By Anand Kumar

Confrontational politics is not new in Bangladesh. But it seems to have intensified in the last few months, especially after the unofficial main opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), decided to launch protests on the first anniversary of the 2014 parliamentary elections in order to force the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government to step down. The BNP considers the January 5, 2014 parliamentary elections as illegal and hence the government in power as illegitimate. Since January 2015, Bangladesh has been facing continuous political turmoil which has cost the country at least 0.6 percent of its gross domestic product. It was hoped that the Mayoral elections in Dhaka and Chittagong that were held on 28 April 2015 and in which the BNP had decided to participate would resolve the ongoing political confrontation. Unfortunately, that did not happen and the BNP once again chose to boycott these elections a couple of hours after the polling had started.

Although local elections are not supposed to be fought on political lines, political parties generally give their blessings to candidates whom they consider close to themselves and their ideology. This time too it was no different, with both the Awami League and BNP choosing to put up candidates for two city corporation posts in Dhaka and one for the city corporation in the port city of Chittagong. There were approximately 2.35 million voters in Dhaka north, 1.87 million in Dhaka south and 1.81 million in Chittagong city.

Awami League candidates emerged victorious in these elections. Annisul Huq and Sayeed Khokon were elected mayor of Dhaka North and Dhaka South councils, respectively, while Nasir Uddin has been elected as mayor of Chittagong city. Most of the councillors are also from the Awami League.

Although these elections were less violent, yet they proved to be equally controversial. The BNP alleges that voter intimidation and ballot stuffing took place. These charges have however been refuted by election officials who claim that they witnessed no irregularities. The chief election commissioner, Kazi Rakibuddin Ahmad, termed the elections “largely free and fair.” Awami League officials also denied accusations of intimidation, which they believe is the strategy of the BNP to undermine the elections. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself pointed out that the elections could not have been rigged considering that BNP candidates managed to get so many votes.

What the election highlighted is the fact that the BNP is in political disarray. This was seen during several stages of the elections. The party had endorsed the candidature of the heavyweight Abdul Awal Mintoo from the Dhaka north seat. But Mintoo appears to have made a deliberate minor mistake while filing his nomination papers so as to promote his son Tabith who was hardly known. The lacklustre electioneering by Tabith failed to enthuse the voters. Similarly, Mirza Abbas, who was mayor of undivided Dhaka City Corporation in 1991-92, was endorsed as the BNP candidate for Dhaka South. But he too could not carry out his electioneering properly because of fear of arrest as he was accused in a number of cases.

The BNP could not depute capable poll agents for the candidates it had supported. Many poll agents did not turn up in time. Party leader Moudud Ahmed however claimed that all agents of BNP-backed mayoral candidates were driven out of all polling stations after a few hours of polling. The poor response from the BNP grassroot workers during the election campaigns and on voting day itself greatly frustrated the Chittagong candidate Manjur. This frustration further increased when the BNP high-command suddenly decided to boycott the elections. This prompted Manjur to quit politics. Awami League leaders say that Manjur’s decision to quit politics indicates that he is unhappy with the state of the BNP as a political party and not with the way elections were conducted.

The BNP claims that it participated in the city polls to restore democracy but later boycotted them because of vote rigging. It further claims that vote rigging has shown that restoring democracy is not possible under the present government. Awami League leaders like Mahbubul Alam Hanif reject this allegation and say that the BNP pulled out of polls because it anticipated defeat. They also think that it was a pre-planned move of the BNP which wanted to use it to launch a fresh movement. A section in Bangladesh believes that the BNP was actually never serious about these elections. This was obvious from the way they went about these elections.

The Election Commission has not come out with the voter turnout figure. But it is believed that voters came out in less numbers because an atmosphere of fear prevailed. This was particularly evident in the turnout of female voters. But for this state of affairs a large part of blame should be borne by the BNP which has been waging a violent protest movement for the last few months resulting in the death of nearly 120 people. BNP protestors used petrol bombs to attack vehicles which killed innocent people. They also have been carrying out transport blockades and strikes with the objective of toppling the government. In addition, the early withdrawal of the BNP from the elections also affected the turnout.

This round of Mayoral elections in Bangladesh has highlighted the need to strengthen democratic institutions such as the Election Commission. The country in recent times has moved away from the caretaker government system (CTG) and the EC is supposed to hold parliamentary and local elections in future. This would require a robust Election Commission that enjoys the confidence of all political parties. In fact, both the ruling party and the opposition should work towards this objective. The opposition should not remain adamant about the restoration of the Caretaker government system, which can also be misused if the ruling party so desires. Such misuse of the caretaker government has occurred in the past, in 2006 for instance, when the BNP was heading the four-party ruling coalition.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BangladeshMayoralElection_akumar_010515.html

The post Bangladesh: Mayoral Elections Unable To Resolve Political Deadlock – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An international archaeological team is investigating an historic site devastated by conflict in Lebanon.

They have demonstrated it is possible to obtain original and important information from heritage sites that have been devastated by conflict.

Working at the Graeco-Roman temple and village site of Hosn Niha, high in the central Biqa’ Valley of Lebanon, the team led by Dr Paul Newson (Department of History and Archaeology, American University of Beirut) and Dr Ruth Young (School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester) have described the value of exploring conflict damaged sites in the leading archaeological journal Antiquity.

Dr Newson said, “Shocking recent footage showing apparent damage to world heritage and archaeological sites at Hatra and Nimrud in Iraq include scenes of the bulldozing of irreplaceable buildings. Aerial photographs of living ancient cities such as Homs and Aleppo in Syria taken before the war have been compared to images from the last few months, and the extent of damage to houses, mosques, and heritage structures is brutal and widespread.

“Of course the human cost in any conflict is the first and highest priority; however, archaeology and heritage are extremely vulnerable to attack and damage during conflict and conflict continues to inflict damage on numerous sites, both large and small, around the world today.”

Dr Young added, “Rather than simply ignoring sites that have been badly damaged by conflict, we have taken on the challenge of investigating a site previously considered too badly damaged by conflict to warrant systematic archaeological investigation.

“Our research at the Graeco-Roman temple and village site of Hosn Niha in Lebanon has shown that with the right methods and questions, it is possible to obtain a great deal of original and important information from sites that have suffered badly through conflict.

“Using a range of up-to-date surface survey methods we were able to answer some important questions about the site. The first of these was an accurate assessment of site damage, what had been done and where, and the effects of various actions, be it bulldozing or clandestine looting of the site. Through this exercise, we learned that bulldozing and other damage actions had effectively erased the heart of the settlement, but significantly sized sections of settlement beyond remained quite well preserved. From recording and collecting surface finds from across the settlement area as a whole we were able to begin to understand both the morphology and development history of the settlement.”

The authors suggest the settlement was firmly established by the 1st century CE with a dense core area and more dispersed courtyard dwellings on the periphery. By the early Islamic period the settlement appears less robust and permanent occupation may have ended for a time. Surprisingly, they also recovered some evidence for an early medieval re-occupation of the site, perhaps a fortified farmhouse. They acknowledge the initial results are preliminary and that more research and analysis of the results is on-going.

Hosn Niha, along with many other sites in Lebanon was severely damaged as a consequence of decades of civil war and the associated unruliness and accelerated looting that went with this.

The authors state, “Sites that have been badly damaged by various causes may be disregarded by professionals who consider that their archaeological or heritage potential has been too badly affected to warrant any investigation. Instead, as demonstrated by the Hosn Niha project, the opposite should become automatic: archaeologists should view conflict-damaged sites as opportunities to gain information and explore sites and regions with new agendas.

“Conflict is impacting the lives of many millions of people, and the archaeology and heritage of many nations. All conflict-damaged archaeology and heritage can play a vital role as resources to help re-build damaged communities and offer hope of employment and reintegration to those impacted by war. Being able to offer ways of thinking of how to deal with damaged sites, gain as much information from them, and consider them a valuable resource rather than an inevitable casualty of war is critical to moving forward, and regaining control over land and identity.”

The post Heritage Destruction In Conflict Zones Provides Archaeological Opportunities appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On the occasion of the holding of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), at which Spain’s State Secretary for Foreign Affairs participated on Monday, the Spanish government said it wishes to take the opportunity to reaffirm Spain’s desire to move towards a world without nuclear weapons, as the final goal in a process within the framework of the NPT, in which the inalienable right of Party States is recognized to use nuclear energy for peaceful ends, with no form of discrimination, and pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty.

The development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy must be responsible, within the framework of the measures relating to non-proliferation and security, the Spanish government said.

Spain called on those countries that have still not signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to do so as soon as possible, and considers the start of talks within the framework of the Geneva Disarmament Conference necessary for the adoption of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

The Spanish government also reiterated its firm support for the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to stepping up its verification and supervision mission.

Aware of the risks posed by the diversion of sensitive material and technology to non-State parties with terrorist goals, the Spanish government said it firmly supports all efforts geared towards making progress in the fight against the asymmetric proliferation of nuclear weapons within the framework of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, for which Spain heads up the oversight committee.

