The cherry trees have blossomed early this year and are more magnificent than ever. They should warm the hearts of Japan’s population.

At least a large number of retirees may have the leisure of watching them. With the world’s longest life expectancy, slightly over 79 years for men and nearly 86 for women, the country boasts a quarter of the population over 65 and counts 40,000 centenarians.

Dietary habits – low fat diets and a dietary philosophy called hara hachi bu, according to which people should never eat to satiation – have certainly contributed to this result.

Medical care that has eliminated some of the major killer diseases has also no doubt contributed as most Japanese undergo an annual medical check-up. This has also led to a very low child mortality – the world’s lowest in fact.

Old age and low child mortality should be indicators of a healthy growing society, but the world’s second-lowest birth rate has considerably upset this rosy figure. For the last 10 years, the number of deaths has exceeded the number of births.

There is an imbalance between the genders, and women, who are a minority, are getting married later and some are not marrying at all – one third of those born in the 1980s are single. Marriage ceremonies are too expensive for most young people and employers deeply dislike having their female employees pregnant. A pregnancy usually ends a promising career. Japanese men have increasingly been taking foreign spouses.

Virtual worlds are gradually replacing the real world and even having sex seems to be too much of a bother.

The economic impact is already being felt as the shrinking working age population is believed to have contributed to the drop in GDP growth from 2000 to 2013.

By 2035 the country will have 69 persons over the age of 65 for 100 persons of working age.

The Committee for Japan’s Future proposed a goal of a population of 100 million by 2065 and that retirement should be postponed to the age of 70. With the expected fertility rate of 1.2 children per woman, the population would be of only 87 million by 2060, 40% of which would be over 60 years old.

As Japan ages, family structures break down and an increasing number of older people – thirty thousand by the latest count – die alone, their bodies unattended for weeks on end.

As the country declines and its population withers away, will there be anyone to watch the magnificent blossoming cherry trees?

*Michael Akerib, Vice-Rector, SWISS UMEF UNIVERSITY. First published by www.moderndiplomacy.eu

The post The Cherry Trees Are Blossoming: Anyone There To Admire Them? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

What have American politicians had to say about Europe, its role, significance or insignificance and its relationship with America? Naturally, the USA has had different views of Europe over time: early in its history when it was a colony; later, as the weaker and less developed half of the western world watching Europe colonize the world in awe or with contempt; and, later still, as a global power shielding Europe from the Russian threat.

Our concern here is with the present and the recent past, the post-war period. In an excellent book, John L. Harper, professor at Johns Hopkins University, compares the visions of Europe of three influential American statesmen: President (1933-45) Franklin D. Roosevelt, the diplomat and political scientist George F. Kennan and Secretary of State (from 1949-53) Dean Acheson1. The views of these three men on Europe’s significance and role and thus about US foreign policy show striking contrasts. Roosevelt’s vision reflected America’s Euro-phobia. He believed that Europe’s time was over and the old continent belonged in a retirement home. Roosevelt was almost as hostile to France’s aspirations to play an independent role as to Nazi Germany. He was also opposed to Churchill’s idea of a United States of Europe on the grounds that an integrated Western Europe with all kinds of independent aspirations was not in America’s interest. Roosevelt saw the world as a quasi-unipolar one in which the USA controlled international politics, nominally within the United Nations framework, together with China, Russia and the UK, but in reality as the unquestionably dominant actor. There were some contradictions in Roosevelt’s views: he would have liked a weak Europe but did not want to station US troops on the continent, simply because he did not consider it strategically as important as the Middle and Far East. The President was convinced that, with WWII, Europe had virtually written itself off and become irreversibly irrelevant. At this time, the idea of European integration and a European Union existed only as thought experiment in a handful of minds.

The main champions of the other fundamental US approach to Europe in the 20th century were President Eisenhower and the eminent diplomat George F. Kennan (the author of the famous “Long Telegram” from Moscow of 1946, which helped to galvanize awareness of the dangers posed by the Soviet Union). Their position was directly opposed to Roosevelt’s: they were convinced that Europe should be strengthened, not weakened, therefore it was essential to maintain an interim US military presence on the continent and encourage its economic and political integration. Only a reinforced Western Europe could resist the Soviet Union in the long run. Only a strong and prosperous Europe could solve the problem of a divided Germany and lure the satellite states of central and Eastern Europe with its positive example. But they insisted on the temporary nature of a US presence, arguing that eventually Europe should provide for its own defense: Europe should not get soft and used to the idea of having America protect it in any situation. As Eisenhower put it in the fifties: “It is not possible, and most certainly not desirable, that Europe should be an occupied territory defended by legions brought in from abroad…” The task of the USA was to encourage the emergence of a third great power bloc which would. become America’s friend and help it solve the international problems of a multipolar world order. But even the pro-Europe Kennan found it difficult to tolerate France’s vehement geopolitical ambitions to build a Europe keeping an equal distance from the USA and the Soviet Union. As he once quipped: I was a Gaullist before de Gaulle.

Dean Acheson’s Europe policy was a synthesis of the previous two, the one to subordinate Europe and the other to restore its strength and make it an equal partner. Acheson believed that the fate of Europe was too important to the US to be left to Europeans alone. And this would have been true even if the Soviet Union had not existed. Consequently — and this was in line with what he was hearing from most realistic European politicians — a Western alliance was needed in which Europe did not play an equal role with the USA. In other words, instead of a tripolar world order, Europe would become part of America’s western empire by invitation. The Acheson view, which became the predominant one from the 1950s onwards, was based on the following key assumptions: a certain degree of (Western) European integration was useful for the West and opposing it would trigger an anti-American reaction, nonetheless, US hegemony had to be maintained to guarantee that Europe could withstand Russia’s pressure. NATO was the key western institution of this setup as the guarantor and executor of America’s dominant role.

Harper calls this world order a semi duopoly, in which Europe recognized that it could not guarantee its own geopolitical position and security and the USA recognized that it needed Europe as its key ally to maintain this world order. It was within the framework of this paradigm, which existed for decades, that the European Union carried out its internal construction. Naturally, the end of the Cold War forced a reevaluation of many things, including the international order and EU-US relations in it. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the western world lived in euphoria for years. For a brief while it was even believed that the “end of history” had come, inasmuch as Professor Fukuyama’s theory was widely accepted that western liberal democracy, as the final form of human government, had claimed the ultimate victory. The United States had won the Cold War, which for Europe meant a significant devaluation of its geopolitical importance: the USA could finally turn its attention to emerging parts of the world and start consolidating a new unipolar world order. Europe could continue its ever-closer integration, introduce the euro as a single currency and allow in the former satellite countries of Central and Eastern Europe as fully-fledged members of the EU. The USA became intoxicated by unipolarity and allowed its frustration over grievances (for example during the Iraq conflict) to lead its relations with European countries to deteriorate. The paradigm of semi-duopoly was replaced by the unipolar worldview of the neoconservative Bush era. In other words, America no longer felt the need to have Europe by its side to manage the world’s affairs.

The contemporary neoconservative view of Europe is influenced not only by geostrategic considerations but also by moral value judgments: Europe is becoming objectively weaker, on top of which its leaders are seen the same way as those soft and feeble Europeans who appeased Hitler in the 30s and watched with their arms folded while the Nazis extended their power. Europe is a decadent society living in a postmodern dream world leading to complete decay. In addition, Europe continues to sabotage the international policy and ambitions of the USA, the only remaining standard bearer and defender of western civilization (just think of America’s sense of mission). Naturally, the post-9/11 atmosphere of revenge present in American political circles and society greatly contributed to the dominance of neoconservative principles. Much of Europe responded to various US military actions coldly, with rejection or sabotage, which stirred in US government circles a degree of anti-Europeanism unseen for a long time. The opinion of Richard Perle, an influential neocon political advisor, reflects these sentiments well. He once said that Europeans were unwilling to invest in the defense industry because they were only interested in their own comfort. Europe’s wariness of excessive American power, however, pre-dates the neocon era; it developed gradually in Western Europe, especially France following World War II. The contemporary French critique of the United States as a “hyperpuissance” did not begin during the Bush administration but was already to the fore during the Clinton administration, which maintained friendly ties with Europe. Its main outlines were strongly marked in Gaullism and indeed the historical roots are deeper still: as early as 1817, John Quincy Adams, who went on to become US President, forewarned that Europeans would one day see the USA as a “dangerous nation”.

Although they may not admit it, neocons are bothered by the fact that Europe rejects a foreign policy based on sheer force and presents an alternative approach to the world and its problems. The neoconservative era had brought about one psychological novelty for Europeans: their covert anti-Americanism has been an almost natural element of trans-Atlantic relations but, during the war in Iraq, they experienced the same resentment from the side of the USA. The election of President Obama seemed to hold the promise of a fresh start in trans-Atlantic relations, not only because of the President’s personality but also because his advocacy of a new rulebook for the new world order would necessitate close cooperation between the two western power blocs.

How do American politicians and commentators see Europe’s present and future geopolitical role and relations with the USA? Once again, there are plenty of theories to choose from.

Fareed Zakaria, the prominent foreign affairs columnist, believes that Europe could greatly contribute to the world’s stability by accepting Turkey’s bid for EU membership, but as it holds Turkey in limbo (with an eventual “No” more likely than not), it contributes to increased international instability. But above all, Europe is missing the opportunity to regain its status as a key geostrategic actor to be reckoned with.

Robert Zoellick, former deputy Secretary of State and President of the World Bank since 2007, is a popular figure in Europe. He is convinced that Europe’s worldview is distorted by its own self-identity. International negotiations and consultations are a successful means of solving problems in an EU context but do not always work in every case elsewhere in the world. The innate European attitude means a clear preference for maintaining the status quo, whatever the international issue. This attitude makes it difficult to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Europeans are convinced that any effort to change the world is doomed to fail.

Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor who shaped American geopolitical thinking for decades, is a member of the right-wing realistic school. He sees a growing gap between the US and Europe in military capabilities, as well as technological and economic development. Europe is going downhill, without the political will and the ability to pursue its geopolitical interests successfully or protect itself in the swiftly changing circumstances of the 21st century. Its troubles are further aggravated by its catastrophic demographic prospects. At first glance, it is not easy to distinguish between the realist and the neocon views of Europe, but there is a huge difference: realists are saddened by Europe’s decline, while neocons are pleased about it. Kissinger believes that the future shape of the world is going to be fashioned by three geopolitical processes (revolutions, as he calls them). Firstly, the drift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Secondly, the radical Islamist challenge to historic notions of sovereignty. Thirdly, the transformation of the traditional state system of Europe. All of these may even lead to the creation of a European political union.

It was Henry Kissinger, the then National Security Advisor, who in 1972 famously posed the oft-quoted rhetorical question: “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” The question remains unanswered; Europe still does not speak with a single voice, it still does not have a common foreign policy and the political union is still not a reality. Europe’s economic unity is tangible both within its boundaries (for European companies and citizens) and outside. However, the Kissinger question pertained to the lack of political unity. It is unlikely that — as many Europeans believe — Kissinger was trying to poke fun at Europe.

To non-Europeans, “European foreign policy” is an obscure, complicated, multi-tier system. On the one hand, it incorporates member states’ own traditional foreign policies (especially of those who are significant actors internationally); on the other hand, it includes the nominally common EU foreign policy as well as the defense policy (launched in the wake of the wars of former Yugoslavia). In other words, it is the sum of principles and actions that member states consult each other on or adopt with unanimity. Finally, it even includes those truly common foreign policies that are more commercial in nature, such as development policy or trade policy, both of which are run from Brussels.

