Nope, it’s not a trick question. The number is zero.

A year ago Congress granted a White House request for half a billion dollars to identify, train, and equip “moderate” Syrians to accomplish the dual US goal of defeating ISIS as well as overthrowing those fighting against ISIS, the Syrian government.

As with most foreign policy moves sold by the neocons and interventionists, grandiose promises of success have found themselves at odds with reality. Advocates of the program claimed that it would produce 5,400 US-trained and armed fighters per year. In fact since the money was approved last May, less than 100 are actually being trained and none has yet completed the course.

One problem with the overt training program is that it could only train well-vetted “moderates” to form a new democratic, secular Syria. The challenge is the same as with unicorn hunting — the creature only exists in the feverish minds of those who believe they create new realities (from the comfy appointments of Beltway think tanks).

The CIA of course does not face the same PR problem. Their covert training program consumes an estimated billion dollars per year and has no qualms about passing training and weapons on to those who fight side-by-side with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. Recently, Congress decided to cut CIA funding for the program over concerns that — surprise — a rebel victory in Syria would not lead to democratic nirvana but rather to an ISIS-controlled Libya-like state in the Middle East.

As with all foreign recipients of US government largesse, “moderate” Syrian rebel leaders promise that victory is just around the corner — if only more money could be fed into the pipeline. As the Washington Post reported recently:

‘They have coherent command and control and have unified Sunni groups,’ said Oubai Shahbandar, a former top adviser to the opposition leadership… The training program, Shahbandar said, ‘is a precedent in terms of what works.’ Rather than cut funds, he said, the United States ‘should really double down on its southern program.

Truly a man worthy of a Beltway think tank sinecure. When a policy is demonstrated to be a total disaster, the solution is to “double down.”

Meanwhile, the neocons are urging us to stop worrying so much and start loving al-Qaeda and Israel is lustily eyeing more property in the occupied Golan Heights (this time the parts where the water is).

What could go wrong? Double down!

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post Guess How Many ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Have Been Trained With Congress-Approved $500 Million? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

With just a few hours remaining before the deadline for Greece to make a 1.5-billion-euro payment to the International Monetary Fund, it is unclear how the Fund could punish Greece for a missed payment, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said today.

“It’s not clear how the IMF can break the rules just to punish Greece,” Weisbrot said. “Its own rules allow Greece at least a one-month grace period before the government can be considered to be in default.”

Weisbrot noted that in September 2003, the Argentine government missed a payment to the IMF, but there was a grace period and about a week later, the Fund retreated from its demands and provided a new loan to Argentina so that it could make its payment.

The procedures for the IMF’s response to a missed payment, which are detailed in this IMF document [PDF], are summarized in this graphic from Zero Hedge:

The post IMF Would Have To Break Its Own Rules To Punish Greece For Missed Payment – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Bilveer Singh*

The role of Southeast Asians in global jihad is not new. Many from the region joined mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, especially in the period 1985 to 1989. Later, when Al Qaeda was established, many of these fighters supported Osama bin Laden’s outfit, with the Jemaah Islamiyyah becoming Al Qaeda’s Southeast Asian affiliate. Jemaah Islamiyyah was Southeast Asia’s first terrorist group. Historically too, the magnetic pull of the Middle East – the historical source of Islam and epicentre of the Sunni Islamic religion in Mecca and Madinah – have always attracted Muslim Indonesians and Malaysians to influences from that region. Indonesia is not only the largest Muslim nation in Southeast Asia but in the world, while Malaysia is the second largest Muslim nation in the region.

The Islamic State and Southeast Asia

There is no denying that Indonesians and Malaysians form part of the coterie of foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq today. While they form a small percentage of the more than 30,000 foreign fighters, their presence is nevertheless significant from the Southeast Asian perspective. It is reminiscent of the participation by Southeast Asians in the Afghan jihad earlier and the region consequently falling within the Al Qaeda terrorist paradigm. For some 25 years between 1985 and 2010, regional security was threatened by a series of terrorist attacks, actual or aborted, in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore. Today, the region seems to have seamlessly progressed into the Islamic State’s paradigm. There are many continuities from the past, partly since the Islamic State itself is the ‘son’ of Al Qaeda.

Southeast Asians’ Presence in the Islamic State

Indonesian sources have identified nearly 800 jihadists who are fighting in Iraq and Syria either for the Islamic State or the Jahbat al-Nusra. Officially, in March 2015, the Indonesian National Counter Terrorism Agency announced that more than 500 Indonesians were fighting for the Islamic State. In the same month, Indonesia’s leading recruiter for the Islamic State and the former leader of the Islamic State in Indonesia, Chep Hermawan, admitted that he was aware of a large number of Indonesians, numbering probably around 750, fighting for the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria. Malaysian sources have admitted the presence of more than 200 fighters in Iraq and Syria. It is also known that Malaysians formed the largest known contingency from Southeast Asia between 2010 and 2013. But now Indonesians form the largest group of foreign fighters from the region. In addition, there are some Thais, Filipinos, Singaporeans and now, probably, Rohingyas, supporting the Islamic State.

Even though the Indonesian contingent is relatively small compared to that from the West and Arab countries, its size and experience would still pose a serious threat, especially for Indonesia. There is a sense of déjà vu; Indonesians led the mujahidin struggle from Southeast Asia in Afghanistan and the returnees, forming the leadership of Jemaah Islamiyyah, threatened the security of ASEAN for the next 25 years. Today, many of these pro-Al Qaeda supporters have switched allegiance to the Islamic State, best epitomised by the support extended to the Islamic State by radical ideologues such as Abu Bakar Basyir and Aman Abdurrahman. The question is: has the Islamic State become more dangerous than Al Qaeda for Southeast Asia? More importantly, why are Indonesian and Malaysian jihadists fighting for the Islamic State and the pro-Al Qaeda Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria?

Triggers for Southeast Asians’ Support for the Islamic State

There are different triggers for different individuals to travel and fight in Iraq and Syria, depending on whether they are from established extremist groups such as Jemmah Islamiyyah or Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid, or from radical Islamic boarding schools such as Al Mukmin in Ngruki, Solo, or those radicalised through the internet and social media. While this is largely true of Indonesia, in the case of Malaysia, similarly many former active radicals with links to the Jemaah Islamiyyah or to local jihadi outfits such as the Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia are also engaged in pro-Islamic State activities. Support for the Islamic State has intensified in the Southeast Asian Malay World with the establishment of a Malay-speaking combat unit in Iraq and Syria called the Khatibah Nusantara (Combat Unit for the Malay-speaking Archipelago). Again, this harks back to the Southeast Asians’ experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s when a similar unit called the Al Ghubara was set up to facilitate communications, coordination and recruitment of fighters from the Malay-speaking world of Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines, Brunei and Singapore. In this regard, a number of triggers for Southeast Asians’ support for the Islamic State can be identified.

Ideology and Religion

The ideological pull of working for a common cause in furthering Islam’s goal is definitely an important factor. Further, the declaration of an Islamic State, specifically a Caliphate, is a powerful attraction. The prediction of the Prophet in Islamic eschatology, that the ultimate battle of Mankind will take place in Al Shaam, presently encompassing Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel, is also a major pull. There are also some who are mesmerised by the idea of living in Darul Islam (Abode of Peace), an Islamic State that has been actualised under Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi. One must also remember that Indonesian jihadists did declare Indonesia as an Islamic State in 1948 under the leadership of Kartosuwiryo and that this was nullified by the Indonesian Army only after a 14-year low-intensity war.

While there may be religious and ideological underpinnings, social bonds among youths, where individuals move as a group, have also accounted for the movement of many from Indonesia and Malaysia to the battle fields of Iraq and Syria. Many have also been motivated by short term financial gains, especially so in the case of unemployed youths in Indonesia. For some, the factor of thrill and adventure, especially of bearing arms and even killing the ‘enemies’ of Islam have been an important pull factor.

Identity Crisis

For many young people, especially marginalised youths, the quest for a sense of belonging, purpose and identity is a psychological factor that needs to be considered. Under the influence of radical clerics and ideologues such as Aman Abdurrahman, many youths have been inspired by the call to destroy the enemies of the Muslim Ummah. They believe that they are the ‘good’ that is fighting ‘evil’, the enemies of Islam. They are imbued with simplistic Manichean thinking of the enemy, especially Shias, thereby ‘dehumanising’ them, with no moral qualms about killing them. As many of these ideologues have sworn bai’at (allegiance) to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, their followers have joined the struggle in Iraq and Syria. Those opposed to the Islamic State have supported Jabhat al-Nusra even though support for the former is much greater. Interestingly, even though the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra are sworn enemies, they share the common goal of unseating President Assad from power in Syria.

Revenge

This has been exacerbated by the belief that there is a need to respond to atrocities committed by the Assad regime against Sunnis, something played up by various Indonesian and Malaysian media outlets, radical websites and social media posts, intensifying the Sunni-Shia divide. That Indonesia and Malaysia are essentially Sunni majority states with the radical and hard line narratives gaining dominance and minorities such as Ahmadiyyahs (in Indonesia) and even Shias being targeted have only worsened the anti-Shia sentiments in these two countries. Here, both governments, in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur, also share the blame as they have also promoted the anti-Shia rhetoric and policy through their non-recognition of the Shia religion and practices.

Inspiration

Additional factors motivating Indonesian and Malaysian fighters include the desire to achieve afterlife goals, the power of the social media and the inspiration provided by returnees who had fought in Syria and Iraq. The need to acquire combat experience, weapons’ skills and network internationally is also a powerful factor for the hijrah (strategic migration) to Syria and Iraq. It has been justified on humanitarian grounds as well – to assist the Islamist resistance against the Shia onslaught driven by the governments of Iran, Syria and Iraq. The ease of travel and access to Iraq and Syria, with networks based in the conflict zone, has also enabled many fighters to join the struggle. Competition among radical groups in Indonesia, especially with Jamaah Ansharut Daulah supporting the Islamic State and Jamaah Ansharusy Syariah supporting Jabhat al-Nusra, has only intensified the struggle to gain more recruits for the respective fighting forces in Syria and Iraq.

‘Far Enemy’

The fact that radical ideologues are promoting attacks against the ‘far enemy’ and not the ‘near enemy’ at home is also a factor that has persuaded many Indonesians, and probably Malaysians as well, to partake in what is viewed as a legitimate struggle in Iraq and Syria. This is also in part due to the success of the counter-terrorism policies of Indonesia and Malaysia, which has led many jihadists to prefer to take their struggle abroad rather than engage in a struggle at home. In a March 2015 interview, Chep Hermawan admitted that leading Indonesian radical clerics reached a consensus that undertaking bombings in Indonesia would hurt more innocent Muslims than their enemies and hence it was prudent to channel the jihad abroad in Syria and Iraq (the far enemy), at least for the time being. Presently, it is not illegal for Indonesians (as was in the past for Malaysians) to join foreign militant groups such as the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, and until this is criminalised, the jihadi flow is unlikely to cease from Indonesia. For many Indonesian radicals, this struggle is seen as a sacred religious duty of becoming a mujahid and even if one dies, the grand prize is martyrdom.

Conclusion

The full implication of more than 750 Indonesians, 200 Malaysians and other Southeast Asian jihadists fighting in Syria and Iraq remains to be seen. With powerful motivation stemming from religion, ideology and a sense of eternal persecution, this problem is unlikely to disappear soon, even if the Islamic State were to be defeated in the near future. If the experience of the Afghan–trained mujahids is anything to go by, the threat posed by the returnees from Syria and Iraq has the potential to be far more lethal especially since the numbers involved are much higher, they would have been heavily fortified with radical ideology, strongly networked and gained invaluable battle-ground experience as well as handling of sophisticated weapon systems. While the lure to fight in Iraq and Syria has been strong, the consequence for Southeast Asia of the jihadists’ participation, and especially the ideological and combat training they receive, is likely to be very serious.

*Bilveer Singh is currently a Visiting Fellow at the IDSA. He teaches at the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore, is an Adjunct Senior Fellow, Centre of Excellence for National Security, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, and President, Political Science Association, Singapore.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/WhyareSoutheastAsiansluredtofightfortheIslamicState_bilveersingh_290615.html

The post Why Are Southeast Asians Lured To Fight For The Islamic State? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A year ago today, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or simply IS) formally declared the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, with its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as the new Caliph. What has the year of the Caliphate taught us? What are the real threats? How has IS changed? How should we?

