Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Study Claims Mass Killings, School Shootings Are Contagious

0
0

Mass killings and school shootings in the U.S. appear to be contagious, according to a team of scientists from Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University.

Study author Sherry Towers, research professor in the ASU Simon A. Levin Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Sciences Center, explained, “The hallmark of contagion is observing patterns of many events that are bunched in time, rather than occurring randomly in time.”

Her team examined databases on past high-profile mass killings and school shootings in the U.S. and fit a contagion model to the data to determine if these tragedies inspired similar events in the near future.

They determined that mass killings – events with four or more deaths – and school shootings create a period of contagion that lasts an average of 13 days. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of such tragedies appear to arise from contagion.

Their paper, “Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings,” appears in the July 2 edition of PLOS ONE.

The analysis was inspired by actual events in Towers’ life.

“In January of 2014 I was due to have a meeting with a group of researchers at Purdue University,” she said. “That morning there was a tragic campus shooting and stabbing incident that left one student dead. I realized that there had been three other school shootings in the news in the week prior, and I wondered if it was just a statistical fluke, or if somehow through news media those events were sometimes planting unconscious ideation in vulnerable people for a short time after each event.”

The researchers noted that previous studies have shown that suicide in youths can be contagious, where one suicide in a school appears to spark the idea in other vulnerable youths to do the same.

“It occurred to us that mass killings and school shootings that attract attention in the national news media can potentially do the same thing, but at a larger scale,” Towers said. “While we can never determine which particular shootings were inspired by unconscious ideation, this analysis helps us understand aspects of the complex dynamics that can underlie these events.”

On average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the U.S., and school shootings occur on average monthly. The team found that the incidence of these tragedies is significantly higher in states with a high prevalence of firearm ownership.

The post Study Claims Mass Killings, School Shootings Are Contagious appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Researchers Detect Eye Diseases Using Smartphone

0
0

Researchers at the Medical and Surgical Center for Retina developed software that detects eye diseases such as diabetic macular edema using a smartphone. The system is aimed at general physicians who could detect the condition and refer the patient to a specialist.

The software was developed in collaboration with biomedical engineers from the ITESM and uses the camera of the phone to detect any abnormality in the thickness of the retina.

“The idea is to detect and prevent diseases in general practice. We are not replacing the specialist, we want to know which patients have a disease and make an early detection,” said Dr. Juan Carlos Altamirano Vallejo, medical director of the Medical and Surgical Center for Retina.

He added that the technology is designed for general physicians, “who support the health system in Mexico and, even without in-depth knowledge of ophthalmology, can, with this tool, detect certain abnormalities and send the patient to the specialist.”

Using the software will reduce costs and streamline the Mexican health system. With just having the app on the cell phone and focusing the camera on the eye, immediate results will be obtained. “We start off the fact that it is much cheaper to prevent than to cure blindness.”

The app also has utility in rural communities, where expertise areas such as ophthalmology have not arrive yet because equipment to detect these diseases are expensive and so far only the visiting specialist can do this kind of diagnosis.

“It will help those that when they go to the eye doctor are already blind, we needed to go a step back, to know who is at risk and needs to go to a specialist. Not wait for a doctor,” said Altamirano Vallejo.

Software development has been satisfactory and is expected to soon be marketed and incorporated the basic health system.

Altamirano Vallejo said that the Medical and Surgical Center for Retina is a small company with just ten employees dedicated to ophthalmology and retina special medical care. It it also dedicated to biomedical and pharmaceutical research, to develop diagnostics and equipment, applicable to society. “We want to give back to our community everything it gives to us, trying to pay the mortgage we all have with Mexico.”

Source: Agencia ID

The post Researchers Detect Eye Diseases Using Smartphone appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Remembering Nehru’s Visit To Soviet Union In 1955 – OpEd

0
0

In the second week of July, Indian Prime Minister Modi is slated to visit Russia for the BRICS and SCO summit. He will also visit five central Asian republics on his way back home. This visit is expected to generate much required momentum in the Indo-Russian partnership. In this context, it would be instructive to take a closer look at another visit to Russia by another Prime Minister of India.

Sixty years ago, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited the then Soviet Union in June 1955. He had been to Soviet Russia before as well. In 1927, Nehru with his father had gone to Soviet Russia to mark the Tenth anniversary celebrations of Bolshevik revolution. Young Nehru was then an upcoming leader of Indian National Congress and later became India’s first and longest serving Prime Minister. Nehru during 1930’s was known as an admirer of the Soviet experiment in lifting millions out of poverty and apathy, though he never approved their methods of doing so. He felt that many problems of independent India would be similar to what Soviets faced in the years after revolution.

Nehru had embarked on the visit to Soviet Russia keeping in mind specific international and domestic factors. By 1955, both important neighbors of India i.e. China and Pakistan were receiving massive assistance from the superpowers. Pakistan had joined the US led military pacts and China was receiving Soviet support. This situation was jeopardizing Indian security interests and India needed to take corrective measures. Domestically, India was well on its way in implementing its first five year plan (1951-56) successfully and was poised for second five year plan (1956-61) to accelerate the economic growth. Nehru’s Congress party was moving slowly but steadily towards the goals of establishing of socialist society in India. So, Indo-Soviet partnership was ideologically and geostrategically a sound step. Though Nehru’s 1955 visit did not result in any immediate gains for India, it brought long term strategic benefits over the period of time.

There are two incidents from Nehru’s visit which clearly stand out today. During the visit, Nehru gave a lecture in Moscow university which was attended by young Mikhail Gorbachev who thirty years later changed the course of world politics by his policies of Glasnost and Perestroika. As Gorbachev wrote in his memoirs, this lecture of Nehru left permanent mark on Gorbachev’s mind and he continued to admire Nehru throughout his life. Another interesting point of Nehru’s visit was Soviet offer for India to assume permanent seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Of course, Nehru turned down this offer and rather spoke for Communist China’s admission into the UNSC as a legitimate power.

Nehru’s visit was reciprocated by Soviet leaders in November of the same year when Khrushchev and Bulganin came to India. They were welcomed warmly everywhere they went, which was a new experience for the Soviet leaders. In this visit, Soviet leaders expressed support for India’s stance on Kashmir (which proved vital in Cold War years) and on Goa, still under Portuguese occupation. These two visits marked new beginnings in the Indo- Soviet ties. In the following decades, Soviet Union generously helped India in building its defense and industrial capabilities and dealing with crises like those of East Pakistan in 1971. Even after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India and Russia retained its close partnership in defense.

Nehru had already visited US, Britain and China by then. So, Soviet Union was the only great power he has not visited. In late 1940’s and early 1950’s Soviet Union did not regard India as an important player. But Soviet attitude began to change with the death of Stalin in 1953. Soviet leadership decided to engage newly emerging countries of Asia and Africa and engaging Nehru’s non aligned India would have seemed a logical first step in this direction as India was then leading the Afro-Asian nations as was demonstrated at Bandung conference of 1955. For India, it was imperative to find alternative sources of finance and technology for its rapid economic development as western assistance was coming with several strings attached one of which was to compromise on Kashmir.

Nehru’s 1955 visit and reshaping of geopolitics holds relevance even in 2015. Russia’s relations with the West are deteriorating steadily in the last two years resembling closely to the Cold War tensions of 1950’s. Worsening relations with the West has pushed Russia closer to China. In 1950’s it was ideology which brought China and Russia closer, now it is shared interests. In this emerging geopolitical setting, India has stakes in engaging in all three players. Its new government has so far engaged the West and China quite well. Now it’s time for Russia. Modi’s visit will be a good step in that direction.

*Sankalp Gurjar, Dept. of International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences South Asian University (University established by SAARC Nations) Akbar Bhawan Campus, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, India.

The post Remembering Nehru’s Visit To Soviet Union In 1955 – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

South Africa: Zuma To Attend BRICS Summit

0
0

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma will lead a South African delegation to the Seventh BRICS Summit to be held in Ufa, Russia next week.

The Brazil, Russian, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) nations will be hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin from 8 to 9 July 2015, under the theme: “BRICS Partnership – a Powerful Factor of Global Development”.

International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said on Friday a number of meetings will take place ahead of the summit, including a meeting of the BRICS Business Council and its working groups, the BRICS ministers of finance and central bank governors, the first meeting of the BRICS Board of Governors of the New Development Bank and the BRICS ministers of trade and industry.

BRICS leaders have at the G20 Summit in Brisbane on 15 November 2014 requested their finance ministers to designate the President and Vice-Presidents of the New Development Bank, in advance of the next summit.

The minister said the BRICS summit would receive feedback in this regard.

“The leaders also asked the finance ministers and central bank governors to ensure that, by the next summit, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) Working Group concludes the procedural rules and operational guidelines of the Governing Council and Standing Committee of the CRA, and to conclude an Inter-Central Bank Agreement,” said the Minister.

She said leaders at the summit will also be informed of the status of ratification process within each BRICS country of the New Development Bank Agreement and CRA Treaty.

The BRICS leaders are expected to adopt the Ufa Declaration and the Ufa Action Plan, which will reflect the views of BRICS member states on a number of international issues, and the action plan will spell out the areas of cooperation and meetings which will be held during the chairpersonship of Russia.

“The leaders will also witness the signing of various agreements which indicate a deepening of the BRICS relationship,” said the Minister.

