One imagines that few would question that intra-Palestinian divisions and rivalries have exacted a heavy toll on a majority of the more than 3.8 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants who are registered with the United Nations. These refugees out of the current nearly 12 million Palestinians whose country was illegally occupied in 1948 and each of whom possess, under international law the Full Right of Return to their country. As physical and social infrastructures in the camps continue to deteriorate, all refugees suffer and particularly students among whose ranks ever fewer attend ill- equipped classrooms sometimes with untrained teachers with outmoded curriculum obsolete in the modern marketplace. The Hamas-Fatah conflict is letting down the Palestinian youth when they seek advice and practical options and are failing to give youngsters who are Palestine’s future the entrepreneurial spirit and potential of the private sector. This obtains because we have not to date successfully challenged the outlawing of Palestinian refugees right to work and earn a living in Lebanon.

The continuing Hamas-Fatah divisions are a particularly sharp detriment to the more than 1.8 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the approximately 249,000 remaining in Lebanon in addition to approximately 44,000 who have so far reported to UNRWA’s field office in Lebanon, opposite Shatila camp, having fled the nearly two year siege of Yarmouk camp in Damascus. Today, the Hamas-Fatah divisions are exhausting and diverting the energies of these two key Palestinian pillars and they are disrupting progress toward ending the Zionist occupation of their homeland. The split is causing a perceptible decline in international support for the just Palestinian cause and the longer it continues it causes yet more hardships in the camps.

This bleak situation despite earlier efforts at Palestinian reconciliation including the Cairo Agreement of 2005, the National Reconciliation Document of June 2006, Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement (February 2007), the 2011 Cairo Accords ( May 2011), the Fatah–Hamas Doha Agreement (2012) and the most recent proposals for a Hamas-Fatah “unity government” (April 2014) and the urging of a Hamas-Fatah “unity government” (March 2015).

A member of the Hamas political bureau advised this observer at a Beirut conference a few days ago that the movement accepts in principle a Swiss proposal of March 2015 to resolve the crisis facing Palestinian Authority employees in the Gaza Strip.

But with one condition.

Hamas wants the Swiss proposal to be addressed in the context of a definitive Palestinian reconciliation agreement. And with good reason, as the gentleman elaborated that so far the international community will not accept a Palestinian Authority in which there is Hamas participation, even though the Islamic movement won the election in 2006. Hence, for example, it is difficult for international donors to contribute towards the salaries of workers who have been employed by Hamas in Gaza since 2007. Moreover, the EU has this month kept Hamas on its terrorism blacklist despite a court decision ordering Brussels to remove the Palestinian group from the register. Brussels has lodged an appeal against a December ruling by the bloc’s second-highest court that Hamas should be delisted for the first time since 2001. The appeal process is expected to take about 18 more months.

Despite the above-noted efforts for a Fatah-Hamas accord over that past nearly half-century, problems of language interpretation, sharp political differences, periodic obstructionism from both sides, external interventions by Israel and the US, moves by some regional powers to impose their own visions of reconciliation, as well as selective implementation have prevented much substantive progress.

It is against this backdrop that an important and refreshingly substantive conference on Palestine was held this month in Beirut on the subject of Prospects and Challenges for Palestinian Reconciliation. It was jointly sponsored by two well respected think-tanks, the Johannesburg- based Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC) (www.amec.org.za) and Lebanon’s Al-Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations (www.alzaytouna.net/), the latter now in its 1lth year.

The conference was attended by an impressive assembly of academics, policy makers and officials from Hamas, Fatah, the Population Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Palestinian National Initiative, and Hezbollah among others. The two day gathering included concentrated discussions and proposals from the Palestinian factions concerning their stances towards reconciliation and its activation, the utility of international paradigms for transnational justice, internal and external factors affecting reconciliations and concrete proposals for solutions and future prospects.

The American attendees sitting at the same table with Hezbollah’s delegation sought the former’s commitment and partnership in a reinvigorated civil right to work campaign in Lebanon to remove for every Palestinian refugee in the 12 camps the outlawing of working in more than 50 professions in Lebanon and to grant Palestinians the civil right to purchase a home should they have the money.

In summary the American participants argument to Hezbollah and others in attendance included their belief that such an important and long sought victory for Palestinian refugees here would transfer substantive hope and energize every Palestinian and reignite the Palestinian revolution of days past and that this realistic and imminently achievable victory would be to the credit of Hamas-Fatah and their supporters joining ranks, discussing peaceful civil rights campaign tactics, negotiating, compromising and working together. The right to work campaign would give both groups ample mutual contacts and ‘break the ice’ for working closely together for more shared victories to the benefit of their people along the lines of what is envisage by the earlier proposals for unity.

It is doubtful that there was one delegate attending the al- Zaytouna-Amec conference on Palestinian Reconciliation whose gut does not churn when the person reflects on the fact that for 67 years, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon continue to be denied the most elementary civil right to work and to own a home. A right that under the 1953 Refugee convention, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, countless international humanitarian law treaties, principles, standards and rules and international customary laws which bind all countries and that are granted to every other refugee in the world, including those suffering under Zionist apartheid occupation and the colonists who are still living on their family homesteads in Palestine. Palestinian refugees are today barred from dozens of jobs and professions outside the squalid camps, including engineering, law and medicine, nor are they allowed to buy property in Lebanon. In cases where Palestinian refugees are able to find employment, often “illegal,” their salary is less than half that of their Lebanese counterparts and they are not eligible for medical insurance or severance pay.

There are prevailing myths here in Lebanon about dark consequences that would ensue the granting the most basic of civil rights to Palestinian refugees until they can return home. From across Lebanon’s poisoned sectarian political spectrum- recently fueled also by the spreading Sunni-Shia Bellum Sacrum, were Lebanon to comply with its legal, moral and religious duty and treat Palestinians as humans these ‘the sky is falling’ shrieks would likely dissipate.

Granted, the idea of Hamas-Fatah reconciliation is yet another existential nightmare for the Zionist regime still occupying Palestine. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sarcastically announced this month that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas must decide whether he wants peace with Hamas or with Israel. Lieberman said it would be impossible for Fatah to have peace with Israel while simultaneously being joined with Hamas. Likewise, Benjamin Netanyahu gave Mahmoud Abbas, an ultimatum: either reconciliation with Hamas or negotiations with Israel.

In summary, while many political factions in Lebanon, alongside their internal and external sponsors, continue to play the Palestinian card and pledge “Resistance”, none are doing what their frequently claimed religious and political principles would require.

It is submitted that if Hamas and Fatah were to put aside their political differences, even just long enough to help their fellow refugees in Lebanon achieve dignity and elementary civil rights this mutual reconciliation effort would likely soon lead to wider Hamas-Fatah unity and intensify solidarity among the Palestinian refugee community and accelerate return to their homeland, Palestine.

The post Path Toward Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation: Grant Palestinian Refugees Right To Work In Lebanon – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Veli Mbele*

‘…anti-blackness more accurately captures the dehumanization and constant physical danger that black people face. The “anti” in “anti-blackness” is denial of black people’s right to life.’- Michael Jeffries.

‘How we understand suffering and whether we locate its essence in economic exploitation or in anti-Blackness has a direct impact on how we imagine freedom; and on how we foment revolution’- Frank B. Wilderson, III.

‘In South Africa, the passport of whiteness grants the holder rights to resources, privileges of learned ignorance to sustained racial injustice, acceptance as informal authority, as well as access to the benefits of a racially determined economic, political and social system. The system of racial injustice includes both the interpersonal racism but of even greater scrutiny is the system of exclusion that operationalizes the passport of white privilege’.- Warren Phaahla

This essay seeks to examine the meaning of Cecil John Rhodes, 113 years after his death by looking at the following:

• His historical location within Europe’s global anti-Black white supremacist project;
• His family background and how he acquired ‘his’ fortune;
• The impact of the institutions he built, and the Glen Grey Act, on the status of Black people in South Afrika;
• His broad meaning to Black people, in historical and contemporary terms; and
• Situate the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ project within Black people’s historical quest for land repossession.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In a document called the Confession of Faith, Cecil John Rhodes says:

‘I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence; look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence……’

He goes on to say:

‘Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire?…Afrika is still lying ready for us; it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes: that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses…’

To appreciate and fully grasp the context of Rhodes’s thoughts, we must situate them within the broader context of Europe’s historically-evolved project of white supremacy. Like the Arabs, the Europeans had long identified Afrika’s natural resources and the bodies of Afrikans as crucial for their imperialist projects.

By the time the Trans-Atlantic slave trade started, almost 80 years before Columbus sailed to the Americas, around 1500, Portugal had extracted 700 tons of Afrikan gold, shipping it to Portugal and had kidnapped more than 80,000 of our ancestors into slavery. Afrikan men, women and children in chains were stacked on top of each other – on pallets in the holds of ships with the hideous stench of open pits of human waste.

One of the things that are rarely highlighted is that, as these ships sailed to the various slave plantations of the western world, hundreds of thousands of our ancestors died of disease or starvation, or were murdered for attempted resistance and thrown overboard. The ecology of the Atlantic Ocean was changed by the slave trade.

Schools of sharks would follow the slave ships to feed on the bodies of our ancestors who died and were murdered on board and thrown overboard. The trade in the bodies of Afrikans was the key ingredient in the triangular trade – bringing captives from Afrika as forced labour to the plantations of the Americas and transporting resources such as cotton, sugar, tobacco and rum to North America and to England.

Along with this assault on Afrika was the genocide against the indigenous people and the theft of their land and resources. This slaughter, genocide, rape and plunder of Afrika’s people brought unprecedented amounts of stolen wealth into Europe. This contributed immensely to the so-called industrial revolution and transformed Europe from feudalism to capitalism – not the ingenuity and innovation of Europeans as we are often told.

Therefore, a large portion of the economic wealth of today’s so-called First World European nations is a direct result of the bloody trade in the bodies of Afrikans or what is sometimes referred to as the ‘slave economy’. In fact, even the highly revered ‘founding fathers’ of the United States of America were brutal slave-masters, who orchestrated genocidal acts against the indigenous people of the U S. George Washington was known for his brutality and ‘owned’ more than 300 slaves, giving them meagre daily rations of a few ounces of grain and fish by-products.

WHERE DOES RHODES FIT INTO THIS NARRATIVE?

Fast forward to the 21st century. The month of March this year marks 113 years since the death of Rhodes. Rhodes’s posthumous reputation is just as complex and contentious as that of his life. This complexity and contention is evident in the debate that has been ignited by the rebellion of Black students at the Universities of Cape Town (UCT) and Rhodes against the perpetuation of Rhodes’s white supremacist legacy.

This rebellion by Black students has naturally elicited a number of reactions. Some of the reactions have been in the form of questions such as: are these students just a bunch of ignorant attention-seekers, who are hell-bent on spoiling the serene rainbow-nation facade of our country? Or are they a highly intelligent collective, who have a deep understanding of the ontology of Black people in the world as we know it? The other question that arose was: why should Black people in South Afrika (21 years into what others regard as democracy) be bothered by the statue of a white man from Europe, who died over hundred years ago?

I wish to add to these questions and ask: What would the consequences be for Black people if they were to choose to remain ignorant of the continued presence of the symbols of white supremacy in South Afrika?

Whatever our responses to the aforementioned and related questions, the presence of white supremacist symbols in our public and private spaces has a much more profound impact on our lives as Blacks than we can ever imagine – and this is also reflected in the contradictory responses that Blacks have offered to the protests against the symbolism of Rhodes.

WHO WAS CECIL JOHN RHODES?

Today, the name Cecil John Rhodes is more associated with academic and leadership excellence, scholarships and philanthropy. But is this really who Rhodes was? Born in 1853 in Bishop’s Stratford, England, Rhodes was an asthmatic teenager who during college vacations was regularly sent to ‘his’ brother’s cotton plantation in the Natal because the climate there was favourable for his condition.

Later, he and his brother became involved in the rush to exploit South Afrika’s diamond and gold deposits. Rhodes helped found the notorious DeBeers diamond cartel and at age 18, took over the diamond mines in the area that he and his imperialist cabal named Kimberley. By his early 20s he was a millionaire, but this didn’t stop him from furthering his imperialist project on our continent. By his 30s, he was a billionaire, and by 1891, he had amalgamated the De Beers mines under his control, giving him dominion over 90 per cent of the world’s diamond output.

He had also secured two other important positions. One was that of Prime Minister of the British Cape Colony. Addressing the House of Assembly in 1887, in Cape Town, he said:

‘…the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. We must adopt a system of despotism in our relations with the barbarians of South Africa’.

He also said: ‘I prefer land to niggers.’

His other position was that of President of the British South Africa Company (BSAC) – an organisation formed in 1889, along the same lines as the old slave–trading-land-stealing East India companies. In line with his ‘Cape to Cairo’ imperial vision, the BSAC orchestrated bloody land-grabs campaigns in Nyasaland (now Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Rhodes’s imperialist conquests in Southern Afrika are the direct cause of the anti-colonial land struggles waged by Blacks in the aforementioned countries.

Rhodes was both evil and visionary. He systematically used his stolen fortune to set up and inspire a number of white supremacist institutions, many of which are still in operation today. One such institution was the Round Table Movement. This Movement was used to set up what is today known as the Rhodes Trust and Rhodes Scholarship. To give these institutions legitimacy in Black eyes, in 2002, the name of Nelson Mandela was added to Rhodes’s scholarship and foundation, including naming a building in the Cape Town city centre after him and Mandela.

Rhodes’s Trust and Foundation were originally meant to recruit American and Commonwealth Anglophiles for imperialist projects in Afrika. The Round Table Movement later also spawned raw materials multinational giants such as Rio Tinto Zinc, Anglo-American, Lonrho and, of course, DeBeers. In this network, Lonrho is perhaps the most interesting of all these companies.