Spain also takes part in an active manner in other international initiatives, such as the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) system and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT).

The post Spain Reaffirms Desire To Move Towards World Without Nuclear Weapons appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In their article for Lithosphere on March 12, authors Kristin Morell and colleagues wrote, “The ∼700-km-long ‘central seismic gap’ is the most prominent segment of the Himalayan front not to have ruptured in a major earthquake during the last 200-500 years. This prolonged seismic quiescence has led to the proposition that this region, with a population of more 10 million, is overdue for a great earthquake. Despite the region’s recognized seismic risk, the geometry of faults likely to host large earthquakes remains poorly understood.”

A little more than a month on, the area experienced a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, centered in Nepal on April 25.

In their study, Morell and colleagues used a series of complementary geomorphic and erosion rate data to define the ramp-flat geometry of the active detachment fault that is likely to host a large earthquake within the hinterland of the northwest Himalaya. Their analysis indicated that this detachment is sufficiently large to host another great earthquake in the western half of the central Himalayan seismic gap.

Specifically, their data sets point to a distinctive physiographic transition at the base of the high Himalaya in the state of Uttarakhand, India, characterized by abrupt strike-normal increases in channel steepness and a tenfold increase in erosion rates.

When combined with previously published geophysical imaging and seismicity data sets, Morell and colleagues interpret the observed spatial distribution of erosion rates and channel steepness to reflect the landscape response to spatially variable rock uplift due to a structurally coherent ramp-flat system of the Main Himalayan Thrust. They wrote, “Although it remains unresolved whether the kinematics of the Main Himalayan Thrust ramp involve an emergent fault or duplex, the landscape and erosion rate patterns suggest that the décollement beneath the state of Uttarakhand provides a sufficiently large and coherent fault segment capable of hosting a great earthquake.”

In conclusion, they noted, “While this hypothesis remains speculative, it is supported by independent records of historical seismicity.”

The post Rupture Along The Himalayan Front Predicted appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In view of reports about ‘parliamentary elections’ in Nagorno-Karabakh on May 3, the European Union reiterated Friday that it does not recognize the constitutional and legal framework within which they are being held.

“These procedures cannot prejudice the determination of the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh or impact on the negotiation process,” said the EU’s External Relations and Foreign Affairs in a statement.

The statement added that, :The EU firmly supports the OSCE Minsk Group, and its Co-Chairs’ efforts to progress beyond the status quo and bring about comprehensive peace negotiations.”

The EU stands ready to further support efforts, aimed at early peaceful resolution of the conflict, further noted the statement.

The post EU Critical Of Nagorno-Karabakh’s May 3 ‘Parliamentary Elections’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sven Milekic

Croatia is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the victorious military operation which it says liberated its territory, but thousands of Serb civilians who fled in fear say their suffering has been ignored.

The 20th anniversary of the operation is being marked on Friday in Okucani, the biggest town in the western Slavonia area that was taken back by Croatian forces on May 1 and 2, 1995.

Croatia’s political leadership – President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic, Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic and parliamentary chairman Josip Leko – will be present to mark the occasion while will include a Catholic mass for killed soldiers and a music and sports festival.

According to the state and Croatian fighters, Flash was a well-executed military operation which marked the beginning of the end of the war in the country.

During the operation, 7,200 Croatian soldiers and policemen defeated the army of the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina and recovered control over 500 square kilometres of territory in western Slavonia which had been held by Serb forces since autumn 1991.

According to Croatia’s data, its forces lost 42 men during the operation, while Serb military losses are unknown. Around 30,000 Serbs left the territory after the operation, mostly for Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia.

Croatian general Marijan Marekovic, who participated in the operation, said on the 18th anniversary in 2013 that Flash was highly significant in several ways.

“It was important that after two years of peace – because after the Medak Pocket [military operation] in 1993, we spent time just training soldiers – Croatia showed it can do it,” Marekovic said, explaining that Croatia’s forces had to prove that a large-scale operation can be conducted successfully.

“Also, we needed to learn the lessons that we learned for another operation, a much larger and crucial one for the country – Storm,” he added.

The Croatian military operation Storm in August 1995 ended the four-year-long occupation by Serb rebels, with Croatia regaining control over 20 per cent of its territory.

Serb civilian victims say however that they have failed to get justice for what they suffered during the operation.

On May 1, 1995, according to Zagreb-based NGO Documenta and HHO, the Croatian Army killed 22 civilians, including 11 women and three children, in the village of Medari near Nova Gradiska in western Slavonia.

Two sisters, Radmila and Mirjana Vukovic survived the massacre by chance because they went to high school in a nearby town in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their father, mother and seven-year-old sister were killed that day.

“It’s horrible, horrible… I don’t know what to say. We cannot come to terms with that fact,” Radmila Vukovic said, crying as she spoke.

“The fact that no one was found responsible for it after 20 years – it’s horrible,” she said.

The bodies of her relatives were exhumed in March 2011. Vukovic said that the case was still in the pre-investigation phase.

“I cannot believe that 20 years have already passed, it seems like three or four years have passed,” she said.

Vukovic and her sister sued the Croatian state in September 2006 for non-material damages for killing their family. But the case was dismissed by the municipal court in Nova Gradiska for being “without legal grounds” in November 2009.

Before the court’s decision, the Croatian state attorney office rejected an out-of-court settlement because the Medari killings are interpreted not as a war crime but as ‘collateral damage’ during the fighting.

Vukovic said that she and her sister still have to pay around 3,150 euro in court fees. She added that because they have not paid yet, their family house in Medari is under threat of seizure.

They have filed a complaint, asking for the state to write off the court fees, but have not received any official response, she said.

The number of Serb civilians killed in the operation remains unclear.

According to the Serbian NGO Veritas, 283 people were killed, while the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, HHO, says the figure is below 90.

No one has been convicted of any of these killings in Croatia.

The post The Contested History Of Croatia’s Operation Flash appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pakistan must not only side with Saudi Arabia and the coalition but must also play a leading role in the Middle East conflict.

By Nasir Chaudhry*

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition of countries against the Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen. Operation Decisive Storm is intended at forcing the Shiite rebels to surrender and restore the legitimate Government of President Abd Rubbuh Mansour Hadi who earlier fled the capital Sanaa for the safer shores of Aden, and has now ended up in Saudi exile. Pakistan’s name, too, figures amongst the countries that are part of the coalition. The news has generated polarizing opinions and views amongst the Pakistani population but the merit, rationale and strategic implications have largely been dwarfed by an ill informed narrative which centers on emotive instances of Pakistan’s history of participating in ‘others ways’, evoking an irate response from our Iranian neighbours and at least on social media the gradual Arabization of the country; a message brought home by uploading pictures of Vehicle number plates with Al Bakistan inscribed on them. Pakistan must not only side with Saudi Arabia and the coalition but play a leading role in the Middle East conflict. Here is why:-

Pakistan shares a long border with Iran and both countries have had a historical and traditionally friendly relationship. Persian culture has had a strong influence in the Indian sub continent and what has now come to be Pakistan. Many Pakistanis trace their origins to present day Iran, and many aspects of our culture are similar. Pakistan’s relationship with Iran remained exceedingly friendly, amicable,  strategically close and based on mutual goodwill and respect during the Shah’s tenure. The Shah realized the importance of good neighborly relations with Pakistan and openly sided with country in its wars with India, uprisings in Balochistan and in economically and militarily assisting Pakistan. An example of how important Pakistan was to the Shah is of a brief rapture in bilateral relations, ironically, during the time of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, otherwise a brilliant international diplomat and a master craftsman of realpolitik. As narrated in Stanley Wolpert’s Autobiography of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, “the Shah was eager to help his Shia neighbors, Yahya (Of Persian Ancestry) and Bhutto.” Wolpert adds, while visiting Washington, Bhutto made the case for the arms embargo on Pakistan to be lifted and in a meeting with Nixon and Kissinger said “the Shah is not too stable after all and you should look ahead of him.” The Shah learnt of the remarks made by Bhutto and was “livid, mad.” To the extent that he boycotted the otherwise very well attended Islamic Summit Conference in Lahore but the same Shah later visited Pakistan to mend fences, supported Bhutto with arms and joint operations against the Baloch insurgents and cancelled a previously agreed loan agreement with India meant for a water reservoir objected too by Pakistan.

