

If you are like me, I am sure you are tired of reading about the results of the last Israeli election. Or on Benjamin Netanyahu’s Hebrew pledge running up to the election and his flip-flopped English version after winning the election.

I want instead to highlight the native Palestinian Israeli citizens who ran on a united list for the first time since they started to participate in the election. These Palestinians were the sons and daughters of approximately 150,000 who remained in their original homes, or became internal refugees when their villages were among the 500 that were destroyed by Israel in 1948.

Tomorrow, these Palestinians will mark the 39th anniversary of Land Day. It is an annual event commemorating the day when on March 30, 1976 they confronted Israeli government plans to expropriate approximately 20,000 dunams to build new Jewish-only colonies in the northern Galilee region.

Soon after it came into existence in 1948, Israel established two systems of government: one for Jews and another for the non-Jewish Israeli citizens. Jews enjoyed life under civilian law while Palestinians – supposedly equal under the law – lived under special military administration and were ruled by an appointed Jewish military governor.

This system of inequality which was in effect for 18 years was used to stop internal refugees from going back to their original villages. This is while Israel built new exclusive Jewish colonies for new immigrants, in many instances in the very homes and within eyesight of the non-Jewish “Israeli citizens” internal refugees.

In addition to official government and municipal policies to hinder the development of non-Jewish villages, Israel established physical barriers to curb the expansion of Palestinian towns by building highways at the villages’ boundaries or surrounded them with a ring of Jewish-only colonies.

On March 29, 1976 Israel issued orders to confiscate more land from the non-Jewish citizens and imposed curfew on several of their villages. After 28 years of suppressing their Palestinian identity, local leaders responded to the Israeli order by calling for a general strike and mass protests on March 30.

The general strike against Israel’s Jewish-centric policies was overwhelming from Galilee in the north to Negev in the south. Israeli army reinforced by more than 4,000 police officers attacked the civil demonstrators killing four, three were women, injuring more than 100 and arresting several hundreds.

At large, Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and in refugee camps in Lebanon stood in unison in solidarity with their brothers who for 28 years remained in the forefront of the fight to unmask Israeli racism.

Today, as we observe Land Day 39 years later, Israeli policymakers have introduced the Prawer plan targeting thousands more non-Jewish Israeli citizens, but now in the Negev desert.

The new Israeli plan calls for demolishing 35 Bedouin villages and to remove their inhabitants from their ancestral homes. According to the UN human rights chief, the new Jewish Prawer plan will force thousands “… to give up their homes, denying them their rights to land ownership, and decimating their traditional cultural and social life…”

Last week, Israeli electorates chose again the proponents of the ethno-centric Jewish State (JS) who promised to undermine the US vision of two states for two people and ended all hopes for a negotiated peaceful settlement.

“Whoever is with us should get everything; but whoever is against us…We have to lift up an axe and remove his head.” This was not a quote from Al Baghdadi of the Islamic State (IS), but was what JS leader Avigdor Lieberman pledged at a campaign rally before his re-election.

On this Land Day, while world powers have recognized the danger of religion-centric IS, it is ironic that some of the same governments are urging Palestinians to accept Lieberman’s “axe” wielding Jewish version of the Islamic State.

*Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) writes weekly newspaper column and publishes on several websites on Arab world issues. He is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (A version of this article was first published by the Gulf Daily News newspaper.)

The post Land Day: A Day Of Reckoning, 39 Years Later – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ashraf Ghani, the thoughtful new president of Afghanistan, came to Washington last week and the trip probably met his expectations. He wanted to thank the United States for “defending freedom” in his country and he did this more profusely than any foreign leader in recent history.

He thanked the Congress, President Obama, the generals, the soldiers, the civic affairs specialists, the diplomats, the taxpayers of America and so on. If this came across as excessive flattery toward our government, which after all committed many atrocities and preventable casualties and destruction, President Ghani had a purpose. He wanted to erase the acrimonious legacy of U.S. relations with his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, and lay the foundation for the continued presence of 10,000 U.S. soldiers plus thousands of contractors and economic assistance to give his government some breathing room.

Ralph Nader

The Congress responded to this former professor of anthropology at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland and former official of the World Bank in Washington with a standing ovation, though far shorter than the one that the fire-breathing Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu received earlier this month.

During his three days in Washington, President Ghani soothed fears and raised his profile. America has done no wrong in his presentations, which also included praise for the imperial Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

His address before the joint session of Congress covered a wide range of plans and activities. He spent about ten minutes on the advances made by Afghan girls in school, of women voting more and of the advances in providing a constitutional, equal opportunity and cultural basis for the emergence of women not just as a matter of human rights but of “national necessity.”

He embraced globalization while emphasizing self-reliance—without noting the contradictions that would be forthcoming in such a stance, especially with the “harmonization” promoted by the World Trade Organization and its sanctions-based corporatist governance.

The “real” Ashraf Ghani emerged at various points of his Congressional speech. He spoke about the budding partnership with the U.S. and its regional neighbors that would start “to balance the focus on security (he did not avoid using the words “extremism” and terrorism”) with “a new emphasis on the rule of law and justice [one of his favorite words], growth in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation.” He painted a vision of what his country could be like with the “politics of unity.” He described the geographical beauty of Afghanistan and envisioned a future with Americans visiting his country as tourists and partners.

He spoke extensively of peace, but noted that Afghans know how to fight and have triumphed over most of the empires that have invaded them over the centuries. Then he asked: “Who is entitled to speak for Islam? Leaders, intellectuals and those many millions of Muslims who believe that Islam is a religion of tolerance and virtue must find their voice. Silence is not acceptable. But silence is not what the world will hear from us. Afghanistan is joining a new consensus that’s emerging in the Muslim world, a consensus that rejects intolerance, extremism and war. They have documented beautifully central Asia’s long tradition of rationalism and scientific inquiry.”

He acknowledged the depths of poverty in his country and the “corruption and impunity” that permeate the government and have to be rooted out. President Ghani is arguably the world’s leading expert on the intricacies and functions of widespread corruption in poor countries, which may explain his appointing someone accused of a corrupt past to head his anti-corruption agency.

He stressed that waging peace requires diplomacy, a strong army and a serious initiative for national reconciliation. He used these words for the insurgents: “The Taliban need to choose not to be al-Qaeda. And if they choose to be Afghan, they will be welcomed to be part of the fabric of our society. Many believe themselves to be patriots against the corruption and criminality that they saw in their towns and villages.”

These words illustrate the empathy and inclusiveness that mark the presidency of Ashraf Ghani. He sees hostilities through the lens of grievances by others. He strives to include former adversaries or tribal leaders in his government—starting with his vice-president—and he rarely publically resorts to harsh language against his critics or enemies.

Above all, President Ghani wants to neutralize anybody or anything that undermines or distracts from his focus on building trust in government through trusted, competent public servants, of encouraging autonomy down to the village level through self-reliance and of amassing the natural resources of his country for public benefit rather than for unfettered multinational corporate exploitation.

To get the job done, he will flatter, invite, partner and overwhelm those presenting obstacles with a pragmatism that relies on a steely determination so as to avoid such tactics becoming self-betrayal. This is a tall order in a very difficult arena.

Two issues were neglected in this otherwise compelling speech. First, President Ghani’s wide-ranging speech could have helped lay better the basis for regional peace if he had briefly advised Congress to press for an Israeli/Palestinian two-state solution by recognizing the repeated 2002 invitation to Israel by a coalition of many Arab and Islamic nations for a comprehensive, durable peace in accordance with the long-ignored United Nations resolutions.

Second, he declined to mention the U.S./Iranian confrontations in historical and contemporary ways that he is superbly able to explain. Our government would benefit greatly by seeking his advice on what our relations with Iran could be. Never mentioning Israel, Palestine and Iran within a gracious speech of great praise of the U.S. was however an unfortunate strategic omission and a lost opportunity.

He might have earned more lasting respect for his erudition and candor among significant segments of American opinion had he done so.

The post Ralph Nader: The Balancing Tensions Of Ashraf Ghani – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ajamu Baraka*

Saudi Arabia has commenced military operations against the Ansarullah fighters of the Houthi movement in Yemen.

The Saudi intervention was not unexpected. Over the last few weeks, there were signs that the United States and the Saudis were preparing the ground for direct military intervention in Yemen in response to the Houthis’ seizing the Yemeni capital of Sana’a last January.

The appearance of a previously unknown Islamic State element in Yemen, which was supposedly responsible for the recent massive bomb attack that killed over 130 people, and the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. diplomatic personnel were the clear signals that direct intervention was imminent.

With the fall of al-Anad air base, where the U.S. military and CIA conducted drone warfare in Yemen, and the seige of the port city of Aden, where disposed President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi had fled, it was almost certain that the U.S. would greenlight its client states to intervene.

Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir cloaked the role of Saudi Arabia within the fictitious context of another grand coalition, this time led by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — the corrupt collection of authoritarian monarchies allied with the United States and the other Western colonial powers.

Al-Jubeir added that before launching operations in Yemen, all of Saudi Arabia’s allies were consulted. The meaning of that statement is that the U.S. was fully invested in the operation.

Even though the ambassador stressed that Washington was not directly involved in the military component of the assault, CNN reported that an interagency U.S. coordination team was in Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official subsequently confirmed that Washington would be providing logistical and intelligence support for the operation.

And what was the justification for launching a military operation not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council?

According to the Saudis, they have legitimate regional security concerns in Yemen. Their argument was that since they share a border with Yemen, the chaos that erupted over the last few months — culminating in what they characterize as a coup by the Houthi insurgency — forced them to intervene to establish order and defend by “all efforts” the legitimate government of President Hadi.

But this is becoming an old and tired justification for criminality in support of hegemony.

The intervention by the Saudis and the GCC continues the international lawlessness that the United States precipitated with its “War on Terror” over the last decade and a half. Violations of the UN Charter and international law modeled by the powerful states of the West has now become normalized, resulting in an overall diminution of international law and morality over the last 15 years.

