To achieve peaceful conflict resolution, peaceful means must be employed so that common interests can be found. As NGO representatives, we can work to break down the psychological barriers among the parties and thus prepare the atmosphere to make negotiations acceptable to all so that compromises can be reached.

By Rene Wadlow*

The continued aggression of Saudi Arabia against civilians in Yemen, and the use of cluster munitions in violation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions highlight the relations among human rights, arms control, and the resolution of conflicts through good faith negotiations. After a very short humanitarian ceasefire and proposed negotiations to have been held in Geneva and then aborted, the geopolitical situation in and around Yemen is largely unchanged.

With the armed conflict underway, the assault on human rights is evident. There is the direct targeting of civilians in violation of the fundamental right to life. As Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” International human rights standards derive from the concept of human dignity and worth. The range and depth of these standards has been a foundation of the emerging world society. War transforms the person with dignity into a faceless target.

Humanitarian Law (historically called the laws of war) are essential components for human rights and the rule of law. International human rights law is, in principle, applicable to all at all times, both in peacetime and in times of internal and external conflict. Although Saudi Arabia was one of the few States to vote against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN General Assembly in 1948, Saudi Arabia has since accepted the values of the Universal Declaration. In fact, Saudi Arabia is currently a member of the Human Rights Council which is mandated to protect and promote human rights.

However, the military action against Yemen has the potential for destroying the system of law governing the use of force. Saudi attacks are a violation of a central provision of the UN Charter, Article 2(4) − all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This crucial provision was highlighted by the 1984 “Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace” which proclaims that the peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace.

Humanitarian law is an important aspect of the world-wide rule of law as it limits both the arms that may be used and against whom they may be used. In 1968 for the 20th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a resolution entitled “Human Rights in Armed Conflicts” was adopted by the Tehran International Conference on Human Rights. The resolution began by observing that “peace is the underlying condition for the full observation of human rights and war is their negation” but that “nevertheless armed conflicts continue to plague humanity.” It went on to call for new or revised agreements to ensure the better protection of civilians, prisoners and combatants in  all armed conflicts as well as the prohibition and limitation of the use of certain methods and means of warfare.

Since then, there has been a progressive codification of humanitarian law protecting civilians against the destructive and blind effects of warfare. The 2008 Convention on the Ban of Cluster Munitions is the most recent addition to this body of world law. The Convention has been signed by 116 States but not by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and six other States involved in the Saudi-led coalition against Yemen.  The Convention has also not been signed by Yemen and the USA.

In a 31 May 2015 report the NGO Human Rights Watch added additional information as to Saudi use of USA-made cluster munitions in Yemen. There had been a meeting of signatory States of the Convention in Vientiane, Laos in 2010. Laos had been the victim of massage cluster weapon use by the USA during the Vietnam War. In Vientiane, the governments pledged to “raise their voices and publicly condemn the use of these unacceptable weapons.” So far, the voices have not been raised very loudly, but Norway and Costa Rica have spoken out.  Now is the time for clear protests on the part of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and persons of good will.

Basically, it is our task as representatives of NGOs to call upon all the parties involved in the conflict within Yemen and in the Saudi-led coalition to good-faith negotiations, such as those which had been proposed to be held in Geneva. There is a mandate in the UN Charter for negotiations for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and methods are set out including mediation, arbitration and judicial settlement. As in the Yemen conflict, there are both non-State militias from within Yemen as well as States involved, negotiations with a UN-appointed mediator is the most appropriate form.

In order to achieve peaceful conflict resolution, peaceful means must be employed so that common interests can be found. The failure of the parties to agree to meet in Geneva is an indication of the difficulties and the degree of hostility existing in this embittered and injurious struggle. It is during a time of war in particular that good offices by neutrals and mediators are of great value as the belligerents are not inclined to open peace negotiations on their own.  As NGO representatives, we can work to break down the psychological barriers among the parties and thus prepare the atmosphere to make negotiations acceptable to all so that compromises can be reached.

*Rene Wadlow is President and a Representative to the United Nations, Geneva of the Association of World Citizens.

The post Difficult But Necessary Road To Yemen Negotiations – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The regional turmoil must not forestall the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; on the contrary, it should serve as the catalyst that could end one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

Given the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians in the peace negotiations, the formation of a new right-wing Israeli government will make it further difficult for the two sides to come to terms on their own to reach a peace agreement. Leaving them to their own devices is inherently dangerous, which explains why the Obama administration might make one last-ditch effort to resume the peace process following the conclusion of the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. I do not believe, however, that the resumption of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with US mediation alone will succeed any more than the two previous efforts.

What is needed is a new strategy and a new venue to create a new political dynamic that will compel the Israelis and Palestinians to deal with one another. Being that the French are planning to submit a new framework for peace to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) –which requires the US’s full support to pass it – the Obama administration can shape the resolution to make it consistent with its overall policy of a two-state solution. At the same time, this will prevent the Palestinian Authority (PA) from submitting their own resolution seeking an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state within a specified period of time, which can further complicate the conflict.

Contrary to common wisdom, the turmoil sweeping the Middle East, the convergence of multiple conflicts, and future uncertainties have created new compelling circumstances that support the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Whereas the regional violent conflicts – particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen – distract attention from the currently less violent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the relative quiet cannot be taken for granted. As the Palestinians’ frustration continues to grow, so does the risk of a new violent flare-up, which must be avoided. Preventing such an outbreak would allow for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating channels to remain open and for the Arab states to focus on the present danger posed by ISIS and Iran’s regional ambitions.

Why the conditions are ripe for the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

More than ever before, the Arab states are eager to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; they see Israel as a natural ally against their common enemy—Iran and ISIS. In fact, Israel and the leading Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, are tacitly exchanging intelligence and coordinating plans to face the growing danger posed by ISIS and Iran.

President Obama may well be more inclined at this particular juncture in his presidency to breathe new life into the peace process. He has little political capital to lose—any success, however partial, will be to his credit, and another failure will be left to his successor to deal with.

The EU is more eager than ever before to play a larger role in settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they view as another flash point that adds more fuel to the fire engulfing the region.

Europe is already suffering from Islamic radicalization and views the resolution to the conflict as one of the central components to protecting its massive interests in the region and significantly reducing radicalization.

Finally, a solution now would prevent the creation of additional facts on the ground, including the expansion of Israeli settlements, and narrow the opening for ISIS to instigate unrest in the territories, making it ever more difficult for Israel to extricate itself and end the occupation.

Provisions for a framework for peace

Unlike previous peace efforts by the US, the Obama administration together with two major allies, France and Britain, can join hands and introduce a UNSC resolution that will be based on the following provisions:

Limit the peace negotiations to two years to reach an agreement based on a two-state solution, while US and EU representatives act as facilitators to ensure continuity and progress;

Provide a framework for the negotiations, based on prior agreements between the two sides on specific conflicting issues in 2000 at Camp David, and in 2009-2010, and 2013-2014 under the Obama administration, so they do not start from scratch;

Maintain constant pressure on both sides to prevent either from playing for time by establishing a timeline to negotiate certain issues such as borders, to ensure that a full agreement can, in fact, be reached within the period provided;

State clearly that there will be consequences if they fail to reach an agreement, which may include sanctions, providing no automatic political cover for Israel by the US at UN agencies, exerting financial pressure on the Palestinians, blocking any unilateral efforts by the PA to end the Israeli occupation, etc.;

Insist that both sides engage in positive public narratives about the prospect for peace in an effort to change public perceptions and instill hope about the real possibility for reaching a lasting agreement;

Delink the various conflicting issues—for example, once an agreement is reached on the parameters of security along the Jordan Valley, it should no longer be linked to other issues over which there is still no agreement;

Use the Arab Peace Initiative (API) as an overall umbrella for the negotiations, thereby allowing the Arab states to lend significant psychological and practical support to the peace negotiations, while clearly signaling an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict, which a vast majority of Israelis seek.

The Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, are in a position to exert political and material pressure on Hamas to adopt the API, which will provide common denominators with Israel about the principle idea of a two-state solution.

The US and the EU can use their leverage on Israel to also embrace the API, particularly since the majority of Israelis, including former top security officials, strongly advocate the adoption of the API.

Overcoming obstacles that have impeded progress in the past

For the renewed peace efforts to succeed, it will be necessary to address the psychological dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on every conflicting issue. In this regard, it will be essential that both sides begin a systematic effort to reconcile, in particular, their historic and religious narratives.

Indeed, as long as their historic and religious claims to the same land remain set in stone, little progress can be made. The current young generation of Israelis and Palestinians need to see each other from a different lens and accept the fact that their coexistence is irrevocable, and therefore must choose to either live in constant ruinous hostilities, or in peace and prosperity.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should be allowed to use their internal political factionalism as an excuse for why they cannot make certain concessions. This has been the practice by both sides in the past.

The UNSC resolution must call on both sides to stop their mutual public acrimony and criticism while the negotiations are in progress. This is particularly important because such negative statements lower public expectations instead of fostering hope for reaching a breakthrough.

Moreover, it will be necessary to engage the public by sharing elements of the progress being made, so that the public begins to envision the new horizon of peace and its far-reaching benefits.

In addition, the public would develop a vested interest in the process and lend its support to the negotiations, which of necessity requires both sides to make major concessions to reach an agreement.

Both sides must undertake any and all measures to prevent acts of violence that some extremists on either side might commit to torpedo the whole peace process, and embrace the late Yitzhak Rabin’s mantra: “fight terrorism as if there is no peace process; pursue peace as if there is no terrorism.”

Finally, irrespective of the negotiations, both sides should unilaterally undertake some confidence building measures to promote mutual trust in each other’s ultimate intentions. For example, Israel could release some Palestinian prisoners and stop the expansion of certain settlements, while the Palestinians could introduce a new curriculum in schools that recognizes Israel, and speak publicly about the prospect of living side-by-side Israel in peace, amity, and with good neighborly relations.

After nearly seven decades of conflict, peace between Israel and the Palestinians remains elusive. The longer the conflict persists, the more intractable it will become. Those Israelis and Palestinians who wish to have it all are dangerously misguided and will ultimately condemn any prospect for peaceful coexistence.

The new international effort to resume the peace negotiations must not lose sight of the popular demand of the majority on both sides to live in peace, because on their own, they will not come to terms with one another.

The regional turmoil must not forestall the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; on the contrary, it should serve as the catalyst that could end one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

The post Israel-Palestine: It’s Time For A New Strategy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mohammed Rasooldeen

In view of the upcoming Ramadan season, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MCI) will ensure stability in prices, with adequate supply of goods to the local market, a ministry official said on Tuesday.

It was pointed out that the Kingdom’s markets are witnessing abundant supply which have contributed to the decline in prices of foodstuff such as rice, milk, sugar, eggs and vegetables, as well as steel and cement.

The official attributed the price stability to the increase in supply of these items in the local markets, as well as other factors including the regulatory measures issued by the Council of Ministers in following-up the prices of, along with the expansion of production capacity for a number of factories and companies, as well as the multiplicity of suppliers.

The ministry indicated that it was monitoring the prices in all regions of the Kingdom to take appropriate measures wherever there is fluctuation. It is also monitoring the prices of basic commodities in the GCC states and some neighboring countries.

The ministry reaffirmed that the inspection teams would continue their work at markets and shops to verify their commitment in putting the price-tag on items and also to make sure that the prices on the items match the ones with the cashiers.

The MCI would also monitor the discount sales announced by markets and shops, to ensure that there is no fraud on the consumers. It would take all legal measures against any violation, as well as impose the necessary penalties on such those found guilty.

The ministry called on all consumers to report any violations or observations to the Notification Center of the Ministry at 1900.

The post Saudi Arabia Seeks To Ensure Price Stability During Ramadan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A lack of integrity can be seen in Obama’s recent comments about Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

On June 7, President Obama told the G7 gathering in Schloss Elmau Krün, Germany that the world must “stay focused on the importance of upholding the principles of territorial integrity” regarding Ukraine.

Like Obama, most casual Western observers seem to have their own ideas about what is and is not integral to Ukraine. Not everyone’s ideas on this match the facts, though.

I describe the related misconceptions in detail in my book Ukraine in the Crosshairs. But let me give you a brief synopsis.

In early 2014, Ukraine experienced a complete collapse of constitutional authority. You wouldn’t know that from the Western headlines. They claimed that the democratically-elected president Yanukovych had been impeached. But, truth be told, he was not impeached. Those who told you that he was were either misinformed or lying. The facts are clearly documented my book.

Even the US government at first admitted that Yanukovych was not impeached. US sponsored international broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty early-on revealed that he was not. In a story titled “Was Yanukovych’s Ouster Constitutional?” the US international broadcaster documented that the efforts to impeach him fell short of the constitutionally required vote.

I personally asked the Ukrainian mission to the United Nations about this. A spokesperson admitted that Yanukovych had not been successfully impeached.