By Shashi Jayakumar*

Foreign fighters do not yet pose the main threat arising from the Islamic State (IS). Across the key geographic theatres, the vast majority of plots, have been conceived by sympathisers inspired by IS ideology – in some cases, empowered by IS calls to carry out attacks in their home countries – but acting independently of IS control.

The plain fact, however, is that we do not know how IS targeting will evolve. IS will likely continue to concentrate on expanding the Caliphate and consolidating the areas it holds, while from time to time prompting its sympathisers to carry out attacks – as it does now. But we cannot discount the over-the-horizon possibility of IS turning its attention outwards and attempting to organise 9/11 style attacks.

Polyphonic Messaging

What has been lacking thus far is the concerted and coordinated thought and effort needed to counteract a messaging that has out-evolved everything thrown at it.

Consider for example the difficulties faced by the Think Again Turn Away campaign, launched in late 2013 by the US State Department’s Centre for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC). The campaign degenerated into a shrill debate between the CSCC and IS fanboys. IS was none the worse for it: the online jousting provided its supporters the opportunity and a platform to showcase, and sharpen, its own message.

IS’ social media messaging projects a multiplicity of superior aspirations and ideals. Its propaganda, often accompanied by highly stylised visuals, assures people that “sometimes people with the worst pasts create the best futures” accompanied by striking imagery of Kalashnikov-wielding hooded individuals contemplating the light-filled path ahead. That this appeals to those with little to lose, to the disenfranchised, is obvious. The Caliphate is a place where people can be redeemed.

What complements the call of IS – and this is critical – is polyphonic messaging that appeals to would-be jihadists, but to many others besides. IS has made it clear that everyone can contribute to building the caliphate: anyone who comes will be looked after, as will their families who come with them.

What should be done

The Caliphate has a master narrative. Opposing IS requires a master narrative too – one going beyond a simple negativing of IS’ propaganda, encompassing a set of aspirational ideals capable of reaching into the psyche of people looking, more often than not, for confirmation for their own beliefs.

Assembling unofficial brains trusts would be a start. Those recruited should be drawn from all walks – advertising, psychology, experts on youth gangs and delinquents – all complementing the radicalisation experts. Digital natives, too, are needed.

Drawing on real-world initiatives will also be key. Outreach and deradicalisation programmes exist from Minneapolis to Aarhus to Singapore. These tackle the entire gamut from at-risk youths to self-radicalised individuals to returnees, using methods ranging from religious and psychological counselling, family outreach, to societal (re)integration. While some local initiatives report success in staying the hand of people who might have been tempted to join IS (or in deprogramming returnees), many of these are small, context specific, and not easily replicable. More needs to be done by way of sharing best practices: what works, and what doesn’t?

Inevitably, as IS evolves, states may have tinker with their security regimes; some may be overhauled altogether. But leaving one’s citizens in limbo through revoking citizenship – the route some nations are considering – should be weighed carefully and not used lightly. IS fighters and sympathisers who have committed crimes at home or abroad will of course have to face penalties, or (at the very least) square their accounts with the security services. But it should not be forgotten that many who do come back home are disillusioned. These are people who could bear valuable testament against IS and their voices which should be woven into the master narrative.

Betwixt the kinetic, the pragmatic – and the unthinkable

IS learns. It has become more adept at instructing would be fighters how to avoid routes that have become compromised. The short duration of the Caliphate has also seen its fighters and sympathisers become markedly more proficient in the intelligent use of social media, with an increasing use of encryption evidenced. They are migrating to secure forms of communication (think Wickr), or the less well-known platforms (Kik).

In the real world, too, IS is unlikely to disintegrate even as coalition successes against it gather pace. At the tactical level, territory may be retaken, but dealing with an excess of 30,000 IS fighters (two thirds of them “foreign”) will not be accomplished easily. Jihadists have always sought out badlands: poorly governed, between borders, where there is instability or the possibility of fomenting and feeding off conflict. Returnees will in various parts of the world therefore pose a security issue for years, if not decades, just as the previous generation of Afghan veterans did.

For the time being, IS is the biggest game in town. Only IS can offer a semblance of local government. IS mouthpieces have tweeted that the nascent state offers subsidised gas, free water and dental care, and many other services besides – almost a municipal promised land. The reality is of course different: shortages of the most basic necessities; grim executions for the merest transgressions.

But this does not mean that the IS state-building enterprise will fail. Governance and provision of services will be a key issue, as will its ability to attract individuals who can run states – civil servants, doctors, engineers, and teachers. The Caliphate has some, but not enough. The IS leadership knows this.

As Richard Barrett, the respected former head of counter-terrorism for MI6 has recently observed, “[IS] offers those living under its rule better governance in some respects than they received from the state before it took over. Corruption is far less prevalent, and justice, albeit brutal, is swift and more evenly applied. The policy challenge is therefore not to seek the destruction of the caliphate so much as to promote its transformation into something that the Syrian and Iraqi people, along with the rest of us, could live with.”

Policymakers, security agencies, and the think tank community should harvest the best insights of scenario planning, horizon scanning and whatever tools they have in an effort to better understand the longer-term implications of this prognosis.

*Shashi Jayakumar is Head, Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. A version of this appeared in The Straits Times.

The post The Year Of The Caliphate: What Lies Ahead? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Paolo Moiola

Father Pablo Urquiaga Fernández was born in 1945 in Pinar del Río, Cuba. After several years in Miami, he arrived in Venezuela in 1968 where he completed his studies at the Catholic University of Andrés Bello. In 1975 he was ordained a priest and after four years of work in Petare, a municipality of Caracas, he became a pastor of the Resurrection of Our Lord Church in 1980, in Caricuao, a Caracas neighborhood inhabited by lower middle-class people.

Paolo Moiola, a Latinamerica Press collaborator, spoke with Father Urquiaga about the delicate political and social situation that Venezuela is experiencing.

Q: If we only rely on the main sources of international media, Venezuela is a dictatorship. President Nicolás Maduro and his government imprison their opposition politicians…

Father Pablo Urquiaga Fernández (Photo: Personal archive of Father Pablo Urquiaga) via Latinamerica Press

Dictatorship? Certainly not; at the most, there is a “soft dictatorship.” But jokes aside, I want to say that the National Assembly (Legislature) and the Executive make the laws but nobody pays attention to them and everybody does what they want to do. There is an anarchy in Venezuela in 2015. I believe that a dictatorship and an anarchy are incompatible, aren’t they?

Impunity generates corruption and widespread delinquency. There are laws that are ignored and not enforced. Certainly, there are “imprisoned politicians” and they are not equivalent to “political prisoners.” I believe that “political prisoners” should not exist in any part of the world, unless the person has committed some crime that has been proven before competent authorities, whether of the government or the opposition.

Q: The economic situation of the country is described as on the edge of collapse with high inflation, scarcity of basic necessities and dollarization of the economy. What is the truth?

The economic situation has deteriorated considerably since last year. Inflation has skyrocketed. The scarcity of staples has several causes such as the lack of production of these goods, the deviation of these goods to external markets, as well as the economic war that aims to damage the revolutionary process. On the other hand, populism tries to please the people in order to win votes and does not demand work and responsibility for production and gives presents without demanding effort and sacrifice.

The opposition takes advantage of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of this government to worsen the situation, although businessmen have some valid reasons: they cannot produce with such economic instability. You can’t strangle the producer; without production there can be no distribution, which is the duty of the government.

Q: Venezuela is one of the world’s leading oil producers. However, it has not been able to adequately manage this wealth. Is this due to corruption?

In regards to the issue of oil, it is not only subject to administrative corruption but also to the lack of efficiency in the managing of public finances. It is true that the majority of these resources has been used to improve the living situation of the poorest (social investment) but these resources have also been used to enrich false revolutionaries. We ought to “cultivate” oil, that is to say, further develop the petrochemical industry that, thanks to God, has begun to develop although late, unfortunately. We are expecting the rise of gasoline prices in proportion to the other products derived from oil at any time now.

Q: International organizations agree in pointing out that Venezuela, and Caracas in particular, have high levels of criminality. Do you feel insecure?

This is one of our most terrible afflictions, although we know that it is a consequence of impunity and the lack of ethics which corrupts everything. Populism tries to be easy on those who commit crimes, especially if they come from the popular sectors. It is not a matter of revenge, it is a matter of corrective justice. We need more correction facilities instead of prisons that become schools of crime, delinquency and drugtrafficking. There is so much insecurity that our church activities at night have been suspended. You ask me if I feel insecure. Well, I believe that God protects me and I feel at peace.

Q: According to the executive order signed by the US President Barack Obama on this past March 9, Venezuela is a threat to the national security of the United States. Do you think this is so?

Even though in recent years the relationship with Washington has deteriorated, today we are more respected as a sovereign and independent republic. We have expanded our relations with the whole world and we do not depend on the United States for our foreign trade, although, without a doubt, the US market continues to be very important for our foreign exchange. Relations with other countries such as Russia, China and Europe have strengthened, especially those relationships with Latin American countries. Venezuela is not a threat to anybody, to any people, but it is a threat to any empire, wherever they are from, that wants to come to divide or transform us into their backyard.

Q: In the 2015 Freedom House Report, Venezuela is considered a “not free” country in regards to the media, even placing it in the 176 place in the ranking of press freedom in the world. How do you see the situation of the press in Venezuela?

Any person who travels to Venezuela and turns on the radio and buys a newspaper or magazine will realize that in our country there is full freedom of expression. I would say “licentiousness of expression,” which is not the same thing. I believe that one should not be allowed to use the press to say “whatever I want.” It is one thing to be free to express opinions and quite another is the truthful communication of facts without altering or omitting facts for petty interests. You, as journalists, have a code of ethics to not hide the truth. In Venezuela the majority of radio and television stations are controlled by private businesses that respond to the interests of the opposition. This, I say, should also apply to the state managed media.

Q: The Venezuelan Catholic hierarchy seems to always be on the side of the opposition to the President and the government. Is this so?

Some members of the “high” hierarchy (and also of the “low”) oppose everything that the government does to the extreme of not being capable of recognizing anything good in favor of the poorest of the poor. There are others working in order to correct the deficiencies so that the situation improves, particularly for the most needy without being partisans of any group. The preferential option for the poor cannot continue “being words”, but deeds and commitments.

Q: Pope Frances has been very important for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States. Do you believe that he will help foster the pacification of Venezuela?

Pope Francis has helped in his actions to clarify that to be on the side of the poor is not communism, it is pure Christianity. Surely he is capable of reconciling Venezuelans of good will of both sides, thus we would move ahead with everyone benefitting. That is the idea. The current Apostolic Nuncio of Venezuela [Monsignor Aldo Giordano] is an honorable representative due to his simple and humble behavior, someone with close ties to our people, who does not look for privileges or honors. I am a personal witness to what I say and we thank God for him. The upcoming papal visit to Cuba [Sept. 19-22] will have a positive effect on peace among our nations.

The post ‘To Be On Side Of Poor Is Not Communism, It Is Pure Christianity’ – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mary Rezac

Pope Francis might chew coca leaves – or maybe sip coca tea – during his visit to Bolivia next week, the Vatican has said.

Bolivian Culture Minister Marko Machicao told local media that Francis had asked to chew coca leaves in the country, one of several stops during his visit to South America July 5-13.

The coca leaf, whose daily use and cultural importance in the Andes region rivals that of coffee in the United States, is embroiled in controversy in the international community because of its use as the main ingredient in the addictive drug, cocaine.

In 1961, the U.N. convention on narcotic drugs declared coca an illegal substance, and tried to phase out its cultural use by 1989 – but the local coca culture refused to die.

Many indigenous Bolivians believe the coca leaf to be sacred, and people of all social classes can be found either drinking the plant’s tea or chewing its leaves throughout the country.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, a former coca farmer himself, has staunchly defended the plant as a cornerstone of his country’s culture and economy, fighting for the use of the plant in its natural form.

Morales has revived the natural coca economy, and Bolivia now turns out coca products ranging from flour to toothpaste, shampoo and lotions.

“This leaf,” Morales told a 2007 U.N. General Assembly, “represents…the hope of our people.”

A number of international studies, including one published by Harvard University, found raw coca leaves to be packed with nutrients including protein, calcium, iron and other vitamins. A 1995 World Health Organisation report said there were “no negative health effects” from coca use in leaf form.

In its natural form, coca leaves have a mild stimulant effect considered similar to coffee, and they can be chewed or brewed into tea to fight hunger, exhaustion or altitude sickness – likely the reason Pope Francis might partake of the plant upon his arrival in the country.