Post Shah and the Revolution, Iran has largely remained oblivious to Pakistan’s genuine national interests. True that Pakistan must share of what it owes to causing stress to our bilateral relationship but the Iranians too have not been charitable either, perhaps, in a greater measure. Iran for many years deliberately courts India, allowing it access to two of its most vital ports of Chabahar and Bandar Abbass. The former has been built with Indian largesse whereas the later hosts an Indian Consulate. This when Pakistan has been denied permission to open a consulate in the same city despite repeated Pakistani requests at the highest levels. Iranian dignitaries make no secret of their anti Pakistan tirades in their media so much as to suggest crossing the border but are silent on India’s absentations and voting patterns against Iranian interests at the International fora most notably the IAEA. Iranian State today makes it clear in unambiguous terms that the Shi’a anywhere and everywhere is a vanguard of the 1979 revolution and deserves state protection and patronage irrespective of its own borders, thus, it is vocal to “state persecution” of Shi’a in Bahrain and the Hazara in Pakistan but is unmistakably silent on the rights of 10 million Sunnis who live in abject poverty and inhumane conditions within its own borders. It aids and supports Shi’a regime in Syria and the Hezbollah in Lebanon but does not want to speak of the people’s uprising against Assad’s tyranny, It wants the end of ISIL because it is a “militia and perverse occupying force” but does not want to say that about the Houthis, it speaks of the “inalienable right to freedom for the Palestinians from evil Zionism” but does not say the same for the subjugated people of Kashmir. Does Iran want to base its relations with the world only through the context of the Shi’a school of Islam? Does it want that its own interests be safeguarded but that of others be violated? Why is that a country which such glorious history, traditions and past obsessed with the protection, promotion and interests of the Shi’a sect and the Shi’a school of thought over core national interests of other countries and the collective goodwill of the Ummah, of which it, unmistaken ably claims leadership for? The Iranians need to do soul searching and ask these pertinent questions to themselves. For if anything, according to a recent brief on the country published by The Economist, the scarves have started to loosen even in religious cities such as Qom, the Iranian population is young, un employed and seeks change, their memories of the revolution and the war are confined to the history books, the economy, much of it being directly or indirectly controlled by the clergy or it’s organs, is in dire straits and a delusional, unwise obsession with nuclear technology has only festered discontent and frustration with the ruling elite. Most certainly, the great Imam Khomeini, would not be proud of the sons of the revolution that he worked so hard to bring and sacrificed for.

While Pakistan must certainly remain very attentive, sensitive to legitimate Iranian concerns, interests and must work to elevate ties with Iran in all fields turning this into a strategic relationship, it must make known that it expects the same of Iran. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has remained a true, loyal strategic friend and ally of Pakistan. Irrespective of the changes in leadership, relations have progressed and expanded to the highest levels. The Saudi leadership has maintained a special relationship with Pakistan and has greatly assisted the country whenever and wherever support has been required. The Saudis have shored up the Pakistani economy with large amounts of assistance and  supplied oil on deferred payments at a crucial times, it has consistently supported Pakistan on Kashmir so much as to raising it at the International Fora, It has been a partner of the country’s regional ambitions and initiatives in Afghanistan, it hosts a large Pakistani diaspora, has come to our aid at a time of natural calamities and most notably has stood by Pakistan when the country faced sanctions and isolation after going nuclear. The Saudi Pakistani relationship extends far beyond the exuberance of words that Joint Statements and Communiques cover, it is a partnership based solidly on common interests and objectives around the World. If our support to the Saudis mean support to the House of Saud so be it since it remains the anchor of stability in tribal Saudi Arabia and in it’s unequivocal and unqualified support to Pakistan. If the Saudis are accused of exporting Wahabism, the Iranians aren’t exporting apricots and cherries too. It is time for Pakistan to stand by Saudi Arabia now.

Would Iran allow for a Sunni takeover of Iraq even if its people chose such a government? No. Would Pakistanis allow the Northern Alliance to take control of Kabul? No. Why then should Saudi Arabia allow for a Houthi (Iranian) takeover of Yemen?

Pakistan in acting late has lost an opportunity that was being afforded to Pakistan, i.e. its projection of a powerful state and a leading member of the coalition of countries. Rarely, we were being courted, rightly so for our legitimate defense capability and showcasing it. We have also lost an opportunity to come closer to countries such as Egypt which has mostly found itself opposite to Pakistan on many issues. Ironically, Pakistan’s position in this instance is opposite to that of another ally, Turkey, as well, which, for the record, too, has a border with Iran. Have we not gone too far in placating the ever upset Iranians. Pakistan must have a robust Foreign Policy and not one of fence sitting. As for the state of the nation and their opinion, it will continue to be hapless and polarized. Very least nothing remotely to do with national interest of their own country, Pakistan. A Shi’a will support Iran, a Sunni, Saudi Arabia (not implying the writer) Pakistan is another country. An ordinary man takes much pride when he talks about how Pakistani pilots downed Israeli planes in the Arab Israel conflict but won’t commit his country’s pilots to ‘other wars.’ They can condemn Saudi Arabia but were they to be presented with a sponsored Umrah and Hajj package, you would see them expressing the desire to die in Saudi Arabia. Yes, we must maintain our territorial integrity, our sovereignty, our national and strategic interests, eschew funding from coffers of countries that fan sectarian groups but living on IMF tranches, Coalition Support Funds, our own internal problems, the Afghan situation, tensions with India and an ever growing population and unemployment do not necessarily give us the space to maneuver much. So let us help and identify the mistakes our friends make and convey it to them but let us also stand with friends who stood by us and continue to stand by us. Then only, would we be truly making more friends and solidifying our relations with a few that we currently have. As for the lota public, see them stand in queue and take selfies with the Metro Bus Project Islamabad upon its inauguration and say how much of a great leader Nawaz Sharif is but somehow Shahbaz Sharif is the one who gets it done. Perhaps, our Saudi friends should approach the younger brother in Lahore. Mediation….

*Nasir Chaudhry is a freelance columnist working in the Oil and Gas sector in Islamabad. He can be reached at m_nasir08@hotmail.com.

The post Why Must Pakistan Support Saudi Arabia In Yemen? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On May 7 the United Kingdom goes to the polls. For the past five years Britain has been governed by a formal coalition – most unusual for the UK, although commonplace in other democracies. The general election held in 2010 failed to provide either of the two main parties, the Conservatives or Labour, with a clear majority of parliamentary seats. As a result the Conservatives negotiated a formal deal with the centrist party, the Liberal Democrats, that provided a workable administration.

The current general election campaign, which kicked off formally on March 30, has been gathering momentum. The usual swathe of opinion polls, attempting to provide a temperature chart of voter intentions, have consistently shown Conservative and Labour virtually neck and neck. Their pretty unanimous prediction has been a further “no clear majority” for either party – not that over-much confidence should be placed on them. Given the recent Israeli general election which left the pollsters with much egg on their faces, pre-election opinion polls need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, assuming that they are indeed accurately predicting the outcome, the UK is about to be faced either with a new coalition, or with a minority government sustained by some less formal arrangement with one or more of the smaller parties. Given the range of permutations, how would possible future governments vary in their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? On the face of it, not at all, for in every one of the main party manifestos – tucked away at the very rear, of course – each UK political party asserts its allegiance to the near-global consensus on the issue, namely the two-state solution.

However, this apparent unanimity is not all that it seems, for it hides wide variations in the actual stance of the main parties on Middle East politics in general, and the Israel-Palestine dispute in particular. One, for example, openly supports the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Several ascribe the failure to achieve a two-state solution to Israel and its settlement expansion. Not one identifies any failure of goodwill or intention on the Palestinian side. The realities are perhaps best demonstrated in a poll of British Jews commissioned by the Jewish Chronicle, the UK’s leading Jewish journal. No less than 69 percent said they would support the Conservatives; only 22 percent would vote Labour.

Current prime minister David Cameron enjoys substantial personal support among the Jewish community – not surprisingly, because he has consistently advocated close relations between Britain and Israel. Back in 2012, just as during his visit to Israel in March 2014, he was fulsome in his praise: “Israel has got more start-up businesses per head than any other country. How do they do it? It’s about the aspiration and drive of its people…So we want to work much more closely with Israel.”

Labour party leader Ed Miliband, on the other hand, despite his Jewish origins, is distrusted. The Jewish community recalls how, in October 2014, he tried to force every Labour member of parliament to vote in favor of recognizing the state of Palestine – and was forced to back-track in the face of opposition from within his party.

Other political parties participating in the general election got barely any recognition from this poll of Jewish voting intention – scarcely remarkable, since around 73 percent of those polled said that it was the political parties’ attitudes to Israel that were “very” or “quite” important in influencing how they would vote. And despite the universal kowtowing by Britain’s political parties to the god of the “two-state solution”, those attitudes vary widely.

The manifesto of the Liberal Democrats, the largest of the smaller parties in the last parliament, asserts that they “remain committed to a negotiated peace settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which includes a two-state solution.” It continues: “We condemn disproportionate force used by all sides…We condemn Israel’s continued illegal policy of settlement expansion, which undermines the possibility of a two-state solution.” Their leader, Nick Clegg, then deputy prime minister, spoke out against Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in July 2014. Coming close to accusing Israel of breaching international law, he said its response to the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza was “deliberately disproportionate”., and accused Israel of imposing a “disproportionate form of collective punishment” on the citizens of Gaza.

Or take the Greens, one of the more prominent of the smaller parties. Their manifesto proclaims: “We seek a just, sustainable and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israel conflict based on mutual recognition of the rights to independent statehood for Palestinians and Israelis. We condemn human rights violations by both parties and the oppression and disproportionate use of aggression by the Israeli government against the people of Gaza. We seek to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement.” The Green Party officially supports the BDS movement, and its leader, Natalie Bennett, openly backs the boycott of Israeli artists, musicians and academics.