Once the story got out about the media impeachment fraud, however, the initiators of the American and Ukrainian fabrication changed their story. Now they were saying that Yanukovych had abandoned his office.

But the new regime did not respect the constitution when they wanted to replace him. Impeachment and resignation were the only constitutional options. Neither was followed. So then, the Maidanists conveniently threw out the constitution.

By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can it be considered that the imposition of new leadership in Kyiv was either democratic or constitutional.

So if there was not a legal transition, what happened?

If you examine the facts you will find it hard to disagree that a complete constitutional collapse occurred. The president was forced under threat of death to leave the country, and the democratically installed constitution was nullified.

In the wake of all this, three entities stepped in to fill the vacuum. On one hand there were the Maidanist revolutionaries who forced their way into control in Kyiv. Most of the former-Ukraine accepted the revolutionary control. Yanukovych had been a very unpopular leader.

This transition was not accepted by the leaders in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. And they seem to have had the support of most of their people. They declared their own claim to the territories in which they lived. They never voted for the Maidanist revolutionaries, nor did they support the revolution. The Maidanist revolutionaries never had control over Crimea or eastern Ukraine. The people there had decided to go their own way. If ever there was a clear example of the UN principle of self-determination it was here.

The Maidanists had no legitimate right to force themselves upon the eastern part of the former Ukraine, nor on Crimea. The invasion by Kyiv of eastern Ukraine was without provocation. The Maidanist revolutionary claims to those territories were not superior to the claims of the people who were living in those regions.

And this shows exactly the absence of integrity in Obama’s argument. There was no violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity at a time when the former-Ukraine lacked any legally identifiable territorial integrity. Basically, there were three separate claims to parts of the territory of the former Ukraine. Surely Obama and his crew must have studied the situation carefully enough to realize that.

However, now Obama seems to be trying to put one over on the EU and the rest of the world on this situation. What principle of territorial integrity is he talking about? Where is his own integrity when it comes to Ukraine?

If Obama can’t be honest with the EU and with his own people on this matter, what personal integrity does he have left?

The post Obama Sacrifices Integrity Over Ukraine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ever since it’s tumultuous birth in 1971, Bangladesh has been caught in an identity trap. The nation’s linguistic, secularist and, most importantly, its religious identity have often been in conflict with each other, preventing the nation and the people from forging a clearly defined identity of its own. In fact the nation can claim the dubious honour of being the only country whose identity is based primarily on language, than on any other single factor. There are two elements that influence the politics of the country—one that it is a Muslim majority nation; and two, flowing from the first, that electoral politics do not permit anyone to take an unambiguous stance regarding the role of religion in the broader aspects of governing the State. Superimpose the historical evolution of the nation, at the time of the partition of India in 1947 being hived out of the larger Bengal State as a Muslim majority region as part of the newly created Pakistan, and the confusion is almost tangibly visible.

The vagueness of perception regarding religion is starkly reflected in the constitution that proclaims secularism and at the same time also acknowledges Islam as the state religion. This imprecise view of religion makes it difficult for a political party to completely eschew religion and declare itself a truly secular entity. It is through this lens that the recent spate of murders in the country must be viewed. In less than three months, three ‘bloggers’ who posted liberal articles regarding religion or questioned the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on their blogsites were hacked to death in public view by religious fanatics. They also happened to be on a list of 84 ‘liberals’ that the Islamic fundamentalists have identified for elimination. The response, from both the Government and the opposition, to the murders has been muted; there have been no strong condemnation of these heinous crimes; there was no stridently visible outrage from normal citizens. What has happened to Bangladesh?

Historic Background

Bangladesh is a country of rivers, cyclones, and paddy fields; also of poets, artists, and patriots. Since restoration of democracy in 1991, after years of military dictatorial rule, Bangladesh has been alternatively ruled by the two major national parties—the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh National party (BNP). There are also a number of smaller parties that support or oppose the government dependent on their electoral alliance. The nation has a five-year electoral cycle and in 1996, all parties agreed to put in place a caretaker government to oversee the elections in a fair and free manner. However, this agreement was considered flexible and has undergone a number of amendments over the years. Further, even the electoral laws have been altered and token secularism formally introduced.

The system worked in a more or less equitable manner till 2006, when the BNP government, ruling in an alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) a fundamentalist religious organisation, appointed a caretaker government blatantly biased in their favour. The elections were delayed and in 2008 the people soundly rejected the BNP-JEI combine, giving the AL a clear majority—they won 230 of the total 300 seats. The 2013 elections were boycotted by BNP and its allies because of objections to some amendments to the constitution that emphasised the secular nature of the country, which the AL had introduced. The JEI was banned from contesting the elections since it refused to confirm to the amendments in the constitution. The end result was that the AL was elected to government unopposed. The BNP once again in opposition leads a motley group of 20 parties.

The Current Situation

Being kept out of power is always an unpalatable situation for political parties, especially when their popularity is dependent on the largesse that can be spread when in power. Having been side-lined for a year through an election that it boycotted in January 2014, the BNP launched an anti-Government agitation on 6 January this year. The timing of the agitation could also have been prompted by the AL Government led by Shiekh Hasina initiating a number of criminal charges against the leader of BNP, Khalida Zia and a number of other senior leaders of the party. By the end of February the agitation had assumed a life of its own, becoming almost a terror campaign, led by the JEI that provides the street power to the BNP. It has degenerated into an open show of belligerence by the opposition, to an extent that they called for a transport blockade on 21 February, the International Language Day which is much revered by all people in Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, as in most of South Asia, agitations tend to turn violent fairly rapidly since the people are extremely sensitive to domestic political issues and are also prone to be overtly emotional in their reactions. The BNP-sponsored agitation and blockade was no exception and by late-January, violence had already become a part of the agitation process. However, popular support for it faded when the Secondary School Certificate examinations had to be postponed because of the deteriorating law and order situation in the country. In addition, the agitation has been met by brute force by the Government, which is in no mood to compromise on its own political agenda. The opposition has a single-point agenda of regaining power and the Government is oblivious to the impact of the violence being perpetuated on the common people. The reasoning provided by both sides for the impasse and initiating inimitable actions has been illogical and can be viewed merely as a struggle for power.

Essentially, this is a no-holds barred battle between AL and BNP for control of the nation and has led to chronic political unrest. It has directly impacted the economy and led to huge losses. By the end of February, Bangladesh had reached a state of political stalemate. Although the US had tried to broker some sort of a peace between the two warring parties, it has not borne any fruit so far; and it is unlikely to do so considering the extremely chauvinistic stance that Bangladesh has regarding national sovereignty and foreign interference in domestic issues. The on-going violent rivalry between the two main political parties has been an impediment to the process of democratic institution building that has been slow to take effect in the nation even though democracy was restored in 1991.

An On-going Issue

It has been roughly estimated by a number of agencies that Bangladesh is home to around 100 terror groups, each with their own individual agenda. It is also proven that there is endemic money-laundering by the local banks of funds received from the Middle-East, both as donations as well as remittances by expat workers. More than 10 million Bangladesh citizens work in the Middle-East in a variety of jobs. Although the government is seeking external assistance to curb money-laundering, the initiative has so far only met with token success.

A fundamental issue facing the government is that a number of these terrorist groups question the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan, achieved in 1971 based purely on linguistic and ethnic differences. This goes to the very heart of the existence of the nation as a sovereign entity. The fact that some Islamists have been tried and executed for crimes against the people during the popular uprising in 1971 has added fuel to the terrorist fire. The society is gradually being divided and Pakistan is actively aiding this division, as a revenge action for Bangladesh separating and declaring independence in 1971. India’s active support for the struggle for independence in 1971 has always been a bitter pill for Pakistan to swallow, which blames India for the dismemberment of a unified Pakistan.

The BNP is currently at the head of the agitation. However, its power on the street—markedly oriented towards sectarian violence—stems from the JEI cadre. The violence has taken its toll on the common people in a number of ways and has marred the socio-political system as never before. The simmering antipathy towards the BNP is pointing towards a situation wherein the classic fallout of this current agitation could well be the fall from grace of the BNP and its gradual fadeout into oblivion. If such a development does take place, it would leave the JEI, an extremist organisation if there ever was one, as the main opposition in the country. Entrenched and strategically focused violence against secularist forces will be the result—a sad commentary for a nation that is steeped in the traditional cultural ethos of religious, ethnic and linguistic tolerance.

The public opinion is also divided regarding the rule of AL under Shiekh Hasina, especially since the country has come to an economic halt in the past few months because of the intransigent attitude of the two major parties to achieving a compromise solution to the political impasse. Decline in democratic values is inherently detrimental to economic growth and Bangladesh has proven it through its lack of performance in the economic field in the past few years. It has not been able to take advantage of the shift in economic power balance from Europe to Asia and the people are impatient with the tardiness of the politicians still bent on fighting for power with not a thought for the betterment of the nation. Political stability, or the lack of it, is an on-going issue that troubles Bangladesh. There is no doubt that only a strong, well-entrenched and stable social situation will improve the socio-economic condition of the people. The travails of mis-governance has made the general public regard the perceived ‘good governance’ in more authoritarian states as a better option than a failing democracy. This perception, if developed to its logical conclusion, may yet prove to be a double-edged sword and detrimental to the fledgling democratic traditions of the nation.

Emergence of Religious Fundamentalism

Bangladesh has always had a fringe minority of religious fanatics who were tolerated by the larger community that was made up of the more tolerant Sufi-oriented followers of Islam. However, in the past few decades, extremist and fundamentalist followers of the religion has become more assertive in their attitude and turned towards violence to express their demands to further Islamise the society. Their ultimate and declared aim is the establishment of a State based on the Sharia Law in Bangladesh. This has created an ideological rivalry between secular nationalists and the orthodox religious groups. The divide has been further exacerbated by the AL Government instituting an International Crimes Tribunal to try the collaborators of the 1971 war of independence. Currently Bangladesh is in the throes of an ideological battle between secularists and hard-line Islamists. The end-result will determine whether or not this fragile State will continue on its democratic journey.

The killing of the three bloggers by religious extremists is the first indication of the targeting of free thinking and also the first step towards the intimidation of common people. The public murders should be viewed as the beginning of a ‘culture of impunity’ on the part of Islamic extremist factions and the inability of the government to enforce law and order. The perpetrators were all madrasa students who, it is believed, had not even read the blog posts that were considered anti-Islam. The Islamic political parties now openly target anyone who criticises them or the Islamic religion as atheists or apostates who deserve to be killed. This overt threat to atheists is a sad turn in a country known for its peace and tranquillity; its cultural greatness; and the gentleness of its ethnic population. Reading between the lines it is easy to clearly see the concerted attempt to subvert and eventually convert the inclusive, gentle, and tolerant Sufi-influenced version of Islam long-practised in Bangladesh to the obscurantist model of Wahabi Islam that is both regressive and exclusive. The madrasa students who perpetuated the killings were obviously ‘brain-washed’ to undertake the murderous activities by more ‘senior’ extremists with a much broader agenda.

There are three factors that assist the creeping culture of religious intolerance in Bangladesh. First, the government has assumed a very soft approach towards the various militant groups, especially the newly formed vigilante groups who are at the forefront of the on-going violence. These groups pretend that they are ‘protecting’ Islam from blasphemers and the government’s reluctance to take severe action against them is indicative of a larger malaise. Second, the large number of militant groups makes it difficult to pinpoint one entity as responsible for a particular anti-national and/or illegal activity, especially when multiple groups claim responsibility for the act. Third, the domestic political scene is becoming murkily polarised. The polarisation has assumed greater proportions ever since the war crimes tribunal was instituted.

The on-going violence, perpetuated in the guise of political protest, is actually well directed and coordinated attacks meant as the initial steps towards controlling the future orientation of Bangladesh and its official acceptance of fundamentalist religious ideals. The strategy of the fundamentalists can also be discerned. The first step is to polarise the nation, especially considering the inability of the government to act decisively against sectarian forces; then to intimidate the secular agencies; and finally to have the majority of the youth sufficiently radicalised through the madrasas to become the voice of the ‘people’. The mushrooming of madrasas across the country and the economic weakness of the nation combine and play into this strategy. The JEI, at the forefront of this movement, already has a militant student wing called Islami Chhatra Sibhir that directly threatens the secular ethos of the entire student body. While the JEI and its Islamic allies are in the process of constructing a religious juggernaut, the government has tended to adopt a lofty attitude towards this increasing menace, merely calling it terrorism and initiating only punitive actions. There has been no dialogue of significance between the government and the opposition BNP. If ever there was a prize for an ignorant and ill-considered reaction to a primary threat to the well-being of the nation, the government reaction in Bangladesh will win hands down.