With member states taking turns at the helm of the EU for six-month stints, its international partners find it difficult to take Europe seriously. Member states have never really warmed to the idea of a common foreign policy; most of them persist with their own national foreign policies. These are far more important than Community projects, which are slow and cumbersome to implement. In a European Union of 28 one cannot seriously talk about equal diplomatic partners, even if that would be formally correct. The foreign policy horizon of smaller member states rarely extends beyond relations with neighboring states or emergencies; therefore they can add little value when it comes to deciding global issues. The key problem remains that nobody knows who makes the common foreign policy, who speaks for Europe. This issue has not been solved by the Lisbon treaty and the establishment of the post of the European foreign policy representative and the EU external action service.

The evolution of a “common” European foreign policy is a painfully slow process: the so-called European Political Cooperation (a synonym for consultations between foreign ministries) was only superseded by foreign policy coordination — misleadingly labeled the common foreign and security policy — a quarter of a century later. European defense cooperation is in an embryonic stage. Europe’s total defense spending is about half of the USA’s 350 billion, but the main reason behind its military weakness is the fragmentation of its national armies. The number of American soldiers readily deployable oversees nears half a million, compared with less than a hundred thousand in the EU.

When World War II ended and the Cold War began, the European powers realized that their glory days were over and they desperately needed the American nuclear umbrella. With the Cold War over and former satellite countries inside the EU, the former relative cohesion loosened and during the Iraq crisis European foreign policy failed spectacularly. The old continent split into two camps along the lines of their position on the war; trans-Atlantic relations fell to their lowest ebb in decades. In November 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary who was later forced to resign because of failures in Iraq, put Germany in the group of “problem countries” together with Iran and Libya. In return, the German Minister of Justice compared him to Hitler. Who would have thought just a few decades earlier that such a thing could ever happen? Statements like “you are either with us or with the terrorists” by President Bush or the “old Europe — new Europe” classification by the Defense Secretary did not exactly help either. Implicit or open messages, covert or overt threats of armed response, sophisticated economic sanctions and abusive statements escalated on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe’s response to the US policy of “divide et impera” was a surge of anti-Americanism. The two nests of Western culture seemed to have drifted apart.

America’s arrogance only stoked the fire of Europe’s deep-seated anti-Americanism. Displays of American-friendliness by Central and Eastern European countries, which had just shaken loose of Russian oppression, earned them reproaches from Western Europe and the ratings of the British prime minister fell fast. During the second term of the Bush administration and especially after the election of President Obama things began to return to normal, but the US still does not consider the EU a potent foreign policy actor capable of unified and determined action.

Let me cite one example to illustrate my point! In 2008, The Wall Street Journal called the EU’s ultimatum to Russia on Georgia a joke. “Stop! Or we’ll say stop again! With apologies to comedian Robin Williams, that’s the line that comes to mind when weighing the European Union’s declaration Monday on Russia’s continued occupation of Georgia.” — the front-page article ran.

“At a special meeting in Brussels, EU national leaders told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to abide by the terms of a French-brokered cease-fire, including a pullback of Russian troops to their pre-conflict positions. If he doesn’t do so, they warned they will hold another meeting. It’s been almost three weeks since Mr. Medvedev signed the cease-fire, and five days since Moscow broke with the world by recognizing the self-declared independence of Georgian provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Yet European leaders evidently need more time to ruminate over the situation in the Caucasus.”

The Wall Street journal added that during a post-summit press conference Nicolas Sarkozy was justly posed the question: Is the EU a “paper tiger”? Mr. Sarkozy, visibly angered, responded: “Demonstrations of force, verbal aggression, sanctions, countersanctions . . . will not serve anyone.” “What Europe needs is political will”, the conservative paper wrote, adding that

“Mr. Sarkozy would do better to name and shame those member states whose desire to curry favor with Moscow keeps the EU from taking a firmer stand.”

The same thing happened a few years later at the time when the Ukraine crisis hit: US foreign policy staff was very disappointed by the slow and timid reaction of the EU.

Would Americans be irritated by a move towards closer political integration in the EU, making it a federation of states with a more united and robust foreign policy and a higher profile? This was the question I put to all the analysts, diplomats and political scientists I met over the last few years. Much to my surprise, they all said: No. On the contrary, the USA has an interest in ensuring that the EU can respond in a united way to conflict situations and play a diplomatic and military role that its economic might entitles it to.

The idea of creating a European political union has intrigued both European and American leaders for centuries. George Washington, whom Napoleon deeply admired, prophesied in his correspondence to the Marquis de Lafayette that one day Europe would follow the example of the United States of America. It looks like we are in for a long wait.

During the Cold War it was the Soviet Union, in the 21st century it will be Asia, and in particular China that will lie at the heart of American foreign policy. The China-focused nature of US foreign policy is the consequence of geopolitical realities, which Europe can do little about. Nonetheless, by being fragmented, Europe devalues its international role and makes it difficult for the US to consider it an actor with as much influence as its real weight would justify. Europe does not have a face, does not speak with one voice, does not even speak the same language and cannot be relied on when help is needed quickly.

This is roughly how I can summarize the criticism of American diplomacy.

The interests and positions of big EU member states often differ on strategic issues such as involvement in military intervention or managing the global financial crisis. A more important, albeit less obvious problem is that major European powers have different visions about Europe’s role and future. These differences make it extremely difficult to forge common, coherent and effective international action.

America is aware of Europe’s key dilemma of “deepening or widening”: push on with enlargement and let new members in or focus on building a political union instead? The United States faced a somewhat similar situation in the 19th century when the original 13 states acquired new territories through wars and land purchases, expanding their influence and principles of state organization to a growing area. This expansion was the key to America’s success: it created the world’s largest single market, which spawned the world’s largest corporations in just a few decades’ time. A vast economic and political bloc was formed, which was protected by oceans both from the east and the west, making the USA inward looking in many aspects.

By the end of the Bush era, the United States looked like a bust state with no self-confidence. The intervention in Iraq was not only and primarily a military and political failure; it isolated the United States internationally and sparked anti-American sentiments globally. By the end of 2008, the economy was badly shaken, the world’s biggest banks were wiped out in days, and the stock markets went into freefall. President Bush delivered a dramatic televised speech explaining to the American people why a record-size 700 billion dollar government rescue package was needed and why — against the most fundamental of Republican and American instincts — large corporations needed to be nationalized. The country wanted change and wanted it badly, which led to the election of a Democrat as President with an impressive margin unseen since the victory of Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

But Barack Obama (called simply “the post-imperial president” by Newsweek2) could not do wonders. He inherited the leadership of a country with a dented image, which was spiritually uncertain and economically on its knees. It says a lot that, in the run-up to Election Day, Barack Obama’s bedside reading was Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World. The situation of Obama’s America is very similar to the situation of Great Britain in his grandfather’s time, when it was on the eve of its 20th century decline. The economic challenges of today are comparable to those that Franklin D. Roosevelt had to face at the time of the Great Depression – except that, in the 1930s, the United States was a rising power in geopolitical terms. “America is like a company on the brink of bankruptcy. In the last eight years we have lost most of our credibility”.”Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” These words come from Roosevelt’s inaugural address in 1932, but could just as well have been from Obama at the start of his presidency in 2009.

Today it is universally accepted that, after the end of the Cold War, in turn the unipolar world order and America’s hegemony are coming to a close. American foreign policy must respond to the changing realities. The Obama administration has declared its intention to adopt a “smart power” approach to foreign policy, which puts diplomacy and foreign aid on an equal footing with military action.

Obviously, the previous administration’s stance was incompatible with the new administration’s commitment to multilateral, cooperative international politics. More money is devoted to improving the linguistic skills of American diplomats – in particular for languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi and Urdu, which gives us a broad idea of the new diplomatic priorities. A number of American authors, among them the pro-European Democrat Sven Steinmo, warned Europe not to have exaggerated expectations, arguing that the United States will not be radically different under Obama. As Steinmo points out, America’s laws are passed by Congress and the President only has the right of veto. Members of the House and Senate are elected to serve the interests of their voters in their respective constituencies and states and most of them have little insight into international affairs. Moreover, the United States remains divided.

As it normally does, the Obama’s popularity started to fall, but he still could secure a second term. As for the EU-USA relations and the perceptions of the US government of the EU: those who predicted that no miracle would occur in this respect were right: the Obama administration did not alter the geopolitical focus of the US in the favour of Europe.

Notwithstanding the fact that some of his political opponents portrayed Obama as a closet European (there were remarks such as why doesn’t he run a Western-European country, or he seems to agree with the European, anti-American sentiment, or even that he wants to build the United States of France) his government’s geopolitical focus further drifted towards the Pacific from the Atlantic. At the same time, the honeymoon between Europe and Obama’s America was over as well. By October 2009, The Economist3 had already started to speak again about the Atlantic divide. Obama shocked Europeans by staying away from the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and humiliated the EU by refusing to come to Madrid to the EU-US summit. These were strong and clear negative signals to Europe already half a decade ago. By the end of 2010, Obama mania seemed to be over in Europe.

The new and robust impetus for the reinforcement of bilateral relations is the grand trade and economic agreement the so-called TTIP. A lot will depend on how this is being managed and how successful this partnership will become over the next decade.

A smooth and mutually fruitful economic partnership will nevertheless not solve everything in itself. Better geopolitical cooperation is also necessary to mend fences and to guarantee the delivery of mutually accepted foreign policy objectives. The US clearly expects Europe to pledge to stand by its main ally if firm action becomes necessary.

America wants Europe to take a firmer stance against China, and an ever more provocative Russia. In essence, the United States would like the European Union to cooperate more closely and operate more effectively as a partner by its side. The USA would not mind an EU with a more pronounced international political profile, especially if it meant a quicker and more efficient response to international crisis situations.

*Attila Marjan, Hungarian economist, PhD in international relations. Based in Brussels for fourteen years as diplomat and member of EU commissioners’ cabinets. Two times visiting fellow of Wilson Center in Washington DC. University professor and author of books on EU affairs and geopolitics. Head of department, National University of Public Administration, Budapest. First published by www.moderndiplomacy.eu

The post American Views On Europe’s Geopolitical Clout – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(Yarmouk camp, Damascus) — Several credible reports this week from Palestinian refugees in Syria and Europe, the latter among those who by various means managed to escape the Syrian conflict with their lives, illustrate the increasing pressure and dangers Palestinians are facing here just trying to survive. And the chances of survival are not likely to improve anything soon.

Three serious cases over the past few days were reported to the Beirut-Washington DC based Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program (sssp-lb.org) which since the beginning of this year has been able to modestly assist a number of Palestinians from Syria obtain visas and refuge in Europe. Providing some cash, sometimes intervention with the Kafkaesque problems they face at the Syria-Lebanon Masnaa border crossing and often contacting Lebanese General Security regarding those agencies seemingly ever changing requirements and unannounced restrictions. Problems for arrivals from Syria trying to reach European embassies in Lebanon have recently been compounded as the government imposes yet more strict measures for their entry and forward movement to Europe. SSSP has been able to provide some housing in South Beirut while Palestinians from Syria wait to receive their visas-usually a six day process- and then provides transportation to Beirut airport as the Palestinians seek a new life in Europe, pending return to their own country, Palestine.

What is happening this week to Palestinians at Syrian checkpoints between Damascus and the Turkish border has alarmed the Palestinian community here and their supporters. The reason is that once a Palestinian refugee arrives in Europe, the person can apply for refugee status also for a child, parent or spouse, who, for various reasons were forced to stay behind in Syria. After some months, the European country normally issues visas in favor of the family members so they can travel and the family is reunited. So far so good…but perhaps no longer.

