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

First Report On Greenhouse Gas Emissions From African Rivers

0
0

Twelve scientists from the University of Liege, the KU Leuven and the Research Institute for Development (France), have just completed a large-scale research project conducted over a five-year period on the African continent. The aim of this study was to compile the first greenhouse gas budget of African rivers. The data from this project both complement and challenge previous knowledge of the overall carbon budget for the continent.

Covering 12 rivers spread across the entire continent of Africa including the Congo, the second largest river in the world, the study shows that greenhouse gas emissions from the rivers are very significant. This data constitutes essential information with regards to the management of forestry resources in Africa. An article is due to appear on July 20th 2015 in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience .

A team of scientists led by the oceanographer Alberto Borges (University of Liège) and Prof. Steven Bouillon (KU Leuven) has just completed a five-year large-scale research project financed by Europe (ERC starting Grant), the FNRS, FWO and BELSPO, the aim of which was to compile a previously unknown budget of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by the rivers of the African Continent . Under the guidance of Alberto Borges, who is head of the Chemical Oceanography Unit at the University of Liege and who specializes in the GHG of aquatic environments and in close collaboration with Professor Steven Bouillon of KU Leuven, the researchers trawled the African continent in order to analyze the streams of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), the three main GHG.

The results and analyses, which have now been finalized, are the subject of a publication in Nature Geoscience . This data represents a major contribution to existing knowledge about carbon emissions to the atmosphere from African inland waters . In a broader sense, this data-set contributes to better understand the role of rivers in greenhouse gas global budgets.

“Due to the fact that rivers link continents to the ocean by carrying organic matter that is partly degraded by bacteria, they play a major role in the production and emission of CO2 and CH4″, explains Alberto Borges.”Research concerning GHG emissions in inland waters – rivers, lakes, and reservoirs – began in the 1990s in various developed countries, supported in part by the hydro-electric industry, and supplied valuable information about boreal (Scandinavia, Canada), and temperate (Europe, United States) inland waters. Concerning the tropics which hold 60 % of the freshwaters of the planet, studies were carried out almost exclusively in Brazil, on the Amazon the largest river in the world. But can the data collected in Brazil be applied to the world’s second largest river, the Congo, also located in the tropics ? Similarly, can the data in the Amazon be applied to semi-arid rivers draining savannah rather than tropical forest? There was some important information lacking here. Given that Africa contains 12 % of the world’s softwater, this study supplies a missing piece to the puzzle: a very significant and coherent data set in terms of the methodology employed and concerning an entire continent”.

To bring this work to a successful conclusion, the scientists sampled 12 drainage basins (the area that includes an entire river and all its tributaries, from its source to its mouth), spread over the entire African territory and all the different variations of these basins according to the corresponding climate and vegetation: from the humid climate dominated by the tropical forest of the river Congo (DRC) to the semi-arid climate dominated by the savannah of the river Tana (Kenya) and the very steep basin of the river Rianila (Madagascar).

“This large spectrum revealed the mechanisms controlling greenhouse gas emissions in inland waters, from basin to basin across the entire African continent. This also opens the way for a comparison study between the Amazon and Congo rivers or any other tropical river,” said Alberto Borges, who intends to release the database as all the authors are Open Access and Open Data adherents. According to him, the study undertaken establishes a “baseline”, a photograph of Africa in the 2010s, at the dawn of great changes.

“We know that the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is set to double, increasing from 65 to 130 million inhabitants in 25 years,” Borges said.”This huge increase will inevitably have an impact on the functioning of the river Congo, probably in response to increased deforestation and a shift towards intensive farming, since current farming practices are traditional. It is conceiveable that the number of hydro-electric dams will increase as the hydroelectric energy potential of Africa is currently under-exploited. Similarly, water diversion for purposes of irrigation will increase. All these factors will have consequences for greenhouse gas emissions from rivers”.

Among the factors learned from this study, the researcher draws particular attention to the important role of wetlands (these include inundated forests, flood plains and large “meadows” of floating plants). These wetlands are characterized by intense “aerial” photosynthesis (by submerged vegetation) but the organic matter produced is transferred into the water sooner or later. This organic matter in the water increses the production and emission of CO2 and CH4. The carbon emissions (CO2 and CH4) associated with the humid zones are enormous because the surfaces they occupy are also extremely vast. In the Congo basin, wetlands (mainly inundated forests) cover an area of 360 000 km2, equivalent to the entire area of Germany.

The post First Report On Greenhouse Gas Emissions From African Rivers appeared first on Eurasia Review.


A Chance For Reconciliation – OpEd

0
0

The Americans have taken the (Shiite) Muslim side in the Middle East’s sectarian war,” declared Robert Fisk in the “Independent” newspaper on July 15, a day after the US and five major world powers reached a landmark agreement with Iran about its nuclear programs.

Fisk’s proclamation is quite cursory. Aside from the fact that he is accepting the premise that the war in the Middle East is essentially sectarian, he implies that the Americans are purposely facilitating their policies based on sectarian agendas. They are not.

The fundamentals of American foreign policy approach have not changed. In the Middle East, it is governed by two overriding variables: One, economic — oil, gas, and strategic control and influence over countries that produce such essentials to the US and global economy — and Israel. Unlike other US allies in the region, Israel has managed to break away from the role of client regime into a party that has tremendous influence over US policies. Between powerful lobbies and an obedient US Congress, the likes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have made Israel a top American priority.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Although Netanyahu has angled for war against Iran, supported by numerous allies within the Republican and Democratic Party – propelled by lobby perks and pressure, and a huge media apparatus – his wish is yet to come true. In fact, according to the 100-page-plus agreement of July 14, that wish is, perhaps, suspended for at least another 10 years as Iran has agreed to curb its nuclear capabilities and to allow international monitoring, in exchange for the lifting of US-led UN sanctions which have greatly harmed the Iranian economy. Despite the saber-rattling, the fiery speeches and all the chest-thumping that has lasted for many years, Israel has lost its battle to lead another regional war against a formidable enemy in the Middle East.

Israel has hoped for a repeat to the Iraq war scenario, which was almost a blueprint of Israel’s current attitude toward Iran: Starting with the handy discourse of Iraq/Iran being an existential threat, Saddam/Ahmadinejad being another Hitler, the humiliating inspections of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that never existed, to the invasion, the civil war, and all the calamities that have happened since then.

However, the US is not above reproach either. The war on Iran was, and remains, a staple in the US media. They paint the same horrifying image about Iran as they did Iraq prior to the invasion which resulted in the destruction of the country, and now, consequently, the region.

That destruction suited Israel well, of course, since another obstacle was removed from Israel’s path toward regional dominance. Meanwhile, though, Iran expectedly rushed to secure post-invasion Iraq as an ally, not a springboard for a potential US invasion.

Iran succeeded in mending fences with Baghdad, but that success was at a great price for Iraq since it undermined its sovereignty and spread the seeds of sectarianism within Iraq. The rise of a pro-Iran Shiite-dominated government in Iraq was initially welcomed, if not partly facilitated by the US, which led a campaign of ‘De-Baathification’ of Iraq. That, essentially, meant the dismantling of the Sunni centers of powers, creating a vacuum that was naturally filled by empowered Shiite militias, armed and trained by both Iran and the US.

Fearing an empowered Iran, the US policies in Iraq eventually shifted to create a more balanced political equation, by arming Sunni tribes in the hope that they would fight not only the rising influence of extremist groups but also homegrown Iraqi resistance. The plan worked to an extent, but Al-Sahwat tribal Sunni militias soon found themselves at odds with Shiite groups and were isolated, eventually targeted by their own Sunni communities for what was understood as an act of treason.
The American sectarian experiment in Iraq and the whole region never truly ceased even long after the troop ‘surge’ of George W. Bush, which, arguably, laid the groundwork for withdrawal under the presidency of Barak Obama.

Working with Iran and against Iran simultaneously has been a trademark of American policy, itself symptomatic of American opportunistic foreign policy. For the US, it is a matter that goes beyond Sunni and Shiite, into exploiting existing differences, which the Americans themselves hyped and manipulated.

Although deep theological divides do exist between the Sunni and Shiite, the conflict is essentially political, and the Americans never hesitate in exploiting the existing fault lines in the region (or any region for that matter) for political purposes, no matter how devastating the outcome is in terms of destruction and death toll. There should be little confusion that the rise of Daesh was a direct outcome of US meddling. It should have been clear to everyone, including US Gulf allies, that the US does not base its alliances and conflicts on ethical grounds. It is not a matter of honor but sheer self-interest.

Obama, who in a recent interview with New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, praised both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for their pragmatic foreign policies — in his defense, he also highlighted differences — which truly showed how little respect he has for his Arab allies in addition to a lack of respect for Iran, as well. He boasted about leading the world to set up a “sanction regime that crippled the Iranian economy and ultimately brought them to the table,” as if collective punishment for political purposes is a virtuous act.

Israel, on the other hand, has showed itself to be a liability to its major ally, as its rightwing government and society exist in a world of paranoia and wars with horrible consequences. Meanwhile, Daesh was gaining ground at a frightening speed, carving a country for itself between Iraq and Syria.

Considering US financial woes and lack of military appetite, Obama desperately needed a deal with Iran. The US foreign policy in the Middle East has lost every sense of direction for years. It seemed to have no clear purpose, aside from fighting for political relevance and it was marred with contradictions. With time, it became indefinable, a fact that historians will find difficult to expound or explain.

The US is, perhaps, hoping that the next 10-year truce with Iran will allow it to realign its foreign policies to cope with the region’s momentous conflicts, beginning with the crisis of democracy and going on to the rise of Daesh. A decade is long enough, from a US politics viewpoint, to co-opt Iran and/or for Washington to regain its Middle East initiative. At best, it will defer the problem to a later date.

However, both Iran and its Arab neighbors could, in fact, see this as an opportunity. Arabs and Iran should understand that it is ultimately their countries and peoples who will continue to suffer the consequences of war, sanctions, divisions and extremism.

By his own admission, in his Friedman’s interview, Obama stated that the US was hardly affected by the sanctions on Iran, although others greatly suffering as a result of the economic siege. This is true in all aspects of US relations with the region. It is, in fact, Arabs and Iranians, Muslims and Christians, Sunni and Shiite and other groups who are truly suffering the bitterness of conflict.

Thus, it is time for Arabs and Iran to realize that their rivalry is fundamentally hollow, and dominance over a broken, disastrous region is, essentially, frivolous. The Iran nuclear deal should usher in an opportunity for rapprochement among all countries in the region. Iran cannot survive on its own in a hostile region, either, for geopolitical and also cultural reasons.

To appease an angry Netanyahu, the US government has reportedly agreed to provide Israel with $1.5 billion of additional weapons and military supplies per year. This is an indication that the US regional policies have not changed in the least, and it is up to the region itself to confront the US militaristic and conflict-driven policies.

The post A Chance For Reconciliation – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

How Goldman Sachs Profited From The Greek Debt Crisis – OpEd

0
0

The Greek debt crisis offers another illustration of Wall Street’s powers of persuasion and predation, although the Street is missing from most accounts.

The crisis was exacerbated years ago by a deal with Goldman Sachs, engineered by Goldman’s current CEO, Lloyd Blankfein.

Blankfein and his Goldman team helped Greece hide the true extent of its debt, and in the process almost doubled it. And just as with the American subprime crisis, and the current plight of many American cities, Wall Street’s predatory lending played an important although little-recognized role.