In May 1909, a mining conglomerate was formed in London and named the ‘London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company Limited’ or Lonrho in short. Note the specific mention of ‘Land’ and the fact that the name of this company contains the words ‘Rhodesian’- which is a derivative from ‘Rhodes’. Then in 1999, Lonrho changed its name to Lonmin. The latter as we know is the same company which in August 2012 connived with some within the leadership of the ANC to have over 34 Black workers killed-in defence of foreign-white monopoly capital.

Rhodes’s network of stolen wealth also helped set-up universities such as Rhodes, Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Cape Town. Rhodes University came into existence through a ‘donation’ from the Rhodes Trust, and UCT was built on land ‘donated’ by Rhodes. In fact, according to Rhodes’s architect, Herbert Baker, in reference to the building of UCT, Rhodes ‘proposed to build the university mainly from the profits – about £10 000 a year – of the Kaffir Compound System of De Beers Mines’ and joked that, ‘He meant to build the University out of the Kaffir’s stomach’.

Many of South Afrika’s ‘leading’ white universities have their genesis in the 1896 South African School of Mines in Kimberley, which under the direction of colonialists like Rhodes, Barnato, Southey, Lord Kimberley and others presided over Black genocide in South Afrika’s diamond- and gold-rich areas.

It should therefore not be surprising if the powerful interests that sustain universities like UCT, Wits, Rhodes, Pretoria, Stellenbosch or Free State – financially – resist the attempts to have white supremacist symbols like Rhodes removed from our public spaces. They are fully aware that these universities were built using stolen wealth and the blood of Black people, and their reason for existence was to bolster white supremacy in South Afrika. They also know that if Rhodes falls the other white supremacists (that are connected to other white universities) are also likely to fall.

WHAT IS RHODES’S LEGACY?

Rhodes paved the way for global capitalism and imperial expansion in Afrika in the 20th century. Today Rhodes is no more, but some of the imperial institutions and networks that he created persist, and the new imperialist institutions, which were created after his death, continue with his agenda of exploiting Afrika and her people.

One such institution is De Beers, which got its name from Diederik Arnoldus and Johannes Nicolaas de Beer. When Rhodes died, the De Beers diamond cartel was taken over by the Oppenheimer family. De Beers is a cartel which has a monopoly that controls every aspect of the diamond economy. De Beers controls not only mining but cutting, polishing, setting into jewellery, pricing and selling world-wide.

De Beers has spent millions of dollars on public relations campaigns that are aimed at giving the diamond trade this innocent and romantic image. This is all meant to conceal the dirty and bloody behind-the-scenes involvement of multi-nationals like De Beers in genocide, slavery, child labour and death, particularly in Afrika’s mineral-rich areas.

Some of the large gem-quality diamonds come from Sierra Leone, along with Angola, Namibia and Congo. De Beers was highly involved in the atrocities that took place in Sierra Leone and West Afrika in the 1990s. The concept of blood or conflict diamonds came about in reference to the brutal imperialist backed wars in Sierra Leone and West Afrika in the 1990s. As a survival strategy, the De Beers diamond cartel set up the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme that would supposedly determine if a diamond is ‘blood’ or ‘clean’ – essentially policing themselves.

The truth is that De Beers is the key figure behind the issue of blood diamonds. Under the ‘legitimate’ diamond mines of Sierra Leone – meaning that, in the De Beers and imperialist controlled mines – Afrikan miners are forced to work for almost nothing. Only a few workers actually get a salary from 30 cents to $2 a day. Yet according to Forbes, Nicky Oppenheimer, the former Chairman of DeBeers and son of Harry Oppenheimer, is Afrika’s third richest man, with a net worth of $6.6 billion.

Like certain parts of Afrika, Sierra Leone has an abundance of natural wealth, yet today it is one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Most of the people live on less than a dollar a day. It has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world and the life expectancy for men is 38 years. Although the resources are on their land, the people of Sierra Leone are deeply impoverished. As in the rest of Afrika, the profits and benefits of Sierra Leone’s natural wealth go to Europe and North America.

Also, when the Revolutionary United Front of Foday Sankoh emerged in the 1990s, the people of Sierra Leone first thought they were fighting in their interests. They were horribly mistaken. The RUF was just another western-sponsored armed group that was fighting for the crumbs of the colonial plunder. They launched a brutal war against their own people – with about 50,000 murdered and tens of thousands of mutilations. It is believed that De Beers and Israel were the biggest benefactors of this proxy imperialist war.

In fact, diamonds have long played a role in entrenching neo-colonialism, through anti-Black violence in Afrika. De Beers and western foreign intelligence agencies used quislings like Jonas Savimbi and Mobutu Seseko to carry out a bloody project of white supremacy and capitalism in Afrika. With the connivance of US Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower, De Beers collaborated with the CIA to create a conducive climate for the assassination of Patrice Lumumba.

THE GLEN GREY ACT 1894

The legacy of Rhodes is not just palpable in the structure and function of South Afrikan and Afrikan economies but also in the persistence of Black landlessness. The position of the South Afrikan government that the critical moment in legislated Black land dispossession was 1913 is horribly misleading. The Native Land Act of 1913 was merely a perpetuation of the often ignored Glen Grey Act of 1894.

The Glen Grey Act, which was authored by Rhodes and his secretary, William Milton, was inspired by two commissions previously set up by the colonial government – the Cape Commission on Native Laws (1883) and the Glen Grey Commission (1893). It primarily sought to address three issues: land, labour and the franchise.

In practice, it provided for the division of all unalienated land in the district into locations. The locations were surveyed and divided into portions of about four morgens for each existing occupier and other claimants who were approved by the governor. Land could not be mortgaged and the remaining land was to serve as commonage. Alienation and transfer of land was to be approved by the governor.

There was to be no subletting or subdivision of the land and the principle of ‘one-man-one plot’ was to be applied. This Act was also influenced by the views of various colonial administrators in the Transkeian Territories and the Afrikaner Bond – all of which formed the basis for the Glen Grey Act. In essence, Rhodes’s view was that ‘natives’ must be treated differently from the Europeans. He claimed his intention, through this Act, was to:

‘give natives interest in the land, allow the superior minds among them to attend to their local wants, remove the canteens, and give them a stimulus in labour.’

He referred to the Glen Grey Act as the ‘Bill of Africa’ because he envisaged that it would be extended to cover not just the Transkeian territories and any district in the Cape Colony occupied by what he called an ‘aboriginal native’, but he ambitiously saw the Act being extended to other British colonies outside South Afrika.

The Glen Grey Act therefore systematically limited the number of Afrikan people who could live on and own their own land. It also pushed those who were deemed unqualified to acquire land to leave the area and look for work in farms or other forms of employment outside the Glen Grey District. This Act also implemented provisions to limit the number of Afrikans who qualified for the franchise.

However, the Glen Grey Act also saw gallant resistance from various freedom fighters from the Khoikhoi, San, amaXhosa and amaZulu. This resistance was inspired by preceding anti-colonial wars that were waged by the indigenous people against the Dutch in the so-called Cape. There is also evidence that there were instances of joint resistance from the various indigenous communities. One such joint campaign was the one waged by the Khoi and amaXhosa, under Autshumato and Makana.

It is also critical to note that, the narrative of our liberation struggle is terribly skewed. It is spectacularly biased towards a certain section of the liberation movement (the ANC), the twentieth century and places less emphasis on the resistance efforts of the Khoi and San. As a matter of fact, the Khoi and San were not just the first to be dispossessed by the Europeans, but they were also the first to wage armed resistance against European colonialists.

It is this resistance that gave birth to, amongst others, the Khoi-Dutch Wars of 1659-60 and 1673-77 and the Khoi Rebellion of 1799-1803. It is these resistance wars that produced the legendary Khoi Freedom Fighters such as the Strandloopers under the great Autshumato, the Goringhaiqua under Gogosa and Doman and later, David Stuurman.

THE DEEPER IMPLICATIONS OF THE GLEN GREY ACT

Even though it was passed over a hundred years ago, the Glen Grey Act of 1894 continues to have a profound and lasting impact on the position of Blacks in South Afrikan society. First, it laid the broad legislative basis for Black dispossession, physical dislocation and co-operation between the British and Dutch settlers, which would later make the formation of the white supremacist Union of South Africa, in May 1910, less difficult.

Second, by the time the white supremacist Union regime passed the Native Land Act of 1913, a huge section of Black land was already in white hands. The Glen Grey Act had essentially laid the basis for the various forms of legislated Black dispossession in the 20th century.

Third, the Native Land Act of 1913 was then used by successive white supremacist regimes (British and Dutch) to pass complementary anti-Black laws such as the Urban Areas Act of (1923), Natives and Land Trust Act of (1936) and the Group Areas Act of (1950) – all which strengthened land theft by whites, Black land-dispossession and the enslavement of Blacks as conceived by, amongst others, Jan Van Reebieck and Cecil John Rhodes.

Fourth, the Glen Grey Act drew heavily from the thinking of the British Secretary for Native Affairs, Theophilus Shepstone, whose recommendations for the establishment of ‘native reserves’ became the model for what is today known as townships.

Fifth, the aforementioned means that the post-1913 narrative that is being promoted by Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) and Section 1 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994) is not a just a gross falsification of the narrative of Black dispossession but it also proves that post-1994 land reform legislation was mainly designed to appease white land ‘owners’.

Furthermore, the complementary nature of the Glen Grey Act of 1894 and Native Land Act of 1913 shows how misleading it is to reduce the Black liberation project in South Afrika to an anti-apartheid project.

Sixth, and perhaps most critically, more than a hundred years after his death, the racist and anti-Black policies of Rhodes have ensured that, even after Black South Afrikans have formally proclaimed freedom, they are essentially a voting but landless and economically powerless majority.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Rhodes was essentially a ruthless-blood-thirsty-Black-hating white supremacist, who presided over a far-reaching project of genocide against Blacks on the Afrikan continent. His life epitomises the observation made by Omali Yeshitela, that: ‘…white people sit on the pedestal of the enslavement of African people and colonized and oppressed peoples around the world.’

In the name of the British Empire, Rhodes was responsible for the mass murder, rape and dispossession of millions of Black people for the benefit of whites in South Afrika and Europe. Even though it is now more than a hundred years after his deathit is critical that we interrogate the meaning of Rhodes (and others like him) to Black existence. This is necessary because, as stated earlier, the consequences of Rhodes’s white supremacist project continue to define the meaning of what it means to be Black, both in South Afrika and other parts of the Afrikan continent.

Furthermore, the calls for Blacks to engage in self-induced amnesia, that emanate from the red-wine-and-olives interactions, of Black-white liberal circles only serve to bolster the project of white supremacy, anti-Blackness, and neo-liberalism in South Afrika today.

The liberal establishment wants Blacks to believe that the statue of Rhodes is just a harmless object, whose presence shouldn’t trouble Blacks. It is not for whites to decide whether or not the statue of Rhodes poses any harm to Blacks. This is exclusively a Black matter. It is Black people alone who must decide how they must respond to the violence that emanates from the white world. On this matter therefore, whites – and in particular white liberals – must just shut up!

Like Steve Biko put it:

‘There is nothing the matter with blacks. The problem is WHITE RACISM and it rests squarely on the laps of the white society. The sooner the liberals realise this the better for us blacks. Their presence amongst us is irksome and of nuisance value. It removes the focus of attention from essentials and shifts it to ill-defined philosophical concepts that are both irrelevant to the black man and merely a red herring across the track. White liberals must leave blacks to take care of their own business while they concern themselves with the real evil in our society – white racism.’

Rhodes’s statue is more than just a symbol of white supremacy. It serves as a daily reminder of how Blacks were continuously humiliated by foreigners in the land of their forebears. For the white world therefore, Rhodes’s statue is a symbol of immense pride and an integral part of the white identity, and this is why whites never saw the need to protest against this statue or similar ones in the first place.

By showering Rhodes’s statue with human excrement ( as alleged) the brave Black warriors at UCT have hit a raw nerve in the ‘sensitive’, ‘innocent’ and ‘pure’ white body. The Black world must therefore commend the bravery of the Black warriors at UCT and Rhodes University.

Theirs is a generational act of Black Consciousness which happens at a time when the older section of the Black political leadership has developed a treacherously cozy relationship with white capital. This act therefore resonates with other post-1994 grass-roots Black rebellions that seek a radical break with the hegemonic-anti-black-neo-liberal discourse in our country.

Like Andries Tatane, Mgcineni Noki, Ayanda Mabulu and Dookom, the Rhodes Must Fall project is discomforting because it seeks to disrupt the deceptive calm that was brought about by the 1994 settlement. At the phenomenological level, it seeks to make Blacks realise the vulgarity of the paradox wherein Blacks, as an indigenous majority, continuously complain about being ill-treated by what is essentially a foreign settler-minority. It therefore brings to the fore the problematic of Blacks as ontological absentees.

The deeper implications of the ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ project is that it re-opens the conveniently ignored issue of the white and colonial name and character of South Afrika. At a more fundamental level, this project inadvertently re-opens the discourse on a question that some within the older section of the Black political leadership are terribly afraid to ask openly, which is: Has April 27, 1994 resolved the National and Land Questions? The ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ project is essentially an urgent call for Black people to rise up and reclaim their land. Yes! Rhodes must fall, but so must all the others (white and Black).

