By Smruti S. Pattanaik

On 12 May 2015, Bangladesh witnessed the murder of the third blogger in less than a month. The three killed so far are part of a list of 84 liberals that Bangladeshi fundamentalists have identified for elimination. The latest victim was Anant Bijoy Das, a blogger and the organiser of Sylhet city’s Gonojagoron Mancha – a liberal platform that emerged during the Shahbag movement. Das was a contributor to a local publication Jukti. He had also contributed to Mukto-mona, which was founded by the US born Avijit Roy. Roy too was earlier hacked to death in a similar fashion on 26 February 2015 for his criticism of Islam and for highlighting certain prejudices associated with that religion. Subsequently, another blogger, Washiqur Rahman, who was critical of religion and had posted on his Facebook page — “I am Avijit, words cannot be killed” after Roy’s killing— was also hacked to death in broad daylight on 30 March. Whereas in the case of Rahman’s killing the culprits were caught red handed by passers-by, there has not been any progress in Avijit’s case except for the arrest of a suspect, Farabi Shafiur Rahman, a fundamentalist who had issued a threat to Avijit but who is yet to be charged.

Recurring Attacks

Though these three cases in less than three months demonstrate a pattern, the killing of individuals engaging in ‘riddah or irtidad’ (apostasy) and “tauheen-e-risalat” (blasphemy) by fundamentalists in not new:

• Poet Shamsur Rahman was targeted in 1999 by the Harakat ul Jihadi Islami (HuJi) for his writings.
• Writer Taslima Nasreen, well-known author of “Lajja”, was hounded out of the country.
• Writer Humayun Azad was attacked for his satirical novel ‘Pak Saar Jamin’ in 2004.
• Rajib Haider, a blogger, was hacked to death in front of his house in 2013 for posts that were considered offensive to Islam and its Prophet.
• Asif Mohiuddin was stabbed in 2013 for similar postings in various websites.
• Professor Shafiul Islam of Rajshahi University was hacked to death in November 2014 for banning students from wearing the full-face veil in his class room and examination hall.

The Ansarullah Bangla Team 2 (ABT 2), which claimed responsibility for the killing of Professor Islam, wrote on its website that “Our Mujahideens have today murdered an apostate who had prohibited female students from wearing veils in his department and the classrooms.” Similar postings have appeared after the killings of Avijit and Ananta. Avijit’s killing was initially claimed by the Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT). But almost a month later, the Al Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) claimed responsibility for his murder. Thereupon, the twitter account of ABT 8 asked journalists to “Use#AQIS while reporting about the killing. Don’t use Ansar Bangla 8 again.” More on this later.

Political Silence

Bangladesh continues to be caught in an identity trap. The religious, linguistic and secular facets of its identity often come into conflict with one another. The fact that it is a Muslim majority country makes the task of political parties espousing secularism difficult. Electoral politics prevent them from taking a clear stance on the place of religion given the historical context of the country’s evolution. This ambiguity is reflected in the constitution, which professes secularism on one hand and acknowledges Islam as the state religion on the other. Therefore, even while participating in the Shahbag movement, a majority of Bangladeshis disapproved of what was being written in various blogs at the peak of the movement. Subsequent killings only reveal that fundamentalists were waiting to resurface and capitalise on the people’s anger against such bloggers.

The hacking of the three bloggers in full public view attests to the fact that Islamists are growing bolder by the day. Avijit was killed near a crowded footpath inside Dhaka University Campus during a book fair and in the presence of the police. Both Washiqur and Ananta were killed in broad day light. What is surprising is that the responses of the government and opposition parties have been rather muted. There has been no strong condemnation of these heinous killings. There were no protests or hartals to arrest the killers. Civil society groups could only organise a candle light march; and only token protests were organised by the Ganajagaran Mancha. Both the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) have been cautious about not getting dragged into the controversy and into the fight between self-confessed atheists and self-defined believers. The Islamic political parties term anyone who criticises them and Islam as atheists or apostates who deserve to be killed (wajib-ul-qatl).

The Ganajagaran Mancha was formed as a platform for liberal secularist elements during the Shahbag movement. The anti-Islam blogs that appeared in the aftermath of this movement fuelled and fanned public anger. Conservative elements who were looking for an opportunity to register their political presence capitalised on popular anger to create a counter movement that caught the ruling party in a trap. The Ulemas and students of Hathazari madrassas that formed the core of Hefajat Islami, which was supported by Jamaat and the BNP, emerged as a counter force in the process by neatly dividing society into believers and non-believers. Panicked by the agenda of the Islamists, which ranged from the demand for a blasphemy law to implementation of the Sharia, the Hasina government blocked several blogs and arrested bloggers under the newly passed Information Technology Act. After jumping in to protect Islam from the blasphemers, the government now finds it impossible to take action against their murderers or even adopt measures to promote a culture of tolerance.

Reason for the Fundamentalist Revival

Three issues need to be flagged to understand the creeping culture of intolerance in Bangladesh. First, while the government has taken measures to control the activities of various militant Islamist groups, it has been unusually soft in its handling of the newly emergent vigilante groups, which could well morph into radical political outfits if they go unpunished for their unlawful acts. Thus, the Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) and Hizbut Tahir have all been banned and counter-terrorism actions have been directed against these groups and their local allies. But at the same time, the government has been conspicuously inactive against vigilante groups such as the ABT, which claim that they are protecting Islam from blasphemers. The government’s reluctance to condemn the acts of the latter groups highlights the complexity of the issue.

Sheikh Hasina’s son Sajib Wajid Joy, who is also an adviser on Information and Communication Technology Affairs, even defended the government’s and the prime minister’s silence by stating that “the political situation in Bangladesh is too volatile for her to comment publicly” and that the government was “walking a fine line” and would “not want to be seen as atheists”. He further added that because the opposition plays the “religion-card against us relentlessly, we can’t come out strongly…”1. For its part, the BNP exploited the opportunity by criticising the government for not protecting Avijit instead of the fundamentalists for killing him.

Second, the fundamentalist landscape remains diffuse. ABT-8 appears to be a fictitious name for ABT. Because, for previous killings, ABT-2 had claimed responsibility. But it could also mean that Ansarullah Bangladesh has various cells operating in specific geographical areas and the numerical connotes a particular cell. In the Washiqur Rahman case, neither of the two killers was even aware of Rahman’s “offending” blog nor did they know how to even operate a Facebook account. Yet, both believed or were made to believe that it was their pious duty to kill Rahman in the name of Islam for his Facebook post. It seems that there is an apex team within ABT that is internet savvy, which prowls in cyber space to first identify targets and then eliminate them through willing faithfuls.

Third, Bangladesh’s political space has become intensely polarised especially after Jamaat office bearer Abdul Qader Molla made a “V” sign for victory when he was given a life sentence in February 2013. Fearing that the Awami League may have reached a political compromise with the Jamaat keeping in view the forthcoming elections, students and youth spontaneously took to the street demanding accountability in war crimes. This, in essence, was what the Shahbag movement was all about. Some of them took to cyber space to campaign against Islam and posted blasphemous remarks against its prophet, thus dividing the society in the middle. Later, when Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, one of the senior leaders of the Jamaat Islami, was sentenced to death on 28 March 2013, the Islamists, who were looking for an opportunity to mobilise a counter force for Shahbag, took to the street. A morphed picture of Sayeedi appearing in the moon, which symbolised that he was a representative of Allah, was also circulated in cyber space. This resulted in massive violence in which more than 100 people were killed.

Where is Bangladesh headed?

The liberal space is shrinking in Bangladesh because of many reasons: governmental apathy and inaction; the gradual erosion of the state structure through the politics of patronage; the undermining of the judiciary; restrictions on and persecution of the media; and the playing of the politics of religion. There is a strong likelihood that radicals may continue to target free-thinkers who are taking to cyber space for expressing their opinion. The Islamists are regaining lost ground by occupying the grey area between the so-called believers and non-believers.

But democracy can only be sustained through the propagation of liberal values like freedom of dissent. It is the prerogative of the state to decide when this liberty degenerates into licence. Therefore, it is the state and not the Islamists who can decide the quantum of punishment, if any, to be delivered. But with both political parties eager to placate Islamists and hesitant to condemn the perpetrators of crimes in the name of Islam, Bangladesh is slowly and surely moving towards a perilous future that threatens the foundational values on which the liberation war was fought and the state founded.

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

1. See more at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2015/may/11/situation-too-volatile-comment-avijit-murder#sthash.jBzUBkZR.dpuf-

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BangladeshHackingFreeThinkingtoDeath_spattanaik_210515.html

The post Bangladesh: Hacking Free Thinking To Death – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The U.S. Treasury has boycotted an Iraqi company and a UAE company for helping Iran to buy used airplanes.

Iraq’s Al-Nasser Airlines and UAE-based Sky Bluebird have been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for their dealings with Iran’s Mahan Airlines.

The news comes after an Israeli official slammed the Obama administration for allowing Iran to buy passenger planes.

Ever since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, the U.S. had stopped selling planes and airplane parts to Iran. But after the Geneva agreement between Iran and the 5+1 was signed in November 2013, U.S. companies were allowed to resume the sale of airplane parts to Iran.