In 2001, Greece was looking for ways to disguise its mounting financial troubles. The Maastricht Treaty required all eurozone member states to show improvement in their public finances, but Greece was heading in the wrong direction.

Then Goldman Sachs came to the rescue, arranging a secret loan of 2.8 billion euros for Greece, disguised as an off-the-books “cross-currency swap”—a complicated transaction in which Greece’s foreign-currency debt was converted into a domestic-currency obligation using a fictitious market exchange rate.

As a result, about 2 percent of Greece’s debt magically disappeared from its national accounts. Christoforos Sardelis, then head of Greece’s Public Debt Management Agency, later described the deal to Bloomberg Business as “a very sexy story between two sinners.”

For its services, Goldman received a whopping 600 million euros ($793 million), according to Spyros Papanicolaou, who took over from Sardelis in 2005. That came to about 12 percent of Goldman’s revenue from its giant trading and principal-investments unit in 2001—which posted record sales that year. The unit was run by Blankfein.

Then the deal turned sour. After the 9/11 attacks, bond yields plunged, resulting in a big loss for Greece because of the formula Goldman had used to compute the country’s debt repayments under the swap. By 2005, Greece owed almost double what it had put into the deal, pushing its off-the-books debt from 2.8 billion euros to 5.1 billion.

In 2005, the deal was restructured and that 5.1 billion euros in debt locked in. Perhaps not incidentally, Mario Draghi, now head of the European Central Bank and a major player in the current Greek drama, was then managing director of Goldman’s international division.

Greece wasn’t the only sinner. Until 2008, European Union accounting rules allowed member nations to manage their debt with so-called off-market rates in swaps, pushed by Goldman and other Wall Street banks. In the late 1990s, JPMorgan enabled Italy to hide its debt by swapping currency at a favorable exchange rate, thereby committing Italy to future payments that didn’t appear on its national accounts as future liabilities.

But Greece was in the worst shape, and Goldman was the biggest enabler. Undoubtedly, Greece suffers from years of corruption and tax avoidance by its wealthy. But Goldman wasn’t an innocent bystander: It padded its profits by leveraging Greece to the hilt—along with much of the rest of the global economy. Other Wall Street banks did the same. When the bubble burst, all that leveraging pulled the world economy to its knees.

Even with the global economy reeling from Wall Street’s excesses, Goldman offered Greece another gimmick. In early November 2009, three months before the country’s debt crisis became global news, a Goldman team proposed a financial instrument that would push the debt from Greece’s healthcare system far into the future. This time, though, Greece didn’t bite.

As we know, Wall Street got bailed out by American taxpayers. And in subsequent years, the banks became profitable again and repaid their bailout loans. Bank shares have gone through the roof. Goldman’s were trading at $53 a share in November 2008; they’re now worth over $200. Executives at Goldman and other Wall Street banks have enjoyed huge pay packages and promotions. Blankfein, now Goldman’s CEO, raked in $24 million last year alone.

Meanwhile, the people of Greece struggle to buy medicine and food.

There are analogies here in America, beginning with the predatory loans made by Goldman, other big banks, and the financial companies they were allied with in the years leading up to the bust. Today, even as the bankers vacation in the Hamptons, millions of Americans continue to struggle with the aftershock of the financial crisis in terms of lost jobs, savings, and homes.

Meanwhile, cities and states across America have been forced to cut essential services because they’re trapped in similar deals sold to them by Wall Street banks. Many of these deals have involved swaps analogous to the ones Goldman sold the Greek government.

And much like the assurances it made to the Greek government, Goldman and other banks assured the municipalities that the swaps would let them borrow more cheaply than if they relied on traditional fixed-rate bonds—while downplaying the risks they faced. Then, as interest rates plunged and the swaps turned out to cost far more, Goldman and the other banks refused to let the municipalities refinance without paying hefty fees to terminate the deals.

Three years ago, the Detroit Water Department had to pay Goldman and other banks penalties totaling $547 million to terminate costly interest-rate swaps. Forty percent of Detroit’s water bills still go to paying off the penalty. Residents of Detroit whose water has been shut off because they can’t pay have no idea that Goldman and other big banks are responsible.

Likewise, the Chicago school system—whose budget is already cut to the bone—must pay over $200 million in termination penalties on a Wall Street deal that had Chicago schools paying $36 million a year in interest-rate swaps.

A deal involving interest-rate swaps that Goldman struck with Oakland, California, more than a decade ago has ended up costing the city about $4 million a year, but Goldman has refused to allow Oakland out of the contract unless it ponies up a $16 million termination fee—prompting the city council to pass a resolution to boycott Goldman. When confronted at a shareholder meeting about it, Blankfein explained that it was against shareholder interests to tear up a valid contract.

Goldman Sachs and the other giant Wall Street banks are masterful at selling complex deals by exaggerating their benefits and minimizing their costs and risks. That’s how they earn giant fees. When a client gets into trouble—whether that client is an American homeowner, a US city, or Greece—Goldman ducks and hides behind legal formalities and shareholder interests.

Borrowers that get into trouble are rarely blameless, of course: They spent too much, and were gullible or stupid enough to buy Goldman’s pitches. Greece brought on its own problems, as did many American homeowners and municipalities.

But in all of these cases, Goldman knew very well what it was doing. It knew more about the real risks and costs of the deals it proposed than those who accepted them. “It is an issue of morality,” said the shareholder at the Goldman meeting where Oakland came up. Exactly.

[This article first appeared in the Nation magazine.]

The post How Goldman Sachs Profited From The Greek Debt Crisis – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A Definite Date, An Undefined Future: Haiti Scrambles To Prepare For Electoral Contest

0
0

By Sam Aman*

After years of delays and political deadlock, Haiti is finally preparing to hold its long-overdue general elections, leaving international observers to breathe a sigh of relief. But within the small Caribbean nation’s borders, the atmosphere is one of heavy skepticism. Years of brutal dictatorship and multiple coups buttressed by extensive foreign intervention have left their mark on the country’s political infrastructure, and Haitians are more wary than ever of what they see as empty promises. Growing popular unrest, a cholera epidemic, and the all-too-visible impacts of the 2010 earthquake mean this year’s elections carry heavy implications for the country’s future, but the current state of affairs has some worried that they could prove a logistical nightmare.

Historical Context and Today’s Situation

Since the fall of the dictatorial dynasty of François “Papa Doc” and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier in 1986, politics in Haiti has been largely characterized by contention, mistrust, and instability. Having experienced no fewer than 33 coups d’état in its two centuries of sovereignty, the country is struggling today to incubate true democratic governance. Recurrent political vacuums have served as wellsprings for personalistic leadership, enabling impressively high levels of corruption to be shrouded in populist rhetoric.

Haiti’s current president, Michel Martelly, embodies almost too perfectly this paradigm. A former pop singer, Martelly—known to his fans as “Sweet Micky”—has an undeniable talent for entertainment. His vocal control is superb, seamlessly switching octaves at the drop of a hat and maintaining a remarkably even timbre throughout the passagio. Even more enthralling is his stage presence, with his often raunchy, profanity-laced live performances captivating even the most listless of crowds.[1]

A far cry from his former life of provocative dancing and regular crack-cocaine use, Martelly now runs a country.[2] Though he lacked political experience, Sweet Micky spent ample time before taking office rubbing elbows with Haiti’s elite. Around the beginning of his music career, he ran a Port-au-Prince nightclub called Le Garage, popular with high-ranking military officials and supporters of the brutally repressive Duvalier dictatorship. An outspoken supporter of the 1991 coup that ousted Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Martelly spent the next three years building close relationships with leaders of the violent military junta that followed.[3]

These relationships paved the way for Martelly’s ascension to the Haitian political scene a decade later, after a 2004 coup once again ousted Aristide, who had since returned from exile and been elected to a second term. Following the coup, Gérard Latortue, a personal friend of Martelly’s, was named interim Prime Minister, and Sweet Micky, who had been living in Miami at the time, saw an unprecedented opportunity in Port-au-Prince.[4]

A stranger to formal politics, Martelly decided to run for president in 2010 in a highly controversial election. After coming in third in the first round of voting, behind former First Lady Mirlande Manigat and the staunchly leftist Jude Célestin, Martelly joined other candidates in denouncing the elections as fraudulent, accusing then-President René Préval of rigging the vote to install Célestin as his successor. The Organization of American States (OAS) then sent a commission to Port-au-Prince to inspect the results of the election and, in a widely criticized decision, announced that Manigat and Martelly should proceed to runoff voting.[5]

Jonathan Katz, a journalist and the only full-time American correspondent in Haiti during the 2010 earthquake, told U.S. News and World Report that Washington’s firm support of the OAS decision had little to do with principles of electoral transparency and more to do with Célestin’s markedly critical stance toward the United States. Martelly, on the other hand, was more in line with Washington’s vision for reconstruction in Haiti and was seen as the most strategic choice in the country’s first post-earthquake elections.[6] Ricardo Seitenfus, a Brazilian professor of international relations and then-OAS Ambassador to Haiti, explained in an interview with Dissent Magazine that the international community’s actions in 2010 were reflective of a wider paradigm of excessive intervention in the country. “It would be the foreigners, and them exclusively, who were to define the will of the Haitian voter,” he lamented.[7]

Martelly’s presidency has since devolved into a familiar mélange of corruption allegations, ad hominem attacks, and political deadlock. Legislative elections scheduled for 2011 and 2013 were delayed by the government’s inability to cooperate and establish an electoral council—a body sanctioned by the country’s constitution as a prerequisite for all elections. Martelly’s attempts at forming electoral councils have been contentious, with opposition members rejecting the president’s appointments over noncompliance with constitutional criteria. The resulting impasse has impeded two full election cycles, leaving Parliament to dissolve on January 15, 2015, when the terms of all 99 members of the Chamber of Deputies and 20 members of the 30-member Senate expired. With only ten MPs left in office, Parliament is unable to obtain quorum, and, in accordance with Haitian constitutional law, Sweet Micky now rules by decree.[8]

On March 2, amidst street protests and calls for his resignation, Martelly officially issued a decree calling for presidential, legislative, and municipal elections to be held by the end of the year. Elections for 20 Senate seats and all 118 seats of the newly expanded Chamber of Deputies will be held on August 9, presidential and municipal elections and legislative runoff elections on October 25, and presidential runoff elections on December 27.[9] Four years of delays mean that a staggering 6,000 posts are now being contested, with 56 approved candidates vying for the presidency, 1,515 for seats in Parliament, and over 41,000 pre-registered for municipal elections.[10] With all of this set to occur over the course of three polling days, Haiti, with its young, feeble political infrastructure, will soon be given a Goliathan test of democratic wherewithal.