REFERENCES

1. Colossus of Rhodes: Cape to Cairo, (1892).Accessed 10/03/2015. Retrieved from http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/ic/image_details.php?id=13906
2. Rhodes. C, (1887) Confession of Faith. Accessed 10/03/2015. Retrieved from https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/the-basement-just-dox/just-dox-british-intelligence/cecil-john-rhodes-confession-of-faith-1877/
3. Godwin, P. (1998) Rhodes To Hell: Was The Father of Rhodesia Really The Epitome of Pure Evil? Accessed 10/03/2015. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/1998/01/rhodes_to_hell.html
4. Sweet, M. (2002) Cecil Rhodes: A Bad Man in Africa. Accessed 11/03/2015. Retrieved from http://espressostalinist.com/genocide/cecil-rhodes-and-de-beers-genocide-diamonds
5. Hess, P. All Diamonds Are Blood Diamonds: The Truth About The Diamond Trade. Accessed 12/03/2015. Retrieved from http://apscuhuru.org/analysis/diamonds/index.xhtml
6. Campbell, G. (2006) Blood Diamonds. Amnesty Magazine. Amnesty International, USA. Accessed 12/03/2015. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/reel_new/films/list/1_84_6
7. Conflict Diamonds. Diamond Facts.org. Accessed 11/03/2015. Retrieved from http://www.diamondfacts.org/
8. Africa’s 50 Richest. Accessed 12/03/2015. Retrieved from rshttp://www.forbes.com/africa-billionaires/.
9. Phaahla, W. (2015) White Privilege in South Africa and the Building of a United South Africa. Accessed 08/01/2015. Retrieved from https://wchalklen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/white-privilege-and-the-road-to-building-a-united-south-africa/
10. Michael P.J. (2014), Ferguson Must Force Us To Face Anti-Blackness. Accessed 28/11/2014.Retreived from http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/28/ferguson-must-force-face-anti-blackness/pKVMpGxwUYpMDyHRWPln2M/story.html
11. Wilderson, B.F. (2008), Biko and the Problematic of Presence. Accessed 07/01/2015. Retrieved from http://incognegro.org/pdf/Biko%20and%20the%20Problematic%20of%20Presence.pdf
12. Baker, H. (1934) Cecil Rhodes by His Architect, (Oxford University Press).
13. Biko, S. (2004), I Write What I Like, (Picador Africa–Johannesburg).
14. R. W. Rose Innes, (1903), The Glen Grey Act and the Native Question, (Lovedale Press).
15. Yates, T. ‘Liberation betrayed The continued eviction of farms dwellers in the ‘new’ South Africa’ in Reforming Land and Resource Use In South Africa: Impact on Livelihoods.
16. Legassick, M. (1995), British Hegemony and Origins of Racial Segregation in South Africa 1901 -14, in Segregation and Apartheid in Twentieth Century South Africa (London).
17. Klug, H. (2000), Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa’s Political Reconstruction (Cambridge University Press).
18. Plaatje, S.T. (2007) Native Life In South Africa, (Echo Library –Middlesex).
19. Baines, G. (1998). The rainbow nation? Identity and nation building in post-apartheid South Africa. Mots Pluriels.
20. Kahn, E, (1949). The Pass Laws. In E. Hellman (Ed.), Handbook of Race Relations in South Africa, Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
21. Mandela, N. (1996). Creating boundaries: The politics of race, class and nation. In K. Manzo (Ed.), Creating Boundaries: The Politics of Race and Nation. London: Boulder.
22. McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom (July/August).
23. Savage, M. (1986). The imposition of the pass laws on the African population in South Africa 1916-1984. African Affairs, (April).

The post The Fall Of Cecil John Rhodes And The Rise Of Black Power – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United States has strongly condemns attacks this week against Syrian civilians, who continue to suffer from both the Asad regime and violent extremist groups. Fighting between regime forces and an alliance of Islamist-oriented forces, including the al-Qa’ida-affiliated al-Nusra Front, and airstrikes by the Asad regime on Idlib city reportedly killed more than 100 civilians, significantly damaged hospitals, and displaced an estimated 30,000 people.

Activists reported that ISIL massacred over 40 people in Mabuja in Hama province – reportedly Ismailis and Alawites, including women and children. Regime bombings of the town killed additional inhabitants and inflicted further damage.

Marie Harf, Acting US State Department Spokesperson, said “We also condemn and are deeply concerned by ISIL’s attacks this week against the besieged Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in southern Damascus. Since advancing into Yarmouk on April 1, ISIL – with the support of al-Nusra Front – has violently clashed with other armed groups, putting the remaining 18,000 civilians in the area at severe risk.”

Yarmouk’s inhabitants have already suffered from the regime’s violence and have lived under siege for nearly two years, deprived of desperately needed essentials, including food and medical relief, noted Harf.

Acccording to Harf, “These tragic events illustrate the terrible toll the war has taken on Syrian civilians and reaffirm the need for a political solution to end the conflict and alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. The United States reiterates that all forces must cease unlawful attacks on civilians and comply with international law. Those who are responsible for these and other atrocities against the civilian population must be held accountable.”

The post US Condemns Attacks On Syrian Civilians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Soil, long thought to be a semi-permanent storehouse for ancient carbon, may be releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere faster than anyone thought, according to Oregon State University soil scientists.

In a study published in this week’s online edition of the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers showed that chemicals emitted by plant roots act on carbon that is bonded to minerals in the soil, breaking the bonds and exposing previously protected carbon to decomposition by microbes.

The carbon then passes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), said the study’s coauthor, Markus Kleber, a soil scientist in OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences.

He said the study challenges the prevailing view that carbon bonded to minerals stays in the soil for thousands of years. “As these root compounds separate the carbon from its protective mineral phase,” he said, “we may see a greater release of carbon from its storage sites in the soil.”

It’s likely that a warming climate is speeding this process up, he said. As warmer weather and more carbon dioxide in the air stimulate plants to grow, they produce more root compounds. This will likely release more stored carbon, which will enter the atmosphere as CO2—which could in turn accelerate the rate of climate warming.

“Our main concern is that this is an important mechanism, and we are not presently considering it in global models of carbon cycling,” Kleber said.

CO2 is a major driver of the current warming of Earth’s atmosphere. By failing to account for accelerated soil-carbon decomposition, the study suggests, current climate-change models may be underestimating carbon loss from soil by as much as 1 percent per year.

“There is more carbon stored in the soil, on a global scale, than in vegetation or even in the atmosphere,” said Kleber. “Since this reservoir is so large, even small changes will have serious effects on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, and by extension on climate.”

One percent may not sound like much, he added. “But think of it this way: If you have money in the bank and you lose 1 percent per year, you would be down to two thirds of your starting capital after only 50 years.”

Between 60 and 80 percent of organic matter entering the soil gets broken down within the first year in a chain of decomposition that ends with CO2, Kleber said. Most of the remaining carbon gets bound to the soil’s minerals through a variety of physical and chemical mechanisms. When this happens, the carbon is protected because the microbes can’t get at it to break it down.

For the past couple of decades, scientists have assumed that these carbon-mineral bonds amounted to a long-lasting “sink” for soil carbon—keeping it out of the atmosphere by storing it in a stable form over many centuries.

“But from the beginning, there was a question that made a lot of folks uneasy,” said Kleber. “If carbon keeps going into the soil and staying there, then why aren’t we drowning in carbon? Isn’t there some process that takes it back into the cycle? That part was not very well researched, and it was what we were trying to find.”

The researchers tested three model compounds for common “root exudates”—chemicals commonly excreted by plant roots—to see how strongly each one stimulated the microbes that drive organic-matter decomposition.

In the laboratory, using a syringe and pump, they applied oxalic acid, acetic acid and glucose to soil taken from a dry-climate agricultural area and a wet-climate forest, both in Oregon. They conducted the experiment over 35 days to simulate a flush of root growth in the spring.

Prevailing theory, said Kleber, would predict that the hungry microbes would respond most strongly to the nutritious glucose, which would give them the energy to tackle the rest of the organic matter, including the carbon.

“And this is likely happening to a certain extent,” he said. “But our big surprise was that the energy-poor oxalic acid generated a much stronger response from the microbes than the energy-rich glucose.”

When they analyzed the water stored in the oxalic acid-treated soil, the researchers saw there was eight times more dissolved carbon in it than there had been before. Additional laboratory tests confirmed the finding that the acids were breaking the carbon-mineral bonds.

“The significance of this research,” Kleber said, “is that we have documented for the first time a mechanism by which long-stored soil carbon is cycled back into the system.”

Oxalic acid is a good stand-in for a whole suite of root compounds that are excreted by plants in the root zone, Kleber said. “Roots excrete several compounds similar to oxalic acid. We can assume that many root exudates act in a similar way.”

Kleber collaborated on the study with his doctoral student Marco Keiluweit and researchers from Australia and the United States. The work was funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant and directed by Jennifer Pett-Ridge at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif.

The post Climate Change, Plant Roots May Accelerate Carbon Loss From Soils appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United States used the Al Anad airbase in Yemen as the staging area for drone attacks which killed some 1,000 people since 2009. Those crimes were committed under the guise of fighting terrorism but now that same place is the location of karmic justice for the American government and its ally, Saudi Arabia. United States Special Forces fled from Al Anad before it was overrun by Ansar Allah rebels, also known as the Houthis.

It is true that Saudi Arabia bombed Houthi positions and threatens to start a ground invasion with the help of Egypt. Both of these countries are American client states and would not contemplate these actions without having a green light from Washington.

The story of Yemen and the shifting international alliances which have brought it to civil war are somewhat complicated. The Houthis ousted the American and Saudi backed president Hadi who is now on the run. His predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was at one time also a Saudi favorite but is now leading the Houthi advance. While the details can be confusing, one thing is simple. American imperialism and the war of terror unleashed on that region are ultimately at fault and continue to destroy nation after nation.

In its zeal to have and maintain hegemony the United States resorts to brute force and supports others who do likewise. The result is dead bodies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen, but the decisions that lead to these crimes are endemic to American policies.

To say that Barack Obama and his Oval Office predecessors made a mess of the Middle East is the very definition of understatement. Because America’s goals are never benevolent its policies lurch from one awful decision to the next with human suffering being the only common denominator.

Washington used jihadists in Libya to overthrow the Gaddafi government only to have those same groups kill the American ambassador. Now the U.S. is fighting the same people it supported there just a few years ago. America fights with al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria but against those same two groups in Iraq. Washington eventually chose to accept the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt but now supports the restoration of a dictatorial regime with another leader. The United States calls the president of Sudan a war criminal but now fights on the same side in Yemen. When imperialism is the intention, events will never turn out as predicted.

The chaos makes sense only when the true nature of American foreign policy is acknowledged. The shifting alliances and seemingly strange bedfellows are part of the longstanding doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny asserts that the United States has the right to expand its reach anywhere it wants to. The term originally referred to the conquest of North America in the 19^th century, but the thinking behind it is still a part of this country’s consciousness.

Most Americans know little or nothing about Yemen or Saudi Arabia, but still happily refer to themselves in the first person plural when speaking of their government. They ask, “What should ‘we’ do about Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Libya?”

While presidents go in and out of office, the people, the corporate media and the political system all accept that their government has the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations and that it is always right and moral in its claims. The numbers of Americans who question whether Barack Obama ought to be in the business of ousting the president of Syria or supporting the president of Ukraine are quite slim.

The examples of foolish decisions are endless. President Reagan made deals with Iran but then instigated an Iraqi attack on Iran. Later the U.S. attacked Iraq in two different wars. The destruction of that country led to a brutal sectarian war, and to the rise of the Houthis in Yemen.

Yemen is now the epicenter of imperialism run amuck. The Saudis fear that the Shi’a Houthis will be supported by their rival Iran, which the United States now wants to come to terms with in nuclear energy negotiations. Saudi Arabia is therefore on the side of Israel in attempting to scuttle any agreement. There is still no honor among all the thieves.

Whatever policy decisions Washington chooses to make will result in unintended consequences and more violence. Every escalation brings greater danger and America still has no rival for bringing destruction to millions of people. Violence and chaos have become not just the means to certain ends, but ends in and of themselves. That is just how America rolls.

The post American Hell For Yemen – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In an Open Letter addressed to President Barack Obama, over 119 U.S. academics, activists and NGOs called on their head of state to rescind his Executive Order declaring Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security”. On March 9, 2015, President Obama invoked his executive powers to decree a national emergency based on the alleged “threat” represented by Venezuela. The Executive Order also imposed sanctions on Venezuelan officials with potentially far-reaching consequences.

U.S. citizens and NGOs are joined by leaders from over 138 countries and prestigious multilateral organizations worldwide in their demand for President Obama to rescind his measures against Venezuela. Latin American and Caribbean nations have unanimously rejected President Obama’s Executive Order against Venezuela and have firmly called for its reversal. A powerful statement issued March 26, 2015 from the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) which represents all 33 countries in the region, expressed “its rejection of the Executive Order issued by the Government of the United States of America on March 9, 2015,” considering “that this Executive Order should be reversed.”

The United Nations G77+China group, which represents 134 countries, also issued a firm statement opposing President Obama’s Executive Order against Venezuela. “The Group of 77+China deplores these measures and reiterates its firm commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela…The G77+China calls on the Government of the United States to evaluate and put into practice alternatives of dialogue with the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, under principles of respect for sovereignty and self-determination. As such, we urge that the Executive Order be abolished.”

In addition, regional organizations — such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) representing 12 South American states, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) representing 11 Latin American and Caribbean nations, and the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) — issued powerful condemnations of President Obama’s measures against Venezuela. One hundred British parliamentarians have also repudiated the Executive Order and called on the U.S. government to rescind its actions against Venezuela.

More than 6 million people have signed a petition in Venezuela and online calling on President Obama to retract his Executive Order of March 9, 2015 and to cease interference in Venezuelan affairs. Even prominent members of the Venezuelan opposition have rejected Obama’s designation of Venezuela as a threat to U.S. national security.