A related case involves minors who sometime arrive to Europe by themselves without a parent. Such as a precious and precocious 15 year old school-girl from Yarmouk camp, ‘Farah’ who last week traveled, on her own, ignoring this observers fatherly advice, and without a visa, made it to Turkey where she boarded an inflatable boat at Ayvalik with 30 other passengers, and since the motor conked out took turns rowing to the Greek island of Lesbos paying $1000 to a ‘holding bank’ in Turkey to be paid to the trafficker once she arrived in Lesbos and submitted a code from the bank ( the normal fare from Ayvalik, Turkey to the Greek island Lesbos, on a regular secure and insured tourist boat is 30 euros).

An addition to “Farah”, record breaking numbers of migrants are arriving on Lesbos these days, overwhelming local authorities who identify, screen and register arrivals and send them on to the Greek mainland, usually Athens. On 7/5/2015, a record 1,600 Syrians and Palestinians, and some others, arrived at Lesbos in a 24 hour period, whereas the previous daily record was around 500 and where monthly arrivals have grown from 737 in January and 1,002 in February, to 3,348 in March. Almost 5,000 arrived in April and over 7,200 in May. As of this week, more than 6000 refugees have arrived at Lesbos and the numbers keep swelling, part of the 110,000 Palestinian refugees from Syria who have fled to Europe.

As we all know, trips such as these are dangerous. Palestinian refugees from Syria are increasingly trying, in the following order of preference, to travel to Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Britain, and France to find safety and dignity. About 40,000 have succeeded to date (270,000 Syrians have applied for asylum in Europe so far). Thousands of other Palestinians forced to use ‘death boats’ have died trying. For example, on 11/10/2013, around 200 Palestinian refugees from Syria drowned. On 6/9/2014, a boat carrying 400 refugees, including a large number of Palestinian Syrians, capsized and only 11 survived. In addition, since late 2011 until today, approximately 3000 Palestinians have been killed inside Syria without a ceasefire likely anytime soon.

But “Farah” arrived to Lesbos safely last week and was ecstatic when she called me and reported that the six hour boat ride was “fun on the calm sea.” Her good luck continued as she got off the boat and started to figure out what to do next because some Danish tourists saw her and helped her. Three days later “Farah” arrived in Sweden to a new life and plans to apply in the next few days for her parents in Yarmouk to come as soon as possible and unite the family, as allowed in the case of minors by all European countries but not Lebanon. But this young lady’s dream may not come true.

As noted above new procedures at Syrian checkpoints have potentially shattered “Farahs” and other Palestinians dreams of families being reunited in Europe. The reason is that this week credible reports that Palestinian family members who have received visas to join loved ones in Europe including parents of minors in Europe, are being blocked at Syrian checkpoints and are being jailed or returned to Damascus. There has been no government regulation promulgated on this subject to date and details are still murky. On 7/8/2015 this observer received a Skype call from an eight member Yarmouk family that the SSSP had helped to resettle in the Netherlands. They reported that their parents, while en route to Turkey to fly to the Netherlands were stopped at a checkpoint in Syria north of Homs, arrested and jailed. After a few days friends arranged a bribe and they were freed but they were warned by their jailers that “Palestinians can no longer leave Syria for Europe via Turkey or any other route.” As with two other reported cases this week, the only explanation they were given was “if Palestinians left Syria they would lose the Right to Return to Palestine.”

Of course this outrageous feeble excuse is patent nonsense. Every Palestinian refugee on earth from the Nakba or Naksa and her offspring is invested at birth with the Full Right of Return and this right is inalienable and cannot to ceded, relinquished, bargained away or abolished by political leaders, neither by PA officials negotiating with the Zionist apartheid regime or by anyone else. A Palestinians Full Right of Return is individual and vested in perpetuity–at birth.

But what the new “policy” here does mean is that “Farah” and other families from among the more than 110,000 Palestinians who have fled Syria (270,000 Palestinians are internally displaced inside Syria and most of the rest are under siege) may not be able to be reunited until the conflict ends or this new checkpoint practice is repealed. UNWRA and UNHCR have been informed of this recent devastating development and have pledged they will investigate. So should Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and like-minded humanitarian organizations.

Despite the fact that the Palestinian community in Syria, from the beginning of this conflict, vowed to avoid any involvement and to preserve the symbolism of their cause among the whole population as well as maintain Palestinian relations with the Syrian government that has given them more civil rights than any other Middle East country, it does not appear likely that in near term scenarios for ending this conflict carry positive prospects for the Palestinians in Syria. Myriad efforts to enlist the Palestinians in the Syrian conflict has not done much to alter the balance of power among the main belligerents here, but it has benefited the occupiers of Palestine and resulted in more suffering which today includes the lack of basic family needs such as food and water, fuel, electricity, healthcare and even ability to communicate with loved ones. In addition to Yamouk, the camps of Khan al-Sheikh, al-Narab and Handarat in the governorates of Damascus and Aleppo which this observer has visited, are under siege and are facing death.

As a recent (7/8/2015) analysis by Al-Zaytouna Centre’s Maher Shawish suggests, whether the conflict continues or the Syrian state disintegrates into sectarian and ethnic entities, Palestinian suffering will continue here, and their numbers will decline in Syria.

The deterioration of conditions of Palestinians in Syria could stop if the rival parties, with support from their regional and international sponsors, could arrive at a political settlement that preserves the Syrian state and its unity as well as the central cause of people of good will in this region. The cause of Palestine.

The post The Noose Is Tightening Around Syria’s Palestinians – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras won backing from lawmakers today (11 July) for painful reform proposals aimed at obtaining a new international bailout, but he faced a rebellion in his own party that could threaten his majority in parliament.

The measures, which received an initial nod from European Union and International Monetary Fund officials before a meeting of euro zone finance ministers later today, were passed with the support of pro-European opposition parties.

With Greece’s banks shut and completely dependent on a credit lifeline from the European Central Bank, the measures were seen as a last chance to avert the collapse of the financial system and prevent Greece from being pushed out of the euro.

In an ominous sign for the stability of the government, however, 10 deputies on the ruling benches either abstained or voted against the measures and another 7 were not present, leaving Tsipras short of the 151 seats needed for a majority of his own.

Tsipras had said that he would resign if he lost the vote in Parliament. Some quoted him as saying that he would resign if he falls short of 151 lawmakers from his own camp.

The vote sugests that in order to implement the reforms, Tsipras would need the continuous support of the opposition in Parliament.

It is also unclear how would a government where several hardliners sit implement the reforms.

Prominent leftwingers in the governing Syriza party signalled before the vote that they could not support the mix of tax hikes and spending cuts proposed by Tsipras, following the rejection of similar austerity measures by voters in Sunday’s referendum.

Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis, Deputy Labour Minister Dimitris Stratoulis as well as the speaker of parliament, Zoe Constantopoulou, all called “Present”, in effect abstaining from the vote and withholding their support from the government.

“The government is being totally blackmailed to acquiesce to something which does not reflect what it represents,” Constantopoulou said.

Following the vote in parliament, where many leftists in his own party were stunned by his acceptance of previously spurned austerity measures, Tsipras said he would now focus on securing a deal.

“The parliament today gave the government a strong mandate to complete the negotiations and reach an economically viable and socially fair agreement with its partners,” Tsipras said.

“The priority now is to have a positive outcome to the negotiations. Everything else in its own time.”

Experts from the European Commission, ECB and the IMF spent Friday reviewing the Greek case for aid and the proposals for economic reforms that will be conditions for any loans.

A person close to the matter told Reuters that EU and IMF officials had given euro zone governments a positive initial assessment of Greece’s request for a new bailout.

The positive evaluation, along with a conclusion that Athens needs a total of some €74 billion to meet its obligations, will form a key part of discussions among euro zone finance ministers when they meet in Brussels at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).

But after the jubilation in Athens on Sunday following the resounding rejection of further austerity in a referendum, there was bitterness that parliament was being asked to accept a strikingly similar package of measures.

The leader of the right wing Independent Greeks party, the junior coalition party in Tsipras’ government, said his lawmakers would back the proposals “with a heavy heart.”

Five members of Syriza’s hardline Left Platform wing signed a letter saying it would be better to return to the drachma, Greece’s pre-euro currency, than to swallow more austerity with no debt write-off.

“The proposals are not compatible with the Syriza programme,” Lafazanis, who belongs to the far-left faction, told Reuters before the vote.

Underlining the unhappiness of many on the left at the government’s apparent embrace of austerity, a few thousand demonstrators gathered in front of parliament before the vote to protest against the measures.

‘Serious and credible’

Germany, which has contributed more to bailouts than any other country, sounded wary. A finance ministry spokesman ruled out any debt restructuring that would lower its real value.

France, Greece’s strongest supporter in the euro zone, rushed to offer praise. President François Hollande called the offer “serious and credible”. Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem described it as a “thorough piece of text” but declined to go into specifics.

“Broad support in Greece gives it more credibility, but even then we need to consider carefully whether the proposal is good and if the numbers add up,” he told reporters. “One way or the other, it is a very major decision we need to take.”

The lenders’ backing is crucial for euro zone leaders to support the proposals. Dijsselbloem, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, ECB President Mario Draghi and IMF head Christine Lagarde discussed the plan in a teleconference.

The euro gained more than 1% against the dollar and European markets rallied on the improved prospects for a last-ditch deal to keep Greece in the currency area. Italian, Spanish and Portuguese bond yields fell, reflecting perceptions of reduced risk.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Greece and its creditors appeared to be closer to a deal, calling for an adjustment to Athens’ debt burden to ease its cash flow.

Greece still has to overcome hardening attitudes towards it among euro zone partners.

Some, including a senior member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party, greeted the latest reform proposals with scepticism. Slovakia’s finance minister questioned whether the proposals went far enough.

A senior EU official said the meeting of finance ministers from the 19-nation euro area would include discussions on whether Greece needs some debt relief on a third bailout programme despite exasperation at the five-year-old Greek crisis.

Greece asked for €53.5 billion to help cover its debts until 2018, a review of primary surplus targets in the light of the sharp deterioration of its economy, and a “reprofiling” of the country’s long-term debt.

Any new deal would also have to be endorsed by national parliaments including in Germany.

Estonia’s parliament was the first to give the government conditional authorisation for loan negotiations with Greece, provided the Commission finds sufficient basis for the talks.

But Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, whose country is the most recent newcomer to the euro, said the Greek proposal was based on old economic data and would probably not be enough.

Several protests against the package took place on Friday. “The new measures are suffocating,” said Irini Skordara, 79, one of dozens of pensioners queuing outside a bank to withdraw their pension.

‘Right choice’

Former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, who alienated many euro zone partners with his outspoken lectures, said in a statement he supported the effort to renegotiate Greece’s debt but was unable to attend parliament “for family reasons”.

The latest offer includes defence spending cuts, a timetable for privatising state assets such as Piraeus port and regional airports, hikes in value added tax for hotels and restaurants and slashing a top-up payment for poorer pensioners.

“The ‘No’ in the referendum appears to be turning into a ‘Yes’ from Tsipras,” Commerzbank analyst Markus Koch said.

Greek banks have been closed since 29 June, when capital controls were imposed and cash withdrawals rationed after the collapse of previous bailout talks. Greece defaulted on an IMF loan repayment and now faces a critical July 20 bond redemption to the ECB, which it cannot make without aid.

The country has had two bailouts worth €240 billion from the euro zone and the IMF since 2010, but its economy has shrunk by a quarter, unemployment is at more than 25% and one in two young people is out of work.

“The prime minister seems to have made the right choice between his party and the interest of Greece,” an editorial in the centre-right daily Kathimerini said.

“His decision to accept a tough package of measures will ensure the country stays in the euro. This is not the time for gripes and assessing the damage, what’s most important is securing the country’s interests and its place in the euro zone.”