The double standard and hypocrisy of U.S. support for the Saudi intervention in Yemen, compared to Western and U.S. condemnation of Russia’s regional security concerns in response to the coup in Ukraine, will not be missed by most people.

And so the conflagration in the Middle East continues.

The U.S. and Saudi geo-strategic interest in containing the influence of Iran has trumped international law and any concerns about the lives of the people of Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Militarism, with war as the first option, has now become the default instrument of statecraft in an international order in which power trumps morality and law is only applied to the powerless.

*Ajamu Baraka is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He can be reached at Ajamubaraka.com.

This article was originally published at AjamuBaraka.com. 

The post Yemen: Another Illegal War In The Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Linda S. Heard

Arab League summits used to be dismissed as little more than talking shops, mere forums for Arab leaders to stay in touch. Final communiqués were usually devoid of actionable steps to resolve issues. However, those criticisms are old news as the mood and outcome of the 26th summit held in Sharm El-Sheikh strongly indicates.

Not everyone will agree with me. Certainly, various commentators on Al Jazeera International and other networks appear to be out of touch with new realities.

I’ve heard so-called political experts, including fellows of the Brookings Institution, make cynical comments about the spirit of unity permeating the Arab World and, in particular, they suggest that the defensive Joint Arab Force is nothing more than a proposal likely to gather dust along with the Arab League Defense Treaty on Defense and Economic Cooperation.

Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, Marwan Bishara, asked the anchor whether he was permitted to roll his eyes — an expression of contempt — and promptly did so. Syndicated columnist and author Rami Khouri was equally dismissive on the grounds that such force is unlikely to be workable.

For decades, commentators have blamed Arab leaderships for failing to tackle regional crises, rather relying on foreign powers to do the job for them, interventions that can only be described as disastrous for those afflicted countries. And now that governments are finally getting their act together, they’re being bashed for their efforts.

It’s my view that, on this, the naysayers are flat wrong.

Why? Circumstances have changed dramatically over the past 18

months or so. Numerous Arab states are under threat from terrorist groups of various stripes, armed sectarian militias, secessionists, pervasive extremist ideologies — and most of all, Iran’s growing domination of Arab nations via its proxies, as well as the stated intention of one of the Ayatollah Khamenei’s closest advisers to build a new Persian Empire.

Anyone with eyes to see knows that the neighborhood is falling apart like a house of cards and needs rescuing. Furthermore, as we gleaned from addresses given by several Arab heads of state to the summit’s delegates, there is a growing sense of urgency to deal with these crises head on. Several feel let down by their traditional western allies, not to mention the United Nations that has failed to deliver on a Palestinian state and has not succeeded in ending the bloodshed in Syria.

Operation “Decisive Storm” was not only needed to reinstate Yemen’s legitimate president and government, it was implemented to safeguard the Bab El Mandeb Strait, from a Houthi blockade and to secure the Kingdom’s southern border, which is close to the main Houthi stronghold. The latter was no idle threat.

According to the spokesman for the Arab coalition, Houthi rebels are mobilizing toward that border and are threatening to launch a wave of cross-border suicide attacks.

“Decisive Storm” proves that Arab leaders are able and willing to put their hands together when push comes to shove — and for the first time, they’ve joined forces off their own bat without western coordination. This, more than anything, sends Iran the message, watch out; there’s a new power on the block! It signals a rearrangement of the geopolitical deck chairs, which can only be described as historic.

True there’s many a slip between cup and lip, but I’m highly optimistic that the Joint Arab Force, initially slated to comprise 40,000 elite troops, will come into being, as was confirmed by a statement at the end of the summit. Arab League member countries are free to opt-in or opt-out; it will be interesting to see how many choose to take part.

The nitty-gritty will be ironed out by a panel of military chiefs from participating states within a month. It will manifest because the time is right due to a confluence of shared concerns and interests.

“Operation Decisive Storm” has set the stage with nine countries rallying in response to the Saudi call, much to Iran’s surprise.

The Arab League has embraced a new era of cooperation and goodwill that goes beyond mutual defense. The decision was taken to turn the dream of an Arab free trade area into reality with a view to establishing a customs union down the road. Leaders, who truly know what’s at stake for their homelands and the resurgent Arab nation, are ready to get proactive. And it’s my own sincere hope that in time the wet blankets will be forced to eat their words.

The post Yemen: Arabs In ‘Decisive’ Mood – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The current Saudi-led intervention in Yemen designed to prevent Iranian-backed forces from gaining power symbolises the Gulf’s new assertiveness. This is unfolding as the various Gulf states seek to hedge their bets with different strategies that complement rather than replace the regional US security umbrella.

Qatar this month signed a military agreement with Turkey which gives the two parties the right to deploy soldiers in each other’s territory. Qatar is the latest Gulf state to seek alliances as a way to enhance security in a world in which a post-nuclear agreement Iran would join Turkey and Israel as the region’s foremost military powers. The agreement is rooted in shared attitudes towards tumultuous developments in the Middle East that potentially threaten long-ruling autocrats and spawned civil wars and spiralling political violence and could rewrite the region’s nation state cartography.

Subtle and not-so-subtle strategic shifts

If invoked in a time of crisis, the likelihood is that tiny Qatar’s alignment with the second largest standing army in NATO would mean that Turkish forces would be sent to aid the Gulf state and recognises that Qatar’s 12,000-man military will never be capable of defending the emirate. The agreement supplements Qatar’s soft power strategy that seeks to embed the Gulf state in the international community through sports, arts, airline connectivity, investment and high-powered mediation of regional disputes in a way that it could call on it in times of emergency.

While the Qatar-Turkey agreement is between governments that are politically aligned on one side of the Middle East and North Africa’s multiple political divides, concern among Gulf states has also sparked subtle shifts that are bringing erstwhile opponents closer together. Qatari and Turkish relations with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt had soured since the military coup in 2013 that toppled Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi because of the two states support for Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

The subtle realignment of alliances prompted by fears that the United States will conclude a deal with Iran that they believe fails to ensure that the Islamic republic will not become a nuclear power was first noticeable in the willingness of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to be more open about their political and security relations with Israel. The two Gulf states refuse to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state because of its unresolved conflict with the Palestinians but share Israel’s perception of Iran as an existential threat.

“Everything is underground, nothing is public. But our security cooperation with Egypt and the Gulf states is unique. This is the best period of security and diplomatic relations with the Arabs,” said General Amos Gilad, the Israeli defence ministry’s director of policy and political-military relations, during a visit to Singapore last year. Gilad played a key role in forging Israel’s alliance with Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al Sisi.

Unprecedented moves

In unprecedented public moves, Saudi officials reached out to Israel they had long shied away from. Saudi officials, contrary to past practice, refrained in December from commenting on unconfirmed news reports that quoted Saudi oil minister Ali Bin Ibrahim al-Naimi as saying the kingdom would be willing to sell oil to Israel.

Six months earlier former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to the US and UK Prince Turki Al Faisal called on Israel to resolve the Palestinian issue as a way of facilitating enhanced Israeli-Saudi relations. Besides opening direct flights between Riyadh and Jerusalem, “commerce, medicine, science, art, and culture between our two peoples would develop,” Turki wrote in the first ever op-ed submitted by a member of the Saudi elite to an Israeli newspaper.

A second indication was a decision last December by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain to paper over their differences with Qatar over the Muslim Brotherhood. The three states had nine months earlier withdrawn their ambassadors from the Qatari capital in a failed attempt to force Qatar to break its ties with the Brotherhood and expel Brothers from the country.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia, which views Iran as a far greater threat than the Brotherhood, has signalled that its attitude towards the Brotherhood was changing despite its backing for Sisi’s brutal crackdown on the group in Egypt and the kingdom’s banning of the Brothers as terrorists. The moves are part of a Saudi effort to forge a Sunni Muslim alliance against Iran that paved the way for this month’s visit to Riyadh by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

A recent conference in Mecca that brought together Muslim clerics to denounce terrorism was hosted by the Muslim World League, a body established by Saudi Arabia but long associated with the Brotherhood. Earlier, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud bin Faisal declared that the kingdom has “no problem with the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Creating opportunity for China

Gulf states’ fears of Iran are likely to create further opportunity for China to strengthen its soft military ties in the region in a balancing act that is designed to ensure that it does not challenge US hegemony in the region. China said this month it had agreed to sell Turkey a US$3.4 billion surface-to-air missile system that could prove difficult to integrate with its NATO allies.

China’s approach could potentially further involve temporary deployment of armed forces for overseas military exercises as well as the deployment of military patrols, peacekeeping forces, military trainers and consultants; also the building of overseas munitions warehouses, joint intelligence facilities, aerospace tracking facilities, earthquake monitoring stations, technical service, military replenishment stops, maintenance bases, and military teaching institutions.

The nibbling at the fringe of the Middle East’s security architecture is however unlikely to improve regional security as long as it includes policies by states like Saudi Arabia that exacerbate rather than soften sectarian divides and that seek to box in regional powers rather than include them on equitable terms.

This article was published at RSIS

The post Gulf Alliances: Regional States Hedge Their Bets – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Malaysia’s introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has aroused controversy. The use of such preventive detention is justified.

By Bilveer Singh*

Malaysia has introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to deal with the growing threat of the transnational Islamic State and other forms of terrorism. The move is rooted in the Internal Security Act (ISA) and its predecessors that were enacted to counter the communist insurgency in Malaya, then Malaysia from 1948 to 1989.

Since the end of the communist insurgency in Malaysia there have been calls for the repeal of these draconian laws. Two grounds have been put forward. First, the threat by communism is over and second, it has been abused by authorities to detain political opponents.

Repealing ISA; enacting POTA

While Malaysia decided to repeal the ISA, Singapore defended the continued need for these laws to counter the continued threat posed by terrorism.

In 2012, Malaysia repealed the Emergency Ordinance and the ISA. A new preventive detention mechanism replaced it, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) which took effect in July 2012. However, SOSMA has proved to be a weak instrument, leading to pressures for a new ISA-type law to be instituted. The POTA is seen as a substitute in view of the rising security threat confronting Malaysia.