In a letter to the U.S. president by Venezuela’s Lara State Governor Henry Falcon, known for his anti-government position, he writes, “Let me express to you clearly that Venezuela can’t be considered a threat to any other nation on the planet. We have serious internal problems but we will solve them between Venezuelans.”

This overwhelming international support for Venezuela comes just days before Latin American leaders will meet with President Obama at the Summit of the Americas in Panama City on April 9-10. While originally the summit was staged to be a historical event where Cuba would reunite with the organization after its forced exclusion by the U.S. over 50 years ago, now the forum will be overshadowed by Obama’s latest move against Venezuela.

Heads of state from the region have made clear that they will not stand for U.S. government aggression against one of their neighbors. Bolivian President Evo Morales warned, “These undemocratic actions of President Barack Obama threaten the peace and security of all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa scoffed, “It must be a bad joke, which reminds us of the darkest hours of our region, when we received invasions and dictatorships imposed by the U.S….Will they understand Latin America has changed?”

Despite being the aggrieved party, President Maduro has repeatedly expressed his desire for “respectful dialogue on equal terms” with the Obama administration and has requested Ecuador, as chair of CELAC, play a key role in mediating these efforts. The upcoming Summit of the Americas may just provide the type of environment that could enable such a dialogue.

In this letter to President Obama, U.S. citizens and NGOs encourage their head of state to improve regional relations and show “our Latin America neighbors that the U.S. can relate to them in peace and with respect for their sovereignty.”

###

Open Letter to President Obama

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, met your December 17, 2014 joint announcement with President Raul Castro of steps to normalize relations with Cuba with cautious optimism. For decades the US has been isolated in its policy on Cuba, both from the rest of the hemisphere and the rest of the world. For the 23rd year in a row, the UN General Assembly voted last October (188-2) to condemn the US embargo of Cuba.

The UN called on the US to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and regulations which violate the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction, and the freedom of trade and navigation.

We were pleased that the US was finally taking steps to come into compliance with international law.

Yet our optimism turned to renewed concern the following day, December 18, when you signed a sanctions bill against Venezuela which appears to perpetuate the same failed policy toward Venezuela that you had just rejected toward Cuba. You hardened that policy on March 9 when you issued an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to the “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.” This action also verified that the US is stepping up its support for regime change in Caracas.

What is US hemispheric policy given this belligerent stance toward Venezuelan democracy? That is the question being asked by the world media and particularly by the sovereign States and multinational institutions of Latin America and the Caribbean. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which represents every country in South America, said your executive order constitutes a “threat of interference” against Venezuela’s sovereignty and calls on you to revoke the order. While politics in Venezuela is polarized and economic disruption caused primarily by the falling price of oil have caused long lines and falling poll numbers for President Nicolas Maduro, we see nothing that could conceivably be described as an “extraordinary threat” to the US or even to Venezuela’s closest neighbors. We note that Colombia, the US’s closest ally in South America and even the Venezuelan opposition have rejected US sanctions.

Compared to Mexico and Honduras where state violence is endemic and the rule of law tenuous at best, Venezuela is not at all outside the norm among nations. Venezuela is not at war with any nation, does not have military bases outside its borders, and is helping to mediate an end to the war in Colombia; it is a champion of peace in the region. To call it a national security threat to the US diminishes the credibility of your administration in the eyes of the world.

To those who know the dynamics in democratic Venezuela, this US policy stance is dangerous and provocative. To set the record straight, the Venezuelan government is democratically elected. Presidents Chavez and Maduro were both elected in what former President Jimmy Carter declared to be the best election process in the world. (The Carter Center monitors and reports on elections worldwide.) Your executive declaration, however, is likely to be taken as a green light to the most hard line and anti-democratic forces in the country to continue to commit anti-government violence.

We call on you, President Obama, to rescind your executive order naming Venezuela a US national security threat. We call on you to stop interfering through funding and reckless public statements in Venezuela’s own democratic processes. And most of all, we encourage you to show to our Latin American neighbors that the US can relate to them in peace and with respect for their sovereignty.

Sincerely,
Noam Chomsky, MIT
Eva Golinger, Human Rights attorney, author
Miguel Tinker-Salas, Professor, History Dept., Pomona College*
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, International human rights attorney
Chuck Kaufman, National Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice
James Early, Board Member, Institute for Policy Studies
Bill Fletcher, Jr., writer/activist/media host
Dr Frank Goldsmith, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, World Federation of Trade Unions
Cindy Sheehan, Peace and social justice activist and radio host/producer
Bill Preston, President, AFGE National VA Council District 14*, President, AFGE Local 17*
Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council
Beverly Bell, Coordinator, Other Worlds
Andrew Hochhalter, Director, Quixote Center
Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action*
Alexis Stoumbelis, Executive Director, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador
Azadeh N. Shahshahani, President, National Lawyers Guild
Glen Ford, Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report*
Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan, President-Elect, National Lawyers Guild
Grahame Russell, Director, Rights Action [US & Canada]
Medea Benjamin, CoFounder, CODEPINK for Peace
Dan Kovalik, Labor and Human Rights lawyer
Steven Kramer, Exec. Vice President, 1199SEIU-UHWE*
Hendrik Voss, SOA Watch National Organizer
David Rovics, Singer/Songwriter, American Federation of Muscians Local 1000
Kevin Zeese, attorney and activist, co-director of Popular Resistance*
Margaret Flowers, physician and activist, co-director of Popular Resistance*
Gloria LaRiva, Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
Brian Becker, director, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
John (Jack) Laun, President, Colombia Support Network
Joe Lombardo, co-coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Marilyn Levin, co-coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Roger Harris, President, Task Force on the Americas (Marin Co, CA)
Cherrene Horazuk, President, AFSCME Local 3800
Chris Townsend, Director of Field Mobilization, Amalgamated Transit Union*
Banbose Shango, A-APRP-GC*
John Womack Jr., Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin Am History and Economics, emeritus, Harvard U Peter Phillips Ph.D., Professor Sociology, Sonoma State U; Pres. Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored Audrey Bomse, co-chair of the NLG Palestine Subcommittee
Marc Becker, Professor, Truman State University
Jackie Cabasso and Terry Rockefeller, National Co-conveners, United for Peace and Justice
Palmer Legare, Coordinator, Guatemala Solidarity Project
Dale Sorensen, Director, Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas (CA)
Dr. Henry S. Lowendorf, CoChair, Greater New Haven Peace Council
Cindy Forster, Chair, History Department and Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Scripps College Adrienne Pine, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, American University
Barry Ladendorf, President,. Veterans for Peace
Jack Gilroy, Friends of Franz Jagerstatter
Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D., Department of History and Government, Bowie State University
Linda J. Craft, Professor, North Park University, Chicago
Gilbert Joseph, Professor History & International Studies, Yale
Victoria Cervantes, co-chair, La Voz de los de Abajo, Chicago
Harry E. Vanden, Ph.D., Professor Latin American Studies, University of South Florida
Gunnar Gundersen, Exec. V.P., Tokyo International University of America, Salem, OR
Xiomara García Gundersen, Oregon Bolivarian Circle, Professor of Mathematics, Salem, OR
Jack Gilroy, SOA Watch Prisoner of Conscience
Adrianne Aron, Ph.D., Berkeley, CA
Paki Wieland, SOA Watch November Coordinating Team
Barbara Larcom, Coordinator, Casa Baltimore/Limay
Judy Somberg, attorney, Co-chair NLG Task Force on the Americas
Lo Ross, Director, Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, Santa Cruz, CA
Cheryl LaBash, Co-Chair, National Network on Cuba
Chris Inserra, SOA Watch Stage and Program Team
Nico Udu-gama, SOA Watch Bilingual Space Collective
Suyapa G. Portillo Villeda, Asst. Professor, Chicana/o-Latina/o Transnational Studies, Pitzer College
Liisa L. North, Professor (ret.) and writer
Susan Scott, Co-Chair, NLG Task Force on the Americas
Irene Rodriguez, Coordinator, School of the Americas Watch-Boulder
Maria Luisa Rosal, SOA Watch Field Organizer
Isabel Garcia, Chair, Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Tucson, AZ
Jenne Ristau, SOA Watch Legislative Organizer
Francisco Herrera, Caminante Cultural, SOA Watch Stage and Program Team
Gary Prevost, Professor of Political Science, College of St Benedict/St. John’s University Dominick Tuminaro, Professor, Brooklyn College Graduate Center for Worker Education Sister Kathleen Desautels, SP, SOA Watch Peacemakers
Arnold Matlin, M.D., Founding Member, Genesee Valley Citizens for Peace, Geneseo, NY. Stephen Bartlett, Director of Sustainable Agriculture of Louisville (SAL), Louisville, KY
Tanya Kerssen, Research Coordinator, Food First
Mary Ann Tenuto, Coordinator, Chiapas Support Committee
Milton Fisk, Retired, Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington IN
Arturo J. Viscarra, SOA Watch Advocacy Coordinator
Susan Letendre, Director, Witness for Peace New England
David Horvath, CoChair, Kentucky Interfaith Taskforce on Latin America
Héctor Perla Jr., Asst. Prof., Latin American & Latino Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz Judy Liteky, Co-Founder, School of the Americas Watch, San Francisco, CA
Robert Nixon, Co-Founder, School of the Americas Watch, Oakland, CA Dana Frank, Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Iowa
Mary Lou Finn, for Neighbors for Peace, Evanston, IL
Brian Peterson, Ascension Lutheran Church (ELCA) , Austin, TX
José E. López, Executive Director, Puerto Rican Cultural Center
Ana Lopez, NYC Coordinator to Free Oscar Lopez Rivera
Alejandro L. Molina, Coordinating Committee, National Boricua Human Rights Network Judy Robbins, Let Cuba Live of Maine
James Wandera Ouma, Executive Director, LGBT Voice, Tanzania
Sharat G. Lin, Former president, San José Peace and Justice Center
Dr. Ramona Fernandez, PhD, Associate Professor, Michigan State University
Kim Scipes, Associate Professor of Sociology, Purdue University North Central, Westville, IN Ray Pagliaro , co-president, New Haven /León Sister City Project
Charles Callman, Coordinating Committee, Portland Central America Solidarity Committee Stansfield Smith, Coordinator, Chicago ALBA Solidarity Committee
Dr. Ed Brown, Chair, Leicester Masaya Link Group
Ann Tiffany, former SOAW prisoner of conscience
Hector Aristizabal, ImaginAction
Michael Wisniewski, L.A. Catholic Worker
Elizabeth Deligio, SOA Watch Council
Mike Tork, Veterans for Peace
Ed Kinane, former SOA prisoner of conscience, founder of the SOA Abolitionists
Charlie Hardy, 2014 Wyoming Democratic US Senate candidate
Jeanie Keltner, host Soapbox TV talk show, The Undernews radio talk show, KVMRFM Claudia Chaufan, Associate Professor, University of California San Francisco
Dwight Lawton, SOA Watch Prisoner of Conscience
Margaret Knapke, SOA Watch Prisoner of Conscience, Dayton Ohio
Daniele Kohn, Director, Action Resource Fund, New York
William Camacarro, Coordinator, Alberto Lovera Bolivarian Circle, WBAI radio host
Crystal Zevon, Independent Writer and Filmmaker, Searching for Occupy
Roger Keeran, Professor Emiritus, Empire State College (SUNY)
Katherine Hoyt, National Coordinator, Nicaragua Network
Steve Watrous, Chair, Milwaukee Fair Trade Coalition
Gary L. Cozette, Program Director, Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America (CRLN)
* For identification purposes only

The post Call For Obama To Retract Venezuela Executive Order – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abdul Hannan Tago

The Houthi terrorists, who are now under attack from all directions, have resorted to hit-and-run tactics, said Saudi Arabia Brig. Gen. Ahmad Al-Assiri, a consultant at the defense minister’s office.

The Saudi-led coalition is continuing to achieve its objectives at all levels, he told the media on Friday.

They are now operating individually while under continuous assault from coalition airstrikes and regular Yemeni forces and the people’s committees on the ground.

“We are in a position to attack them while they are in defensive positions,” said Brig. Gen. Ahmad Al-Assiri.

In his daily briefing, Al-Assiri also said that Operation Decisive Storm is being implemented under a well-planned strategy. “We are now in the air phase and strictly following the strategy,” he said.
Ground forces continue to secure the Saudi border with Yemen, he said.

Houthi cells in Aden are blocked as the military campaign obstructed logistical support from reaching the terrorists, said the consultant. The coalition warplanes targeted Scud missile launchers operated by the Houthis.

People’s committees have repelled Houthi militants from the city’s presidential palace, he said.

Al-Assiri indicated that coalition forces dropped logistical support to people’s committees in Aden at dawn on Friday. These committees have been able to change the situation on the ground and expel militia elements from inside the presidential palace, in addition to retaking areas within the city, he said. He said airstrikes continue to destroy Houthi command structures, ammunition stores and scud missiles, including those hidden under trees and buildings.

He also referred to the Meon Island which is being shelled following information that this location was a source of smuggled firearms.

Coalition strikes managed to destroy all military equipment including tanks and maritime defenses on the island, said the consultant.

On Thursday, heavy artillery, aircraft and ground forces engaged terrorists who attacked an advanced border control point, a stronghold in Asir, and defeated them completely. Coalition forces have cleared all border areas with Yemen to block the terrorists from regrouping.

They also targeted all possible points leading to Aden to prevent any attempts by groups loyal to the Houthi militia to infiltrate the area.
Coalition forces are in constantly coordinating with people’s committees to eliminate militias holed up in the city.