The post Greece: Tsipras Wins Backing For Concessions, But Faces Rebellion appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mehmet Yegin

The Obama administration has updated its strategy towards the Islamic State. The updates were announced by President Obama on July 6 at the Pentagon and were delineated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter one day later during the Senate Armed Services Committee’s hearing on the counter-ISIS strategy. The update introduces additional precautions and proposes new solutions to the problems faced in the implementation of the already existing four-pillar approach. Supplementing the items already outlined in the original strategy, Secretary Carter identified “nine synchronized lines of efforts” that are hoped to further realize the aim of degrading and destroying ISIS.

While the update augments the U.S.’s posture in the fight against ISIS, the core components of the strategy have remained unchanged. With the update, the U.S. has voiced its expectation that local actors take the initiative on the ground in a clearer way. Thus, the updated strategy designates the air campaign against ISIS as a mission that is supportive of motivated ground forces rather than a mission that intends to lead confronting ISIS. With this approach, the Obama administration has focused on the homeland security dimension in the fight against ISIS, urging local/regional actors themselves to combat the group in the Middle East. Nonetheless, this approach is by no means problem free.

Kurds at the Center of the Strategy

The U.S., whether deliberately or passively, is ascribing a grandiose role for the Kurds in Iraq and Syria considering the current dynamics unfolding on the ground. In this regard, the main motto of the updated strategy is to work with “willing and capable partners” on the ground. More importantly, it is expected that the ground forces not only push back ISIS fronts but also provide governance in the territories taken from the organization. This seems consistent with the U.S.’s overall approach to prevent the disintegration of governing structures. However, in reality this approach means that Kurds are granted implicit U.S. support in expanding the amount of territory under their control and the permanence of their endeavors to govern them.

This assertion primarily stems from the fact that the only qualified actor that meets the criteria set out in the strategy update is the Kurds. In Iraq, it is only the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) that is capable of taking on this role as it possesses coherent ground forces and has received arms support from more than 12 countries. The Iraqi Army has repeatedly failed in its endeavor to stem the ISIS tide and its sectarian and professional deficiencies are becoming increasingly obvious. Furthermore, in this context, it has been expected by many that Sunni Arabs in Iraq would be recruited and armed by Baghdad. Yet considering the current sectarian atmosphere it is not logical to expect the Baghdad administration to recruit a high number of Sunnis and then to properly equip them with weapons.

In Syria the imbalances in favor of the Kurds, namely the Democratic Union Party (PYD), are even more acute. Only 60 out of 7,000 Sunni Arabs fulfilled the high level of standards for participation in the train-equip program that is being arranged by the Coalition against ISIS. While Secretary Carter referred to various laws and regulations in his explanation of the updated strategy, at the end of the day, the consequences of such an emphasis on local ground forces put Sunni Arabs in a disadvantaged position. Moreover, as Senator John McCain pointed out, Sunni Arabs are not granted guarantees by the U.S. against Assad’s barrel bombs while Kurds remain largely unthreatened by the Syrian regime.

If the U.S. maintains this approach, there is a high chance that an imbalanced order could emerge on the ground. This is especially true in Syria, where the PYD has the capability to take greater amounts of territory from ISIS and establish permanent control thereover, thus resulting in a scenario that sees Syria partitioned primarily between Assad and the PYD if the campaign against ISIS succeeds.

This situation is problematic for both the Kurds and with regard to the overall effort to combat ISIS. The KRG is well aware of the possible problems of such an approach along with its experience. This is illustrated in the fact that KRG President Masoud Barzani’s Peshmerga forces are not willing to fight in the Sunni Arab dominated areas of Iraq, primarily in Ramadi and Mosul. The KRG recognizes that such an approach would cause it to overstretch its forces and become more vulnerable. Besides, it is also aware that such a move could stir the animosity of local Sunni Arabs and other regional actors as well. The PYD on the other hand is not even aware of these dynamics. Despite the limited Kurdish population in the cities of northern Syria, it continues to greedily seize large chunks of territory. However, it is not exempt from the problems foreseen by the KRG and may in fact be even more vulnerable to regional tensions and overstretching.

Furthermore, the disparity between the positions of the Kurds and Sunni Arabs has the potential to increase suspicions of the U.S.’s intentions in the region. Besides, this approach also risks the overall success of the fight against ISIS as well. It has to be kept in mind that a decisive victory against ISIS may come only if Sunni Arabs themselves defeat the organization. Kurds may boast tactical successes, but they cannot solve the root of the problem that sparked ISIS’s formation.

Assad to Leave Office by Himself

The U.S. approach towards Syria does not exhibit a consistent plan on how Assad should leave office. The Obama administration declares that it is against the all-out collapse of the regime (or the country’s governing structures), yet it does advocate that Assad step down. This is mainly due to the fear that a collapsed regime could open the path for ISIS to gain control over the whole of Syria. Nonetheless, the U.S. is not employing a military approach that would force Assad to consider leaving office. In Secretary Carter’s words, “we are trying to influence those who influence him [Bashar Assad] to remove himself from the government of Damascus while keeping intact the structures of governance”.

Why Assad would decide to willingly step down without facing a coercive push to do so remains unanswered. Compared to the past, the Assad regime is not currently facing strong confrontation, and it may even be argued that Assad has been successful in neutralizing the Western animosity as well. In this respect, why should Assad decide to step down considering all of his past efforts and the current diminishment of the threat to his regime on the ground? Why would he cling to power for so long only to relinquish control now? These questions illustrate the vague nature of the U.S.’s current approach to resolving the Syrian Civil War.

In short, the updated U.S. strategy is in line with President Obama’s approach of limited involvement of the U.S. military in the conflict. Nonetheless, according to General Martin Dempsey’s calculations, the strategy foresees 3 years until stability in Iraq is attained and 22 years until ISIS is ultimately degraded and destroyed. This is a very long time for regional actors to tolerate and shoulder the negative externalities of instability. And it also grants ample time for small cells to activate or for lone wolfs to stage attacks on U.S. soil.

The post Obama’s Updated Islamic State Strategy: A Grandiose Role For Kurds – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The ongoing stalemate in the governance of India’s National Capital Territory of Delhi is traceable not only to a political tussle between two democratically elected governments – one at the Centre and the other in Delhi itself – but also the Union Home Ministry’s contested position on a sensitive issue.

By Vinod Rai*

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, divided the country into four administrative divisions, viz. Parts A, B, C and D. The erstwhile provinces of colonial British India became the Part A states. The former Maharajas’ kingdoms (better known as the princely states that had accepted the British paramountcy) became the Part B states. Part C states were the centrally-administered areas. Part D comprised one territory. (Andaman and Nicobar Islands). Parts C states and part D territory were to be administered by the President through Chief Commissioners. In the Part D territory, unlike the Part C states, there was no provision for a legislative body. Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and the erstwhile princely states of Ajmer, Coorg, Bhopal, etc. constituted the Part C states.

Soon, however, the demand for redrawing state boundaries on the basis of linguistic identities emerged. As a consequence of this demand, the government set up the State Reorganisation Commission in 1953. Based on the recommendation of this Commission, 14 States and 6 union territories were created. In this reorganisation, Delhi ceased to exist as a Part C state and was converted into a union territory from 1 November 1956. The legislative assembly was abolished, and the territory came under the direct administration of the President in 1957. The Fourteenth Amendment Act of 1962, inserted as Article 239A, which provided for the creation of legislative assemblies and council of ministers for some of the union territories such as Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Delhi, along with Chandigarh and Lakshadweep were excluded from this provision.The public of Delhi continued to demand an elected government.

Following such a demand, the Delhi Administrative Act was passed in 1966, setting up the Metropolitan Council. This was a deliberative body of 56 elected- and 5 nominated-members. It was headed by a Lieutenant Governor (LG), with an Executive Council comprising one chief executive councillor and three executive councillors. This Council was a kind of hybrid body which was set up, as a compromise formula, with no legislative powers. It was mandated with only advisory powers in the governance of the city.

The demand for a full-fledged legislature for Delhi, therefore, continued. In 1987, the government set up the Balakrishnan Committee to review the administrative issues pertaining to the city’s governance. In its report submitted in 1989, this committee recommended that whilst Delhi might continue to be a union territory, there should be a legislative assembly and a council of ministers with appropriate powers to deal with ordinary issues of administration.

This recommendation led to the passing of the Government of the National Territory Act of 1991, which came into effect in 1992. This Act inserted special provisions in the Constitution for administering the national capital territory. Article 239 AA was inserted, stating that the legislative assembly shall have powers to make laws for the whole or part of the NCT, except matters with respect to Entries 1, 2 and 18 of the State List and Entries 64, 65 and 66 of that List if they are linked to Entries 1, 2 and 18. This in effect meant that the Legislative Assembly of Delhi would have no powers over such matters and personnel as public order, police, officers and high court servants and over the land of NCT. In effect, the Legislative Assembly of Delhi has considerably limited authority, compared to the legislative assemblies of full-fledged states.

The reality, therefore, is that Delhi is a full union territory. By definition, a union territory is centrally administered. The President administers it through the Lieutenant Governor (LG), the administrator, who is centrally appointed. The legislature and the council of ministers, conceded to Delhi in response to popular demand, are in place merely to aid and advise the LG.

Obviously, such aid and advice are not binding on the LG. The Delhi Government can pass laws on various areas barring police, public order and land. Separately Article 73 of the Constitution mandates that executive power is co-extensive with legislative power. So the elected government of Delhi does not have executive powers in these three areas which are reserved for the central government, implying the LG. Even in respect of the State list, the LG has to give his assent to bills passed by the legislature. The LG enjoys the powers to withhold assent, keep bills for as long as he likes or send them to the union government or the President for his or her consideration.

The constitutional reality is that the legislature of Delhi does not have full legislative powers, unlike in other states. So, any party that comes to power and forms the government in this union territory, must be conscious of this harsh reality, irrespective of whether they win 70 out of the total 70 seats in the Assembly, or a mere 36 giving them a thin majority. Delhi’s present Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has come to power, riding a massive wave of popular support and winning 67 of the 70 seats. Yet the constitutional reality is particularly relevant to the current situation in Delhi.

Constitutions, whether written or unwritten, do not always lay down every little detail in the administration of a state or a country. It is expected that those who operationalise the constitution will be politically mature people and do so in good faith, free of any political underpinning. The hybrid nature of the set-up in Delhi has come up for controversy in the past too. The very first Chief Minister of Delhi, Chowdhury Brahm Perkash, had to resign after a rather bitter tussle for power with Chief Commissioner Anand Datthaya Pandit in 1955. The then Chief Minister had termed that as actually a fight with the then Union Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant. In fact, it is widely believed that it was that fight which led to the abolition of the then Assembly. That was the time when Delhi was still one of the Part C states.

What we now witness as a rather ugly spat between the present Delhi government and the LG (read Central government) is a natural corollary to how the hybrid nature of Delhi’s constitutional position can lend itself to anomalous interpretations. An appointed LG will most certainly have a mind-set which is very different from an elected government or chief minister. Nevertheless, if the goals of both are good governance, development and improvement of societal welfare, ordinarily there would be no friction in governance. It is only when populist claims, playing to the gallery and the lack of an administrative model/roadmap are coupled with certain degrees of political machinations and inept handling of sensitive issues, does the cordiality in official dealings and the spirit of give-and-take become a casualty. The result: unproductive wrangling, negative output of human- and time- resources. The loser in the process is the public at large – their felt needs get a low priority, projects get delayed and the declared goals are not achieved. The net result in the entire imbroglio is an erosion of trust between the people and their elected government – maybe at the central, maybe at the state level. The ongoing tussle that the people of Delhi are so haplessly witnessing is a consequence of inadequate application of a robust, apolitical and objective mind-set single-mindedly dedicated to the welfare of the people and to providing the state with an ethical governance-model.