The U.S. Treasury says it is sanctioning the two companies because they dealt with Mahan Airlines, which is on the U.S. blacklist for its links to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In recent weeks, Mahan Airlines reportedly bought nine Airbus planes.

The U.S. Treasury sanctions include a blacklist of numerous individuals, which means the U.S. assets of the offending individuals and companies will be frozen and no companies or entities will be allowed to have dealings with them.

The post US Boycotts Companies For Helping Blacklisted Iranian Airline appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Srinivas Raman

Last year, Marshall Islands, a small constellation of islands placed in the Pacific Ocean brought an unprecedented lawsuit in the ICJ against nine nuclear weapon possessing states accusing them of violating their good faith obligations under international law and in a bid to end the nuclear arms race. These nine states include the United States -part of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and others such as India, which are not signatories but still possess nuclear weapon technology and also Israel which has not yet openly acknowledged that it possesses nuclear arms to the international community. Marshall Islands also filed a parallel suit in the Federal District Court of Northern California against the US due to the significant position the US enjoys as a major player in the league of nuclear nations and also the fact that it does not assent to the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.[1] However, the Federal Court acting under political pressure dismissed the lawsuit on frivolous grounds of incorrect jurisdiction and did not decide the case on its merits.

The lawsuit is a consequence of a long and painful legacy suffered by the people of Marshall Islands especially the inhabitants of the island of Bikini Atoll who were displaced from their native land during World War II by the U.S. Navy because U.S. took over the island to test their nuclear weapons. Between 1946 and 1958, U.S.A. conducted around 67 nuclear tests on Bikini Atoll and neighbouring islands which was equivalent to exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs each day for a period of 12 years.[2]

Though the U.S. had promised the inhabitants that this would be a temporary arrangement and they would be allowed to return to the island after a few years, the inhabitants were never able to reclaim their homeland as the island and all its natural resources were severely contaminated by the nuclear waste generated from more than a decade of intensive nuclear experiments, the harmful radiological effects of which have permeated into the soil, water and air of the affected islands making them perhaps permanently uninhabitable.[3]

The once flourishing agriculture and fisheries have now become unsafe due to the toxic effects of nuclear testing. The actions of the U.S has disrupted the way of life of the natives of Marshall islands and has adversely affected future generations as well of the small country which is politically dwarfed by the superior power exerted over it by the U.S.A. The measly compensation fund of 2 billion dollars provided by the United States is grossly inadequate to compensate for the damage caused to the inhabitants of the Islands.[4]

This case is also extremely important because it is motivated by the severe impacts of Climate Change which the Marshall Islands has been suffering. Climate Change, while a global phenomenon has had a significantly deeper impact on this island nation because it has been catalysed by radioactivity. While climate change is discussed and deliberated at an international level, for the inhabitants of Marshall Islands it is a reality they face every day as the rising sea levels constantly threaten to engulf their islands.[5]

The main question this landmark lawsuit throws up is whether the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be treated as a part of customary international law (CIL) or not? There is a growing perception among policy makers and international law experts that the time is ripe to consider bringing the NPT within the confines of customary international law due to an almost universal acceptance. Essentially, according the NPT the status of a CIL would compel all states to abide the treaty irrespective of their status as a signatory to the NPT.[6]

Presently, international law does not recognize NPT as part of CIL because the ICJ refrains from making decisions on matters which significantly impact national security concerns though the ICJ in its 1996 Advisory Opinion in the legality or threat of the use of nuclear weapons had strongly recommended that states should in the near future evolve to adopt nuclear disarmament policies to achieve global peace. The ICJ gave its Advisory Opinion when the Global South started acquiring nuclear strength as states like India and China developed nuclear weapons in the 1990’s. The United States realized that its superior position as a nuclear capital was threatened by the emerging Asian states and to safeguard its own interests wanted the ICJ to ban the development of nuclear weapon technology by new nations claiming that such practice is contrary to international law. However, the ICJ did not give such a conclusive ruling expressly prohibiting acquisition and use of nuclear power; thereby respecting the principle of sovereignty which is the bedrock of international law.

Instead, ICJ observed that there existed no custom or CIL which legitimized the use of nuclear weapons, nor was there anything in existence which prohibited the use of nuclear weapons. Hence the ICJ suggested that the use of such weapons by states should be compatible with their use in armed conflict, i.e. nuclear weapon possessing states should abide by the principle of proportionality embedded in International Humanitarian Law.[7]

The ICJ did however find that there existed an obligation on part of nations to follow Article 38 (1) (c) which recognizes general principles as a source of international law. Over the years, the ICJ has interpreted general principles to include inter alia the notion of good faith. Hence, the ICJ finally ruled that it is the obligation of all states possessing nuclear power to bring to conclusion negotiation of all instruments of nuclear weapons.

This toothless ruling is the basis on which Marshall Islands filed the lawsuit questioning the enforcement and implementation of 19 year old recommendation of the ICJ. However, since the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not binding it lacks enforcement which practically renders the recommendation of the ICJ pointless. In my opinion, it is high time that the ICJ made its stance clear on the question of the legality or illegality of nuclear weapons. The ICJ should pronounce its decision and should also facilitate negotiations between states in order to bring an end to this legal question of great international import which has been shrouded in vagueness till date.

Notes:
[1] www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28997-bush-appointed-judge-dismisses-nuclear-zerp-lawsuit-marshall-islands-to-appeal
[2] Guyer, Ruth Levy, Radioactivity and Rights, American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1371-1376
[3] Bikini, Newsweek, 1 July, 1946
[4] Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal Archives
[5] www.zherald.co.zn/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11118451
[6] thebulletin.org/import-marshall-islands-nuclear-lawsuit7143
[7] http://www.jgls.edu.in/cils/pdf/Marshall-Islands-Case-Discussion-Brief.pdf

The post Revisiting Case Of Marshall Islands: Examining Legal Status Of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed disappointment at the inability of Member States to reach consensus on a “substantive outcome” on a non-proliferation treaty key for global nuclear disarmament, according to a United Nations spokesperson.

In a statement issued earlier today regarding the conclusion of the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the UN spokesperson said the Secretary-General particularly regretted that States parties were “unable to narrow their differences on the future of nuclear disarmament or to arrive at a new collective vision on how to achieve a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.”

“The Secretary-General appeals to all States to sustain the momentum they have built over the past five years, including new initiatives in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and continuing efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation,” the statement continued. “With respect to the Middle East, the Secretary-General continues to stand ready to support efforts to promote and sustain the inclusive regional dialogue necessary to achieve this goal.”

Mr. Ban has previously lamented a reversal in progress towards new arms reduction agreements following “allegations of destabilizing violations of existing agreements.”

In addition, he has warned that the international tide of nuclear abolition – so strong in 2010 – has, in fact, ebbed leading to mounting tensions between nuclear-armed States and a return to Cold War mind sets.

In today’s statement, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson added that Mr. Ban hoped that the growing awareness of “the devastating humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons continues to compel urgent actions for effective measures leading to the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

The post Ban Disappointed Consensus Not Reached On Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On May 20 King Mohammed IV arrived on in Dakar for a working and friendship visit to Senegal, first of an African tour that will take the sovereign to Guinea Bissau, Côte d’Ivoire and Gabon.

The visit to Senegal is not a surprise to anyone, as King Mohammed VI has always included the Dakar phase in his trips to Africa.

Thus, in 2001, just two years after coming to power at the demise of his father, the King paid a state visit to Senegal. In June 2004, the Moroccan king paid a second visit to Senegal part of an African tour that also led him to Benin, Cameroun, Gabon, and Niger.

Less than a year later, in the spring of 2005, during a tour that and also included Burkina Faso, Gabon, and Mauritania, King Mohammed VI was again received in Senegal as an official guest.

In November 2006, the King paid a work visit to Dakar, his fourth to Senegal in just five years.

During his last trip to Senegal in March 2013, the Moroccan Monarch presided over the signing of several agreements between the two countries in the areas of investment, technical assistance, regulation and organization, public works, housing, civil protection and air transport

Each of these visits provided opportunity to consolidate further the historical longstanding relations binding Morocco and Senegal, to sign more cooperation agreements, and to give a new momentum to investments, both at the level of state-owned companies and at the level of the private sector.

Economic relations between the two countries are described as very good and according to 2011 figures, Senegal was Morocco’s leading trade partner in West Africa with a volume estimated at $122 million.

This bilateral cooperation is not limited to the trade and economic sectors only but also covers education and training. Hundreds of Senegalese students are attending Moroccan Universities and other higher institutes with grants from the Moroccan Government. Many Senegalese civil servants and even military also benefit from training and refreshing courses in Morocco.

The two countries are also bound by strong historical and religious ties and the followers of the Tijani confraternity regularly come to Morocco to visit the Mausoleum of Sheikh Sidi Ahmed Tijani, the founder of this soufi confraternity, who is buried in Fes.

Besides these very strong economic, cultural and spiritual ties, Morocco and Senegal have established a political partnership that defies time and men. Whether Senegal is ruled by a Leopold Sedar Senghor, a Abdou Diouf, a Abdoulaye Wade or a Macky Sall, the country has always been keen on preserving its firm political ties with the North African kingdom, and Morocco, under the reign of the late Mohammed V, the late Hassan II or under the reign of King Mohammed VI has always endeavoured to upgrade its privileged partnership with the West African country.