And he’s following in his predecessor’s footsteps – Pope John Paul II drank tea made from coca leaves during his 1988 visit to Bolivia, and Pope Paul VI is reported to have drank the tea during a visit to the Andes region in 1968. Queen Sophia of Spain, and the British Princess Anne, are also said to have partaken in the plant in its natural form.

When asked if the Pope would have some coca leaves or tea in Bolivia, Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi said he couldn’t confirm what the Pope would do one way or another, though he acknowledged that Pope Francis likes to take part in local cultures.

“(I) wouldn’t be surprised because the Pope likes taking part in popular customs. The Pope will do as he sees fit. From what I know there are ways of dealing with the altitudes that form part of popular culture: some drink a sort of mate tea, others chew coca leaves. The Pope hasn’t talked to me about what he plans to do, we shall see. We’ll see if he follows local customs.”

The post A Brief History Of Popes And Coca Leaves appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Some of the world’s largest finance-sector companies are reviewing their business models following the rapid growth of financial technology (“fintech”) entrants in the sector. This is the main finding of a World Economic Forum report entitled The Future of Financial Services: How Disruptive Innovations Are Reshaping the Way Financial Services Are Structured, Provisioned and Consumed, which was released Tuesday.

The Forum’s report draws on more than 100 interviews with industry experts and a series of workshops where executives from global financial institutions such as UBS, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Visa and MasterCard met with leading global fintech innovators like Zopa, Funding Circle, Transferwise and Ripple to discuss the future of their industry.

“For decades, banks and insurers have employed similar, highly profitable business models. But they realize an Uber moment may finally be coming to their sector,” says R. Jesse McWaters, lead author of the report at the World Economic Forum. “Financial technology companies are deploying online platforms, have small capital bases and make strategic use of data to acquire customers and revenues at a fast pace. Banks and insurers noted that, and are contemplating their response.”

As a result, financial services are reconsidering their future business scenarios in some very fundamental ways. “Bankers used to think regulation would make financial services less appealing for new entrants, but now the penny is dropping that non-bank rivals can just attack more profitable areas and skim the cream”, says Morgan Stanley’s Huw van Steenis, a member of the working group. It opens the door to industry scenarios not dissimilar to those of AirBnb in accommodation, Uber in transport or Amazon in retail.

With global investments of $12.2 billion in 2014 in the fintech sector – more than threefold compared with 2013 – disruption in the financial sector is not a one-off, but rather a continuous pressure to innovate as new entrants lay claim to more and more of the estimated $6.6 trillion on revenues at stake in global retail financial services. “Innovation will shape customer behaviours, business models and the long-term structure of the financial services industry. Banks and insurance firms are already starting to see the effect of disruptors, and we believe much more is to come,” says Chris Harvey, Global Leader, Financial Services, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited*.

However, while innovators will force incumbents to change, it doesn’t mean that the brand names we know will disappear. “Many large financial institutions are highly focused on responding to disruption,” says Giancarlo Bruno, Head of Financial Services at the World Economic Forum. “Incumbents are learning from challengers, adapting their offerings and identifying opportunities to collaborate with new players.”

The post Finance Sector Heading For Uber-Moment, Says Report appeared first on Eurasia Review.

With the Muslim holy month of Ramadan underway and Jewish high holidays soon to follow, tensions have started to rise, if only slightly, at the Holy Esplanade – the Temple Mount (har habayit) to Jews, the Noble Sanctuary (al-haram al-sharif) to Muslims. In mid-2014, it seemed the site might be the epicentre of the next Palestinian uprising, even a broader Jewish-Muslim clash.

Israel believes 2015’s relative calm is sustainable, if ministers and Knesset members refrain from pushing, as they did last year, to change the setup. Even if this proves correct during the holiday season, quiet is unlikely to endure. While Jewish Temple activism was crucial in sparking the last round of unrest, the religious salience of and political contestation around the Esplanade, especially among Jews but also Muslims, has been increasing for two decades. This has eroded the status quo arrangement that has mostly kept the peace since Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967. Any further slippage must be prevented and the status quo braced.

Judaism’s holiest site and Islam’s third-most after Mecca and Medina, containing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, is a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It sees repeated violent upsurges that never decisively end, only fade; as a final-status issue in a stalemated peace process, its disposition remains unclear, a situation which Israel has exploited to expand control. Managed by an Israeli-Jordanian condominium, the site exemplifies political exclusion of Palestinians from what they consider their capital and the inability of their fractured national movement to defend it meaningfully. As a location that is both a paramount pillar of Judaism and centrally important in Islam, it invites Arab denial of Jewish history and connection to the Holy Land and Jewish rejection, especially within the religious camps, of Palestinian and Muslim ties. As the iconic national and religious symbol for both sides, it showcases the increasing weight of the Religious Zionist camp in Israel and Islamist voices among Palestinians.

Yet, the Esplanade also has its specificities. It is the sole place in the West Bank where Jordan has a formal role and where in Jerusalem Palestinians can organise with relative autonomy. Its sensitivity also amplifies events elsewhere. With memories still fresh of the second intifada, which Ariel Sharon set off by visiting with several hundred security personnel, many believe there is no quicker path to a major conflagration than violence there. It has been a focus of the Israeli right, especially Religious Zionist elements, which came to emphasise it after the 1993 Oslo Accords and Israel’s 2005 Gaza withdrawal. Because it highlights violence potential, the fault lines of both societies and the failures of the diplomatic process, the Esplanade urgently requires attention.

This exigency, at the same time, could perhaps offer a hint of how to rejuvenate an exhausted peace process. This may sound counter-intuitive, as the site is one of the toughest final-status issues. In Israel, attachment to it is stronger than ever. On right and left, it beggars belief that in a Jewish state Jews face limitations on religious practice at their holiest site. For decades after 1967, Israel was content to leave in place a status quo under which entry of Jews was on Jordanian sufferance, and non-Muslim prayer was banned. Today, mainstream Religious Zionist authorities even encourage Jewish ascension; despite profound ultra-orthodox disagreement, they have secular allies who believe Israel’s sovereignty and freedom of worship ought not be abridged.

For Palestinians, increasing Jewish interest in and presence on the Esplanade portends the too familiar. From desecration of a number of mosques and other holy sites after the 1948 War to division of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron to allow Jewish worship at the Cave of Machpela, Palestinians progressively have lost control over religious sites and national symbols. Jewish historical and religious sites in East Jerusalem have become foci of Israeli control, attracting a Jewish presence that securitises Arab surroundings and embitters residents. Many Palestinians believe their last stand is at Al-Aqsa, in a city already lost.

With deteriorating coordination and competing interpretations of the status quo that leave stakeholders to protect interests by precipitating crises – by stones, security forces or diplomacy – the status quo conceived in June 1967 may seem obsolete but remains the only consensus about the Esplanade. To shore up the site’s stability, it must be shored up. This involves:

Access. The presence of religious Jews on the Esplanade became contentious only once Muslim access was greatly reduced. Access for all communities is the best way to ensure access for each.

Prayer. There should be no unilateral change in the prayer regime, the most explosive element of the status quo, so until Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians can agree on change, there should be no non-Muslim, including Jewish, prayer.

Archaeology, Public Works. Leaders on both sides should denounce the obsolete, dangerous claims made by their own publics: in Israel, that Jordanian maintenance work performed by an Islamic endowment that administers holy places is destroying Jewish artefacts; and among Palestinians and Jordanians and Arabs in general, that Israel is plotting to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Palestinian Participation. The status quo is an Israeli-Jordanian understanding that excludes Palestinians. The Jordanian body thus lacks credibility in East Jerusalem. Though formal Palestinian Authority (PA) participation would not be acceptable to Israel, a consultative entity of prominent Palestinian figures in Jerusalem could give it a degree of authority that could help stabilise the city.

A bolder vision would see the site as a jumping off point to reimagine what is needed to reach peace. This requires including marginalised groups and excluded issues, such as Israel’s religious Zionists, Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalemites and Arab citizens of Israel. The Holy Esplanade is a venue for including the conflict’s religious and narrative dimensions, whose importance has grown. Religious dialogue, within each society and faith and if and when possible between them, is vital for resolving the conflict, but also for managing the site in the interim.

Any deal, especially regarding the Esplanade, will be hard to forge or sustain without religious leaders’ support. But with the high potential for violence, there is reason to start with basics, ensuring a stable environment so building blocks of a new process can be laid. With the peace process defunct, Israel’s government willing to live without one, a major Gaza escalation always possible, the Palestinian national movement in shambles and a world distracted by a region aflame, calming the conflict’s symbolic core is important.

Note: This is an executive summary of the report, which may be found here.

The post Status Of Status Quo At Jerusalem’s Holy Esplanade – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Chido Onumah and Godwin Onyeacholem*

Wind the critically slurred legislative tape back to the first National Assembly of the Fourth Republic. It began sometime in 1999, you’d recall. That was the period the incautious yet irrepressible Chuba Okadigbo, then a brand new senator of our perpetually blighted Republic, first gave an inkling of what the legislators had in stock for an already battered people. A furniture allowance of N5m each had just been announced by one unfeeling government agency for 109 senators, and something a little less for their 360 equally rapacious partners stationed in the House of Representatives.

“What!” Nigerians screamed in ear-splitting anger. They wondered why newly elected legislators would be asking for that much for their convenience in a country that had been robbed blind and severely wrecked by the retreating military oligarchy. Typical of him, Okadigbo – Oyi as he was then widely saluted by his admirers and subjects – poured cold water on the issue by declaiming flamboyantly that if anyone cared to know, he was not in Abuja to live like a cockroach. Since that open display of arrogant indiscretion, Nigerian legislators have not looked back in their avowed journey of mindless plunder.

It has since assumed the tale of as you cut off their finger, they find new ways to adorn it with a diamond-studded ring, thus lending strong credence to the widely held view that more than being legislators, these so-called lawmakers are nothing but a terminally dependent class of Nigeria’s prebendal state. In their heedless quest for material and sensual pleasures, they have only stopped short of demanding from the state the power to keep permanent suites in the poshest hotels across the country for as long as their tenure lasts. And who says they won’t soon get to that point?

So bad it is that even in this era of clamour for a decided “change,” they are not showing any faint sign of taming the odious grab-grab mentality. There is no other name for this kind of behaviour other than pathological greed. Stretching it further to accommodate synonyms in three local languages, the Yoruba would call it iwa wobia; in Igbo they would say it’s something like anyan ukwu, while the Hausa will see it as typical halin azzalumai.

In a few days, these azzalumai of the 8th National Assembly will shamelessly stretch their hands to pocket about N9bn ($45million) – senate president, Bukola Saraki, says the figure is lower, without giving the real figure – courtesy of the Nigerian state, for what they call wardrobe allowance. Last week, it was reported that the preening new Senate President (the de facto President of the Federal Republic) was still operating from his personal residence because the N27.1bn naira ($135million) castles being built by the government for principal officers of the National Assembly were still under construction. All these in a country with a minimum wage of N18,000 (about $80); a country where more than half the states have not paid workers for months.

Whatever the real figures of the official extravagance, it is one story that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. This shameless affront or iwa wobia by our certified anyan ukwus is coming at a time of intense expectation of total break from the ignoble past, a period when citizens are yearning for new ways of running public office in Nigeria.

In this period of national emergency, of debilitating and fast dwindling national revenue, when an overwhelming population of government workers and their families are crying due to starvation occasioned by non-payment of salaries for several months, you would expect the legislators to say NO, not again; you would expect them to reject with unequivocal bluntness the imposition of any privilege, deserved or not, that seems to depict them as insensate gorgers. And this criminal and silly wardrobe allowance, certainly, is a typical example of that insensitivity.

In 2004, Robert Rotberg, the US professor of governance and foreign affairs, among other qualifications, described the Nigerian leadership as “predatory kleptocrats” and “puffed-up posturers”. We now know the class that largely informed that unflattering but apt description.

If the lawmaking business in Nigeria is truly about the people why, for instance, would a David Mark, a Bukola Saraki, an Ike Ekweremadu, a Yakubu Dogara, a Stella Oduah, a Remi Tinubu or any other legislator collect money from the state to clothe him/herself in these lean times or any other time for that matter? In the sixteen years of David Mark in the Senate (eight as Senate President) what sort of clothing has he not worn at the expense of the state that he would now again rely on the people’s money to replenish his stock? When will these people ever think of denying themselves some things in the interest of the common good?