Al-Assiri said that the Houtis are desperately trying to create confusion in the media.

He said coalition forces are not facing a regular army and that they are battling scattered groups who are spreading terror in society.

The post Saudi Arabia-Coalition Says Houthis Losing Ground appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama described the historic understanding the United States – with our allies and partners – reached with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and will make our country, our allies, and our world safer. The deal, announced on Thursday, meets our core objectives of cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is both comprehensive and long-term, and includes robust and intrusive inspections of the country’s nuclear program. The President reiterated that the deal is not yet done – and if there is backsliding from Iran in the months to come, there will be no deal. He echoed his belief that a diplomatic resolution is by far the best option, and promised to continue to fully brief Congress and the American people on the substance and progress of the negotiations in the months to come.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
April 4, 2015

This week, together with our allies and partners, we reached an historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon and make our country, our allies, and our world safer.

This framework is the result of tough, principled diplomacy. It’s a good deal — a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.

This deal denies Iran the plutonium necessary to build a bomb. It shuts down Iran’s path to a bomb using enriched uranium. Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Moreover, international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program because Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.

And this is a long-term deal, with strict limits on Iran’s program for more than a decade and unprecedented transparency measures that will last for 20 years or more. And as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.

In return for Iran’s actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place. Meanwhile, other American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, all will continue to be enforced.

As I said this week, many key details will need to be finalized over the next three months, and nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed. And if there is backsliding, there will be no deal.

Here in the United States, I expect a robust debate. We’ll keep Congress and the American people fully briefed on the substance of the deal. As we engage in this debate, let’s remember—we really only have three options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities—which will only set its program back a few years—while starting another war in the Middle East; abandoning negotiations and hoping for the best with sanctions—even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program; or a robust and verifiable deal like this one that peacefully prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

As President and Commander in Chief, I firmly believe that the diplomatic option—a comprehensive, long-term deal like this—is by far the best option. For the United States. For our allies. And for the world.

Our work — this deal — is not yet done. Diplomacy is painstaking work. Success is not guaranteed. But today we have an historic opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran, and to do so peacefully, with the international community firmly behind us. And this will be our work in the days and months ahead in keeping with the best traditions of American leadership.

The post Obama: Reaching Comprehensive And Long-Term Deal On Iran’s Nuclear Program – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The just-concluded four-day visit (29 March-1 April) of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar to Japan is a reaffirmation of India’s response to build a partnership with Japan that is beyond just diplomatic niceties and that reflects the changing strategic and security environment in the region.

To be specific, both India and Japan find a lot of common ground to enhance cooperation in the defence and security sector including in the field of maritime security in the wake of Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region. Parrikar had no hesitation to reiterate and reaffirm India’s position that it considers relations with Japan of “great importance” and that Japan is a privileged partner in the ‘Make in India’ initiative including in the defence technology sector.

During his talks with Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, both leaders agreed to scale up bilateral ties in the defence and security domains beyond economic cooperation and enhancing regional connectivity. The kind of importance that India attaches to its relations with Japan is demonstrable from the fact that Parrikar chose Japan as the first country to visit after assuming office of Defence Minister in the Narendra Modi government. From his side, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo remarked after meeting with Parikkar that ‘a strong’ India-Japan partnership was not only in the “national interest of the two” but also “important for peace and security in the region”.

This bonhomie between the two countries gels well amid Tokyo’s ongoing tussle with Beijing over territorial and history issues. Besides the escalating territorial dispute that exists between the two countries over the Senkaku Islands, which China refers to as the Diaoyu Islands, Japan is also in conflict with China over control of private islands in the South China Sea. Indeed, South China Sea is a major flashpoint where nine countries have contending claims.

Shiela A. Smith in a recent book appropriately titled it as Intimate Rivals: Japanese Domestic Politics and China’s Rise and observed “No country feels China’s rise more deeply than Japan”.  India too has economic interests as the ONGC is involved in oil exploration activities in areas that are claimed by Vietnam, a sour point in its relations with China.

After Japan relaxed restrictions in weapon exports to countries friendly with it in 2014, the prospect for sales of defence equipments to India has assumed importance in India-Japan bilateral ties. The issue of India acquiring Soryu-class diesel-electric submarines used by Japan’s Maritime Self Defense Force has emerged at the centre stage in bilateral defence cooperation. Japan has responded positively to India’s interest in this and Parikkar took up this issue in his discussion with his Japanese counterpart Gen Nakatani. At present the Indian Navy has a fleet of 15 submarines but more than half are not equipped to respond quickly to contingencies due to aging. India is concerned with the growing activity of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean and therefore prioritised to strengthen its naval capability to secure peace in the sea, thereby protecting maritime commerce. Prioritising arms build-up to strengthen maritime security is a logical extension to India’s response to defend and protect the global common. India finds a reliable partner in Japan in this noble initiative.

Japan’s Soryu-class submarines are seen as among the most advanced non-nuclear attack submarines in the world. Though Japan has relaxed restrictions on weapon exports, it has strict regulations on the export of defence technologies. In view of the understanding between the two countries and in response to the perceived threat from China, defence cooperation with Japan in all fields seem possible. This signals India’s intention to acquire Soryu-class submarines if the amended conditions by Japan are met.

Australia is another country that is in talks with Japan on buying Soryu-class submarines. Besides this, Tokyo and New Delhi are holding talks on the export of US-2 amphibious rescue aircraft used by the MSDF to India and a possible joint venture to produce them on Indian soil. India is not likely to make a decision anytime soon on this, however. This is because the Indian Navy and Coast Guard are yet to come up with a clear-cut report on their operational necessities and without the report, India shall be constrained to go forward.

Though bilateral ties have progressed in almost all fronts smoothly, the issue of a pact on civil nuclear energy remains eluded. Nuclear issue is an extremely sensitive one in Japan and the public sentiment is overwhelmingly against it. It becomes difficult for any government in Japan to ignore this, though the economic compulsions in pursuing anything nuclear are huge. The post-Fukushima period has only hardened such anti-nuke sentiment. Yet, political leadership in either country has not abandoned the idea of reaching out an understanding on a possible nuclear pact.

Since assuming office in December 2012, Prime Minister Abe has enacted some far-reaching legislation. By reinterpreting the nation’s pacifist Constitution to allow Japan to come to the aid of allies, Abe has reversed a decade-long decline in defence spending and lifted a ban on arms exports, which is why the issue of India buying the Soryu-class submarines and US-2 amphibious rescue aircraft become important.

As India’s economy continues to grow, its needs to beef up defence capabilities has gained urgency. Therefore, India is bulking up and modernising its defence forces. In particular, there is a greater need now than ever before to secure maritime commerce in the Indian Ocean region not only to defend its own interest but also other countries in the region friendly to it. India also has a 14,000 km northern land border. It needs to secure this as part of this is contested by China. The Modi government increased the nation’s defence budget by 11 per cent to $40 billion and approved the building of six nuclear-powered submarines and seven new frigates. India also plans to spend $150 billion to modernise its military by 2027. Though compared to China’s total military spending, the planned defence spending by India is too small, cooperation with friendly countries in the defence technology sector is attractive alternatives.

Though minor differences on export of defence equipment remain to be sorted out, converging economic and security interests are driving Asia’s second and third biggest military spenders closer in an attempt to thwart increasingly Chinese claims over contested lands and waters. As an emerging economy and aspiring ambitions for power at the global stage, India is keen to modernise its military and shared unease with China draws both India and Japan closer. During his visit to Japan in May 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had forged a close rapport with his counterpart Abe and Parikkar’s visit was an extension of this understanding.

The single most important factor that is driving both India and Japan is the strategic developments relating to international security situation with emphasis on the inter-connected Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. India is aware of Tokyo’s ties with Beijing that is riled by differences over Japan’s wartime actions and competing claims over uninhibited islands in the East China Sea strategically located near potential oil and gas deposits and fishing grounds.

At the same time, border skirmishes by both India and China sporadically along the border for the past five decades remains an unresolved issue between the two countries and Japan understands this. Though Modi has a soft spot for China in his ‘Make in India’ initiative, it did not deter him from warning China in February 2015 that it should drop its “territorial mindset”, saying that India’s weakness had encouraged China’s army to enter Indian territory.

Following the pledge to upgrade their security relationship in September 2014 to uphold maritime security and the peaceful settlement of disputes, India has invited Japan to participate for the first time in annual naval exercises with the US in the Pacific Ocean. This naval exercise is likely to witness the participation of American nuclear-powered aircraft career USS Carl Vinson. If Japan participates in this 19th edition of Malabar to be held in September-October 2015, it will be interesting to see how China reacts as it had strongly protested against the 2007 edition of Malabar in the Bay of Bengal since it was expanded to include the Australian, Japanese and Singaporean navies as well. Beijing always viewed the multilateral naval exercise as part of a grand security axis in the Asia-Pacific region to ‘contain’ it.

The UPA government had restricted Japan’s participation in the Malabar to just 2009 and 2014 editions since they were held in north-western Pacific. In view of the personal chemistry between Modi and Abe, Japan’s participation in the 2015 edition of naval exercise is likely to exacerbate tensions between India and China. The strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region is undergoing interesting churning.

In the joint press release of the India and Japan Defence Dialogue issued on 30 March 2015, Parikkar and Gen Nakatani briefed each other on the security environment surrounding each country and their respective defence policies. In reviewing the strategic developments relating to international security situation with emphasis on the inter-connected Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, both leaders observed that in the inter-connected Indo-Pacific region, India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership has a key role in maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Other issues on which both leaders agreed are to further enhance the cooperative relations in India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership between the defence authorities. Both leaders also agreed to conduct cooperation and exchanges, including continuing the high-level exchanges and Ministerial meeting on an annual basis. Other issues agreed on were: the Defence Minister of Japan to visit India in 2016, to hold the 4th Vice-Minister/Defence Secretary level Defence Policy Dialogue and the 3rd Vice-Minister/Secretary level “2 plus 2” dialogue in Delhi at the beginning of April, 2015, visits by Service Chiefs on reciprocal basis, continue to promote exchanges on UN Peacekeeping Operations between Centre for UN Peacekeeping (CUNPK) of the Indian Army and Japan Peacekeeping Training and Research Center (JPC) of Joint Staff College, Central Readiness Force (CRF) of Japan Ground Self Defence Force (JGSDF), continue to conduct bilateral exercises between Japan Maritime Force’s and Indian Navy on a regular basis, conduct expert exchanges in Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief and Counter Terrorism between both Indian Army and Japan Ground Self Defence Force (JGSDF), conduct staff talks, professional exchanges of test-pilots between Japan Air-Self Force and Indian Air Force and exchanges between their air transport squadrons, and enhance discussions on future cooperation in defence equipment and technology.

One significant fact underpinning the increased cooperation between India and Japan is how to cope with the challenge coming from an assertive China and prepare for the future challenge. When the Defence Ministry released its annual security analysis two weeks prior to Parikkar’s Japan sojourn, it could not be missed by security analysts that the report expressed concern that China continues to extend its footprint in India’s immediate neighbourhood using diplomatic and military routes much to the discomfort of New Delhi, directly threatening its ambition to establish supremacy in the Indian Ocean region.

Parikkar’s visit gathered significance since it came at a time when Japan was set to introduce a new legislation in the Diet for modifying its constitution from national security and military perspectives. Even while the issue of boundary disputes between China and Japan remain unresolved, reflecting it to be a key factor in Japan’s security calculus, the defence ministry’s report red-flagging the maritime front where Beijing uses political, military and economic engagement for increasing footprint in the Indian Ocean region pleased Tokyo. Also cannot be missed is the significance of Modi’s visit to three Indian Ocean nations – Mauritius, Seychelles and Sri Lanka – and initiating several developmental projects with India’s support underlying purpose of countering Chinese influence in these islands. While this may be music to Beijing, Tokyo could have been mightily pleased.

Also coinciding with the release of defence ministry report, the remarks of the external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj at an international conference in Bhubaneswar on “India and Indian Ocean: Renewing the Maritime Trade and Civilizational linkages” in which she alluded to maritime security as a key dimension of India’s bilateral ties with Indian Ocean rim countries, an indirect reference to India’s response to countering Chinese design in the Indian Ocean region. While she reiterated India’s trilateral maritime security cooperation with Sri Lanka and Maldives, she observed India’s intention to explore possibilities of expanding it to include others in the Indian Ocean region, in particular Seychelles and Mauritius.

It may also be noted here that India too is establishing its naval footprint in the Indian Ocean region to check the Chinese advance. The Indian Navy has been playing an important role in this through increased bilateral/multilateral maritime exercises including MILAN which saw participation from 17 regional navies off the Andaman Coast in February 2014. Indeed, the Indian Ocean carries half of world’s container shipments, one-third of bulk traffic and two-thirds of oil shipments. Ninety per cent of India’s trade by volume and 90 of its oil imports take place through sea. The Indian Ocean region hosts over 40 states and nearly 40 per cent of world population. The region extends from African coast to West Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia and touches Australia and this has remained as the main focus of India’s foreign policy.

As Alfred Mahan said many decades ago, the country that controls the sea controls the world. India therefore recognises the importance of sea and has resolved to fostering cooperation and assisting its maritime neighbours and island states in building maritime security capabilities. Prosperity of all nations is contingent upon safety of sea that remains free from piracy, terrorism and any kinds of threats. This means collective action and cooperation. India being a leading power in the region needs to take the lead to forge partnerships with littoral states to secure peace and stability in the Indian Ocean region so that economic growth in the countries on the littoral of the Indian Ocean is secured and sustained.

Cooperation of all stakeholders in battling non-traditional threats such as natural disasters, piracy, terrorism, illegal fishing, oil spills and effects on climate change are the need of the hour.