Following the passage of the White Paper on ‘Towards Combating the Threat of Islamic State’ on 26 November 2014 in Parliament, the government promised to enact a new law to effect the concerns in the White Paper. The new law, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was tabled in the current seating of Parliament.

The key provisions of the new law include: detaining suspected terrorists for up to two years with a possibility of a further two years’ extension; electronic monitoring device being attached to the detainee; and the administration of various preventive measures to deradicalise suspects. POTA is to be administered by the Terrorism Prevention Board and not by the Executive.

While there were grounds to repeal the ISA in 2012, by 2015 it became apparent that new preventive detention laws were necessary. A key factor was the severity of the threat posed by supporters of Islamic State in Malaysia, involving some 200 Malaysians who were already fighting in Iraq and Syria. Some have died as suicide bombers and others in combat. The flow of recruits is also continuing.

Pros and cons of POTA

There is public and political support for the government’s move. The new law is not linked to the ISA and politics as it only targets terrorism offences. It is to be administered by a body of judicial experts. It is also seen as the best mechanism to deal with the threat posed by returning combatants, who in addition to gaining weapons skills and combat experience, would also have been ideologically fortified, and developed new networks with extremists and terrorists.

In addition to being different from existing laws that deal with criminals, POTA also involved preventive measures to overcome a dangerous threat. Otherwise, the security forces were left with no option but to act after a crime had been committed, often at great cost to society. It was a mechanism to administer justice with the Executive having no control in the manner it was to be utilised.

ISA’s replacement, SOSMA, was evidently inadequate in managing the new threat of terrorism, best seen in the increasing number of Malaysians fighting in Syria and Iraq, and blatantly posting themselves in the social media. It is also a signal that Malaysia and its government were serious in fighting the threat of terrorism posed by Islamic State and its supporters.

Like the ISA in the past, POTA has come under fire. Critics have argued that POTA is unnecessary as existing laws are sufficient to deal with the threat posed by Islamic State and the rise of Malaysian extremists and terrorists. Just as in the past, there are accusations that the government would politically abuse it and use it against its opponents. Not surprisingly, many see it as a reincarnation of the former ISA.

Moral of the ISA and POTA

Clearly the Malaysian experience holds some lessons. Once an existing preventive detention mechanism is removed, it is politically difficult to be reinstated. This is because a government’s political opponents will politicise the reinstatement of such laws regardless of the existential threat that is surfacing, as is the case in Malaysia and even Indonesia.

Clearly, without preventive detention laws, trouble makers will gain confidence to threaten national security, as is happening in many Southeast Asian states. Without the ISA and its like, the police will only be able to act when a crime has been committed by which time, massive loss of lives and property would have taken place.

Not only would public security be undermined with serious domestic and international consequences, the image and credibility of the government would also be battered. Hence, the deterrent value of such laws. However, such blunt instruments must be prudently exercised with effective checks and balances to ensure their non-abuse – with the public as the best judge whether abuses have taken place or not.

*Bilveer Singh is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

The post Prevention Of Terrorism: Relevance Of POTA In Malaysia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A public prosecutor at an Istanbul courthouse has been taken hostage by unknown gunmen.

Mehmet Selim Kiraz had been handling the case of Berkin Elvan, who was critically injured during 2013’s Gezi Park protests and died in March 2014 after being in a coma for 269 days.

Today’s incident took place at around 12.30 p.m. (Turkish local time) at Kiraz’ office on the sixth floor of the Okmeydani district courthouse.

Police have moved into position around the incident area where Kiraz was taken hostage.

Two gunshots have been heard as security forces were trying to gain access to the office. It is not known if there are any injuries.

A photograph — showing a gunman pointing a weapon at Kiraz’s head — was published on a Twitter account claiming to be close to an armed leftist group called the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front, or DHKP-C.

The DHKP-C is a 1978-founded Marxist-Leninist party, considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

Original article

The post Turkey: Prosecutor Taken Hostage In Istanbul appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kapil Narula*

Climate talks have reached a deadlock and a climate deal in Paris, though possible, is becoming more like a wish that, “kissing the frog will turn it into a handsome prince”. But who will provide the ‘magic’ needed to transform the ‘ugly frog’ (the present state of climate talks) to a ‘prince’ (an equitable climate deal which satisfies every country)?

Impediments in reaching a global climate deal

Currently, all countries are struggling to determine their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC’s) in the run up to the negotiations. While logically well-grounded, this exercise may not lead to optimal results due to the complexities involved in modeling and accurately estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, possible impact of disruptive future technologies and large uncertainties involved in predicting global events. Further, the solutions obtained from scientific modeling exercises are likely to be doctored to meet the political agendas of different governments. It is therefore expected that most of the major GHG emitters will incorporate a large factor of safety in their calculations, and therefore will not declare ambitious emission reduction goals. This will lead to cumulative emissions from country pledges falling well short of meeting the 2 degree centigrade mitigation targets.

While developing countries like India are not likely to dilute their stand on their ‘right to emit’ under the garb of development, industrialized countries like the US are even more unlikely to commit funds and technology, in the absence of binding GHG emission cap for emerging economies. Further, countries like China have already declared their ‘emissions peaking date’, as they hope to reach close to the status of a developed country by 2030, which leaves India to carry the burden of being an obstructionist in climate negotiations.

As the plot of the story which is currently unfolding is the same, the expected results would be similar to the Lima conference, which delivered a ‘stillborn child’ after months of ‘labour pains’ (read, efforts in building international consensus). The only hope is that global pressure on acting on climate change becomes such a great factor that a deal, any deal, is reached as a face saving measure which keeps the possibility of further talks open. However, if a consensus is forced by using international pressure as a tool of diplomacy, it would lead to compromises by poor and developing nations, resulting in an unequal and distorted treaty. Importantly, the ones to suffer will be the poor and vulnerable people in these low income countries, who neither have the resources nor the ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

While these are the expectations from the Paris Conference of the Parties (COP) meet as on date, a momentum may build up closer to the date of the summit which might swing the tide in favour of a binding deal which is well balanced and therefore acceptable to a majority of countries. The question however remains – Is there an alternate framework or a way ahead to break this impasse? While there are no clear cut answers, some of the alternate paths may be explored.

Exploring a sectoral model

One of the pathways which can be considered for reaching a global deal is a ‘sectoral model’ where agreements are made for a specific sector by the stakeholders. Such a model has been successfully agreed upon by all countries for international shipping and has been implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Emissions from international shipping (about 2.2% of the total global CO2 emissions for 2012) are not appropriated to any country. This is due to the complexity of international nature of shipping due to ships having different port of origin, destination port, intermediate ports of call, flag state of the ship (country where the ship is registered) and other private players such as owners and operators of ships. While the above factors were an impediment in including international shipping in any country based GHG emissions accounting framework, the shipping sector was able to successfully negotiate and adopt a regime for controlling NOx (nitrogen oxides) and SOx (sulphur oxides) emissions. It also agreed on implementing a mandatory GHG emissions reduction regime exclusively for the shipping sector and it is the only legally binding global agreement after the Kyoto Protocol in 1990.

Three key agreements have been evolved by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for control of airborne emissions under a sectoral framework since 2010, and these will continue to be implemented by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in a phased manner. These are:

(a) Adoption of NOx Emission Standards for engines

(b) Reduction in sulfur content of fuel to contain SOx emissions

(c) Mandatory mechanisms to reduce GHG from ships in the form of technical measures such as Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and operational measures such as Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) onboard ships

Although Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and Market Based Mechanisms (MBMs) have not been implemented by the shipping sector as yet, work is in progress for building capacity towards a sound Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system towards operationalizing these schemes.

One of the key reasons why such a deal became a possibility was because it is based on the principles of no-more-favourable-treatment and non-discrimination within the sector. This is in contrast to the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) which occupies a central place in the framework of climate talks. Notwithstanding the different principles, a global GHG emission reduction regime was evolved within the overarching framework supported by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by giving some concessions to countries in terms of additional time to adopt the requisite standards.

The results achieved in reaching a global agreement for the shipping sector have proved that a sectoral approach may also work in climate negotiations. Such an approach may be explored for power, industry and transport sector and could yield better results as government and private players may come together to evolve and agree upon targets and then share best practices to attain those targets. The absolute emissions reduction targets can then be aggregated for various sectors at the global level.

Climate talks in Paris are a defining moment in history and getting a right and equitable deal is important for the entire world. However, there is a need to look beyond the short term gains and individual country interests. Negotiations underlined by cooperation, and an ability to look at challenges as opportunities is the only way in which such a deal can be reached.

*Kapil Narula is a certified energy auditor and a PhD Research Scholar at Indira Gandhi institute of Development Research, Mumbai. He works in the area of energy economics, energy security and sustainability. He can be contacted at kapiln@igidr.ac.in

The post Global Climate Deal: Time To Explore Alternate Model – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Brig Anil Gupta (Retd)*

The recent twin terror attacks at Kathua and Samba have evoked strong public outrage against Pakistan — both its army and civilian establishment. The legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir currently in session has also passed a unanimous resolution condemning the unfriendly neighbouring country. Unhappy with the formation of an alliance government in partnership with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Pakistan is hell bent upon fomenting trouble in the state.

Apart from spreading terror, the aim of these twin attacks appears to be to foment communal tension and hit Jammu’s economy. Hence, the time chosen for the terror attacks coincided with the Navratra festival that is not only celebrated with great devotion by the locals but also attract large number of pilgrims from the rest of the country to the holy shrine of Vaishno Devi. It is to the credit of the people of Jammu that they have not fallen prey to the nefarious designs of the enemy. Pakistan must realise that Indians are resilient and won’t be provoked by such cowardly acts which in fact make their resolve to fight terror even stronger.