The post South Africa: Zuma To Attend BRICS Summit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Four Arrested For Smuggling Electronics From China Into US

0
0

Four individuals arrested last week were arraigned on July 1 in Newark, New Jersey, based on charges for allegedly smuggling counterfeit Sony Camcorders, Apple iPhones, iPads and iPods, from China for sale in the United States.

The individuals, Italian, Venezuelan and Chinese nationals aged between 30 and 52 years, are charged in an eight-count indictment with importing and trafficking fake iPhones, iPads and iPods bearing counterfeit Apple trademarks and fake Camcorders bearing counterfeit Sony trademarks, as well as smuggling, structuring and international money laundering.

Europol supported the case, which was investigated by the : U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Newark, New Jersey and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office White Collar Crimes Squad, with significant assistance from Italian law enforcement authorities.

According to the allegations in the indictment, from July 2009 through February 2014, the defendants conspired to smuggle into the U.S. from China over 40,000 electronic devices and accessories, including fake iPads, iPhones and iPods, along with labels and packaging, most bearing counterfeit Apple trademarks. The indictment alleges that the estimated manufacturers’ suggested retail prices for an equivalent number of genuine items would have exceeded $15,000,000.

The indictment alleges that, to avoid detection by U.S. Customs officials, the devices often were shipped separately from the labels bearing counterfeit trademarks, and then were labelled and packaged after they passed through Customs. According to the indictment, the individuals then re-shipped the devices throughout the U.S. to co-conspirators.

According to the indictment, proceeds from the sales of the devices were funnelled back to the defendants’ accounts in Florida and New Jersey via structured cash deposits – broken into multiple deposits of less than $10,000 each to avoid bank reporting requirements. The indictment further alleges that a portion of the proceeds was then transferred to co-conspirators in Italy, further disguising the source of the funds.

According to the indictment, the individuals made more than 100 illegal wire transfers totalling over $1,100,000 to Chinese accounts to facilitate their criminal activity.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The post Four Arrested For Smuggling Electronics From China Into US appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Activists Want Oprah Winfrey To Distance Herself From Leviev Over Human Rights Abuses – OpEd

0
0

By Annie Robbins*

To commemorate her magazine’s 15th anniversary, US megastar talk show host and social justice philanthropist Oprah Winfrey glammed out wearing pearl-shaped 69 carat Leviev diamond earrings on the cover of the May 2015 edition of O, the Oprah Magazine. Leviev is owned by Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev and Adalah-NY: The New York campaign for the Boycott of Israel emailed a letter to executives at O and the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) on May 29th detailing the involvement of Leviev’s companies’ to notoriously brutal human rights abuses in Angola and the thousands of illegal Israeli settlement homes built on Palestinian land by another of his companies, in violation of international law. Shortly thereafter the communications director at OWN, Chelsea Hettrick, told an Adalah-NY representative that Winfrey was reviewing the letter, and that her team would respond soon. They didn’t. Hettrick has since failed to reply to further calls and emails from Adalah-NY.

The letter, representing nine organizations and 34 individuals from the US, Palestine, Israel and South Africa, referenced Winfrey’s worldwide commitment to racial, economic, and social justice and alerted her that her recent choice of product placement “threaten to undermine those principles”. Calling on Winfrey to publicly distance herself from Leviev’s companies, the letter explains:

We fear that this publicity conveys to your peers and to the public your implicit endorsement and promotion of Leviev’s companies.

That was over a month ago. Yesterday July 1, Adalah-NY issued a press release publicizing the letter. Listing others who have severed ties with Leviev’s companies in the past due to their human rights abuses, including UNICEF, Oxfam America, British and Norwegian governments, and New Zealand’s pension fund, Adalah-NY made a public call for more signers to the now open letter to Oprah Winfrey. Rapidly the open letter picked multiple organizational endorsements and has garnered over a 1000 signatures in a few hours. With each endorsement, copies are automatically sent to Oprah and her management.

The press release cited Abdallah Abu Rahmah, Coordinator of Bil’in’s Popular Committee, who signed the letter:

Leviev’s companies have built hundreds of illegal Israeli settlements on the land of West Bank Palestinian villages like Bil’in, destroying our farms and olive groves. From Palestine, we call on Ms. Winfrey to renounce Leviev’s companies because they have trampled on our basic human rights.

And Bill Fletcher Jr., Host of The Global African on Telesur-English:

Silence, in the face of this evidence of injustice represents acceptance, if not support for the intolerable.

More from Adalah-NY press release:

The letter lauded Ms. Winfrey’s “commitment to racial, social and economic justice in the United States and worldwide,” but noted that the Leviev diamonds she wore may well have been from Angola. Security companies employed by Leviev in Angola have been credibly accused by one of Angola’s most courageous human rights activists, Rafael Marques de Morais, of committing brutal human rights abuses. In 2014, Mr. Marques de Morais documented in a video another recent case of brutality by the Angolan private security company working for Leviev. Other Leviev companies have built thousands of Israeli settlement homes on Palestinian land in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in violation of international law. Leviev’s diamond and construction companies all fall under the Leviev Group of Companies (LGC).

Other letter signers included Palestinian and Israeli groups supporting a boycott of Israel, the Dream Defenders, CODEPINK Women for Peace, a South African Jewish group, and a number of African American professors and activists. Adalah-NY also issued a public call today for more online signers to the letter.

Oprah Winfrey appears to be the first major celebrity to wear Leviev since diamonds embarrassing incidents involving celebrities wearing tainted Leviev diamonds in 2008. The photo of Ms. Winfrey wearing Leviev’s diamonds was picked up by E!Online, and Huffington Post.

Andrew Kadi, Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, commented, “Lev Leviev is profiting off of human rights violations in Angola, and built Israeli settlements with the support of a military. Given all of this, I can’t imagine that Oprah Winfrey wouldn’t distance herself from his company after wearing his diamonds.” Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace explained, “By distancing herself from Leviev’s companies’ human rights abuses in Angola and Palestine, Ms. Winfrey would be making the ethical choice, and would be supported by people of conscience, including many within the Jewish community.”

Read the full text of the letter and add your signature here.

*Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani -This article was published at Mondoweiss here.

The post Activists Want Oprah Winfrey To Distance Herself From Leviev Over Human Rights Abuses – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Austerity: Killing Greece (And The Idea Of Europe) – OpEd

0
0

“When you are driving down the autobahn, and everyone else is driving in the opposite direction, you may think what you are doing is right, but you are still wrong.”[1] That, coming from Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, could not state the position more starkly. Come Sunday, the Greek people may well have a voice in terms of whether they will accept the latest round of brutal austerity measures, but that is no where near as important as the sovereign entitlement of the creditors.

The critics of the Greek crisis continue to demonstrate a profound ignorance of that basic concept of risk in any business of borrowing. The creditor is treated as a supreme being, and can avail itself of a range of options, including that erroneous notion of full recovery of its loan. The debtor is only superficially treated on an equal footing, receiving credit in order to undertake immediate tasks. The freedom to contract has always distorted such relations, hiding inequalities and obscuring the realities of the external environment.

Layer this with a financial zone where decisions are made hundreds of miles away from the relevant country suffering a debt crisis, and the problem is compounded. What the Tsipras government is currently relying upon are decisions being made, to take one example, in Frankfurt, where the ECB is proving drip-feed finance for the Greek banking sector. This is not a sustainable, let alone justifiable arrangement. Europe’s populist parties agree.

Schäuble’s statement also has another, even sinister dimension. It is clear that Germany is driving one way, and other European states are going in another. It might not be an autobahn, and that may be precisely the problem. We can see this manifest in such comments as those of Mike Gonzalez, writing in Forbes magazine (Jul 1).[2] His warning starts off with a premonition: what will other anti-austerity parties in Europe do? “Sick of what Greece is doing to your 401(k)? Well, there’s bigger threat looming in the form of a far leftist movement in a larger Mediterranean country.”

That movement finds form in Podemos, a force snaking its way through local elections and threatening at the national level. Their narrative is not so much anti-European as anti-austerity and reformist. Dead ideas should be cut away to make way for the new. That still bothers Gonzalez, as the “We Can” movement “doesn’t care about your capitalist savings.”

Spain’s Podemos, expressing noisy dissatisfaction from the barricades of the Left; the National Front of Marine Le Pen in France articulating her disagreement from the sceptical forces of the Right. All furious at what has gone wrong, all, curiously and in some ways disconcertingly united in one barn storming message. That is what the Greek crisis, and the national referendum on the austerity plan, has done to Europe.

On Bloomberg Television, Le Pen was pointed: “Today we are talking about Grexit, tomorrow it will be Brexit, and the day after tomorrow it will be Frexit.”[3] With a flourish, Le Pen suggested that she would be “Madame Frexit if the European Union doesn’t give us back our monetary, legislative, territorial and budget sovereignty.”

Former UK minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, has peered over the fence of the Brexit camp, and finds enthusiasts chortling with joy at the Greek malaise. “Greece makes their case.” For MacShane, Britain’s conservative politicians have taken the crude tools of 18th century surgeons to bleed the patient that is Europe. “They are gloating in exultation now” (Politico, Jul 2).[4] Should Brexit result, however, it will not be because of any cooling to austerity dogmatism. The Tories have always been the party of scorched earth economics. Their loathing is, rather, for Europe as an idea. Brussels was always the enemy in their schema.

To the west, Ireland is also appearing on the radar of anti-austerity politics. Much of this was triggered by the daft proposal for a water tax. Such a measure would have made the Troika proud. For such reasons, Greece’s Syriza can count on friendly support from such groups as the Anti-Austerity Alliance and Sinn Féin. In an Irish Times poll conducted in May, the latter party came in behind Fine Gael, with 21 percent.