Elections

On May 24, the Conseil Électoral Provisoire (Provisional Electoral Council; CEP) published a list of approved legislative candidates from 98 different parties, including, for the first time since the 2004 coup, Aristide’s party, Fanmi Lavalas, which has been barred from elections ever since his ouster. With 99 candidates receiving authorization from the CEP, Lavalas now has the third largest presence in the legislative race; former President Préval’s new Vérité party comes in first, with 115.[11]

In second place, with 110 approved candidates, is Michel Martelly’s new party, PHTK, whose very name serves as a salient testament to the cult of personality forming around Sweet Micky. The ultra-right Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale (“Haitian Bald Head Party” in Creole), named in endearing reference to Martelly’s shiny dome, was formed in 2012 and has since grown to become one of the largest political parties in the country.[12] Such alarmingly blatant personalization of power harks back to the Duvalier years, when François “Papa Doc” would make extensive use of voodoo rhetoric to present himself as a sort of semidivine embodiment of Haiti itself, famously declaring in a 1963 speech to the public, “Je suis un être immatériel” (I am an intangible being).[13]

The legislative race so far has been shrouded in controversy, to which Martelly’s party is far from immune. On June 2, the Réseau National de Défense des Droits Humains (National Human Rights Defense Network), Haiti’s largest human rights organization, released a list of 35 legislative candidates approved by the CEP who have been implicated in cases of serious crimes, including homicide, rape, and kidnapping. The PHTK leads this list with six candidates.[14]

But with Haiti’s turbulent history of one-man rule and despotic leaders circumventing the legislature, eyes both within the country and abroad are fixed on this year’s big-ticket item: the presidency. The 56 contenders represent a wide spectrum of constituencies and political ideologies, ensuring an interesting race. Among these 56, three candidates, in particular, stand out in their apparent potential to become Haiti’s next head of state.

Jovenel Moïse

Running as the PHTK presidential candidate is Jovenel Moïse, a prominent businessman and personal friend of Martelly’s. As CEO of the agricultural enterprise Agritrans S.A., Moïse oversaw the establishment of the first Agricultural Free Zone in Haiti, devoting 1,000 hectares in the northeast of the country toward the cultivation of bananas. The project stipulates that 70 percent of the production in the zone be for exportation and confers upon its participants special tax and customs charge exemptions.[15] A loyal friend of the market, Moïse was welcomed with open arms within the PHTK and is likely to appease the foreign entities with an all too palpable presence in the country.

Moïse’s candidacy has since been formally contested in the Bureau du Contentieux Électoral Départemental (Departmental Electoral Office of Litigation; BCED) on the grounds of misuse of public funds. The submitted dossier accuses the candidate of engaging in collusive negotiations to obtain $6 million USD in government funding for the Agritrans project, with provisions for an additional $15 million.[16] The document goes on to declare that Moïse used a portion of the Agritrans grant to finance his electoral campaign, a direct violation of Article 125 of Martelly’s March 2 Electoral Decree.[17]

In what was hardly a surprise decision, Sweet Micky’s CEP rejected the challenge and maintained its authorization of Moïse as the PHTK candidate, raising concerns over the president’s capacity to influence the elections. Opposition members now fear that Moïse, with his complete lack of political experience and worryingly early involvement in shady dealings, could effectively serve as another Martelly.

Maryse Narcisse

One of the PHTK’s primary opponents in the election comes in the form of Dr. Maryse Narcisse of Fanmi Lavalas. Acting as the party’s national coordinator, Narcisse, a medical doctor by vocation, has made a name for herself as a human rights activist and advocate for democratic governance. A close ally of Aristide’s, she spent two years in exile in Miami after his overthrow in 2004, where she became the international voice for the Lavalas movement.[18] In October 2007, shortly after returning to Haiti, Narcisse was kidnapped at gunpoint in front of her home and held for ransom; she was released three days later. Hers came just three months after the abduction of fellow high-profile Lavalas member Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine, a human rights advocate who remains missing to this day.[19]

Narcisse stands as living defiance of the ruling coalition’s attempts to dismantle Fanmi Lavalas, and with the party now allowed to participate in the elections, she represents a formidable thorn in the PHTK’s side. Still, her candidacy has not been without controversy, with some voices within Lavalas warning that the presidential hopeful holds a vision for Haiti that no longer aligns with the party’s original ideals. Narcisse came under fire for levying sanctions on party members Moïse Jean-Charles and Arnel Bélizaire after they organized marches around the country demanding the resignation of Martelly and the withdrawal of UN troops from Haitian soil.[20]

The move prompted accusations from some Lavalas members that Narcisse has grown sympathetic to the Martelly administration and foreign entities, departing from the party’s original raison d’être. Following his condemnation, an irate Jean-Charles publicly expressed these qualms, telling Haïti Liberté, “Maryse Narcisse used to work for USAID alongside [U.S. Ambassador] Pamela White and [First Lady] Sophia Martelly. It is no wonder she today adopts the positions she does.” Internal criticism continued after Narcisse issued a statement calling for Martelly not to resign, but to instead finish his term and guarantee elections in 2015.[21]

Though Lavalas hardliners contend that such an attitude reflects an attenuation of her progressive ideology, Narcisse has, in fact, proven herself to be a much-needed potential intermediary in the Haitian political sphere. In an executive capacity, Aristide’s protégée could be capable of reconciling an avant-garde policy agenda with the institutional limitations integral to true democracy.

Sauveur Pierre Étienne

Running for the centrist Organisation du Peuple en Lutte (Organization of Struggling People; OPL) is Sauveur Pierre Étienne. A former Haitian Communist Party militant, Pierre Étienne was a particularly active member of the opposition during the reign of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, whose father oversaw the exile and assassination of several of the young dissident’s relatives. In the years following Duvalier’s ouster, the OPL emerged as a leftist, Aristide-backed coalition—indeed, the acronym originally stood for Organisation Politique Lavalas (Lavalas Political Organization). Through the course of the political tumult of the 1990s, a noticeable ideological fissure began to develop within the OPL, culminating in 1997, when Aristide officially founded Fanmi Lavalas. Wanting to maintain the acronym while distancing themselves from the Lavalas label, Pierre Étienne and other party leaders bestowed upon the organization its current name.[22]

Following an assassination attempt in 1997, Pierre Étienne went into auto-exile, returning to Haiti ten years later. He has since become an enigmatic figure in the country, and like those of his party, his true political convictions are currently a topic of much debate. Claiming to maintain a moderate Marxist ideology, Pierre Étienne penned several books in the 1990s, including Haiti: The Invasion of NGOs, in which he offers a skeptical evaluation of NGOs as mechanisms through which the core implements foreign policy agendas in the periphery.[23] Indeed, he has traditionally presented himself as opposition to Martelly and critical of the right’s resolute espousal of neoliberal policy reforms.

But in recent years, Pierre Étienne and his party have instead positioned themselves increasingly firmly against Fanmi Lavalas. OPL legislators have spearheaded privatization campaigns and IMF-sanctioned structural adjustments, sparking accusations of political opportunism, with some claiming that the party is attempting to simultaneously exist as opposition to and allies of the ruling coalition.[24] Since the OPL’s split from Lavalas, antagonism to Aristide’s faction has become a more and more integral aspect of the party’s ethos. Pierre Étienne, in keeping with this stance, has contradictorily conferred upon Martelly’s PHTK a degree of legitimacy, describing it in an interview with Radio Tout Haïti as “the lesser of two evils” vis-à-vis Fanmi Lavalas.[25]

Though he sports an impressive résumé as a professor of political science and author of several distinguished publications on international development, Pierre Étienne has recently displayed a level of ideological inconsistency that leaves doubts over his capacity to govern with coherence. With the extensive role that foreign entities maintain in the Haitian political scene, an administration characterized by ambiguity could leave the country even more susceptible to outside interference and exploitation.

Looking Forward

This year has been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, a trying one for Haiti. The events of the past few months and the resulting political scramble have created a substantial crisis of legitimacy in the hemisphere’s poorest country. Campaigns and electoral proceedings are marred by public distrust, and many Haitians still worry that the 2015 elections will fail to materialize. However, though the current situation is dire, the sheer magnitude and fervor of participation in this year’s electoral process is an indication that the Haitian people’s democratic spirit is alive and well.

For a country whose geographic location makes it particularly prone to natural disasters, whose colonial history has left a palpable legacy of socio-economic strife, and whose sovereignty continues to be undermined by excessive foreign intervention, few things are destined to come easily. But logistical concerns notwithstanding, Haiti has a vital opportunity this year to experience a peaceful, democratic transition of power. In the coming months, domestic and international observers will wait to see if principles of transparency and integrity are upheld, bringing the Haitian people closer to the governance they deserve. But even amidst all the uncertainty, it is clear that this year’s elections have the potential to serve as a huge step in the right direction.

*Sam Aman, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:

[1] www.cnn.com/2011/world/americas/04/05/haiti.martelly/

[2] www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/americas/18haiti.html?_r=0

[3] www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-22/michelmartelly_stealth_duvalierist.asp

[4] www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/michel-martelly-is-haitis-new-president-but-the-former-palm-beach-county-resident-has-a-dark-side-6344960

[5] www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/haitis-doctored-elections-seen-from-the-inside-an-interview-with-ricardo-seitenfus

[6] www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/13/haitian-election-impasse-has-roots-in-dictatorships-past

[7] www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/haitis-doctored-elections-seen-from-the-inside-an-interview-with-ricardo-seitenfus

[8] www.ijdh.org/2015/01/topics/politics-democracy/ensuring-fair-elections-in-haiti-legal-analysis-of-recent-developments/

[9] www.ijdh.org/2015/04/topics/politics-democracy/elections-loom-haitis-year-of-living-dangerously

[10] www.haitilibre.com/article-14148-haiti-actualite-zapping-electoral.html

[11]http://latinnews.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=65118&period=2015&archive=798196&Itemid=6&cat_id=798196:haiti-electoral-contest-starts-taking-shape

[12] http://www.cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-and-reconstruction-watch/haiti-election-news-round-up?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+relief-and-reconstruction-watch+%28Haiti%3A+Relief+and+Reconstruction+Watch%29

[13] www.alterpresse.org/spip.php?article9348#.VYIk-vlVhBc

[14] www.rnddh.org/content/uploads/2015/06/5-Elections-moralité-candidats-2-jun-2015.pdf

[15] www.lenouvelliste.com/lenouvelliste/article/141794/Haiti-parie-sur-la-banane-avec-Agritrans

[16] www.metropolehaiti.com/metropole/full_une_fr.php?id=26514

[17] www.referencehaiti.com/cinq-candidats-a-la-presidence-dont-laurent-lamothe-contestes/

[18] www.sentinel.ht/news/articles/political/5584-fanmi-lavalas-designates-dr-maryse-narcisse-for-president-of-haiti

[19] www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/10_31_7/10_31_7.html;

www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/01.11.2007

[20] www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-aristides-party-fanmi-lavalas-taken-over-by-macouto-bourgeois-group/5361350

[21] Ibid.

[22] www.lematinhaiti.com/contenu.php?idtexte=28133

[23] www.commondreams.org/views/2010/01/15/starfish-and-seawalls-responding-haitis-earthquake-now-and-long-term

[24] www.touthaiti.com/touthaiti-editorial/2718-opl-de-sauveur-pierre-etienne-enfant-prodigue-de-lavalas-concubin-politique-de-l-extreme-droite

[25] www.touthaiti.com/touthaiti-editorial/2679-audio-interview-tout-haiti-entres-ces-deux-maux-sauveur-pierre-etienne-de-l-opl-a-choisi-martelly

The post A Definite Date, An Undefined Future: Haiti Scrambles To Prepare For Electoral Contest appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Planned Parenthood Exec Appears To Joke About Pricing Baby Parts In New Video

0
0

By Adelaide Mena and Matt Hadro

Another undercover video released today allegedly shows a senior official at Planned Parenthood flippantly discussing monetary compensation for aborted baby organs, and the alteration of abortion procedures to ensure that the organs are intact.

“It’s been years since I talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others [Planned Parenthood affiliates] are getting. If this [price] is in the ballpark, it’s fine, if it’s still low then we can bump it up,” Dr. Mary Gatter appears to tell actors posing as representatives of a fetal tissue procurement company, before joking, “I want a Lamborghini.”