Pakistan continues to use terror as an instrument of state policy to further its so called “national interests”. Despite having been militarily defeated and diplomatically snubbed it continues to be obsessed with the idea of Kashmir being its “umbilical cord”. Having realised that it cannot defeat India militarily it has adopted the policy of “thousand cuts” to keep India bleeding. It continues to classify the terrorists in Pakistan as “good” and “bad” terrorists. All those terrorist organisations that carry out terror attacks against India are termed “good” and their leaders enjoy the patronage of the government despite being declared as proclaimed international terrorists by the United Nations, USA and many Western countries.

The likes of Hafiz Sayeed, Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, Dawood Ibrahim etc. are termed as “strategic assets” by the Pakistan Army, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the establishment. No international rules, restrictions or bans apply to them because they are key players in the plan to bleed India. Thus, Pakistan’s double talk on terror continues unabated. The recent twin terror attacks thus need to be viewed in this light.

Of late, Pakistan has preferred the International Border (IB) sector over the Line of Control (LoC) sector for carrying out infiltration for terror attacks. There are many reasons for this, of which weather is one such reason but very minor. The major reason is the proximity of NH 1 to the IB which runs at a distance of 5-15 km from the border. NH 1 provides a target of strategic importance within striking distance that can draw immediate media attention. ‘Striking Distance’ being the distance within which they have the capability to carry out a one-night operation ,i.e. infiltrate and strike on the same night thus reducing the chances of being intercepted after crossing the border. The terrain in this sector in the form of broken ground and numerous nullahs (running east-west) also assists infiltration. A number of brick kilns and mobile towers along the NH 1 provide good navigational land marks at night. There are many lucrative targets both military and civilian available within the striking distance as compared to the LoC sector.

Another important factor is the density of troop deployment. The density is much less as compared to the LoC sector, which apart from having a strong anti-infiltration deployment also has a very effective counter-terrorist grid in the hinterland. The Pakistani authorities also hope that a strike in this sector may rouse communal passions leading to communal riots thus damaging the harmonious social fabric of the state to further its failed agenda of “Two Nation Theory”. Pakistan’s insistence on terming the IB as “Working Boundary” and thus refusing to accept it as an accepted International Border is also a reason for preferring this sector so that it can claim the entire Jammu & Kashmir as disputed territory. Such terror attacks can also be used as a diversionary tactics to aid infiltration of bigger groups to the Bhaderwah-Doda belt via Basholi-Banni. In the past this route has been used by the terrorists both for infiltration/exfiltration as well as for rest and recoup. Thus the area of Banni-Macheddi in the depth also assumes importance.

It is worth examining as to how the terrorists manage to cross the border despite the claim of the Border Security Force (BSF) that it is well guarded. The aim is not to point finger at any particular force. All security forces are carrying out their assigned roles to the best of their abilities within the given resources. Is it then the question of resources? I have already highlighted the aspect of terrain. Another important point to note is that the border fence has been erected against the lie of the ground and hence easily gets damaged during the monsoons or periods of heavy rain, thus creating gaps. Naturally, to cover these gaps greater strength of manpower for deployment is needed affecting deployment elsewhere. Moreover, it is not difficult to breach a linear deployment like the current pattern on the border.

For the counter infiltration deployment to be effective it needs to be an all-weather multi-layered deployment in tiers. A counter-smuggling and a counter-infiltration deployment cannot follow the same pattern. It has to be dynamic rather than static. The first tier of deployment should be based on all-weather, 24×7 surveillance radars, sensors, hand-held thermal imagers, night vision binoculars and alarm systems. It must be complemented with physical deployment based on threat assessment and terrain. The night ambushes should be laid on a dynamic grid pattern rather than static linear deployment. The vulnerable areas like nullahs and gaps need to be covered with adequate deployment. Each border out post (BOP) must have an operational command post manned by a team led by an officer who should monitor the data being received from the surveillance grid with authority to redeploy ambushes under its operational control. The entire deployment needs to be backed by a reliable and secure communication system.

The second tier needs to be deployed between the IB and NH based on high grounds or dominating ground. A similar dynamic grid of ambushes equipped with night vision devices and night sights need to be established in the second tier also. This tier also needs to be complemented with police nakkas (outposts). However, the aspect of communication needs to be coordinated and rehearsed. The third tier needs to be based on the NH and areas immediately in depth. Village Defence Committees (VDCs) should be incorporated in this tier. VDCs need to be properly armed, well trained and highly motivated. Long range Surveillance Radars (LSRs) along with surveillance command posts could also form part of the third tier. The readers would agree that the ultimate question is of availability of resources. But then no price is heavy for a nation when it comes to ensuring peace for her citizens. There is a saying “If you want peace be prepared for war.” The unified command must put its heads together to make the IB sector impregnable in order to beat the nefarious designs of the troika that rules Pakistan and is determined to keep the pot boiling in J&K to ensure that the citizens of this state are denied the dividends of peace.

Looking inwards, those advocating revocation of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) must rethink whether the time is ripe for it or by insisting for its removal they may be helping the troika in Pakistan. To sum up, a pro-active approach towards border management, surveillance and infiltration is the need of the hour. To achieve this, an integrated, professional and well trained intelligence network is a pre-requisite. This network should not rely only on electronic intelligence (ELINT) but should also be backed up by human intelligence (HUMINT). The training camps and launch pads need to be under constant surveillance. Since a large number of army camps are also located in the area, there should be a seamless integration between BSF, police, intelligence agencies and the army.

The issue of command and control should be unambiguous. There should be no duplicity at all. The coordination between neighbouring units deployed on the border should be flawless since inter-unit and inter-formation boundaries are always vulnerable. It needs to be understood that till such time we make our borders impregnable we will continue to be the victims of cross-border terror because Pakistan is not going to relent from bleeding India.

*Brig Anil Gupta is a Jammu-based security and strategic analyst. The views expressed in the article are entirely personal. He can be contacted at anil5457@gmail.com

The post Pakistan Cannot Succeed In Nefarious Designs On Kashmir – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Max Lane* for ISEAS

On January 10, 2015, President Joko Widodo nominated Police General Budi Gunawan to be appointed as the new Chief of the National Police (Polri). President Widodo stated that he had made the appointment on the recommendation of the National Police Commission. A few days later, on January 16, a committee of the Indonesian parliament also passed the nomination. The day before that, however, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) declared the nominee a suspect in corruption cases. It was also confirmed that the president had been informed earlier by KPK of their suspicions concerning Gunawan dating back to 2010.

There was then a wave of criticism of President Widodo for nominating as police chief someone that the KPK had already suspected of corruption. There was immediate pressure on Widodo to withdraw the nomination from the civil society sector, including the “relawan” (volunteer) milieu that had supported him in the presidential elections. As expected, Widodo has since re-assessed the nomination, appointing a team of 9 prominent personalities to advise him. Eventually, they advised him not to appoint Gunawan, and he announced on February 18 that Gunawan would not be installed. Instead, Widodo sent in another name – Commissioner-General Badrodin Haiti – to be considered by parliament. As a concession to the pro-Gunawan sentiment, mostly in the PDIP (as well as in Polri) Widodo made a point, however, of stating that Gunawan would retain a significant position in the police hierarchy.

In the month leading up to February 18, Widodo was perceived by some as moving too slowly, allowing the KPK to be – as it has become called – “criminalised”. Since the KPK named Gunawan as a suspect, the police had laid charges against the KPK head, Abraham Samad, and one of the deputy heads, Bambang Widjojanto, in what was seen by some as retaliation. Widodo then replaced the two KPK officials, a move which was criticised as conceding to the police.1

The appointment of a retired senior Polri officer, Taufiqurrahman Ruki, as the new acting head of the KPK, has already attracted criticism.2 The material used to support charges against the two KPK officials, for criminal offences related to breaching the Act that set up the KPK, was provided to the police by obscure members of Widodo’s own party, the PDIP. In addition, the police had also laid charges against 21 KPK investigators because as former policemen, they had not surrendered their weapons when they left the police force.

Widodo’s initial reaction to the war between KPK and the Police was to call both to the palace at the same time and to tell them to work together. However, this cautious approach of buying time through lengthy legal processes was complicated when on February 16 a Jakarta court ruled that the KPK’s decision to make Gunawan a suspect in one of their corruption cases was illegal.3 Nevertheless, Widodo still announced that he would not appoint Gunawan.

During the five weeks between Gunawan’s nomination and Widodo’s announcement that he had withdrawn the nomination, Widodo was often depicted in the press and social media as vacillating and weak. The criticism arose that he was not independent, but beholden to the PDIP and its Chairperson, Megawati Sukarnoputri. It was widely held that Megawati supported the nomination of Gunawan, who was her Adjutant during her tenure as President of Indonesia. This criticism also echoed opinions raised during the election campaign that Widodo would be Megawati’s puppet. As a result, there have been calls for Widodo to act more independently from Megawati and the PDIP and even to establish his own party.

Before discussing the issue of a “Jokowi party”, it is necessary to make some comments about these particular criticisms of Widodo, namely, that he is not independent of the PDIP and the other parties that nominated him for the Presidency.

Widodo’s election campaign in 2014 ambiguously straddled two support bases. Formally and also in a very material and substantial way, Widodo’s primary support base was the alliance of the PDIP, National Democratic Party (Nasdem) and the National Awakening Party (PKB), which nominated him for the Presidency. While there are rumours – widely accepted as accurate – that the PDIP was not fully forthcoming with financial support for his campaign, the voter’s base of these three parties – around 30% of his winning tally of 53% – was crucial. Widodo has been a member of the PDIP for ten years, having joined it when the PDIP nominated him as their candidate for Mayor of Solo in 2004. At the PDIP press conference announcing Widiodo’s candidature, Megawati emphasised that he was being nominated as a “petugas partai” – officer of the party. Before he was nominated for the presidency, he always answered questions about his nomination with statements such as “It is up to Ibu Mega.”4

Widodo and the PDIP never concealed this reality. The institution of the presidency is also dependent on supporting parties in Parliament as the Executive branch’s budget and proposals for bills must be passed by it. Wherein many policy initiatives actually come from political parties in party-based parliamentary democracies, this is even more the case when the presidential candidate is not an actual leader of his party, but rather the PDIP member with the greatest “elektabilitas” (electability).