Seen against this background, India-Japan cooperation to address to this common challenge confronting the humanity is of huge importance. Seen from this perspective, Parikkar’s recent visit to Japan is yet another major initiative in reaffirming their mutual understanding to cooperate not only in the interests of the two countries but for the region as a whole.

The post India And Japan: Strategic Bonding – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said Saturday it is alarmed by the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen and is calling for an immediate humanitarian pause.

According to ICRS, all air, land and sea routes must be opened without delay for at least 24 hours to enable help to reach people cut off after more than a week of intense air strikes and fierce ground fighting nationwide.

The ICRS said that despite intensive efforts and repeated contact in the last week with all sides, it has not yet been possible to bring in desperately needed medical supplies and personnel.

“We urgently need an immediate halt to the fighting, to allow families in the worst affected areas, such as Aden, to venture out to get food and water, or to seek medical care,” said Robert Mardini, head of the ICRC’s operations in the Near and Middle East. “Our relief supplies and surgical personnel must be allowed to enter the country and safely reach the worst-affected places to provide help. Otherwise, put starkly, many more people will die. For the wounded, their chances of survival depend on action within hours, not days.”

According to the ICRC, hospitals and clinics treating the streams of wounded from across much of Yemen are running low on life-saving medicines and equipment. In many parts of the country, the population is also suffering from fuel and water shortages, while food stocks are quickly depleting. Dozens of people are being killed and wounded every day. The streets of Aden are strewn with dead bodies, and people are afraid to leave their homes.

Over 48 tonnes of urgently needed medicines and surgical kits – enough to treat 2,000 to 3,000 people – are ready to leave for Yemen by boat and plane, pending clearance. The ICRC is also ready to dispatch tents, generators, and supplies to repair the damaged water network. A four-person surgical team is on standby in Djibouti awaiting deployment to the southern port city of Aden, said ICRC.

Cedric Schweizer, who heads the 300-strong ICRC team in Yemen, said that medical teams and rescue workers in Yemen must be allowed to work safely: “They are endeavouring to take the wounded to hospital and retrieve the dead bodies from the streets of Aden in particular so that families can lay their loved ones to rest and give them proper burials.”

The post Yemen: Red Cross Calls For Humanitarian Pause In Attacks To Deliver Aid appeared first on Eurasia Review.

One of the headlines that caught my attention last week read: “60,000 brochures airdropped in Rakka.” Media outlets proudly and jubilantly announced that the US planes dropped 60,000 brochures in Syria, and boasted about the move as an intelligent one. I have always stressed the need for educating people to effectively fight the growing threat of extremism. However, the content of this brochure once again raised the question of how serious USA is about its Middle East policy.

The brochure contained a cartoon, which depicted the self-ascribed Islamic State (IS) or ISIL as a human grinder. The sign on the top right corner read in Arabic: “ISIL collection office,” while the mincing machine had a plate that read “ISIL.” Obviously, this was the new counter-terrorism method of the world’s superpower in this deeply troubled part of the world.

This prompted those familiar with the developments in the region to ask the following questions: Whom the US was telling about the violent methods of IS with these cartoons, when the whole world was already a witness to it? Is this a lesson to IS or is this educating the people there with facts? Or does the US think that this is the right method to fight the “mentalities that give rise to radicalism?”

The region where these brochures were dropped is the city of Rakka, which had been under IS control since a long time. The terrorist organization uses this city as a base in Syria. This city is completely under IS control from its education system to its courts, from its social life to utility services. Therefore, IS holds all the legislative and enforcement powers. Obviously, the residents of the city are aware of IS massacres more than anyone else and have to follow the rules of the region regardless. Therefore, people will not be discovering anything new in those brochures. This method is neither educative, nor informative, nor helpful in resolving the problem.

The real question is that if the US is aware that it will not be able to achieve anything with this method. The debate that started when President Obama asked for a congressional authority to use military power to fight IS, brought him the support of the Republicans but also raised the doubts that “US is still using old methods” in the Middle East. These doubts are reasonable as the US’ Middle East policy since its Afghanistan invasion, had miserably failed in every aspect and brought upon horrible disasters not only to the Middle East but to US itself as well.

However, the 2015 National Security Strategy published by Obama a couple of days before the draft was presented to the Congress, is thought provoking. Obama, in this letter, argued that fighting the ideologies that lead to radicalism should be a top method in order to achieve long-term success against IS and its likes. In other words, Obama offers the idea that we have been championing a long time: “Fighting the causes that give rise to terrorism instead of the terrorists.”

This approach of Obama is clear evidence that the US is very much aware of the real danger in the Mideast as well as the solution to it. Actually, it is difficult not to see it; all the other methods employed to stop terrorism gave rise to new terrorist organizations, made terrorists’ methods more brutal and made not only the countries enemies against each other but also turned Muslim communities in those countries against each other.

The fact that radicalism and terrorism intensified this much as the Middle East is constantly beaten down with rockets, shows that the problem is not about being able to deter or not, but rather, it is about the mentality.

Let us ask this question: Why is the US still using weak and primitive methods instead of an education strategy that will change the problematic mentality, even though Obama clearly pointed out to the necessity of focusing on the mentality?

One fact we encountered and has been clear for a long time: There are deep powers that have influence over the US and that they will never accept a warless Middle East due to their faiths and expectations. As long as this state of mind continues, it is difficult to see the US as a savior, or a superpower to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. Although the US presidents believe that education can solve the problem in the Middle East, the deep states will always continue to make US part of the war.

Even though the spokespersons of the State Department later “made the necessary corrections,” US Secretary of State John Kerry’s words of “having to negotiate with Assad eventually,” need to be also taken into account. These words, which were uttered in an apparent memory loss of the fact that Assad and his supporters shed so much more blood than IS, is a reflection of the deep state policies of the US. The deep state of the US had picked Assad over IS a long time ago thinking that “the evil we know is better than the evil we don’t know” and only for this reason, silently watched the horrific Syrian civil war unfold.

As the countries continue to pursue policies toward each other, the blood of Muslims, the innocent are being shed everyday in the Middle East. Instead of trying to solve that, throwing cartoons out of the warplanes is either not getting the situation right or not taking it seriously. If the US President and his supporters truly understood the situation in the Middle East, then they should describe true Islam and should start a comprehensive education program together with Muslims following the true teachings of Islam. The deep states might use threats, but those who realize the oppression in the Middle East must make peace their true goal and become stronger than those, who are trying to make Middle East a battlefield. This call is especially for Obama.

This article was published also at Arab News.

The post Questioning US Seriousness In Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Joe Dyke

In all the media coverage surrounding the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign in Yemen in recent days, few have stopped to ask a fundamental question: Is it legal?

A week ago, a Saudi-led coalition of countries began bombing Yemen to depose an Iranian-backed rebel group that seized control of the capital Sana’a late last year. The bombings have killed hundreds of people, including many civilians.

The Saudi justification for the attack rested on the claim that it was coming to the aid of a neighbour in need after a specific request from its governing authority – which is legal under international law.

Yemen’s President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi had specifically called for an intervention as rebels from the Houthi movement threatened his rule.

But having overstayed his term in office, resigned once and even fled the country, Hadi’s legitimacy as ruler is shaky, legal experts say, placing the Saudi military action in murky legal territory.

For some observers, it is just the latest in a growing list of military action that evades scrutiny, despite a high civilian death toll.

An unusual case

There are plenty of examples of governments requesting support for a military operation on their territory – most recently when Iraq requested American help in fighting the so-called Islamic State. These types of interventions are considered legal under international law.

But Yemen’s case is far less clear-cut. Hadi had long lost control of large parts of the country. The Houthi rebels – a northern Zaidi sect that had been in on-and-off conflict with the government for years – seized control of Sana’a in September, and the majority of the army was no longer responsive to Hadi.

Hadi’s democratic mandate was also weak. Following Arab Spring protests that drove long-time ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh out of power, he won a 2012 election in which he was the only candidate. His term was due to end with full democratic elections in February 2014. Yet it was extended for a further year without a poll.

In January, even before the formal end of his term, Hadi announced his resignation after the Houthis blockaded his palace.

After later escaping Sana’a for the port city of Aden, he reversed his position, saying it was made under duress. Then, shortly before calling for the attack, he fled the country for Saudi Arabia, where he is now based.

So did he have the authority to call for intervention?

Who is in control?

“It’s actually really tricky to figure out who is the legitimate leader,” said Nathalie Weizmann, senior director of Columbia Law School’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project. “The fact that he resigned could make his consent invalid.”

“If Hadi were still in Sana’a and had a relatively modest rebellion on his hands, there is little doubt he could consent to have other states come in and help him. That is not particularly controversial in international law,” added Ashley Deeks, associate professor at the University of Virginia Law School and a former assistant legal adviser at the US Department of State.

“But it does get increasingly controversial the less control the requester has. At this point, the country seems to have spun out of control,” she told IRIN.

Stuart Casey-Maslen, senior researcher in international law at the University of Pretoria, goes a step further. For him, the ruling authority is “whoever controls the state – represented by territory and the armed forces… In this case that would be [the Houthis].”

But international recognition remains an important broker in geopolitics.

“The fact that most of the world is still referring to Hadi as the president is an indication of the legitimacy of his invitation,” Weizmann, author of a recent article discussing the legality of the Saudi intervention, ultimately concluded.

Legitimacy and justification

The manner in which Hadi justified the invasion only muddies waters further. In a letter to the UN Security Council requesting military intervention, he invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter – which gives countries the right to engage in self-defence, including collective self-defence, when under attack. But Article 51 governs international conflicts, not domestic disputes.

“Article 51 is relevant when a state is using force either in another state’s territory or in response to an attack from outside. That is not the case here,” argued Deeks, author of a recent blog about the Saudi justification for war. “This is the government of Yemen in a conflict with a significant rebel group inside the country – there are no Article 51 issues.”

There are other routes by which Saudi Arabia could legally justify the intervention, but they appear to be non-starters.

The coalition could request a resolution from the 15-member UN Security Council permitting all necessary actions. No such ruling has been passed or appears imminent; and in any case, Russia, a permanent member of the UNSC, would likely veto any such instructions as it opposes the Saudi intervention.

An alternative would be for Saudi Arabia or other neighbouring states to argue that the Houthi takeover presents an imminent threat to their own security – making a defensive attack justifiable under Article 51.

Fernando Carvajal, Yemen analyst at the University of Exeter in the UK, said Saudi Arabia has tried to present the war in exactly this manner. “Saudi Arabia has framed this conflict as a sub-regional threat to its own security.”

But he and others say the Houthi aggression, as yet, does not represent a legitimate enough threat to neighbouring countries to justify intervention, especially as other techniques such as sanctions or mediation have not yet been tried.

As such, the legality of the Saudi campaign is likely to continue to rely upon the questionable legitimacy of an exiled ruler.

Responsibilities, no matter what

While the legal justification for the war may be in dispute, the responsibility of those involved to protect civilians isn’t.

Here, too, the Saudi-led coalition is running into allegations of illegality.

Several legal experts IRIN spoke to expressed concern that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) had been violated.

On Monday, a coalition airstrike allegedly struck a camp for displaced Yemenis. Human Rights Watch said the attack “heightened concerns” that Saudi Arabia and its partners were not sufficiently protecting civilians.

“The policy needs to come from the top – from Saudi political and military leadership – that protecting civilians is a priority. That then stretches down the chain of command,” said Sahr Muhammedally, a Middle East expert at the Center for Civilians in Conflict. “These countries may well be well-equipped but they may not have the best guidance and training on protecting civilians.”

The United States is providing logistical support to the bombing campaign, and should use this position to push Saudi Arabia to respect IHL, Muhammedally added.

While residents of the Mazraq camp in northern Yemen told IRIN no military targets were nearby, other reports have suggested there was an armed convoy on a nearby road.

Casey-Maslen cautioned that such killings were not necessarily violations of IHL if they could be proven to be a “genuine mistake”. Prosecutions of IHL violations are notoriously difficult.

The post Is The Saudi War On Yemen Legal? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

The nuclear deal is now a reality and should be dealt with as a fait accompli. Even before getting into the details of the deal between Iran and the US, we should be aware that significant historical change is looming.

The question is: Which direction will it take Iran and take the Arab world to?

Fully understanding and analyzing this deal will take a little time, as it needs considering various aspects. This includes the deal’s consequences on Iran itself and countries in the region. This deal might also ignite an arms race, most probably nuclear. We should assess its impact on the Arab world’s ties with the West and on the ongoing sectarian conflicts. The door behind which Iran was imprisoned by the world is about to open.

However, we cannot be certain which direction the free Iran will now take, especially that we had complained about this when Iran was still controlled.

Indeed, it’s wrong to build policies on assumptions and analyze them as proven facts. The agreement may be a victory for the Iranian regime over its rivals within and without, but it may turn out to be a submissive deal. If halting Iran’s nuclear project, for the moment, results in just the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions and setting Iran free to become a major regional power, we will be then embarking on a more serious crisis.