In the present case, the routine appointment of a purely temporary ‘caretaker’ chief secretary acted like a spark that lit the tinder box which was waiting to be ignited. If wise and more mature counsel had prevailed, the Chief Minister could have gone along with Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung’s recommendation of having a ‘stand-in’ temporary chief secretary appointed on the basis of the time-tested golden principle of seniority – a cardinal principle in governance. On the other hand, if the elected government had indeed very strong reasons for not accepting the most-senior officer, maybe a more flexible approach based on meticulous consultation and negotiation could have settled the matter to the satisfaction of both authorities. This obviously did not take place; or the situation did not develop to the satisfaction of one or more parties. All these led to the rather rigid interpretation of the constitutional provisions, thereby forcing decisions which in the long-run tend to become irritants that could finally lead to a conflagration.

The proverbial last straw was the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 21 May 2015, ostensibly clarifying that “Services” in the Delhi government fall within the purview of the LG, thus, the central government. The constitutional legality of this notification is being contested, and it will be adjudicated upon by the courts. Its timing certainly was ill-advised and ‘suspect’, as observed by the High Court of Delhi.

The proverbial bone of contention is simply this: whether the Delhi government has unfettered authority over its bureaucracy or does it have only recommendatory jurisdiction which it should exercise in a power-sharing arrangement with the LG. This is an issue requiring an interplay of the spirit of cooperative federalism. Much can be said or is being aid on both sides. Who was recalcitrant or rigid is an issue on which we need to pass judgment now. The notification sought to clarify that the democratically elected Delhi government does not have authority over its own public services which, therefore, fall within the purview of the Centre-appointed LG. The operative part of the notification reads: “The President hereby directs that – (i) subject to his control and further orders, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi shall, in matters connected with ‘ Public Order’, ‘ Land, ‘Police’, and ‘ Services’ as stated hereinabove, exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the central govt. to the extent delegated to him, from time to time, by the President.

Provided, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi may in his discretion, obtain the views of the Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in regard to the matter of ‘Services’ wherever he deems it appropriate”.

This notification appears to have been hastily issued by the Central government to establish its power over the public services in the state of Delhi. Control over the civil services was an issue which, in its own manner, was chugging along. The confidential reports of all IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officers, for example, are written by the chief secretary. The chief minister does review these reports but the final authority accepting them is the LG. Thus the chief minister has his say, since the All India Service officers of the AGMUT cadre (as the common cadre for these states is popularly known) can be posted to any of the states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram or Delhi. This ensures that the officers are not subject to the political vicissitudes of any single elected authority. The issue in Delhi could certainly have been resolved without a hastily-drafted executive order, the intent and legality of which are being challenged. This notification has added fuel to the fire, leading to a total breakdown of the possibility of rapprochement between Delhi’s elected government and nominated LG. The essence of the present debate is whether a notification can add a fourth subject to the existing three enumerated in the constitution. The eagle-eyed legal professionals will argue this fact. The courts will decide.

It is not that the constitutional position of the Delhi government over some administrative matters has not created complications earlier. Nevertheless, the veneer of cordiality and mutual respect between the two centres of authority was not allowed to degenerate. Even during the tenure of Sheila Dikshit, the previous chief minister, who incessantly demanded full statehood for Delhi, the relations with the then LG used to come under stress – though both were Congress party appointees. But a certain element of maturity and respect for each other’s positions did help to contain the differences. The phenomenon of a chief minister vilifying one of his own officers before a public gathering of auto rickshaw drivers was certainly a hitherto unseen low in such behaviour.

The National Territory of Delhi houses foreign embassies, the President’s estate, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and such other important national and international agencies. While, it may make for good politics for any political party in power in the Territory to demand statehood, there does not appear to be any possibility of such a demand being acceded to. The Congress Party, as represented by Sheila Dikshit, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (now ruling at the Centre), as represented by Sahib Singh Verma and Madan Lal Khurana, had made these demands when their parties were in power in Delhi. But these parties promptly forget the issue when they come to power at the Centre. Hence, it is not an issue which will lend itself to an easy and permanent solution anytime in the near-future. It will be in the interest of the parties who come to power to live with this hybrid structure and attempt to operate with maturity, sagacity and with the interest of the people of Delhi at heart. The Territory needs urgent attention on infrastructure, law and order situation and issues such as cleanliness, power, water and solid waste disposal. It is the responsibility of any elected government to address these issues in right earnest within the available constitutional provisions.

About the author:
*Mr Vinod Rai is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. He is a former Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He can be contacted at isasvr@nus.edu.sg and raivinod@hotmail.com. The author, not ISAS, is responsible for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper.

Source:
This article was published by ISAS as ISAS Insights Number 285 (PDF)

The post The Delhi Government: A Hybrid Structure – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

No one caught up in the Russian justice system is likely to be treated well, but Ukrainians caught in its traps are suffering in particular, according to Zoya Svetova, a journalist who is also a member of Moscow’s Public Oversight Commission. But now Kyiv may be about to take up their cause more vigorously.

If one examines the cases of Ukrainians now facing charges in Russian courts, she says, it is difficult not to conclude that “the impression is being created that beginning from May of law year, Ukraine has been intentionally sending to Russia murderers, terrorists, and spies and that the Russian special services have had to track the movements of all Ukrainians on [Russian] territory and find the criminals among them” (openrussia.org/post/view/8433/).

“I do not want to say,” she continues, “that all Ukrainians are saints and do not commit any crimes in particular in Russia. But those about whom I am speaking – and there are about ten or a few more – are people whose guilt is a matter of great doubt. Why? Because I almost do not have any doubt that [they] were subject to torture.”

And those who were not subject to torture in the strictest definition of that term were subject to “’psychological’” pressure of one kind or another.

The question inevitably arises: What is Ukraine doing about this? A little more than a year ago, one Ukrainian held in Moscow’s Lefortovo Prison told Svetova that he “very much hope[d] that my country, for the unity of which I struggled, will not desert me at the time of my misfortune.”

But nothing has happened over the last twelve months. One Ukrainian official, obviously sympathetic to the fate of Ukrainians under arrest in Russia, told Svetova that “we have a war going on, people are dying, and these poor people although they are sitting in jail are nonetheless alive. [Moreover,] it is very difficult so far to help them.”

Svetova says that “theoretically” she understands him. “But emotionally [she] doesn’t.” These people are losing months and years of their lives, and their government isn’t working to help them.

The situation may be about to change. Three days ago, Vasily Gripak, the new head of Ukraine’s intelligence service said that his agency is now investigating “more than 40” criminal cases Moscow has opened against Ukrainians (novayagazeta.ru/politics/69115.html).

Could that lead to a swap of prisoners as has sometimes been discussed in the case of Nadezhda Savchenko? Svetova asks. Or could it lead to other actions. At the very least, Gripak’s pledge and Svetova’s own article call attention to yet another in the long line of crimes by the regime of Vladimir Putin against the Ukrainian people.

The post Moscow’s Mistreatment Of Ukrainians In Russian Prisons Prompting Kyiv To Act – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Aghanistan’s intelligence service is reporting Saturday that Hafiz Saeed, who is said to be the Islamic State’s leader in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was killed Friday in a US drone attack in eastern Afghanistan.

A spokesperson for Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security told media that Hafiz Saeed was killed, along with more than 30 Islamic State militants, in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province in a US drone airstrike that acted on Afghan intelligence information.

“Based on NDS (National Directorate of Security) intelligence, Hafiz Saeed, the leader of IS in so called Khorasan state was killed in an air strike in Achin, Nangarhar province,” the NDS said in a statement posted online, reports Pakistan newspaper The Tribune.

While the US has yet to confirm the news, AFP is reporting that two IS-affiliated commanders in Afghanistan confirmed Saeed’s death.

The post Killed Islamic State Leader In Afghanistan And Pakistan By US Drone Attack – Reports appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rasheed Abou-Alsamh*

In this increasingly chaotic part of the world, with Daesh expanding in Syria and Iraq, a civil war that has ravaged Syria for more than four years now, and a relatively new one in Yemen, the Middle East is passing through some of its most turbulent times.

The death of former Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal on Thursday at the age of 75 in Los Angeles has hit all of us hard both because we will sorely miss the superb diplomat that he was, always pushing discreetly for Saudi Arabia’s strategic interests, but also because it marks the end of an era and the continuation of uncertain times that all Arab states face following the upheavals of the Arab Spring revolutions.

“After almost 40 years in service, Prince Saud Al-Faisal will be remembered as the key architect of Saudi diplomacy whose relentless efforts have ensured the protection of Saudi interests,” said Christian Koch, director of the Gulf Research Center to Al-Jazeera.

As foreign minister, Prince Saud was involved in helping resolve many regional conflicts in the Middle East, from the civil war in Lebanon to the Iran-Iraq War in 1988 when he flew to the United Nations in New York and phoned Saddam Hussein, convincing him to call an end to the eight-year war that killed hundreds of thousands on both sides. But he also faced many failures which were very frustrating, none more so that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He admitted publicly that this was his greatest disappointment. “All the neighborhood, if you will, will be at peace with Israel, will recognize their right to exist. If this doesn’t provide security of Israel, I assure you the muzzle of a gun is not going to provide that security,” Prince Saud said in 2002.

Prince Saud’s other big worry was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington by Al-Qaeda terrorists, 15 of whom were Saudis. He warned that it would produce many more problems than it would solve, and he was sadly right. Saddam Hussein, a bloody tyrant that had kept his country together for two decades, was overthrown and later executed, and the Shiites, once subjugated, were now in power. But they sought revenge against the Sunnis, and the neighboring Iranians poured in to help their Shiite brothers. With this messy situation, we saw the rise of militias and the ripping apart of Iraq, something the Americans were never able to handle. From all of this chaos has risen the terrorist group Daesh that so torments us in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and here at home in the Kingdom with their bloody attacks that kill innocent Muslims.

“If change of regime comes with the destruction of Iraq, then you are solving one problem and creating five more problems,” Prince Saud told a British television program. How right he was.

But Prince Saud should also be remembered for creating a modern Saudi diplomatic service that is something to be proud of today. We have come a long way from our first diplomatic representative at the United Nations. Today we have career diplomats, both men and women, who rise through the ranks by working at our diplomatic missions around the world helping Saudi citizens abroad and promoting and defending the interests of our nation.

One of the ways that the Kingdom has been able to do so has been through helping local Muslim communities around the world. Saudi embassies have been helping build mosques and bring in imams to run the mosques since the 1970s, working with the Ministry of Islamic Affairs and the Muslim World League. Here in Brazil, the Saudi Embassy has been responsible for helping build many mosques in several Brazilian cities, and for hiring imams. Prince Saud supported all of these efforts, which are a lynchpin of the Kingdom’s responsibilities as the home of Islam’s two holiest cities: Makkah and Madinah.

Prince Saud dedicated his life to public service and will always be remembered for that by Saudis and other Arabs. The younger generation of Arabs would do well to try and emulate some of his determination and calmness in getting things done.

That is the least they can do to try and keep his legacy alive.

*The writer is a Saudi journalist based in Brazil.

The post Prince Saud Al-Faisal: The Architect Of Saudi Diplomacy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah will decide on a government reshuffle until after the Eid next weekend, sources told Ma’an Saturday.

The president and prime minister reportedly met to discuss candidates for ministerial portfolios on Saturday evening but made no final decisions.

Sources said that another meeting would be scheduled following Eid al-Fitr, which takes place on either Friday or Saturday next week, to decide on the new cabinet and come to an agreement with Palestinian factions.