Dr. Gatter is president of the Planned Parenthood medical directors’ council and oversees a Planned Parenthood facility in Pasadena, Calif.

The eight-minute video was released by the citizen journalist group Center for Medical Progress, which reports on medical ethics. It is the second video released as part of their report, “Human Capital,” the result of a three-year investigative study of Planned Parenthood and its transfer of body parts of aborted babies for money.

The first undercover video was made public last week, showing the organization’s senior director of medical services discussing the “donation” of body parts of aborted babies for “reasonable” compensation. The Planned Parenthood official estimated the price for the body parts from $30 to $100 per “specimen.”

Planned Parenthood has defended the practice, saying that it is not making significant or illegal profits from the process, and that it receives appropriate consent from mothers.

The new video purports to show Gatter saying that “we’re not in it for the money, and we don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue, and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and that kind of stuff…it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile.”

Gatter appears to suggest “$75 a specimen,” as a price that would “work” for fetal tissue of aborted babies.

Federal law generally prohibits the selling of human tissue but allows for the donation of tissue with “reasonable payments” for the “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.” It explicitly prohibits the sale of tissue for “valuable consideration.”

The video also includes a discussion of possibly adjusting the abortion procedure of certain babies to better deliver an “intact specimen” to the organ harvesters.

“(I)f our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you’,” Gatter appears to say.

“Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument,” she appears to continue, saying that she “wouldn’t object” to asking the abortion doctor “to use an IPAS at that gestational age, in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue.”

“I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques. There’s no difference in pain involved. I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.”

At the end of the video, she appears to instruct one of the “buyers” to send her a business proposal. “And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I’ll mention this to Ian [the surgeon] and see how he feels in terms of how he feels about using a ‘less crunchy’ technique to get more whole specimens.”

More undercover videos could be released in coming weeks. A lawyer from Planned Parenthood sent a letter to Rep. Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is launching an investigation into the organization after the release of the first video.

“We don’t know what the Center will release next, but we know enough to be deeply concerned about the infiltration of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates,” the letter states. It said that Planned Parenthood had at least 65 meetings with the Center for Medical Progress, and suggested that future videos could include racial questions and footage of an area used to process the tissue of aborted babies.

The post Planned Parenthood Exec Appears To Joke About Pricing Baby Parts In New Video appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Overcoming The Israeli-Palestinian Psychosocial Barrier – OpEd

0
0

There are many measures both Israel and Palestine must take to mitigate the psychological impediments that have separated their publics for decades. If the leadership truly believes that they must first reach a peace accord before they encourage and institute such reconciliatory public measures, they are disingenuous and dangerously misguided.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s and Palestinian Authority President Abbas’ presumed public commitment to a two-state solution means little unless they begin to undertake confidence-building measures to demonstrate their real intentions. In fact, even if they really believe in what they state and negotiate to reach an agreement, they will fail just like in all previous peace negotiations unless they first prepare their respective publics psychologically by taking such measures. Failing that can only point to their sheer lack of commitment to peaceful coexistence, and no one should be fooled by their empty rhetoric because peace will not be reached without their publics’ support and engagement.

The current young generation of Israelis and Palestinians need to see each other through a different lens and adjust psychologically to accept that coexistence is irrevocable, and they must choose to either live in constant violent hostility, or in peace.

Currently, contact between the two sides is limited to what they deem necessary, including security cooperation and permits for Palestinians to work in Israel. These encounters do not allow for free social and human interaction to discuss their true concerns about one another, or share personal experiences that bring people together.

Anyone who is familiar with the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians will tell you that stereotyping, mutual lack of trust, and animosity are most common. The Palestinians view the Israelis as cruel, uncaring, and bent on denying them a state of their own. The Israelis see the Palestinians as terrorists determined to wipe Israel off the map.

This is what the leadership on both sides have deliberately and habitually been propagating over the decades, which has become ingrained in the psyche of their respective publics. The failure of past negotiations only reinforced these sentiments, making it much harder to make the necessary concessions their publics could accept.

There are many measures both sides must take to mitigate the psychological impediments that have separated their publics for decades. If the leadership truly believes that they must first reach a peace accord before they encourage and institute such reconciliatory public measures, they are disingenuous and dangerously misguided.

The Israeli and the Palestinian governments and civil society can play a constructive role in shaping public opinion, including:

  • Modify text books to reflect more accurately the historic narrative, recognizing the existence and rights of each other. Both sides in particular ought to amend their curriculum to reflect the existence of the other. Indeed, as long as their historic and religious claims to the same land remain set in stone, little progress can be made.
  • Mutual tourism – Thousands of Israelis and Palestinians should be able to cross security checkpoints in both directions to enjoy a day or even a few hours at each other’s social settings—eat in restaurants, roam the marketplace, and experience firsthand how the other is living, as was the case before the first Intifada.
  • Joint sports activities – Israeli and Palestinian football, basketball, and other sports teams, such as the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Team, can meet alternately in Israel and Palestine to train, compete, and develop camaraderie. This should also include national and professional teams, which implies recognition of sovereignty.

In other areas of interaction, the governments can facilitate and fund, when needed, joint activities between the civil society and the private sectors on both sides, including:

  • Student interaction – Israeli and Palestinian students (primary schools up to universities) must be encouraged to mingle with their counterparts and talk about their aspirations and hopes for the future to be free and unburdened by uncertainty and perpetual conflict.
  • Art exhibitions – There are scores of Israeli and Palestinian artists who have never met or delved into each other’s mindset to see how their works reflect their lives. The governments should fund joint exhibitions both in Israel and Palestine and allow them to tour several cities and expose the young and old to see and feel what the other is trying to express through their art.
  • Public discourse – Universities, think tanks, and other learning institutions should encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in roundtable discussions and public lectures on the inevitability of coexistence to make it not only inevitable but desirable.
  • Joint forums to discuss conflicting issues should be established, consisting of qualified individuals with varied academic and personal experiences who enjoy respect in their field, are independent thinkers, hold no formal position in government, and have thorough knowledge of the conflicting issues.
  • Israeli and Palestinian media should regularly report on positive developments between the two sides, share with the public the changing political wind, and discuss how cooperation on trade, security, healthcare, and joint projects are benefitting ordinary citizens. This should also include the production of movies, television shows, and plays (including comedy) to reflect how much they have in common and their mutual cultural influence in food, music, and interchangeable Arabic and Hebrew words and jargon.
  • Finally, female activism – Civil society should support current efforts by women-led groups such as Women in Black and Women Wage Peace to use their formidable power and make their voices heard. Historically, women have been very powerful as peacemakers; this has been demonstrated in a number of conflicts, including in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

These activities and more must constitute the forerunner of any future peace negotiations. Indeed, even if at the present peace negotiations are not in the offing, given that coexistence is an irrefutable fact, Israeli and Palestinian governments and civil society must begin this process of reconciliation now to create the momentum for future successful negotiations.

None of this will occur without some hurdles, resistance, and even outright acts of sabotage, as there still is a significant constituency on both sides who simply do not accept each other’s right for statehood or even to exist, but they can be overcome through persistence in the implementation of these measures.

Nevertheless, if the Israeli and Palestinian leadership are truly committed to peaceful coexistence, this is the only way by which they can demonstrate their commitment and determination to end the conflict based on a two-state solution.

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

The post Overcoming The Israeli-Palestinian Psychosocial Barrier – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jordan Authorities Detain Uncle Of Tennessee Shooter

0
0

An uncle of the man who killed four Marines and one sailor at two military sites in Tennessee has been in the custody of Jordanian authorities since a day after the attack, a lawyer told the Associated Press on Tuesday.

Abdel Qader al-Khatib identified himself as the legal representation for Asaad Ibrahim Abdulazeez Haj Ali, a maternal uncle of the Chattanooga attacker, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. Al-Khatib told AP he had been barred from seeing his client and that family members were also prevented from visiting the detainee.

An official from the Jordanian government said Tuesday that some of Addulazeez’s relatives in Jordan were being questioned regarding his stay in the kingdom, but did not elaborate further on the investigation.

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was sure the uncle and “other relevant people” were being questioned, but that he did not know whether he was in detention.

An anonymous source close to the family said Abdulazeez spent several months in Jordan last year under an agreement with his parents to help him get away from struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and a group of friends his relatives considered a bad influence, AP reported.

According to AP, US authorities are struggling to understand the motive behind the Tennessee attack. Investigators are describing their search as a domestic terrorism investigation, but nothing about Abdulazeez’s former dealings had caught their attention before the rampage Thursday morning.

Original article

The post Jordan Authorities Detain Uncle Of Tennessee Shooter appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Impact Of ‘Great Recession’ On The Developing World – Analysis

0
0

In his 1941 novel You Can’t Be Too Careful, H. G. Wells wrote that the “crisis of today is the joke of tomor­row”. For much of the developing world that relies on capital from inter­national financial markets to fund its growth, the joke tomorrow may be in extremely poor taste.

Though the exercise is naïve, it is useful to divide the developing world into two categories – globalizers and non-globalizers. For the latter, the response to the current “Great Recession” is often a slightly puzzled “What crisis?”, as many international organizations’ workers have found since 2008 when talking to poor peasants in some West African countries. Being removed from global markets (both financial and commodity) may have inhibited their long-term growth pros­pects but at least it has insulated them from the worst effects of the crisis. For the former, on the other hand, the current mess is likely to have several serious repercussions.

The first, and most obvious, will be the availability of physical capital to finance investment. An important structural difference between these groups of nations, whose consequences have not been highlighted in the current crisis, lies in the fact that long-term growth in industrialised nations is essentially driven by increases in total factor productivity, while in the devel­oping world growth is driven by the accumulation of factors of production. It is therefore arguable, ceteris paribus, that a prolonged hiatus in investment in physical capital will have much more serious consequences in globalised developing countries than in their developed counterparts.

One possible positive outcome of this is that, since it is driven by accumula­tion, the growth of globalised develop­ing countries has, after a very sharp blip, returned to its previous levels. The same cannot be said of industrialised countries, which may experience a permanent shock to their long-term growth rates (which were already relatively low before the crisis).

However, the income shocks experi­enced by poor households may have permanent consequences for the accumulation of human capital (when economists talk about “human capi­tal”, they mean education and health). Faced with severe, albeit temporary income shocks, and lacking adequate insurance or mechanisms to compen­sate for loss of income, poor people pull their children out of school and send them to work. Even when the good times return, the children in question almost never return to school.

Similarly, when their income is under pressure, the poor rarely take their children to doctors. As a result, temporary shocks can have devastat­ing consequences on educational attainment and the health of the young (and ultimately on growth) in globalised developing countries. Given the magnitude of the current world crisis, one can venture to argue that the world is now seeing a massive increase in child labour in the glo­balised developing world, as well as a resurgence in diseases that have hitherto been held in check.

Compounding this, credit rationing in globalised developing countries has become more severe, which has knock-on effects on labour markets and thus on urban poverty. Investors in many developing countries are starved for credit, and are increasingly being forced to fund part of their investment in physical capital from retained earnings. This has resulted in severe downward pressure on wages which, in countries without social safety nets and where organised labour is non-existent, exacerbates poverty in urban areas. The cases of Brazil and Venezuela come quickly to mind here.

Finally, while growing poverty in urban areas contribute to stem­ming rural-to-urban migration, increased protectionism in developed countries has reduced agricultural exports from globalised developing countries, producing the inverse effect. Though there are very few universal lessons from Development Economics, one that is accepted by most scholars is that a sine qua non of development is an increase in agricultural productivity. If devel­oped countries continue to succumb to protec­tionist pressure, we may witness permanent effects on the growth of agricultural productivity in the devel­oping world.