The idea that Widodo was some kind of “independent” or non-party candidate was, however, promoted to a significant extent during Widodo’s election campaign. This was done through two primary tactics. First, there was an emphasis on the claim that he would not be a transaksional president, that is a president who formed his cabinet and government based on deals made in exchange for support among the parties. This claim was also connected to vague “promises” of appointing more professional technocrats than party politicians to the cabinet. However, the emphasis on being non-transaksional was essentially a way of distancing himself from parties in general, including the PDIP. This was obviously in contradiction to the reality referred to above.

The second tactic he used was connecting up with and using the support that he received from the “relawan” or volunteer supporters of his candidature who were – mostly at least – not members of political parties.5 There is not yet any in-depth research on the social composition of these relawan but it appears that they are mostly drawn from the white collar work-force and professionals, including some academics and NGO officials, although there did seem to be also some grass-roots components. The relawan were very active in the social media as well as in helping with the distribution of printed electoral material. This included door-to-door campaigning, although it is not clear to what extent.

More important than the actual activity of the relawan was Widodo’s ability to be perceived as having a substantial non-party support base, helping him present himself as a non-party candidate. Very crucial in this image creation were his two iconic photo opportunities, at the massive regular monthly Health Walk gathering in Merdeka Square at the beginning of his campaign and his appearance at the special concert organised by the popular music group Slank. Pictures of him standing in front of tens of thousands of people, none of whom carried party paraphernalia, was a statement proclaiming his “non-party” status. There were also, of course, plenty of photos of him with Megawati, but they did not receive the same front page coverage in the pro-Widodo newspapers, including Kompas, Indonesia’s main establishment newspaper, or the same circulation in the social media.

So one could argue that there were two ‘Jokowis’ campaigning for the Presidency: Jokowi, the man who had hitched himself to the PDIP for the previous ten years and whose candidacy, as he often admitted earlier was “up to Bu Mega”, but also Jokowi, the favourite of the middle class, non-party, or actually anti-party, relawan milieu. However, the relawan have neither parliamentary representation nor any effective national organisation, which in turn limits their influence in the formal political processes of Indonesia.

A JOKOWI PARTY?

Criticism and scepticism about Widodo’s cautious approach to the KPK-Polri controversy were strong during the month following January 16. On January 24, even the previously very enthusiastic pop music group Slank, which had organised the massive pro-Widodo concert during the last days of the election campaign, while saying they did not regret choosing Widodo, were showing disappointment. “Let’s wait and see,” Bimbim Slank told the media.6

As this disappointment became more evident, most of the major relawan groups rallied to express their ongoing support for Widodo. What started to fuel further social media and informal discussion that Widodo’s supporters and perhaps even Widodo himself might be thinking of forming a separate party was the formation of the Joint Secretariat for a Participation Indonesia (SBPI, Sekretariat Bersama Partisipasi Indonesia) by the relawan groups).7 The groups involved were Projo (Pro Jokowi), Seknas Jokowi (Jokowi National Secretariat), Duta Jokowi (Jokowi Ambassadors), Relawan Penggerak Jakarta Baru (RPJB) (Volunteers for a New Jakarta), Pusat Informasi Relawan (PIR) (Volunteers Information Centre), Jaringan Nasional Indonesia Baru (JNIB) (New Indonesia National Network), and Jokowi Mania. Projo and Seknas Jokowi both had achieved significant national recognition, at least among the more politicised middle class circles. Such an alliance could be seen as a precursor to the formation of a political party.

The statement by the SBPI expressed their support for Widodo’s policies to date including his actions in relation to the KPK-Polri tension, stating that the members of the team of nine that Widodo had appointed were credible figures. Central to the statement, entitled “We Will Not Let Jokowi Stand Alone”, were the following two final points (in translation):

We fully support the independent stance of Jokowi who politely and humbly rejects all pressures and interventions from whomsoever. We believe that Jokowi will always be decisive and independent, in his refined and polite way, which are his special characteristics.

We know that being decisive does not mean showing off you have power or conducting shows of force. We are ready to stand behind the president if there is any force at all that tries in any way to pressure the president to depart from the Nawacita.8

There can be little doubt that coming in the midst of perceptions that Widodo was appeasing Megawati, this manifesto can be read as an encouragement to Widodo to “stand up” to the PDIP party elite.9 The coming together of these groups also encouraged speculation that Widodo would be forming his own party. However, this is qualified by a final point that emphasised the participation of civil society in government processes rather than entering the realm of party politics and electoral competition.

However, on February 7, Budi Arie Setiadi, Chairman of the relawan group Pro Jokowi, made a statement that “We await the peoples’ expression of their aspiration [for a relawan party] and for instructions from the President [to form one]. We are always ready to move.”10 In fact, informal talk and social media chatter around the issue of a Jokowi party had already been circulating for some time, probably started by a similar statement from the Solo chapter of Projo. On February 3, Puan Maharani, Megawati’s daughter, a high ranking official in PDIP and Widodo’s Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture, had responded publicly that while Widodo had the right to form his own party, he remained a PDIP cadre and official as of then.11

PROSPECTS

At a formal and tactical level, it should be noted that any unamicable break with the PDIP by Widodo – which surely his desertion of the PDIP would be – would leave him with no definite support base in parliament. He did invite the leader of the majority opposition in parliament, Prabowo Subianto, his challenger at the presidential election last year, for a friendly meeting in the presidential palace, perhaps to help shore up support. This tactic is, in any case, an ongoing necessity given that the PDIP-Nasdem-PKB coalition in parliament is a minority. Breaking with the PDIP would leave him an isolated president facing an almost totally hostile parliament – at least while present alignments hold.

The immediate prospects of a new party are thus very slight. But one may not be able to rule that out further down the road, closer to the next elections in 2019 (assuming he makes it that far).

There are successful precedents for the founding of new parties as political vehicles for presidential aspirants. The Partai Demokrat, for example, was founded as a vehicle to launch the presidential campaign of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Gerindra was the vehicle that undergirded the presidential bid of Prabowo Subianto, and eventually made him the de facto leader of the opposition. Similarly, Nasdem essentially served as a vehicle for Surya Paloh’s political aspirations.

Widodo is known to approach problems in a pragmatic way, depending on political needs. His appointment of Badrodin Haiti as Polri chief while at the same time keeping Gunawan on as a senior police official will be typical of the kind of pragmatic balancing he will implement. This kind of pragmatic balancing will also be a feature of his government in policy terms. Widodo’s political practice and rhetoric wed elements of social safety net populism, liberalism and pragmatically driven conservative statism (inherited from the New Order). His cabinet, which includes prominent academics such as Professors Pratikno and Andrinof Chaniago, among others, as well as business operators who have emerged out of the national business elite, such as Rini Soemarno, Luhut Panjaitan, Gobel, and others, reflects this fusion. It should be added though that he appointed no activist liberals to the cabinet.

One question for the future will be whether this kind of pragmatic balancing approach, both towards political problems and policy issues, can form the basis of a new party, should Joko Widodo contemplate such a move closer to the next election in 2019.

About the author:
* Max Lane is Visiting Senior Fellow with the Indonesia Studies Programme at ISEAS, and has written hundreds of articles on Indonesia for magazines and newspapers. He maintains a blog called maxlaneonline.com.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspectives 17 (PDF)

Notes:
1. http://www.bijaks.net/news/article/9-96439/bambang-widjojanto-kritik-solusi-jokowi-untuk-kpk
2. http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2015/02/22/078644326/5-Hal-yang-Tak-Boleh-Dilakukan-Ruki- dan-Indriyanto-di-KPK?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
3. http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20150216144801-20-32496/budi-gunawan-menang-polisi- berjoget-riang/
4. For analysis of the lead up to and course of the election campaigns, see, inter alia, Max Lane, “Who will be Indonesian President in 2014?”, ISEAS Perspective, 18 July, 2013; Max Lane, “Indonesia’s 2014 Legislative Elections: The Dilemmas of “Elektabilitas” Politics”, ISEAS Perspective, April 23, 2014; Max Lane.
5. There were key figures of some relawan groups, such as SEKNAS Jokowi, who were from the
PDIP .
6. http://m.liputan6.com/showbiz/read/2165845/kpk-vs-polri-bimbim-slank-kecewa-dengan-presiden- jokowi
7. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2015/01/29/08490381/Para.Relawan.Bentuk.Sekber.Kami.Tidak.Ak an.Biarkan.Jokowi.Sendirian and https://au.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B110AU0D20131111&p=Sekretariat+Bersama +Partisipasi+Indonesia+
8. The Nawacita was a manifesto of nine principles, formulated in very general terms, that Widodo and Kalla declared that they would follow in government, see http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/05/21/0754454/.Nawa.Cita.9.Agenda.Prioritas.Jokowi-JK
9. On the question of Widodo’s appeasements see Ulla Fionna, “Jokowi’s First Months: Compromise Cabinet,
Subsidy Cuts, and Corrupt Coalition”, ISEAS Perspective, February 5, 2014, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/documents/publication/ISEAS_perspective_2015_06.pdf
10. http://politik.news.viva.co.id/news/read/587007-ormas-projo-tunggu-perintah-jokowi-bentuk- partai-politik
11. http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2015/02/03/078639659/Puan-Maharani-Silakan-Jokowi-Bikin- Partai-Baru

The post A Jokowi Party? Reflections On State Of Elite Politics In Indonesia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Binodkumar Singh*

Through 2014, the Awami League (AL)-led government consolidated its secular commitments by minimizing the threat of Islamist extremists within the country and kept its promise to punish the perpetrators of the 1971 genocide by bringing the War Crimes’ perpetrators to justice with visible gains. But, the nation once again came under the grip of violence when police on January 3, 2015, banned protests by the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in Dhaka city on the first anniversary of the January 5, 2014 general election.