In Italy, where public debt exceeds 2 trillion euros, the Greek situation is also providing fuel for anti-austerity parties sceptical of Europe’s bullying tactics and pro-creditor bailiffs. While the leadership of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and President Sergio Mattarella march to the tune of German austerity, the Five Star movement of Beppe Grillo and the Left Ecology Freedom movement of Nichi Vendola do not. According to Metapolls, they trail Renzi’s Democratic Party by only 12 percent, and represent a quarter of Italians at the polls (International Business Times, Jul 2).[5]

The tremors of such exits are everywhere and the calculators have come out examining the possible losses that might happen to an assortment of industries. German car manufacturers, to take one example, warn that a British exit from the EU will cause far more harm than any Greek variant. A fifth of all cars made in Germany, totalling some 820,000 vehicles, went to the British market (Financial Times, Jul 2).

Ever having his industry’s interest at heart, Matthias Wissmann of the VDA, Germany’s automotive industry association, said on Thursday that, “Keeping Britain in the EU is more significant than keeping Greece in the euro.”[6]

Greece’s finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has not suggested that Sunday’s referendum will finalise anything by way of a high noon shoot out. It is, rather, the means of bringing greater negotiating power to the table, in the event that his government gets a “No” vote. “People have described this as a Wild West showdown but it is not a ‘yes or no, take it or leave it’ situation.”

Those on the other side of the monetary equation are suggesting that such a view is sentimental at best. Emergency Liquidity Assistance, claims Josef Bonnici, a member of the European Central Bank Governing Council, “is not an infinite fund.”

Austerity is not only killing Greece; it is poisoning the European idea. Opponents are mustering their forces. The unravelling of that idea will have devastating consequences far beyond the boring chatter of dividend returns, accumulating interest, and bond yields. That is the calamity the Troika should well worth consider ahead of July 5.

Notes:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/01/business/international/what-key-players-are-saying-about-greek-crisis.html

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikegonzalez3/2015/07/01/spains-podemos-could-make-greece-look-like-childs-play/

[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/call-me-mrs-frexit-le-pen-sees-france-euro-exit-next

[4] http://www.politico.eu/article/grexit-brexit-greece-crisis-eurozone-eu-membership-referendum-uk/

[5] http://www.ibtimes.com/greek-default-anti-austerity-dead-european-leaders-watching-greece-crisis-ahead-local-1992523

[6] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6cda050-20bb-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3emkeUT3Q

The post Austerity: Killing Greece (And The Idea Of Europe) – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Germany Mediating Secret Hamas-Israel Talks, Supported By Qatar – OpEd

0
0

Intelligence Online (IO)  reported (paywall) last month that the visit of German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to both Israel and Gaza involved far more than the humanitarian agenda suggested in the media.  IO writes that the German intelligence agency, BND, is conducting secret negotiations between the Israeli government and Hamas aimed at achieving a durable, stable long-term ceasefire.  The Germans are encouraging Hamas’participation through a collaboration with Qatar’s state security service.  The Qataris submitted a proposal to both Israel and Gaza (presumably with the cooperation of the BND).  A key component that would make the plan attractive to Hamas is that it would include building a floating seaport off Gaza that would be administered under NATO auspices.  This is the first time I’ve heard NATO mentioned as a potential force to monitor and enforce international agreements in Israel-Palestine.  If the report is accurate, this could be a serious and important development, introducing a major international security force into the region.  Additional reports say Turkey, which often acts in concert with Qatar in such matters, has also agreed to the plan.

These developments may explain why the IDF Southern Command chief recently voiced surprisingly pragmatic statements concerning Hamas and the need for Israel to come to an understanding with it:

“Most of the citizens in the Strip see Hamas as the only solution to their problems.  Gaza has an independent authority that functions like a country,” said [Sammy] Turgeman in comments reported by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, depicting Hamas in terms as much akin to a functioning state as to a militant group.

“There is a government and an annual plan, with executive bodies and inspection authorities. Within the country there is a ruler that is called Hamas which knows how to exercise power over the other authorities. As of now, there is no substitute ruler to replace Hamas in the strip.

The only replacement for Hamas is the IDF and authoritarian chaos. Other than Hamas there is no other axis that could control [Gaza].”

Turgeman added: “The [Palestinian] Authority cannot rule and this should be taken as an indisputable statement.”

Of course, the prime minister and his cabinet war hawks entirely dismiss this approach.  It remains to be seen whether whoever within Israel is shepherding this process (possibly the army and intelligence services?) can win over the hardliners who would like nothing more than to torpedo such a peace initiative.

Naturally, the PA is suspicious and mistrustful of any development that might present Hamas in a more favorable light.  It hates the plan.  The PA intelligence service recently warned Mahmoud Abbas about it and suggested that he approach the Egyptians to stop it.  This hasn’t happened, in part because the Egyptian military government, facing increasing levels of unrest and terrorism in the Sinai, is considering a rapprochement with Hamas.  Recently, Egypt opened the border with Rafah for several days as part of this reconciliation process.  The Egyptians expected as a quid pro quo that Hamas would aid Egypt’s military and intelligence services in the hunt for Islamist terrorists in Sinai.  Note, this contradicts repeated (and questionable) IDF claims that Sinai militants work together with Hamas in perpetrating terror attacks.

Hamas hardliner, Mahmoud Zahar, leads a faction opposed to any deal with either Israel or Egypt.  He represents the view of Hamas’ military wing.  The movement’s political wing is eager for any plan that would involve improving the quality of life for average Gazans since the war last summer, which made life a sheer misery for most residents.  Further, an ISIS affiliate, Ansar Jerusalem, recently announced that it planned to challenge and defeat Hamas in the enclave.  Though it’s doubtful the group has the muscle to fulfill its threat, just the name ISIS is enough to instill fear in the hearts of Hamas’ political wing.

Hamas has much more to gain from this project than Israel, which is why it’s likely to fail.  But just its existence is a positive development.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

The post Germany Mediating Secret Hamas-Israel Talks, Supported By Qatar – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Racial Terrorism In America – OpEd

0
0

By Brian E. Muhammad*

Many are still trying to comprehend life in America where an act of murder occurs with deep racist motivation in a house of worship amid a growing climate of turmoil, mayhem and what can only be described as White domestic terror.

Shock and alarm gripped Charleston and the country after Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old White male, allegedly walked into Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church—one of the oldest Black churches in the South—and sat through the Wednesday night Bible Study. He then pulled out a gun and subsequently unleashed a barrage of deadly bullets, reportedly reloading five times. When he finished, eight parishioners, including the prominent church pastor and State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney were dead. A ninth victim died from wounds at an area hospital. After an intense manhunt involving local, state and federal authorities, Mr. Roof was apprehended less than 24 hours later in North Carolina, returned to Charleston and charged with the killings.

Mr. Roof is now in the Sheriff Cannon Detention Center, on a $1 million bond for weapons charges and is expected to be back in court in August where the bond will set for nine counts of murder.

“I thought back on the history of our people and how in 1963, in Montgomery, Ala., a church was bombed and here we are 52 years later in 2015, and we have a psycho-terrorist massacring people in a place of worship,” said Mama Abena, an elder and self-described Pan Africanist native of Charleston who recently moved back home. “If I said that it was unbelievable, I will be lying to myself because it’s very believable … It’s not like these very horrific and heinous situations have not happened to us as a people.”

In the days that followed the June 17 massacre, prayer vigils and gatherings of solidarity and support were held throughout the country—primarily pastor led—where the messages were “we must forgive” and “love conquers hate.” Some called the show of togetherness nothing more than “symbolism” driven by the desire to contain an angry Black, Brown and poor people who live under the pressure of marginalization and oppression. “We symbolically talk about unity,” Mama Abena said further. But “that’s going to end … what are we going to do from here; from right now?”

Some question whether healing and forgiveness exist absent of justice and repentance, looking at America’s sordid past and not so peaceful present. “This man was steeped in White supremacy, but that White supremacy is not just an individual thing; that’s something that stems from the whole of this United States from its foundation,” said Jack Turner, a White organizer from Atlanta with the Revolutionary Communist Party. “I think this outrage should manifest itself in resistance. People actually need to pour out into the streets.”

On Sunday, June 21, Emanuel AME Church opened its doors as a signal that the act of terror on its space and parishioners would not stop the spiritual calling and historical legacy the church has. Thousands stood in the blazing sun and lined the street outside the sprawling church as the sanctuary was filled to capacity as were the lower level rooms where the bloodshed happened. Supporters from around the United States and Canada, fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims from the Central Mosque of Charleston attended in a show of interfaith support.

Friends and family shared their gratitude in the midst of their pain with The Final Call for the outpouring of condolences and concern. Sherrell Nelson lost her 87-year-old aunt Susie Jackson and 26-year-old cousin Tywanza Sanders. “It’s overwhelming to see the outpouring of love with all the flowers and tributes,” she said.

Patricia Jones either worked with or went to school with at least four of the victims, saying she was “saddened by the whole thing” that rocked the tight knit church community.

The shooting happened at the church Denmark Vesey co-founded in 1818 that historically was a hub for liberation and organizing for self-determination, a cause that freeman Vesey lived, fought and was hanged for in 1822 along with 35 others. The church was dedicated to an anti-slavery agenda, and at one point was burned down by proponents of White terror, oppression and slavery.