This sixth royal trip to Senegal is providing a new opportunity to the two heads of state to reiterate their mutual commitment to the everlasting, outstanding relations binding the two countries.

The post Morocco-Senegal Relations Defying Time‏ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The tragic and untimely death of Sabeen Mahmud and the recent protests by a group who call themselves the “International Voice for Baloch Missing Persons” has brought new attention to the issue of the so-called missing persons of Balochistan.
A few years ago the Supreme Court at the time led by the now infamous Chaudhry Iftekhar had threatened to take action against the Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) and the head of Military Operations (MO), if the court had found them at fault of forcefully kidnapping and detaining innocent people.

The purpose of this article is not to dismiss the fact that there are actual people that have gone missing from Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan. The article lays out an argument that it is preposterous to think that the Pakistan army has anything to do with their disappearances.

Who are the missing persons?

Earlier in May, the Pakistan army conducted a rescue operation in Turbat, Balochistan, saving the lives of Pakistani captives who were abducted for ransom. This is one kind of missing persons. In this category of missing persons, we find people who have been kidnapped for ransom.

The second type of missing person is an individual who is captured by a rival tribe. The areas that these people go missing from have a strong tribal culture and it is not uncommon for opposing tribes to kidnap and sometimes even murder their rival.

Another category is people who travel to Afghanistan, Kashmir, Central Asia, and the Middle East for so-called jihad. These are often young people who have very little prospects for a future in their community, and are either a member of a gang, guilty of a crime such as theft, rape, or murder. They run away without telling their family members, hoping to escape their past, and make a name for themselves fighting for terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.

Sometimes those who have voluntarily joined a terrorist organization will turn themselves over to the army, and promise to provide intelligence for money and a new identity. They become informants for the intelligence community. This is another category of missing person; obviously the security agencies will not make their relationship with that individual public for that person’s safety.

The missing criminal

In 2009, I was traveling with an army officer from Orakzai Agency – that is one of the geographical entities in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas – to a Frontier Constabulary post nearby. It was a road-opening day (ROD), which meant that the road was checked that morning for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) before it was declared open for escorted travel, and also meant that there was a soldier posted every 100 meters.

The officer and I were making small talk, when all of the sudden he slammed on his brakes and ran out of the truck towards a tall, slim built man, who must have been in his mid-to-late-twenties. The officer shouted at me to stay in the truck.

Backup was called and the man was arrested. The officer came back to our truck and said we will have to go back to Orakzai. As we headed back, he told me that he had been missing in action or forty days and the man he just arrested is a former grade schoolteacher who used to watch him at night.

The man did not look like much of a threat to me; I mean he was not even armed.

I figured that he would be processed and sent to Peshawar for a trial. But a few days later I saw him playing basketball in a temporary military camp in Orakzai. I was so confused, I went up to the officer who arrested him and asked what the man was doing on the basketball court?

The officer told me that the schoolteacher had provided them with good intelligence on the location of a Taliban hideout where they were holding Pakistani soldiers hostage. And because of the information he provided, the army was able to rescue their people. The schoolteacher volunteered to become an informant in exchange for a new identity.

By temporarily detaining terror suspects, whom our security forces are legally allowed to do under the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO), the army was able to get actionable intelligence.

The point I am trying to make is that there are no innocent civilians that are going missing and you can’t go after the military or ISI for doing their job. They are fighting a war, risking their lives so we can live ours.

If our security forces believe that someone is a threat or has intelligence and detains them then it is a good thing, and it is not illegal. If we falsely start accusing the security forces then they won’t arrest or detain anyone, there will be more terrorist activity, innocent civilians will lose lives.

It is also important for me to highlight here the fact that under the PPO our security forces have also been granted authority to shoot anyone they see committing or “likely to commit” any terror-related offences.

If perhaps the army or ISI had been more aggressive in the past, we might have caught and killed OBL ourselves. Instead the Pakistani media through its own illegal television trials had forced our security forces from taking more resolute action. If we do not let our security forces do their job then we are going to end up being consumed by terrorism. Extraordinary times do not wait for norms applicable to ordinary and peaceful days. Lets not mix apples and oranges and judge ourselves by current Western standards, which have evolved over centuries and through extraordinary steps that we must also take.

Some of the people that are classified as missing persons work as informants for the military and obviously the army and ISI is not going to come out and say, “That person is not missing they are working for us.” Not all things are black and white.

The families you see on television standing outside of the Supreme Court, asserting that their relatives were picked up and never returned are lying. They are lying through their teeth. It is absolutely legal for the security forces to arrest terror suspects and those arrested are tried in special courts, again under the PPO, which are allowed to exclude the public from hearings and legally withhold details of the proceedings for the sake of national security. The families are informed at most within ninety-days.

If someone has gone missing for more than ninety-days then the security forces had nothing to do with their disappearance. The article has already addressed what might have happened to those who have gone missing for longer than ninety-days.
The army or ISI should not give away details of their intelligence networks and risk the lives of their people as well as their informant’s lives. See how the American judiciary is handling Hillary Clinton’s case of her emails being classified by FBI even though she wanted to make these public.

The Americans have far more stringent anti-terrorism laws than we have in Pakistan. Unlike the Americans, Pakistan does not run secret jails, and does not hold any individual indefinitely without a trial. All those accused of terrorism are given a fair trial in special courts established under the PPO.

The reason these special courts exist is because in ordinary courts the accused terror suspect usually ends up being dismissed by threatening the judge or his family. Have we forgotten the deadly attack on the Islamabad district court, which was a direct result of the court taking on terrorism cases? Special courts were created for the safety of our judicial community.

There is no need to make a circus out of this issue, let the men and women of the armed forces do their job and others do theirs. We cannot chop off the healthy leg instead of treating the one with disease.

Some of our media considers it their divine right to indulge in finger pointing at our armed forces. As we have seen in the case of Sabeen Mahmud, she was not killed by the ISI because she talked about missing persons. Extremists attacked her for her views on Lal Masjid. The media gave it a completely different spin. How many times will we fall into this media trap?

The armed forces of Pakistan have no reason to arrest, detain, or kidnap innocent civilians. They are the ones that end up rescuing those illegally detained by rival tribes, or taken hostage for ransom by criminal gangs and terrorist organizations.

We must at least choose our friends, saviors and actual enemies clearly. No body takes the bullets to save us except our military and the law enforcing agencies. If cannot give them the respect and gratitude they deserve, if we cannot put our judicial and corrupt systems in order, the least we can do is to keep our fingers in our pockets. Let the courageous men and women of Pakistan do their jobs, they are the ones who continue to save us from our own self-destructive ways.

The post Pakistan: What Missing Persons? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Addressing violent extremism is not only a challenge for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) but also for the whole world, said government, business and civil society leaders in the closing session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa. “In Iraq and the region as a whole, the biggest challenge we face is extremism and terrorism, but this has repercussions at the international level,” said Ayad Allawi, Vice-President of Iraq. Saleh Muhammed Al Mutlaq, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, added: “Terrorism is not plaguing Iraq alone but is spilling over. If it does, it will affect the stability and security of the whole world. We cannot expect that any Arab country can fight terrorism without the help of the international community.”

At the meeting, participants engaged in discussions on how to address violent extremism. “There is an increasing demand for joint responses,” Espen Barth Eide, Managing Director and Member of the Managing Board of the World Economic Forum, said. “We believe this is something that has to be dealt with not just by governments but also by businesses and NGOs alike.”

Allawi called for clear strategies not just to counter the immediate threat of Daesh, the extremist group also known as ISIS, but also the long-term challenge of preventing the radicalization of citizens, particularly young people. “A military victory will not be sufficient. We need to have one clear strategy to develop conducive political and economic environments.” Al Mutlaq said: “Terrorism does not depend on the number of people recruited but derives its power from the feebleness of societies. Justice and the inclusion of all stakeholders are instrumental in stopping terrorism and keeping it at bay. Our concern is for the period post-ISIS. If we procrastinate, we will contribute to the social tensions that will lead to internal conflict.”

It is important to focus on preventive measures, Suleiman Bakhit, Founder and Chief Financial Officer of Hero Factor in Jordan, argued. “War-zone laws will not end extremism. For every terrorist we kill, there are a hundred more being born.” For now, Bakhit said, governments are monopolizing efforts to counter violent extremism. “They have to include civil society and the private sector. We can operate in real time where governments cannot. NGOs and the private sector are the ones that can develop the counter-narrative.” Young people who have joined ISIS do so because they are seduced by the opportunity to be heroic. “Heroism is how they sell extremism to kids,” Bakhit observed. “We don’t really have heroes. There is a lack of positive role models for our children. We need a different kind of heroism, one that is based on narratives of hope and tolerance.”

The business community, using marketing methods, can help amplify the message that NGOs are broadcasting, Mohammad Jaafar, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Kuwaiti Danish Dairy Company, said. Extremist groups haven’t hijacked the religion; they have relabelled it. “If you don’t do anything about the problem today, this will be nothing compared to what we will see in 20 years,” he said.