Reductions in investment in physical capital, increases in child labour, dete­riorations in child health and education, collapses of agricultural productivity: the list does not make for pleasant read­ing. And let us not forget that H. G. Wells also wrote The War of the Worlds…

In economics jargon, the argument would be that growth in globalised developing countries is Neoclassical (a shock to invest­ment depresses GDP per capita but ultimately returns to the previous steady-state) while that in industrialised countries follows some sort of endogenous growth process.

This article appeared at Diplomatic Courier and is reprinted with permission.

The post The Impact Of ‘Great Recession’ On The Developing World – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Pakistan Needs To Harmonise Contradictory Compulsions – Analysis

0
0

By C Uday Bhaskar*

The fact that the paramilitary forces of Pakistan did not accept the sweets offered by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) at the Wagah border on the festive occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr on Saturday (July 18) is illustrative of the mercurial nature of the troubled bilateral relationship.

The Eid exchange is a practice that has been in place for some years and has been relatively resilient notwithstanding the political and security related tension that has an episodic character to it, though it must be noted that even in 2014, there was no such goodwill gesture.

However, this year’s ‘bitter’ Eid across the International Border (IB) comes less than ten days after the cautious optimism triggered by the Narendra Modi-Nawaz Sharif meeting in Ufa (July 10) on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit wherein both nations seemed to be moving towards a more conciliatory engagement. At the time, the joint statement read out by the two foreign secretaries exuded a degree of mutual cordiality that has been rare on such occasions and the mood in both countries seemed more optimistic than it had been since Prime Minister Modi assumed office in May 2014.

This nascent hope remained stillborn as the events of the subsequent post Ufa days revealed. The hardliners in Pakistan were deeply critical of the concessions ostensibly made by Prime Minister Sharif, and the Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz made public statements about Kashmir, the 26/11 Mumbai terror case and more – all very familiar – but did not help the Ufa aspiration.

On the Indian side, intemperate voices sought to claim ‘victory’ in the audio-visual domain (that is now increasingly becoming a case of tail-wag-dog) and very soon firing across the border resulted in the loss of life on both sides.

Exaggerated and misleading reports about an Indian drone being shot down by Pakistan added to the tension and the bilateral relationship reverted to its brittle and uneasy texture.

Consequently a high-level meeting of cabinet ministers in Delhi reviewed the situation and in a departure from normal practice, the Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar briefed the media (July 16) and noted: “India remains committed to steps that contribute to peace on the border but we won’t let our guard down. Indian forces would give befitting reply to ceasefire violations by Pakistan troops.”

Both security forces maintain that the provocation is emerging from the other side and this is an assertion that can neither be proved or disproved given the topography, lack of trust and the latent hostility that has been in place for decades. However, to Rawalpindi’s dismay, it was clarified that the drone allegation was a bogey as borne out by reports in the Chinese media that the rudimentary platform was indeed of Chinese origin and could be bought off the shelf for less than US$1,500!

Where do bilateral relations go from this bleak post Ufa sequence of events? The trajectory, alas, is familiar. India has sought a certain degree of normalization of its relationship with Pakistan since 1972 when the Simla agreement was signed between then prime minister Indira Gandhi and her counterpart – Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The loss of East Pakistan and the humiliation that the Pakistani military had to internalize at the time has progressively transformed into a bitter and almost inflexible anti-India orientation that is nurtured by various constituencies that are now referred to as the ‘deep state’ in Pakistan.

A counter-factual narrative of a ‘pure’ Islamic Pakistan that is guiltless, yet the eternal victim that has to ward off an evil and hegemonic Hindu India, is now accepted as gospel truth by a large majority in Pakistan. Predictably, any voices that question this blatant distortion of history and facts are deemed to be guilty of either blasphemy or treason – or both!

The failure of the Ufa meeting between the two prime ministers is not new. From the P.V. Narasimha Rao period of the early 1990’s, through the Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh years to the current experience, Indian prime ministers have sought to reach out to Islamabad fairly early in their tenure to improve the bilateral relationship.

Prime Minister Modi’s Ufa meeting is part of this effort and the disappointment is similar to what Vajpayee had to undergo after the much- touted Lahore Accord of early 1999. Kargil followed, but this did not prevent the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance from investing in the Agra Summit of July 2001, that was aborted in the terror attack on the Indian Parliament in December that year.

Prime minister Manmohan Singh was perhaps wiser and more cautious after the Vajpayee experience and engaged with Islamabad, but did not visit that country. The bitter personal attack mounted on him by his political opponents after the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement of July 2009 (which it may be recalled took place after the enormity of the Mumbai terror attack of November 2008) resulted in a policy of minimum engagement, even as Pakistan went through its post Musharraf transition to civilian rule.

Prime Minister Modi assumed office in May 2014 with the promise of bringing greater resolve to India’s Pakistan policy as pursued by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government. The BJP had long accused their political rivals of pusillanimity and an appeasement approach.

Yet the not-so palatable reality is that over the last 25 years – since May 1990 – when Pakistan acquired covert nuclear weapon capability with Chinese assistance, the deep state has become more and more emboldened and lives in a virtual reality that it assumes a near-parity with India: a false perception that is encouraged by its closest allies.

India’s post-Ufa policy may be best described through a rowing analogy – to hold water on one side and row on the other, so as to turn the boat around. The deep state in Pakistan has to be encouraged or compelled to change its flawed security orientation. India has indicated that the tactical response to provocations across the border will be firm and disproportionate – if need be – even while exploring the politico-diplomatic opportunities that may present themselves.

Hopefully, Pakistan will be able to harmonize the contradictory compulsions of Islamabad (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif), Rawalpindi (General Rahil Sharif) and Muridke (HQ of the Lashkar-e-Taiba) – though on current evidence, this seems a low probability.

*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in

The post Pakistan Needs To Harmonise Contradictory Compulsions – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran Deal Has Far-Reaching Potential To Remake International Relations – Analysis

0
0

By Arul Louis*

The Vienna agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council acting in concert with Germany has the potential to remake international relations beyond the immediate goal of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

President Barack Obama has invested an inordinate amount of political capital in the deal, challenging many in the United States political arena and Washington’s key allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, in hopes that a breakthrough on Iran would be his presidency’s international legacy along with his Cuba opening.

Obama is gambling on the nation’s war-weariness after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that took a total toll of 6,855 casualties and, according to a Harvard researcher, is costing the nation at least $4 trillion. He presented the nation with a stark choice: War or Peace.

“There really are only two alternatives here,” he said, “either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically, through a negotiation, or it’s resolved through force, through war.”

Though the deal has been denounced by Republicans and some Democrats, and, earlier, the opponents had taken the unprecedented step of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make their case before Congress, Obama expects expects to carry the day. Even if Congress votes against the agreement, Obama reckons the opposition will not be able to able to get the two-thirds majority to override his threatened veto.

Obama’s Iran legacy, if it works according to plan, will not have the impact of Richard Nixon’s opening to China, but it still could mark the end of 36 years of virulent hostilities. Even if Washington and Tehran don’t recapture the closeness of the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi era, the US will increase its options in the Middle East, a region posing a growing to the world threat from the Sunni-based Islamic State or IS. Right now Washington is hamstrung by unsure Sunni allies in the region.

Already in Iraq, the US and Iran have been working with different elements on parallel tracks against IS. Obama has been blamed for pulling out US troops from Iraq, although it was largely in keeping with his predecessor George W. Bush’s timetable, and for failing to reach an agreement with Baghdad on stationing some troops beyond the pullout deadline. These have been mentioned as factors leading to the rise of IS.

Now there is a chance for Obama to redeem himself through the cooperation of Iran, even if they will not go to the extent of a formal agreement.

In the other IS flashpoint to the west of Iraq there seems to be implacable differences on Syria. Tehran stands firmly by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington considers the irreconcilable foe of peace in that civil war ravaged country.

Bridging this gap even if by face-saving measures would be the true test of a diplomatic shift.

The Iran nuclear issue takes the inevitable color of a Shia-Sunni conflict. In the first place, the unspoken impetus for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions was Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and the threat from its Sunni fundamentalists against Shias.

Now Pakistan’s stock will rise in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations as hedge as a Sunni-dominated nuclear power ranged against Iran, which they mistrust.

Add to this mix Israel, which has reportedly developed an unlikely alliance with Saudi Arabia. For Israel, the threat comes from fears of the millenarian trends among some Shia Muslims that could cancel out the insurance that Jerusalem, sacred to the Muslims, provides and Teheran’s venomous, ant-Semitic rhetoric.

But a more immediate issue for Israel is Tehran’s support for the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Shia Hezbollah. The sanctions against Iran limited its potential financial and material backing for these organizations and the flow of funds after sanctions are lifted could boost Tehran’s adventurism, directly and through proxies, Israel fears.

On the global diplomatic front, the Iran deal is a break from the incessant UN Security Council squabbles that have hobbled it as issues like Ukraine, Syria, the South China Sea and assorted hotspots in Africa burn. Russia and China showed they could work intensively with the West. Moscow even earned plaudits from Obama for its role in facilitating the deal.

Russia and Iran share some common interests in places like Syria, Central Asia and the caucuses. An unbridled Tehran could more effectively cooperate with Moscow in these areas.

Economically, Russia, like other oil producers, may be hit by falling oil prices, but the diplomatic congruence and future arms sales could compensate.

For the European Union and China, the deal opens up business opportunities in a nation with tremendous economic potential along with lower oil prices.

Iran has the fourth largest known reserves of oil and its current production of 1.1 million barrels could soar to four million within a year. For most of the developing world, further reduction in oil prices will be a great help, even as it increases political and social pressures in some oil-producers.

The picture for India is mixed. It has been paying for Iranian oil imports in rupees while it has been exporting limited amounts of machinery and chemicals. The bilateral trade is in Iran’s favor and is estimated at about $14 billion, with Indian imports at about $10 billion and exports at about $4 billion.

Now India may be able to buy more oil, but it will have to pay in dollars and its exports will have to compete with the rest of the world. With the prospects of sanctions going away, India is already facing Tehran’s truculence in oil and gas and railway projects they had agreed on.

The Chabahar port project remains the strategic cornerstone of India’s ambitious engagement with Iran The port on the Gulf of Oman would give India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia bypassing Pakistan.

Chabahar is also a counterweight to Beijing’s Gwadar project in Pakistan that would provide another sea outlet for China, Afghanistan and Central Asian countries.

On the nuclear nonproliferation front, the Iranian agreement chalks up a small victory after North Korean blatantly developed nuclear weapons. The world has been unable to confront Pyongyang diplomatically or militarily because of its mercurial nature leadership that borders on the insane.

For the Iranians themselves, the deal could ease up their lives and bringing back some normalcy. The bigger question is how would it play in the dynamics of Iranian politics. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei approved the deal, but he has since expressed mistrust of the West in keeping its end of the bargain. That may be rein euphoria and send a message to the moderates.

Would the deal lead to a lessening of the paranoia among the religious and nationalist elements and in turn strengthen the moderates and push the present day heirs of the ancient Persian civilisation towards a relatively liberal modernity? If that were to happen Iran would have truly emerged from the shadows of international isolation.

*Arul Louis, is a New York-based journalist and international affairs analyst, who is a Senior Fellow of the New Delhi-based Society for Policy Studies.