Why would a Bukola Saraki, who spent eight years as the governor of a state, been a senator for the past four years, and recently elected Senate President, not feel any scruple collecting money for what they call wardrobe allowance when there are hundreds of thousands of children orphaned by Boko Haram and homeless victims of unending ethnic/religious conflicts sleeping under sub-human conditions in makeshift Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps across the country without food to eat, not to talk of clothes on their backs? Who cares what legislators wear so long as at they make laws that will improve the lives of the people? They could go to the National Assembly naked for all we care! After all, most of them are flabby imposters and we don’t think their nakedness would excite anybody.

Sadly, not a whimper yet of outrage from legislators including, Ben Bruce and the boisterous Dino Melaye, who so far have been most vocal in the ironically feeble crusade to trim the cost of maintaining lawmakers in the National Assembly. Although it’s heart-warming that the duo has expressed interest in reducing the cost of governance through personal sacrifices, they must focus on the attitude of the Senate in general and its leadership in particular, if they expect to be taken seriously.

Riding around Abuja (from the National Assembly to his residence) in a black, expansive Mercedes Benz in a 15-car convoy that includes a bomb disposal vehicle, a state-of-the-art-ambulance, motorcycle outriders and a retinue of aides and security personnel, Saraki is already carrying on like a latter-day emperor, in blatant contrast to the “change” mantra on which his party, APC, campaigned and was voted in as the “governing” party.

Saraki’s Maitama neighbourhood is daily assailed by the raucous blare of siren from his long and needless convoy. This obscenity, a throwback to the David Mark era, won’t be markedly different from what obtains in the neighbourhood of Saraki’s deputy as well as those of the Speaker and his deputy. Just imagine the cost of keeping these vehicles on the road and maintaining these retinues of aides and, of course, the inconvenience for ordinary citizens!

If this is the “change” the APC talks about, then it means the “change” that brought it to power was a mere slogan. Nigerians were deceived to get their votes. President Muhammadu Buhari, the symbol of the leadership of Nigeria, surely has his work cut out for him. While we believe in the principle of separation of power, President Buhari must defy the so-called godfathers and show leadership because, in the end, he is the President of the Federal Republic.

The last time we heard from him it was that his age might affect his performance. Mr President, you were not voted to represent Nigeria at the under-17 World Cup. You were elected president to lead. Apart from showing good example, all you need to do is put the right people in the right places (a test of that will be when you send your list of ministers to the Senate), empower state institutions to do their work effectively and take bold actions in the interest of the masses.

The style of the present order must not be a carry-over of the abomination of the last 16 years. As a first step, the President should immediately meet with APC legislators in the National Assembly and impress on them the need to reject forthwith the satanic wardrobe allowance.

* Chido Onumah and Godwin Onyeacholem wrote from Abuja and can be reached at conumah@hotmail.com (@conumah) and gonyeacholem@gmail.com

The post Nigeria: Buhari, ‘Legislooters’ And The Change Agenda – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

European Member States approved a compromise text agreed with the European Parliament to bring the EU regulation on trade in seal products into compliance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

The Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper), on behalf of the Council, confirmed the agreement between the Presidency of the Council and the Parliament reached in a trilogue meeting on 25 June 2015.

This amendment to the current 2009 regulation follows a WTO ruling from June 2014. After Canada and Norway challenged the EU regime, the WTO ruling upheld the EU’s ban on trade in seal products. However, it found the two exceptions granted problematic, arguing they could have discriminatory effects.

Exceptions in the 2009 regulation

The new text agreed addresses these concerns by eliminating one of these exceptions and stating clearer conditions for the other.

The exception for products derived from hunts conducted for the sustainable management of marine resources (MRM exception) is therefore removed. Nevertheless, the regulation acknowledges this may create problems in the Member States concerned and that this should be taken into account in future assessments of the regulation.

As concerns the exception for products derived from hunts conducted by Inuit or other indigenous communities (IC exception), the hunt is required to fulfil three conditions: it has traditionally been conducted by the community; it is conducted for the subsistence of the community and contributes to it (and it is not conducted primarily for commercial reasons); it is done with due regard to animal welfare (taking into consideration the community’s way of life and the subsistence purpose)

If the conditions for placing seal products on the market are not complied with, the Commission may adopt delegated acts to forbid the placement on the market or limit the quantity of products that can be placed, after consulting experts (including from the Member States).

The new piece of legislation will be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote at first reading in September 2015 and to the Council for final adoption. The new EU regime should entry into force by 18 October 2015.

The post EU Reaches Agreement On Seal Trade Products appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported Tuesday.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Airstrikes in Syria

Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Syria: near Hasakah, seven airstrikes struck five ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL vehicles, an ISIL armored personnel carrier and an ISIL tank; near Raqqah, an airstrike struck an ISIL excavator; and near Dayr Az Zawr, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.

Airstrikes in Iraq

Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense: near Baghdadi, three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage and destroying two ISIL excavators; near Fallujah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL tunnel system; near Haditha, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL vehicles; near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying an ISIL building; near Waleed, an airstrike destroyed three ISIL armored personnel carriers.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.

Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The post US-Led Airstrikes Continue To Pound Islamic State In Iraq, Syria appeared first on Eurasia Review.

When Israel is criticized about its rights-abusive policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the refrain most often heard among local politicians is that the government’s hasbara—the Israeli propaganda machine—is inadequate. The problem, in other words, is not what Israel actually does to the Palestinians, but rather the inability to get its positive message across to the international community. This is usually referred to as “rebranding Israel”. The underlying assumption here is that the merchandise is fine, and only the packaging needs to be replaced.

Rachel Krys’ recent argument about the crisis of human rights is based on a similar logic, even though she is writing about a different issue. She tells us that most people in the UK do not support human rights, while arguing that this is happening because human rights are presented in a way that is disconnected from people’s everyday lives. She claims that if the public would hear less “negative discourse” about human rights and more “stories about old people challenging bad treatment, invasive decisions or the intrusion into their private and family life”, support for human rights would be much wider. Once again the problem with human rights has to do with perceptions, and the solution, here as well, is hasbara.

The relationship between representation and reality is, however, much more complex. It has to do with human rights themselves: the way they have been institutionalized, the political projects to which they lend themselves, their intricate connections to the state, and the alternative discourses of justice they omit and repress.

We do not assume, as many human rights practitioners and scholars do, that more human rights necessarily lead to more emancipation. Indeed, the assumption that people would believe in human rights if only they better understood human rights work is misguided. Human rights can, and often do, enhance domination. This issue becomes particularly urgent when NGOs that purport to criticize abuse align themselves with the very powers they investigate and criticize.

Consider a 2013 report on drone attacks in which Human Rights Watch (HRW) examines six unacknowledged US military attacks against alleged Al-Qaeda members in Yemen. Eighty-two people, of whom at least 57 civilians, were killed in these attacks. Yet this is a mere sample of the 81 attacks carried out in Yemen, and it does not include the hundreds of targeted killings in Pakistan and Somalia.

HRW argues that two of the six attacks were in clear violation of international humanitarian law because they only struck civilians, or they used indiscriminate weapons. HRW also states that:

“The other four cases may have violated the laws of war because the individual attacked was not a lawful military target or the attack caused disproportionate civilian harm, determinations that require further investigation. In several of these cases the US military also did not take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians, as the laws of war require.”

The underlying logic of these statements is subtle, but very disturbing since it exposes how adherence to international law can advance domination. For HRW it is unclear whether the remaining four cases violated the law, but if it turns out that the military had used discriminate weapons, taken all the “necessary precautions”, and finally killed civilians while targeting militants, then the “deliberate killing by a government” in another country halfway across the globe does not in fact constitute a violation. Phrases like “all necessary precautions” are exactly where human rights advocates begin aligning themselves with military power.

Following the dictates of international humanitarian law, HRW goes on to discuss whether the “terrorist suspects” are in fact “valid military targets”, whether the situation in Yemen can be characterized as passing the “threshold of armed conflict” as well as whether the assassinations adhere to US policies of targeted killing. And, although it acknowledges the lawfulness of some of the attacks, it criticizes the US government for not offering compensation to families whose members were killed as civilian bystanders. Hence, as this report demonstrates, when human rights are subservient to international legal discourse, the best they can do is to call for a reduction of civilian casualties, the provision of economic compensation for victims, and guarantees that future targeted killings comply with the law.

Indeed, such reports underscore what happens to human rights once they have been hijacked by the law and become a prism for debating the legality or illegality of violence—namely, they cease to raise questions about the morality and legitimacy of the law itself. This becomes even more striking when reading the HRW report not only for what it says, but also for what it fails to say. For example, the report cites Faisal Bin Ali Jaber, a relative of a cleric and policeman wrongfully killed during a drone attack, as saying: “We are caught between a drone on one side and Al-Qaeda on the other.” And, yet, HRW fails to acknowledge that for Ali Jaber the drone attacks are tantamount to Al Qaeda’s acts of terrorism. This oversight is also a consequence of the reduction of human rights to the formal dictates of international law, an approach that HRW has doggedly adopted.

Regardless of the thousands of civilians killed during the drone wars, and the terrorizing effect these wars have had on entire populations, insofar as drones are armed with discriminate weapons and do not intend to kill civilians, the US drone wars are not—in HRW’s view—a terrorist act. In this way, the law permitting the dominant to kill is preserved and even reinforced by those who struggle for human rights. It is precisely when human rights denunciations are articulated in a way that complies with the sovereign’s right to kill that human rights become a discourse that rationalizes killing—what we call, counter-intuitively, “the human right to kill”.

Finally, it is crucial to ask whether the HRW’s drone report really represents the population in Yemen. Put differently, the problem of representation does not only or primarily have to do with how human rights are portrayed in the media, but rather involves the fact that human rights NGOs operate as if they had a natural mandate from the wretched of the earth. In reality, however, human rights NGOs prevent human rights from becoming a popular language deployed by the people for their own—popular—mobilization. In this sense, human rights can never become a tool of the masses, but only of those experts who claim to represent the wronged population.

The crisis of human rights, in other words, is not really one of perceptions. It is much more profound.

The post The Problem With Human Rights Organizations – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

ISIS is an adaptive response to territories where the state has collapsed and which have to get by “without the state as a form of organization of society” and thus present themselves as opponents of the state as such, according to Nikolay Silayev, a specialist on security in the Caucasus at MGIMO.

It thus poses a threat to any place where the state is weak or can be described as having failed, he continues, but it is ever less of a problem in the North Caucasus where he says the state is recovering. In his view, “the state is always stronger than any bands” at least in the long run (kavpolit.com/articles/kavkaz_2020_vozvraschenie_gosudarstva-17893/).

ISIS is “not what we are accustomed to understand by the term ‘state,’” Silayev says. Rahter “it is a new type of uprising organization” that perhaps can best be described by saying it is “post-modern.” It “actively hands out franchises to the leaders of radical Islamists beyond the borders of the Near East and the latter quickly unite to this movement.”

“In other words,” he says, “this is an anti-system movement to the extent it brings together people who are not included or do not want to be included in contemporary society and the world economy.”

“Radical political Islam is good as the institutional framework for the new statelessness,” Silayev continues, because “in radical Islam there simply is no category of the state, and shariat law functions as the regulatory base.” In certain respects, it is even “neo-liberal” because it seeks to reduce the state to as little as possible, although it provides no normal property guarantees.it

“In an economic crisis,” when the state cannot collect as much in taxes as it did and thus must cut back services, “ISIS looks stronger because it does not link itself to many things which are part and parcel of contemporary nation states.” It “doesn’t support infrastructure, education, health care or social security … “in general this is a medical economic state.”

Silayev says he does “not believe that an ordination territorial state will be formed out of ISIS,” as some think given that ISIS barbarians—and that is what they are, he argues — will destroy the defenders of a state and then become the state itself only to be overthrown in turn by new barbarians.

Asked about the case of Varvara Karulova who sought to join ISIS and how dangerous that makes ISIS for Russia, Silayev replies that too much is being made of her case: “When one girl from a good family unexpectedly falls into the network of ISIS, then a hullaballoo is raised; but when hudnreds if not thousands of guys from the North Caucasus do so, the [Moscow] press is silent.”

That means that ISIS does pose a threat to the North Caucasus, Silayev continues, but for the time being, it doesn’t threaten the Russian Federation as a whole.