He called for a close study of extremism in every country: “Let’s X-ray the problem to determine what the needs are in Jordan as they are different from the needs in Saudi Arabia.” Sarah Sewall, US Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights, also called for a close examination of what is driving the spread of extremism. “We need to understand where the primary factors lie. We have neither the resources nor the time to make every country perfect. But the emphasis should be to diagnose specifically what the drivers are and then integrate our efforts. That’s really a tall order.” Jaafar added: “We have to think about what it is that we are selling to the kids. Let’s come up with innovation, a change of approach. We must keep the momentum going.”

Inclusion is key, Atifete Jahjaga, the President of the Republic of Kosovo, told participants. “Terrorism and extremism are countered by engaging all the layers of our societies. No one should be kept aside. Exclusion is the breeding ground of extremism.” Moderates in religious communities have a special responsibility, she said. “It falls upon the moderate leaders of the faith to rob extremist groups of the false interpretation of the religion, which they use as justification for violence and the use of force.”

Sewall stressed that each country has to implement its own action plans to counter violent extremism. Improving governance, she concluded, is crucial, a point that was echoed by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, in his remarks to close the meeting. “There is a lack of confidence in the political and business communities because we do not always practise the best governance. If next year you can say that in my organization I have applied the best governance rules, then we will make real progress.”

The World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa took place at the Dead Sea in Jordan on 21-23 May.

The post Addressing Violent Extremism Is Challenge For Entire World – Iraq VP appeared first on Eurasia Review.

According to historian Daniel Headrick, the opening of Suez Canal in 1869 transformed the 19th Century geopolitics and geo-economics and accelerated the globalization of the world. In the 21st Century, the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor promises to do it once again.

Zachary Karabell’s award-winning book, ‘Parting the Desert’ explains the complex engineering, economic, political and diplomatic challenges which the French diplomat and entrepreneur Ferdinand de Lesseps faced, while building the strategic waterway of Suez Canal and bringing Orient and Occident closer to each other by reducing thousands of miles and days of costly and perilous sea travel. The Suez Canal also brought the rising industrialized powers of Western Europe closer to their Eastern colonies and markets, which provided them cheap labor and free raw material. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) worth $46 billion will do the same. It will enable Beijing to sustain its economic rise, by bringing South Asian, Central Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Western European markets and raw material suppliers, closer and making its products cheaper in the international markets. CPEC will also allow China to sustain it rapid economic growth by making the energy producing West Asia and the Middle East closer and more accessible.

However, Karabell’s book also lucidly traces the complex and multi-dimensional challenges which the French empire faced while building the Suez Canal during the 19th Century and later the British Empire encountered, in trying to maintain its exclusive control over it during the 20th Century. The building, use and security of the Suez Canal have been overshadowed by the great power rivalry, throughout its existence. Sharing the socio-economic benefits of the Suez Canal with the local populace was less of a concern for those who built it or later fought for it. The sobering experience of building and controlling the strategic waterways of Suez Canal offers various useful lessons for those who plan to build the CPEC.

The Suez Canal was built at a time of intense rivalry between major powers, in a multi-polar world, which was more competitive than inter-dependent. In addition, during the 19th Century, the developed world was more connected to their colonies than to their strategic competitors and the relationship between the great powers and their colonies was more exploitative than based on a desire to equitably sharing the ensuing wealth and opportunities. Hence, during the 19th and first half of the 20th Century, the inter-state competition for wealth and power was viewed as an intense zero-sum game between the great powers and it also led to a few peaceful and mostly violent independence movements within their colonies.

In contrast, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor aims to reinforce the strong Sino-Pak geostrategic and geo-political bonds with a deeper, more lucrative and lasting geo-economic inter-dependence between the two neighboring nations. This will not only enable the governments of China and Pakistan to cooperate with each other but also allow the societies of the two nations to become closer and wealthier than ever before. Moreover, CPEC should make Pakistan, more not less, acceptable as an economic corridor and investment hub, not merely for China but also for the rest of the developed world.

The Chinese paradigm of peaceful rise rejects international politics as a zero-sum pursuit of wealth and power. Instead, Beijing aspires for a world, in which wealth and opportunity should be shared in an all-inclusive manner between all nations rather than via a mutually-exclusive or hostile method of statecraft, conducted between the developed and developing nations. This will enable not only the existing and rising major powers but also the developing nations, to mutually shape a more peaceful, secure and stable world order, rather than to return to the competitive great power rivalry, which made the 20th Century, the most vicious and bloody era in human history. Despite unprecedented technological progress, the sobering lessons of the 20th century inform us that without socio-economic justice, equitable sharing of wealth and progress and a universal, criteria-based approach towards arms control, peace and security is less, not more likely.

Pakistan and China face three key challenges in the successful implementation of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. First, at the global level, both nations need to convince the major powers, which have an interest in maintaining and benefiting from the geopolitical and geo-economic status quo, that this corridor is not against any other major power or alliance but presents an opportunity not merely for the nations of China and Pakistan but also for the rest of the world to benefit by investing in and trading through this strategic route, akin to Suez Canal. Major powers fought many a times for the control over Suez Canal, only to realize after the crisis of 1956 that all nations will mutually benefit more in its peaceful and collective use instead of violently vying for its exclusive control.

Second, both Pakistan and China aim to eliminate terrorism from their respective territories. The timely success of the Counter-terrorism efforts by both the nations in their respective territories is fundamental to ensuring that this region benefits from the promise which it has always offered but seldom yielded. Third, development besides being a socio-economic subject is also a political phenomenon. It is vital for both China and Pakistan to ensure that the opportunities and rewards of CPEC are visibly, equitably and fairly shared with all the social and economic strata. This will allow the local and particularly the millions of poor people of this region to develop a collective stake in CPEC, as a ray of hope towards their socio-economic emancipation, welfare and empowerment rather than to further expand the socio-economic divisions. This approach will be useful not merely in terms of regional economic progress but more importantly towards nation building.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, like the Suez Canal, will bring different parts of the world closer to each other, like never before. Thanks to technology, the age of shrinking distances has never been faster and costlier. Humanity’s common dream of a prosperous, progressive and peaceful world can be realized if we learn from past mistakes and our collective dreams can conquer our individual fears. The US has pivoted towards East Asia, through a strategic rebalance while China has pivoted towards rest of the world, through Pakistan. The former is based on fear, the latter on hope. Let us give hope a chance.

*Syed Muhammad Ali is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for International Strategic Studies, Islamabad and also teaches at the Foreign Service Academy of Pakistan. He has extensively written on security and strategic issues for the past 21 years.

The post China’s Peaceful Pivot Through Pakistan – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In explaining why he chose to put on ice his sterling career as a war reporter, renowned journalist, documentary filmmaker and author, Sebastian Junger says, “on some level a man’s job is to protect the people he loves. Risking your life is not protecting them – it’s exposing them to emotional danger.” And who could blame him, considering that more war correspondents than ever are dying in war zones today.

Recent geo-political events however seem to rebut this somewhat old-fashioned notion of the man being the protector of his loved ones, and shielding them from emotional pain. Consider this, more than 1,750 migrants, mostly from West Africa and North Africa and some parts of the Middle East have perished in the Mediterranean Sea since the beginning of the year, attempting to seek ‘greener pastures’ in Europe. According to the International Organisation for Migration (OIM), this number is more than 30 times higher than that recorded during the corresponding period in 2014.

More recently, the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) estimates that about 4,000 refugees have been stranded at sea, in a boat crisis that has pitted the Southeast Asian nations of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia over the Rohingya migrants stranded in the Adnan Sea.

The question therefore begs, what would cause thousands to abandon their homes, families and put their lives at risk at sea, facing the risks potential of shipwrecks and possible human trafficking?

That answer lies in an honest and frank assessment of what they are running from in their home countries – poverty, war, disease and economic distress. For many of these migrants, distant lands across the high seas offer potential comfort and the promise for a better future, not only for them, but also for the loved ones left behind. But how oft misplaced is this perception of these ‘greener pastures’, as most of those immigrants from Africa who manage to make it to Europe, Italy mostly, fail to get job, an income, decent shelter and resultantly have to live in squalid conditions. Some pay as much as $10,000 for this voyage from Africa to Europe, riddled with uncertainty, as was the case for Wegasi Nebiat, a 24 year old Eritrean, whose journey to “freedom” in Europe unfortunately ended in a shipwreck near the Greek Island of Rhodes early this year. This just illustrates the desperation these migrants have, which drives them to such risky lengths.

Moving away from the boat crises for a little, recently, South Africa, Africa’s most developed economy and second largest after Nigeria, witnessed epic xenophobic attacks on foreigners who have settled in the country over the years. Most of these immigrants from countries such as South Africa’s Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Nigeria; attracted by the ‘bright lights’ of South Africa have sought to make a living for themselves in this foreign country. And it has not been easy for them; often enduring waves of xenophobic attacks, first in 2008 and more recently this year, attacks so vicious, that a man was stabbed to death in full view of cameras in a street. Still, they choose to stay put even in such hostile conditions and forego the option of returning to their home countries.

In light of these and many more similar unfortunate events, the world has seen how disjointed the global response to the thorny issue of migrants has been. There has been stand-offs between countries that have even put strains on some diplomatic relations. Talk of Australia and Indonesia as a case in point. In effect, the issue of migrants and how to deal with them has gained so much prominence globally, that it brings to the fore certain truths that may be unpalatable to some, especially, the more advanced economies.