In fact, the BNP wanted to observe January 5 as “Democracy Killing Day” whereas the AL wanted to observe it as “Victory Day of Democracy”. As tensions rose, Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) banned all protests in Dhaka city and locked BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia in her office on January 3, 2015, to prevent her spearheading anti-government protests as part of opposition efforts to force the downfall of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed. Having been confined to her Gulshan office in Dhaka city, Khaleda Zia on January 5 announced a countrywide indefinite blockade of road, rail and waterways. Khaleda Zia continues to live in her office though the virtual house arrest was lifted on January 19 by the authorities.

Since January 5 at least 90 people have been killed and more than 1,243 have sustained injuries in incidents of violence during the ongoing blockade. The largest number of killings were reported from the capital, Dhaka, where 27 people have lost their lives; followed by 13 in Rangpur district; seven in Comilla district; six in Barisal; five in Gaibandha; four in Chittagong; three each in Bogra, Chapainawabganj, Rajshahi, and Noakhali districts; two each in Natore, Chandpur, Jessore, Laxmipur and Sirajganj districts; and one each in Feni, Gazipur, Magura, Pabna, Joypurhat and Sylhet districts.

In addition to the loss of human lives, the countrywide blockade has led to economic catastrophe. Illustrating the grievous effect of blockades on the economy, the Dhaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) president Hossain Khaled at a press conference at its office on January 22 said that in the last 16 days’ political unrest the economy lost at least Bangladesh Taka (BDT) 364.45 billion. Further, thousands of business leaders protested in Dhaka city and other major cities on February 8. The protesters said that the economy had suffered BDT 750 billion in losses in the 33 days since Khaleda Zia called the protests to try to topple the government. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Hasina while replying to a question in parliament on February 25 said that the recent subversive activities by the BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) alliance during the hartal (general strike) and blockade have caused a loss of over BDT 1.2 trillion to the country.

Remarkably, urging Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her rival BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia to sit for talks to avoid political unrest, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on February 3 sent letters to them. Similarly, deeply worried by the escalation of political violence in the country, 16 ambassadors, high commissioners and charges d’affaires of Australia, Canada, Denmark, European Union, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America stationed in Dhaka city wrote a letter signed by them to Prime Minister Hasina on February 24. Further, to de-escalate the political conflict, the diplomats met BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia at her political office in Dhaka city’s Gulshan area on March 3.

Meanwhile, calling the BNP-JeI alliance “murderers, terrorists and militants” on February 12, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected the possibility of holding any dialogue with them. Earlier, Finance Minister AMA Muhith at a meeting in Dhaka city on February 2 said: “We now treat hartals and blockades as terrorist matters. The ongoing hartal and blockade should be stopped within short time.” Giving a more stern warning, Shipping Minister Shajahan Khan while addressing a rally at Dhaka city’s Phulbaria bus terminal on February 10, said “Khaleda has confined herself by installing barbed wire at her office. We, the workers of Bangladesh, will remove the barbed wire and every brick the office has. We will launch such a movement that you will not able to maintain your existence and your politics will meet death.” Further, on March 2, Health and Family Welfare Minister Mohammad Nasim said: “Khaleda Zia was never the leader of people, now she has become leader of militants. On the other hand, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is restraining militants. Only militant Khaleda Zia is yet to be pinned down. But she will be soon.”

Meanwhile, thus far, the War Crimes (WC) Trials which began on March 25, 2010, have indicted 27 leaders, including 13 from JeI, six from Muslim League (ML), four from BNP, two each from Jatiya Party (JP) and Nizam-e-Islami. Verdicts against 18 of them have already been delivered – 15 were awarded death sentence while the remaining three received life sentences. One of the 12 who received the death sentence has already been executed, while the remaining death penalties are yet to be executed. The two persons who were awarded life sentences have already died serving their sentence. They were JeI ameer (chief) Ghulam Azam (91), who died on October 23, 2014; and former BNP minister Abdul Alim (83), who died on August 30, 2014.

Indeed, Sheikh Hasina has tackled the rising spectre of Islamist extremism and terrorism in Bangladesh with a high measure of success. She has been far less effective, however, in handling the fractious and polarized politics of the country. With the opposition parties driven to a corner at present, excluded – by their own misjudgment and their leaders falling one by one to the War Crimes Trials, a kind of desperation has entered into the current cycle of protests.

Members of the BNP-led alliance now see their very survival under threat and are likely to escalate in a bid to force Hasina to dilute her current onslaught against them. Hasina, on the other hand, would put her own physical survival at risk by allowing any political space to the extremist formations that are part of the opposition combine. Both sides have sufficient motive to push the situation to breaking point.

*Dr. Binodkumar Singh is Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management. He can be reached at contributions@spsindia.in

The post Bangladesh: Heading For Breaking Point? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Simon Hoellerbauer*

The sanctions on Russia seem to be working. The sanctions, coupled with large victories by pro-Western parties in 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary elections, may contribute to a sense that matters are heading in the right direction for the U.S.

Why then did Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov say that the sanctions will fail? Partly, of course, he’s saving face. But he has a point. Politically, Putin is the strongest man in Russia. While the Russian oligarchs have immense power, they’re still not as strong as Putin. And even though Russian billionaires are steadily losing money, the reality is that Putin’s inner circle can probably weather the crisis, cossetted as they are by his influence. They’re wagering that the sanctions coalition and public approval for it will fracture before their fortunes decline.

So if the oligarchs can’t put enough pressure on Putin to leave Ukraine, what does that mean for Russia? The effects of economic sanctions are passed off to local consumers. The Russian ruble is at its lowest value since 1998. Its central bank has spent almost all of its cash reserves to keep the ruble afloat and may soon  raise interest rates, further damaging an economy that’s been going nowhere for a while. Inflation is on the rise. Capital flight reached $151.1 billion by the end of 2014. The Russian economy hasn’t looked any healthier in 2015.

In a fully functioning democracy, the people, feeling the economic pressure, would move to replace their leaders with ones more willing to deal with the West. Good luck in Russia. First, in Russia elections are not meaningful. There is no alternation of power. Second, Putin possesses an extraordinary ability to transmit a siege mentality through his control of the Russian media, which presents a unified image of the spiteful and jealous West as perpetrators of great injustices against a Russia that is simply assuming its rightful place. Nothing illustrates this better than how differently the downing of flight MH17 is perceived in Russia from the rest of the world. Because of his almost total control of the media, Putin can use the existence of the sanctions to distract from their effects, rallying the people against the “oppressive” West.

Another problem with the sanctions is that they are an attempt to force Putin to assume a position he cannot accept: that of Russia as a secondary nation. Although his speech in March 2014 in which he defended Russia’s involvement in Crimea was mainly a public-relations stunt designed to justify Russia’s actions, it demonstrated a worldview that is incompatible with the West. Through a flawed interpretation of history, Putin sincerely believes that Russia, after feasting at the main banquet, has been asked back to the children’s table.

Sanctions are a blunt weapon, whose effects are often hard to measure or to translate into political gains. However, there is no real alternative. Harsher sanctions could be imposed, but there is only so much to sanction, and cooperating with some of the European nations, whose economies are closer tied to Russia, has been difficult. Also, while isolating Russia economically and politically is the goal, Russia still has a role to play internationally. Sanctioning Putin directly would hamper attempts to work with him, further fuel his narrative of Russia as victim, and also could push him to take drastic action. The more options are taken away from a cornered man, the more likely it is that he will act irrationally. The only other option, military action, is out of the question.

So where does this leave us? The sanctions may have some significant negative side effects for long term U.S.-Russian relations, but they are also the only feasible way for the United States to defend its interests. Doing nothing would have a detrimental, trend-setting effect. Isolating Putin completely would probably create even greater problems. In the end, the United States must do two things. First, the West should try to do more to help Ukraine economically, to give it more stability. Of course, the internal stability of Ukraine depends very much on Ukraine. Ukraine is not the fifty-first state. It’s not even a member of the EU or NATO. Still, the U.S. can attach strings to its aid, such as necessitating anti-corruption measures, making use of the surge in pro-Western feeling in Western Ukraine. Second, the United States must continue to support NGOs in Russia and work to counteract Putin’s anti-Western rhetoric by introducing media of its own into Russia. Provoking the ire of the Russian people against Putin would be a huge coup for the West.

About the author:
*Simon Hoellerbauer is a research assistant intern with the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Project on Democratic Transitions and a graduate of Kenyon College.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

The post Do Sanctions On Russia Create More Problems Than They Solve? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Daniel McAdams

Saudi fighter planes continue to attack neighboring Yemen in hopes of re-installing ousted Yemeni president Mansur Hadi and putting down the rebellion that forced him to depart. As usual, civilians bear the brunt of such a foreign attack. Today, the Saudi-led coalition bombed a refugee camp, killing more than 40 and wounding as many as 200.

Hadi’s ouster earlier this year came on the heels of mounting public anger over his cooperation with the US government’s five years of drone attacks on Yemen, which killed scores of civilians. Hadi, who was “elected” by an impressive 99.80% of the vote (on a single-candidate ballot) had previously overthrown long-time Yemeni ruler, Abdullah Saleh, in the “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2011.

Billed as an awakening of democratic stirrings in the Middle East, the “Arab Spring” has produced bitter fruits: Egypt is back under military dictatorship, Libya is destroyed, Syria is on fire from West-backed jihadist groups, Tunisia is unstable, and so on. Nevertheless, what was essentially a civil war between numerous Yemeni factions was internationalized when Saudi Arabia decided to begin airstrikes on the country. Without an international mandate and in the absence of an attack from Yemen, the move is without doubt illegal according to international law.

Despite not being given much of a heads-up by its Saudi “partners,” US support for the attack came early and with enthusiasm. Reported the US National Security Council spokesman as the Saudi attacks commenced:

In support of [Gulf Cooperation Council] actions to defend against Houthi violence, President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations. While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support.