While PLO factions are reportedly seeking to form a completely new government along factional lines, sources said that Abbas wants the current unity government to carry on with only a reshuffle of several ministers.

There have been weeks of uncertainty about the state of the current government.

While there has been talk of a reshuffle for months, in mid-June it was announced at a Fatah council meeting that the entire government would soon be dissolved.

The PLO executive committee appointed a committee to consult Palestinian factions — including Hamas — on forming a new government, and it was widely expected that the new government would see factional leaders replace the current government’s independent technocrats.

However, the talks have so far proven fruitless, with Fatah officials claiming they reached an “impasse” and Hamas officials claiming they were not consulted beyond “some phone calls.”

At the beginning of this month, it was announced that President Abbas had assigned Hamdallah to make “slight changes” to the existing government, while talks on forming a new one were “ongoing.”

The unity government formed in June last year has repeatedly failed to overcome divisive issues between Fatah and Hamas and has been largely unable to operate in the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip.

In recent days the relationship between the two rival parties has taken a further hit, with security forces in the Fatah-led West Bank arresting more than 200 Hamas members in multiple detention raids.

The post Palestine Government Reshuffle Postponed Until After Eid appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Syrian troopers have reportedly killed at least 30 ISIL (also known as Daesh) militants during battles in the area surrounding Syria’s ancient city of Palmyra.

The clashes raged in the vicinity of the millennia-old oasis city as Syrian government forces continued with a major counter-offensive aimed at liberating Palmyra from the militants, who overran the city back in May, the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said on Saturday.

The UK-based group further said that 12 Syrian troopers were also killed during the recent fighting near the ancient city but did not mention how it had obtained the casualty figures on the government’s side.

The development came as other media reports from the region also confirmed earlier in the week that Syrian forces had launched a new offensive to flush out the ISIL militants from Palmyra, located in the eastern countryside of the country’s Homs Province.

Press reports from the area further indicated that the military operations by the Syrian troops are due to continue until the recapture of the entire city, and that the government forces are advancing toward Palmyra from three directions.

Meanwhile, Syria’s state news agency SANA also reported earlier this week than government forces have already liberated several areas west of Palmyra such as Nazl Hayyal, the al-Qadiri farm and Thaniet al-Rajma.

Original article

The post Syria: Thirty Islamic State Militants Killed In Palmyra appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The world’s monitored seabird populations have dropped 70 percent since the 1950s, a stark indication that marine ecosystems are not doing well, according to UBC research.

Michelle Paleczny, a UBC master’s student and researcher with the Sea Around Us project, and co-authors compiled information on more than 500 seabird populations from around the world, representing 19 per cent of the global seabird population. They found overall populations had declined by 69.6 per cent, equivalent to a loss of about 230 million birds in 60 years.

“Seabirds are particularly good indicators of the health of marine ecosystems,” said Paleczny. “When we see this magnitude of seabird decline, we can see there is something wrong with marine ecosystems. It gives us an idea of the overall impact we’re having.”

The dramatic decline is caused by a variety of factors including overfishing of the fish seabirds rely on for food, birds getting tangled in fishing gear, plastic and oil pollution, introduction of non-native predators to seabird colonies, destruction and changes to seabird habitat, and environmental and ecological changes caused by climate change.

Seabirds tend to travel the world’s oceans foraging for food over their long lifetimes, and return to the same colonies to breed. Colony population numbers provide information to scientists about the health of the oceans the birds call home.

Albatross, an iconic marine bird that lives for several decades, were part of the study and showed substantial declines. Paleczny says these birds live so long and range so far that they encounter many dangers in their travels. A major threat to albatross is getting caught on longline fishing hooks and drowning, a problem that kills hundreds of thousands of seabirds every year.

“Our work demonstrates the strong need for increased seabird conservation effort internationally,” said Paleczny. “Loss of seabirds causes a variety of impacts in coastal and marine ecosystems”

Seabirds play an important role in those ecosystems. They eat and are eaten by a variety of other marine species. They also transport nutrients in their waste back to the coastal ecosystems in which they breed, helping to fertilize entire food webs.

The study, published in PLOS ONE, is the first to estimate overall change in available global seabird population data. It is a collaboration between UBC researchers Paleczny, Vasiliki Karpouzi and Daniel Pauly and Edd Hammill, a lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney in Australia.

The post Seabird Populations Have Dropped 70 Percent Since 1950s appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A new review analyzing three decades of research on the historic effects of melting polar ice sheets found that global sea levels have risen at least six meters, or about 20 feet, above present levels on multiple occasions over the past three million years.

What is most concerning, scientists say, is that amount of melting was caused by an increase of only 1-2 degrees (Celsius) in global mean temperatures.

Results of the study are being published this week in the journal Science.

“Studies have shown that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed significantly to this sea level rise above modern levels,” said Anders Carlson, an Oregon State University glacial geologist and paleoclimatologist, and co-author on the study. “Modern atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are today equivalent to those about three million years ago, when sea level was at least six meters higher because the ice sheets were greatly reduced.

“It takes time for the warming to whittle down the ice sheets,” added Carlson, who is in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, “but it doesn’t take forever. There is evidence that we are likely seeing that transformation begin to take place now.”

Co-author Peter Clark, an OSU paleoclimatologist, said that because current carbon dioxide, or CO2, levels are as high as they were 3 million years ago, “we are already committed to a certain amount of sea level rise.”

“The ominous aspect to this is that CO2 levels are continuing to rise, so we are entering uncharted territory,” Clark said. “What is not as certain is the time frame, which is less well-constrained. We could be talking many centuries to a few millennia to see the full impact of melting ice sheets.”

The review, which was led by Andrea Dutton of the University of Florida, summarized more than 30 years of research on past changes in ice sheets and sea level. It shows that changes in Earth’s climate and sea level are closely linked, with only small amounts of warming needed to have a significant effect on seal levels. Those impacts can be significant.

Six meters (or about 20 feet) of sea level rise does not sound like a lot. However, coastal cities worldwide have experienced enormous growth in population and infrastructure over the past couple of centuries – and a global mean sea level rise of 10 to 20 feet could be catastrophic to the hundreds of millions of people living in these coastal zones.

Much of the state of Florida, for example, has an elevation of 50 feet or less, and the city of Miami has an average elevation of six feet. Parts of New Orleans and other areas of Louisiana were overcome by Hurricane Katrina – by a surging Gulf of Mexico that could be 10 to 20 feet higher in the future. Dhaka in Bangladesh is one of the world’s 10 most populous cities with 14.4 million inhabitants, all living in low-lying areas. Tokyo and Singapore also have been singled out as extremely vulnerable to sea level rise.

“The influence of rising oceans is even greater than the overall amount of sea level rise because of storm surge, erosion and inundation,” said Carlson, who studies the interaction of ice sheets, oceans and the climate system on centennial time scales. “The impact could be enormous.”

The Science review is part of the larger Past Global Changes, or PAGES, international science team. A working group known as PALSEA2 (Paleo constraints on sea level rise) used past records of local change in sea level and converted them to a global mean sea level by predicting how the surface of the Earth deforms due to changes in ice-ocean loading of the crust, along with changes in gravitational attraction on the ocean surface.

Independently, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet volumes were estimated by observations from adjacent ocean sediment records and by ice sheet models.

“The two approaches are independent of one another, giving us high confidence in the estimates of past changes in sea level,” Carlson said. The past climates that forced these changes in ice volume and sea level were reconstructed mainly from temperature-sensitive measurements in ocean cores from around the globe, and from ice cores.

The post Study Claims Global Sea Levels Have Risen 6 Meters Or More appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Vikram Sood*

In the last decade or so, terrorism has evolved in unimaginable ways. There was a brief moment when everyone heaved a sigh of relief with the killing of Osama bin Laden. Most of the world thought Al-Qaeda was now history. It would be the end of global terrorism.

A little over five years after the dramatic killing of the Al-Qaeda chief, the group remains a potent threat to the world while a new far more vicious and brutal terrorist machine, the ISIS, now functions in most of the Middle East. At first ISIS, nurtured by the Saudis and Qatar, was thought to be a local Syria-Iraq territorial threat, meant to deal with the growing Iranian influence. Recent violent events have indicated that the ISIS has dramatically stepped up its campaign in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia challenging the Al-Qaeda in these regions.

Terrorism thus remains as much of a strategic threat as it was in 2001. Today more states are affected by terrorist activities; more states are directly or indirectly involved in supporting or sustaining terrorist activities. There are more terrorists, more capable terrorist groups and the threat itself has become multi-dimensional. Needless to say, the task of tackling this menace has become even more difficult than the past for counter-terror agencies and for governments.

State sponsorship of international terrorism was first invoked as a strategic weapon to defeat a strong opponent through asymmetric warfare in the 1990s in Afghanistan. It has become fashionable since then as a force equaliser in some cases (against India) or force multiplier against others (in the Arab world).

The world today is witnessing the rise and expansion of a radical totalitarian ideology which inspires the Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jabhat al-Nusra, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harkat-ul-Jihad-Islami, the Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat) and scores of others. These groups do not operate in splendid isolation nor does the rest of the population remain immune from their activities. There are reports of co-operation amongst these groups from time to time. Over time and out of fear or conviction, there is interaction between the population that hosts them or where these radicals live. It is much worse or more insidious when the state intervenes in support of such elements.

Meanwhile, the West Asian regimes are more concerned with what Iran might do rather than what the ISIS is actually doing to them. This is the kind of attitude that will make countering terror all the more difficult.

It is obvious to all of us that the Muslim world is in ferment. It is true also that the majority is opposed to the violence and the tenets these terrorists follow. In a study by the US Congressional Research Service, only three percent of the Muslims understand Islam in militant terms. But if there are 1.6 billion Muslims today, this three percent still makes it 48 million who believe in religious intolerance who wish to overwhelm the opposition through unmitigated violence. Not a happy or comforting thought.

There are two epicentres of terrorism today. One is in the AfPak region, a byproduct of the Cold War, from where terrorism has long flown in all directions reaching as far as the United States and Europe. While the ‘global war on terror’ may have subdued some aspects of this, it remains very much an epicentre of terrorism.

Another epicentre which has risen in the recent times is in West Asia, which in some ways represents the first post-Cold War conflict between various competing forces. This turmoil affects both the West and us in India in more ways than one.

The main characteristics of today’s terrorism are –

Terrorist ideology is finding more acceptance among more people and communities than say a decade ago. Religious extremism, both in word and practice, is seeping into otherwise liberal societies across the world.

Terrorists today hold more territory than in the past-in Syria, Iraq Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More states are disintegrating (Iraq, Libya, Yemen, possibly Syria in the near future) or are in the perpetual state of flux (like Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and even Bangladesh and Myanmar), while others like Maldives and parts of Africa are increasingly getting affected.

Terrorists and volunteers from Europe and elsewhere in disturbingly large numbers have been going to the Zone of Conflict in West Asia.

Existing threats to South Asia and to India

South Asia faces a terrorist threat that has never been greater even though for the present it may seem at a low ebb with West Asia and Africa taking centre stage. Nevertheless, the subcontinent, home to over one-third of humanity, mostly poor, has more terrorist groups and terrorists than any other part of the world. Over the last thirty years, more lives have been lost to terrorist attacks here than anywhere else in the world.