A dominant feature of this UK general election campaign has been the rise and rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP). In an inexplicable turn of events, ever since suffering a resounding defeat by 10 percentage points in last year’s referendum on Scottish independence, the party has gone from strength to strength. Opinion polls indicate that they are likely to wipe out the Scottish Labour Party in the forthcoming election, thus depriving Labour of its 50-odd Scottish seats. The SNP is more socialist in its policies than the Labour party – which has itself veered leftwards since the balmy days of Tony Blair – and the result of a 50-odd contingent of SNPs entering parliament could mean that a minority Labour government would have to depend on their support.

The SNP manifesto states simply: “We will call on the next UK government to pursue a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and to support the formal recognition of a Palestinian state.” The party’s track record, however, demonstrates its adherence to the anti-Israel policies of the extreme left-wing. As commentator Douglas Murray observed last year: “the most rabid forms of anti-peace, anti-Israel activism seem to have become part of the SNP agenda.”

It seems pretty clear that the most desirable outcome of the UK’s general election from the Palestinian point of view would be a Labour-SNP-Green liaison of some kind. The pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel feeling rife in those parties would exert enormous pressure on a future British government. On the other hand Britain’s Jewish community and Israel would benefit from any outcome which placed the Conservative party in the driving seat – an outright Conservative victory, a Conservative-led coalition or a minority Conservative administration.

Britain’s future Middle East policy hovers in the balance.

The post Britain’s General Election And Israel-Palestine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By William Krist*

The United States and 11 other countries are negotiating an enormous trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will have a major impact on the world economy and help shape the future rules governing international trade. These negotiations began in earnest in 2008 among the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.  Subsequently, they have expanded to include Canada, Japan and Mexico. Today, they are arguably the most important trade negotiations since the World Trade Organization went into effect in 1995.

Success in these negotiations is significant for both U.S. commercial and foreign policy interests. It is important to conclude these negotiations in 2015, however, because the agreement will need to gain Congressional approval to go into effect. In 2016, all members of the House and one-third of the Senate will be up for election, and many members of Congress will be under substantial pressure to oppose further opening the U.S. markets. Because of these political concerns, trade negotiators always have sought to conclude agreements in non-election years.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would build on current international trade rules contained in the World Trade Organization (WTO); however, it would go far beyond these trade commitments in many respects. First, all of the 12 countries would eliminate trade barriers almost completely among themselves, with just a few product exceptions.  In contrast, under the WTO, countries maintain some tariffs which on particular products can be very high.

Additionally, the agreement would cover several new areas that are not addressed currently in any significant way under WTO trade rules. One important new area would be rules on how state-owned enterprises may operate in global competition without having an unfair trade advantage over market oriented firms. A second new area relates to digital commerce; some countries require that data centers be located in their geographic area and impose restrictions on the free flow of data across borders.  TPP negotiators are hoping to develop rules of the road for digital commerce.

A third new area relates to regulations.  Different regulations among countries governing such areas as product safety or the environment often represent a bigger barrier to trade than formal trade restrictions—even where the differing regulations achieve the same objectives. The United States is seeking greater transparency in the regulatory process with an opportunity for the TPP partners to comment on proposed regulations.

The TPP negotiations appear to be reaching their end game, although there are difficult issues still to be resolved. One of the most difficult areas is agriculture, where several participating countries maintain substantial import protections. For example, Malaysia has a 40 percent tariff on poultry; the United States and Canada protect their dairy markets and America maintains a high tariff on sugar imports.

Japan is the key to successful negotiations on agriculture. The country has astronomically high tariffs on rice, as well as high barriers to imports of wheat, pork, beef, sugar and dairy.  Japan’s agricultural sector is very inefficient; for example, rice is grown on small plots of land and is extremely labor intensive. Prime Minister Shinzō Abe wants to restructure Japan’s economy to restart economic growth. Reducing barriers to agricultural products could be a major feature of this initiative.  If Abe agrees to reduce agricultural trade barriers, while simultaneously implementing domestic reforms, many workers could shift from producing high cost agricultural products to producing goods that would compete in world markets.  Were Japan to open its agricultural market, it would make it far easier for the United States and Canada to reduce their barriers on dairy, sugar and other products. This, in turn, would give Vietnam, Malaysia, and others more flexibility to reduce their barriers.

Of course, other market access issues are also important.  For example, the U.S. auto industry is demanding real access to the Japanese market, which is currently protected by a number of non-tariff barriers and an artificially undervalued currency.  And the Vietnamese are demanding improved access to the U.S. textile and apparel markets, if they are to proceed in opening their market and moving from a state-controlled economy to a more market-driven one.

The Importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

Successfully concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be very significant for the United States for both commercial and foreign policy reasons.  The 12 countries negotiating the TPP agreement have a combined gross domestic product of $27.9 trillion dollars and a total population of some 800 million (see Table 1). In terms of wealth, the 12 countries range from $67,525 per capita income for Australia down to just $1,755 per capita for Vietnam.

A summit with leaders of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP). Pictured, from left, are Naoto Kan (Japan), Nguyễn Minh Triết (Vietnam), Julia Gillard (Australia), Sebastián Piñera (Chile), Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore), Barack Obama (United States), John Key (New Zealand), Hassanal Bolkiah (Brunei), Alan García (Peru), and Muhyiddin Yassin (Malaysia).

The United States already has free trade agreements (FTAs) with six of the TPP countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore); however, some of these agreements were negotiated some time ago (e.g., the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, which went into effect in 1994).  The TPP agreement would update these existing FTAs by extending market openings and making some improvements in the rules.

However, we do not have agreements with five of the countries (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Vietnam). These countries have a combined GDP of more than $6 trillion.  Japan, the world’s third largest economy, of course, is far and away the most important of these five, but both Malaysia and Vietnam are likely to be significant markets in the future.

A study based on an econometric model by the Petersen Institute estimates that “world income would rise by $295 billion per year on the TPP track, including by $78 billion per year for the United States.”^[1] While this model is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may prove to be incorrect, the conclusion appears to be accurate: the TPP will have a substantial impact if it is successfully negotiated and implemented.

Table 1 Twelve Countries Negotiating TTP

World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012,
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx.

If the TPP negotiations are not successful, the United States could face severe negative consequences. There is an extremely important alternative trade negotiation to the TPP: the agreement being negotiated between the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations^[2] (ASEAN) with China, Australia, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).  These negotiations are not as far along as the TPP and they are not as ambitious, but nonetheless they would have a far-reaching impact.

China is also negotiating a trilateral free trade agreement with South Korea and Japan and a bilateral free trade agreement with Australia. If the TPP falters, both the RCEP and China’s negotiations for free trade agreements likely will accelerate and gain new prominence. The result would be that U.S. exporters would face a substantial competitive disadvantage in the Asian market.

In addition to the negative commercial impact, U.S. foreign policy would also suffer. In announcing the “Asian pivot” in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined six key elements. These included: “strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.”^[3]

Concluding the TPP is central to U.S. credibility in achieving these goals. If the TPP negotiations fail, China would lie at the center of Asian-Pacific trade and the United States essentially would be relegated to the sidelines. To get to closure and to have an agreement that can be a template for 21^st century trade agreements, three important changes are needed to the model reportedly being advocated by the U.S.  First, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement rules must be clarified to prevent abusive suits. Secondly, the rules to protect the intellectual property of pharmaceuticals must be carefully calibrated to not unduly burden consumers while still providing incentives to develop new drugs. And thirdly, negotiators must include provisions to prevent currency manipulation for the purpose of gaining an unfair commercial advantage.

About the author:
William Krist is a Senior Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. His book Globalization and America’s Trade Agreements was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2013. This is a condensed version of an essay appearing in the Summer 2015 issue of Orbis, published for FPRI by Elsevier, which is a revised version of a paper he delivered at a conference on “Strategic Rebalancing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” cosponsored by the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Woodrow Wilson International Center, and held at the WWIC in October 2014. Orbis can be accessed here.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Peter A. Petri, Michael G. Plummer and Fan Zhai, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A Quantitative Assessment,” White Paper Series, p. ix, www.eastwestcenter.org/…and-asia-pacific-integration-quantitative.

The post Why We Need The Trans-Pacific Partnership And How To Get It Right – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama reiterated his commitment to expanding access to education, and to spreading the joy of reading to more children and young adults. Earlier this week the President announced two new efforts that, building on the progress already made by his ConnectEd initiative, will do just that: a challenge to mayors, libraries, and school leaders to help every student get a library card; and commitments from libraries and major publishers to provide more than $250 million in free e-Books for low-income students. In his address, the President also previewed his upcoming commencement speech at Lake Area Tech, in Watertown, South Dakota, where he will discuss his plan to make two years of community college as free and universal for every American as high school is today. The President is working to ensure every child has the access to the education and resources they need to be successful.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
May 2, 2015

Hi everybody. I’m speaking with you from the DC Public Library in Anacostia, where I just met with a group of promising middle school students.