Despite the destruction to civilian infrastructure and increasing civilian casualties, the US has announced that it is increasing support for the Saudi-led attack on Yemen:

The U.S. military is preparing to expand its aid to Saudi Arabia in its air campaign against rebel forces in Yemen by providing more intelligence, bombs and aerial refueling missions for planes carrying out airstrikes there, American officials said Friday.

RPI Advisor Mark Almond once again points the hypocrisy and double standards of US and UK foreign policy, Tweeting that:

When Gaddafi threatened to bomb Benghazi, Obama bombed him. When Saudi bombs Yemeni refugees, Obama provides target-intel. ‘Success story’?

With a full-scale ground invasion reportedly imminent, look for more mayhem and, most assuredly, increased US involvement. Neocons, who are desperate to scuttle any agreement with Iran and to spark a war with Russia, are likely praying to Mars for an Iranian or Russian response.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post Yemen: As Civilian Deaths Mount, US Pledges Saudi Attackers More Support – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Lt. Gen Kamal Davar (Retd)*

Countless Indians wept on December 16, 2014 watching TV images of the ghastly massacre of nearly 140 school children and staff at the Army School in Peshawar. School children, all over India, participated in candlelit vigils in memory of the slaughtered innocents and the Indian Parliament, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, strongly voiced unanimous condemnation of the dastardly act by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). That neighbourly grief transcended international boundaries symbolized an expression of human solidarity despite strained relations between the two nations.

Notwithstanding being at the receiving end of numerous Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)- sponsored terror actions since decades within India, most Indians felt that the sacrifice of these innocent children should not be in vain and Pakistani attitude towards terrorism will undergo a major change. Even members of Pakistan’s beleaguered civil society wished that, at least now, Pakistan will realize the terrible wages of nurturing terrorism in any of its vicious forms as Hillary Clinton had once famously admonished Pakistan about “rearing cobras in its backyard”. That Pakistan, after this dastardly occurrence, undoubtedly did make some right noises followed up by some resolute action against the TTP terrorists holed up in its restive Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Khyber Pakhtunwa regions generated, in Pakistan watchers, some optimism.

However, it is more than evident from recent events that Pakistan still persists with its old policy of cherry-picking on terrorists of different hues. Despite proclaiming a policy of not being selective in identification of terrorists or Taliban as ‘good’ or ‘bad’—- Pakistan continues with its myopic stratagem of ardently supporting many of the terror tanzeems (groups) it has nurtured in the past for operations in Afghanistan and Jammu & Kashmir. Even inside Pakistan, many of the ISI’s foot soldiers in its favoured tanzeems, like the Sunni Sipah-e-Sanghvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, to name a few among the many, continue to indulge in terror activities against Shias, Ahmedias, Christians and other religious minorities with alarming regularity and near impunity.

In J&K, Pakistan did whatever it could to disrupt the recently held peaceful state elections; that the ballot proved to be far stronger than bullets augurs well for peace and democracy in J&K which, after some hiccups, has now an elected government in place. However, the rising incidence of violent activities perpetrated by Pakistan and its paid stooges inside the Valley and its ceasefire violations along the international border/Line of Control in J&K since the turn of the year must be factored in by the Government of India as it fine tunes its policy towards its recalcitrant western neighbor. Over 32 violent incidents in J&K, including along the IB/LoC engineered by Pakistan have taken place since January 1, 2015 causing 28 fatalities to citizens and security personnel. That India needs to adopt a consistent and well calibrated policy towards Pakistan is a must.

Importantly, in diplomacy, reciprocity is the major guiding factor. It was indeed a firm gesture by the Indian government to call off Foreign Secretary level talks between the two nations in August 2014, on grounds that the Pakistani High Commissioner, despite Indian advice to him, met with Kashmiri separatist leaders. Notwithstanding India having allowed some of these separatist leaders, since decades, to cavort with the Pakistan High Commission and visit Pakistani dignitaries in New Delhi —– why have we changed our stance now — allowing some of these to attend the Pakistan Day celebrations at their high commission this week.

Will Pakistan allow Baluch nationalists or their separatists from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) or the Gilgit-Baltistan regions to attend receptions at the Indian High Commission in Islamabad? If not, then why do we allow these separatists to congregate at the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi, to get their annual financial doles and the latest instructions from their Pakistani masters? How dare Pakistan have the temerity to call recently released Kashmiri terrorist Masrat Alam to their high commission in Delhi? This was indeed provocation by the Pakistanis of the highest order, and does Pakistan wish to improve relations with us or continue to scoff at over- generous Indian diplomatese?

As India endeavours zealously to improve the political and economic environment in South Asia, let it not fall prey to the wiles and subterfuge of those who consistently do not wish it well. Friendships in foreign relations can only survive in a two-way street.

*Lt. Gen (Retd.) Kamal Davar was the first Chief of Defence Intelligence Agency, India. He can be reached at contributions@spsindia.in

The post Pakistani Invite To Masrat Alam Is Provocation Extraordinaire – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jamshed Baruah

Tearing down ideological barriers and overcoming historical animosities, civil society organisations from Japan, China and the Republic of Korea participated in a landmark trilateral forum during the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR).

The conference, held from March 14 to 18 in Sendai – the centre of Japan’s Tohoku region that bore the brunt of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami leading to the Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe – agreed on a new framework for the next 15 years (2015-2030) to reduce the risk of disasters that kill and destroy livelihoods.

The trilateral forum was one of the major events, organised by Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay Buddhist organisation based in Tokyo, during the WCDRR. It provided a platform for fostering people-to-people cooperation in Northeast Asia to reduce risks of disasters. Their total economic impact worldwide amounted to 1.4 trillion dollars between 2005 and 2014.

According to observers, the forum initiated a powerful move towards trilateral cooperation that could serve as a model beyond regional boundaries.

Explaining the rationale behind the March 16 forum, Feng Chen from the Seoul-based Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (TCS), said: “The three countries . . . continue to suffer disproportionally from various types of disasters caused by natural hazards.” As neighbouring countries in the region, Japan, China and the ROK should work together to reduce the risk of “dreadful disasters”, he said and affirmed the commitment of TCS to do so.

The need for cooperation between the three Northeast Asian countries was stressed also by Haoming Huang, vice chairman and executive director of the non-profit 126 member organisation operating nationwide, the China Association for NGO Cooperation (CANGO), which was founded in 1992, and enjoys special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.

“CANGO’s mission is to create a strong, empowered network of Chinese NGOs to address poverty alleviation, environmental protection and social development, particularly in China’s poor, remote and minority-inhabited areas,” according to Haoming Huang.

Another participant in the Forum was Young-Jin Park, the current Secretary General of the Korean Disaster Relief Association, The Hope Bridge. He said it was the nation’s first relief organization founded voluntarily by key figures in the media and other parts of society, without any set religion or ideology, in 1961, when there was no culture of emergency relief and sharing in Korea.

With a half-century of emergency relief work and specialized activities, the organization has separated its emergency relief efforts into domestic and overseas efforts, and is providing effective relief according to the type of disaster, region and target.

Aoi Horiuchi, the Secretary General of the Japan CSO Coalition 2015 Committee in preparation for the 3rd World Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR), also participated in the forum. He has since 2012 been a member of the Research and Proposal Group of the non-profit, non-partisan networking Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) founded in 1987. He is involved in coordination between the NGO Conferences and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as the advocacies of the Millennium Development Goals.

Daisuke Namaki of the Next Stage Tohoku Coop was another participant in the trilateral forum. Born in Osaka in 1973, he had experienced the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995 in Kobe, Japan. Since 2002 he has been engaged in a government policy-based business of accommodating intern trainees from Asian countries and introducing them to Japanese companies. Since 2006 he has served as Representative Director of the Next Stage Tohoku Coop.

Reflecting the valour of the people of the region, the Tohoku Soka Gakkai organised a panel exhibition, ‘The Light of Humanity’, featuring 22 individuals who are struggling to overcome the tragedy of the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 and making efforts toward restoration.

Commending the trilateral forum, SGI Executive Director for Peace Affairs Hirotsugu Terasaki said it had manifested “highly fulfilling exchanges of opinion . . . about the various trends and characteristics that are emerging within civil society” in the three countries. “This has reinforced my conviction that a more resilient community can be forged when civil societies offer complimentary support towards one another,” Terasaki said.

Referring to the Sustainable Development Goals, which are scheduled to be endorsed in September, Terasaki pointed out that SGI President Daisaku Ikeda had urged in his peace proposal 2015 China, South Korea and Japan to “join together to create a regional model that will embody best practices that can be shared with the world, including those relating to the development of human talent”.

“It goes without saying that an active flow of people as well as cultural and economic exchange is already widespread among these three countries, which hold between them a population of approximately 1.5 billion. On that basis, trilateral cooperation regarding specific challenges, including disaster prevention, will not only contribute to the security and stability of this region, but also resonate positively within the international community,” said Terasaki.

More specifically, he added, the kind of trilateral cooperation concerning disaster prevention, as had been discussed in the trilateral forum, would not only be beneficial in terms of simply dealing with future disaster response, but could certainly, in a more broader sense, make a contribution toward setting a clear example across the entire global society, he added.

SGI also organised together with the ACT Alliance and Japan Religion Coordinating Project for Disaster Relief (JRPD) a symposium titled ‘Community based DRR (disaster risk reduction) from a faith-based perspective – sharing best practices’. This was a follow-up of a side event at the 6th Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction (AMCDRR) held in June 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand.

ACT Alliance’s general secretary John Nduna said that the role of faith-based organizations (FBOs) in disaster risk reduction is not always recognized and that international frameworks such as the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) only have impact when they benefit the people at the grassroots level.

Nobuyuki Asai, chair of the Soka Gakkai Youth Peace Conference, spoke on the capacity of FBOs to mobilize existing community networks and to protect the vulnerable in times of emergency.

On March 16, as an outcome document of the symposium, 13 FBOs issued a statement in which they called on governments to recognize the unique role of Local Faith Communities (LFCS) and FBOs and to give priority to the engagement and collaboration of both in the implementation of the post-2015 framework on DRR.