Countries in the region like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Maldives face serious existential threats from a mix of terrorist groups active in the region and elsewhere. India has its share of terrorist activist attacks here than anywhere else in the world. Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan remain an ‘epicentre’ of transnational terrorism for decades and Pakistan’s attitude towards India has shown no change. It has long believed in what it thought was a smart and a financially sound policy of encouraging asymmetric war against bigger India through expendable jihadis that tied down the mighty Indian Army.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS

A significant part of recent terrorist violence can be attributed to Al-Qaeda and ISIS and their allies. It is not a secret that the threat from Al-Qaeda to the region, and the world, is far from over. Today, not only is Al-Qaeda alive, so are the Taliban, Haqqani Networks harboured in Pakistan and the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi supported by the Pakistani state, and all of whom have cooperated and helped the Al-Qaeda in the past.

One does not see any reason for this to have changed in the past few years or hope that this will change in the future. In fact, the situation is expected to get much worse, should the ISIS find a foothold inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are increasing indications that this indeed might be so.

The Al-Qaeda was certainly militarily degraded post 9/11. The killing of Osama on May 2, 2011, was presumed to be the end of Al-Qaeda. This has turned out to be a false hope. Al-Qaeda has regrouped, changed its method of operations; it has also reinvented itself in the subsequent years, choosing to play a more advisory role rather than running the operation on its own.

The Al-Qaeda core today survives on franchise and its brand equity and remains a force in its original home in AfPak border area. In West Asia, it had found new ways of working with affiliates in the Arab Peninsula (AQIP), the Maghreb (AQIM) and in Syria and Iraq through Jabhat al-Nusra.

Statistics show that the threat from Al-Qaeda is far from over. For instance, in 2012, over 5000 persons were killed in various terrorist attacks in the world, most of them were carried out by Al-Qaeda affiliates in West Asia and Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda showed its resilience when in September 2014 it set up a new chapter for the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahari, in his statement, in 2012 announced that the group would be used for worldwide recruitment and operations.

However, the sudden and spectacular rise of the ISIS as a rival to Al-Qaeda, their brutal efficiency and zeal have led to some analysts seek more answers about their rise and generous financial and material support beyond that which has come from the Saudis, Qataris and Turks. The recent massive attacks by ISIS in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria Iraq and the bombing in a Saudi mosque confirm their presence, local support and ability in these regions and an attitude of defiance and arrogance towards the local authorities. Often they descended to levels of depravity and violence that has been unheard of for decades.

There are many unanswered questions about the sudden and spectacular rise of ISIS. It seems to be part of shock and awe, reaction to what the Americans have attempted in keeping with their policy of control of the region, where OPEC versus US commercial strategic interests, CENTCOM forces with 20 bases in six countries in the region and now Islamic versus Christian interests overlap.

Today, the ISIS has its wilayats in Libya, Algeria, Sinai, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It has a presence in the Khorasan province of Afghanistan (although knowledgeable Afghans deny this vehemently) and support from breakaway factions of the TTP in Pakistan. Its soldiers look more like special forces troops than guerrilla fighters; ISIS is financially well-endowed with funds coming in from local powers as well.

India needs to be watchful, not fearful

Terrorism in West Asia can essentially impact on India in three ways – continued use of its existing terrorist assets under a nuclear umbrella by Pakistan against India; radicalisation of the Indian Muslim youth; and attempts by ISIS and Al-Qaeda acting separately and in competition to expand their influence in India and other parts. So far, we have not seen any radicalisation among the youth in India barring a few examples but this need to be watched even though the Indian Muslim is by far the most moderate as a category in the region and does not get swayed by events outside the country. While there is no denying that Muslim radicals the world over are on an overdrive to recruit, it is possible some Indians here or in the Gulf may succumb in this age of the Internet. So far, there has been no such exodus but the intelligence and security agencies would remain concerned.

Radicalisation through the Internet and the social media where all these terrorist organisations run many highly active very professional websites and innumerable social media and Facebook accounts is a growing problem for all counter-terrorists organisations. The indoctrination techniques are persuasive and professional. It is impossible to put up a virtual wall against these inroads.

The Indian authorities would remain more concerned with the activities of Pakistan-based terror groups some of whom have links with Saudi Arabia and have also associate offices/branches in the Gulf. Our perceived and recent closeness to the US and Israel is bound to attract notice among the Islamists but this is something the country has to be prepared for.

The real threat we face is from all terror groups that have their bases in Pakistan. This means chiefly LeT, JeM or in Afghanistan from the Haqqanis. It is these groups fired by the rhetoric of the likes of Hafiz Saeed or Munawar Hasan, backed to the hilt by the Pakistan Army operating from safe havens in Pakistan that will remain the real threat.

The ISIS has no known operational base in Pakistan although there are stray reports about its presence. It can only operate in India if it has local logistic support both in Pakistan and India. It would suit Pakistan to let it be believed that the ISIS/AQ are responsible for these attacks as this absolves their own organisations of charge of terror in India. The ISIS and/or Al-Qaeda will become a real threat to us only if they have the same kind of back up from the Pakistan Army.

*The writer is an Advisor to Observer Research Foundation and a former Secretary, R&AW, Government of India)

Courtesty: ANI News

The post Al-Qaeda, Islamic State And India’s Challenges – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A Russian court announced yesterday that it would decide on July 31 about the possible release of Yevgeny Vitishko from prison camp, an announcement that has given rise to cautious optimism among his colleagues at the Ecological Watch on the North Caucasus.

The Kirsanov district court in Tambov made its decision after lawyers for Vitishko applied with letters of support from the Ecological Watch, the World Wildlife Foundation of Russia, the Bellona Environmental Defense Center, and Duma deputy Dmitry Gudkov (bellona.ru/articles_ru/articles_2015/1436536633.6).

The same court on April 15 had rejected an application by Vitishko’s attorneys for his release, but now, a provision of the criminal code which allows the release of those in prison after a third of their sentences on the basis of a pledge not to change their place of residence without permission and to be at home at night could apply.

One of the reasons the court may have taken a more lenient position yesterday was that the head of the prison camp where Vitishko is confined told the court that the violations of camp discipline the ecologist is charged with may have been the result of “inattention” and were in any case “not all that serious.”

Vitishko, it will be recalled, was given a suspended sentence of three years for his exposure of official malfeasance in the run-up to the Sochi Olympiad. That did not deter him from continuing his activities, and on the eve of the Games, his conditional sentence was replaed with a real one.

Since that time, he has been active in defending the rights of prisoners, but in May, he told visitors that he was not sure he could stand another year in the camps. His colleague, Suren Gazaryan, was forced to flee when new charges were brought against him. In 2013, the EWNC activist was given political asylum in Estonia.

The post Russia: Environmental Activists Cautiously Optimistic Vitishko Will Soon Be Released – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Max Blumenthal’s latest book, The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, tells a powerful story powerfully well. I can think of a few other terms that accurately characterize the 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza in addition to “war,” among them: occupation, murder-spree, and genocide. Each serves a different valuable purpose. Each is correct.

The images people bring to mind with the term “war,” universally outdated, are grotesquely outdated in a case like this one. There is no pair of armies on a battlefield. There is no battlefield. There is no aim to conquer, dispossess, or rob. The people of Gaza are already pre-defeated, conquered, imprisoned, and under siege — permanently overseen by military drones and remote-control machine-guns atop prison-camp walls. In dropping bombs on houses, the Israeli government is not trying to defeat another army on a battlefield, is not trying to gain possession of territory, is not trying to steal resources from a foreign power, and is not trying to hold off a foreign army’s attempt to conquer Israel.

Yes, of course, Israel ultimately wants Gaza’s land incorporated into Israel, but not with non-Jewish people living on it. (Eighty percent of Gaza’s residents are refugees from Israel, families ethnically cleansed in 1947-1948.) Yes, of course, Israel wants the fossil fuels off the Gazan coast. But it already has them. No, the immediate goal of the Israeli war on Gaza last year, like the one two years before, and like the one four years before that, would perfectly fit a name like “The 51 Day Genocide.” The purpose was to kill. The end was nothing other than the means.

In 2014, as in 2012 and 2008, Israel again attacked the people of Gaza, using weapons provided for free by the U.S. government, which could be counted on, even standing completely alone, to defend Israel’s crimes at the United Nations. Practicing what’s been called the Dahiya Doctrine, Israel’s policy was one of collective punishment.

The stories in the U.S. media focused on Israelis’ fears. The deaths of Gazans were explained as intentional sacrifices by a people with a “culture of martyrdom” who sometimes choose to die because it makes good video footage. After all, Israel was phoning people’s houses and giving them 5-minute warnings before blowing them up. The fact that it was also blowing up shelters and hospitals they might flee to was glossed over or explained as somehow involving military targets.

But the Israeli media and internet were full of open advocacy by top Israeli officials of genocide. On August 1, 2014, the Deputy Speaker of Israel’s Parliament posted on his Facebook page a plan for the complete elimination of the Gazan people using concentration camps, to take one of dozens of examples.

And the whole thing was kicked off when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lied that three murder victims might be still alive, falsely blamed their kidnapping on Hamas, and began raiding houses and mass-arresting Gazans. Once Israel and the United States had rejected out-of-hand quite reasonable ceasefire demands from Hamas, the war/genocide was on for 51 days — with great popular support in Israel. Some 2,200 Gazan people were killed, over 10,000 injured, and 100,000 made homeless by a very one-sided war.

Here’s a taste of how Blumenthal describes what happened:

“The two Red Crescent volunteers told me they later found a man in Khuza’a with rigor mortis, holding both hands over his head in surrender, his body filled with bullets. Deeper in the town, they discovered an entire family so badly decomposed they had to be shoveled with a bulldozer into a mass grave. In a field on the other side of town, Awad and Alkusofi found a shell-shocked woman at least eighty years of age hiding in a chicken coop. She had taken shelter there for nine days during the siege, living off of nothing but chicken feed and rain water.”

While every bombed school and hospital was explained with the assertion that Gazan fighters were hiding among “human shields,” we meet Gazan people in Blumenthal’s book who were literally held up as shields by Israeli soldiers who shot at Gazans from over their shoulders. People also had new nasty weapons tested on them, including Dense Inert Metal Explosives (DIME).

The people of Israel generally went along with this war (with many admirable exceptions), and later reelected its architects. Protests against the war were banned, and various lies (including those about the three murder victims that kicked it all off) were exposed in a matter of days or weeks. No matter, the point was to kill people, and people were killed. And no matter in Washington, either, which kept the weapons flowing, quite illegally.

Gaza launched some 4,000 rockets into Israel, to little apparent effect — rockets whose total combined payload roughly equaled that of just 12 of the missiles Israel was sending into Gaza from its F-16s courtesy of the Land of the Free.

The “international community” gathered in Cairo on October 12, and diplomats “discussed the destruction of Gaza as though it were the result of a natural disaster — as though the missiles that reduced the strip’s border areas to rubble were meteors that descended from outer space.” There was no way to discuss damage to both sides in a manner that would make Israel’s actions seem legitimate, even by the standards of the “international community,” so they discussed the one-sided damage as if nobody were responsible.

Is this where the United States is headed culturally and with its own wars? One reason to hope not is that opposing Israel’s wars is one of the few places where U.S. youth are engaged in antiwar activism. Nonetheless, there is reason for concern. The U.S. has followed the Israeli model of domestic policing, of drone use, of assassination, and of propaganda, and the Israeli lead in relation to Iraq, Syria, and Iran. As the U.S. military moves more and more toward treating the world as Israel treats Gaza, the world’s future comes more and more into doubt. And there’s little to suggest that Americans will oppose actions by their own government simply because they’ve previously opposed those same actions by the government of Israel.

The post The 51-Day Genocide – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Given how many problems Russia’s invasion has caused and how often Moscow has covertly undermined Ukraine in other ways, it is perhaps not surprising that many Ukrainians are inclined to blame everything that has gone wrong on Moscow, Kseniya Kirillova says.