We spent some time talking about their lives, and how we all care about their success – and how that starts with a good education.

So one thing I announced here in Anacostia is a new project by libraries and major publishers to provide more than $250 million in free e-Books for low-income students.

We also issued a challenge to mayors, libraries, and school leaders to help every student get a library card, so they can expand their horizons in a place like this.

It’s all part of our ConnectED initiative to connect 99% of America’s students to high-speed Internet. Because no matter who you are, where you live, or how much money you’ve got, you should be able to access the world’s knowledge and information just like anyone else.

In a global economy, we’ve got to help ensure that everyone, of every age, in every zip code – urban and rural – has the chance to learn the skills that lead directly to a good job.

That’s also why I’ve put forward a plan to make two years of community college as free and universal for every American as high school is today. It’s something I’ll talk about in my commencement address next week at Lake Area Tech, in the small town of Watertown, South Dakota. It’s a community college with a graduation rate that is nearly twice the national average. They’re proving that a great education can be within everyone’s reach.

All of us have a responsibility to not only make sure our own children have pathways to success but that all children do. And a great education is the ticket to a better life like never before. Making sure all our kids receive one is the surest way to show them that their lives matter. And it’s the smartest way to prove to them that in communities like this, and in a country like ours, we believe in opportunity for all.

Thanks, everybody. And have a great weekend.

The post Obama: Ensuring Every Child Gets A Great Education – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

At the on-going 2015 NPT Review Conference, the usual battle lines between the nuclear-haves and nuclear have-nots is fully drawn, and so is the old cleavage of cluster nations focusing on disarmament or non-proliferation. What is new, however, is a mixed feeling that while nuclear disarmament remains a distant dream in light of the new US-Russia rivalry, there are in fact some good news pertaining to non-proliferation.

Concerning the latter, the growing prospect of a final Iran nuclear deal has set a positive tone that can potentially cascade to a broader Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone. With its current chairmanship of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), Iran has thus played a pivotal role in leading the movement’s traditional antipathy toward nuclear weapons. Last week, this was reflected in a major speech by Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who called for the elimination of nuclear weapons, concrete steps toward the realization of this lofty objective. Also, Zarif used the occasion to single out Israel’s clandestine nuclear arsenal and its refusal to join the non-proliferation treaty as one of the most important impediments to the universal application of NPT.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that Israel will at any time soon heed the calls to join the NPT and open its facilities to outside inspections. The irony, however, is that Israel stands at the forefront of accusations against “nuclearizing Iran,” as if the world’s criticisms of its own nuclear build-up poses no proliferation risks at all. Yet, increasingly despite the callous Western inattention to Israel’s nukes and its destabilizing effects in the volatile region, there is a growing momentum toward convening a summit on nuclear free zone in the Middle East, reflected in the speeches delivered at the Review Conference.

Interestingly, the Israeli officials have the audacity of painting Iran as an obstacle to the nuclear free zone, even though Iran is an NPT member, has no nuclear weapons or weapons capability, and has consented to unprecedented inspections of all its facilities. There is a great deal of propaganda effort that accompanies Israel’s efforts, such as the British government’s “report” to UN claiming of possessing fresh evidence of Iran’s “active nuclear procurement.”

This report makes no distinction between civilian and non-civilian procurement, in light of Iran’s nuclear industry that is reeling under restrictive sanctions.

From Iran’s stand point, however, the prospect of a nuclear deal equips the country to play an even more assertive role in the global disarmament campaign, in light of Foreign Minister Zarif’s interview in New York that Iran has no nuclear weapons intentions otherwise it could have constructed several bombs with the nuclear material it has possessed. The peaceful nuclear intentions of Iran, defying the logic of nuclear proliferation, runs contrary to the present global trend of increasing reliance on nuclear bombs as a measure of national power on the part of US. China, Russia, and other nuclear-have nations. This trend, reflected in massive nuclear modernization programs and the related nuclear posture doctrines, e.g., Obama’s and Putin’s doctrines, is definitely an unhealthy one that fuels the fear of non-nuclear states about their long-term vulnerabilities vis-a-vis the exclusive club of nuclear states, some of whom operate outside the purview of NPT.

In this rather mixed environment, the Non-Aligned Movement is poised to make a real difference in strengthening the anti-nuke trend that contradicts the prevailing sentiments in Washington, Paris, London, Moscow and Beijing, that condones reliance on nuclear wepaons as a key component of national security. The trouble however is that security is a composite and interconnected concept that cannot be sustained over the long run if it breeds insecurity elsewhere. The world is too interdependent and long distances have been cut short by modern technology, as a result of which the news of potential nuclear tests in US labs reverberates around the globe, undermining global confidence that the US’s pledge of no new nukes can be trusted. At the same time, NAM’s nuclear politics continues with its global traction, demonstrating the movement’s viability with respect to a most important matter of human survival in the face of threat of a nuclear holocaust.

The post Iran Leads Non-Aligned Push Against Nukes – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday the US appreciates the firm steps taken by President Maithripala Sirisena to strength democracy and ensure transparency and accountability and promised the government all possible assistance to continue this process in the coming months and years.

“We respect and value your work,” Kerry said when he paid a courtesy call on President Sirisena Saturday at the Presidential Secretariat.

Kerry said that the US considers the close relations with Sri Lanka very important and proposed setting up of Annual Partnership Dialogue to ensure continuity of close partnership between the two countries in economic, trade, investment and other areas.

President Sirisena thanked the US for the support extended to Sri Lanka’s development activities in the past and said the country and the people gratefully remember the generous assistance provided by the US during the tsunami calamity in 2004.

Kerry asked about Sri Lanka’s relations with India and China , and President replied that Sri Lanka strictly follow a nonaligned foreign policy and said that his government would not allow the relations with one country to affect the relations with another country in any manner. He said India is the closest neighbor and there is a special relationship between India and Sri Lanka. China is a development partner and we have to consider that China has made heavy investments in Sri Lanka, he said.

“My government is determined to develop the country to raise the living standards of the people and we need the assistance of all countries, especially the developed countries for this endeavour,” President Sirisena said.

President briefed Kerry about the steps taken for reconciliation and development in the conflict affected areas, noting that Sri Lanka has set up a Presidential Task Force to speed up the reconciliation process and a Peace Secretariat has been instituted to ensure peace and harmony between different communities and those who follow different faiths.

Kerry said he decided to visit Sri Lanka as a mark of endorsement of the policies undertaken by the new government and he would use the same reasons to try and convince President Obama to visit Sri Lanka, if possible next year before he completes his term.

Pesident Sirisena requested the US top look into the possibility of providing training facilities to officers of the Bribery and Corruption Commission, Police and Criminal Investigation Department officials probing corruption and frauds. Readily agreeing to this, Mr Kerry instructed Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal to look into the issue and take follow up action. The President also emphasized the need to increase intake of Sri Lankan soldiers to the UN Peace Keeping Force and sought US support.

The post US Aims For Stronger Partnership With Sri Lanka – John Kerry appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“In its response to the eruption of police violence over the murder of Freddie Gray, the black political establishment, headed by the first African-American president, has shown itself exactly for what it is: corrupt, self-interested and utterly hostile to the interests and aspirations of the poor and workers, black and white.”

— Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore, “The Social Eruption in Baltimore, Maryland”

25 year old Freddie Gray didn’t kill himself thrashing around in the back of a police van. That’s pure hogwash. He was murdered by killer cops who were determined to shut him up and teach him a lesson. That’s what I think. And that’s why the official police report has not yet been released to the public. That’s why the police are denying that the van made a fourth stop at “a desolate intersection… surrounded by vacant lots”.  That’s why the recordings between the driver of the van and headquarters haven’t been released. (“Whenever a police officer makes a stop he’s supposed to radio it in.”)  That’s why the Police Commissioner has refused to answer questions about the video footage that was seized from grocery store owner Jung Hyun Hwang whose security camera was on when the police van made “a previously unknown stop”   while Gray was still onboard.  Check it out:

“The store owner… told The Associated Press that two police officers visited his store during the week of April 20 and later made a copy of the surveillance video.”  Since then, the original copy in Hwang’s possession has also mysteriously vanished.

Sure, it’s vanished,  just like every other piece evidence is going to vanish. What do you expect: Justice?

Hell, no. As for the ridiculous “Gray killed himself” story, that’s already been thoroughly discredited by the experts. Take a look at this from the Daily Beast:

“I’ve never seen somebody self-inflict a spinal cord injury in that way,” says Anand Veeravagu, a Stanford University Medical Center neurosurgeon who specializes in traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries….It’s hard for me to envision how a person could try to do that,” he says. “It would require them to basically hang themselves in a car where there isn’t anything to hang yourself with.”