The post ISIS A Response To Conditions Where State Has Collapsed, MGIMO Expert Says – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

I couldn’t let this week pass without a mention of the crisis in Greece, where the left-wing Syriza government has called a referendum for Sunday, so that the Greek people can either approve — or turn down — the latest crippling austerity package from the Troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. If they choose yes, the slow death of the economy and of Greek society will continue — a slow death that appears to have no end and will continue, generation after generation — and if they say no, it looks like they will have to leave the Euro, entering uncharted waters and dealing a major blow to the entire Euro project that will have repercussions way beyond Greece’s borders.

I have not written about Greece for many years, but back in 2011, when revolution was in the air via the Arab Spring, and I had recently visited Greece, for a family holiday, just before the collapse of the Greek economy began in earnest, I wrote a number of articles — The Revolution Reaches Europe: Tens of Thousands Protest in Greece and Spain, Crisis in Greece: Experts Call for Return of the Drachma, As Prime Minister Cancels Bailout Referendum, We Are All Greece: Expert Explains How the Greek Crisis is Being Manipulated by Banks and Governments to Enslave Us All (featuring a video in which, as I explained at the time, “Spanish author and professor Pedro Olalla, who has been living in Athens since 1994, discuss[es] the crisis, what it means for Greece, and for the wider European community, in which, in clear language that can be understood by those without specific economic expertise, he explains how Greece’s crisis has largely been manufactured by financial speculators and their willing and unquestioning servants in government”), New Perspectives on the Euro Crisis, and the Need for Greece to Default, Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay: Greeks Rise Up Against Austerity, and, in 2012, Greek Despair: Will the EU and the Bankers Finally Accept That Austerity is Killing Greece? and Austerity Under Attack in Europe: Can Socialism Offer A Cure, and Keep Fascists and Conservatives at Bay?

Some of those previous articles summed up my position, which hasn’t changed since. The Troika’s punishment of Greece for having lived beyond its means (after it was allowed into the Euro project when it shouldn’t have been) is a disaster of almost unbelievable cruelty — a siege conducted using modern methods; in this case, horrendous austerity measures that are so punishing that, as well as crippling Greek society and the economy, with essential services savagely cut, unemployment rampant, and suicides on the rise, are so severe that the economy cannot recover, and, moreover, the debts will never be paid off.

Unless the Troika realises this, and significant debts are written off, Greece’s living death will continue — possibly without end — which appears to be a form of economic torture. The alternative — leaving the Euro — is fraught with problems, which is, I think, an indictment of the failures of the Euro project, as what Greece should have been able to do from the beginning was to devalue its currency to become competitive, which, for example, would have allowed it to become, once again, the cheap holiday destination it used to be, and would have made its exports viable.

Below I’m posting an article from ROAR Magazine (Reflections on a Revolution), which I first came across in 2011 during the Arab Spring. This particular article is by Leonidas Oikonomakis, a PhD researcher in Social Movement Studies at the European University Institute, a rapper with the Greek hip-hop formation Social Waste, and an editor for ROAR Magazine. An unwilling exile from his home country, he chronicles a few key events in Greece’s recent history, and concludes with a cry for support for a “no” vote on the basis that it restores a necessary dignity to the Greek people. I also recommend his colleague Jerome Roos’ article here, which includes the following key passage:

The gravest irony is that, all this time, there was a very straightforward and socially acceptable way out of the deadlock. The sensible solution would have been to write off a significant chunk of Greece’s debt. But, as even the IMF has since officially admitted, this option was politically unpalatable to Greece’s “partners” from the very start. In the early years, the Europeans feared that a debt write-down would lead to the collapse of some of their biggest private banks. Now that Greece’s debt has effectively been socialized, these same European leaders fear an electoral backlash from their Euroskeptical taxpayers, who now stand to bear the brunt of the impending Greek default.

In other words, it was the very intransigence of the creditors, the utter unwillingness to tell their own voters the truth about the Greek bailout and their stubborn refusal to even contemplate a sustainable and socially just resolution of the crisis, that led us to this dramatic apotheosis.

I’m also cross-posting an article by the economist Joseph Stiglitz, published in the Guardian, in which, while conceding that “[n]either alternative — approval or rejection of the Troika’s terms — will be easy, and both carry huge risks,” a “no” vote to the continuing asphyxiating austerity is marginally preferable.

Stiglitz states, in a blunt condemnation of the Troika’s actions, “I can think of no depression, ever, that has been so deliberate and had such catastrophic consequences: Greece’s rate of youth unemployment, for example, now exceeds 60%.”

His most penetrating paragraph, however, is the following, which reveals how, throughout the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF, ideology has destroyed common sense and fairness. “We should be clear,” he writes, “almost none of the huge amount of money loaned to Greece has actually gone there. It has gone to pay out private-sector creditors — including German and French banks. Greece has gotten but a pittance, but it has paid a high price to preserve these countries’ banking systems. The IMF and the other ‘official’ creditors do not need the money that is being demanded. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the money received would most likely just be lent out again to Greece.”

I hope you find these articles useful, if you haven’t read them already, and that you will share my compassion for the Greek people, who should not be expected to continue living in an economic nightmare that has no end. As Joseph Stiglitz states, “A yes vote would mean depression almost without end,” whereas “a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands.” Or, as Leonidas Oikonomakis puts it, a “no” vote is “a matter of dignity” — and, I should add, a necessary message to Greece’s creditors that the Troika’s debt machine is all-consuming monster, out of control, which is at least as much to blame as those it lent money to for the inability of the indebted to pay back debts that should never have been allowed in the first place.

No more ‘Yes to all’: time for a proud and dignified ‘NO!’
By Leonidas Oikonomakis, ROAR, June 29, 2015

Finally, the Greek people will be able to say a dignified ‘NO!’ to austerity. We owe it to those who suffered, those who migrated — and those who died.

First Scene: Kastelorizo island, April 2010

The then-Prime Minister Giorgakis Papandreou (son of Andreas and grandson of Giorgos) appeared on state television to send his televised message to the Greek people from the harbor of Kastelorizo: “Our ship is sinking,” he said, “and we have to turn to our partners, the IMF and the EU, who will provide us with a safe harbor where we can rebuild it.”

As the saying has it: “a ship is safe in harbor — but that’s not what ships are for.” However, this is how Greece’s self-destructive dance with the Troika began. At the time, the country’s public debt was at 120% of GDP, the unemployment rate at 12%, the youth unemployment rate at around 30%, and suicide rates were an unfamiliar concept.

Second Scene: Syntagma Square, June 29, 2011

All I can remember is my friends’ faces covered in Maalox, teargas grenades and Molotov cocktails all over the place, even inside the Metro, the riot police going on a frenzy and beating up people, and — above all — the repetition of those “Yes to all!” statements on the radio, expressed by the majority of deputies inside the Greek Parliament.

It was the day Parliament would vote on the so-called mid-term agreement, a new round of austerity measures that included the shrinking of the Greek public sector and welfare state and the privatization of key state assets. It was also during the heyday of the  Movement of the Squares, whose activists had called for a 48-hour general strike starting on June 28.

For the day after — the day of the vote — the plan was to “besiege” the Parliament so deputies wouldn’t be able to enter and vote, or if they did so at least they would feel the pressure from outside and vote no. Ambitious plan, you may say, Quixotic even, but that was what the Syntagma Assembly had decided.

It didn’t work.

“Yes to all,” the deputies said … gas grenades were falling … Maalox for those affected … chemicals … “Say no, for god’s sake!” … people fainting in the metro … beatings … arrests … the cops in the square destroying the camp … and yet again: “Yes to all …” I think those “Yeses to all” hurt us more than any of the chemicals or the beatings of the cops.

Third Scene: Florence, June 2015

Like many of my friends, a generation of well-educated young people (owing to the fact that education in Greece is free), I don’t live in the country anymore. Still, I follow the political and economic developments and I try to spread the word of the economic and social destruction Greece is going through as much as I can.

You know, when we were finishing our university studies we were known as the “Generation of 700 euros”: a generation of well-educated young people who were obliged to live on 700 euros per month, the lowest salary in Greece at the time, which was considered far too little for anyone to survive in dignity in Athens, Thessaloniki, or any other of the big cities in the country.

Little did we know back then that, five years later, under the austerity measures dictated by the economists of the Troika and imposed by a series of slavish Greek governments, the lowest salary would have fallen to 500 euros, our parents’ salaries and grandparents’ pensions (which were not that generous either) would have been slashed by 30-40%, that the unemployment rate would reach 28%, the youth unemployment rate 50%, that suicide rates would quadruple, and that a neo-Nazi party would be in Parliament.

At the same time, the public debt skyrocketed to 180% of GDP, the rich (who would obviously benefit from the 40% reduction in worker salaries) kept becoming richer, and many of us (200,000, to be more specific, or roughly 2% of the population) would be forced to emigrate as a result of the crisis. The world’s biggest brain drain, as The Guardian called it.

None of the above is a coincidence. All of this is the direct result of the social and economic policies imposed by the Troika with the help of Greece’s “Yes to all” governments. Exactly the same policies that they are trying to blackmail Greece into continuing today.

However, this time we are being asked by the government — that of Alexis Tsipras — what we really want it to do. And for once, we will be able to say a proud and dignified ‘NO!’, as we had always wanted the deputies who were supposed to be representing us to say! We owe it to our friends who migrated, our parents and grandparents who saw their salaries and pensions being slashed, our comrades who were beaten up and arrested by the cops, and to our dead: to Pavlos and Shehzad Luqman, who were assassinated by Golden Dawn, and to the thousands who committed suicide over the course of the past five years.

It is a matter of dignity — something that can not be measured and cannot fit into the Troika’s economic statistics, but that can give strength to the humiliated to rise up against those who have humiliated them for so long.

Joseph Stiglitz: how I would vote in the Greek referendum
The Guardian, June 29, 2015

Neither alternative — approval or rejection of the Troika’s terms — will be easy, and both carry huge risks

The rising crescendo of bickering and acrimony within Europe might seem to outsiders to be the inevitable result of the bitter endgame playing out between Greece and its creditors. In fact, European leaders are finally beginning to reveal the true nature of the ongoing debt dispute, and the answer is not pleasant: it is about power and democracy much more than money and economics.

Of course, the economics behind the programme that the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) foisted on Greece five years ago has been abysmal, resulting in a 25% decline in the country’s GDP. I can think of no depression, ever, that has been so deliberate and had such catastrophic consequences: Greece’s rate of youth unemployment, for example, now exceeds 60%.

It is startling that the troika has refused to accept responsibility for any of this or admit how bad its forecasts and models have been. But what is even more surprising is that Europe’s leaders have not even learned. The troika is still demanding that Greece achieve a primary budget surplus (excluding interest payments) of 3.5% of GDP by 2018.

Economists around the world have condemned that target as punitive, because aiming for it will inevitably result in a deeper downturn. Indeed, even if Greece’s debt is restructured beyond anything imaginable, the country will remain in depression if voters there commit to the troika’s target in the snap referendum to be held this weekend.

In terms of transforming a large primary deficit into a surplus, few countries have accomplished anything like what the Greeks have achieved in the last five years. And, though the cost in terms of human suffering has been extremely high, the Greek government’s recent proposals went a long way toward meeting its creditors’ demands.

We should be clear: almost none of the huge amount of money loaned to Greece has actually gone there. It has gone to pay out private-sector creditors — including German and French banks. Greece has gotten but a pittance, but it has paid a high price to preserve these countries’ banking systems. The IMF and the other “official” creditors do not need the money that is being demanded. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the money received would most likely just be lent out again to Greece.

But, again, it’s not about the money. It’s about using “deadlines” to force Greece to knuckle under, and to accept the unacceptable — not only austerity measures, but other regressive and punitive policies.

But why would Europe do this? Why are European Union leaders resisting the referendum and refusing even to extend by a few days the June 30 deadline for Greece’s next payment to the IMF? Isn’t Europe all about democracy?

In January, Greece’s citizens voted for a government committed to ending austerity. If the government were simply fulfilling its campaign promises, it would already have rejected the proposal. But it wanted to give Greeks a chance to weigh in on this issue, so critical for their country’s future wellbeing.

That concern for popular legitimacy is incompatible with the politics of the eurozone, which was never a very democratic project. Most of its members’ governments did not seek their people’s approval to turn over their monetary sovereignty to the ECB. When Sweden’s did, Swedes said no. They understood that unemployment would rise if the country’s monetary policy were set by a central bank that focused single-mindedly on inflation (and also that there would be insufficient attention to financial stability). The economy would suffer, because the economic model underlying the eurozone was predicated on power relationships that disadvantaged workers.