The post Iran Deal Has Far-Reaching Potential To Remake International Relations – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

What Is Meant By Emerging Countries? – Analysis

0
0

Categorizing countries has been a recurrent phenomenon since the creation of the major international organizations after 1945, in particular regarding their economic situation. The term “emerging countries” is one of the latest additions to a long list.

Beside the broad categories of developed and developing countries, the list of terms includes: industrialized and newly industrialized, least developed or least advanced countries, small and vulnerable economies or economies in transition. The expression “emerging countries” was first coined in the early 1990s as part of the widespread euphoria about the spreading of economic and financial liberalization policies in the developing world. In the words of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), “emerging markets are typically countries with low to middle per capita income that have undertaken economic development and reform programs and have begun to ‘emerge’ as significant players in the global economy.”

But, as the IMF acknowledges, “there are many ways to categories countries as emerging markets.” As one could expect then, the World Bank uses a different categorization, as do major financial actors through their various emerging market indices. From this perspective, it is quite surprising that there is still a strong overlap in the lists produced by the various organizations or actors.

Indeed, based on the IMF World Economic Outlook 2012, the World Bank Global Development Finance Report 2013, and Morgan Stanley Emerging Market Index, the following countries are listed as emerging countries by more than one of the three sources: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam.

This list raises a few big questions, however. Referring back to the major elements mentioned in the IMF definition, the first issue is the importance given to the criterion of “low to middle per capita income.” Its strict application should clearly eliminate from the list Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, as well as the Czech Republic, and arguably also Estonia, the Slovak Republic and Hungary. The next issue is about the interpretation of “significant players in the world economy.” For instance, it is hard to make a case along this line for Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania, short of counting them within the EU block. It is also difficult to consider Tunisia and Morocco along this criterion. The inclusion of these two groups of countries relies evidently on the criteria of economic reforms, in particular given that these reforms are credibly locked in domestic societies through EU membership or through strong authoritarian regimes.

We are therefore left with the following countries that do seem to match all the criteria of the “market-oriented reforms,” “low to middle income,” and “significant players in the world economy”: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam. Given the wide disparity in the resources, population, political system and economic potential of those countries, the added value of the categorization of emerging markets is an open question. The concept may disappear as quickly as it rose to prominence.

Market participants seem already to have switched to the more catchy acronyms of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), or “BRIMSC” (adding Mexico) that encompass the five or six countries with the potential of not simply being significant but also dominant forces in the world economy by 2050. Today collectively dwarfed by the G7 countries, with only China being individually bigger than some of the G7 countries, the “BRICS” could, if everything goes politically and economically right, collectively overtake the G7 around 2040, with China becoming the largest economy and India the third largest.

Whereas this major power shift is still a far distant perspective, the current weight of BRICS on the world economy is significant: They rose from 11% of global GDP in 1990 to 21% in 2013 and are poised to reach 35% by 2050, represent almost 20% of global trade, possess more than 30% of foreign-exchange reserves, attract close to 20% of world FDI and account for more than 30% of world oil demand (source: World Bank).

As a consequence, BRICS countries have gained prominence in major international economic organizations. India and Brazil now play an important role in the Doha Round of negotiations at the WTO. They form with the U.S. and the EU the G4 group that replaced the old Quad (U.S., EU, Japan and Canada) as the key forum for sealing package deals. In the IMF, China obtained in 2013 an increase of its quota and hence voting rights and is now part of an informal G5 study group on global imbalances. These should be the premises of important changes in world politics in the coming decades.

This article appeared at Diplomatic Courier and is reprinted with permission.

The post What Is Meant By Emerging Countries? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Social Responsibility Isn’t Exclusive Right Of Large Corporations – Interview

0
0

Jorge Emilio Sierra Montoya was director of “La República”, the first business daily newspaper in Colombia and was the first director of the Latin American Institute of Leadership. Currently he is an Advisor on Social Responsibility at the Universidad Simon Bolivar (USB) of Barranquilla, Colombia (after serving earlier in the same capacity in the Colombian Association of Universities -ASCUN-) where he is the director of “Desarrollo Indoamericano,” a renowned journal of Colombia, one of the most important publications on social issues in Latin America and the Caribbean.

With a University Education in Philosophy, Literature, Political Science and Economics, in recent years Prof. Jorge Emilio has been recognized for his contributions to the study of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and has published three books: CSR: Lessons cases and lifestyles; New CSR Lessons and Basic lectures on CSR.

His most recent work is: Leadership with Values published by Digital Reasons, a Spanish publishing house (www.digitalreasons.es); in his essay collection “Arguments for the XXI Century”, Prof. Jorge Emilio highlights precisely the socially responsible leaders in different organizations in order to overcome the contemporary crisis in economics, politics, family, etc.

Following is the full interview of Sierra Montoya given to Peter Tase (PT).

The trend of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

PT: There is no doubt, that Corporate Social Responsibility has become very trendy during the last years…

Jorge Emilio Sierra Montoya: In fact, CSR has seen a remarkable growth during the recent years not only in Colombia but also across Latin America and worldwide. This is why it has become a new fashion by many, but rather it is very trendy because at different companies, whatever their size maybe (large, medium, small, micro or family), this subject is mandatory and must be addressed at all of their levels.

At the same time, there are organized many forums about this issue, it is being studied in universities, especially the area of University Social Responsibility (USR) – and even the number of specialists in this field is increasing, just to cite some of the many indicators that clearly show how this issue has gained momentum and ceased to be neglected by a selected group of people, and has indeed become something very popular.

PT: How popular has it become in reality?

JESM: It is beginning to acquire popularity. Hence the Mass Communication, which is usually handling general topics of interest for the majority of the population, is beginning to report all issues concerning CSR and USR, including internal or institutional campaigns, while exercising their social responsibility, which is another way of promote it accurately.

PT: Why is it necessary that corporate leaders should understand the importance of developing social responsibility programs?

JESM: First, because CSR involves a fundamental change in the business sector, beginning with entrepreneurs themselves. Let me explain: For some time it was believed that the function of a company is to generate profits, income or wealth, always understood within the economic field, in terms of money or monetary resources. Of course, that’s common sense and fundamental, among other things because it is required for development, but it is not enough.

Today, however, there is a need for a company to seek both economic benefits and social benefits, thus promoting not only their owners or shareholders’ profits but the benefits of different stakeholders (such as employees, suppliers, community, etc.), with whom a corporation must be socially responsible.

It is therefore a much broader concept of a company; it includes the responsibility of employers and the responsibility that these groups have, that is, the social responsibility towards employees, suppliers, universities and the government…

All invest and everyone wins

PT: But there are those who believe that social responsibility is exclusive to large corporations where CSR programs are more ordinary.

JESM: It is true; they are seen obliged to adopt such programs because social responsibility also includes environmental issues that are of utmost importance today. Large companies should, therefore, be very strict on these areas and ensure high standards of environmental protection, increasingly required by international markets, under the internal laws of each country, and there are even laws of global proportions in nature that must respected. It is no wonder, afterward, that they are very committed to CSR policies.

PM: According to your thoughts, however, CSR should not only be a responsibility of large companies but also medium, small and micro or family enterprises. Why?

JESM: Let me insist that CSR applies to all companies, even smaller ones, and to other social organizations, it is far from reality in believing that CSR is unique to large private companies, public or joint ventures. Any organization can apply this model to be, above all, socially responsible. The same is true of the universities, newspapers or Mass Communication entities, families, etc.

Micro enterprises and Small & Medium Enterprises (SME) cannot be ignored or set this concept aside. And even if they have an economic limitation pertaining to such costs, they should see it as an investment, not as an expense, given the multiple benefits, including economic results that CSR generates. There is a great educational process required to change their attitude and learn to develop a corporate strategy that will generate economic, social and environmental value for the company and its stakeholders.

PT: Let’s explore the benefits that you mentioned. What are some of them?

JESM: In each company or organization you have to look at its stakeholders. However, the main group is the employees, who are seeking support with various programs (housing, health care, education, retirement plan…) within the framework of social responsibility. Why? It is obvious, as I said before, the responsibility of a company is not only to give benefits to their owners but share these benefits, with solidarity, with various interest groups and first of all, with its workers, to improve their living conditions.

PT: And what benefits do these workers bring to the company?

JESM: There are many. They range from acquiring a greater sense of belonging to the organization, increase productivity, efficiency and competitiveness or have a substantial reduction of labor disputes. Furthermore, it should be clarified that there are not only economic benefits. We must recall that in the business world of today there are so-called intangible assets whose value –allow me to reiterate- sometimes exceed the economic value of the company. And when a company is socially responsible, respect human and labor rights or promote policies such as environmental restrictions, tends to improve its reputation, image, brand or prestige, leading to greater consumer preferences, which results ultimately, in higher sales and then it corresponds to greater financial strength. Several studies have demonstrated and have backed these results.
University Projects

PT: Finally, We know that you have been engaged with the university sector for a long time, first at ASCUN and now at the Simon Bolivar University (USB) of Barranquilla, with the mission to establish plans that promote social responsibility. What can you tell us about this initiative?

JESM: Yes, I was in charge of Social Responsibility Projects at ASCUN, which is part of its corporate strategic plan, and recently assumed the same responsibilities at the USB, where we are developing specific projects such as the Centre for Social Responsibility and the CSR-USR by writing specialized books focused on this subject. I will never be tired of saying that universities, like mass media, have an enormous social responsibility, perhaps more than any other sector that could have a lesser impact on the collective wellbeing.

The post Social Responsibility Isn’t Exclusive Right Of Large Corporations – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran Nuclear Deal Redraws Middle-East Map – OpEd

0
0

Take a look at the map of the Middle East and North Africa. You can see many straight lines labeled as the ‘national’ boundaries of countries like Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan and so on. These unnatural political borde had foretold you that the flesh and blood peoples living there would, once sufficiently armed, endeavor to reset the fences for their clans after having suffered from all kinds of ethnic-sectarian clashes with their neighbors. What has been more frustrating is that, Afghanistan, Iraq and Egypt under the American ‘administration’ have failed to exemplify that democratic elections, no matter how genuine they are, can resolve the sectarian conflicts inside these state. In Iraq, for instance, since the Sunnis as a forever minority have no opportunity of winning this head-count game to gain the mandate at Baghdad, so why not join the jihadists to establish a new state of their own?

“Disorder is worse than injustice.” It seems such a Robert D. Kaplan’s summary of Henry Kissinger’s admonition for policy makers [Note 1] has caught the attention of the White House officials. As the term ‘Levant’ covers the areas and peoples in Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and even Turkey [Note 2], the armored tanks bearing the flags of and the endless suicide bombings in the name of ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL) are prognostic signs that the straight boundary lines in the Middle East are being defied. The Mideast map is about to be redrawn after some more series of bloodsheds spreading from Syria (Alawites vs Sunnis) to Iraq (Kurds vs Sunnis vs Shi’a), Yemen (Zaidi Houthis vs Sunnis vs Al-Qaeda), Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood vs the secular army), Omen, Qatar and so on. Such an ethno-geographical reshuffle fluttered by the radical jihadists, if not checked or kept in certain orders, would at worst obliterate the United States’ rule-setter status in this region.

However, unknotting the historical, religious and economic badger among the Mideast peoples appear to be beyond the Americans’ sole power. After 25 years of combat since the Gulf War in 1990-91, sending platoons of infantrymen and marines to land on this vortex of sands would hardly gain popular endorsement.   It therefore makes sense for Washington to draw out any functioning local stakeholders to help, especially providing foot soldiers to bear the brunt of decapitation.