Veeravagu says that there are only a few ways you can injure your spine in a similar way to the injuries that ultimately led to Gray’s death. One, he says, is by a sharp injury, which is a direct penetrating injury—either somebody with a knife “who knows what they’re doing, or something else that cuts through, like a gunshot wound …. sometimes people attempt suicide by hanging themselves. It’s one of the only ways I’ve seen where you can (commit suicide or intentional self-harm) by spinal fracture. They kick their chair out, they fall, they snap their neck. It results in immediate spinal cord injury,” he says. “But it’s very hard to see how somebody could attempt suicide by a spinal cord injury without the use of something else.”

But it’s even in those instances, he says, patients often don’t die of a spinal cord injury. And most who are taken to the hospital in time after suffering spinal cord injuries—self-inflicted or not—survive the trauma.

“Most spinal cord injuries are not fatal if patients are taken to the hospital,” Veeravagu says. “Most survive.” (“Experts: You Can’t Break Your Own Spine Like Freddie Gray“, Daily Beast)

The reason it’s hard to imagine someone inflicting a severe spinal cord injury on themselves in the back of a moving van, is because it’s never happened. It’s because the whole thing is a fraud, a hoax, a lie, that’s why.

And another thing: The real reason why Gray wasn’t taken to the hospital, is because Gray’s life didn’t matter. It’s that simple. If he was white, he would’ve gotten the treatment he needed because the cops would have been worried about the consequences. But because he was black, they didn’t have to concern themselves. Nothing was going happen. The front office would cover it up, the video footage would disappear, the big-city mukky-muks would concoct a believable whitewash-story, our African American president would offer his support for ‘our fine men in blue’, and all would be forgotten.  Isn’t that how it always goes?

That’s not to say that, if Gray had been white, he would have gotten justice. Heck, no.  He probably would have been forced to plea bargain on some trumped up charge that would have landed him in the pokey for a year or two.  In other words, he’d still get railroaded, but he’d still be alive, that’s the difference. They wouldn’t have broken his neck and left him to die. That sort of treatment is reserved for blacks, not whites.

If you’re black in America, the rules are just different. Everyone knows that. Just like everyone knows that if you’re an unarmed black man who gets shot 7 times running away from a cop for “making eye contact”, well, guess what: You just died of “natural causes” dude, because that’s how it’s going to read in the papers the next day.   So deal with it.

Only this time,  people don’t want to just “deal with it”. They’re fed up and they want things to change. So, they’ve poured out onto the streets across the country to express their frustration, their anger, and their insistence that their voices be heard. Sure, there’s been a little violence, but so what? It’s nothing compared to the violence that Gray experienced when he was shoved to the ground, kneed in the face, after which his “spinal column was 80 percent severed at the neck and his voice box crushed.”

Nor does it compare to the violence that urban blacks face daily in their encounters with the cops. Here’s a clip from the WSWS:

“A report by the Baltimore Sun last year found that the city paid out $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits related to police violence.

“Officers have battered dozens of residents who suffered broken bones—jaws, noses, arms, legs, ankles—head trauma, organ failure, and even death, coming during questionable arrests,” the newspaper reported….”  (World Socialist Web Site)

Now that’s what I call violence, not a couple broken windows or a few smashed up cars. Now check this out from Interfluidity:

“In theory, a peaceful political process is absolutely the right way to solve the problems of brutality and exclusion. In practice, it hasn’t happened, it isn’t happening, there is no sign that it will happen….Riots do severe, immediate, harm, they are an escalation, they are violent, they are prima facie bad. Yet the fact that rioting sometimes happens, the uncomfortable possibility of it, has historically and may again create urgency and motivate political change that is ultimately good.”  (“There is a name for this”, Steve Randy Waldman,  Interfluidity)

Well put, but what’s important to remember is that the violence in Baltimore didn’t emerge from nothing. It has its roots in injustice. Treat people fairly and the problem goes away. Use the rioting as an excuse to implement loony martial law strategies, and reap the whirlwind. That’s the choice, isn’t it?

And we know which way the government has chosen to deal with it, through provocation, escalation and aggression the same way the US deals with everything. The governor has deployed two thousand National Guard troops onto the streets to accompany the hundreds of robo-cops that have transformed downtown Baltimore into a warzone so they can see how effective their new tools are in terrifying  the public into submission. And who’s helping the governor and the city kingpins in their crackdown on the protestors?

The elites in the black establishment, that’s who. An article in the World Socialist Web Site sums it up perfectly:

“In her press conference Tuesday, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake repeatedly referred to young people expressing their anger over police violence as “thugs” in announcing the imposition of a curfew and the calling in of the National Guard. She was flanked by Patrol Chief Darryl De Sousa, the City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young, and City Council member Brandon M. Scott, all of whom were black, with the latter two also calling the demonstrators “thugs.”…

“In its response to the eruption of police violence over the murder of Freddie Gray, the black political establishment, headed by the first African-American president, has shown itself exactly for what it is: corrupt, self-interested and utterly hostile to the interests and aspirations of the poor and workers, black and white.”  (“The social eruption in Baltimore, Maryland”, Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore, World Socialist Web Site)

Will there ever be justice for Freddie Gray?

Nope.  The people who own this country wouldn’t allow it.

The post If You’re Black In America, The Rules Are Different – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi is in Saudi Arabia Saturday for talks with top Saudi leadership, presidential spokesman Alaa Youssef told the MENA state news agency.

Cairo announced El-Sisi’s trip only hours before the president’s plane departed to Riyadh.

Egypt has been a key participant in the Saudi-led military operation in Yemen to stop the advance of Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

In April, following a meeting between El-Sisi and Saudi Defence Minister Mohammed Ibn Bin Salman, Egypt announced it would take part in major military manoeuvres with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, set to take place in Saudi Arabia.

El-sisi’s trip to Riyadh comes just days after King Salman carried out a major reshuffle in top-level positions in the cabinet and royal court. The King’s move included the elevation of the current Minister of Defence Mohamed Ibn Salma to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has supported the post-Morsi government in Cairo with billions of dollars in aid.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have recently spearheaded calls for the formation of a joint Arab military force.

Original article

The post Egypt’s President Sisi Arrives In Saudi Arabia For Talks appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Taro Ichikawa

The 34-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has called for narrowing “gender inequality” as part of “reforms for more inclusive and stronger growth” in Japan. Presenting the OECD’s 2015 Economic Survey of Japan, the influential economic bloc’s Secretary-General Angel Gurría also pleaded for boosting productivity that, he said, was “key to unlocking stronger growth”.

Gurria said: “This is particularly salient for Japan, which must contend with an aged society and a shrinking working-age population. Ambitious structural reform – the third arrow of Abenomics – remains crucial if real GDP growth is to move towards the government’s target of 2 percent during the coming decade.”

Measures to boost productivity should be accompanied by policies to slow the decline in the labour force, argued Gurria, because Japan continues to face the challenge of an ageing workforce. By 2050, the working-age population is projected to fall by nearly 40 percent, making it crucial to maximise its potential.

The OECD Secretary-General pointed out that the female labour participation rate was still 20 percent below that of men. This signified one of the biggest gender gaps in the OECD, he said on April 15.

“The gender pay gap at median earnings is 27 percent, the third highest in the OECD, and only 2.1 percent of listed company board members are women, the second lowest in the OECD. Helping more women have careers can be a ‘triple-win’: stronger growth, less inequality, and a more manageable government debt burden,” said Gurria taking up cudgels on behalf of women.

Prime Minister Abe’s “womenomics” initiative, which aims to have women occupying 30 percent of leadership positions by 2020, was an important step, as were concrete ‘third arrow’ measures like increasing the number of childcare places by 2018.

Narrowing gender inequality also depended on breaking down labour market dualism, said the OECD Secretary-General. “While men make up 70 percent of regular workers, women account for 70 percent of non-regular workers. And non-regular workers are being paid only about 60 percent as much per hour as regular workers! Better targeting of public social spending would help tackle inequality and promote social inclusion. This can be achieved, for instance, by introducing an earned income tax credit for low paid workers.”

While the Japanese economy is expected to return to growth, fundamental structural reforms are needed to promote a more robust recovery, help ensure long-term fiscal sustainability and close the gap in living standards with the leading OECD countries, according to the latest OECD Economic Survey of Japan.

The Survey highlights the impact of Abenomics – the government’s ongoing use of bold monetary policy, flexible fiscal policy and a reform-driven growth strategy – to revitalise the economy and defeat deflation. The OECD expects GDP growth of 1 percent this year and 1.4 percent in 2016.

“The unprecedented use of monetary expansion and flexible fiscal policies must be supplemented by rigorous implementation of Abenomics’ crucial ‘third arrow’ – structural reforms,” Gurría said. “Ambitious action is needed to raise productivity and boost Japan’s long-term growth potential, including by increasing women’s role in the labour market and stimulating innovation, to ensure higher living standards while ensuring the public debt burden remains sustainable.”

The OECD survey highlights productivity increases as the key to unlocking future growth, particularly given Japan’s ageing population and already shrinking workforce. Labour productivity is surprisingly low – 25 percent below the average of the top half of OECD countries – considering that Japan has very high levels of secondary and tertiary education and R and D (research and development) spending.