Nevertheless, if halting Iran’s nuclear project results in the freezing of Iran’s militarized nuclear activities, controlled by the lifting of western sanctions, and an end to political antagonism against Iran, then we would be witnessing positive progress. It would mean that Iran has finally surrendered and is poised to become, like any other peace-loving country in the region such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The difference between the two outcomes is huge. The majority of observers I have talked to tend to expect the first scenario, which means that Iran has accepted to abandon its military nuclear project in exchange for the lifting of restrictions on its armament and conventional military activity: This is the part that worries the Arab countries. As for Israel, it is afraid of the nuclear side. It believes that this deal would stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb, but it does not stop it from remaining “qualified” to acquire nukes in future. This deal allows Iran to keep its nuclear production chain. It will still have the knowledge and tools but it will be under supervision so as not to produce a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s nuclear submission to the West would unleash its confined desires. In order to understand that idea, I will compare the Obama administration’s policy toward the Syrian regime’s crimes. It was against the use of gas and chemical weapons but did not pay the same attention to around a quarter of a million people killed by explosive barrels, guns and tanks. Now, Iran is outside its prison and will be able to buy advanced weapons, build oil facilities, trade in dollars, and at a later stage, it may be partly or fully allied to the West, similar to its cooperation with the West in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This change could open up the appetite of the Iranian regime, which does not need a nuclear bomb to control large key areas. The regime suffers from a “major regional country” complex and might have plans for further adventures.

This deal might enhance its influence on the external level but won’t necessarily serve the regime inside Iran. Ayatollah’s regime has weakened over time. The deal requires the openness of the regime, however Iran is not ready for it yet and could face what happened to the Soviet Union after the deals to reduce its nuclear arsenal and be cooperative with the West: It rapidly collapsed. The other possibility is that the deal serves a regime that has been weakened by 30 years of isolation and is now politically drained; the deal would then give the Iranian regime the kiss of life. But most probably the agreement will slowly change Iran, similarly to what happened in China, where the communist structure governed the country without communism.

The post Mideast’s Altering Political Landscape – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As Easter revives the Christian spirit, which contributes to achieving social justice and reconciliation, it also gives an important lesson for our own advancement as a nation, said Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena in his Easter message.

Easter stands out as the most important celebration for Christians, as it marks the conquest of death through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the President added.

The message further stated The conquest of death, shown by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, gives Christians the hopeful message of reaching eternal joy beyond death, by following the Christian teachings of love towards all and the spirit of sacrifice.

Following is the full text of the President’s Easter message:

Easter stands out as the most important celebration for Christians, as it marks the conquest of death through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The festivities of Easter bring to a joyous conclusion the period of Lent, when Christians followed the traditions of repentance, self-sacrifice, charity and religious observances that recalled the suffering, agony and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, who sacrificed his life for all humanity.

The conquest of death, shown by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, gives Christians the hopeful message of reaching eternal joy beyond death, by following the Christian teachings of love towards all and the spirit of sacrifice. This commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ, in addition to giving spiritual strength to individuals, also helps to build a better society based on love, forgiveness, understanding and tolerance.

As Easter revives the Christian spirit, which contributes to achieving social justice and reconciliation, it also gives an important lesson for our own advancement as a nation.

As Christians of Sri Lanka join followers of their faith the world over today, they also send a salutary message of goodwill and understanding to all Sri Lankans.

Amidst this spirit of joyous sharing, I wish all Christians a Happy and Peaceful Easter!

The post Sirisena: Spirit Of Easter Shows Path For Sri Lanka’s Advancement As Nation – Statement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena will leave for Pakistan on Sunday for a three day official visit at the invitation of Pakistan Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.

President Sirisena will hold bilateral discussions with the Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other Pakistani dignitaries.

The two sides are due to sign agreements aimed at strengthening the political and economic ties between the two countries.

President Sirisena’s state visit to Pakistan will provide a new dynamism to the bilateral engagement , building upon the excellent relations which exist between the two countries.

The post Sri Lanka President Sirisena Travels Pakistan On Sunday For Three-Day Official Visit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

Oppressive Government will not last very long: Sheikh Imran Abdulla of Adaalath Party

In another of those predetermined trials, former Defence Minister Nazim was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment “for importing and possessing a fire arm.”

In an officially leaked information, it was given out that the pen drive recovered from the house of Nazim gave indication that Nazim was plotting a coup to harm President Yameen, Commissioner of Police Hussein Waheed and the Tourism Minister Ahmed Adeeb.

No concrete evidence was given by the prosecution side as to how the poor defendant Nazim with one pistol and three rounds could have carried out a coup. It is said that even the fingerprints on the pistol and that of the accused Nazim or his relatives were not matched. Only 2 of the 37 witnesses called for Defence were examined and the rest rejected. Nazim’s request for immediate transfer to a speciality hospital for treatment was rejected. All this was done by the same three judges who sentenced former President Nasheed to 13 years of imprisonment earlier.

As expected there has been an international outcry against the gross violation of international norms. The US expressed its concern over the sentence.

Meanwhile, Nasheed’s lawyers have not been provided with all the documents relating to his sentence to enable them to file an appeal. Except for a ‘summary’ of the judgement, no other record has been provided and the deadline of ten days from the date of sentence had already passed. Nasheed has therefore decided not to file an appeal in the absence of all the documents. At any rate he knows that he is not going to get any justice from the tyrannical judicial system of Maldives.

The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Zerd Ra’ad Al Hussein and UN Special Rapporteur for independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriella Knaul have condemned the apparent lack of due process of law. Gabriella called it “a mockery of constitution” and suggested that the verdict may have been pre determined.

The International Court of Jurists observed that the trial was marred by ‘gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights to which Maldives had acceded in 2006.

Among the violations enlisted by the ICJ were

• Two of the three judges have testified in the 2012 investigation of the same incident and therefore should not have presided over the trial
• Demand for legal representatives for Nasheed’s hearing on 23rd January was rejected by the court.
• Demand of the defence witnesses full access and evidence of State witnesses were rejected by the court.
• Opportunity for the Defence Lawyers to consult Defendant Nasheed was not given.
• The demand of the Defence to call its own witnesses was rejected by the court.
• The Supreme Court arbitrarily reduced the appeal time from 90 days to 10 days just six weeks before the trial.
• The Court had not released to Nasheed’s Defence team all the records pertaining to the trial to file an appeal

Protests are going on regularly in the country, particularly in Male and Adu, the two major towns. The protesters and the MDP leaders are being arbitrarily arrested and made to given an undertaking that they will not participate in the protests for stipulated periods of time. Those who refuse are being given extended imprisonment by the criminal courts though there is no legal basis for such actions.

On 20th March, the MDP carried out major protests across the country under the banner “Maldivians for Justice.”

Following this, hundreds offered Friday prayers and said “Brutality reigns in our country-May our country be saved from the brutality of our rulers and may we be taken to safer shores.”

The Home Minister who himself had accused the present President Yameen as one in league with thugs and drug dealers asked people not politicise prayers in the Mosque, forgetting that it was the ruling coalition which was using religion to meet their political ends.

With Gasim silenced ( he has been asked to pay a fine of 100 million dollars within a month as a fine from his Villa group) it was the Adhaalth party chief, Sheikh Imran Abdulla who has been vociferously opposing the “brutality” of President Yameen . He has left the ruling coalition and has had the courage to join the opposition MDP to bring an end to this brutality. The four points he made were- Jailing Nasheed, Framing former Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim, Targeting Gasim Ibrahim of Jumhooree and the unconstitutional removal of Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim and Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein.

One may wonder what India is doing besides cancelling PM’s visit to Maldives in the Indian Ocean tour he recently undertook. It is said that the Indian High Commissioner met Gayoom (who many consider as the Chief Villain) and discussed perhaps a way out of the present mess created by President Yameen. It is doubtful whether such approaches to Gayoom would have any effect.

The post Maldives: Judicial Tyranny Continues – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Muhammad Umar*

It was quite refreshing to hear the man who “conceived and articulated” Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, talk so freely and honestly about the current status of the program and its possible future.

The man I am referring to is of course the now retired, Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai. Speaking to an audience of over 800 nuclear experts from around the world at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace 2015 International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington DC, two weeks ago, the General made very clear that Pakistan’s nuclear program was aimed at ensuring security and stability in the region, and was entirely in response to India’s 1974 nuclear detonation.

Unlike India, Pakistan was compelled to develop its nuclear weapons program out of concerns for the future security of the country.

General Kidwai spoke without hesitation, he said, the complexities of the current global environment have created a “conflict ridden world,” and there seems to be a revival of the cold war in this new multipolar world.

In South Asia, he said, there is a need for strong socio-economic development for peace to exist. General Kidwai referred to this as “the obvious,” to which he said, South Asia remains oblivious to.

Before we can talk of peace, there is a need to focus on improving the economy, education, health, and other social sectors; these he said were the prerequisites for an enabling environment, which would aid in starting the peace process in South Asia.

In not so many words, the General pointed out the fact that each time Pakistan has made an attempt at normalizing ties with India, the Indians have responded by violating the ceasefire agreement on the line of control in Kashmir. The General raised a couple of very important questions, how can we unshackle ourselves from the past? If we are not able to enjoy extended periods of peace, how can we develop our economies? He aptly responded to the questions he posed, he said it is “common sense” that conflicts need to be resolved, and leaders in the region need to “rise to the highest levels of statesmanship,” and recognize “the obvious.”

“There is no running away from the stark reality – conflict management, leading to conflict resolution” is required, he said. “It is not revisionism. It is common sense. It is common interest. It is self interest.”

The General warned that if leaders in South Asia do not wake up to this reality now, then we will continue living like we have for the past 68 years, for another 68 years, “condemning our 1.5 billion people in perpetuity to hunger, filth and squalor.”

This is the time, the General reiterated; both India and Pakistan have democratically elected leaderships with a strong mandate for peace. Pakistan and India have made war “as an instrument of policy near-redundant.”

General Kidwai referred to President Clinton’s “vision thing”, and urged leaderships in India and Pakistan to clench this opportunity for a chance at lasting peace and stability in the region. “This just might be the historic opportunity of a lifetime waiting for the two leaderships to grasp.” He said, “No zero-sum games. No one-upmanship. History and circumstances beckon.”

There is no space for conflicts, no matter how limited, in a “nuclearized South Asia.” Leaders in India and Pakistan need to show guts, vision, like that of Nixon and Chou En Lai, and Anwar Saadat and Menachim Begin.

India behaved “naively,” thinking that there was space for a limited conflict, and they proved it by introducing the Cold Start Doctrine, which meant rapid mobilization of Indian troops into Pakistani territory. Along with the introduction of the Cold Start Doctrine, India had developed the Parhaar missile, a tactical nuclear weapon with a range of 150km, meant to provide cover for an invading Indian army. As a response Pakistan was forced to develop short-range battlefield ready nuclear weapons, also “dubbed tactical nuclear weapons.”

“This was Pakistan’s defensive deterrence response to an offensive Indian doctrine.” The General was honest and blunt; he made his intentions for creating an enabling peaceful environment clear. General Kidwai said India’s attempt to do “one better on the escalatory rung,” the Indian’s called for “massive retaliation” against Pakistan, “without thinking through the consequences in a nuclear parity situation.” He said, it is time India gets real.

Referring to his 15 years spent as the Director-General, Special Plans Division, the General said he worked very hard with the help of his colleagues “to prevent war, deter aggression, and thereby for peace, howsoever uneasy to prevail.”

The General highlighted the current military stalemate between India and Pakistan, and urged friends in the West to help Pakistan and India achieve peace. The General said that the West should take an even-handed non-discriminatory approach to South Asia, and that one-sided and discriminatory overtures risk aggravating the delicate strategic balance in the region, indicating that American support for India into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and their exemption from the same group “are proving to be counter-productive, and will never be acceptable to Pakistan, and will in no way contribute to peace and stability” in South Asia.

Before concluding, General Kidwai once again, whole-heartedly called on leaderships in India, Pakistan, and the West to promote peace in South Asia, warning friends in the West that they should “desist from taking short sighted measures today that would be regretted later.”

General Kidwai ended his frank conversation by assuring the international community that even in this troubling environment, Pakistan’s nuclear assets were well guarded and safe. He said, you have all your national technical means of verifying this to be true, “but you might also take my solemn word for it.”

It was such a pleasure to hear General Khalid Kidwai speak so openly and freely about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The General was genuine in calling for peace in South Asia, and did not hesitate to discuss any part of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

The political leaderships in India and Pakistan must realize that it is to engage in a sincere peaceful dialogue. Being the larger of the two nations, the responsibility essentially falls on the Indian leadership to engage Pakistan in dialogue and work towards resolving all outstanding disputes, in hopes of achieving lasting peace.

*The writer is an Assistant Professor at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad. He tweets @umarwrites.

The post An Honest Conversation About Pakistan’s Nukes – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Let us try to establish analyses and outcomes for the appearance of media (il)literacy within South East Europe, and through it, of the most controversial, but extremely respected intellectual dissident in the last decade – Noam Chomsky, who has compiled a list of the ten most common and effective strategies resorted to by “hidden” agendas  to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.

The efforts of USAID with regards to media literacy should have been addresses, but, why then has nothing happened since they started teaching the local people in the Balkans? Maybe because they did not want to listen the above mentioned USA dissident:

1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction aimed at diverting public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, via the technique of flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. Distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

2015 – Instead of fighting against poverty:

Bosnia and Herzegovina – implementation of the October elections 2014 – it took them almost five months to do so – who will get the power (read: money and the control of the resources) – while at the same time the protests of workers does not stop in Tuzla, Travnik, Bihać, Zavidovići, Banja Luka….

Croatia – will the Minister of Defense resign from the post because of the protests of the war veterans in tents in front of his office? Almost six months like soap opera while at the same time every town in Croatia slowly but surely gets so called “humanitarian market shops” where the prices are lower than in the real one! Why?

Macedonia – Almost 22,000 people were followed by secret services – opposition leader said last month (listening and recording their phone conversation) while the country is falling into the chaos of corruption and poverty.

Serbia – Vojislav Šešelj (who just a few days ago has been called back to Den Haag at the International Tribunal to continue 12 years of trial for War Crimes) burned a Croatian flag in the centre of Belgrade (Serbia) on April 1 giving more time to the local (and their neighbors) politicians to spend more months (what is the next?) talking about this political and human clown who said that he will come to Croatia, but on abattle tank?! – All this is happening while people in Serbia are losing their minds because of poverty!