Now the question of racial terror comes front and center again, at a time when people have been resisting injustice in the wake of police and vigilante killings of Blacks. The cases of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Renisha McBride, Tamir Rice and the brutal murder of Walter Scott, coldly shot in the back by now jailed former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager are among the most often cited.

There are concerns about a spate of Black men found hanging from trees in recent times, raising the reminder of America’s history of “terror lynching” where Black people were tortured, maimed, beat, burned to death and suffered slow, agonizing hanging deaths.

A report from the Birmingham, Ala.-based Equal Justice Initiative called “Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror” revealed between the American Civil War and World War II, Blacks were lynched regularly in the United States and an estimated nearly 5,000 men, women and children were lynching victims.

Between the 1990s to as recently as April 2015, Lennon Lacy, Otis Byrd, Roosevelt Champion III, Fredrick Jermaine Carter; Anthony Hill; James Byrd; Brandon McClelland and Andre Jones were Black men who experienced hideous deaths either by hanging from a tree, hanging in a jail cell or the horrific dragging of bodies chained behind pickup trucks.

The history of these crimes along with the execution of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, 41; Cynthia Hurd, 54; Rev. Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45; Tywanza Sanders, 26; Ethel Lance, 70 Rev. Depayne Middleton-Doctor, 49; Susie Jackson, 87; Rev. Daniel Simmons Sr., 74; Myra Thompson, 59, in the basement of Emanuel AME adds to a wider context and question around White supremacist ideology and White terrorism targeting Black and Brown people. Photos have surfaced of the gunman Dylann Roof wearing White supremacist iconography and reportedly told his Black victims: “I have to do it. … You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.”

“We need to be clear: this is not an aberrational event,” said Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to The Final Call after the first Sunday church service at Emanuel AME after the June 17 attack.

Mr. Brooks believes there is a national resolve to move forward and “be tragically inspired by this to prevent future tragedies from happening” but cautioned underlying racism and that the shooter was fueled by White nationalism must be addressed. To “blink that or ignore that, ignores the tragedy,” he said.

There are reportedly 18 White supremacy organizations in South Carolina described as neo-Nazi, White nationalist, racist skin head and neo-confederate. A Federal Bureau of Investigation document on domestic threats notes that “white supremacy extremists specifically target racial, ethnic, and religious minorities; the federal government; and in some instances, even each other. Their tactics include assault, murder, threats and intimidation, and bombing.”

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics data obtained from interviews with victims, the number of hate crimes has remained fairly constant over the past decade between an astronomical 200,000 and 300,000 per year. Their statistics reveal the vast majority are perpetrated against Blacks.

Van Jones, political commentator and environmental advocate, told The Final Call he sees a double standard in how the shooter is being handled in comparison to how other communities are handled. Every time a Muslim does something crazy, every Muslim leader has to come out and explain, he said. If Black youth “riot” in Baltimore—every Black leader is expected to apologize and explain, he added. In contrast, he said, when White bikers shoot themselves up, nobody calls them thugs or talks about White on White crime. “White 20-year-old males continue to pull off massacre after massacre and nobody is asking where their fathers are and no White leaders are being asked to explain themselves,” he said.

“At some point you have to have leaders—and I mean White leaders—who are willing to say we have a problem and ask tough questions of the White community. What are we doing behind our closed doors that leads to our children coming out to do such things?” asked Mr. Jones.

Malik Zulu Shabazz of Black Lawyers for Justice said to move forward and change things there must be a “stirring of the pot” against what he called a conspiracy to keep White supremacy in control of Black people. There is “collaboration between the power structure and a certain class of Blacks who have agreed to cooperate with the power structure,” he said.

There is a strong grip on the local clergy in South Carolina that must be broken, the lawyer said. They are dedicated to keeping the Black population “quiet and obedient” and the people need a lifeline they can’t get from local leadership that has “cut a dirty deal with the devil,” Attorney Shabazz charged.

Meanwhile White domestic terrorism, whether in the form of bullets from police guns or massacres as in Charleston, S.C., America and the Black and Brown victims of the domestic terrorism has reached a juncture of history for Justice … Or Else!

“The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said God is going to force the enemy to treat you worse and worse by the day! Every day he is going to treat you more and more evil! So don’t think you’ve run out of hearing about ‘Black suffering’ and ‘Black death and slaughter’—oh, no … It’s going to increase! Increase for what? So that your ‘agreement with hell,’ as Isaiah the Prophet says, ‘will not stand.’ You’ll have to come away from your 400-year-old enemy, and build a nation of your own, or suffer the consequences,” said the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan in a June 20 FaceBook posting.

* Brian E. Muhammad is Contributing Writer for The Final Call, where this article was first published.

The post Racial Terrorism In America – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Red Light Cameras: Safety Or Revenue? – OpEd

0
0

Five years ago my hometown of Tallahassee, Florida contracted with Xerox to set up 19 red light cameras at seven busy intersections in town. The contract had the city pay Xerox about $87,000 a month to operate the cameras, and charged drivers a fine of $142 for being caught on camera running a red light.

When the program was established, city officials claimed that the cameras were installed for safety reasons, to deter drivers from running red lights, not to raise revenue. If we take them at their word, the program worked. Red light violations have fallen more than 90% since the program began. The program has been so successful that the city is not taking in sufficient revenues from fining violators to pay Xerox the fees for operating them.

You can guess the ending of this story. The city has announced that when the contract with Xerox expires in August, it will not be renewed and the red light camera program will end. Here is a program that has been a huge success by the city’s stated criterion, so the city is terminating it.

I see two possible explanations for this. One is that governments tend to terminate successful programs and continue the unsuccessful ones. The other is that the city officials who originally stated that the motivation for installing the cameras was to deter red light violations, and not the revenue generated from fines, were lying. I’m not ruling out the possibility that both explanations are correct.

The post Red Light Cameras: Safety Or Revenue? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

More Than 61% Of Greeks Say ‘No’ In Bailout Referendum

0
0

More than 61 percent of Greeks have voted “No” in Sunday’s referendum on the bailout deal and austerity measures, reported the Interior Ministry after almost 90 percent of the vote had been counted.

Thousands of people took to Syntagma square in front of the Greek parliament in Athens to celebrate the ‘No’ vote, which was called “a big Yes to democratic Europe” by the country’s finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis.

“As of tomorrow, with this brave ‘No’ the Greek people handed us…. we will extend a helping hand towards our lenders. We will call on each one of them to find common ground. As of tomorrow, Europe, whose heart is beating in Greece tonight, is starting to heal its wounds, our wounds,” Varoufakis said, as cited by Reuters.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras praised the ‘No’ vote in the referendum, saying that his government is ready to return to negotiations with creditors immediately so that the country’s banks could re-open.

“With the difficult circumstances prevailing today you made a very brave choice,” Tsipras said in a televised address to Greeks.

“I’m fully aware the mandate you gave me is not one of a rupture with Europe but a mandate to strengthen our negotiating position to seek a viable solution,” he added.

Greece’s chief negotiator, Euclid Tsakalotos, expressed confidence that, thanks to the referendum’s result, the country would now be able to reach an agreement with its EU-IMF creditors quickly.

“The first thing is that the IMF report proves that the debt [load] is not viable, and secondly that there is a new popular mandate, as it would seem from the apparent result of the referendum,” Tsakalotos told local STAR TV.

Greek officials are not discussing the introduction of a parallel currency in the country, he added.

German economy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, said that the results of the referendum had “torn down the last bridges on which Greece and Europe could have moved towards a compromise.”

“With the rejection of the rules of the eurozone … negotiations about a program worth billions are barely conceivable,” Gabriel told Tagesspiegel paper.

The minister’s words were echoed by the head of Germany’s savings bank association (DSGV), Georg Fahrenschon, who concluded that Greece must now leave the euro bloc.

However, Italy’s foreign minister, Paolo Gentiloni, urged the EU to keep looking for middle ground with Greece, despite the country’s population rejecting the Troika’s bailout terms.

“Now it is right to start trying for an agreement again. But there is no escape from the Greek labyrinth with a weak Europe that isn’t growing,” Gentiloni wrote on Twitter.

The outcome of the Greek referendum caused a sharp drop in the euro on Monday. The euro fell 1.4 percent against the US dollar to $1.0955, and 2.1 percent against the yen to 133.50 yen.

The “No” victory was predicted by several opinion polls, including GPO, Metron Analysis and MRB, whose results were released after the polls closed.

Proponents of the“Yes”vote argued that a“No”vote may lead to Greece’s exit from the Eurozone, and potentially the EU.

The talks between Greece and the Troika have been stalled since June, after the Eurogroup declined to prolong a financial aid program for Greece or delay payments on earlier debts.

Greece, which has been in crisis since 2009, was supposed to make an IMF loan payment of €1.6 billion by June 30 but failed to do so. It is required to make another major payment of €3.5 billion to the ECB on July 20.

France’s President Francois Holland and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hold a meeting on Monday to discuss the consequences of the Greek referendum, said a statement from Elysee palace.

“The meeting is part of the constant co-operation between France and Germany to find a durable solution in Greece,” said the statement.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis will hold talks with nation’s bankers later on Sunday, a finance ministry official told Reuters.

The post More Than 61% Of Greeks Say ‘No’ In Bailout Referendum appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamic Terror: China Is Making America’s Mistake – Analysis

0
0

By Amulya Ganguli*

It is ironic that at a time when China blocked India’s attempt in the UN to punish Pakistan for harbouring Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, mastermind of the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s (LeT) terrorist attack on Mumbai in November, 2008, China itself suffered a terrorist outrage in Xinjiang.