But that is dangerous not only because it allows some Ukrainians to evade responsibility but also because it provides an excuse for many not to face up to them, the US-based commentator writes in a Novy Region-2 post today (nr2.ru/blogs/Ksenija_Kirillova/Mukachevo-budushchee-Ukrainy-pod-ugrozoy-101207.html).

Kirillova, whose work has focused primarily on the international context of Ukraine’s situation, says she has been compelled to focus on the nature of problems of this kind as a result of the Mukachevo tragedy and the all too real possibility that “banditism could lead to anarchy and terror throughout the entire country.”

First of all, she points to the enormous corruption in Ukraine. Some of it has Russian roots but not all of it. And Kyiv has not yet taken even some of the steps that others have against corruption on its own territory. Thus, the West has imposed sanctions against some of the Russians involve but Ukraine itself hasn’t.

Not surprisingly, Ukrainians are angry about corruption, and ever more of them are dissatisfied with the answer of some in power that this problem is entirely the result of the Russians, Kirillova says. Ukrainians who use or accept that action are “no better than those in the Kremlin which see in any manifestation of popular anger ‘the machinations of the CIA.’”

Second, Ukraine finds itself in a unique situation: Since the fall of Yanukovich, it has glasnost about all kinds of crimes. The media reports them extensively and people know more about them than ever before. But “the tragedy of Ukraine is that while there is glasnost, there is no fear” of such media exposes among the elites because the media has not become “the fourth power.”

Third, and in part because of the war but again not entirely because of it, the Ukrainian state has lost the monopoly on force. There are too many weapons in the population, and too many groups, as Mukachevo shows, ready to use them for personal gain or under nominally patriotic slogans. This is “the biggest problem” the country faces now, because if left unchecked, no one will be safe.

Fourth, and arising from this, Ukraine is at risk of descending into “archaic times” when “in place of law comes ‘the law of the jungle.’” If that happens, Ukraine can say goodbye to any chance to join the European Union or get lethal weaponry from the US. What government would give another country weapons that might fall into the hands of bandits?

And fifth, the spread of such banditry would have another consequence: it would be used by Moscow to create the image of Ukraine as “a bandit country” and isolate it from that world which Ukrainians have shown they very much want to be a part.

Obviously, Moscow will do all it can to exploit Ukrainian problems, but Ukrainians need to face up to the fact that such exploitation does not in every case mean that Moscow has created them. Many of the problems have Ukrainian roots, and they certainly have Ukrainian solutions, Kirillova says.

And there is real hope in that fact. After all, she says, Ukraine has shown itself capable of living more peacefully and honorably even during a time of war than the Russian Federation of Vladimir Putin and even Boris Yeltsin has in times of nominal peace.

The post Not All Of Ukraine’s Problems Result Of War Or Moscow’s Actions – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Moroccan Press Agency MAP reported that King Mohammed VI, Commander of the Faithful, will chair, Monday in Casablanca, a religious evening to commemorate Laylat Al-Qadr, the seventh religious lecture of the holy month of Ramadan and the ceremony to announce the creation of the Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema, the Ministry of the Royal Household, Protocol and Chancellery said Sunday.

The religious evening, which will take place in Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, will be broadcast live on the national radio and television Monday night during Al-Ichaa prayer, the ministry pointed out in a statement.

At the same day, the Sovereign will chair, at the Royal Palace in Casablanca, the seventh religious lecture of the holy month of Ramadan, which will be given by Younes Toure, university professor and member of the Council of Imams of Coast d’Ivoire, under the theme “Place of the Immaculate sunna of the prophet in Islamic law”, drawing on the verse: “Allah has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of Allah upon you been great”. (Surat An-Nisaa, verse 113).

Following this religious lecture, HM the King will chair a ceremony to announce the creation of the Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema, during which the Minister of Endowments and Islamic Affairs, Ahmed Toufiq, will give an address.

After the increasing number of official requests for cooperation on religious matters that came from many African countries regarding the training in Morocco of their imams and preachers. King Mohammed VI has approved the creation of Mohammed VI Foundation For African Religious Scholars (Ulema). Given its expertise in religious education, the Kingdom will also support the modernization and reform of Medersas in those countries notably regarding programs, training of trainers, and textbooks.

To this end, the Sovereign has given his instructions to the Minister of Endowments and Islamic Affairs to ensure the implementation of the royal instructions in consultation with the relevant authorities of all those countries. his royal initiative reflects the historical and spiritual ties linking the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa to His Majesty the King, Commander of the Faithful, and the religious impact of the Kingdom and its commitment to the precepts of moderate, open and tolerant Islam.

In September 2013, King Mohammed VI and Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita presided over the signing of an agreement to send 500 Malian imams to Morocco over the next two years for training in using Morocco’s moderate and tolerant form of Islam to help fight the spread of extremism. The first 100 imams from Mali have already traveled to Morocco for the program. The agreement marks a new step by Morocco to boost its diplomatic activity in West Africa by linking together countries’ cultural and spiritual values.

Moroccan spiritual diplomacy has been very successful in West Africa due to the country’s historic Maliki School through Sufi channels and methods of reaching worshipers in the sub-Saharan region and West Africa. The Tijaniya sufi order widely operating in West Africa was founded in North Africa during the 18th century. Other Sufi orders – including the Qadiriyya and Chadiliya orders – soon followed, gaining large numbers of devotees who identified heavily with Morocco, where the tomb of Sheikh Ahmed Tijani, the founder of the Tijaniyyah order, is buried.

Sufism attracts more young Africans because of its tolerance, due to the easy interpretation that gives to the Qur’an, its rejection of fanaticism and its embrace of modernity. Young people are the principles of” beauty” and” humanity”. Sufism balanced lifestyle that allows them to enjoy arts, music and love without having to abandon their spiritual or religious obligations. Sufi orders exist throughout Morocco. They organize regular gatherings to pray, chant and debate timely topics of social and political, from the protection of the environment and social charity to the fight against drugs and the threat of terrorism.

In addition, focusing on the universal values ​​that Islam shares with Christianity and Judaism (as the pursuit of happiness, the love of the family, tolerance of racial and religious differences and the promotion of peace) Sufi gatherings inspire young people to engage in interfaith dialogue.

Sufism is so diffuse in Moroccan culture that its role cannot be properly understood if reduced to a sect or a sacred place. People get together to sing Sufi poetry, the primordial essence of the human being, the virtues of simplicity and the healing gifts of Sufi saints such as Sidi Abderrahman Majdub, Sidi Ahmed Tijani, and Sidi Bouabid Charki, the spiritual masters revered by peers and disciples for having attained spiritual union with God during their earthly lives.

Apparently Morocco’s religious authority – Imarat Lmouminin – is highly venerated by many Africans, whether in Mali, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire… In all his trips in Africa, King Mohammed as Commander of the Faithful, receive all leaders of major Sufi orders. In all his trips in West Africa, he provided thousands of copies of the Quran issued by the Mohammed VI Foundation for Holy Quran Publishing to be distributed mosques and other major Muslim institutions. In short, a credible and very successful spiritual diplomacy led by the King to promote a tolerant Islam that teaches respect, love to other religions and contribute efficiently to counter all extremist voices who unfortunately seem to gain ground in some countries in West Africa.

In March 2015, King Mohammed VI inaugurated the Mohammed VI Institute for the Training of Imams, Morchidines, and Morchidates in the capital, Rabat. The religious training center that aims to instill the values of Morocco’s open, moderate form of Islam, based on the Maliki rite and Sunni Sufism, in the next generation of Muslim religious leaders (imams) and preachers (morchidines and morchidates) from across the region and the world.

The new foundation (Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema) will be a key element in Morocco’s ongoing efforts to promote religious moderation and tolerance as a shield against extremism in the region. The spiritual ties between Morocco and many African Sub-Saharan countries are mirrored throughout history in the exchange of muslim scholars, saints and sufis who spared no effort to spread the genuine Islamic values of tolerance and moderation.

The post Mohammed VI Foundation For African Ulema To Instill Values Of Open, Moderate Islam In Africa – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pope Francis tossed aside his prepared remarks in a talk to thousands of Paraguay’s young people – urging the crowd to go against the cultural current and to live for Jesus with a “free heart.”

“I wrote a speech for you, but prepared speeches are boring,” the Pope said as cheers erupted from the scores of young people who packed the “costanera” or beach front of the Paraguay river in Asuncion.

The inland nation is the last of the three stops on the Pope’s trip to South America. He visited Ecuador July 5-8 and spent a few days in Bolivia before heading to Paraguay on July 10 to finish his visit.

“We don’t need young people who waste their lives,” he said enthusiastically. “We need young people with hope! Because they know Jesus and they have a free heart.”

The idea of a liberated heart was central to the Pope’s address.

“Liberty is a gift that God gives us, but we must know how to receive it. We must have a free heart,” he said.

“Hunger, drug addiction, sadness: all of these things take our freedom from us,” he lamented, leading the young people present in praying for a transformed heart.

“Lord Jesus, give me a free heart that is not a slave to any evil in the world, that is not a slave to the community, that is not a slave to a comfortable life, that is not a slave of vice, that is not a slave to a false liberty that is the desire to do whatever we want, whenever we want to do it,” he prayed.

Much of the Pope’s off-the-cuff remarks came in response to the stories shared by young people present at the event.

One young woman, Liz, offered her testimony of caring for her mother, who has dementia and believes herself to be her daughter’s child.

The Pope noted that Liz, while saddened by the sickness of her mother, drew strength from her aunt and a community of young people.

“This is what we mean by solidarity,” he said.

Pope Francis also responded to the testimony of Manuel, who described growing up in poverty and being taken to the city, where he was exploited and beaten as a worker, fell into the trap of addiction, and eventually found support in a parish group.

Manuel’s life was not easy, the Holy Father said. “But instead of taking the wrong path, he went to work. He didn’t try to steal, even in his conditions. He is trying to go forward.”

Like Liz and Manuel, he continued, we can all draw strength and hope from knowing Christ. He encouraged gratitude among those who live comfortably, with the opportunity to eat every day and pursue studies.

“If your life is easy, there are others for whom it is not easy,” he said, reminding them to reach out and say to their struggling brothers and sisters, “We are here. We are with you. We want to give you hope.”

Pope Francis concluded with a call for the young people to “go against the current” and follow the path of Christ, not being afraid to dream big and “make a mess.”

“Keep making noise,” he said.

The post Pope Francis Tells Young People: ‘Don’t Waste Your Lives’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An important step towards restoring peace and stability in Libya has been taken today, said Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission.

According to a statement, Mogherini said, “With the initialing of the political agreement, the House of Representatives, the independents and representatives of Misrata proved their determination to find a peaceful solution to the crisis that, for almost one year, has divided, impoverished, and inflicted suffering on the Libyan people. They have taken the future of Libya in their hands, in a responsible and courageous way.”

Mogherini added, “I hope that those who have not yet initialed the agreement could display a similar spirit of consensus and responsibility, in the interest of all the Libyan people.”

The European Union is ready to support a government of national accord (GNA), as soon as it is established, so that all Libyans can quickly reap the benefits of this move towards peace and stability. In particular, Mogherini said, the EU will immediately help with capacity and institution building to national and local authorities, with a view to assist with the rapid resumption of service delivery, should the Libyan authorities require so, in a spirit of equal partnership.

“I would like to thank the UNSG Special Representative Bernardino Léon for his tireless efforts to bring parties towards a deal, and the Government of Morocco for supporting the UN led dialogue. The EU has been consistently and actively supporting this process and is committed to continue to do so in the future,” Mogherini said.

The post EU’s Mogherini Says Libya Agreement Important Step To Restore Peace appeared first on Eurasia Review.