To remedy this, says the OECD, policies should aim to increase the return on R and D investment through improvements to the innovation ecosystem. This will require better corporate governance, reduced product market regulation and more labour market mobility.

Given population ageing, Japan must make better use of all workers. The female labour force participation rate is still 20 percentage points below that of men, one of the biggest gender gaps in the OECD. Ensuring that female participation rates converge to those of men by 2030 would drastically limit the expected fall in labour supply and boost economic growth, says the Survey.

The OECD also calls for further remedial action in order to ensure fiscal sustainability in Japan over the long term. It points out that the gross government debt reached 226 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) in 2014, the highest level ever recorded in an OECD country.

“Given the budget deficit of around 8% of GDP, Japan’s debt ratio is set to rise further into uncharted territory. With public debt service now the biggest item in Japan’s central government budget, a detailed and credible fiscal plan is essential to put the debt burden on a downward trajectory over the medium term,” the Survey adds.

Any such plan should include fiscal consolidation sufficient to achieve a primary surplus by Financial Year 2020, notably through efforts to cut healthcare costs and reduce the growth of social spending. Further increases in the consumption tax and a broadening of the base for personal income taxes will also be necessary, the Survey says.

The post OECD Urges Reforms For More Inclusive Growth In Japan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The discovery of more than 30 bodies in a human trafficking camp should prompt Thai authorities to authorize an independent, United Nations-assisted investigation, commit to publish its findings, and bring those responsible to justice, including any government officials involved, Human Rights Watch said today. The UN and others, including the United States, that have called for an end to trafficking in Thailand should urgently press the government to end official complicity and willful blindness in rampant trafficking in the country.

On May 1, 2015, a joint military-police taskforce discovered at least 30 bodies at an abandoned human trafficking camp in the Sadao district of Songkhla province close to the Thai-Malaysian border. Many were buried in shallow graves, while others were covered with blankets and clothes and left in the open. Police reports indicate the dead are ethnic Rohingya Muslims from Burma and Bangladesh who starved to death or died of disease while held by traffickers who were awaiting payment of ransoms before smuggling them into Malaysia. Traffickers controlling this camp apparently departed into the mountainous jungle, taking surviving Rohingya with them.

“Trafficking of persons in Thailand has long been out of control, something that senior officials have admitted to Human Rights Watch and others,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The finding of a mass grave at a trafficking camp sadly comes as little surprise. The long involvement of Thai officials in trafficking means that an independent investigation with UN involvement is necessary to uncover the truth and hold those responsible to account.”

For years, human rights organizations and investigative journalists have reported on the thriving human trafficking networks that operate with support and protection from corrupt officials in southern Thailand. Last year, the US State Department downgraded Thailand to the worst possible rating – tier 3 – on its 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report, for failing to combat human trafficking.

Rohingya fleeing abuses, persecution, and hardship in Burma’s Arakan State or Bangladesh are often trafficked and abused by networks working with official protection, while in other cases victims simply receive little protection from Thai authorities.

Rohingya who are apprehended in Thailand are treated as “illegal immigrants” subject to deportation without regard to the threats facing them in Burma. Rohingya men are sometimes detained in overcrowded immigration detention facilities across the country, while women and children have been sent to shelters operated by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. Many more are believed to be transferred through corrupt arrangements into the hands of human trafficking gangs where they face cruel treatment and no prospect of assistance from Thai authorities.

As with previous Thai governments, the military junta of Prime Minister Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha does not permit the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to properly conduct refugee status determination screenings of Rohingya.

“Each year, tens of thousands of Rohingya flee the dire human rights situation in Burma only to be further abused and exploited at the hands of traffickers in Thailand,” Adams said. “The discovery of these mass graves should shock the Thai government into shutting down the trafficking networks that enrich officials but prey on extremely vulnerable people. Instead of sticking Rohingya in border camps or immigration lockups, the government should provide safety and protection.”

The post Thailand: Mass Graves Of Rohingya Found In Trafficking Camp appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Bikram Vohra

Indian media, in recent years has begun to believe in an irrational sense of entitlement. It is manifested in an odd conviction they it is owed an advance warning. There seems a rage over the Rafale purchase deal fueled more by indignation that its mandarins were not told about it and were caught on the back foot. They are actually teed off.

In French the word Rafale means a rapid firing of artillery. So, most of the editorial salvos we shall read or hear are going to be politically motivated and there will be a sedulous search for scandal.
Don’t forget you don’t just buy the plane. You have to also buy the spares, invest in training, logistics, simulators, maintenance manuals (and the politicians). So much for the priorities of the arms industry.

But let’s talk business. The Rafale’s “surprise” ability cannot match the stealth F22. If we stop at 36 aircraft we do not outnumber the enemy. The maneuverability is worthwhile only in the maritime version. Outlasting the enemy depends on range and training and armament as does achieving reliable kills, which are now relevant in more of a “Top Gun” scenario than bed-rocked in reality.

Let us see this deal for what it is. Much like the curate’s egg, good and bad in parts.

No one has ever said the Rafale is a bad aircraft. Nobody makes bad aircraft. But then no one ever said the Bofors shoot and scoot 155mm gun was a lemon either but the ripple effect of that mess still haunts the corridors of power. So, why the Rafale? Because we have a fresh “amour” with Paris? Perhaps EADS will sweeten the deal for India’s aviation sector with a better package for the Airbus family of aircraft. If the agreement encompasses a venture to make nuclear reactors, the Rafales are just a canapé on the smorgasbord.

Maybe we are getting the Rafale below its price tag of $100 million. Aircraft are never sold according to the tag, always well below. The US won’t give us the F22 Raptor stopping its largesse at the F18. Maybe Prime Minister Modi has a penchant for a headline maker on each foreign trip. And this is par for the course. Perhaps no one has asked why an aircraft that is 14 years old and never had a market abroad should be first choice. Nor (and here is the puff of dust) has there been much said about other viable options being placed on the table.

Except for Egypt’s recent 26 fighter’s deal for 5 billion Euros the Rafale has not found a market these past 14 years.

There is no clarification on the variant of the 36 planes that India is buying. The naval Rafale makes a certain sense. The self-sell underscores a specific capability. Catapulted from a carrier deck in less than 75 meters, the Navy Rafale instantly and auto¬matically rotates to the correct angle of attack. This critical operation is made possible by the aircraft’s innovative “jump strut” nose landing gear.

So if this batch is destined for the flight deck and is the only delta winged carrier fighter in the world then maybe we have a leading edge in this deal.

If not, then it is a mighty expensive option for a heavy fighter especially since the indigenous production promise seems to have stalled before takeoff and now has a broken wing. It is this broken wing that is going to power the suspicion that everything is not kosher about the deal and whiff of scandal could be driven to a full blown stench because there are other aircraft that haven’t even got a look in.

But, hey, are the French giving us the reactors? Why obscure the details and allow conjecture to take over?

I once asked Serge Dassault why anyone should buy a Rafale at over three times the price of an F16 Block 60 Fighting Falcon. He said quite seriously that it was four times more efficient than the most upgraded Lockheed manufactured fighter ever.

I don’t quite know how true that boast is. In an age when drones are taking over the air battles and delivery systems for missiles have become as high a priority as Patriot type defense systems the heroic dogfight imagery is becoming passé.

Conventional wars are not on the agenda. If you recall India has been to war with obsolete Gnats against Sabres and scored. If you take a Su 35, a Typhoon Eurofighter, a Gripen along with an F 18 and pit them against the Rafale it is a toss-up who’ll come out tops.
Cost counts because these babes need high maintenance. An F-16 Block 60 would be available for $30 million. The US air force got them at roughly a discounted $17 million. The Rafale comes in a $100 million. The Su-35 Super Flankers clock in at $35 million give or take a few and they are absolutely first-rate aircraft. If India has opted out of the Russian monopoly and spread its wings on the global hardware market the price differential is a massive price to pay for cocking a snoot at Moscow. But that does not change the incomparable wow factor of the acrobatic Su 35 and the hush it creates when demonstrated at Farnborough, Le Bourget, Singapore or Dubai whenever aviation’s faithful gather.

The Gripen, a largely underrated first-rate fighter has an official tag of about $60 million but highly negotiable with the latest upgrade the JAS 39 E/F which has a carrier version promising to be a tough “pugilist.”

At this moment the Americans think they have a winner in the F-35 JSF project. With good reason.

The US has recognized the need for more light fighters to meet the projected demand and are pinning their hopes on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Right now, the JSF sounds slightly impractical. A plane with a 56,000-lb. maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) (not exactly a “light” fighter) and an undisclosed unit cost is difficult to imagine.

Yet, if there is no ban on export the JSF could do to the world military aircraft industry what the F-16 almost did: Kill it. Suddenly, there will be a stampede for the JSF and there won’t be enough to go round. The other offers will pale into insignificance and the JSF will have that special stamp of authority.

The question to be asked is not what the stand alone Rafales can do for us. And the answer is: Not much in themselves. Unless this is the first segment of a bigger plan to purchase strike aircraft and a plan that dovetails with this purchase and has a time critical frame one is loath to say that our generosity is ill placed and only the French will be singing in the rain. The Indian air force will still be woefully behind the curve.