Montenegro – Every now and then somebody dies in the buses driving on the Europe’s worst roads on Montenegrin mountains and while that happens (within last 30 years, almost twice a year a major crash happens) nobody from the Government has done anything to fix the problem, but talking about the “Sutorina” issue is more important than to talk about how to fix the roads within the smallest Republic of ex-Yugoslavia. Where is the poverty here? Just walk on the streets of Podgorica and you will see how many beggars there are.

Indeed, the strategy of distraction exists very deeply within the area of Balkan peninsula – sorry – of the region of South-East Europe – sorry – ex Yugoslavia. Again, sorry – within the area of the lost mind and the area of organized anarchy.

Media illiteracy exists so much that the people in every one of the above mentioned countries are fed up with the emptiness of time dedicated to listening, watching and participating in the media by “the problems” while being robbed by (s)elected leaders.

How to become media literate?

1. By reading through the media, rather than reading with them.
2. By trying to see what is behind the scene because whoever talks about the conspiracy is the one who creates it.
3. By understanding that all the people are red below/under their skin, regardless if they are politicians and/or just the people.

I am distracted with this. Are you?

P.S: Next time I will write on “Create problems, and then offer solutions”

The post South-East Europe On The Edge Of Civilization: Depending Who You Ask – Media (Il)literacy – Essay appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says under the mutual understanding reached between Tehran and the P5+1 in Switzerland, the Islamic Republic will keep its peaceful nuclear program without shutting down any facilities.

Zarif said that the resolutions issued by the UN Security Council (UNSC) against Iran will be all annulled following the endorsement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a UNSC resolution.

“You are aware that all the six UN Security Council resolutions call for an end to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, a halt in Arak heavy reactor activities and the closure of Fordow facility among many other illegitimate demands. However, none of these demands will materialize,” Zarif said.

He added that the Natanz nuclear facility will also continue enriching uranium and there will be no stop or suspension in its activities “even for a single day.”

The top Iranian diplomat said based on the joint statement, limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities will be in place only for 10 years although there had been talks of more restrictions on the country’s enrichment work for a longer period of time.

Iran has said from the beginning that it would never implement the “unjust” and “illegal” UNSC resolutions, stated Zarif, reassuring that once the JCPOA is adopted as a UNSC resolution, it will render null and void all of the council’s previous nuclear-related resolutions against Iran.

Zarif stressed that all countries, including the US, should abide by the final agreement when it is finalized, adding that “under international law the US government is obliged to remove the sanctions at once.”

Zarif also rejected certain statements about the gradual removal of anti-Iran sanctions, saying the claims run counter to the current agreements between the negotiating sides.

Iran’s Foreign Minister has alos praised the Iranian people for their resistance and steadfastness during the course of the negotiations over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, saying that such conduct proved that the Iranian nation will not compromise on their interests.

“Through resistance and steadfastness, the people of Iran conveyed that they will never bow to pressure. The people of Iran show resistance in the face of pressures. One more thing is that Iranian people proved, as stated by Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, that they favor wisdom, negotiations, dialogue and constructive proposals,” Zarif said.

“They are great people, who are ready to scrutinize and watch out closely all the attitudes and how they are treated. So, those who have not left a good record behind can seize the chance to correct their past mistakes,” he added.

Zarif said the final agreement over Iran’s nuclear program will be based on the interests and requirements of the Iranian people, stressing that the United Nations Security Council will endorse such an accord into practice.

The top Iranian diplomat also criticized the West for its approach against Iran over the past years.

“Iran has been the victim of many, many broken promises in the past. We want to be sure that if promises are broken again, we will be safe, and our national interests will not be forgotten or compromised. That is why we have put an elaborate mechanism that will not allow excuses to simply lead to a reversal of the system, but provide the necessary confidence to all participants that they can continue with the implementation of the deal,” Zarif said.

He hailed the mutual understanding reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia, China, France, Britain, and the US – plus Germany as “a major step forward.”

“We have stopped a cycle that was not in the interests of anybody… I hope that at the end of this process, we will all show that through dialogue and engagement with dignity we can in fact resolve problems, open new horizons, and move forward,” the Iranian foreign minister pointed out.

The top Iranian diplomat expressed hope that the final comprehensive deal over Iran’s nuclear program will be based on a win-win approach.

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator also said international recognition of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has been the greatest achievement of the nuclear talks between Tehran and the P5+1 group in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Abbas Araqchi, the deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, pointed to the joint statement, saying it officially recognizes Iran’s nuclear program.

“According to this statement, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program will be credited and recognized internationally, and this is our greatest achievement,” Araqchi said.

He said that the statement was the result of nearly 16 months of negotiations, adding that Iran has managed to achieve the “basic demands” it was pursuing in the course of the talks.

The senior diplomat said that Iran fulfilled the opposite side’s demand in the negotiations, which was confidence-building over the peaceful nature of Tehran’s nuclear program.

In return, Iran’s “basic and legitimate demands,” the most significant of which was the international recognition of the country’s nuclear program, were met in the negotiations, Araqchi added.

According to the joint statement, none of Iran’s nuclear facilities will be stopped, shut down or suspended and Iran’s nuclear activities in all its nuclear facilities including Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak will continue.

The senior Iranian nuclear negotiator said all sanctions against Tehran will be lifted under a mutual understanding reached between Iran and the P5+1 countries in Switzerland immediately after the a final deal goes into force.

All economic and financial sanctions as well as all resolutions issued by the UN Security Council (UNSC) against Iran will be null and void on the first day of the implementation of a final agreement to be reached between Iran and the six global powers, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Abbas Araqchi said.

The removal of Iran from six binding UNSC resolutions was an “unprecedented” measure and an outcome of the Iranian nation’s resistance in a full-fledged political, economic and security battle over the past 10 years, said Araqchi, who is a chief Iranian nuclear negotiator.

The recognition of Iran’s legitimate and legal nuclear program was the key achievement of the Lausanne agreement, he noted.

Araqchi emphasized that the world now pursues a respectful attitude to Iran “because the language of threat and sanctions is not acceptable to us and the world has come to the conclusion that no threat and sanctions will work on the Iranian nation.”

“Iran’s nuclear program, including enrichment [activities], has been recognized in the recent statement in Lausanne and it is not seen as a threat anymore,” the Iranian negotiator said.

He emphasized that both sides should live up to all their commitments under the Lausanne agreement, saying Iran reserves the right to reverse its position if the other side does not keep its side of the bargain

“We will continue our enrichment activities in Natanz [nuclear site]. We have no plans to build new enrichment sites for the long years ahead because Natanz meets our demands,” he pointed out.

He expressed hope that further negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries would come to fruition before July 1.

The post Iran Says No Nuclear Facility To Be Shut Down Or Suspended appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abbas Maleki*

In December 2013 and at the end of another round of nuclear talks between Iran and the member states of the so-called P5+1 group, the negotiating sides decided that to find solutions for the comprehensive settlement of Iran’s nuclear case, they should hold meetings in order to achieve two final goals: firstly, to prove that Iran’s nuclear program is of a purely peaceful nature, and secondly, to have all sanctions against the Islamic Republic removed. The text that was read out in the evening of April 2, 2015, at the Federal Institute of Technology in the Swiss city of Lausanne, regardless of what we may call it, marked a major step toward finding an ultimate solution to Iran’s nuclear case. According to Iran’s Mehr new agency, and as put by an Iranian diplomat, the solutions included in that statement are not legally binding and are merely good as conceptual guidelines for the formulation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Therefore, that statement was only the bedrock for the JCPOA whose formulation will start in the near future on the basis of the aforesaid solutions. Consequently, the legal analysis of the JCPOA should be left for a later time. In my opinion, however, technical assessment of the JCPOA is also both important and necessary, which undoubtedly will be carried out by experts in the field of nuclear technology. There are, however, a number of marginal points that I would like to raise here:

1. People, who have had the experience of working with non-Iranians, know that negotiations do not usually progress smoothly. This is especially true if you are working with non-Iranians who come from different nationality and cultural backgrounds. You can even perceive this difficulty by focusing on different conducts of various countries’ delegations in front of media cameras. For example, Ms. [Federica] Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, went toward correspondents after disembarking from her car and asked the person, who was supposed to hold an umbrella on her head, not to do so. Perhaps, she did this because some reporters did not have umbrellas. On the opposite, the Chinese delegation is constantly avoiding the media crews and its members are not willing to talk to reporters. The French Foreign Minister [Laurent] Fabius does not usually smile during interviews while [his German counterpart, Frank-Walter] Steinmeier generally appears optimistic. The US Secretary of State John Kerry is willing to project an image of himself, which would show that although he understands the Iranian side and their concerns, he also cares about the United States’ obligations toward other countries in the Middle East. [Sergei] Lavrov from Russia says he is not being paid to be optimistic. On the whole, it is very difficult to interact with such different persons and this is why we should appreciate the efforts made by Iranian diplomats in this regard.

2. The Lausanne statement includes a number of ambiguities as a result of which it has been interpreted differently by politicians in different countries. However, regardless of legal and technical issues, it seems that the statement is meant to send a very important message that should be taken into account, which is its psychological impact on the market. There is no doubt that the general course of negotiations in Lausanne has made global media reach the conclusion that sanctions imposed against Iran and Iranians are going to be removed. I, however, think that the issue of sanctions needs broader negotiations in view of diverse origins of those sanctions. Some sanctions have been imposed through resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council; some sanctions arise from decision of the European Union; there are sanctions that have been considered by the US Congress; other sanctions emanate from decisions of the US president; and finally there are sanctions that have been imposed by third countries as a result of all the aforesaid restrictive measures. However, there is no reason to wait for the lifting of sanctions. I believe that in any economic sector, establishing relations with similar companies in other countries should be tried once again, especially companies in those countries that have powerful economic and financial motivations to engage in trade with Iran. For example, we can negotiate purchase of copper with a Congolese company while discussing tea and tractor sales with Kenyan firms. Even within the 28-member European Union, those members with weaker economies are in dire need of expanding their foreign trade. Therefore, the existing opportunity should be taken advantage of in the best possible manner to implement new projects in regional countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Republic of Azerbaijan, Central Asia and Oman. Regional economic activities may sometimes not be as profitable as economic activities within Iran and this is exactly when the government should help exporters of engineering services.

3. In the energy sector, Iran is a country with great advantages with regard to most energy carriers. If, for any reason, Iran’s nuclear activities are going to become limited for a number of years, there is no reason why we should not turn our attention to renewable energy resources as well as fossil fuels. A country with the biggest proven natural gas reserves in the world and having the world’s fourth proven oil reserves should not be a pure importer when it comes to one of these reserves. Up to the present time, officials in charge of Iran’s oil and gas reserves put their hope in the removal of sanctions and subsequent expansion of cooperation with major international oil companies. Perhaps, up to the 20 years ago, a few world-renowned oil companies controlled the lion’s share of oil and gas trade across the world. However, like other commercial sectors, the number of small and medium enterprises active in the field of oil and gas in the world has exceeded one million. Although these companies do not have the capital and technology owned by major corporations, on the whole, they can help the Islamic Republic of Iran achieve the goals it has been pursuing according to its national energy policy.

4. Although the Lausanne statement has noted that the European Union (EU) will remove economic and financial sanctions imposed in relation to Iran’s nuclear program, it should not be forgotten that the EU has considered its sanctions against Iran as “restrictive measures” during past years, not mere economic sanctions. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the EU countries will immediately lift sanctions against Iran. As a result, those Iranian persons and companies that have filed lawsuits with European courts against EU sanctions should follow up on their legal actions. Such Iranian companies as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and universities like Sharif University of Technology, which have been more than once put on the list of EU’s sanctions, should seek judicial measures against those sanctions.

5. As for the role of the United Nations, the statement says, “A new UN Security Council resolution will endorse the JCPOA, terminate all previous nuclear-related resolutions, and incorporate certain restrictive measures for a mutually agreed period of time.” I personally believe that any role by the United Nations should be played with due attention to Russia. Russia is not willing to back those resolutions that are reversible. For example, the Security Council can adopt a resolution to terminate all previous resolutions, which restricted the activities of the Iranian government and nationals in relation to the nuclear case. As mentioned in the Lausanne statement, Western countries are willing for the new resolution to be drafted in such a way that if Iran went back on its obligations, the previous sanctions could be automatically reinstalled against the Islamic Republic. This method will not be compatible with the interests of Russia and China. Russia wants to have the opportunity in any case to be able to make a new decisions and if it is opposed to any issue, express its opposition by using its veto right. On the other hand, Russians have emphasized that they are opposed to any kind of sanctions being adopted against countries through the Security Council mechanism in order to prevent a similar resolution being adopted against them in the case of, for example, the Crimean Peninsula. I want to reach the conclusion that adopting a resolution to terminate previous resolution of the UN Security Council will need more time. This is true both because the Security Council resolutions are not simply related to Iran’s nuclear case, but also touch upon other issues as Iran’s missile and space technologies. Another reason is that the positions of Russia and China should be taken into account when adopting such a resolution.

6. To make a long story short, Iran is a country with enough capacities and potential to turn into a developed country on the strength of its skilled human power and natural resources. The process that the country is going through to meet this end requires strenuous efforts and endeavors by people from all walks of life. We have apparently been offered with an opportunity to work more.

*Abbas Maleki
Associate Professor at Sharif University of Technology’s Faculty of Energy, Tehran

The post Iran Nuclear Deal An Opportunity To Strive Toward Large-Scale Goals – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.