About 18 people died when Uighur militants attacked the police with knives and bombs at a traffic checkpoint in the Kashgar area. In a retaliatory attack, the police killed 15 suspects “designated as terrorists”, according to the US-based Radio Free Asia.

Although Xinjiang has long been a flashpoint where Islamic terror is concerned, Beijing apparently does not see the contradiction in standing by terrorists nurtured by Pakistan while fighting them in China itself.

As the Lakhvi episode shows, China’s objective is to needle India by helping Pakistan to sustain anti-India terror groups like the LeT. This policy is in keeping with the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is a friend.

In a way, this line is no different from what the US did in Afghanistan where it bolstered up Osama bin Laden and other terrorists so that they could fight the (now defunct) Soviet Union.

As is known, this cynicism backfired on the US as the tragedy of 9/11 showed. No one can say, for certain, that China will not suffer a similar fate.

After all, grateful as Lakhvi and the LeT may be at present for China’s help, they cannot be genuine friends of the “godless” Chinese, especially when Beijing ruthlessly guns down those in a revenge attack who it may choose to “designate” as terrorists although they may well be innocent Uighur Muslims.

It is not for no reason that the Pakistan army is creating a special force of 10,000 troops to guard the Chinese who will be working on the economic corridor linking Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar on the Arabian Sea.

The LeT may refrain from attacking the Chinese, but the same restraint will not be shown by the Tehreek-e-Taliban, who regard the Pakistan establishment as an enemy for not following a strictly Islamic path, and will no doubt regard the Chinese with the same jaundiced eye.

While America’s folly of supporting Osama was typical of a country which often cannot see beyond its nose – vide its support for Pakistani dictators while it trashed Indian democracy – China’s self-defeating policies towards South Asia are the result, first, of the natural affinity which a dictatorship feels towards an essentially authoritarian regime like Pakistan where the military calls the shots.

And, secondly, the policies are motivated by the disdain which a dictatorship has towards human rights which makes it believe that it can contain terrorism through an indiscriminate, Tiananmen Square-type massacre. As such, China is not bothered about any “uprising” in Xinjiang.

It can happily stand by the LeT and its frontal outfit, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, therefore, as long as these terrorist organizations keep India off-balance, thereby preventing the latter from posing any challenge to the Middle Kingdom.

It is hard to say how realistic China’s confidence is about being able to contain or crush a terrorist backlash in its own territory. It may be right, however, in believing that no other country will make the mistake of lending covert support to the Islamists in Xinjiang. As America’s brief friendship with Osama showed, such expediency is like playing with fire.

China and Pakistan, therefore, remain the only countries in the world which use the jehadis as their combatants against a rival. As is obvious, India is unfortunately the target of both. So it is of Al Qaeda which has been reported to be planning a major attack on India.

For China, even if the slaughter of suspects remains a surefire antidote against terrorism in its view, it is doubtful how long Lakhvi, the LeT and the Pakistani army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) will be able to turn a blind eye towards such tactics against fellow Muslims in China.

For the present, the two all-weather friends may be pleased with their cooperative endeavour against India. But, it is clear that both are treading on thin ice.

For one, the anti-Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban will not be too pleased with Islamabad gaining in strength with Chinese help. For another, it is open to question whether China will be able to keep the lid on the Muslim extremists in Xinjiang permanently by killing those who are “designated as terrorists”.

If German fascism and Soviet communism were the main threats to world peace in the 20th century, Islamic terror is the most serious menace in the 21st. So is Chinese expansionism.

The two may be allies now in a limited sense in view of Beijing’s support for the LeT. But, Muslim militancy is a much wider phenomenon as the rampages of the ISIS in West Asia show.

Only the myopic will prop up one section of the deadly psychopaths to serve a foreign policy objective.

*Amulya Ganguli is a writer on current affairs. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com

The post Islamic Terror: China Is Making America’s Mistake – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Afghanistan: Once Democracy’s Champions Are Mere Bystanders – Analysis

0
0

By Anuradha Rai*

The Taliban on June 22, 2015 launched an attack on the Afghan Parliament, with a suicide car bomber striking at the entrance and gunmen battling police as lawmakers were meeting inside to confirm the appointment of the defence minister. Not only this, the Taliban has made substantial gains recently in Helmand in the south-west and has also been advancing across the country’s north, capturing two districts of the Kunduz province. Taliban insurgents had launched attacks on government targets in the capital in the past too, but the situation worsened with the withdrawal of US and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in December 2014. Though, Afghan forces have struggled to fend off Taliban advances since the drawdown of the US and NATO combat mission no significant success has been achieved by them. In the year 2015, after the withdrawal of US and its allied forces, more that 150 terrorist attacks have been made in Afghanistan on both, civilians and the government agencies.

On May 31, 2015, the Taliban attacked a government school in Logar. On May 25 the Taliban in uniform killed three policemen in Shaheedan. On the same day itself, in a massive attack over two dozen defenders lost their lives to a brutal suicide assault by armed fundamentalists on a police compound in Naw Zad, a day after Taliban killed 13 policemen at a checkpoint in Sangin. On May 18, a series of attacks on police checkpoints left around a dozen policemen dead and many wounded. On April 24, Taliban insurgents shot rockets onto a US base outside Kabul and targeted Afghan government buildings in a provincial capital, as they officially launched their spring offensive.

A close analysis of the nature of attacks by the Taliban shows that they are targeting everyone who, in their opinion, are against their ideals of establishment of an Islamic state. Attacks have been carried out on foreign forces, on Afghan security forces, the opponent’s mosques, Sufi mosques, hospitals, wedding parties (to oppose music), against women politicians and aid workers.

Who is responsible for the failure to prevent Taliban?

Many, like Afghan lawmaker Farhad Sediqi, have criticized security agencies for not preventing the attacks, and believe that it is a big failure for the intelligence and security department of the government. Though the responsibility to protect Afghanistan lies on the shoulders of Afghan government and more on the people of Afghanistan, the US government and the NATO forces, who stayed for 13 long years in the name of reconstructing Afghanistan, are no less responsible for this failure.

Over the past decade, the US has spent $104 billion on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. However, if we look at the spending made by USA, we find that a great deal of funding went toward salaries for security forces and other public workers, which has left the private sector in trouble. The economic growth of the country has worsened helping further the Taliban to grow their stronghold after US and NATO forces left. According to the World Bank, from 2003 to 2012, Afghanistan’s annual GDP grew about 9 percent on average, hitting a peak of 14.4 percent in 2012. But it shrank to 3.7 percent in 2013, and to just 1.5 percent last year. Meanwhile, the country’s opium industry, which fuels the Taliban, is expanding, and increased from $2 billion to $3 billion in 2013. According to a report of January 20, 2015 by Gallup, “With growth slowing in every sector of Afghanistan’s economy, from services and industries to agriculture, there are fewer jobs available for Afghans who were already grappling with high unemployment.” Thus, the higher unemployment and rising poverty provides a fertile ground for Taliban to grow stronger in coming future.

Other than this, the biggest achievement of the international coalition has been proclaimed to help build a 350,000-strong security force in Afghanistan from scratch. But they are still ill-equipped, particularly when it comes to air support and intelligence gathering. Although, US troops have promised that they will continue to provide air support in what they call “extreme situations”. In the year 2013, Afghan troops asked for aerial assistance approximately 400 times, but received it in 30 cases. As reported by Reuters on March 20, 2015, the United States’ use of air power in Afghanistan in the first two months of 2015 was its lowest in five years, as the reduced international military coalition sharply cut battlefield aid to Afghan security forces.

None of the 503 air support sorties by American air assets this year have been flown to support Afghan security forces in battle. The reduced US air support puts pressure on the fledging Afghan Air Force, which has just a fraction of NATO’s former air power, to support Afghan ground troops. The lack of air support by US and its allies has led to heavy casualties to the Afghan security forces who are not so well trained and are fighting alone for the first time after the withdrawal of NATO forces.

Conclusion:

Hence, we can say that the US and its allies have left Afghanistan unprepared economically and militarily after 13 years of their occupancy. No major attempts have been made by them to give a firm basis for the sustenance of democracy in Afghanistan, an ideal on the name of which US and its allies stayed in that country for so long. The turf war between Taliban and the Afghan government, the forces of fundamentalism and democracy, is growing and the sad thing is that fundamentalism is re-gaining ground again in Afghanistan and the country is sinking again into a new civil war. There seem to be no end to this conflict in near future and the exponents of democracy, anti-terrorism and human rights are only bystanders to what is happening in Afghanistan.

*Anuradha Rai teaches Political Science at Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. She can be reached at anuradharai07@gmail.com

The post Afghanistan: Once Democracy’s Champions Are Mere Bystanders – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Kerry Says Iran Nuclear Deal Closer Than Ever

0
0

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that world powers and Iran have never been closer to an agreement to cap Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but that the negotiation could still “go either way.”

Speaking at a press conference in Vienna following a meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, Kerry said that European foreign ministers would be returning to the Austrian capital on Sunday night “to see if we are going to close an agreement.”

Kerry reiterated that if the Obama administration did not get a deal that it was comfortable with, “if there is absolute intransigence” on the part of the Iranians, the US will walk away from the talks.

“We want a good agreement and only a good agreement,” Kerry said. “We’re not going to shave at the margins just to get an agreement.”