Inside this bleeding region nowadays, there are only two states still actually functioning — Saudi Arabia and Iran — whereas all others (including the relatively stable UAE and Kuwait) are either heavily dependent upon external guidance for governance or already in civil war of some sort. Although these two countries appear to be two hostile legions tearing the region apart, they are capable of tuning the proxy fights between them (such as the combat in Yemen) and more importantly, constraining the growth of the scattering extremist groups because they both possess the necessary insider information and subterranean networks (Iran is well known for financing the Hizbullah movements around the Persian Gulf and Abdallah al-Turabi’s PIO networking with the Sunni jihadists [Note 3]). When enemy’s enemy is friend, the tactic of cultivating a common ground with Iran to form a phalanx should not be deemed as an anomaly.

Iran has the capacity of being regarded as a functional team member on at least four considerations. Firstly, it is an administratively reliable state since its power succession system, democratic or not is not a concern now, has been working well for policy consistency. After Ali Khamenei had served two four-year terms as the President of Iran (1981-89), all his successors — Rafsanjani (1989-97), Khatami (1997-2005) and Ahmadinejad (2005-13) — could smoothly complete their presidency respectively (this merit has been overlooked by many pundits but a similar helmsman ruler system in Beijing has proved that it works really well).  Given this track record, the incumbent President Hassan Rouhani (2013-), who has portrayed a liberal image for himself, will probably remain steadily in office to abide by the deal and can be expected to act resonantly to the West’s demands throughout his terms until 2021.

Secondly, Iran’s trustworthiness to observe the P5+1 (or E3+3) deal and inclination towards collaboration have somehow been insured by the Chinese leaders who are keen on re-thriving their Silk Road which has to pass through the Middle East to reach Europe and Africa [Note 4].

Thirdly, playing ethno politics between the Sunni Saudis and the Shi’a Persians is no better way of  keeping Tehran’s ambitions in check. Saudi and its satellite states (some of which are suspected of financing the ISIL) will act as the indigenous vanguards to counterbalance Iran’s influence when re-drawing the new national boundaries in the ‘Levant’ zone.

Fourth, many Iranians, especially those in Tehran, can speak or at least understand English [Note 5]. Lifting sanctions can promote substantial cultural and commercial exchanges between this formerly U.S.-friendly nation and the Americans. Better acquaintance with Western thought would not just soften the extent of Anti-Americanism there but also widen the scope for compromise(s) in future. (Unfortunately, it is the American side that has a new problem in this aspect. Professor Charles King of Georgetown University recently highlighted one of the reasons for the American “Decline of International Studies” — the shrinking enrollment in the National Security Education Program-sponsored courses for all the “critical languages” which include Arabic, Russian and Persian [Note 6]).

Similar to the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, ethno-sectarian fights will inevitably remold the Middle East and reshape the boundaries for new nation-states. The Obama Administration, having noticed that the United States is unable to set the new rules unilaterally,  is wise to take the necessary and calculable risks of play ethno politics between Saudi and Iran to restore order and retain its geopolitical interests here.

[Note 1]

See p. 134 in Robert D. Kaplan (2000), “The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War”, Random House: New York; or

The Atlantic, “Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism”, June 1999.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/06/kissinger-metternich-and-realism/377625/

[Note 2]

Wikipedia, “Levant”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant

[Note 3]

See p.55-105 in Monte Palmer and Princess Palmer (2004), “At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America’s War on Terrorism”, Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford.

[Note 4]

FPIF, “China: What Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Israel and the U.S. Have in Common”, Nov 22, 2013.
http://fpif.org/china-saudi-arabia-russia-iran-israel-u-s-common/

[Note 5]

Slate, “Why are Iranian police markings written in English?”, June 17, 2009.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/06/prints_of_persia.html

[Note 6]

Foreign Affairs, “The Decline of International Studies”, June 16, 2015.
http://www.cfr.org/global/decline-international-studies/p36708

This article appeared at FPIF.

The post Iran Nuclear Deal Redraws Middle-East Map – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Why It Is Time To Invest In Iran – Analysis

0
0

By Manoj Joshi*

Almost everyone is agreed that the recent Iran-US nuclear deal has opened up a raft of opportunities for India – economic and geopolitical – as well as other countries. But major obstacles still remain, primarily the political divisions in the United States.

At the textbook level, the US Senate has to approve international treaties by a two-thirds majority vote. But as per current practice, the deal is deemed as an “agreement” and not “treaty” and hence Congress can be ignored. But in a democracy things don’t quite go by the textbook. As things stand, Obama and the Congress have agreed to have the latter the right to vote to void the deal. But the President will veto such a vote, and its mainly Republican opponents will not be able to get a significant number of Democrats to overcome the veto. Lifting Iran sanctions will also be a problem, though the President has the right to suspend Congress-approved sanctions for two years before requiring its approval to lift them.

The US opponents must mull the consequences of blocking the deal at this stage. Till now the P-5+1 group of big powers has presented a united front and forced Iran to come to the table. But should the US renege, Russia and China, who have not been particularly happy about the Iran sanctions, will pull out, as will countries like India and Japan, which have borne the adverse consequences of the embargo.

New Delhi followed the US’ lead in squeezing its oil trade with Iran. Prior to the sanctions, in 2011, Iran was India’s second largest supplier of crude oil after Saudi Arabia. Currently it is seventh. Though India was one of six nations allowed to purchase a limited quantity of crude under the sanctions regime.

Indian companies like Essar, Tata and oil and gas majors have been mooting investments in Iran since the early-2000s, but they have not put down any serious investments in the country because of the sanctions which actually began in the mid-2000s. As a result, in April this year, the frustrated Iranians withdrew an offer to Indian firms to develop the Farzad B Gas field.

Over the past five years, New Delhi developed a variety of tactics to deal with the Iranian situation. Besides getting exemptions from oil trade sanctions, India also managed to work out a Rupee-Rial arrangement to maintain their trade relations. Indian companies were advised to work through Turkish, Chinese and Russian entities, or set up corporations without vulnerable US assets.

India has made it clear from the outset that it is against Iran getting nuclear weapons. This may sound strange coming from New Delhi, but unlike India, Iran signed the NPT and has given a solemn commitment that it will not make nuclear weapons. In 2005, as part of the western drive against Teheran’s dubious actions on the nuclear front, India voted twice in the IAEA to censure Iran. But, most people acknowledged that New Delhi had little choice, considering that it was at a critical phase in its own nuclear deal with Washington.

First, and most importantly, what binds India and Iran are geopolitical interests. We have been together since 1990 in helping Afghan parties to fight the Taliban. In the 2000s in Afghanistan, India built a highway from Zaranj, which is close to the Iran border, to Delaram, to facilitate the linkage of the country from the non-Pakistani territory in the west. Both of us also have a somewhat jaundiced view of Pakistan who we border, albeit for different reasons.

Now Iran has also emerged as an important ally in fighting the Islamic State. While India may not be immediately threatened by the Daesh, it cannot be complacent. However, it can be sure that the Iranians who are the targets of Sunni fanatics will be on the same side as us.

Second, Iran offers a vast market for Indian products. In the last few years, India has been exporting rice and sugar to Iran against Rupees accumulated in Indian banks due to the US sanctions. But as trade normalises, India has opportunities to develop a market for automobile parts, pharmaceuticals and IT products, provided we understand that now we will be facing competition from a variety of sources.

Third, Iran’s vast oil and gas resources, which are proximate to India, are vital for our energy security. So far we have dithered on gas projects, as well as in developing the Chah Bahar port. But of late, things have been moving. During his meeting with Prime Minister Modi at the sidelines of the Ufa summit, days before the final agreement between Iran and the P5+1 powers was announced, President Hassan Rouhani of Iran called on India to invest in infrastructure projects worth $8 billion.

Fourth, Iran offers us wider geopolitical opportunities by developing multi-modal routes to Central Asia and Russia. The elements of two parallel North-South Corridors – one going north from Bandar Abbas to the Caspian, and thence to Russia and Europe, and the second going from Chah Bahar to Afghanistan and Central Asia are all there. What is needed is to complete several critical rail and road links that Rouhani is inviting us to build. This would be a worthy riposte to the Chinese Belt Road Initiative.

The opening of Iran will alter the geopolitics of south-western Asia. Even so, India needs to tread with care. There are other factors we need to take into account – our ties with Israel and key partners like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and, for that matter, the United States. But this should not in any way constrain our initiatives with Iran. We need to move beyond the phase of dithering that has characterised our ties with Tehran for the last decade.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: The Mid-Day

The post Why It Is Time To Invest In Iran – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

How Extreme Are The Extremists? Pankisi Gorge As A Case Study – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Cecire*

It’s known as Georgia’s highland petri dish for extremism and a microcosm of Islamist militant recruitment, but Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge appears to be an example of steady foreign fighter flow in the absence of significant domestic radicalization. Instead, certain factors – Pankisi’s improbably high militant production, small population, limited Salafist penetration, intense rural poverty, the international demand for “Chechen” fighters, and the prominent role of third countries in recruitment – point to a variety of motivations. Local radicalization is one, as are mercenary activity and third-country radicalization. These have potential implications for CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) and anti-foreign fighter programming in the region and even worldwide.

Georgia’s Pankisi Gorge region, home to less than 10,000 ethnic Vainakhs, known locally as Kists, has been described over the years as a terrorism “hub,” “safe haven,” and a Jihadist “hotbed.” The recent flow of Kist fighters to Syria and Iraq – and especially the infamy of the Pankisi-bred Tarkhan Batirashvili (AKA Omar al Shishani), a leading Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) commander – has done little to dispel this reputation, built largely in the aftermath of the destructive Second Chechen War.

Pankisi’s rough reputation is not unfairly earned. Chechen rebels, fleeing Russian reprisals during the Second Chechen War, found refuge in the rugged Georgian valley region along with foreign Islamist militants that had flocked to their cause. By the early 2000s, there were reportedly hundreds of Chechen partisans hiding among their Kist kinfolk in Pankisi. Many of the Kists aligned with Islamist formations that included some dozens of Arab and other foreign jihadis. Abu Hafs al-Urdani, an Al Qaeda representative, was even said to be operating training camps in Pankisi in 2003 on the orders of Osama Bin Laden.

Chechen irregulars, increasingly reorganized under militant Islamist groups, used Pankisi as a staging area to hit Russian targets across the borders in Chechnya and Dagestan, prompting Russian forces to periodically cross into Georgia to launch strikes. In fact, it was the lawlessness and militant saturation in Pankisi that prompted the first U.S.-Georgian military aid program, the Georgia Train and Equip Program, which saw U.S. military trainers and advisers help Georgian forces clear and re-establish control over the valley (ironically, backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin). But Pankisi’s radicalism problem in the early 2000s was largely imported, from the Chechen guerrillas-turned-Islamists to the foreign fighters that fought with them against Russian troops.

Pankisi Extremism Today

That Pankisi today has a militant problem is undeniable. A number of foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, some quite prominent, have known or well-evidenced links to the valley. But what is less clear is to what degree there is an extremism problem in the Pankisi Gorge. Instead, much of the radicalization tied to Pankisi appears to be metastasizing primarily elsewhere. On the ground, radicalization is clearly occurring to some degree, but appears tethered to factors that do not necessarily involve local actors. Even the Georgian Interior Ministry has noted finding little evidence of robust, ground-level networks. Additional factors are clearly at play.