And, sure enough, what we are seeing now, 16 years after the eurozone institutionalised those relationships, is the antithesis of democracy: many European leaders want to see the end of prime minister Alexis Tsipras’ leftist government. After all, it is extremely inconvenient to have in Greece a government that is so opposed to the types of policies that have done so much to increase inequality in so many advanced countries, and that is so committed to curbing the unbridled power of wealth. They seem to believe that they can eventually bring down the Greek government by bullying it into accepting an agreement that contravenes its mandate.

It is hard to advise Greeks how to vote on 5 July. Neither alternative — approval or rejection of the troika’s terms — will be easy, and both carry huge risks. A yes vote would mean depression almost without end. Perhaps a depleted country — one that has sold off all of its assets, and whose bright young people have emigrated — might finally get debt forgiveness; perhaps, having shrivelled into a middle-income economy, Greece might finally be able to get assistance from the World Bank. All of this might happen in the next decade, or perhaps in the decade after that.

By contrast, a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.

I know how I would vote.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University. His most recent book, co-authored with Bruce Greenwald, is Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress.

The post It’s Time For Greece To Say No To Murderous Austerity Of Its Creditors – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In withdrawing from negotiations with Greece’s international creditors and holding a referendum on whether Greece should adopt the further austerity required by the lenders’ financial aid package, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras figuratively pulled out a gun and threatened to blow a hole in the life raft that was given to his country in an attempt to get a nicer boat. The referendum may save his left-wing Syriza party but may cause Greece to default on its loans and exit the common Euro currency.

Greece has long been irresponsible financially—originally having excessive pensions, early retirement ages, an over-regulated and corrupt economy, 20 percent of the workforce in the employ of a bloated government, and uneven tax collection. Although some progress on these categories was required by the international creditors to grant the two financial bailouts Greece has already received, more austerity and reform are needed to clear the still abundant deadwood out of the Greek economy so that it can resume normal economic growth.

Tsipras was elected in the first place by excessively promising an austerity-weary Greek public that he would repudiate the latest bailout deal with creditors and negotiate an end to the required austerity. In the negotiations, the creditors have once again made some concessions, but have tired of Greece’s antics. Years of living excessively high on the hog really requires more tough austerity and reform on Greece’s part in order to have a chance to again have real prosperity.

Shockingly, some Western economists, including Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, are instead blaming European governments, such as Germany and France, for not letting Greece up off the mat by writing off some of its debt, so that the Greek economy can grow again and thereby eventually pay off the rest of the debt. Unsurprisingly, these countries, after having bailed out Greece twice, are unenthusiastic about a costly write-down of debt. And the artificial growth propounded by such economists will only make things worse. In the long run, Greece and the international financial system will be better off if Greece is forced to right the ship instead of floating along on pieces of wreckage. In the long-term, businesses and even countries must be held responsible for their actions, even if that means “tough love.” Otherwise, they will realize that they can again someday live beyond their means.

Politically, the referendum is smart on Tsipras’s part. By pointing a gun at the life raft, he plays on fears that if Greece goes down so will other fragile European economies—such as Spain, Portugal and Italy—to improve his negotiating position. A “yes” vote by the Greek people to accept more austerity relieves him of his excessive campaign promises to fight the continuation of such unpleasant belt-tightening. Tsipras advocates a “just say no” vote, believing it will show that the Greeks mean business by cocking the gun for future debt relief negotiations.

Yet things have changed after five years of bailing out Greece. As a whole, the European economy is better than it was in 2011 or 2012 and is less susceptible to financial contagion from Greece going down. Also, the other most fragile economies in the Eurozone are healthier now, with Spain and Portugal returning to growth and Italy beginning to do so. Furthermore, there are now far fewer private holders of Greek debt, there is now a new emergency bailout fund for emergencies, and the European Central Bank has pledged to “do whatever it takes to save the Euro.” Although the latter policies of reserve funds and money printing are unwise, it has eroded Greece’s negotiating position vis-à-vis Europe. Finally, further eroding Greece’s position is that in the end, the Greek economy is only 1.5 percent of that of the Eurozone.

Politically, fears have been raised that if Greece defaults and exits the Euro currency, it still would be a member of the European Union and could thus veto continued European economic sanctions against Russia over its interventions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The unstated implication is that the end of European sanctions could somehow make Russia more aggressive and lead to a future war. Whoopty doo. The sanctions, although hurting Russia economically, have had little effect on its behavior in either place.

The long and the short of it is that Greece’s international creditors should end the bailouts and let the ungrateful and arrogant Greece default and exit the Euro currency. The major long-term ill-effect that this short-term disruption would generate would be on European pride in a common currency that should have never been concocted in the first place. For the long term, cutting the Greek life boat away and leaving it drifting on its own, will teach the Greeks—and other irresponsible countries, such as Spain, Portugal, and Italy—that when you behave irresponsibly over many years, some pain is needed for the gain of renewed economic vigor. As for the United States, with an artificial economic recovery driven by printing bucketloads of money and a $18 trillion public debt caused by excessive spending on defense and domestic social programs over a long period, the proper response to the Greek and Eurozone mess is humble silence and non-intervention and a focus on getting its own fiscal house in order by its own austerity program to pay down that growth-stifling debt.

This article was published at The Huffington Post and reprinted with permission.

The post Let Greece Leave Eurozone – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Each year, throughout the Muslim world, believers participate in the month-long Ramadan fast. Here in Kabul, where I’m a guest of the Afghan Peace Volunteers, our household awakens at 2:15 a.m. to prepare a simple meal before the fast begins at about 3:00 a.m.  I like the easy companionship we feel, seated on the floor, sharing our food.  Friday, the day off, is household clean-up day, and it seemed a bit odd, to be sweeping and washing floors in the pre-dawn hours, but we tended to various tasks and then caught a nap before heading over to meet the early bird students at the Street Kids School, a project my hosts are running for child laborers who otherwise couldn’t go to school.

hoto credit: Witness Against Torture rally at White House, Jan. 12, 2014
photo: Witness Against Torture campaign

I didn’t nap – I was fitful and couldn’t, my mind filled with images from a memoir, Guantanamo Diary, which I’ve been reading since arriving here.  Mohamedou Ould Slahi’s  story of being imprisoned in Guantanamo since 2002 rightly disturbs me. In all his years of captivity, he has never been charged with a crime. He has suffered grotesque torture, humiliation and mistreatment, and yet his memoir includes many humane, tender accounts, including remembrances of past Ramadan fasts spent with his family.

Describing his early time in a Jordanian prison, he writes:

“It was Ramadan, and so we got two meals served, one at sunset and the second before the first light. The cook woke me up and served me my early meal. Suhoor is what we call this meal; it marks the beginning of our fasting, which lasts until sunset. At home, it’s more than just a meal. The atmosphere matters. My older sister wakes everybody and we sit together eating and sipping the warm tea and enjoying each other’s company.”

I’ve never heard Muslims complain about being hungry and thirsty as they await the fast-breaking meal.   Nor have I heard people brag about contributions they’ve made to alleviate the sufferings of others, although I know Islam urges such sharing during Ramadan and aims to build empathy for those afflicted by ongoing hunger and thirst.   Mohamedou relied on empathy to help him through some of his most intense anguish and fear.

“I was thinking about all my innocent brothers who were and still are being rendered to strange places and countries,” he writes, describing a rendition trip from Senegal to Mauritania, “and I felt solaced and not alone anymore.   I felt the spirits of unjustly mistreated people with me. I had heard so many stories about brothers being passed back and forth like a soccer ball just because they have once been in Afghanistan, or Bosnia, or Chechnya.   That’s screwed up!     Thousands of miles away, I felt the warm breath of these other unjustly treated individuals comforting me.”

A judge ordered Mohamedou’s immediate release in 2010. But the Obama administration appealed the decision, leaving him in a legal limbo.

From 1988 to 1991, Mohamedou had studied electrical engineering in Germany. In early 1991, he spent seven weeks, in Afghanistan, learning how to use mortars and light weapons, training which would allow him to join the U.S.-backed insurgency against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. He was one of Ronald Reagan’s celebrated “freedom fighters.”  In early 1992, when the communist supported Afghan government was near collapse, he again went to Afghanistan and, for three weeks, fought with insurgents to overtake the city of Gardez.   Kabul fell shortly thereafter. Mohamedou soon saw that the Mujahedeen insurgents were fighting amongst themselves over power grabs. He didn’t want to be part of this fight and so he went back to Germany, then Canada and, eventually, home to Mauritania, where he was arrested and “rendered” to Jordan for questioning, at last arriving in Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Force Base on his way to Guantanamo.

I wonder how he is feeling as he observes Ramadan without his family for the 13^thconsecutive year. I wish he could know that growing numbers of people in the U.S. believe he should be released and want to help atone for the suffering he has endured. Martha Hennessy, who arrived in Kabul with me, several weeks ago, hurried back to the U.S. to face charges for protesting against U.S. legitimation of torture only to learn that both of the Witness Against Torture campaign cases scheduled for trial that week were dismissed.   Perhaps public opinion now requires that the U.S. Department of Justice recognize that activists’  right and  duty to protest the cruel abuses of U.S. torture policies.

I wish Mohamedou could visit Afghanistan again, not as part of a training camp for insurgents, not as a terrified, shackled prisoner, but as a guest of the community here.   A former U.S. military person dropped by the Street Kids School on Friday morning. The U.S. Air Force trained her to operate weaponized drones over Afghanistan. Now, she comes to Afghanistan annually to plant trees all over the country.   She feels deep remorse for the time in her life when she helped attack Afghans.

I don’t believe in training anyone to use weapons, but as I read Mohamedou’s words about his brothers who went to foreign countries as fighters, I thought of the Pentagon’s recent practice runs, over the New Mexico desert, training people to fire the terrifying Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a bunker buster bomb which is 20 feet long, weighs 15 tons and carries about 5,300 pounds of explosives. People in the U.S. should consider how their horror at the violence of U.S. enemies encourages and exonerates the far more crushing violence of their own government, engaged at this moment in conflicts throughout the developing world and armed with weapons capable of extinguishing all human life within minutes.

On this fast day, I remember that many U.S. people worry, like anyone anywhere, about the hardships a new day may bring, in a dangerous and uncertain time that seems to be dawning on every nation and the species as a whole.  In the U.S., we carry the added knowledge that most of the world lives much more poorly – in a material sense, at least – than we do, and that were the sun to truly rise upon the U.S., with familiar words of equality and justice truly realized, we would have to share much of our wealth with a suffering world.

We would learn to “live simply so that others might simply live.”  We would find deep satisfaction in beholding faces like those of my friends gathered for a friendly morning meal before a day of voluntary fasting.  Or, like Mohamedou,  find warmth in the imagined breath of others sharing involuntary hardships. “Another world  is not only possible,” writes author and activist Arundhoti Roy,  “she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”  U.S. people must know that life in the daylight might also be the start of an unaccustomed fast.

When will day break? I haven’t a clock nearby to tell me when, but I can’t go back to sleep. When I see the children adapt so readily to the schooling denied them, when I watch my young friends struggle eagerly to take the small steps allowed them, sowing seeds of mutual understanding or planting trees in Kabul, and when I read such grace and dignity in the words of Mohamedou Ould Slahi after years of torture, I have to believe that a dawn will come. For now, it remains a blessing to work alongside people awake together, even in darkness, working to face burdens with kindness, ready to join with kindred spirits near and far, faces aglow with precious glimmers of a coming day.

The post Before The Dawn – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India and 49 other founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) on Monday signed articles that determine each country’s share and the lender’s initial capital. The remaining seven founding members can sign the agreement before December 2015.

The signing ceremony took place in Beijing at the Great Hall of the People. The AIIB is expected to focus on infrastructure development in Asia, and unlike the existing International Monetary Fund and World Bank, is unlikely to restrict lending on political considerations.

Following the ceremony, China’s President Xi Jinping welcomed the heads of delegations from the Bank’s 57 prospective founding members.

A special ministerial meeting was also held in the afternoon chaired by Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei.

“The AIIB is an example of constructive cooperation among emerging economies to increase the space available for infrastructure financing… It is a regional initiative and, therefore, fully complements global initiatives such as the New Development Bank [set up by the BRICS nations],” former economic diplomat and Director of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi, Rathin Roy, has told The Hindu.