Countries now must be concerned with what happens across their borders, as recent events show just how easy crises in one country can be exported to others in the form of illegal immigrants. In severely depressed economies with suppressed democracies, many people are now voting with their feet; deserting their home countries and making abode in foreign lands. Upon settling in foreign lands, often, migrants are more inclined to accept lower wages for work, to the obvious discontent of natives in their adopted countries. This calls for countries to hold each other accountable for the way leaders manage their countries in a mutually responsible manner, as the problems in one jurisdiction could potentially become another country’s problems too, if recent immigrant trends are anything to go by.

Simply stated, it is in the best interest of the developed nations to help ensure that the less developed countries continue growing in a sustainable manner, offering opportunity for all citizens. An en masse migration invariably puts a strain in the social and economic structures of the receiving countries, and if unattended to, this could likely be a hotbed for future conflict.

Well-functioning countries which offer an equal shot for everyone to work and earn a living, which also guarantee rule of law and offer citizens suffrage would certainly make headway in addressing the root cause of migrant crisis, not just for Africa, but in the global context. Speaking in the wake of the xenophobic waves of violence, South President Jacob Zuma said, “We have to address the underlying causes of the violence and tensions, which is the legacy of poverty, unemployment and inequality in our country and our continent, and the competition for limited resources.”

As European ministers scramble to come up with a holistic strategy to address the growing crisis of illegal migrants, Africa too would do well to take a cue from this and introspect deeply into why many of its children leave its shores for distant lands. Yes, Africa is rising but is this much vaunted economic growth all-encompassing and inclusive? Judging from the desperation that drives most to put their lives at risk crossing the seas to a ‘better’ future elsewhere, the answer is a resounding no.

The post Of Africa’s Illegal Immigrant Crisis And Vaunted Africa-Rising Mirage – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will not allow any inspections by foreigners of its military sites.

“P5+1 countries are making new comments in the nuclear negotiations. Regarding the inspections, we have said that we will not allow foreigners to carry out inspections of any Iranian military sites,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

The Leader further warned against the enemies’ acquisitiveness.

“The enemies should know that the Iranian nation and officials will, by no means, give in to excessive demands and bullying,” Ayatollah Khamenei underlined.

Excessive demands, said the Leader, are among the challenges facing the Islamic establishment of Iran, saying,”We are not afraid of these challenges … the Iranian nation will weather these challenges with determination, trust in God and self-reliance.”

Ayatollah Khamenei added that foreigners’ call for interview with Iranian nuclear scientists means “interrogation” and emphasized that he would not allow aliens to speak with Iranian scientists in the nuclear domain and “other sensitive majors.”

“Firm resolve” and “lack of inaction” are the only way to counter the “brazen enemy,” said the Leader, addressing nuclear officials.

Ayatollah Khamenei said the officials should be able to relay the Iranian people’s message and show the nation’s grandeur in the nuclear negotiations.

Ayatollah Khamenei also warned of enemies’ plan to spread proxy wars to the Iranian borders in collusion with some “silly” officials of Persian Gulf countries.

In case of any mischievous acts by the enemies to wage proxy wars, Iran will show a very tough reaction, the Leader stated.

Ayatollah Khamenei dismissed the enemies’ propaganda to create the impression that Iran is isolated, saying,”Isolated are those who can attract some individuals only through force and dollars.”

The outcome of the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program will be “glory” for the Iranian nation, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani also said.

The Iranian people support the nuclear negotiators, Rouhani said, adding, “The end of the negotiations will bring with it glory for the great Iranian nation.”

He further stressed that all Iranians wish the success of the nuclear talks between Iran and the six world powers.

“With support from the people, we will be able to bring about victory in the international arena for the Iranian nation,” Rouhani added.

President Rouhani further said plots by those trying to present a bad image of Iran have failed, stressing, “We are defeating the Iranophobia project in the world.”

He also referred to the peaceful nature of the Iranian people, stressing, “We do not intend to attack any country.”

However, the president said, if any country intends to take hostile acts against the Iranian nation, it will face a strong response.

Iran’s President also said the Islamic Republic will never sign a nuclear deal with the P5+1 countries that would allow foreign access to the country’s scientific and military secrets.

Referring to the recent remarks by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei that Iran will never allow inspections of its military sites as part of an agreement with the P5+1 countries, President Rouhani said the administration strictly obeys the Leader’s words.

“The Leader of the Islamic Revolution’s word is rule for the administration; and we will never sign a deal that would allow anybody to have access to the country’s scientific and military secrets,” President Rouhani said.

“Research and development is our red-line, and nuclear negotiators are aware of the red-lines,” he stressed.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also said the Islamic Republic will not give in to excessive demands in negotiations over the country’s nuclear program.

“Time and again, members of the Iranian negotiating delegation and I have stressed that we will certainly not allow the Western side to make excessive demands in the nuclear negotiations,” Zarif said.

“Definitely, the negotiating team feels obliged to abide by the Islamic establishment’s red lines in all issues in the nuclear talks,” he added.

Zarif made the remarks in response to a question about the US excessive demands in the nuclear talks, including inspections of Iran’s military sites.

The US has, on several occasions, called for Iran’s agreement to foreign inspections of its military sites as part of a possible final deal over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

The Iranian Foreign Minister has also urged the United Nations to intensify efforts to solve the crisis in Yemen, emphasizing the need for a halt to deadly Saudi air raids against the neighboring Arab state.

The United Nations and its secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, should play an “active” and “independent” role with regard to the deadly conflict in Yemen, Zarif said.

He also said that the establishment of a full-fledged ceasefire can be the starting point of any peace process in Yemen, adding that intra-Yemeni dialog is the only way out of the political deadlock in the Arabian Peninsula state.

“Iran backs initiatives that will bring all Yemeni political groups to the negotiating table,” Zarif said, warning that no foreign country should be party to the peace talks.

Iran and other countries can help with Yemen’s peace process only if the need arises, he went on to say.

The top Iranian diplomat also rejected as “unacceptable” the ongoing bombardment and siege against the Yemeni people, warning of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the war-ravaged country.

A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator says the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not be allowed to inspect Iran’s military sites.

Hamid Baeidinejad, who also serves as the director general for political affairs at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said that Iran’s military facilities have nothing to do with the nuclear issue and, hence, needn’t be inspected by the UN nuclear agency.

To meet the requirements of the IAEA, he noted, there is no need for Iran’s military and defence installations to come under the IAEA inspection.

“No representative form Iran would let the enemy obtain the possibility to infiltrate into the country’s military and defense facilities and set the stage for threats to national security,” said Baeidinejad.

Undoubtedly, he stressed, Iran will not agree to inspections of its defence installations under the current sensitive circumstances.

Baeidinejad’s remarks came after IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano on May 12 claimed that a nuclear agreement being drafted by Iran and the P5+1 countries would give the agency’s experts the right to push for access to Iranian military sites.

The post Iran Won’t Allow Foreign Inspections Of Military Sites appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Rising defence budgets have fuelled a sizable naval buildup in Southeast Asia. As a result, countries surrounding the South China Sea have acquired new military capabilities that could make conflict in the region, should it occur, potentially more lethal.

By Richard A. Bitzinger*

Growing defense budgets have underwritten a sizable arms buildup in Southeast Asia since around the turn of the century. Regional navies have particularly benefited from this increase in military expenditures. As a result, many Southeast Asian navies are in the process of transforming themselves from modest forces oriented mainly toward coastal defence to modern fleets capable of projecting considerable firepower into local “green waters”.

As the IMDEX Asia maritime defence exposition takes place in Singapore this week, it would be appropriate at this time to reflect upon the impact of rising defence budgets and their impact on regional naval modernisation.
Three broad trends in regional naval acquisition

In general, Southeast Asian navies are experiencing growth in three broad areas. In the first place, many have acquired, or are in the process of acquiring, largish surface combatants. In the past, most regional navies consisted mainly of coastal patrol boats and fast-attack craft, geared mostly toward littoral combat. Today, however, many of these forces are being outfitted with larger, longer-range warships, usually of the corvette or frigate class.

Malaysia, for example, has acquired two frigates from the United Kingdom and at least six Gowind-class stealthy corvettes from France. For their part, Singapore has built six Formidable-class frigates in the past decade, based on the French Lafayette design; Indonesia is buying four corvettes from the Netherlands; Vietnam is getting two Russian-built Gepard-class frigates; and Thailand is negotiating with South Korea for an unknown number of multi-role frigates. Even traditionally fund-starved Philippines is currently acquiring several used ships from the United States, Italy, and Japan.

Secondly, there has been a major expansion in regional submarine fleets. Many Southeast Asian navies who did not possess a single submarine 15 or 20 years ago are now operating or acquiring quite impressive fleets of undersea vessels. Singapore has bought six used-but-upgraded submarines from Sweden – including two that have been refitted with air-independent propulsion (AIP); in 2014, Singapore announced that it was buying two brand-new Type-218S boats from Germany, equipped with fuel cells for AIP.

At the same time, Malaysia has taken delivery of two submarines from France, while Vietnam has bought six Kilo-class submarines from Russia. Indonesia will get at least three (and possibly more) submarines from South Korea, and both Thailand and the Philippines have reiterated their requirement for subs.