The post Rafale Deal: Good Or Bad – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

More than 370 hectares of ground and bodies of water in the Santa Alejandrina wetlands, near the Lázaro Cárdenas de Minatitlán refinery, in the southeast state of Veracruz, were restored by the state-owned company, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and the National Polytechnic Institute (NPI).

In a statement released on Apr. 20, Pemex informed that “specialists from the Security, Health and Protection Sistems of Pemex, in coordination with technical staff of the Advanced School of Chemical Engineering and Extractive Industries of the NPI since 2010 have carried out the last phase of the restoration project that involved the removal of more than 417,000 square meters of exposed crude petroleum.”

Pemex affirmed that “the petroleum deposited in the wetlands for decades and recovered by this program will be reused as asphalt by mixing it with oxidizing agents.”

The oil recovery program facilitated the clean-up of the waters and the return of birds and fish and included the planting of more than 25,000 trees of diverse varieties in the recovered ground.

The Santa Alejandrina wetlands play an important role in the regulation of the hydraulic flow of the Coatzacoalcos River, principal tributary of the southern part of the state.

Miguel Tame Domínguez, director general of Pemex-Refining, pointed out that the recovery program is one of the most ambitious environmental projects undertaken by the company.

“The zone could be the site of an environmental education center oriented principally to the viewing of migratory birds that come to this place which is an important stop in their trip between the north and south of the American continent.”

Platform explosion

However, Pemex has been involved in serious incidents which have caused grave environmental damages. The most recent is the explosion on the Abkatun Alfa platform, in the Campeche Sound, in the Gulf of Mexico, which happened on Apr. 1 and resulted in four deaths and dozens of wounded.

Pemex insisted that the incident did not cause a petroleum spill; however, the environmental organization Greenpeace denounced Pemex’s “lack of transparency” and “the obvious intent to downplay the magnitude of the damages.”

“This event in the Campeche Sound [one of the largest petroleum deposits in Mexico], in addition to the continuous oil leaks on land and in shallow waters throughout the Mexican territory, shows that the energy reform — completely oriented to petroleum exploitation and leaving aside the promotion of renewable energies — continues to be a risky business, inefficient, and to put Mexico on the path to a future with more greenhouse gas emissions and more climate change.”

Greenpeace demanded an independent investigation of the disaster that brought to light “once more that betting on petroleum is a mistake from whatever point of view: budgetary, environmental, social and employment.”

Pemex, created in 1938 with the nationalization of foreign companies, is the sixth largest producer of petroleum and the tenth largest producer of natural gas in the world. It extracts daily 2.5 million barrels of petroleum and more than 6 million cubic feet of natural gas. It has six refineries, eight petrochemical plants and nine gas processing facilities, besides both territorial and maritime terminals, petroleum and natural gas pipelines throughout the country. Its sales are more than US$106 million annually.

The post Mexico: Pemex Restores Wetland appeared first on Eurasia Review.

New research published in Diabetologia (the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes) indicates that for each 5% increase of a person’s total energy intake provided by sweet drinks including soft drinks, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes may increase by 18%. However, the study also estimates that replacing the daily consumption of one serving of a sugary drink with either water or unsweetened tea or coffee can lower the risk of developing diabetes by between 14% and 25%.

This research is based on the large EPIC-Norfolk study which included more than 25,000 men and women aged 40-79 years living in Norfolk, UK. Study participants recorded everything that they ate and drank for 7 consecutive days covering weekdays and weekend days, with particular attention to type, amount and frequency of consumption, and whether sugar was added by the participants. During approximately 11 years of follow-up, 847 study participants were diagnosed with new-onset type 2 diabetes.

Lead scientist Dr Nita Forouhi, of the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, said: “By using this detailed dietary assessment with a food diary, we were able to study several different types of sugary beverages, including sugar-sweetened soft drinks, sweetened tea or coffee and sweetened milk drinks as well as artificially sweetened beverages (ASB) and fruit juice, and to examine what would happen if water, unsweetened tea or coffee or ASB were substituted for sugary drinks.”

In an analysis that accounted for a range of important factors including total energy intake the researchers found that there was an approximately 22% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes per extra serving per day habitually of each of soft drinks, sweetened milk beverages and ASB consumed, but that consumption of fruit juice and sweetened tea or coffee was not related to diabetes. After further accounting for body mass index and waist girth as markers of obesity, there remained a higher risk of diabetes associated with consumption of both soft drinks and sweetened milk drinks, but the link with ASB consumption no longer remained, likely explained by the greater consumption of ASB by those who were already overweight or obese.

This new research with the greater detail on types of beverages adds to previous research published in Diabetologia by the authors in 2013 which collected information from food frequency questionnaires across 8 European countries. That previous work indicated that habitual daily consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (defined as carbonated soft drinks or diluted syrups) was linked with higher risk of type 2 diabetes, consistent with the current new findings.

In this new study, the authors also found that if study participants had replaced a serving of soft drinks with a serving of water or unsweetened tea or coffee, the risk of diabetes could have been cut by 14%; and by replacing a serving of sweetened milk beverage with water or unsweetened tea or coffee, that reduction could have been 20%-25%. However, consuming ASB instead of any sugar-sweetened drink was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in type 2 diabetes, when accounting for baseline obesity and total energy intake.

Finally, they found that each 5% of higher intake of energy (as a proportion of total daily energy intake) from total sweet beverages (soft drinks, sweetened tea or coffee, sweetened milk beverages, fruit juice) was associated with a 18% higher risk of diabetes. The authors estimated that if study participants had reduced the energy they obtained from sweet beverages to below 10%, 5% or 2% of total daily energy, 3%, 7% or 15% respectively of new-onset diabetes cases could have been avoided.

Dr Forouhi said: “The good news is that our study provides evidence that replacing a daily serving of a sugary soft drink or sugary milk drink with water or unsweetened tea or coffee can help to cut the risk of diabetes, offering practical suggestions for healthy alternative drinks for the prevention of diabetes.”

The authors acknowledge limitations of dietary research which relies on asking people what they eat, but their study was large with long follow-up and had detailed assessment of diet that was collected in real-time as people consumed the food/drinks, rather than relying on memory. They concluded that their study helps to provide evidence with a robust method within the currently available methods and with detailed attention to accounting for factors that could distort the findings.

Commenting on the wider implications of these results, Dr Forouhi concluded: “Our new findings on the potential to reduce the burden of diabetes by reducing the percentage of energy consumed from sweet beverages add further important evidence to the recommendation from the World Health Organization to limit the intake of free sugars in our diet.”

The post Replacing One Serving Of Sugary Drink Per Day Cuts Risk Of Type 2 Diabetes appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Two armed suspects have been shot and killed in a parking lot outside a venue in Garland, Texas that was hosting a controversial Mohammed art event dedicated to free speech. Police and SWAT forces are checking the area for possible explosive devices.

The two suspects drove up to the center and opened fire, injuring a Garland ISD security officer in his leg, the city confirmed. The officer suffered non-life threatening injuries and was soon released from the hospital.

Both attackers were killed in the shooting, but police apparently proceeded to search the area for a vehicle that could allegedly have explosives in it. The FBI has reportedly arrived at the scene to investigate the incident further.

People inside the exhibition center were initially ordered to stay indoors, while the nearby Walmart and other businesses were evacuated.

The SWAT team evacuated the convention participants to a safer location on a local high school campus.

Channel 8 reporter on the scene, Jobin Panicker, reported that initially the crowd heard around 3-4 gunshots. A further exchange of gunfire followed after a brief pause.

The Curtis Culwell Center was hosting the first annual Mohammad Art Exhibit and Contest, a controversial “free speech” event that offered a $10,000 prize for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative event was being broadcast live on YouTube, when a SWAT member burst in telling the crowd that two suspects had been shot, Heavy.com reports. He said they were concerned that the gunmen may have also had explosives.

The event was interrupted and guests and organizers were moved into a secure room by the authorities.

The event had created controversy prior to its execution with some seeing it as an attack on Islam. The event’s organizers said they are exercising the right to freedom of speech, according to the Dallas News.

The shootings allegedly took place just before 7:00pm local time, when the event was about to conclude, shortly after the last speaker had finished his presentation.

Additional police forces had already been deployed to the Curtis Culwell Center at the time of the incident to provide security because of the controversy of the event. However, no protests were taking place prior to the event, and neither were there threats of any imminent attacks reported.

“It is a terrible thing people in America today think, ‘well they told us that they would kill us if we draw cartoons, so we [had] better not draw cartoons!’” Robert Spencer, one of the organizers said during the event. “No…that is when we have to draw cartoons!”

“We were aware of the threats. We were aware of the difficulties. We have paid tens of thousands of dollars for security for this. And you saw the massive security measures that there are in place,” Spencer said about an hour ahead of the incident.

The post Texas: Two Armed Attackers Killed Outside Mohammed ‘Art Event’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.