The Dubious Role of Pakistan

Soon after the BNP agitation took hold, the Bangladesh Government asked Pakistan to withdraw an official from its High Commission, after he was arrested for collusion with, and financing, terrorist elements who were perpetuating criminal activities both in Bangladesh and across the border in India. It is clear that Pakistan’s ISI network operates from within the Pakistan High Commission in Dhaka, aiding and fomenting trouble in the streets of Bangladesh. The Pakistan Army has not forgotten the humiliating defeat that it suffered in the liberation of Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan) in 1971. Since the Army continues to influence the affairs of State in Pakistan and remains unchecked in its activities within the country and abroad, even though the nation is nominally under a democratically elected government, it will continue to support activities meant to subvert the stability of Bangladesh.

There is a proven link between the ISI and JEI activists and also of the ISI use of Bangladesh territory to infiltrate terrorists into India. This was far easier under the BNP-JEI rule who closed their eyes to these activities and the current government’s clamping down on free movement across the Indian border has not gone down well with the ISI. Further, since Pakistan is obsessed with India as an ‘enemy’, the improving India-Bangladesh relationship under the current government is also anathema to the ISI. Shiekh Hasina has managed to appease the Bangladesh Army, who has behaved at times as the final arbitrator in the future of the country, and has also turned towards India for assistance in stabilising the nation. India in turn appreciates the non-religious political ideology of AL and has clearly articulated its preference for an AL-led government in Bangladesh.

The security establishment in Pakistan has been colluding with extremist groups for decades, much to the detriment of its own integrity. The only way to redeem the situation would be for it to make a permanent break with this decades-long affair with the jihadists—for the good of Pakistan and a better future for Bangladesh.

India’s Interest

India is in the process of asserting its position as a strategic power and attempting to assume a regional leadership role. While domestic political considerations impinge on realising this vision, the urge to thwart China’s influence in South Asia is a cardinal principle guiding India’s external dealings. In this context, Bangladesh which has common borders with seven restive Indian states in which China foments trouble on a regular basis, becomes an important piece of the larger picture. For India a friendly Bangladesh is a non-negotiable imperative to ensure peace and stability in the volatile North-East of the country. This was the primary reason for India having supported the elections in Bangladesh in 2013, while the opposition had boycotted it and in defiance of the US, which had expressed its discomfort with the single party election going ahead.
The current political impasse and the mayhem brought about through the BNP-led violent agitation make the AL government look for greater support from India to normalise the situation. India and the US have different views and opinions regarding the direction that Bangladesh should take in furthering its democratic institutions. The US wants the country to establish and entrench a two-party system, similar to what prevails in the US. India on the other hand wants secularism imposed on the political system as a prerequisite for democratic development. The AL fits the bill, whereas the BNP-JEI combination clearly is theocratic in nature.

The Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already passed the constitutional amendment bill to implement the long pending Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh. The Indian Prime Minister is also slated to visit Bangladesh in June, and if the current situation is anything to go by, an understanding on the Teesta water sharing treaty could also be forthcoming. It is significant that the West Bengal Chief Minster, Mamata Banerjee who was instrumental in the previous Manmohan Singh government shelving the agreement, has been invited to accompany the Prime Minster on this visit. With this background, it is expected that a number of agreements—ranging from transport to trade—will be signed between the two countries during this visit. This is important for Shiekh Hasina to bolster her credibility as a leader who can deliver improvements for the country since she has been constantly lambasted in local politics as an ‘Indian stooge’, mainly by the Islamist opposition.

Bangladesh is a proud nation, born out of one of the bloodiest civil wars in which thousands of Bangladeshi freedom fighters operated out of India and millions of refugees were accepted into Indian Territory. However, history alone does not make for mutual understanding when large volumes of water have flown down the Teesta, Brahmaputra and Padma Rivers. The nations need to work together in a transparent manner to address each other’s concerns regarding security and economy for stability to be built in the region.

Where to from here?

The space in which free and liberal ideas flourish and inevitably come to fruition is shrinking fast in Bangladesh. The reasons are many and common to fledgling democracies across the world—governmental apathy and inaction that permit extremist forces act with impudence; the corrosion of socio-economic ideals brought about through the entrenchment of crony politics and corruption; unchecked persecution of freedom of speech and expression by official decree and extra-judicial groups; and the inability of the judiciary to remain independent or to have their writ adhered to by other elements of the government. By polarising the society on religious grounds and imposing an impossibly harsh writ on the functioning of the normal society, the Islamists seem to be gaining ground in Bangladesh. The focused targeting of free thinkers who express themselves in cyberspace is visible proof of the decline of a once robust culture of enlightenment and tolerance.
Democracy can only be sustained through the propagation and entrenchment of liberal values—freedom of speech, the right to dissent peacefully, the right to practice one’s religion of choice, the right to be treated as an equal irrespective of caste, creed and colour. It is the State that should determine who are criminals and bring them to justice and not religious extremists who act as judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. Placating these vigilantes will be the first brick placed in boarding up the concept of liberal democracy once and for all. Hopefully the peace-loving majority of the Bangladeshi population will wake up to the dangers that their nation faces, before they too get swept away—swallowed by inaction.

Dr. Sanu Kainikara, Air Power Strategist – RAAF – Visiting Fellow UNSW, Distinguished Fellow-IFRS, and publishes a blog www.sanukay.com where this article appeared

The post Bangladesh: Being Swallowed By Inaction – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

I have just read Andre Vltchek’s new book ‘Exposing Lies of the Empire‘. Let me tell you something about this book of 800 pages.

Vltchek writes with passion and poetry, describing the true horror experienced by the world at large, living at the gunpoint of the imperial powers, while also describing and drawing you into a world of progress, culture and refinement that exists in some places and, so we are tantalised, might exist elsewhere too and even, perhaps, one day for us all.

If you want to begin to understand Vltchek himself, you should start with the chapter headed ‘Solitude of an Internationalist: Our Leningrad’. With a racial heritage that boasts Russian, Chinese and European blood, a religious heritage that includes Christianity and Islam, a childhood spent living in Prague and Leningrad (as he prefers to call St Petersburg) and having since lived in many countries, including Chile, Samoa, the United States and Vietnam, while travelling in 150, it is beyond me to dispute his claim that he is an ‘internationalist’.

Exposing Lies Of The Empire

In this book, we follow his personal journey to document, film, photograph and philosophise about the violence, the impoverishment, the corruption and the destruction inflicted by the (European and North American) Empire: the book contains many great (and not so great) stories about human beings whether great thinkers, mass murderers, ‘servants and butlers of the Empire’, slumdwellers, corrupt officials, battalion commanders… He offers no conclusions or strategy of resistance but he does offer great hope and evidence that ‘ordinary’ people are struggling against the Empire and will continue to do so.

He shows, again and again, that the one recurring legacy of violence is more violence. Time after time, he shows that even when the war ended, ‘the violence never stopped’. He also illustrates how those secondary beneficiaries of Empire – those of us in western countries who benefit from the violence and plunder of ‘our’ elites and who are too afraid to challenge, let alone confront, these elites – make it all possible.

We might be victims of the endless elite propaganda (distributed via the tightly owned and controlled corporate media as ‘news’ and by ‘cultural works’ of art, literature, photography, film and music devoid of criticism and penetrating questions) that keeps us ignorant and submissive, but it is really our fear that stops us seeking the truth. And I agree with him. The knowledge of what has happened and is happening is there for anyone who seeks it.

Throughout this book, he describes what he has witnessed in one country after another and, often enough, provides some historical context as well.

For example, he briefly describes one of the ‘human zoos’ – the Jardin Zoologique d’Acclimatation in Paris – that exhibited various indigenous peoples in the 19th and 20th centuries to show ‘uncivilized’ customs and lifestyles to their ‘civilized’ European spectators. But he was unable to find any monument, memorial or even artwork of repentance for the ongoing massacres, rapes, genocides and plundering committed by European powers against the peoples of Africa, the Middle East, the Carribean, the Americas, Australia, Oceania and Asia over the past thousand years which paid for Europe’s cathedrals, churches, palaces and schools, hospitals and theatres.

Of course, there are statues for some of the most racist and genocidal figures in history, such as King Leopold II of Belgium and Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom, but France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain also still exhibit the gains from their imperial slaughter and plunder without sign of self-consciousness or regret. A long time ago, in response to a reporter’s question ‘What do you think of Western civilization?’ Gandhi replied: ‘I think it would be a good idea.’ I suspect Vltchek would agree, particularly given the Empire’s ongoing efforts to destroy the cradle of civilization in the Middle East, which he also describes from the (dangerous) frontline in several countries.

And since World War II, do you know about the despots which Europe’s ‘constitutional monarchies’ and ‘multi-party democracies’, along with the United States, sponsored in Iran, Egypt, the Gulf, the Middle East, South Vietnam, Cambodia, South Korea, Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Kenya, South Africa and so many other ‘unfortunate’ countries where millions died? According to Vltchek’s estimate, which he regards as conservative, 55 million lives have been lost since World War II as a result of western colonialism, neo-colonialism, direct invasions, sponsored coups and other acts of international terror. This figure does not include those lives lost to famines, mismanagement and outright misery triggered and maintained by western imperialism.

Do you know about the genocides committed by Indonesian elites, with imperial blessing, against their own people, the people of Timor-Leste, and now in West Papua and even Indonesian zoos while the nation’s infrastructure has effectively collapsed and the economy survives by plundering natural resources including vanishing rainforests?

And do you know about the ongoing genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where their visionary leader Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in 1961? Intent on using the newly independent country’s wealth – including its prodigious quantities of coltan, diamonds, gold and uranium – to benefit Africans, Lumumba was killed in a plot sponsored by the United States. Do you think Vltchek is exaggerating? For another account with more corroborating evidence, see ‘Patrice Lumumba: the most important assassination of the 20th century’. Since then, up to ten million Congolese have been murdered, most of them by the client regimes in Rwanda and Uganda which have fought the proxy war for the United States and other imperial powers since the mid-1990s.

Vltchek clearly identifies the insanity of the elites who control the Empire. ‘Any society or ideology that dares to put people first is demonized and ridiculed. It is ideologically attacked. If it refuses to succumb, it gets attacked militarily, it gets bombed, and eventually, it ends up being thoroughly destroyed.’ Think Iraq and Libya but there are many, less visible, countries besides, including the Congo.

Given their history in providing cover for the European/North American empire, Vltchek is a trenchant critic of Christianity, western ‘culture’ (art, literature, cinema, theatre and music) as well as the corporate media.

He documents, with chillingly violent detail, the sins of Christianity which has wanted converts (at the point of a gun if necessary) and does not tolerate, let alone ‘love thy neighbour’, when the neighbour is of a different faith. He would like to know more about the embezzlements and rapes by priests, about the Vatican Bank, about Pentecostal Protestant sects, and about Christianity’s long history of collaboration with royalty, aristocracy, slavery, banks and business interests, fascists and Nazis. ‘God hates poor people and that is why they are poor. God loves those who are rich, and that is why they are rich’, he heard at one Church service in South East Asia.

He describes the vacuity of western culture with its knack for not seeing the victims of imperial violence: those who are exploited, brutalised, raped, tortured, mutilated, killed so that we can consume more at less cost. Where is the great western art that describes this violence? Not in its art galleries, books, cinemas, theatres and music, with extremely rare exceptions. And not in its corporate newspapers or on its mainstream radios and televisions. Elites do not sponsor the exposure of their brutality.

He describes the ruthless capitalist ethic that values profit over people and uses military violence to impose the ‘free market’. He deplores ‘multi-party democracy': a term used to obscure the elite dictatorships that govern western nations and their submissive clients in Africa, Asia and elsewhere (such as Kenya, India and Turkey).

Mostly, however, he deplores the fear of those westerners who studiously ignore what is happening. Those whose fear has let the Brave New World of 1984 imprison them while they delude themselves that they are ‘free’. And it’s on this point that I would like to give something to Vltchek although he clearly has some sense of it when he refers to ‘Fascist family structures and cultures’.

Most human beings are not just frightened, they are (unconsciously) utterly terrified and self-hating. This is the inevitable outcome of what humans benignly refer to as ‘socialization’ but which I call ‘terrorization’. Yes, western humans might inflict enormous violence on others, but this is an outcome of the phenomenal violence – visible, invisible and utterly invisible – that these same human adults suffered during childhood and now (unconsciously) inflict on their own children.

Bizarre though it might seem, this produces victims who become perpetrators, but also victims who become collaborators, and victims who remain victims. It depends on the precise configuration of violence to which any particular individual is subjected as a child. See ‘Why Violence?‘ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice‘.

Unfortunately too, it is this violence against children which has also ensured that so many people in so many cultures have been, and are still, unable to effectively resist imperial violence (although I am not suggesting that this is easy to do, given the staggering level of violence that is often inflicted).

On a positive note, Vltchek discusses the tremendous progress being made in countries often demonised by the Empire. Are you aware of the phenomenal contribution of Cuba to international well-being, for example, by sending its doctors to far-flung places?