According to an AIIB press statement, the Bank will be headquartered in Beijing, and will have an initial authorised capital stock of $100 billion. Reflecting regional character of the Bank, its regional members will be the majority shareholders, holding around 75 percent of shares. The AIIB is expected to become operational by the end of the year.

Ashok K Kantha, India’s Ambassador in China, led the Indian delegation at the ceremony and signed the Articles of Agreement.

With Japan, the other large Asian economy besides China, opting out of the Bank’s membership, India is its second largest shareholder with a stake of 8.52 per cent and voting share of 7.5 per cent.

The voting shares are based on the size of each member country’s economy and not contribution to the Bank’s authorised capital. China’s shareholding is 30.34 per cent and it has retained 26.06 per cent of the voting rights with veto powers for certain key decisions.

Apart from China and India, some of the countries which signed the agreement include Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.

The post AIIB Now Counts With 50 Founding Members appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mike Rogers and Arthur Herman*

‘We welcome war with the U.S., as we believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power.” So said Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the lieutenant commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, via state-run Iranian television last month.

What makes Salami so confident about going up against the world’s most extensive military? Maybe it’s the increasing clout of IRGC’s elite terrorist division, the Quds Force, in the Middle East, including its very public involvement in the fighting against ISIS in Iraq — as America’s influence lessens in that conflict.

Eight years ago, the Quds Force was killing Americans in Iraq. Now the administration is on the brink of a deal with Iran that will give that brutal and shadowy group the green light to expand its export of the Iranian revolution under the protection of a nuclear umbrella.

There is a growing consensus among Democratic as well as Republican lawmakers — not to mention the rest of the world — that the Obama administration is set to make a very bad deal on Iran’s ongoing nuclear-weapons program. It is a deal that creates an oversight regime full of loopholes and fails to fetter weaponization or missile development or impose free inspections of nuclear facilities, while allowing Iran to dodge questions about whether it tried to build a bomb in the past. It will not even require Iran to halt enriching uranium — one of the original goals of the talks — and it comes with a ten-year expiration date.

Yet the implications of allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program go beyond triggering runaway nuclear proliferation among Arab states in the region. It will also empower the operatives of Quds Force to continue to expand their bloody activities, as we sit on the sidelines.

The Quds Force is the secretive spearhead of Iran’s push for hegemony in the Middle East. Named after the Arabic word for Jerusalem, it is part intelligence service and part special operations. It has been training and equipping Islamic revolutionary groups around the Middle East for decades, and it is responsible for some of the most notorious terrorist acts in the world. It has been a key trainer and sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah in their ongoing fight to destroy Israel and murder Jews. In 1994, for example, the Quds Force helped to plan and finance an attack by Hezbollah on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

Then, following U.S. operations in Iraq in 2003, the Quds Force quickly moved in to finance, train, and equip counterinsurgency groups, both Shiite and Sunni, to kill Americans. In fact, the Quds Force played a key role in the expansion of the use of IEDs against Americans in Iraq in 2004–5. Many of those weapons had parts manufactured in Iran. Hundreds of American deaths in the Iraq War can be traced directly to Iran, the IRGC, and the Quds Force.

On January 20, 2007, gunmen opened fire on personnel at a base in Karbala, killing several U.S. servicemen. Evidence suggests that they were Quds Force operatives. General David Petraeus testified to Congress that recovered laptop computers from those operatives contained plans for the Karbala attack. The money and training came from Quds Force personnel.

It is not as if the administration is ignorant of the Quds Force’s record. The president’s former secretary of defense, Robert Gates, warned constantly about Iran’s role in funding and supplying the insurgency not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well. When a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., was exposed in 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the Quds Force was involved. It is known that the Quds Force reports to the supreme leader and not the Iranian president.

President Obama himself had accused the Quds Force of helping Bashar Assad crush the demonstrations that broke out against his regime during the Arab Spring — not to mention the terrorist group’s murderous role in the ongoing Syrian civil war as described by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

This is what the Quds Force is capable of without the protection of a nuclear weapon. Imagine what they would do with the security guarantee that comes with that ultimate deterrent, without fear of reprisal from the West or other Arab states.

Yet the administration seems to be blind to the threat, or to be examining the nuclear program separately from the rest of Iran’s foreign policy. Just a month ago the administration ordered our military to conduct air-support operations for the forces fighting in Iraq’s Tikrit — Shiite militias led by the Quds Force’s top commander. Now it may have to send in American planes in support of those same militias in the campaign to retake Ramadi.

Asking U.S. pilots to risk their lives to help the Quds Force, in any capacity, is a sad change given Iran’s role in the deaths of so many of our fighting men and women. Giving this terrorist group a nuclear umbrella, and by extension an inviolate base from which to plan, train for, and finance attacks, poses a direct danger to the region and the world. It is one more reason why the current nuclear deal the administration seems so desperate to get needs to be scrapped.

*About the authors:
Mike Rogers
Distinguished Fellow

Arthur Herman
Senior Fellow

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute .

The post Iran’s Quds Force: The Increasing Clout Of A Terrorist Force – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Bhaskar Roy*

The recent Chinese decision to block an India-sponsored move at the UN Sanctions Committee seeking clarification from Pakistan on the release of 26/11 mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, on the grounds that India had produced insufficient evidence was shocking, but not to this writer. China has a long history of standing by Pakistan in the UN whenever India brought up the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists. A few weeks earlier, China had obstructed another Indian move to add to the UN terrorist list the name of Sayeed Salahuddin on “technical grounds”. Salahuddin is the chief of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and also heads the United Jihad Council, based in Pakistan. Salahauddin has been waging a terrorist war in Kashmir for two decades. All these organizations, like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), HUM and United Jihad Council are among Pakistan’s military assets to wage asymmetric warfare against India, otherwise known as the strategy of “bleeding with a thousand cuts”.

The Afghan Taliban and the Haqquani Network (HQN) are among terrorist organizations used against the legitimate government in Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban was nurtured by Pakistan with some assistance from the US to drive out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, ,Pakistan used the Taliban to try and establish an Islamist government through them in Kabul, run from the Rawalpindi GHQ, to create strategic depth in Afghanistan, in case of a major war with India. Militarily, the ‘strategic depth’ strategy was stupid. It cannot work.

The HQN is a different matter. This is a tribal group and knows nothing other than fighting and extortion. They are used mainly to attack foreigners in Afghanistan, Indians being a special target.

There is a long list of occasions when China blocked moves against anti-Indian Pakistani terrorists in the UN. These include sanctions against the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), Al-Akhtar Trust (a front of Jaish-e-Mohammad) Maulana Masood Azar, head of Jaish and others. China had stalled a US proposal to designate ISI officials including ex-ISI chief, Lt Gen. (Rtd) Hamid Gul for terrorism.

In the aftermath of the May 23, 2014 terrorist attack on the Indian Consulate in Herat, Afghanistan, which was described by President Hamid Karzai as an operation of Pakistan’s ISI, China officially defended Pakistan. China’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Sun Yuxi, said he believed that the Pakistani government or any responsible agency of Pakistan will only fight against terrorism instead of being involved with any terrorist group. He also described the ISI as a responsible force battling terrorism, and dismissed any suggestion of the ISI’s involvement in the Herat attack.

Following the Nov 26, 2008 ISI-sponsored attack on Mumbai, when the whole world rose in a chorus to condemn the attack, there was deafening silence from Beijing. The Chinese were aware of what exactly happened, but were taking time to construct a response. The Chinese foreign ministry hardly has any independent role. It has to seek directions from the State Council, which has to seek directions from the highest level.

The 26/11 terrorist attack backed by ISI including serving military officers was a sudden and huge event. For China it was a difficult decision to come up with a strong position. Pakistan is far too important for China’s strategic plans and the “all weather friendship” had to be protected. From 2008 till now Pakistan’s importance to China has increased several times. It has emerged as a hub for China’s maritime Silk Road. It is also the centre point of China’s Indian Ocean strategy, as well as a springboard to the Gulf and West Asia. It is a new entry point for China’s gas and oil imports from the Gulf, West Asia and Africa.

Pakistan has become a client state of China, increasingly dependent on Beijing politically, economically and militarily. Both countries ,of course, claim to be equal partners – an example for the world on relations between a large country and a smaller one, with different ideologies. China has promised to invest US$46 billion in Pakistan.

The issue of support to China’s Uighur separatists from elements in Pakistan, including the ISI, had become a serious issue between the two countries. In the run up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Chinese officials, especially the Party secretary of Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region openly charged Pakistan with harboring Uighur separatists. This problem persisted till recently, but China appears to have succeeded in pressuring Pakistan to take strict measures to curb its Uighur supporters.

Uighur separatists who have adopted violent measures to take on the mighty Chinese state, and the Tibetan peaceful pro-autonomy movement, though unorganized, are China’s only problem with terrorism, separatism and religious extremism, described by Beijing as the “three evils.”

China has another strategy, however, for the three evils active against other countries. It is the old strategy of Mao Zedong, getting together a united front of such groups and elements.

In the early 1980s, China’s supreme leader Deng Xiaoping admitted that the past strategy of supporting such insurgent groups and forming communist revolutionary parties was wrong. China had formed the Communist Party of Burma and parties in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Some of their leaders were shown attending China’s national day celebrations. The Communist Party of Indonesia staged an uprising in 1965, but was defeated. These South East Asian countries broke off diplomatic relations with China.(These relations were restored much later- Indonesia was the last one to do so).Deng promised this policy would not recur. But support to Indian insurgent groups (IIGs) was quietly revived-these included the Nagas (NSCN),People’s Liberation Army of Manipur PLA(M),which were started in the 1960s.Later the United Liberation Front of Assam(ULFA)was added to the list. These insurgents were given training in China’s Yunan province, bordering Myanmar, from where arms were clandestinely transferred to them.

When these IIGs were welcomed in Bangladesh under the BNP-Jamaat government, arms came through Bangladesh’s Chittagong port. In 2004 ten truckloads of arms from China were accidentally interdicted in Chittagong port. ULFA Commander -in -Chief Paresh Barua, who lived in Dhaka openly, was in Chittagong that day to receive the weapons and explosives. Paresh Barua and Antony Shimray of the NSCN(I/M)who lived in Bangladesh, had Chinese visas.

Although some of the IIGs have split, ULFA leader Paresh Barua now operates from the Yunan – Myanmar border. The Naga split faction led by Myanmarese Naga leader Khaplang lives in Myanmar and is active in anti-India insurgency. The PLA (M) camps are based in Myanmar. According to latest reports from Myanmar, China is trying to form these groups into a united front for action in India’s North East. The Chinese intelligence interacts with them through cut-outs, maintaining room for deniability. Anthony Shimray, who is in Indian custody now, has confessed to Chinese assistance. It can, therefore, be fairly concluded that China continues to press India both from the west and the east.

When China supports terrorists and insurgents, Beijing’s much declared position against international terrorism becomes highly questionable. Their focus remains only on the Uighurs. China is going against international efforts to combat terrorism.

This brings to question China’s position on terrorism in Afghanistan and Central Asia. China has given no public statement on the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). The IMU and Chechen rebels have declared their agenda in Central Asia and Russia.

Despite the new bonhomie between China and Russia, the two are now competing for dominant influence in Central Asia. Moscow considers this region as its legitimate backyard and area of influence. Yet Russia’s economic and political interest forces it to abstain from raising such issues with China. Will Beijing use these terrorists against Russia as it is doing with India?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj have taken up the “technical hold” issue with their Chinese counterparts. China’s response, if any, is not known.

When Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Ufa,Russia for the BRICS Summit,he must ask while four members of the P-5 agreed that India had produced sufficient evidence on Lakhvi, where exactly did the Chinese find evidence was lacking.