Two days later, Kimiaki Kawai, Program Director of Peace Affairs for SGI, gave a presentation at the WCDRR’s IGNITE Stage on Soka Gakkai’s relief efforts in Tohoku following the Great East Japan Earthquake. He highlighted the ability of FBOs to utilize their existing networks of communication and their local facilities in disaster response. He emphasized that the strengths and resources of FBOs could complement those of other DRR stakeholders.

The importance of FBOs was underlined by the Pew Research Center in 2012, when it found that faith, in all its forms, constitutes a natural and important element in the lives of billions of people with over 84 percent of the world identifying with a religious group. Faith drives people to take action.

Kimiaki said, as discussed during this WCDRR, there are numerous good examples of the added value of Local Faith Communities and Faith-Based Organisations in responding to disasters all over the world, including the Ebola crisis in West Africa, conflict in South Sudan and Central African Republic, the Great East Japan Earth Quake, Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, and the flooding in southeast Asia.

The post Trilateral Forum Highlights NGOs’ Key Role In Dire Situations – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

General Muhammadu Buhari is in the lead by 2 million votes over exiting President Goodluck Jonathan after a vote count in 19 of Nigeria’s 37 states. The final outcome of the presidential race in fact remains unknown, since results have not arrived from some key regions that can tip the scale.

Attending the announcement of final results, the latest numbers indicate that Buhari obtained 8,520,436 votes, while Jonathan is behind at 6,488,210, but he can hope in key States such as Rivers and Lagos. Authorities imposed a curfew yesterday in Lagos following vote fraud allegations and protests.

The candidate who obtains an absolute majority of votes and 25% in two thirds of states will be elected president in the first round.

The post Nigeria: Buhari Leading By 2 Million Votes appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Libya’s Prime Minister Abdullah al Thinni defined the decision of the Saudi-led coalition to intervene in Yemen to restore “democratic legitimacy” and fight the “terrorists” as “courageous”, and called for the same in his country.

Al Thinni, elected by the Tobruk-based parliament, the only internationally recognized authority, questioned how the Arab community could intervene in Yemen and not Libya, where the same type of attack on democratic order has taken place, according to MISNA.

In an interview with the Saudi Al Hadath broadcast, the Premier, however, welcomed the decision taken over the weekend in the Arab League summit to lift the arms embargo and provide full political and material support to the legitimate Libyan authority.

The post Libya: Government Wants Intervention ‘Just Like Yemen’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani says an “exceptional opportunity” has emerged for the resolution of Tehran’s nuclear issue.

“We should move in the direction of national and international interests and do not let this opportunity… be missed easily,” the Iranian president said.

“Special conditions are prevailing over the negotiations because our common positions regarding the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear activities and the necessity of removal of all unjust sanctions can lead us to the final solution,” he added.

Rouhani emphasized that Iran’s nuclear energy program is peaceful as required under a fatwa by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Rouhani has also written “to the leaders of the P5+1 group of countries” involved in nuclear talks, his office said.

Rouhani referred to France’s “positive role” during previous nuclear talks between Iran and three major European states from 2003 to 2005, calling for an “active role” of Paris in ongoing talks in Lausanne.

“Enemies of relations between the two states want a non-constructive role of France in the negotiations, but the French government will undo their objectives by playing its constructive role,” he said.

The Iranian President said the Islamic Republic has exhibited the necessary flexibility during the course of nuclear negotiations, calling on the P5+1 countries to take the turn and the final steps.

“We have come close to sensitive days. Iran has shown the crucial flexibility during the talks, and now it is the opposite side’s turn to take the final steps,” Rouhani said.

President Rouhani added that the removal of sanctions imposed on Iran will be the keystone of a nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China – plus Germany, stressing that the deal will chiefly seek to build trust and confidence between the two sides.

“We have always sought a win-win accord and this will serve the interests of all sides,” Rouhani stated.

Rouhani also highlighted the Saudi airstrikes against Yemen that left dozens of people dead, condemning any military intervention in the internal affairs of independent nations.

The Iranian president described the Saudi invasion as a dangerous move.

“Interference by foreign militaries is very dangerous and deepens the crisis,” Rouhani said, adding that the “solution to Yemen’s problems is not military.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has also reaffirmed the Islamic Republic’s determination to reach a nuclear agreement with the P5+1 countries, calling on the opposite parties to show political will.

“I feel that we can definitely find solutions but reaching a solution requires political will from the opposite side,” Zarif said.

“The reason why I emphasize the other side’s political will is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the political will at the highest levels, at the level of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and at the level of President,” he added.

“Therefore we have no doubts on the existence of political will from our side, we have to see the same political will, the same seriousness and the same convergence of opinion from all negotiators from the other side to become certain that reaching an agreement is possible,” the top Iranian nuclear negotiator said.

He noted that Iran never heeds and trusts attempts by the other side to make a fuss and sway the atmosphere prevailing over the negotiations.

Since the beginning of the talks, Iran has always stressed that the negotiations are “very difficult and complicated and include serious ups and downs” Zarif said, adding, “Sometimes there are differences of opinion in the other side which lead to contradictory and different viewpoints. So, we need to continue talks with seriousness, with diligence and patience to see whether a deal is possible or not.”

The minister noted that Iran has always said a comprehensive agreement is completely possible, pointing out, “The question of when drafting will begin is one thing and the question of finding common concepts and solutions is another.”

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator also said Tehran is optimistic about progress in the nuclear talks despite many disagreements between Iran and the P5+1 group of powers.

“Everything is serious. There are many disagreements. We are trying to bridge the gaps. We are not hopeless. We are still hopeful and optimistic,” Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Abbas Araqchi said.

He, however, added that it is “too soon” to judge whether or not the sides can find solutions to all issues and reach an agreement by the end of this round of talks.

The Iranian deputy foreign minister emphasized that the ongoing negotiations are aimed at finding solutions to all issues “so that we can put them on paper over the next months.”

He noted that the two sides’ negotiators are holding “serious” talks and “we will be here as long as its necessary.”

“We will try to move the negotiations forward. A lot depends on political will from the other side and their readiness to make political decisions,” Araqchi added.

Araqchi expressed hope that such meetings would bring about “progress in the talks” and that no external factors would influence the negotiations.

Ongoing negotiations between Iran and major world powers on Tehran’s nuclear program have reached the last stage ahead of the self-imposed deadline of March 31 , the senior Iranian negotiator said.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, also said the talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries are “in a very critical situation.”

“We are in the last stage of negotiations, we are in a very critical situation… and the mood is changing after each meeting,” Araqchi stated.

The senior Iranian diplomat denied reports that a tentative agreement has been reached between the two sides, saying good progresses has been made during the new round of talks that kicked off Thursday in the Swiss city of Lausanne.

“There are many items on the table. For many of them we have already found solutions. We are trying to close the list and find solutions on each and every item,” he said, adding, “Getting to an accord is doable. Solutions have been found for numerous questions. We are still working on two or three issues.”

Responding to a question on whether the issues are political or technical, Araqchi said, “Everything is political; of course we have technical issues,” which he said could “lead to political decisions.”

He also said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his counterparts from the P5+1 group – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – are expected to hold a plenary meeting on Monday to discuss the final issues before the March 31 deadline.

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) also said he is moving forward with technical discussions with his American counterpart, adding that the two sides should press ahead with their talks to reach a common understanding.

“There are difficult items that have to be resolved. We are doing our best,” Salehi said.

He said many different items have been discussed by the two sides, adding, “We have come close to a common understanding on some of them but we still have our differences on a number of those items.”

Salehi, who was speaking on the sidelines of intense talks between Iran and the US in the Swiss of Lausanne, said the concerns about the Iranian nuclear program are “fictitious,” adding Tehran is ready to allay them within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has demonstrated its political will and it is up to the other side to take a step forward and show that it has the political will to allow a resolution of the problem,” the head of the AEOI stressed.

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said the sides negotiating the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program have reached a significant common understanding on certain technical issues, but there are still some problematic matters that need to be resolved.

“What I can say from the technical and partly legal viewpoint is that we have reached a significant common understanding and I have said this before. There are one or two issues that are problematic and we have to see whether we can resolve them in the technical sphere,” Ali Akbar Salehi said.

He described the talks as “difficult” but added that all members of the Iranian negotiating team are “working hard” to push the negotiations forward.

“We have to bring technical arguments and they have to do the same so that we can come to a unified conclusion and a common understanding on the issues,” Salehi said, noting, “Negotiations sometimes face dead-ends, we have to move beyond them using initiatives, new ideas and some sort of compromise.”

The senior Iranian official once again stressed that there will be no deal unless the two sides agree on all issues.

“There won’t be an agreement even if there’s non-agreement on a single issue, so we have to agree on all the issues… If we resolve the technical aspects but don’t resolve the sanctions issue, this will not lead us to any kind of conclusion,” Salehi said.

He stated that reaching a common understanding is not the same as reaching an agreement.

“Agreement is the final stage; an agreement will only be achieved when we reach the final stage and when all issues pertaining to the legal, technical and political aspects are clarified,” Salehi said.

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator also said the country has shown “necessary flexibility” during talks with the P5+1 group of countries and that the other side must make a decision to finalize discussed solutions.

Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Director General for Political Affairs Hamid Baeidinejad made the remarks in the Swiss city of Lausanne, adding that “there are a number of issues that haven’t been resolved yet,” of which “research and development and sanctions” are “the most important”.

“These issues include details that are very important and there are other issues related to these issues, I don’t want to get into details but these are some of the most important issues and all efforts are based on finding solutions to these remaining issues,” Baeidinejad said.

Responding to a question on the possibility of resolving the outstanding issues by Sunday, Baeidinejad said, “The possibility definitely exists and this depends on the political decision of the negotiating sides, particularly we expect the other side to coordinate and make decisions to facilitate the process.”

The post Rohani: Exceptional Opportunity For Resolution Of Iran’s Nuclear-Issue appeared first on Eurasia Review.