Or of Eritrea’s tremendous record of achievement in the years since its 30-year liberation war? Devoid of significant corruption, it is secular, refuses support for extremist groups of all religions, has virtually free healthcare and impressive adult literacy programs, is one of the few African nations expected to meet the Millennium Development Goals, is rated second in the world for per capita use of solar energy, refuses to host foreign military forces and bases, and seeks to develop self-reliantly using its own substantial natural resources. It is consistently demonised by the Empire.

Vltchek discusses other countries like Bolivia, South Africa and Venezuela that have also made impressive progress, sometimes with the support of countries like Russia, while resisting (and being demonised by) imperial elites.

I have three other observations about this book. In his effort to restore some balance to the demonised reporting of those countries that resist the Empire, I think Vltchek is sometimes insufficiently critical of their governments even while he is quite candid in admitting they are not perfect. For example, China might have many significant achievements, including a much better record of support for development= efforts in Africa, but it does occupy Tibet and East Turkestan (Uyghurstan) and its 1989 massacre of those nonviolent citizens involved in the pro-democracy movement should not be ignored nor should its violent treatment of members of the Falun Gong now. Perhaps Vltchek has dealt with such issues elsewhere.

Vltchek is also critical that despite the readily available information ‘about the horrors of imperialism and market fundamentalism… nothing is happening’. But there is an important reason why the response is inadequate. As mentioned above, most people are (unconsciously) terrified and feel utterly powerless. And there is a straightforward psychological explanation for this, given the nature of modern societies. See ‘Why Are Most Human Beings So Powerless?. So any effective strategy to resist imperial horror must take these factors into account.

And thirdly, Vltchek pays virtually no attention to the effectiveness of nonviolent strategy in resisting empire. While he clearly identifies and values the role of knowledge and the arts in resisting imperial violence, and he perceives this as an act of love, he does not consider the effectiveness of this when it is done within the context of a coherent nonviolent strategy.

I accept his point that ‘opposition movements’ are often the creation of the Empire in its efforts to bring down socialist or socially progressive governments (that resist imperial violence). However, given that the Empire has a vast military (including nuclear) arsenal at its disposal and uses it without any consideration for its victims, my own commitment is to delegitimize the use of violence and resist it with strategic nonviolence in all contexts.

Of course, nonviolent strategies have been used extensively and very successfully throughout the past hundred years to remove many of the Empire’s client dictators if not, yet, the imperial circle itself. See ‘Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict‘. Moreover, if people want to resist strategically and nonviolently, they can learn how to do so. See ‘The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: AGandhian Approach‘.

Apart from these issues, I have one word to describe this book: Great. Superb. Excellent. Brilliant. Take your pick. If you want to look at the history of the world through the eyes of those who have been denied a voice in white, western, Christian history books, I sincerely recommend that you check out ‘Exposing Lies of the Empire’. It is written by a man who cares deeply about humanity.

If you want to see more of Andre’s superb work, including some of his photographs, you can do so on his website. Just make sure you’ve got plenty of time when you do. And, if you are so inclined, you might consider financially supporting his work, for which he has no institutional backing. In my view, given the loneliness and fear entailed in doing his work, the unreliability of some people with whom he must work and, particularly, the dangerous situations he risks to bring us accurate accounts from the frontlines of human suffering, he richly deserves it.

A final word of warning: If your heart already aches for humanity, after reading Vltchek’s book, it will bleed profusely. Or you haven’t got one. But the book will also give you hope as you read some inspiring stories of people who defied imperial violence and changed the course of history. And, if you haven’t done so already, you can join them.

The post Exposing Lies, Telling The Truth: ‘Exposing Lies Of The Empire’ – Book Review appeared first on Eurasia Review.

When the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee meets next week, higher interest rates are sure to be on the agenda. In an effort to reduce unemployment in the wake of the recession, the Fed has held rates at historic lows. Some observers believe that the economy has recovered sufficiently to raise rates at some point this year. While the unemployment rate has fallen since the highs of the recession, a new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research indicates that the labor market is still far from a full recovery.

The report, “Measuring Recovery: Why the Prime-Age EPOP Ratio Tells Us Not to Raise Rates,” examines the employment-to-population (EPOP) ratio for working people between the ages of 25 to 54. This is the period of people’s lives that they are most likely to be employed. By looking at these “prime-age” workers, the author is able to eliminate problems with the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of employment and the changing age distribution of the population.

“The prime-age EPOP has risen steadily since the recession,” said Nicholas Buffie, a CEPR Research Assistant. “But at this point, the EPOP ratio for these workers shows that the labor market has just made up 48 percent of the employment lost during the recession.”

In addition to looking at the overall EPOP ratio for these workers, Buffie also breaks out the employment data by race and gender. For instance, he notes that while men experienced a greater drop in employment during the recession, they also recovered a greater percentage of their lost unemployment, meaning that as of March of 2015, men and women had seen nearly equivalent net employment losses since December of 2007.

In terms of race, African Americans have fared significantly worse than other groups. The EPOP for African Americans remains a full 4.3 percentage points away from recovering jobs lost to the recession. Latinos have experienced the strongest recovery with their EPOP recovering 57 percent of the decline from the recession. The weakest recovery has been among Asian Americans with just 15 percent of the drop recouped, although this group did see the smallest initial decline.

The evidence based on an examination of EPOPS is clear: The labor market is still far from recovery. Acting to raise interest rates now would further slow the economy’s growth and delay a return to pre-recession levels of employment.

The post Too Soon For US To Raise Interest Rates? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran has denied that it has deployed troops in Syria to defend Damascus and government forces, AFP reported Wednesday, after reports that thousands of foreign troops had been flown to the war-torn country’s capital.

Reports that foreign military “friendly” to the Assad regime had been flown in are “unfounded,” Marzieh Afkham said.

“The Syrian government and people have the capacity to resist and will continue to do so,” Afkham said in a press briefing.

Iran has provided the Syrian government support both politically and financially, as well as military advisers for its army.

AFP reported June 3 that a Syrian security source had said thousands of foreign troops, most of them Iraqi but many Iranian, had been sent to Damascus to support regime forces.

The anonymous source told AFP 7,000 troops had already been deployed with the goal of reaching 10,000.

Original article

The post Iran Denies It Has Deployed Troops To Syria appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By: Anna Kokko

This summer, Swedish seaman Joel Opperdoes, 32, is not piloting cargo ships in the Baltic Sea.

Instead, he is the sailing across Europe with five permanent crew members on a fishing trawler named Marianne.

Their final destination is the main seaport of the Gaza Strip, which has been under a jointly enforced Israeli and Egyptian blockade for the last eight years.

“I strongly believe in international solidarity,” Opperdoes told Ma’an from Lisbon, Portugal, where the boat stopped last week. “I am happy to use my professional skills for something good.”

Marianne, which left from Sweden on May 10, is one of the boats taking part in the third Freedom Flotilla Coalition.

While the fishing trawler was brought together by Palestinian solidarity groups Ship to Gaza Sweden and Ship to Gaza Norway, several other international NGOs support the campaign. All are united in their goal to end the siege of Gaza.

Violent Israeli response to past flotillas

Two other boats will join Marianne in the Eastern Mediterranean. To avoid problems of sabotage, details of the journey are being kept secret.

The coalition expects to reach Gaza by the end of June. Yet the two previous Freedom Flotillas never made it to the besieged enclave. In 2010, Israeli forces killed nine activists on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara while it was still in international waters.

In 2012, the Israeli army boarded another pro-Palestinian vessel, Estelle, off Gaza’s coast and took all 30 passengers to the shore in Ashdod, Israel. Opperdoes was one of them.

“After long interrogations, they accused us of entering the country illegally and deported us,” he told Ma’an.

Deportation came with a 10-year ban from re-entering Israel. Although a long-time Palestinian activist, Opperdoes has never set foot in the occupied Palestinian territories.

‘We will enter Palestinian, not Israeli waters’

The Israeli Foreign Ministry declared in May that Israel “will not allow unauthorized vessels to enter its territorial waters,” the Jerusalem Post reported.

Despite a slight easing of restrictions by Israeli authorities this year — exports to Israel were increased along with travel permits for businessmen — severe travel restrictions for the majority of Palestinians still remain in place, and entering Gaza is only possible by land via Israeli and Egyptian controlled crossings.

But Ann Ighe, a spokesperson from the Ship to Gaza Sweden, said the flotilla coalition would enter Palestinian, not Israeli, waters.

“We do not recognize Israel’s self-taken role of not only controlling everything that comes in and out of the Palestinian territories, but also of stopping people and blocking imports and exports,” she said.

“It is a very basic question of Palestinian independence, and of human rights.”

If the Israeli forces attack Marianne, which is sailing under the Swedish flag, it could lead to diplomatic repercussions between Israel and the European country.

“If Israel hijacks the boat, this will happen on Swedish territory,” Ighe said.

Relations between the two countries cooled off at the end of last year when Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine. To protest the move, Israel recalled its ambassador from Sweden, although he returned to work a month later.

Trawler loaded with solidarity

The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains critical after last summer’s six-week long war between Hamas and Israel, which killed 2,220 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and 73 Israelis, the majority soldiers.

Over 17,000 housing units were destroyed and 560 factories and businesses damaged in the war, according to Israeli rights group Gisha, and more than 10,000 Palestinians are still living in UN shelters, compounding a 42 percent unemployment rate in the territory.

“Thus far, not a single home destroyed in operation Protective Edge [summer 2014 Gaza war] has been rebuilt,” said Eitan Diamond, Gisha’s executive director.

On board, the Marianne is carrying one solar panel to al-Shifa hospital and medical equipment for Wafa hospital, both in Gaza City. If everything goes as planned, activists will also leave the fishing trawler for Palestinian fishermen to use.

“The people in Gaza never have electricity all day long. Solar panels could be a sustainable solution for the power shortage,” Ighe said.

The spokesperson admits that bringing only one solar panel is mainly a symbolic message. Sending humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip is already a double-edged sword.

“Aid is clearly needed, but at the same time foreign governments — including Sweden — are using their taxpayers’ money to finance the occupation, as Israel does not carry out its responsibilities as the occupying power,” Ighe said.

Spreading information about Gaza

Another objective of the Flotilla Coalition is to raise awareness about humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Marianne has stopped in several ports across Europe to meet with local activists, and has even hosted public figures and journalists on board.

Former Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki has confirmed he will be on board during the last phase of the journey, as the boat approaches the shores of Gaza.

“In every corner [of Europe], there have been people who do not know what is going on in Gaza,” Opperdoes, the captain of Marianne, said.

According to Gisha’s executive director, Eitan Diamond, the first flotilla in 2010 had a “tremendous impact” and even forced Israel to alter some of its most repressive policies in relation to Gaza.

“I’m not sure if the third Flotilla will have the same sort of impact and whether or not it will reach Gaza,” the director said. “But what is clear is that there is a great deal of importance in highlighting the plight of the people of Gaza.”

All of the activists on board have declared that they will continue trying until the Israeli blockade is lifted.

Only then can the people of Gaza set sail on a trip across Europe — or even just reconnect with Palestinians in the West Bank, a mere 40 kilometers away.

The post Freedom Flotilla Vows To Break Siege appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Companies are spending increasing amounts on cybersecurity tools, but aren’t convinced their data is truly secure and many chief information security officers believe that attackers are gaining on their defenses, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

Charting the future of cybersecurity is difficult because so much is shrouded in secrecy, no one is entirely certain of all the methods malicious hackers use to infiltrate systems and businesses do not want to disclose their safety measures, according to the report.

While worldwide spending on cybersecurity is close to $70 billion a year and growing at 10 percent to 15 percent annually, many chief information security officers believe that hackers may gain the upper hand two to five years from now, requiring a continual cycle of development and implementation of stronger and more innovative defensive measures.

“Despite the pessimism in the field, we found that companies are paying a lot more attention to cybersecurity than they were even five years ago,” said Martin Libicki, co-lead author of the study and senior management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Companies that didn’t even have a chief information security officer five years ago have one now, and CEOs are more likely to listen to them. Core software is improving and new cybersecurity products continue to appear, which is likely to make a hacker’s job more difficult and more expensive.”

The RAND study draws on interviews with 18 chief information security officers and details the burgeoning world of cybersecurity products. It also reviews the relationship between software quality and the processes used to discover software vulnerabilities. Insights from these elements were used to develop a model that can shed light on the relationship between organizational choices and the cost of confronting cyberattacks.

“Companies know what they spend on cybersecurity, but quantifying what they save by preventing malicious attacks is much harder to tally,” said Lillian Ablon, co-lead author of the report and a researcher at RAND. “In addition, malicious hackers can be extremely sophisticated, so costly measures to improve security beget countermeasures from hackers.

“Cybersecurity is a continual cycle of trying to eliminate weaknesses and out-think an attacker. Currently, the best that defenders can do is to make it expensive for the attackers in terms of money, time, resources and research.”