China will now be seen in a new paradigm. It supports terrorism to achieve its larger agenda internationally, and also supports a country which is known as a state sponsor of terror.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

The post China’s Counterterrorism Pledge Highly Questionable – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The idea of hijrah or migration has a special place in the history of Muslims. It denotes the flight of Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslims to Medina to take refuge from persecution in the then pagan Mecca. Today, the idea of hijrah has however been given its own interpretation by Muslim extremist groups. They use it to argue in favour of the isolation of minority Muslims from the larger non-Muslim community. It is also used to encourage Muslims living in a non-Islamic environment to migrate and live with the “jihadists” who supposedly live the life of the pious pioneers of Islam so as to establish a better Muslim ummah or community.[2]

A glimpse of this idea was provided in the White Paper report on the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) members in Singapore which reported that one of the JI leaders had sent a letter to Mullah Omar, the former head of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, asking whether Muslims (members of JI) should migrate to Afghanistan.[3]

Some Muslim extremist groups criticize Muslims who settle down in non-Muslim countries and call them to migrate instead to a Muslim country. There are also extremists who label these Muslims as disbelievers just because they live in a non-Muslim country.[4]

With regard to the current problem posed by ISIS, it is very clear that hijrah is one of many Islamic concepts which has been abused and given importance by ISIS in order to mobilize Muslims all over the world into joining jihad in Syria and Iraq and supporting the newly established “caliphate”. Just a month after proclaiming the “caliphate”, ISIS published its third edition of its online magazine, Dabiq, with hijrah as its main theme.

ISIS in the magazine seeks to link the unwillingness of Muslims to make hijrah to them with hypocrisy. After citing a hadith, “Whoever dies without taking part in a battle and without intending to take part in a battle has died with a trait of hypocrisy” (Narrated Muslim), the magazine asserts:

“Therefore, abandoning jihad is a trait of hypocrisy. So be wary of it or else it may seize you by your heart……. So abandoning hijrah – the path to jihad – is a dangerous matter. In effect, one is thereby deserting jihad and willingly accepting his tragic condition of being a hypocritical spectator. He lives in the West amongst the kuffar for years, spends hours on the Internet, reads news and posts on forums, only to be encompassed by the verse, {They think the parties have not [yet] withdrawn. And if the parties should come [again], they would wish they were in the desert among the Bedouins, inquiring [from afar] about your news. And if they should be among you, they would not fight except for a little} [Al-Ahzab: 20].”[5]

Muslims who do not or are reluctant to make hijrah to them are framed to have lived a life of modern slavery – enslaved by their employment and other worldly matters held in the hands of non-Muslim masters:

“The modern day slavery of employment, work hours, wages, etc., is one that leaves the Muslim in a constant feeling of subjugation to a kafir master. He does not live the might and honor that every Muslim should live and experience.”[6]

According to ISIS, jihad which is regarded as a personal obligation (fardhu `ain) of all Muslims today due to the occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims can only be fulfilled via hijrah, “There is not life without jihad and there is no jihad without hijrah…. This life of jihad is not possible until you pack and move to the Khilafah [caliphate].”[7] In other words, a neglect of hijrah is a neglect of jihad and unwillingness to make hijrah is a sign of weak commitment to jihad.

ISIS also views hijrah as obligatory to all Muslims because supporting the newly founded “caliphate” is a religious obligation. There is no other important interest of Islam to be fulfilled by Muslims now except to extend their effort for the “caliphate”. There is no distinction between a student and a professional:

“Therefore, every Muslim professional who delayed his jihad in the past under the pretense of studying Shari’ah, medicine, or engineering, etc., claiming he would contribute to Islam later with his expertise, should now make his number one priority to repent and answer the call to hijrah, especially after the establishment of the Khilafah. This Khilafah is more in need than ever before for experts, professionals, and specialists, who can help contribute in strengthening its structure and tending to the needs of their Muslim brothers. Otherwise, his claims will become a greater proof against him on Judgment Day.

As for the Muslim students who use this same pretense now to continue abandoning the obligation of the era, then they should know that their hijrah from darul-kufr to darul-Islam and jihad are more obligatory and urgent then spending an unknown number of years studying while exposed to doubts and desires that will destroy their religion and thus end for themselves any possible future of jihad.”[8]

Living under un-Islamic conditions

Muslim extremist groups build their view of hijrah on a premise that living in a non-Muslim country is wrong because Muslims will have to live under un-Islamic conditions. They also claim that Muslims who willingly accept the rule of non-Muslims, and live under any rule other than the shariah (Islamic law), in all circumstances, are committing acts that will nullify their faith. For the extremists loyalty and sovereignty can only be given to and by God and Islam is the only way of life for Muslims.

They base their argument, among others, on the following verses:

“When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls, they say: “In what (plight) were ye?” They reply: “Weak and oppressed were we in the earth.” They say: “Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (from evil)?” Such men will find their abode in Hell, What an evil refuge! Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed – men, women, and children – who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.” (The Quran, 4:97-8)

Such interpretation of the verse could be supported by few hadiths such as:

“I am not responsible for any Muslim who resides among unbelievers.” (Narrated by Al-Turmuzi)

“Anyone who are with the unbelievers and live among them, then he is like them.” (Narrated by Abu Dawud and Al-Turmuzi)[9]

For ISIS, living among non-Muslims will inevitably have serious effect on Muslims’ religiosity:

“Living amongst the sinful kills the heart, never mind living amongst the kuffar [infidels]! Their kufr [infidelity] initially leaves dashes and traces upon the heart that over time become engravings and carvings that are nearly impossible to remove. They can destroy the person’s fitrah [natural state] to a point of no return, so that his heart’s doubts and desires entrap him fully…. Even if one were to spend all his hours at a masjid in prayer, dhikr, and study of the religion, while living amongst Muslims who reside amid kuffar and abandon jihad, then such a person would only be establishing the strongest proof against himself and his sin…. Thus, the sinful company affects you whether you desire so or not.”[10]

The flight of Muslims from non-Muslim countries to Syria and Iraq in thousands partly testifies to the potent of ISIS mobilization appeal tapping on Islamic concepts already familiar and available among Muslims, although it must be admitted that causes of radicalization remains too complex to be attributed to religious ideas only.

However, the above-mentioned idea of hijrah, if accepted, has other serious implication to Muslims who are not making hijrah to Syria and Iraq. The consequence of this thinking is the idea that one cannot be a proper Muslim unless one lives among Muslims only. Such thinking encourages ghettoism and an exclusivist attitude in social life. This may not be a security problem, but it is surely a theological problem and could become a social problem that must be addressed.

Theological Response

It is argued that the verses (4, 97-9) cannot be used as absolute proof that Muslims cannot live in a non-Muslim country. On the contrary, it could also be interpreted otherwise, that is to allow a Muslim to do so. The verse, “Except the weak ones among men, women and children who can not devise (a) plan, nor are they able to direct their way.” (4:98), has been interpreted by Muslim scholars to mean a Muslim is only required to migrate from a non-Muslim country if he is unable to practice his religion freely and is being oppressed.[11]

Consequently, it also means that Muslims are allowed to live in a non-Muslim country or under a non-Muslim government, as long as they have the freedom to practice their religion and can experience basic human rights. There is no reason or compulsion for Muslims who live in such a situation to migrate.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Prophet himself permitted his uncle, Abbas to remain in Mecca, which at that time was not under Muslim rule. That proved that the injunction to migrate was not binding over every Muslim.

Secondly, the migration of the Prophet’s companions to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and their return six years after the Prophet’s migration to Medina, also suggests that migration is only necessary for those who are weak and fear religious persecution. Therefore, living in a non-Muslim country is allowed if a Muslim’s right of worship is protected.

Thirdly, not all Muslims during the time of the Prophet migrated to Medina. One such case was Abu Nu’aim. He became a Muslim and wanted to migrate to Medina. As he was the financial provider for a group of orphans and widows for his tribe, his people asked him to stay with the promise to protect him from any abuse. He postponed his migration plan and when he eventually migrated to Medina, the Prophet said to him: “My people have ousted me and wanted to kill me. Whilst your people protected you.”

Fourthly, the Prophet said (in one narration by Imam Muslim), that those living in a non-Muslim country who later became Muslims could still remain living there and did not need to migrate.

From the evidences, it can be concluded that there cannot be a general ruling for or against Muslims living in a non-Muslim countries. The ruling depends on the status of the individual and the context. Clearly then, any position prohibiting Muslims from living and settling in non-Muslim countries is not the consensus of Muslim scholars. The scholars are of the opinion that a ruling on migration depends on the situation and can be summarized as such: a) it is obligatory for a Muslim to migrate if he or she cannot practise his religion and fears that he cannot maintain his faith (4:97-9); b) Muslims who can practice Islam and can afford to migrate are only encouraged to do so. This is based on the actions of the Prophet’s uncle, Abbas and his companion, Abu Nu’aim; c) Muslims who cannot afford to or face difficulty in migrating are not required to do so and can remain living in that country (4:97); and d) it is obligatory for a Muslim to remain in a non-Muslim country if his presence and expertise is required by the Muslims there.[12]

Shaykh Jad Al-Haq, former Grand Mufti of Egypt (1978 – 1982, died in 1996), issued a decree (fatwa);

“If a Muslim feels that his religion is safe and he is able to practice it freely in a country with no religion or in a non-Muslim country, it is allowable for him to stay. If he fears for his religion, morals, property or self-worth, then it is obligatory for him to move to a country where he can be safe. ”[13]

Rational Response

In today’s context, migration to a Muslim country in a classical sense is no longer relevant or practical as no particular country today can be truly classified as a Dar Al-Islam (land of Islam) in the classical sense.

Furthermore, the world has been globalized. Any attempt to isolate Muslims from other communities in order to preserve their faith and commitment to the religion is a futile effort.

Also, there is no one country, be it a non-Muslim or Muslim country, that is perfectly suitable to meet the original objective of migration, which is to allow a Muslim to practice Islam as a religion comprehensively. Practically anywhere a Muslim chooses to live, he still has to make the appropriate adjustments and accommodations to his society.

The early Muslims traveled and settled widely, from their origins in the Arab world to continents such as China and the Malay Archipelago. In each case they settled and lived with the non-Muslims, which eventually caused the spread of Islam.

Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim democratic countries must realize that whatever the imperfections, remaining in these countries is critical. By doing so, they provide abundant opportunities to share their Muslim way of life and dispelling any misconceptions about Islam.

In that respect, instead of isolating themselves, Muslims must strive to actively engage with their host society by being a constructive member of the country. An active participation in the nation’s progress and development is the strongest argument against the negative image of Islam. This can be achieved in part by living in accordance with the principles of democracy and the law of the state. This will assist Muslims in building a foundation for peaceful coexistence with others.[14]

*Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a Fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Notes

[1] This article is an improvement of the original version in Muhammad Haniff Hassan, “Responding to the Idea of Hijrah (Migration)”, Strategic Currents: Emerging Trends in Southeast Asia, edited by Yang Razali Kassim, RSIS, Singapore, 2009, pp. 176-9.

[2] Pergas, Moderation in Islam in the Context of Muslim Community in Singapore, Singapore: Pergas, 2004, pp. 226-7; Muhammad Sulaiman Tubuliyak, Al-Ahkam Al-Siyasiyah Li Al-Aqalliyat Al-Muslimah Fi Al-Fiqh Al-Islami, Amman: Dar Al-Nafais, 1997, pp. 61-6.

[3] The White Paper: The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrest and the Threat of Terrorism, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, 2003, pp. 34-5.

[4] `Abd Al-Rahman bin Mu`alla Al-Luwaihiq, Al-Ghuluw Fi Al-Din Fi Hayat Al-Muslimin Al-Mu`asirah, Bayrut: Muassasat Al-Risalah, 1992, pp. 308-9.

[5] Dabiq, no. 3, pp. 26-7

[6] Ibid, p. 29.

[7] Ibid, p. 31.

[8] Ibid, p. 26.

[9] Inspire (Al-Qaeda online magazine), no. 13, pp. 32-3; `Abd Al-Rahman bin Mu`alla Al-Luwaihiq, Al-Ghuluw Fi Al-Din Fi Hayat Al-Muslimin Al-Mu`asirah, pp. 306-9.

[10] Ibid, p. 32.

[11] Muhammad Sulaiman Tubuliyak, Al-Ahkam Al-Siyasiyah Li Al-Aqalliyat Al-Muslimah Fi Al-Fiqh Al-Islami, Amman: Dar Al-Nafais, 1997, pp. 66-72.

[12] Pergas, Moderation in Islam in the Context of Muslim Community in Singapore, pp. 224-33

[13] Cited by Muhammad Sulaiman Tubuliyak, Al-Ahkam Al-Siyasiyah Li Al-Aqalliyat Al-Muslimah Fi Al-Fiqh Al-Islami, p. 54. See Majallat Al-Azhar, vol 6, 63rd year, Jumada Al-Akhirah 1411H, December-January 1991, p. 618.

[14] Pergas, Moderation in Islam in the Context of Muslim Community in Singapore, pp. 233-6.

The post Responding To Abuse Of Hijrah Concept For Mobilizing Muslims To Syria And Iraq – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.