Finally, many local navies are also acquiring new ships for expeditionary warfare. Singapore has indigenously designed and built four Endurance-class amphibious operations ships; it is also building one ship in this class for the Thai navy. Indonesia and Philippines are both acquiring Korean-designed Makassar-class amphibious ships, while the Thais operate the only full-fledged aircraft carrier in Southeast Asia.

Making it rain: Regional defence spending trends

This buildup in Southeast Asian naval capabilities would not have been possible without a significant increase in regional defence expenditures. According to data put out by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), military spending by ASEAN nations more than doubled from 2000 to 2013, from US$15.7 billion to US$34.9 billion (as measured in constant 2011 US dollars).

Indonesia’s military budget more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2013, from US$1.9 billion to US$8.4 billion, while Malaysian defence spending essentially doubled in real terms, going from US$2.4 billion in 2000 to US$4.8 billion in 2013. Over this same period, Thai military expenditures grew by 75 percent, to reach US$5.6 billion in 2013, and Singapore’s defence budget grew by nearly a quarter, to US$9.1 billion in 2013.

At the same time, the remarkable economic growth experienced by most Southeast Asian nations over the past 20 years or so has meant that the burden of defence spending has remained manageable even as military expenditures have increased. In fact, according to SIPRI, defence spending as a percentage of GDP was more or less constant for most ASEAN nations between 2000 and 2013: Indonesia: 0.9 percent; Malaysia, 1.5 percent; the Philippines, 1.4 percent; Thailand, 1.5 percent; Vietnam, 2.4 percent. In Singapore, the military burden actually went down, from 4.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to 3.4 percent in 2013.

Regional navies and the South China Sea

The arms build-up in Southeast Asia over the past 10 to 15 years is undeniably significant, especially as it might impact the current rise in tensions in and around the South China Sea. In the first place, recent acquisitions by regional navies constitute something more than mere modernisation; rather, the new types of armaments being procured and deployed promise to significantly affect regional seaborne warfighting capabilities.

Local navies are acquiring greater lethality and accuracy at longer ranges – for example, antiship cruise missiles and modern naval guns. Additionally, local navies are acquiring new or increased capabilities for force projection, operational manoeuvre, and speed. Modern submarines and surface combatants, amphibious assault ships, and even aircraft carriers have all extended these militaries’ theoretical range of action. New platforms for reconnaissance and surveillance, especially in the air, have considerably expanded these militaries’ capacities to look out over the horizon and better patrol territorial waters and EEZs.

In sum, many countries in the South China Sea region have added considerable capabilities to their forces (military and coast guard) over the past 10 to 15 years. Many of these capabilities – such as submarines or antiship missiles, long-range air interdiction or maritime strike – were previously lacking in these forces, and these new capabilities have greatly increased these militaries’ capacities for projecting force into the South China Sea.

How these increased capacities may affect tensions in the region is still uncertain, but certainly they promise to magnify any military clashes in the South China Sea, should it occur. As Southeast Asian navies add new capabilities for warfighting, any future conflict in the region is likely to be faster, more intense, and more lethal, and therefore perhaps more devastating.

*Richard A. Bitzinger is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Military Transformations Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Formerly with the RAND Corp. and the Defence Budget Project, he has been writing on defence industries and the global arms trade for more than 20 years. This is part of a series on the IMDEX Asia International Maritime Defence Exposition in Singapore.

The post IMDEX Asia: Southeast Asian Naval Expansion And Defence Spending – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Felix K. Chang*

Earlier this month, an American littoral combat ship, the Fort Worth (pictured above), sailed just over 12 nautical miles from some of the artificial islands that China has built from reclaimed land in the South China Sea.  While the U.S. Navy has conducted such transits before to ensure freedom of navigation through the region, it was the first time that a U.S. warship came so close to Chinese-held islands.  The transit was part of a stepped-up American effort to deter China from asserting its claims in the Spratly Islands too aggressively.  That effort has included openly questioning China’s maritime claims in December 2014 and encouraging Japan to take a bigger security role in the region earlier this year.

Two weeks ago, the United States also revealed that it is considering sending its ships and surveillance aircraft within 12 nautical miles—the internationally-recognized territorial zone around natural islands—of China’s newly-built islands, which the U.S. does not regard as natural.  If that happens, an incident between U.S. and Chinese forces may well take place.

Currently the Fort Worth, based in Singapore, is the only U.S. warship whose homeport is anywhere near the Spratly Islands.  While the U.S. Navy plans to eventually base four littoral combat ships in Singapore, when that might happen is not yet known.  In the meantime, America’s thin grey-hulled line in the South China Sea will be very thin indeed.

Thus, the Pentagon must consider how it would respond to a crisis there if one should occur.  Broadly speaking, the U.S. Navy expects to flow forces into the region from other areas around the world.  But to reach the South China Sea, those forces would have to pass through or near a number of choke points.  Those choke points would be natural places where China could intercept U.S. forces.

South China Sea and US Navy. Source: FPRI

The U.S. 7th Fleet, based in Japan, would be the closest reinforcements that the United States could dispatch.  It would also be the most susceptible to Chinese interception.  To reach the South China Sea it would likely sail down the eastern flank of the Ryukyu Islands and through the Luzon Strait.   On the way it would pass the Miyako Strait, through which submarines and warships of China’s East Sea Fleet are known to sortie into the Pacific Ocean.  Then, as the U.S. fleet passes through the Luzon Strait, it would face the full brunt of Chinese naval and air forces stationed along China’s southern coast, including the main bases of China’s South Sea Fleet at Zhanjiang and Yalong Bay.  While the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines sailing underwater from Guam may avoid Chinese air power, both U.S. surface and subsurface forces would likely encounter Chinese submarines in the confined spaces of the Luzon Strait and in the waters near the Paracel Islands.

The U.S. 5th Fleet, normally operating near the Persian Gulf, would be the next closest source of reinforcements.  Its principal challenge to reach the South China Sea would be to sail unfettered through the long and narrow Malacca Strait.  There, Singapore’s capable navy and air force could play a vital role in keeping watch for Chinese aircraft and submarines, even if it did not want to directly involve itself in the dispute.

The last forces to arrive might deploy from as far as Hawaii or the U.S. West Coast.  They would be largely drawn from the U.S. 3rd Fleet.  Those forces may choose to eschew the Luzon Strait altogether and support operations in the South China Sea from the Sulu or Celebes Seas.  There, they could operate in relative safety, though still within range of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles.  At least the mountains of Palawan Island would degrade the ability of Chinese land-based high-frequency direction-finding equipment and over-the-horizon radar to accurately target U.S. forces.  Resupply, particularly of ordinance, could be routed by air through Zamboanga (where U.S. Special Forces have operated for about a decade) or by ship through Davao or Koror.

All of which is to say that the success (or failure) of an American response to a crisis in the South China Sea depends, in no small part, to what happens in and near those straits, and that those straits should be very much present in the minds of U.S. naval commanders.  They also remind us of the abiding importance of geography, even in naval warfare.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years. He was previously a consultant in Booz Allen Hamilton’s Strategy and Organization practice; among his clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and other agencies. Earlier, he served as a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense and a business advisor at Mobil Oil Corporation, where he dealt with strategic planning for upstream and midstream investments throughout Asia and Africa.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

The post Ready For A Fight?: How US Could Respond To A South China Sea Crisis – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The US has blocked a global document aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, saying Egypt and other states tried to “cynically manipulate” the process by setting a deadline for Israel and its neighbors to meet within months on a Middle East zone free of such weapons.

The now-failed final document of a landmark treaty review conference had called on the UN secretary-general to convene the Middle East conference no later than March 2016, regardless of whether Israel and its neighbors agree on an agenda.

Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has never publicly declared what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program. A conference might force Israel to acknowledge it.

Since adopting a final document requires consensus, the rejection by the US, backed by Britain and Canada, means the entire blueprint for global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for the next five years has been blocked after four weeks of negotiations. The next treaty review conference is in 2020.

The US and Russia hold more than 90 percent of the estimated 16,000 nuclear weapons today.

The post US Blocks Global Document Aimed At Ridding World Of Nuclear Weapons appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security for US State Department

Madam President,

The United States has a deep and long-standing interest in global nonproliferation efforts. President Obama remains committed to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. We remain unwavering in our support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and believe that this Review Conference (RevCon) has demonstrated the broad international support for the Treaty and the critical role it plays in global security. Though this conference concludes today, it is clear that the NPT remains the enduring cornerstone for the global nonproliferation regime and will continue to serve as the focus for our efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

As a result of our sustained leadership, engagement, and flexibility in New York, we have made real progress the past four weeks in advancing the discussion on global nonproliferation policy, disarmament, and peaceful uses. Much of this is reflected in the draft final document tabled by the President of the Conference.

Throughout this Conference, we reaffirmed the central role of the NPT in international security and the importance of compliance, developed ideas on enhancing the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, universalizing the Additional Protocol, increasing transparency among nuclear weapons states, further promoting disarmament education, fostering international collaboration in developing nuclear disarmament verification capabilities, bolstering contributions to the Peaceful Uses Initiative and working to develop methods to handle withdrawal from the Treaty.