Libicki and Ablon say several of the study’s findings surprised them. They found that it was the effect of a cyberattack on reputation — rather than direct costs — that worried most chief information security officers. It matters less what actual data is affected than the fact that any data is put at risk.

However, the process of estimating those losses is not particularly comprehensive, and the ability to understand and articulate an organization’s risk from network penetrations in a standard and consistent manner does not exist — and may not exist for the foreseeable future.

RAND created a framework that portrays the struggle of organizations to minimize the cost arising from insecurity in cyberspace over a 10-year period. Those costs include the losses from cyberattack, the direct costs of training users, and the direct cost of buying and using cyber safety tools.

Additional costs also must be factored in, including the indirect costs associated with restrictions on employees using their personal devices on company networks and the indirect costs of air-gapping — ensuring a computer network is physically isolated from unsecure networks. This is particularly true for sensitive sub-networks.

The RAND study includes recommendations for both organizations and policymakers. Organizations need to determine what needs to be protected and how badly, including what machines are on a company’s network, what applications are running and what privileges have been established. Employees’ desire to bring their own devices and connect them to the company network also can increase vulnerabilities.

Libicki said most of the chief information security officers who were interviewed were not interested in government efforts to improve cybersecurity. However, the RAND researchers believe government could play a useful role. For example, a government guide outlining how systems fail — similar to guides for aviation and medical fields — could help build a body of knowledge to help educate companies with the goal of developing higher levels of cybersecurity.

The post Companies Making Cybersecurity Greater Priority appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

The gang-rape and murder of an 18-year-old Tamil school girl in the Northern Province has revived rumours and talk, speculation and initiatives that were better left behind in the wartime past. It has also thrown up sensitivities of the ethnic and administrative concerns back in the public space.

In the normal circumstances, the heinous rape and gruesome killing of Sivaloganathan Vithya and allegations of cover-up by local police higher-ups should have triggered public anger and possible protest. But given the post-war circumstances in the troubled region as a whole, the sudden eruption of youth anger on Jaffna streets when the rest of the nation was ‘celebrating’ the ‘remembrance’ of ‘victory day’ at the LTTE’s fall six years ago ended up sending out a wrong message for and from the larger Tamil community.

Going by Tamil media reports, underscored by the ‘nationalist’ and ‘separatist’ diaspora for wider reach and greater political effect elsewhere, the police had already arrested the nine suspects when the episode took a turn for the worse. According to the reports, a high-ranking Sinhala police officer in the region had helped the main accused, a local Tamil, from custody.

As the version goes, the main accused, already a big-time criminal in the area, was later arrested from a lodging house in the Wellewatta area, otherwise known as the ‘lil Jaffna’ in the capital city of Colombo. Early indications that the arrest followed the protests back in the North have been discounted since. Instead, diaspora campaigns now claim that the Wellewatta lodge owner, after seeing the bruises on the man, alerted the local police. The bruises, it is said, had been inflicted by a local mob, which chased some of the accused while apprehending them long after the event and before handing him over to the police.

The mob fury flowed from two immediate causes, it is argued. One, the police did not act on the complaint about the missing girl. Two, the police actually let the man ‘escape’. It took the form of some 400-500 people, many of them youth, stoning the Jaffna court complex, and allegedly targeting the policemen on duty.

The proud claims early on indicated that the protestors were Tamil students. Soon, a new version came – that they were mischief-makers, sent out by those wanting to trouble the war-torn Tamils when they were limping back to normal. Now, when the police have detained 130 of those protestors, charges are being made that they were all innocent. The accompanying silent insinuation is that the ‘Sinhala police’ and the ‘Sri Lankan State’ are at it again.

Swift action by Govt

With the Vithya episode and the consequent street protests in Jaffna disturbing Colombo’s ‘Victory Day’ tranquillity, President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe acted in good time at damage control. They despatched Inspector General Ilangakoon, the highest-ranking police official in the country, to the North. After two rounds of visits, the IG has ordered the transfer of four or five senior police officials. Tamil protestors active on the social media have since named others who had been left out as the main culprits – those who had allegedly taken big money from the main suspect and let him escape to Colombo.

President Sirisena too did not lose much time. He dashed to Jaffna, where he met with school children, to hear their all round grouse on the existing education facilities in the war-affected region, and to reassure them that the Sri Lankan state was there with them in their hour of need and care. He also met with family members of the rape-and-murder victim, including her mother, at the residence of Northern Province Governor, H.G. M. S. Palihakkarar, a veteran diplomat.

Sinhala polity reprehensible

The government’s efforts can be attributed to the changed political environment and administrative culture in the aftermath of the January presidential poll. The environment of ease and expectation, alongside, too might have made the Tamils’ hurt at incidents of the kind more palpable more than the previous years of post-war past. The bottled-up sentiments and emotions, fears and apprehensions all found an expression when the time was ripe and the climate, receptive. Or, so goes an explanation.

It’s only part true. The credit for keeping the Vithya issue alive should go to the Tamil media in the North and the social media of the diaspora kind. In the heydays of the LTTE, they both have had the experience and success of keeping even non-issues alive, and making the rest of the world believe in their version. The fact that the local Tamils were upset, the diaspora was angered all over again over the ‘Victory Day’, and they were all already organising their own ‘Mullivaikkal memorial observances’ provided the right ambience and environment.

It’s yet reprehensible that the political leadership at different levels reacted in ways that could only fuel suspicions and fears, doubts and hatred, all of it contributing to an instant revival of anxieties by and of the security forces. However, none of it has thankfully materialised just now. There is yet no knowing if the seeds of mutual suspicion has been sown with it, for it to sprout and grow, if not spiked out here and now.

To former president Mahinda Rajapaksa should go the ‘credit’ of bringing national focus on the Jaffna developments. Rajapaksa, as also Sinhala-Buddhist right-wing Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) leader and Minister Patali Champika Ranawakka, issued statements in their separate names, claiming that the police was attacked in Jaffna. Rajapaksa also claimed that Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) flags were also waved in the North – a claim that is yet to be proved.

Rajapaksa’s statement in particular was thus an admixture of the ‘Vithya episode’ and the ‘Mullivaikkal memorial’. Rajapaksa was joined in the latter by his former ministerial colleague and Jathika Nidahas Peramuna (JNP) founder, Wimal Weerawansa, who wanted action against Northern Province’s Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran, a retired Justice of the nation’s Supreme Court. The overlapping chronology of the developments may have provided for the confusion – real or intended.

Unfortunately, it has not stopped there. Even as his Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) president was trying to assuage the hurt and anger of the Tamils in the North, United National Party (UNP) Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe came up with yet another of his new-term classy statements. By seeking to take political advantage of a sordid episode, political rival Rajapaksa had done dis-service to the nation’s women, Wickremesinghe said.

This may have prompted Rajapaksa to address a women audience in double quick time. With this, a heinous incident involving a Tamil girl and her Tamil tormentors has become an immediate staple for the Sinhala polity’s grist-mill and at the highest levels.

TNA irresponsible…

In this background, the ruling TNA in the Northern Province has acted with trade-mark casualness bordering on irresponsibility, borne partly out of past convictions and partly out of continuing inexperience at governance. Most of the top leaders of the party have not bothered to comment upon the events and developments in the North.

Among the TNA leaders who spoke, Parliament member M.A. Sumanthiran was quick to clarify that the attack on the police was not a ‘racial attack’ as was being sought to be implied in the Sinhala South. He however could not resist the temptation of claiming – without deducing any proof or evidence – that the trouble-makers within the genuine protestors had an agenda of their own.

Sumanthiran could have had in his mind a section of the Sinhala political leadership or a fellow Tamil group, both ahead of the parliamentary polls. His non-committal statement was capable of being interpreted as implicating either the Sri Lankan state and the security agencies. There is already a belief and motivated diaspora campaign that the security forces were uncomfortable at the return of normalcy and the withdrawal of a role for them in the North. Some of the apprehensions are not without substance.

The ‘Tamil irresponsibility’ did not stop there. Ahead of the ‘Vithya episode’, Chief Minister Wigneswaran might have unwittingly created a relative air of permissiveness and mutual fear of suspicion when he participated in the ‘Mullivaikkal memorial’ and conferred it an official status from the Northern Provincial Council, and hence his administration. For a Judiciary veteran, he also interpreted a ban order issued by a lower court, very ingeniously and favourably, to have the memorial prayers, but not a procession.

After the street-protests and violence, Wigneswaran went a step further and said that throughout the war period, the security forces had drugged their youth to ensure that the Tamils did not have a bright future any more. In particular, he is reported to have referred to the pre-2009 situation, implying that under the LTTE, they all behaved.

However, Wigneswaran did not say that there were also those children who the LTTE had taken hostage to ensure that their parents paid up the ‘tax’ wherever they were gainfully employed. Stricken by the guilt of leaving their child in the care of older relatives back home while his siblings lived well and safely overseas, the parents ended up making ‘spoilt brats’ of them, in every which way.

It is sad that Wigneswaran has – and had to – speak about the increase in the incidence of ‘prostitution’ in the community. Earlier, it used to be blamed on the security forces, true or false.

Special court

In yet another welcome move, President Sirisena, while in Jaffna, ordered the creation of a special court to hear the ‘Vithya case’, so as to bring out the truth and punish the guilty early on. He may have to order an administrative inquiry to study the reasons and circumstances leading up to the sudden spurt of street-protests and violence in the Tamil areas.

If President Sirisena were to find out that his government and officials were in the wrong, he should not shy away from action. If he had to tell his Tamil counterparts in the North as to where they had gone wrong, he should not shy away from that either. After all he is as much the president of the Tamils as of the Sinhalas — and of the Sri Lankan State and nation, even more.

*N Sathiya Moorthy, veteran journalist and political analyst, is the Director of the Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at sathiyam54@gmail.com

The post Sri Lanka: Vithya Episode And Tamil Protests – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ram Kumar Jha*

Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is a major contributor to climatic change. As definition given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Climate change is projected to undermine food security due to increase in temperature of 2oC or more in late 20th century and may impact negatively on wheat, rice and maize productivity in tropical and temperate regions, although individual locations may benefit. India’s vulnerability to climate change is well known. This is because of its large agricultural dependent population and excessive pressure on natural resources.

The climate change impact results not only from gradual changes in temperature and sea level but also, in particular, from increased climate variability and extremes, including more intense floods, droughts, and storms. Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions, intensifying competition for water among sectors. Much of this damage would come in the form of severe economic shocks. In addition, the impact of climate change will worsen existing social and environmental problems and lead to economic disorders. Therefore, climate change is a major issue in front of the world, even though more important than this is how to minimise the impact of climate change. This may help to balance social, economic and agricultural growth.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80 percent, from 21 to 38 Gigatonnes, and represented 77 percent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), monthly global average CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) in March 2015. NOAA collects its data on global carbon dioxide concentration on air samples taken from 40 sites around the world, including some remote islands. IPCC’s fourth assessment report concluded that a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels (when they were approximately 280 ppm) would likely lead to an increase of temperature somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C (the so-called climate sensitivity).

Pieter Tans, NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, said that burning fossil fuels has caused global CO2 concentrations to increase by more than 120 ppm since pre-industrial times. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that emissions growth from burning fossil fuels stalled in 2014, remaining at 2013 levels. However, stabilizing the rate of emissions is not enough to prevent climate change.

As the world’s third largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, India may be in a unique position to affect atmospheric levels of CO2. While its total emissions are rising, its per capita emissions at 1.9 metric tons is a third of the global average, a quarter of China’s and tenth of the USA. It is not clear how rising CO2 levels have affected or would affect India. Claims in a 2007 IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away in the near future have proven to be not credible. However, a series of studies has shown that unseasonal rain and erratic weather is unsettling the Indian farmer.

The path of industrialisation and urbanisation that India adopts will have a significant impact on the world’s warming and its own health status. Already, 13 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in India. India’s stance at various conferences, including the Climate Change Conference in Lima in 2014, has been that it was unfair to demand emissions cuts from developing countries. The argument being that these economies were still growing compared to the developed world, and that such emission levels would be unavoidable if they want to catch up. India may take an uncompromising position globally to protect its own interests, but it is also difficult to ignore the warning signals from Mauna Loa.

Mitigation and adaptation are complementary approaches for reducing risks of climate change impact. Mitigation, in the near term and through the century, can substantially reduce climate change impact in the latter decades of the 21st century and beyond. Benefits from adaptation can already be realized in addressing current risks, and can be realized in the future for addressing emerging risks. Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally.