Original article

The post Kerry Says Iran Nuclear Deal Closer Than Ever appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lanka: Need To Make Solid Understanding With India A Priority – OpEd

0
0

By Rajiva Wijesinha*

Many who supported Maithripala Sirisena during the last presidential campaign felt that handling of foreign relations by the previous government had been inept. In particular, it seemed that relations with India had deteriorated, sadly so given how solidly India had supported us during our war against terror. Though the then president seemed positive about India, those around him seemed to sidestep any commitments he made, while there was clear evidence of an active effort to destabilize relations.

This happened when he was almost persuaded to cancel a meeting with the leader of an Indian parliamentary delegation, Sushma Swaraj, now India’s foreign minister. That disaster was averted but the anti-indian lobby in the foreign ministry managed in the media to blame India for the debacle that had occurred in Geneva. A resolution critical of Sri Lanka, introduced by the West, had passed, with India voting in favour. But we were told that we should now go back to our traditional foreign policy of friendship with the West, since others were unreliable.

This policy was not at all traditional and only dates back to the aberrations of the eighties, when then president J.R. Jayewardene became an enthusiastic Cold Warrior and thought his alliance with the West was secure enough to withstand Indian displeasure. He even tried to invoke the 1947 Defence Treaty with Britain – and I am told Mrs Thatcher, whom he supported over the Falklands, was inclined to agree – but the British Foreign Office refused.

What happened in 1987 made it clear that we could not ignore India. In turn India, after its understandable worries about American encirclement in those dark Cold War days, proved a tower of strength. The former president understood this, but others around him, with a dichotomizing mindset, thought that since China was a more obliging friend, we could afford to neglect India.

President Maithripala Sirisena’s manifesto however made it clear that he intended to return to the traditional Non-Aligned Policy of the party to which he belonged, with stress on good relations with our neighbours. This does not preclude China but his intended priorities were clear from what the manifesto said – ‘Cordial relations will be strengthened with India, China, Pakistan and Japan, the principal countries of Asia, while improving friendly relations with emerging Asian nations such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Korea without differences.’ He added ‘Our Indian policy will take into due consideration the diversity of India. I would act to have closer relations with an attitude that would be neither anti-Indian nor dependent.’

Of course this does not preclude friendly relations with the West. The last government made a mess of these, whereas a few simple measures, which were as much in the interests of our own people as of the diaspora which has been such an effective pressure group, would have overcome the worst hostility. But what has happened now seems to be a return to the eighties, with an assumption that keeping the West happy allows us to neglect everyone else.

So we see what seem potshots at China and even Australia, while the centrality of India to any rational Sri Lankan foreign policy is ignored. Our current High Commissioner has done much in terms of the manifesto to develop depth to our relationship, but he has been suddenly recalled, only it seems because he was appointed by the last government. And little is being done to cement relations through investment or educational and cultural exchanges, which would benefit Sri Lanka enormously.

Though even the United States has now acknowledged that we need still to fear the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), we have failed to register that it is India and India alone that will help us avoid a political division in this country. Though the current regime, in line with the ideas of president Jayewardene who was known as Yankee Dicky, feels secure with the marks of affection it receives from the current American government, it must realize that the United States is a democracy, volatile in election years, and subject to manipulation by rich interest groups. In addition there seems to be a mindset in some American policy makers that views dividing up countries as an effective policy to escape possible threats.

We have however to realize that American policy is dogged with both ignorance and incompetence, as its regime change escapades in Libya and Syria have shown. It has no judgment as to the scope and intensity of terrorists it thinks can be used. And it can well change priorities, as we know from the use made of China during the Cold War.

I fear therefore that unless we make a solid understanding with India a priority, we could well become a tool in the hands of countries that have no intrinsic commitment to Sri Lanka.

*Rajiva Wijesinha is a former adviser to the Sri Lankan President on reconciliation, and leader, Liberal Party of Ceylon. He was a former Member of Parliament. He can be contacted at editor@spsindia.in

The post Sri Lanka: Need To Make Solid Understanding With India A Priority – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


European Commission Says It ‘Respects’ Result Of Greek Referendum

0
0

The European Commission on Sunday said it “takes note of and respects the result of the referendum in Greece.”

As reported, according to Greece’s Interior Ministry, more than 61 percent of Greeks have voted “No” in Sunday’s referendum on the bailout deal and austerity measures after almost 90 percent of the vote had been counted.

In a short statement, the European Commission said that President Jean-Claude Juncker is consulting tonight and tomorrow with the democratically elected leaders of the other 18 Eurozone members as well as with the Heads of the EU institutions.

Juncker will have a conference call among the “Euro-Institutionals” (with the President of the Euro Summit, the President of the Euro Group and the President of the European Central Bank) on Monday morning, and intends to address the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, said the European Commission statement.

The post European Commission Says It ‘Respects’ Result Of Greek Referendum appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Turkey’s Electoral Maelstrom – OpEd

0
0

By Richard Falk*

If I were Turkish, and not merely a sympathetic observer and part time resident, I would write an Open Letter to the opposition political parties that had separately and collectively achieved several goals in the June 7th elections:

  • repudiating Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s push for a constitutional shift from a parliamentary to a presidential system;
  • for the Kurdish-based HDP, a significant gain in support to cross the 10% threshold, and get a rather large foot in the Parliament;
  • for the ultra-nationalist MHP to achieve a significant gain in electoral support;
  • for the secular stronghold of Kemalist republicanism CHP maintenance of their position as by far the strongest opposition party by almost 10% over their nearest competitor.

Since arriving in Turkey a couple of weeks ago, the media is filled with a wide range of informed speculations about what will happen, as well as vigorous advocacy about what is best for the country, for the AKP, and for the various parties and political personalities, and none more so, than the diverse passions that swirl around the name Erdoğan. In such an atmosphere it seems foolhardy to venture into such roiled waters. My only advantages the absence of access to insider gossip and great sympathy with the struggle of Turkey and its leaders to find their way in a chaotic and dangerous region at a time of a deepening global crisis fraught with ecological, political, and economic uncertainties.

The situation created in Turkey by the elections was one that continued the AKP (Justice & Development Party) as the dominant political party, with 40.9% of the vote, an edge of more than 15% over the CHP (Republican Peoples’ Party) winning 25.0% of the vote. Despite dominating the election and winning 256 seats, the AKP still fell short of the majority of representatives in the 550 seat Parliament required to achieve a mandate to form a new government without entering into a coalition with one of the three parties that together gathered almost 60% of the votes in June. This leaves essentially two broad coalition options—either the AKP forms a coalition with one of the three opposition parties or the opposition parties unite in a three-way coalition (as no two of the three parties have enough representation in Parliament to make a majority).

So far neither alternative has proved feasible. The AKP has seemed quietly receptive, promising transparency in the process, but has made clear that it is not responsive to proposals that seem disproportionate to the electoral showing of the purported junior partner. When the CHP leader, Kemal Kiliçdaroğlu, demands that it will only enter a coalition if the prime minister is rotated, and starts with himself as prime minister, he reaches so high as to effectively declare himself out of the game. Similarly, when the MHP insists that its entry into a coalition with the governing depends on ending the peace process with Kurds that the AKP began, it is expressing unacceptable demands for a coalition partnership. Moving forward on Kurdish reconciliation is urgent at this time as a breakdown of negotiations is likely to lead to a renewal of internal violence, which given the regional realities, could spill across boundaries and be even bloodier than the earlier decade of struggle with the PKK. Finally, the DHP, perhaps understandably, sees no gain for its prospects arising from a coalition given the hostility to Kurdish aspirations exhibited by AKP leaders during the electoral campaign and considering the hardline taken by the MHP against even a moderate accommodation with Kurdish expectations.

This gridlocked situation is adverse to Turkey’s national economic and political interests. Already the World Bank has adjusted downward its forecasts of Turkish economic growth in light of this ambience of uncertainty surrounding Ankara’s governing process, and this situation is likely to worsen if no government is formed within the 45 day window allowed for a coalition process to reach closure.

It is in this context that the opposition parties stand to lose all that they appeared to have gained on June 7th. If as seems likely there is no coalition formed by the deadline, then the options open to President Erdoğan are eager to invite the AKP to form a minority government or to call for new elections in the shortest possible time. The minority government option, which Prime Minister Davutoğlu has pronounced as unworkable, would also in all probability lead to new elections rather soon, but maybe not immediately. The political process would be very fragile. Whenever the AKP failed to win parliamentary support from any one of the three opposition groups to support its policy initiatives, the government would be paralyzed by inaction, and a call for new elections would be quickly forthcoming.

It is this likely, but still avoidable, failed coalition scenario, that remains threatening to the hopes of opposition forces. In the event that no coalition is formed, and new elections are held, the most probable outcome, although this interpretation is contested, is a big swing of more pragmatically inclined voters toward the AKP. After all, for the Turkish economy to fulfill its potential it definitely needs a government firmly in place as soon as possible, and only the AKP on its own or in stable coalition can achieve this result. Given such a perception, the logical step for a Turkish citizen would be to vote for the AKP even if it wasn’t her or his first choice in June. What is more, such a transfer of votes to the AKP could have two other results, possibly depriving the HDP of its parliamentary representation by reaching a level in this second cycle that fell below the 10% threshold, thereby giving the AKP enough electoral strength not only to resume its role as majority party but to allow Erdogan to press forward with his ambition to convert Turkey into a presidential system. Both the CHP and MHP could also do worse on a second go around, and this would certainly dim their stars.