Moreover, we acknowledged the sincere and shared concern of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. It is precisely our understanding of the consequences of nuclear weapons use that drives our efforts to reduce – and eventually eliminate – nuclear weapons, and to extend forever the nearly 70 year record of non-use of nuclear weapons. Lasting nuclear disarmament will only be achieved through a sustained, collaborative effort to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.

Madame President,

We have made clear throughout the process that we will not accept the efforts by some to cynically manipulate the RevCon to try and leverage the negotiation to advance their narrow objectives at the expense of the treaty or of our shared long-standing principles. We know that this Treaty is more important than one idea or one person or one country. We also made clear that we were prepared to conclude this conference without a final consensus document rather than endorse a bad final document, just as we have said about other matters in the international arena.

We were prepared to endorse consensus on all the other parts of the draft Final Document addressing the three pillars of the Treaty – disarmament, nonproliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, the language related to the convening of a regional conference to discuss issues relevant to the establishment of a Middle East zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems is incompatible with our long-standing policies.

We have long supported regional nuclear weapons-free zones, as these zones, when properly crafted and fully implemented, can contribute to international peace, security and stability. We have also stressed that the initiative for the creation of such zones should emanate from the regions themselves, and under a process freely arrived at and with the full mutual consent of all the states in the region.

Secretary Kerry noted at the opening of the Review Conference that we were firmly committed to holding the proposed conference on a regional zone in the Middle East, free of all weapons of mass destruction, provided that the terms for the conference would be agreed to by all regional states. Secretary Kerry also warned that there would be no prospect for engagement or agreement absent the consent of all the states involved.

Unfortunately the proposed language for a final document did not allow for consensus discussions among the countries of the Middle East for an agreement on the agenda and the modalities of the conference and set an arbitrary deadline for holding the conference. We attempted to work with other delegations—in particular, Egypt and other Arab League states—to improve the text; but a number of these states, and in particular Egypt, were not willing to let go of these unrealistic and unworkable conditions included in the draft text. In the end, the proposed final document outlined a process that would not build the foundation of trust necessary for holding a productive conference that could reflect the concerns of all regional states.

The United States is also disappointed that the failure to show flexibility leaves us with no clearly defined path to convene a conference on the Middle East free zone. All the productive efforts to date, including the historic face-to-face consultations on regional security issues that occurred in Glion, do not need to be abandoned, however. If all the states in the region show the political will to resume the process of building such a zone through consensus, direct dialogue and a broad-based agenda, the United States stands ready to be their strongest supporter.

Madam President,

We regret that we were not able to support the draft consensus document tabled by the President of the conference. The blame for the inability of this conference to produce a forward-looking consensus document, however, lies squarely with those states that were unable to show any flexibility in pursuit of the convening of a Middle East conference that enshrined the principles of consensus and equality.

In closing, Madam President, we appreciate the efforts of the vast majority of States Parties at this Review Conference, and in particular, your work and that of the Secretariat. While we regret that this Review Conference will not produce a final consensus document, we leave New York satisfied that the NPT will continue to serve as a fundamental norm undergirding all of our efforts to achieve international peace and security for all.

The post Gottemoeller: Remarks At Conclusion Of 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Russia’s media watchdog has written to Google, Twitter and Facebook warning them against violating Russian Internet laws and a spokesman said Thursday (21 May) that they risk being blocked if they do not comply with the rules.

Roskomnadzor said it had sent letters this week to the three US-based firms asking them to comply with Internet laws which critics of President Vladimir Putin have decried as censorship.

“In our letters we regularly remind (companies) of the consequences of violating the legislation,” said spokesman Vadim Ampelonsky.

He added that, because of the encryption technology used by the three firms, Russia had no way of blocking specific websites and so could only bring down particular content it deemed in violation of law by blocking access to their whole services.

To comply with the law, the three firms must hand over data on Russian bloggers with more than 3,000 readers per day, and take down websites that Roskomnadzor sees as containing calls for “unsanctioned protests and unrest”, Ampelonsky said.

Putin, a former KGB spy, once described the Internet as a project of the CIA, highlighting deep distrust between Moscow and Washington, whose ties are now badly strained.

He promised late last year not to put the Internet under full government control, but Kremlin critics see the Internet laws as part of a crackdown on freedom of speech since Putin returned to the Kremlin for a third term in 2012.

A law passed last year gives Russian prosecutors the right to block without a court decision websites with information about protests that have not been sanctioned by authorities.

Under other legislation, bloggers with large followings must go through an official registration procedure and have their identities confirmed by a government agency.

Facebook says it responds to government data requests about its users that comply with company policies and local laws and meet international standards of legal process.

A company website that publishes statistics on how Facebook handles data requests shows it rejected both of two Russian government requests for information on its users last year. In contrast, it produced some data in response to nearly 80% of over 14,000 requests made by American courts, police and government agencies in the second six months of 2014.

Twitter had a similar response rate in the United States, but rejected 108 Russian government requests in the second half of last year, according to data on the company’s government Transparency Report site.

In its semi-annual Transparency Report, Google said it provided some information on users in response to 5% of 134 Russian government requests made in the second half of 2014 — again far less than in the United States. The company says it complies with requests that follow accepted legal procedures and Google policies.

“We realize they are registered under US jurisdiction. But I think in this case they should demonstrate equal respect to national legislation,” Ampelonsky said.

If the companies do not pay more attention to Russian government requests for data, he added, “we will need to apply sanctions”.

The post Russia Warns It Could Block Google, Twitter And Facebook appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China tried to electronically jam US drone flights over the disputed South China Sea in order to prevent surveillance on man-made islands Beijing is constructing as a part of an aggressive land reclamation initiative, US officials said.

Global Hawk long-range surveillance drones were targeted by jamming in at least one incident near the Spratly Islands, where China is building military facilities on Fiery Cross Reef, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

That statement follows Thursday reports that the Chinese navy warned a US surveillance plane to leave the same area eight times in an apparent effort to establish and enforce a no-fly zone, a demand Washington rejected.

“This is the Chinese navy … This is the Chinese navy … Please go away … to avoid misunderstanding,” a radio call in English from an installation on Fiery Cross said. The warnings were reported by CNN, which had a crew on the aircraft.

Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the United States does not recognize China’s sovereignty claims over the new islands. He added that flights and Navy ships will continue their routine patrols, but will maintain a distance of at least 12 miles from the island.

Details of the drone interference are classified, but last week, David Shear, the assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs, said Global Hawks are deployed in Asia as one element of a buildup of forces near the South China Sea.

“We’re engaged in a long-term effort to bolster our capabilities in the region,” Shear told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Just a few examples of the increases in our capabilities in the region include the deployment of Global Hawks and F-35s. Soon we will be adding to the stock of V-22s in Japan as well.”

Shear said the Pentagon estimates that China will complete construction of an airfield on Fiery Cross Reef by 2017 or 2018. Meanwhile, rapid militarization has security experts worried about the potential for a conflict.

Rick Fisher, a China military affairs analyst, said China could increase pressure on the United States to halt surveillance flights in Asia by first attacking one of the unmanned aircraft flights.

“Though UAVs like the Global Hawk are rather expensive, they are also regarded as more expendable because they are unmanned,” Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, told the Washington Free Beacon.

“But failing to defend these UAVs runs the risk of China viewing them as ‘fair game’ to shoot down whenever they please.”

Beijing also might attempt to capture a Global Hawk by causing one to crash in shallow water, or by attempting to snatch one in flight using a manned aircraft, Fisher said.

The post China Tries To Jam US Drones Over South China Sea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Andrea Gagliarducci

Pope Francis’ one-day trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina this June will not include a visit to Medjugorje, the location of controversial alleged Marian apparitions, according to a coordinator of the visit.

Monsignor Ivo Tomasevic, communications officer for the papal trip, confirmed to CNA May 22 that the Pope is only going to Sarajevo on June 6, and not the southern town near the Croatian border where six people claim to have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary.

Msgr. Tomasevic could not confirm whether any visionaries would be at the papal Mass, but he said any delegation from Medjugorje would be treated like any other parish delegation.

He stressed that Medjugorje is “one of the parishes of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, and its faithful will take part in the celebration like faithful of the other parishes of the area, with an equal number of places assigned.”

Enzo Manes, the editor of the Magazine “Medjugorje, the presence of Mary,” told CNA May 21 that he has been informed that “some of the visionaries will take part in the Mass.”

He predicted a “strong” presence from Medjugorje.

The alleged apparitions originally began June 24, 1981, when six children in Medjugorje began to experience phenomena which they have claimed to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

According to these six “seers,” the apparitions contained a message of peace for the world, a call to conversion, prayer and fasting, as well as certain secrets surrounding events to be fulfilled in the future.

These apparitions are said to have continued almost daily since their first occurrence, with three of the original six children – who are now young adults – continuing to receive apparitions every afternoon because not all of the “secrets” intended for them have been revealed.

Since their beginning, the alleged apparitions have been a source of both controversy and conversion, with many flocking to the city for pilgrimage and prayer, and some claiming to have experienced miracles at the site, while many others claim the visions are non-credible.

In April 1991, the bishops of the former Yugoslavia determined that “on the basis of the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations.”