In this line in India, a high level advisory group on climate change was constituted in June 2007 and reconstituted in November 2014. Launched in 2008, India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) identifies a number of measures that simultaneously advance the country’s development and climate change related objectives of adaptation and mitigation. The implementation of the NAPCC is designed to take place through eight National Missions. These form the core of the National Action Plan and incorporate multi-pronged, long-term and integrated strategies for achieving India’s key goals in the context of climate change. For the realisation of these proposed actions at the sub-national level, in August 2009 the prime minister of India called upon state governments to prepare their own State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) consistent with strategies in the NAPCC. Till date, 31 states have prepared their State Action Plan. The SAPCCs have both adaptation and mitigation component to address climate change impacts, though adaptation has been identified as a more important element of the plan. A combined budgetary requirement of Rs.11,33,692 crore ($188.66 billion) has been assessed for implementation of SAPCCs.

The budget allocation for Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) under the Union Budget 2015-16 is less than 1 percent of total budget expenditure and Gross Domestic Production (GDP) at current market. There is decrease in Gross Budgetary Support (GBS) for MNRE from Rs.541 crore to Rs.288 crores in union budget 2015-16 (decrease of 46.8 percent). This allocated budget is contrary to requirement of investments to realize the expansion in targets for this sector.

A National Adaptation Fund with an initial corpus of Rs.100 crore (.0056 percent of total union budget 2015-16) is allocated to support adaptation actions to combat the challenges of climate change in sectors like agriculture, water, and forestry. Simultaneously, rate of clean energy cess levied on coal, lignite, and peat increased from Rs.50 per tonne to Rs.100 per tonne. For the National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF) the estimated budget is Rs.13,180.04 crores (0.74 percent of total union budget 2015-16). The budget also provides concessions on custom and excise duty available to electrically operated vehicles and hybrid vehicles to curb pollution and promote clean energy.

Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most GHGs accumulate over time and mix globally, and emissions by any agent (e.g., individual, community, company, country) affect other agents. Effective adaptation and mitigation responses would depend on policies and measures across multiple scales: international, regional, national and sub-national.

*Ram Kumar Jha is working as Policy Analyst, CUTS International, Jaipur. He can be contacted at rkj@cuts.org

The post Only Joint Collaborative Efforts Can Minimise Climate Change Impact – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mehmet Yegin

The Turkish General Elections, held on June 7, resulted in a new four-party parliament system. According to unofficial results, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won 259 seats, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) 132, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) 80, and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) 79. Because 275 seats are required for a majority in parliament, the results of the elections ended Turkey’s single-party rule.

The current situation necessitates a coalition or a minority government. If these two scenarios fail, the country would have to enter another round of elections. Indeed, in the event of either a coalition or a minority government, nobody expects a full term for the new government. The possibility of an early election urges parties to make smart moves during the transition process in order to increase their votes if voters should have to take to the polls again. This requires the parties to avoid unnecessary risks and develop responsible approaches for the common good. The voters would be immensely displeased if political parties were to avoid arriving to a solution and, instead, drive the situation to a deadlock.

Former Ruling Party’s (AKP) Calculations

As a party that has ruled for a long time, AKP would pressure its party leadership to remain in power in any scenario. The two possible scenarios for AKP are either a coalition or a minority government. As a minority government, AKP would be vulnerable. However, for AKP, a minority government would be less problematic than a coalition, which demands power sharing and the development of common approaches to issues. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would be satisfied with a minority government as well. Yet, the possibility of the other parties supporting such a constellation is dim.

A coalition would be even more problematic for the AKP. Despite the change in its leadership, AKP is still under the influence of President Erdogan. This dual leadership within the party makes it tough for AKP to negotiate a coalition with other parties, seeing that all political parties parties will most likely set the pre-condition that AKP be freed from its former leader’s influence. It would be difficult for the new AKP leadership to distance itself from Erdogan if a coalition were to be formed. Most party members still regard Erdogan as their leader and remain loyal to him. Thus, a coalition deal based on breaking ties with Erdogan would backfire at the party convention in August 2015.

AKP’s policy preferences pose another difficulty. There are major rifts between AKP and other parties on both domestic and foreign policy issues. The opposition political parties are especially critical of AKP’s policy in the Middle East, and primarily in Syria. Seeing that the architect of AKP’s Middle East Policy is the party’s de jure leader Ahmet Davutoglu himself, it would be challenging for him to revise his long-term posture to bargain with a coalition.

Former Opposition Parties’ (CHP, MHP and HDP) Calculations

The opposition CHP and MHP have not been in power for a long period of time. Thus, the party elites may be eager to use this opportunity to gain more leverage. Besides, HDP now has an unprecedented number of MPs in the parliament, and may want to use this newfound political influence to bargain for its long awaited political demands. Yet, all parties have their own concerns when it comes to forming a coalition.

The first and foremost concern of all the parties is the Turkish economy’s downward slope and the possibility of an economic crisis during their rule. The private sector in Turkey faces difficulties in paying their debts in foreign currency because of the value decrease of the Turkish lira against the U.S. dollar. The employment rate, another looming issue, has consecutively increased over the last 26 months. Therefore, the burden of a failing economy could be detrimental for these parties if they were to take the helm by entering a coalition.

Due to the bitter polarization in Turkey before the elections, it is not easy for the parties to pursue a coalition with the former ruling party. The opposition parties heavily relied on criticizing AKP throughout their election campaigns. Their entrance into a coalition with AKP may be perceived as betrayal by their constituents, and may result in their loss of votes in the future. Additionally, the rivalry between MHP and HDP makes it nearly impossible for a CHP-HDP-MHP government.

Another possible scenario is a CHP minority government. CHP would be eager to go with this option, as it would grant the party the ability to fill the cabinet with its members alone. Nonetheless, this scenario would necessitate external support from other members of parliament. For the same reasons mentioned above, CHP would have difficulties in acquiring the support of both MHP and HDP.

In short, the possibility of a government that will assume power for a full term looks dim. All political parties in the Turkish parliament are basing their calculations on another turn of elections. All parties are now torn when it comes to deciding on whether to coalesce or not to coalesce in order to gain the advantage in potential early elections.

The post To Coalesce Or Not To Coalesce: Post-Election Scenarios In Turkey – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. B.R. Deepak*

South China Sea (SCS) which encompasses an area from the Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan, consisting of Dongsha, Xisha (known as Paracel), Zhongsha (also Huangyan in Chinese) and Nansha (Spratly) islands, has long been a bone of contention between China and Southeast Asian countries. Presently of these Zhongsha and Xisha are under the actual jurisdiction of China; Dongsha under the jurisdiction of Taiwan, and Nansha being fiercely contested by various countries in the region. The western, northeastern and southwestern areas of Nansha are under the actual jurisdiction of Vietnam, Philippine and Malaysia respectively. Of these islets 8 are controlled by China, 1 by Taiwan, 29 by Vietnam, 8 by Philippine, 5 by Malaysia and 2 by Brunei.

Various claimants have been passing legislations claiming certain islets. Last year in February, Philippines Senate and House of Representatives passed Baseline Bill and declared its ownership over Scarborough (Huangyan) island and some others in Spratly. A few months later Vietnam too passed its Maritime Law declaring indisputable sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands. China claims the entire South China Sea and has expressed outrage over these declarations, and further reinforced its claims by increasing the level of governance on the disputed islands; the establishment of Sansha city, a garrison in Zhongsha, inviting bids to explore resources in some of the disputed islands, and now the dredging and reclamation of some of the islets and reefs are manifestations of China’s show of strength and above all the assertion of its sovereignty in the region.

SCS reclamation row

Recent reclamation of islands and building soft infrastructure such as lighthouses on reclaimed islets has escalated not only into a war of words between the US and China but also flared tensions in the region as the US PACOM has initiated surveillance of Chinese reclamation activities and installation of mobile artillery vehicles in the reclaimed reefs and shoals. The US believes that China is fortifying these areas and may threaten the regional stability. Conversely China argues that the facilities are primarily for public services. The war of words was carried out all the way to Shang-Ri La Dialogue held in Singapore between 29 and 31 May 2015. The US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter reiterated the US position that it was within its right to protect the freedom of navigation and overflight, and called for an “immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by all claimants.” Though Carter made reference to reclamation by others too, however, the criticism was primarily directed towards China, which he said, has reclaimed over 800 hectares, more than all other claimants combined and has done so in only the last 18 months. Though he did not directly accuse China of moving artillery vehicles to the reclaimed areas, but was categorical when he said that they “oppose any further militarization of disputed features.”

Rejecting Carter’s contentions, China’s Deputy Chief of General Staff, Admiral Sun Jianguo retorted that reclamation work in anyway does not affect the freedom of navigation and overflight, it is the US who in the garb of freedom of navigation wants to interfere in the dispute. Explaining the kind of reclamation activities China was undertaking, he said it has built an ocean survey station for the United Nations on Yongshu reef, and have initiated the construction of two multi-functional lighthouses on the Huayang and Chigua reefs with an objective to provide better international public services in the realms of maritime search and rescue operations, disaster prevention and relief, marine research, meteorological studies, environmental protection, navigation safety and fishery production etc. therefore, China’s reclamation is “justified, legitimate and reasonable.” Back in Beijing, Hua Chunying, the spokeswoman of Ministry of Foreign affairs reacted fiercely to Carter’s criticism of China when she said no one has the right to dictate China’s moves.

China’s perceptions

First and foremost, China believes that apart from controlling most of the choke points in Indo-Pacific, the US is also attempting to control other swathes of marine territory and vital lanes, so that the US has greater maneuverability on the one hand and contain China on the other. Conversely, Reclamation by China will deny that strategic space to the US. Moreover, in long run the Malacca Straight dilemma would be overcome by ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy, especially the Sino-Pak Economic Corridor; therefore, no wonder the US is becoming more aggressive in the SCS.

Two, China considers the US as an outsider in the region as it is neither located in the region nor does it have any sovereignty disputes with China or any other country in the region, therefore, besides maintaining it hegemony and containing China, the US has no locus standi in the SCS.

Three, China perceives the US as an instigator of the dispute encouraging countries like Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and of late inciting South Korea and India to join the chorus in its policy of containing China. It feels that the US meddling will internationalize, complicate the situation and more importantly dent China image internationally.

Four, China blames the US for having double standards, for the latter “chooses selective silence” toward those who illegally occupy territories claimed by China as was stated by Hua Chunying recently. It believes that the US has never objected to the reclamation activities of other claimants such as Vietnam which has ‘occupied’ maximum area in Spratly; asking all claimants to halt reclamation is just a lip service.

Five, the US which is not the signatory of the UNCLOS, has on the contrary argued that the UNCLOS grants foreign ships and planes free access beyond a 12 nautical mile territorial limit. The PA-8 surveillance aircraft of the US has followed these norms, however, have been warned by China to leave the area as China claims that military flights cannot cross its 200 mile exclusive economic zone without its permission. The US fears that China’s intentions are to make a fait accompli in the region by dredging and reclamation that will adversely impact on the freedom of navigation in the region. Had the US been a signatory to the UNCLOS, it might have taken China to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the navigation issue.

Six, China is aware that the US has maintained neutrality as far as the issue of sovereignty is concerned, therefore, has preferred to engage the claimants bilaterally, and has expressed its commitment towards the Code of Conduct negotiated by the ASEAN in 2002. However, if the US has not taken sides, it has also objected to China’s sovereignty over these reclaimed reefs. This is evident when Carter told his audience at Shang-Ri La that “Turning an underwater rock into an airfield simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty.

Seven, China is optimistic and confident about its success, and knows that most of the world including the US shares this viewpoint including some of its legal basis in the dispute, as was demonstrated by Barack Obama on June 1st before leaving to Jamaica. Obama said that “the truth is, is that China is going to be successful, it’s big, it’s powerful, its people are talented and they work hard and, and it may be that some of their claims are legitimate.” But he also warned China to stop “throwing elbows” in SCS. Finally, China is aware that the US would not like to confront China seriously in the region and will not cross the 12 nautical miles territorial limit for surveillance, if it does, there may be miscalculation and the stability in the region will be threatened.

A zero sum game?

Freedom of navigation may not be a serious an issue comparing the territorial claims, especially when more than 700 islets, reefs and shoals estimated to have oil reserves of 7 billion barrels and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are at stake. All the 9 ASEAN claimants are pitched against China and dependant on the US for diplomatic and military support. However, as the economic interests of these countries are highly intertwined with those of China, they may not like to confront China openly and alone. China has declared South China Sea as one of its core interests along with Tibet and Xinjiang where negotiations are out of question. The hard-line emanating from Zhongnanhai is that China will continue its reclamation activities and resist the US by various psychological, media, political and legal etc. warfare. As for the US, with its ‘pivot to Asia’ the US Navy would be testing China’s claims in the South China Sea, and may cross the 12 nautical mile limit as well, which may force China to impose a new ADIZ over SCS on the lines of Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, and the rivalry may lead to mishaps and miscalculations.