Of course, this outcome, while logical is by no means assured. Voters in the sort of polarized atmosphere that has existed in Turkey during the whole of the AKP period of governance, leads many Turks to vote with their hearts rather than their heads. If this turns out to be the dominant pattern, then it is quite possible that this second electoral cycle will resemble the first, possibly strengthening the incentives of both the AKP and the opposition to swallow some pride and reach a workable set of coalition arrangements. Or it might accentuate the dysfunctionality of Turkish political culture at this point, leading to a sharp economic downturn accompanied by a menacing uptick in political instability, including new signs of insurgent violence.

Here, then, is the essential situation: above all, if reason prevails, most Turks will likely increasingly act to create the conditions necessary to form a majority government, and in the process could deprive the country of two achievements attributed to the prior election—minority representation for the Kurds and others plus a curtailment of the ambition of its current president. With this understanding, the unwillingness of opposition parties to minimize their bargaining demands to form a coalition seems unfortunate and even irrational under present conditions, making much more likely an overall outcome that will not be pleasing to anti-AKP forces for one or another reason. It is especially likely that this post-election impasse could give new life to the Erdoğan game plan to revise the Constitution so as establish a presidential system.

Such reflections may turn out to be far from the manner in which the Turkish political scene unfolds. It purports only to share my attempt to comprehend a situation that seems complex and confusing to most Turks. Americans are notorious at getting non-Western societies wrong, and I do not claim to be an exception, which is part of the reason I have spent many of my adult years opposing American military interventions in distant lands.

*Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Visit his blog.

The post Turkey’s Electoral Maelstrom – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Bobby Jindal And Politics Of Ethnic Identity In United States – Analysis

0
0

By Arul Louis*

“We are not African-Americans, we are not Asian-Americans, we are not Indian-Americans,” Piyush Bobby Jindal declared earlier this year making the case for an all-American identity. These words are echoing with renewed vigour after Louisiana’s Republican governor announced his bid for the presidency of the United States of America, a white-majority, predominantly Protestant nation.

The words go to the heart of the Indian American identity and how it should define a candidate in a national race. Many Indian-Americans and Indians denouncing him for abandoning his hyphenated identity.

Jindal’s situation is not unique. He enters the presidential race with the burdens of ethnic or religion identity like many candidates before him. Obama had to contend with the legacy of his Kenyan Muslim father and his 2012 Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, with his Mormon faith.

American-born Jindal’s Indian ethnicity and his Catholicism are the shoals he has carefully navigated so far in a political career that drew on constituencies that are the polar opposite — the whites and the Evangelical Christians, a polite term for fundamentalists. He — and South Carolina Governor Nikki Randhwa Haley — have broken the liberal stereotype of a racist Republican Party in a socially backward South; yet, none of the liberal, Democratic states have non-white governors (save Hawaii, where Asians and Native Hawaiians are a majority).

Like human nature, the politics of identity is immutable. For all the contempt for Indian caste and religious politics, the United States is no different when it comes to the calculus of ethnic and religious politics.

Simple arithmetic shows that Jindal cannot win on the votes of Indian Americans, who are about 1 percent of the US population cannot vote him to power or even be a determining vote bank.

Jindal distancing himself from his Indian roots and his family’s Hinduism is no different from Edvige Antonia Albina Maino Sonia Gandhi downplaying her Italian roots and her Catholicism.

In electoral politics, Jindal has to grapple with voters’ perceptions of his ancestral land. India is identified with outsourcing and the resulting job losses. (Witness the Democratic Party’s revolt against Obama’s Transpacific Partnership (TPP) driven by job loss fears; they were joined by the working class-oriented Republicans.)

The technological powerhouse that India evokes is offset by call centers’ ineptness and intrusiveness, and lately, downright fraud.

Martin Luther King longed for a day his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Strange as it may sound, Jindal railing against ethnic hyphenation harks to King’s dream. In effect, Jindal is asking not to be judged by his brown skin or his Indianess, but as an American.

Ironically, the liberal Democrats tried to play a twisted race card game during Jindal’s run for Louisiana’s governorship in 2008 when College Democrats, the student arm of the party, ran a campaign aimed at the racist right calling Jindal an Arab.

Jindal won’t be the first presidential candidate to downplay his ethnic or religious links. Obama distanced himself from his Kenyan family and heritage. Only into his second term is he planning a visit to Kenya.

Rather than focusing on African American causes, Obama broadened his appeal during his first campaign by invoking the angst of an American disillusionment with a long war amidst a looming recession. He had the lesson of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson’s stillborn candidacy in 1984 that revolved around his African American ethnicity and causes.

Way back in 1928, the first serious Catholic candidate for the president, the Democrat Al Smith, lost under the burden of his Catholicism and the questions it raised about his loyalties. John F. Kennedy in 1960 calibrated his campaign to deal with a repeat of it.

Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has one thing in common with Hinduism: Common courtesies and political correctness can be suspended and it can be ridiculed and attacked with impunity. When the liberals and Democrats launched a stealth campaign about his religion, Romney worked hard to keep it out of the public debate.

Even Democratic Representative Amerish Babulal Ami Bera converted to the Unitarian Church while active in politics — unlike Jindal, who converted as a teen and Haley when she married a Christian.

Strangely, the extreme Hindutva crowd and the secularists who disdain Hinduism find a common cause in attacking Jindal’s conversion, but not in Bera’s.

And most across spectrum disdain him. Sixty-five percent of Indian Americans are Democratic Party supporters, according to a Pew Research Center survey, and only 18 percent back the GOP. Although Indian-Americans’ economic interests align closely with the Republicans’, a reason for the anomaly is the party’s perceived association with Christian fundamentalists.

The other liability for Jindal that might surprise those who view Christianity as a monolith is that he belongs to Catholicism, a sect considered un-Christian by the fundamentalists.

If he had had Republican political ambitions when he converted Catholicism as teenager he would instead have chosen one of the Evangelical sects, which wield power in the GOP.

He has cleverly bridged the gap by emphasising the conservative Catholic social agenda of opposing abortion, homosexuality and the like in order to downplay his Catholic faith in fundamentalist circles.

Earlier this year he tried to moderate the agenda set by his GOP constituency. “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,” he said. “We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”

But in practice, Jindal has been embracing the “Stupid Party” agenda. It may help boost Jindal’s standing in the GOP right wing, but it is likely to be a handicap and merely distancing himself from his Indian heritage won’t help.

*Arul Louis is a New York-based Senior Fellow of the Society for Policy Studies. He can be reached at arullouis@spsindia.in

The post Bobby Jindal And Politics Of Ethnic Identity In United States – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi-Russia Convergence – Analysis

0
0

Saudi Defence Minister, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman met Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the 19th Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2015) on June 18, 2015 and discussed issues of common interest and cooperation between the two countries. The Crown Prince’s arrival marked the first visit since 2011 when relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia had soured after the conflict in Syria began. The Saudi media has hailed the visit as a milestone in Saudi foreign policy as it “establishes a strong and open line of communication between Riyadh and Moscow”.

Prince Salman’s visit to Russia comes at a time when the nature of US-Saudi relationship is seen to be taking a turn. Over the last one year the West’s economic sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine crisis has caused the rouble to tumble, investment in Russia slow to a trickle, capital flight to rise and the economy to slide into recession, with the falling oil prices adding to the woes. A close relationship between Riyadh and Moscow could soften the effect of the US and European economic sanctions, which have just been extended by another year. This article looks at this new Riyadh-Moscow dynamics including implications it may hold for India.

The Meeting

The talks between Putin and Prince Salman had focused mainly on bolstering bilateral relations and strengthening cooperation, particularly in the fields of peaceful use of nuclear energy, military and technical collaboration, housing, oil and gas sector and investment opportunities. Six agreements including significant ones on cooperation in the fields of military, space, and oil were also signed on the sidelines of the meeting. According to sources, Russia will assist the Saudis with technology and expertise in their plan to build around 16 nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes and generation of electricity. Also discussed during the meeting were the latest developments in the region and the efforts being undertaken by various stakeholders to resolve the situation.

The Saudi ambassador to Russia stated that there has been an agreement between the two countries on restoring the legitimacy of the government in Yemen. The two sides reportedly agreed on maintaining the unity and stability of Yemen. The Saudis want Russia to endorse their hardline stand against the Houthi rebels. Putin and Prince Salman also reportedly discussed Iran and the P5+1 nuclear deal. Syria too figured in the talks though Ukraine did not come up.

There is a view in certain sections that the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria is a matter of time and that it would be best if Russia worked with the Saudis to improve the chances of a “moderate” government to fill the void as opposed to an Islamic hardline one. Moscow’s continued support for the Assad regime is weakening the “moderate” rebels and making the situation in Syria more amenable for an ISIS or al-Nusra takeover. Saudi Arabia wants Russia to be on its side, ideally, before the fall of the Assad regime. Russian influence on Iran makes it an even more important player in the region.

From India’s point of view, besides the potential shift in geopolitical alignment in the Middle East, two issues would be of significance: the price of oil (both crude and refined) and the impact of Saudi-Russia convergence in India’s neighbourhood.

Oil

Ali Al-Naimi, the Saudi Arabian minister of petroleum and mineral resources, signed with Russia an executive programme to implement an agreement for cooperation in the field of oil. Saudi Arabia is the largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the world’s top oil exporter. On the other hand Russia, though not an OPEC member, is the second biggest oil supplier to the global markets. Saudi Arabia is producing oil at a record high as it focuses on keeping its market share, while the Russian output hit a post-Soviet high of 10.71 million barrels per day (bpd) in April. Saudi Arabia’s output rose to 10.31 million barrels a day in April from 10.29 million in March, making it the world’s largest producer for a second month in a row, displacing Russia which held the position in February.