On the basis of those findings the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed in October 2013 that clerics and the faithful “are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”

In January 2014, a Vatican commission completed an investigation into the supposed apparitions’ doctrinal and disciplinary aspects, and was to have submitted its findings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A source within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told CNA May 19 that “the conclusions have not been discussed yet at the congregation, neither in a special meeting nor in a regular meeting.”

Once the congregation analyzes the commission’s conclusions and finalizes a document on the phenomena, the Bishop of Rome will be able to make a final decision.

Speculations about the possible conclusions of the commission led some local residents to think that the Pope might visit the shrine during his one-day trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

However, Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo, a member of the commission which investigated the apparition, completely dismissed this possibility.

Cardinal Puljic told a May 13 press conference in Sarajevo that the Pope’s visit to Sarajevo “has nothing to do with Medjugorje” and its alleged apparitions.

Regarding the investigating commission, Cardinal Puljic stressed: “I cannot speak about it, as I was part of it and I am bound to secrecy.”

According to CNA’s source in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s caution around the supposed apparitions is also due to “the exceptional nature of the apparitions.”

“It was never the case in history that the Virgin Mary appeared so continuously and so constantly over the years,” he said, noting that “the tradition of Marian apparitions show that they are limited to a given period in the life of any visionary.”

The post Bosnia: Pope Francis’ Won’t Visit Medjugorje appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the years following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, forest fires billowed plumes of contaminated smoke, carrying radioactive particles throughout Europe on the wind. Now, researchers fear that a shift to a hotter, drier climate in Eastern Europe could increase the frequency of these fires.

Researchers from the University of South Carolina in Columbia used satellite imagery of fires in the 2000s and field measurements of radioisotope levels to model changes in the distribution of radiation over the region. The researchers found that fires likely spread radiation across much of Eastern Europe, with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia receiving the highest doses.

Traces of radioactive cesium-137 may have even traveled to Turkey, Italy and Scandinavia.

Previously, the same researchers had found that reduced microbial activity in the area leads to slower than expected rates of decomposition of dead plant matter, leading to a build-up of leaf litter and plant debris on the forest floor — providing more fuel for forest fires.

Under climate models that predict a hotter, drier Eastern Europe in the future, such forest fires could become more frequent, the researchers concluded.

The post Flames Fan Lasting Fallout From Chernobyl appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Warplanes sent from Libya’s official government attacked a ship near the port of Sirte on Sunday, Reuters reported, injuring two people.

Air force Cmdr. Saqer al-Joroushi said the aircraft warned the ship before striking, but the ship continued to unload. An oil official said the ship had actually been a tanker, named as Anwar Afriqya, unloading 25,000 tonnes of gasoil.

“Our jets warned an unflagged ship off Sirte city, but it ignored the warning,” Joroushi said. “We gave it a chance to evaluate the situation, then our fighting jets attacked the ship because it was unloading fighters and weapons.

“The ship now is on fire. We are in war and we do not accept any security breaches, whether by land, air or sea,” he added.

Rida Essa, commander of coastal guards for central Libya, said the tanker had been unloading gasoil for Sirte’s power plant when the warplanes attacked. A crew member and port worker were wounded.

Sirte’s power plant, on the western outskirts of the city, is controlled by the Tripoli-based government while the eastern part of the country is controlled by the internationally recognied government. Daesh (ISIS) militants have taken over most of Sirte.

Libya’s two rival governments have been competing for power over the country since 2011, when former president Muammar Gaddafi was ousted.

Original article

The post Libyan Government Planes Attack Ship Near Sirte Port appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Widely viewed as a shrewd financial investor, Qatar’s return on investment in soft power designed to position it as a progressive ally of world powers in the hope that they will come to the aid of the wealthy Gulf state in times of emergency is proving to be abysmal.

Qatar has invested billions of dollars in the building blocks of soft power that range from the hosting of multiple sporting events, foremost among which the 2022 World Cup; glitzy, high profile real estate in Western capitals; acquisition of icons of Western economies; Western and Islamic art; and bold foreign policy initiatives designed to aid governments in hostage situations and with contacts that they were not able to initiate or manage themselves.

Yet, the payback in Qatar’s reputation, attitudes of law enforcement-related governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, including trade unions and human rights groups and the public, and media headlines has been everything but congratulatory.

The portrait of Qatar that emerges from a review of responses and media coverage in the first five months of this year pictures a nation that treats migrant workers, the majority of its population, as sub humans; is increasingly becoming the target of audiences like soccer fans and the corporate sponsors of world soccer governing body FIFA that it hopes to charm; hosts a controversial, embattled global media operation that once was an unambiguously admired, exemplary member of the world press even though it still more often than not produces world class journalism; and maintains relations with dubious groups viewed as brutal and intrinsically hostile to the West.

There seems no end to the negative publicity Qatar generates, part of it the result, to be fair, of complex policy issues posed by the labour issue in a nation in which the citizenry accounts for a mere 12 percent of the population.

Much of it however is also due to a failure to take decisive steps that would convince its critics of its sincerity without being forced to tackle to most difficult and potentially existential issues associated with the labour problem. Qatar’s knockouts in the public relations ring are further the result of a disastrous communications policy to which it seems to be clinging despite the fact that it has contributed to Qatar’s defeats in the public affairs arena rather than to shaping a positive image for the Gulf state.

If anything, Qatar in recent months has been moving from bad to worse as it responds to crisis after crisis with tired pledges and clichés, reactions that further undermine whatever credibility it has left, and with actions, including a crackdown on the very critics with whom it engaged in a bid to curry favour and benefit from advice proffered.

A look at the last two month says it all. Amnesty International titled its evaluation of the implementation of four years of Qatari promises to improve the living and working conditions of migrant workers in advance of the World Cup, ‘Promising Little, Delivering Less.’

As if to drive the point home, it was not Qatari aid to the victims of two devastating earthquakes in Nepal that made headlines but the refusal of contractors working on World Cup-related projects to grant Nepalese labourers compassion leave to return home to attend funerals or visit relatives. The refusal that sparked rare criticism from a labour-supplying nation followed the opening in France of an investigation of a Qatari-French joint venture into alleged abuse of workers on World Cup projects.

Similarly, FIFA sponsors with Visa in the lead have voiced rare public concern in advance of next week’s FIFA executive committee meeting and congress where Qatar is either on the agenda or likely to be a lively topic of conversation in the corridors. In a statement, Visa expressed “grave concern” for the plight of migrant workers in Qatar. Other sponsors, including Coca Cola and Adidas, the company that was at the birth of FIFA’s booming finances, worried about the negative impact of their association with FIFA because of its controversial decision to award Qatar the World Cup issued similar statements.

The potential fan backlash was evident in a fake Coke ad that circulated on the Internet portraying Coca Cola as a supporter of human rights abuses in Qatar and an increasing number of anti-Qatar protests by fans and national soccer bodies.

England’s Football Association rejected Qatar as a sponsor opting instead for Emirates of Dubai, a part of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar’s arch rival that fares little better in its record of accommodating migrant workers. Scottish fans put the Scottish Football Association on the defensive for accepting to play a friendly against Qatar while supporters of Chelsea demonstrated against labour conditions in Qatar.

By the same token, Qatar has done little to endear itself to the media, an important potential conveyor of its message by repeatedly jailing western journalists reporting on labour issues in the Gulf state, seeking to justify the detentions with at times seemingly false legalistic arguments, and advising sources to lie low.

It is Qatar rather than the media that pays the price for these misguided steps, particularly given that Qatari credibility was further undermined by seemingly less than truthful statements about the integrity of its World Cup bid and the role played by disgraced former FIFA and Asian Football Confederation (AFC) executive Mohammed Bin Hammam laid bare in investigative reporting by The Sunday Times.

Mr. Bin Hammam was in 2012 banned for life by FIFA from involvement in professional soccer and silenced by a backhand deal between Qatar and the soccer body. Adding insult to injury, Qatar dented its effort to project itself as an enthusiastic sporting nation with the import of fans, some from labour camps, and others from as far as Spain.

Qatar’s flagship media operation, Al Jazeera, has further been tarnished by allegations that its Arabic channel was too closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, charges that its English channel failed to properly support its imprisoned reporters in Egypt that have culminated in a $100 million legal case against the network, and a scandal involving alleged sexism and anti-Semitism at its US channel that has led to a management shake-up.

The bottom line is that Qatar is getting no buck for the billions of dollars it has invested in what is fundamentally a smart soft power pillar of its overall security and defense policy. Qatar sees soft power as way to compensate for its inability to defend itself irrespective of how much and how sophisticated the military hardware is that it acquires and how many foreigners it drafts into its security forces and military to make up for its lack of bodies.

Nussaibah Younis of the Project on Middle East Democracy summed up neatly in an editorial in The Guardian what Qatar needs to do. “If Qatar wants to be counted among the most credible and valued powers partnering with the west, it must deal comprehensively with the abuse of migrant workers and decide where it stands on crucial issues such as freedom of the press,” Mr. Younis said. Mr. Younis is not the only one to have proffered that advice. So far, it seems to have gone unnoticed in Doha.

The post A Shrewd Financial Investor, Qatar Boasts Dismal Return On Investment In Soft Power – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.