Since China is also gradually transiting from a continental power to maritime power, the confrontation in the Indo-Pacific between the established global power and a rising one may be a new norm in coming times. China is aware of the asymmetry in force structure with the US irrespective of its second strike capability. Nevertheless, as China grows economically, the gaps are likely to be plugged in and new anti access/area denial weapons included its armor.

While China is expected to engage the US as well as ASEAN at the highest level and sell its common development and win-win cooperation, nonetheless, it will also heighten its military preparedness for any eventuality and protracted contest with the US. If the push comes to shove, the US may abandon its present position on freedom of navigation, unimpeded passage for commercial shipping, which anyway is not tenable, in favor of greater economic concessions from China, for asking or threatening China to halt its reclamation activities will not work at all.

*The writer is Professor of China Studies at the Centre of Chinese and South Asian Studies, JNU. He could be reached at bdupak@mail.jnu.ac.in. The views expressed here are his own and not that of South Asia Analysis Group.

The post China-US Rivalry In South China Sea: A New Norm? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The promised report of a UN investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka will achieve little unless accompanied by real introspection by both Tamil and Sinhala communities.

By Ahilan Kadirgamar and Mahendran Thiruvarangan*

Sri Lanka’s civil war ended in May 2009. For years, the lack of accountability for the grave human rights abuses committed during the last phase of the war has seemed for many actors to be the sole issue of concern. Powerful states, international human rights organizations, vocal sections of the Tamil diaspora, alongside some NGOs and courageous activists in the country, brought increasing international pressure to bear on the authoritarian Rajapaksa regime. This culminated in March 2014 when the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) established an investigation into the violations during the war.

The UN report is likely to be released in September. In January 2015, a wide spectrum of Sri Lankan society democratically overthrew the Rajapaksa regime, electing a new government under President Maithripala Sirisena. It is uncertain how it will respond to the UN report and whether it will pursue accountability. What is certain is that the international effort for accountability and the national debate about it have both been deeply politicized. The UN report itself may do little to promote the introspection by both Tamil and Sinhala communities that is so urgently needed to achieve genuine reconciliation.

Geopolitical reasons, particularly the proximity of the Rajapaksa regime to China, led the United States to sponsor the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka. The report it called for was to have been published in March 2015. But when President Sirisena was elected, interventions by powerful western states and India led the UN to delay publication, giving the new government a chance to pursue its own investigations. However, Tamil nationalist sections both in Sri Lanka and in the diaspora vehemently protested even this modest delay.

For the survivors, accounting for the war affected, for the dead and the disappeared, is necessary. But their calls for truth and for engagement with the UN investigation are mediated by nationalist politics and by the interests and agendas of the international human rights community. Such politicisation and internationalization of the lives of the survivors disregards their socio-economic suffering that continues after the war; or it attempts to equate this suffering solely to attacks by the state.

Indeed, accountability is linked to memory, to the past and also to the future. It requires collective introspection on the part of communities. It is precisely such introspection that is lacking in Lankan society, particularly among the nationalists in the Sinhala Buddhist and Tamil communities. Their nationalist propaganda, alongside western portrayals of Sri Lanka as a place only of ethnic conflict, and where only war crimes and accountability appear to matter, debilitates processes of truth-seeking and polarises communities.

An earlier report by a panel mandated by the UN Secretary-General in March 2011 alleged that in the last months of the war the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) held thousands of Tamil civilians as hostages, forcibly recruited youth and children, and killed many who attempted to escape. Public reflection by Tamils on these LTTE atrocities is necessary to chart an alternative political path for the future; and to change the Sinhala community’s views on the genuine grievances of minorities as distinct from the LTTE’s politics. The LTTE’s brutal attacks against Sinhalese and Muslims during the civil war need to be acknowledged by the Tamil community, no less than the Sinhala community needs to recognise the brutality of the state which led to the alienation felt by many Tamils. Unfortunately, Tamil nationalists avoid such reflection, and attack or attempt to isolate Tamils critical of the LTTE; this further stifles critical thinking.

In southern Sri Lanka, Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists use anti-imperialism as a convenient cover to avoid examining the abuses of the State; including the many massacres, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and the torturing and disappearing of thousands, which are etched in the minds and bodies of the Tamil survivors of the war. While it is true that the interests of powerful western states and other emerging powerful states shape the agendas of supranational organizations like the United Nations, political engagement in Sri Lanka cannot be in opposition to imperialism alone. The struggle is at many levels including vigilance against imperialism, challenging the majoritarian national security state and so-called “liberation movements,” all of which undermine the rights and aspirations of the people.

Local understandings of human rights and accountability are shaped by the discourse on these issues by both the state and nationalist forces at home, and powerful actors including NGOs abroad. For instance, when the LTTE took advantage of the Norwegian-mediated ceasefire and peace process in the 2000s, and persecuted Tamil dissenters and recruited children, the failure of local and international human rights organizations to initially register their protest gave human rights a bad name. Similarly, today, these organizations remain silent on the polarizing discourses propagated by Tamil nationalist actors in the name of accountability, including when they brand Tamils who seek to engage the state and the Sinhala community as traitors.

A local human rights group, the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) consistently throughout the war recorded the abuses by all actors, the Sri Lankan state, the LTTE and the other armed groups. While it exposed some of the worst human rights abuses, UTHR(J) also saw its role as opening the space for dissent and introspection among Tamils. Similarly, future human rights initiatives, whether they are local or international, should recognize that it is only when communities mutually engage through self-criticism that processes of accountability can lead to their co-existence.

In Sri Lanka, addressing the historic grievances of minorities and the legacy of the long civil war and its aftermath are mammoth tasks. The oppression of women, the social exclusion of oppressed castes, the exploitation of the rural and urban under-classes – all must be addressed. All citizens of Sri Lanka, not just those in the north and east who survived the war, will benefit from the reform of a militarised and centralised state, the democratisation of an authoritarian political culture and an end to the dispossession of marginalised peoples. Discussions on the political future of Sri Lanka, which often reduce the national question to a Sinhala-Tamil ethnic conflict, should recognize the history of exploitation faced by the up-country Tamils (who came as colonial indentured labor from India). It should address too the mass violence that the Sri Lankan Muslim community suffered at the hands of both Sinhala-Buddhist and Tamil nationalist forces.

The UN investigation and report can polarize as much as reconcile. It is the work of progressive local actors willing to take a resolute stand including by challenging the state, chauvinistic forces within their own communities and powerful international interests, which will ultimately determine the UN report’s lasting impact.

*Ahilan Kadirgamar and Mahendran Thiruvarangan are researchers from Jaffna and members of the Collective for Economic Democratisation in Sri Lanka.

This article was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is available by clicking here. 

The post Beyond Accountability: The Struggle For Co-Existence In Sri Lanka – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Russia in 2015 has lost its strategic sheen and strategic utility to India after more than four decades of being the sheet-anchor of India’s security. The onus of this Indian perception gaining ground lies on Russia squarely for switching to China as sheet-anchor of Russia’s foreign policy.

Russia’s imperatives for resurgence and re-emerging as an independent global power centre and nurturing the Russia-India Strategic Partnership by India were intensely advocated in my writings of the last decade. SAAG Papers of that period would adequately reflect that advocacy.

Russia somewhere along the way in the last five years has floundered from the avowed foreign policy aim of President Putin himself of being a major power to reckon with, by moving into a Chinese strategic bear-hug resulting in a visible diminution of Russia’s strategic stature

The above image and perception sticks today despite considerable strategic resurgence. In the process Russia is seen by the United States and the West as wobbling on Chinese strategic crutches. Is that the image which President Putin wants to go around in world capitals?

Surely, even today Russia is capable of standing up to the United States and the West and does not require ‘Made in China’ crutches.

Russia’s obsessive over-reliance on China bordering on subservience to China’ geopolitical interests have cost Russia heavily strategically and geopolitically in terms of its traditional and strategic partnerships with India and Vietnam and even a promising evolution of a better relationship with Japan. The predominance and giving overwhelming priority to the “China Factor” in Russian strategic calculus has brought to naught Russia’s ‘Strategic Pivot’ to the Asia Pacific announced by President Putin in late 2012.

Strikingly evident in today’s geopolitical landscape that in any ‘Strategic Pivot’ to Asia Pacific by either USA or Russia cannot succeed without taking on board India, Japan and Vietnam. China which is in confrontation with all these three pivotal countries, namely India, Japan and Vietnam, in the Asia Pacific and with which China has border disputes cannot off-set strategically the loss Russia has to bear by losing its strategic sheen with the three major nations mentioned.

India’s disappointment with Russia in being insensitive to India’s national security and strategic interests may not spill-over into the public domain in terms of political statements but if that is the logical analysis that emerges to me would surely be a matter of concern to Indian policy planners also. The Indian disappointment is more painful when viewed in the context that other than evolving an effective US-India Strategic Partnership, India has not worked in any way to undermine Russia’s national security interests.

The US-India Strategic Partnership was an “inevitable” as my SAAG Paper heading of 2000 would indicate, but then implicit in this evolution was India’s imperative to seek an alternative countervailing power to face the burgeoning “China Threat” that Russia in changed geopolitical circumstances did not have the power or inclination to provide.

More disturbing has been the Russian petulance in attempting to signal to India that it is now moving closer to Pakistan by striking a defence and arms supply relationship. This again spells out clearly that it does not seem to be an independent Russian initiative, but Russia acting under Chinese pressure to further Chinese strategic interests in South Asia through its Pakistan-proxy.

What is then India expected to make and discern from an erstwhile staunch and tested strategic partner like Russia indulging in strategic dalliance with “India’s major military threat countries”, namely China and Pakistan?

Russia as a trusted source of Russian armaments and military supplies for the Indian Armed Forces as a strength on which India could count is also dwindling due to high costs, long delivery times and costs over-runs. Possibly this could also be speculated, though it should be unlikely, to the “China Factor” in Russian policy planning. Whatever it may be, the fact is that India consequently seems to be engaged because of above stated Russian limitations in reducing the dependency of Indian military inventories on Russia.

Recent reports in media also indicate that Vietnam too, another trusted ally of Russia, is exploring its future arms purchases from other sources, even though its military inventories are basically Russian. Presumably, the “China Factor” in Russian policy priorities to the detriment of its erstwhile strategic partners may be in play here too.

The Indian Prime Minister on his forthcoming visit to Russia due later this year would have to factor-in Russia’s losing strategic sheen to India and consequently its strategic utility to Indian national security interests as he discusses the Russia-India Strategic Partnership and its longevity.

Concluding, it is Russia which ultimately has to take a final call on what should be given primacy in the Russian strategic calculus, China or India. Russia cannot give primacy to both these major contending Asian powers, whose relationship with each other is marred by border disputes, history of armed conflict and adversarial postures likely to persist for decades to come.

The post Russia Loses Strategic Sheen With India – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Garamone

President Barack Obama has asked the military for recommendations on how to make the effort to train and equip Iraqi security forces more effective, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday.

“What he’s asked us to do is take a look at what we’ve learned over the last eight months in the train-and-equip program and make recommendations to him on whether there are capabilities that we may want to provide to the Iraqis to actually make them more capable,” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said to reporters traveling with him.

“He’s asked us to look at whether there are other locations where we might establish training sites,” the general added. “He’s asked us to take a look at how we might develop Iraq’s leaders.”

The president asked military leaders to examine where there has been success and where the effort “may have been moving at a pace that’s late-to-need or where certain units have not stood and fought,” Dempsey said.

Looking at Ways to Instill Confidence

The Joint Chiefs are looking at ways to instill confidence in Iraqi forces or other means to improve their training, the chairman said. They have made some recommendations, he said, but follow-on questions must first be answered, such as how recommendations would be implemented, what risks they might entail to the mission and the force, and trade-offs around the globe.

U.S. military capabilities are needed in other parts of the world, Dempsey noted. U.S. forces are operating in Europe to reassure NATO allies in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine, there are additional issues in the Persian Gulf region related to reassuring allies against Iranian threats, and U.S. forces still are needed in Afghanistan, he said.

In addition, the general said, “some of our Pacific allies are unsettled by Chinese reclamation projects, so we’ve got work to do with our allies there.”

Necessary Troop Levels Undetermined

Whether more troops will be needed in Iraq remains to be seen, the chairman said. The process calls for the U.S. Central Command Commander Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III to determine how recommendations would be put in place, he explained.

“We try not to negotiate the resources before we negotiate the concept,” Dempsey said. “Then we ask at some point is if he has the resources currently assigned.” If the answer is no, then we look across the force to see where they can be generated.

“I haven’t received from Centcom the assessment of resources required,” he continued, “and that is appropriate, because I want to first understand that we have a concept that could actually improve capability.”

The president specifically asked about enhancing the train-and-equip mission, Dempsey said. “It wasn’t whether there are options that would imply the strategy is ineffective, it was, rather, ‘Are there things we can do?’” he said.

The military has two lines of effort against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq. One entails a combination of airstrikes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to support the Iraqi security forces. The other is to train and equip the Iraqi security forces to take the fight to ISIL.