Al-Naimi described the agreement with Russia as a new phase for cooperation and coordination which “will lead to creating a petroleum alliance between the two countries for the benefit of the international oil market”. It is significant to note that such a potential alliance between the two largest OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers is something that has eluded the oil producers of late and is touted as a major sticking point on the road to achieving consensus on oil production quotas and ultimately stabilising the global price of crude oil. Also any cooperation or agreement between Saudi Arabia and Russia on oil production and export could boost Russia’s struggling economy in the medium term.

Saudi Arabia’s massive oil production (with no plans to cut production) is pushing global crude oil prices lower while targeting shale oil production in the US and oil exploration elsewhere, including Russia, due to their high cost of extracting oil. However, there is another aspect that would concern India as a net exporter of refined petroleum products.

Saudi Arabia reduced crude oil exports in April as it used record supplies domestically for a growing refining industry. Crude oil exports fell to 7.74 million barrels a day from 7.9 million in March as the Saudis in April processed 2.22 million barrels a day in domestic refineries. The Saudi oil product exports rose by 44 percent last year. Therefore the Saudis appear to cap their crude oil exports without cutting crude oil production but by increasing refined volumes and their export. India at present is benefitting from both, low crude oil prices and export of refined petroleum products.

Pakistan Factor

A few days before the Saudi crown prince’s visit Pakistan’s Army chief General Raheel Sharif held ‘crucial’ talks with his Russian counterpart in Moscow. The two commanders discussed regional security, bilateral defence cooperation and high-level military exchanges. The three-day visit is also viewed as a Pakistani effort to reach out to stakeholders amid US and NATO drawdown from Afghanistan. On November 20, 2014, Pakistan and Russia had signed a defence cooperation agreement during the first-ever visit of a Russian defence minister to Pakistan in 45 years. Subsequently Moscow approved its sale of attack helicopters to Pakistan.

Saudis have maintained an interest in Afghanistan, partly as an extension of its rivalry with Iran. India would keenly watch how Saudis safeguard their interests, particularly after their disenchantment with Pakistan over Yemen. Would Russia articulate Saudi interests in Afghanistan or serve to bring together Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to a common agenda? Where would such a move leave Iran?

The Riyadh-Moscow ties since their restoration nearly 14 years ago have been quite restricted in their beat. Even as a section of analysts feel that the current bonhomie is mere tactical posturing by Saudi Arabia while the Iran deal is being worked out, others feel it may be different this time. They point to the land for Russia’s new embassy in Riyadh’s Diplomatic Quarter and the invitation to President Putin to visit Riyadh which the Saudi King may reciprocate.

Whichever trajectory the Riyadh-Moscow relationship may take it is only going to add to the strategic and security complexities of the Middle East as Riyadh seeks to broadbase its diplomatic engagements and security options in the wake of the US rapprochement with Iran and its stand-back policy in West Asia.

*Monish Gulati is Associate Director (Strategic Affairs) with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com . This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

The post Saudi-Russia Convergence – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Syria: Islamic State Deliberately Targeting And Killing Civilians

0
0

Armed militants believed to be members of Islamic State, also known as ISIS, deliberately targeted people they knew were civilians in a June 25, 2015, attack in and around the northern Syrian city of Kobani. Syrian Kurdish authorities and local human rights groups said that 233 to 262 civilians were killed and at least 273 wounded.

Fifteen witnesses, including eight of the wounded, described to Human Rights Watch the deliberate killing of civilians by attackers whom local authorities and residents identified as ISIS. The witnesses said that to dupe civilians and gain their confidence, the attackers wore uniforms resembling those of the groups that have been battling ISIS in Kobani, `Ayn al-`Arab in Arabic. The attackers killed civilians with weapons that included assault rifles, machineguns, and in some cases knives and grenades, witnesses and local authorities said.

“Survivors describe an ISIS killing rampage whose main objective was apparently to terrorize local residents,” said Letta Tayler, senior terrorism and counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch. “By all accounts, this was a planned attack on the civilian population of this area.”

The attack began around 4 a.m. on June 25 when fighters set off three suicide car bombs on the perimeter of Kobani, then cruised the city in white cars or by foot, shooting civilians as they fled down streets or tried to drive to safety. Some attackers followed civilians into homes to kill large numbers of family members, the witnesses, local activists, and relatives of the dead said.

The attackers were disguised in uniforms resembling those of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are the forces controlling Kobani, and of the Free Syrian Army, an armed opposition group that has in recent months fought ISIS alongside the YPG.

Snipers also fired on civilians from rooftops, shot civilians trying to retrieve the dead and wounded, and took dozens of civilians hostage, the witnesses, as well as more than a dozen relatives of the dead, and six local activists told Human Rights Watch. Most civilians were killed between 4 a.m. and mid-morning on June 25, they said. Kobani’s population is predominantly Kurdish, and witnesses said most if not all those killed were Kurds.

Fighting between Kurdish forces and the alleged ISIS forces broke out soon after and continued until the Kurdish forces regained control of the city on June 27.

Authorities from the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) – the main political party in the area – as well as the YPG said 233 civilians died in the attack, including 23 from the village of Barkh Botan on the southern edge of Kobani district. Two survivors from Barkh Botan told Human Rights Watch the armed militants killed many in their village with knives and identified eight children among the dead.

The Syrian Violations Documentation Center, a monitoring group, released the names of 262 dead that it said were civilians, including 12 children and 67 women. A Syrian Kurdish group, the Rojava Human Rights Organization, released a partial list of 118 dead civilians that included 14 children and 18 elderly, including a 71-year-old man whose cause of the death was listed as a slit throat.

While Human Rights Watch cannot independently confirm the overall civilian death toll, witnesses and relatives gave it the names of 60 of those killed, and said all were civilians. Those interviewed gave credible statements that the armed militants attacked these civilians, even when no Kurdish fighters or other military objects were nearby. Their statements strongly suggest that the attackers’ primary aim was to kill civilians and spread terror among the local population.

Although ISIS surrounded the Defense Ministry offices of the Kobani administration and attacked checkpoints, it did not target the many other military installations inside the city, a spokesman for the Kurdish forces, Redur Xelil, told Human Rights Watch. A YPG statement on June 28 said 21 of its fighters in the city and surrounding countryside were killed, along with 14 members of the Kurdish police force. The statement said all of the attackers were killed except seven who escaped into Turkey, without giving a casualty figure.

The Kurdish authorities also took one ISIS militant, an Egyptian, into custody, Xelil told Human Rights Watch. Witnesses said most of the attackers were Syrian Arabs but that some spoke with foreign accents and that they thought others were Kurds, based on their fluent Kurdish. One witness said a fighter detaining her and other relatives said he was Moroccan.

“They shot at us intentionally – we were not fighters, we were just trying to get to the hospital,” said Fatima, 33, who was driving to a Kobani hospital with her husband early on the morning of the attack to recover the body of her father, who had died the previous night from an illness. Speaking from a hospital in the southern Turkish city of Şanliurfa, Fatima said ISIS killed her husband, Mustafa, 34, along with one of his friends, and shot her twice in the leg and once in the arm:

We saw two cars full of men and women in YPG uniforms. We thought they were YPG fighters so we did not think there was a problem. They aimed at us and started shooting. They killed my husband and his friend. My husband was shot in the head and his blood was all over the car.

Then real YPG forces arrived and fighting broke out. The fighters were shouting bad words at the YPG and calling them “infidels.” I could hear bullets and explosions all around me. I was trapped in the car, bleeding, from 5:30 in the morning until midday until YPG members rescued me.

Fatima had been nine months pregnant and told Human Rights Watch that doctors delivered her baby later that day while also treating her bullet wounds. Local human rights monitors said the surgery was performed in Turkey. Human Rights Watch is not using full names of witnesses to shield them from possible reprisal.

Many witnesses told Human Rights Watch that when they first heard gunshots before dawn, they assumed Kurdish forces were celebrating a wedding or a victory over ISIS in another area.

“When I heard shooting I went to the door and saw four clean-shaven guys in YPG uniforms,” said Hammoudi, 28, who was wounded in the attack. “I said to my father, ‘They are not Daesh [ISIS],’ but at that moment they shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ [God is Great] and shot me in the leg and groin.” Hammoud said he retreated to his house and, with a makeshift tourniquet around his thigh, helped relatives bash holes in the walls of three adjacent homes to escape.

All warring parties, including non-state groups, are prohibited from conducting attacks that deliberately target civilians, that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, or that cause civilian loss disproportionate to the expected military gain. Planning, ordering, or carrying out unlawful attacks with criminal intent is a war crime.

The independent international Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic should investigate and promptly report on the Kobani attack, Human Rights Watch said. The United Nations Security Council should refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court so that incidents such as the June 25 massacre in Kobani, as well as violations by all other parties to the Syrian conflict, may be fully investigated and those responsible brought to justice.

In August 2014, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2170, which imposed sanctions on ISIS and called on countries to take measures to fight recruitment and financing for ISIS.

“The deliberate attacks on civilians in Kobani are an urgent reminder that all countries should strengthen measures to weaken armed militant groups like ISIS,” Tayler said. “It is equally important for all measures they take to be lawful so they don’t perpetuate the cycles of violence.”

The post Syria: Islamic State Deliberately Targeting And Killing Civilians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images