The post Obama Seeks Advice On Improving Iraq Mission appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rupak Bhattacharjee*

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s just-concluded Dhaka visit is set to take India-Bangladesh ties to an extraordinary height. The two countries inked as many as 22 agreements and memoranda of understanding (MoU) covering diverse areas of cooperation, including trade and investment, road, railways, waterways, energy and power cooperation, security, science and technology, communication and cultural exchange. Some of the existing pacts were also renewed.

The officials of both nations exchanged the instruments of ratification of the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) and its 2011 protocol in the presence of Prime Minister Modi and his Bangladeshi counterpart Sheikh Hasina to implement the transfer of territories. India’s Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar termed the LBA, which has permanently resolved the six-decade-old boundary dispute between the two South Asian neighbours as the “centrepiece” of Modi’s visit.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has all along been stressing that New Delhi seeks to build “comprehensive and equitable partnership” with Bangladesh to ensure a “stable, secure and prosperous South Asia”. India is fully aware of the importance of its eastern neighbour Bangladesh for strategic, security and economic reasons. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj recently noted that India’s “Act East” policy starts with Bangladesh.

Dhaka too had been eagerly awaiting the first bilateral visit of Modi since he assumed office in May 2014. Perhaps no other foreign nation evinces so much interest in that country as does India, which encircles Bangladesh from three sides. The people of Bangladesh have huge expectations from their bigger neighbour and the ruling Awami League (AL) depends on India’s crucial support to fulfill their aspirations.

A visibly happy Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina described India as the most important neighbour of Bangladesh and one of the key development partners, while Foreign Minister A.H. Mahmood Ali observed that the bilateral relations have reached “historic heights”.

The Modi-led 12-member Indian delegation, including Foreign Secretary Jaishankar, held extensive talks with the Bangladesh side headed by Hasina, encompassing the entire gamut of bilateral relations and explored ways to further strengthen ties. Boosting trade and connectivity, especially people-to-people contacts had been the focus of Modi’s visit. The bilateral issues that Dhaka accorded priority were Teesta, killing of Bangladeshis along the international border, trade imbalance and cooperation in the power sector.

Modi also met Leader of Opposition in parliament Roushan Ershad, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Chairperson Khaleda Zia and several left politicians and exchanged views with them. Such interactions were quite significant as they helped the Bangladeshi political leaders to create consensus on major foreign policy issues. The seemingly unending feuds and fierce rivalries among the Bangladeshi ruling elite often denies the country an opportunity to reach common ground on Dhaka’s foreign relations, especially with an immediate neighbour like India.

The Teesta is a big political issue in Bangladesh and has been one of the highest priorities in its relations with India in recent years. Being a lower riparian country, Bangladesh expects India to settle the Teesta river sharing question in a spirit of accommodation. Considering the sensitivity attached to the issue and its importance in the political dynamics of that country, the Modi government, which had earlier decided to exclude Teesta from the list of deals finalised for signing during the bilateral summit and stated that the prime minister would refrain from making any statement on the issue, subsequently changed its position. After meeting Mamata in Dhaka, Modi said river should not be a source of discord between India and Bangladesh. He assured Bangladesh of finding a mutually acceptable solution to the sharing of Teesta and Feni river waters soon. It appears that Bangladesh’s political leadership has taken Modi’s words seriously.

Connectivity is another area where Modi’s neighbourhood diplomacy scored points. During their one-on-one talks, Modi and Hasina agreed to enhance connectivity for development in South Asia. Both the sides finalised a Motor Vehicles Agreement between Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and India (BBIN) likely to be signed in Thimphu on June 15. This initiative would significantly contribute towards augmenting trade and commerce among the four South Asian neighbours.

The agreements on connectivity inked during the visit were: Guwahati- Shillong-Dhaka and Kolkata-Dhaka-Agartala bus services, Kolkata-Khulna train service, coastal shipping between the two countries and use of Chittagong and Mongla ports. The Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade was renewed for five more years. India also granted a fresh soft loan of $2 billion to Bangladesh for use in connectivity projects. The opening of new bus routes and restoration of old railways and waterways between the two countries would not only make the movement of cargo between India’s eastern and northeastern states and Bangladesh much cheaper and faster but also expand people-to-people relations.

The visit has strengthened cooperation in power and energy sectors too. On June 6, deals worth $5.5 billion were inked between the Power Development Board of Bangladesh and Indian companies Adani Power Limited and Reliance Group to build 4,600 MW power plants in that country. Moreover, New Delhi agreed to supply additional 600 MW electricity to Bangladesh by developing infrastructure. For power-starved-Bangladesh, which is currently getting only 500 MW from different Indian grids, these deals are immensely beneficial. Responding to Dhaka’s long-standing demand, India also agreed to export 1 million ton of diesel per year from Assam’s Numaligarh Refinery.

Trade is a key component of India’s multi-faceted ties with Bangladesh and the two sides decided to further boost it by enhancing investment in each other’s country. Bangladesh has emerged as India’s largest trading partner in South Asia. However, the trade imbalance has been steadily increasing over the years. In their bids to contain the imbalance, the two governments agreed to build two Special Economic Zones for India in Bangladesh.

The leaders of two countries also tried to address some of the persisting security problems, like transnational crimes and cross-border terrorism. Both the sides signed MoUs to prevent all forms of human trafficking, smuggling and circulation of fake currency notes. The visit assumes significance against the backdrop of resurgence of religious extremism in Bangladesh and both the nations have reiterated their zero tolerance towards extremism and terrorism. The governments of the two countries need to maintain constant vigil on divisive forces and intensify security cooperation because the northeastern militants and the religious extremists often unite to subvert the friendly bilateral ties.

India’s engagement with Bangladesh has deepened and broadened following Hasina’s assumption of power in 2009. She enjoys the goodwill of India for her bold and persistent efforts to address India’s vital security concerns. The Indian media had been highlighting this aspect during the visit.

Realising the complexities of a federal polity like India, the Awami League has been in regular touch with various ruling parties to promote Bangladesh’s causes. Hasina’s growing cordial ties with the Left government of Tripura and the AL government’s decision to honour former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee for his valuable contribution to the independence of Bangladesh demonstrate her firm resolve to maintain close ties with India. Modi reciprocated Hasina’s outreach as “Act East” policy, in which Bangladesh figures prominently, has been made his government’s major foreign policy plank. This ground-breaking visit has changed the course of India-Bangladesh ties even without Teesta — the most intractable bilateral problem. This is where Modi’s neighbourhood diplomacy has triumphed.

*Dr. Rupak Bhattacharjee is an independent analyst based in Delhi. He can be reached at contributions@spsindia.in

The post Modi’s Dhaka Visit: A Paradigm Shift In India-Bangladesh Relations – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mahir Ali

Recep Tayyip Erdogan should have seen it coming. Perhaps he did, given that opinion polls were reasonably accurate in predicting the result of Sunday’s parliamentary election in Turkey. In which case, his tactics clearly backfired.

Erdogan wasn’t a candidate, having last year successfully engineered his elevation to the presidency, constitutionally a relatively symbolic post. No one was particularly surprised when the focal center of political power consequently shifted from the head of government to the head of state.

That wasn’t enough for Erdogan, though. He sought a constitutional shift from a parliamentary to a presidential form of government. A two-thirds majority for his Justice and Development Party (AK party) in Sunday’s election would have made this a cinch. Even a three-fifths majority would have sufficed to facilitate a plebiscite.

Instead, for the first time since 2002, the AK party garnered substantially less than 50 percent of the vote, compelling it to form a coalition. Its likeliest partner in this enterprise is the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), a right-wing outfit that secured about 17 percent of the vote.

The MHP has thus far been reluctant to commit itself in this respect, while AK party representatives have raised the prospect of a second election, should a coalition prove unachievable.

The latter option may not turn out to be a particularly desirable alternative for the AK party. It is, after all, not inconceivable that, in the event, it could end up with a share of the vote even smaller than the disappointing 41 percent it has achieved this time.

This is, mind you, a figure that would be coveted by ruling parties in many other countries. Turkey, to its credit, operates on the basis of proportional representation. At the same time, based on rules introduced by a military dictatorship, the threshold for entry into parliament is set at an uncommonly high 10 percent of the popular vote.

That is why it was something of a gamble for the People’s Democratic Party (HDP) to put up candidates. Had it failed to scale the 10 percent hurdle, it votes would have been redistributed, going mainly to the AK party. That is why candidates associated with its left-liberal and pro-Kurdish line of thinking previously contested as independents, who are exempted from the 10 percent rule.

They won some representation in parliament, but were unable to act as a coherent bloc. With the HDP’s nearly 13 percent of the vote, their parliamentary numbers have been doubled to 80 seats, despite (or perhaps because of) Erdogan’s unrelenting efforts to dismiss the party as a bunch of degenerates. There is some evidence, though, that in appealing to his conservative base, Erdogan lost the support of those who appreciate his achievements but were disinclined to give him a carte blanche.

The mood is clearly not unconnected to the Gezi Park protests of 2013 and the government’s crude reaction to them. It also bears some relation to Erdogan’s reaction to the so-called Arab Spring, whereupon he donned the mantle of a putative leader. Many Turks have also been disturbed by Erdogan’s attitude toward the conflict in neighboring Syria, with Turkey serving as the commonest conduit for deluded international recruits eager to lend their services to Daesh or Jabhat Al-Nusrah. Erdogan has been inclined to see the regime of Bashar Assad as the biggest threat, despite having once designated him as a brother, and has therefore tended to view the Islamist outfits as potential allies.

Much to the consternation of Turkish Kurds, he resisted allowing their fighters to go to the aid of the besieged Syrian town of Kobane, and AK party representatives have on occasion lauded Daesh’s initiatives. Despite negotiations for a settlement with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the HDP has been pilloried as an associate of the PKK.

In fact, the HDP came fourth in Sunday’s election by broadening its appeal beyond Kurds to socially liberal Turks, and by being remarkably inclusive in its outreach. Its leader, Selahattin Demirtas, has been compared with Barack Obama, but in fact bears a closer resemblance in many ways to Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

It is not inconceivable that a second election this year could give Demirtas a more substantial mandate. But Turkey’s future is hazy. This week’s election has been variously described as a watershed and the beginning of the end of Erdogan. It may well turn out eventually to conform to those optimistic prognostications. But it’s too soon to say.

The post Turkey: Reality Check For Erdogan – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pakistan on Wednesday executed a Christian death row convict despite repeated calls for clemency from rights groups and Church leaders.

A spokesman for Justice Project Pakistan (JPP), a law firm specializing in death row cases, confirmed that Aftab Bahadur Masih was hanged at Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore in the early hours of Wednesday.

Bahadur was arrested in 1992 in a case involving the murder of a woman and her two sons. He was tried and convicted in a speedy trial. Critics say the verdict was based on tainted evidence and forced confessions, and witnesses in the case now say Bahadur is innocent.

Bahadur was only 15 years old at the time of his arrest — too young to face the death penalty, argued critics including the JPP, which handled his case, and British rights group Reprieve.

They also argue he was tortured into confessing to the crimes, as were two of the witnesses against him — including his co-accused, Ghulam Mustafa — who have both since retracted their statements.

“This is a truly shameful day for Pakistan’s justice system,” Maya Foa, director of Reprieve’s death penalty team, said in a statement.

“To the last, Pakistan refused even to grant his lawyers the few days needed to present evidence which would have proved his innocence. This is a travesty of justice and [a] tragedy for all those who knew Aftab.”

Dozens of activists and relatives of Bahadur held a protest on Tuesday outside the Lahore press club demanding the execution be stopped, while Church leaders had also appealed to the president for a reprieve.

“It is unfortunate that authorities have gone ahead with the execution of Aftab Bahadur,” Cecil Chaudhry, executive director of the National Commission of Justice and Peace, a human rights body of the Catholic Church, told ucanews.com on Wednesday.

“Justice demands that if there is an iota of doubt, there should be an inquiry. In the Aftab Bahadur case, there was strong evidence to suggest that he was a juvenile at the time of his conviction,” Chaudhry said. “Two witnesses also retracted their statements and said Aftab was innocent.”

Chaudhry said that President Mamnoon Hussain could have considered the fact that Bahadur had already spent 23 years behind bars. Before the execution, the NCJP had pleaded with President Hussain to grant clemency. The Archbishop of Karachi, Joseph Coutts, had also written to the president, asking for the execution to be stopped.

Pakistan lifted a six-year moratorium on executions in December after the massacre of 132 children at a military-run school in Peshawar.

Last week, Pakistan’s independent human rights commission said that more than 130 people have been executed in 2015, the highest for any year in a decade.

The commission has demanded the government re-impose the moratorium on capital punishment and abolish the death penalty.

The post Pakistan Executes Christian Death Row Inmate appeared first on Eurasia Review.