The most credible estimates of Pankisi-sourced fighters in Syria and Iraq are in the 30-50 range – far less than many media reports. However, Pankisi is only home to some 8,000 to 9,000 Kists (most Chechen refugees have long since left), which would make even 50 fighters an extraordinary rate of radicalization. By comparison, there are an estimated 150-200 militants from Kosovo – considered a particularly high ratio of fighters to country population – a country with a population of just under two million.

But while the raw volume of fighters from Pankisi is not extraordinary, it has certainly produced a disproportionate number of Syrian Islamist rebel commanders (five, and maybe six, by my count). Batirashvili, born in the Pankisi hamlet of Jokolo, enjoys particular notoriety and was credited as the driving force behind the group’s advances in Iraq last summer. Yet, Batirashvili appears to be the only Georgian commander of significant prominence in ISIS. Instead, Georgian Islamist militant commanders tend to lead Caucasus Emirate-sworn factions. This is very much attributable to Pankisi’s position as an exclave of the greater Chechen cultural space and, relatedly, Kist interactions (or participation) in Chechen conflicts with the Russian government.

Perhaps the most well known of these other commanders is Muslim al Shishani, AKA Murad Margoshvili, another Pankiseli who leads the relatively small Jund al Sham faction based in Latakia. Another well-known figure was Seyfullah al Shishani, born Ruslan Machalikashvili, who led the pro-Nusra Jaish Khalifatul Islamiya faction, which was formed after Machalikashvili refused to follow Batirashvili’s Caucasus Emirate-aligned Jaish al Mujahirin wal Ansar (JMA) into ISIS. Considered a rising star among militant Salafis, Machalikashvili was reported killed leading an attack against the Aleppo Central Prison in early 2014. Salahuddin al Shishani, AKA Feyzullah Margoshvili/Giorgi Kushtanashvili (no known relation to Murad Margoshvili), took over a reconstituted JMA after Batirashvili’s departure, and appears to have been recently deposed, only to head up a new, rump Caucasus Emirate-sworn group. Ansar al Sham’s secretive Abu Musa Shishani, real name unknown, is yet another emir with reported roots in the Pankisi Gorge.

Mercenary Activity

According to the most reliable data, Salafis comprise a relatively small community in the valley. In a 2012 report, the European Centre for Minority Issues estimated only about 400 “committed” Salafis in the Pankisi Gorge region. While the Salafi religious community will not necessarily be the only source of fighters, the size and vitality of the community certainly helps, and can serve as a useful (if imperfect) measure of radical penetration.

However, the predominant form of Islam in the valley is commonly described as Sufi, owing to the legacies of the Naqshbandiya and Qadiriya brotherhoods. Yet even this is likely an oversimplification of religious practices in Pankisi, as the local population, like many other highland Caucasian peoples, practice folk variations of religion (in this case, Islam) heavily influenced by antecedent and proximate belief systems. Pankisi folk Islam, with its heavy emphasis on customary law (adat) and Sufi mysticism, also reportedly draws on Christian and pre-Islamic traditions. While Sufism does not necessarily preclude militarism – famed 19th century North Caucasian insurgent leader Imam Shamil led a Sufi rebellion – it does rule out active cooperation with Salafis, who regard Sufism as heretical.

Based on local media sources and social media, since 2013, I have counted a total of at least 30 Georgians fighting in the Syria/Iraq theater (and two noncombatants), of which 26 are likely Kists from the Pankisi Gorge. Of those 26, at least 17 are reported to have been killed in action. Based on local testimonies, it is common to hear Pankisi residents blame foreign fighter flow on poverty and young locals’ quests for opportunity. More broadly, Chechens (to which Kists are culturally and linguistically tied) are widely regarded throughout the region for being fierce, effective fighters. This may be due to the fact that Chechens, not unlike other Caucasian highland peoples, are often described as raised in an environment valorizing martial prowess. This is not an especially novel observation; the cultural ecologies of many highland communities – from the Caucasus to the Scottish highlands to Appalachia – are often observed as incubating social emphases on skill and fearlessness in battle.

At least by reputation, the Chechen peoples very much live up to this narrative. Chechens and other highland Caucasian tribes have been prized as mercenaries for centuries, serving in large numbers in elite Egyptian Mamluk and Ottoman Janissary units. More recently, Chechen mercenaries took part in the 1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh war, the 1992-93 Georgian-Abkhaz war, the 2008 South Ossetia war, and in ongoing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. Tellingly, Chechens were known to have participated on both sides of several of these conflicts.

For example, while Abkhazian forces were bolstered in their war against Tbilisi by thousands of North Caucasian “volunteers,” including famed Chechen guerrilla commander Shamil Basayev (who also reportedly fought with Azerbaijani units in the Karabakh war), Georgian forces deployed their own Chechens in a bid to regain Abkhazia’s highland Kodori region in 2001. Those men were led by Chechen commander Ruslan “Hamzat” Gelayev, who had been using Pankisi as a safe haven (incidentally, his son, Rustam Gelayev, was one of the first Georgian-Chechen casualties in Syria). And while Chechen irregulars loyal to Moscow-anointed strongman Ramzan Kadyrov marched with Russian troops into Georgia in 2008, a persistent rumor in Pankisi was that the beleaguered Georgian government was rushing to form their own force composed of Pankisi Chechens. Chechens are well-known to be fighting for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, but there are also pro-Kiev Chechen formations as well. Chechens, it would seem, are everywhere.

Poverty is an insufficient condition on its own for radicalization, but the attraction of mercenary life to Pankisi Kists is not hard to imagine. The valley is famous for its hospitality and bareback horse races, but is also suffers from few employment opportunities beyond smallholder cultivation or low-level trading. By contrast, the prospect of mercenary life carries the vague promises of adventure, wealth, and fame. Young men of the valley may have limited prospects, but they can always look to cash in on the international reputation of the Chechen warrior. Indeed, Tarkhan Batirashvili’s rise from modest beginnings to one of the leading faces of ISIS – along with his rumored harem and constellations of villas – has surely done little to dissuade Pankisi men from this path.

Third Countries

Hamzat Borchashvili may be the most famous Kist rank-and-file ISIS fighter. Profiled in the Georgian broadsheet Kviris Palitra and in a high-profile exposé in the Daily Beast, the account of Borchashvili’s descent – and that of his brother Khalid – into ISIS clutches is offered as evidence of extremists’ growing sway in the valley. But the story of Borchashvili, who allegedly rose to being trusted member of Batirashvili’s personal jamaat, also appears to show the outsized role that third countries appear to play in facilitating Kist fighter flow to Syria.

In the case of the Borchashvili brothers, it was time spent in Austria’s Chechen diaspora community – deemed the largest outside Chechnya – that their mother Leila claims helped push her sons from piety to extremism. The Borchashvili brothers are hardly alone. In fact, most known Pankisi fighters have links to a third country that appear to play a role in facilitating their journey into militant ranks. For example, Rustam Gelayev, the son of the Chechen commander, had reportedly first made his way to Egypt for religious studies before appearing in Syria, where he was later killed in fighting.

By far, the most common third country cited is Turkey. A persistent theme in accounts by Kist fighters’ families is the belief that their relatives had gone to Turkey to work. It is only later, usually after news of a fighter’s death, that relatives become aware of militant ties. Turkey is also significant in both Batirashvili and late Jabhat al Nusra emir Ruslan Machalikashvili’s journeys to Syria; Machalikashvili had moved to Turkey with his family for work, only to be recruited in Istanbul. Batirashvili, meanwhile, had returned from Turkey ferrying merchandise to sell in Georgia when, his father claims, Georgian police raided their home, confiscated their property, and planted a weapon that led to Batirashvili’s pre-ISIS imprisonment.

While the role of third countries is not uniform across every account, they do seem to play an outsized role in either radicalization or, at least, as a recruitment node for would-be Kist fighters. This may suggest that ground-level recruitment in Pankisi, while almost certainly a factor, plays only a partial role in transforming Pankisi men into foreign fighters.

Policy Considerations

While the Pankisi foreign fighter problem set is a narrow case, it has potentially wider implications for countering violent extremism (CVE) programming and disrupting extremist recruitment. A common baseline assumption for foreign fighter flow is the role of local radicalization. Accordingly, foreign fighter volume is regarded as a proxy for extremist penetration and, by extension, arresting foreign fighter recruitment and CVE are often perceived as one and the same.

In Pankisi, there is clearly some overlap between radicalization and foreign fighter recruitment. But there is also sufficient evidence to believe that a considerable number of would-be fighters, and perhaps even most, are not effectively indoctrinated until they have left for a third country or the Syria/Iraq theater – to the extent we can assume they are “fully” radicalized at all.

Though Pankisi is unique in many respects, it is safe to assume that these trends are likely evident elsewhere to varying degrees. This would mean CVE and anti-radicalization policies may be in many cases missing the mark. At least some (and maybe more) prospective recruits would be unswayed by anti-radicalism messaging if they are not necessarily being radicalized – at least not in their home countries. Different fighters join for different reasons, and policies need to be adapted to the diversity of those circumstances.

About the author:
*Michael Hikari Cecire
is an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Project on Democratic Transitions.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

The post How Extreme Are The Extremists? Pankisi Gorge As A Case Study – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


India’s Sprawling Nuclear Quest – OpEd

0
0

“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean, in a drop.” — Rumi

We know that we’re all different, have our own opinions and everyone is never going to agree on everything. Having said that, the bottom line is as it always has been. If you can’t say something nice, well, you know the rest…

In India, the real debate on nuclear power begun right after its independence, and in all likelihood it will intensify in coming years. Nuclear power programme has now metamorphosed into a giant business venture, encompassing dozens of functional nuclear power plants, substantial mining operations and the establishment of several allied industries. But the picture is all not rosy as the viability, sustainability and safety of these projects are seldom discussed in the public domain.

Many people in India are out to please their new BJP masters! While there is a significant in-safe and insecure management of the nuclear enterprise.

Massive Indian nuclear buildup plans is alarming, where it is likely to quadruple the nuclear capacity by 2020. Even more serious is tripling it by 2030, pumping billions into reactor imports from France, Russia and America besides subsidizing the domestic Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), as was observed by Mr Bidwai who breathed his last a week ago.

Indians are clumsy in brushing the safety and security issues under carpet. Since many misgivings have been reported by some senior AERB member from India recently stated that all nuclear facilities are sited, designed, constructed, commissioned and operated in accordance with strict quality and safety standards ignoring what happened in Fukushima. According to Princeton professor M V Ramana in his book The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, some nuclear projects in India have come close to disaster stating ”practically all nuclear reactors and other facilities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle operated by [India’s Department of Atomic Energy] have had accidents of varying severity”.

A nuclear disaster like Fukushima would have dire consequences in heavily populated India. Memories of the Bhopal tragedy, which killed an estimated 10,000 people in 1984, are still fresh, and so is the mismanagement of the fallout by the government of the day, including letting the senior management of U.S. firm Union Carbide escape scot free. India’s nuclear stance is sharply at odds. Are its nuclear safety standards up to scratch?

In India the nuclear muddle is all about the secrecy that has raised unrest in different regions like Jaitpur, KKNPP, etc. The details of nuclear programme information on several fronts are unavailable to the public. These include the question on:

  • What exactly is the purpose of the nuclear programme- production of energy, or use of nuclear technology for ‘peaceful’ purposes, for India’s security or for all purposes keeping in mind the story of CANDU reactors?
  • What is the extent of nuclear energy potential in India on the basis of fuel to be used
  • What is the extent to which technology is imported from other countries
    How much is spent on the development of nuclear technology and individual projects in India

Apart from the law that shields the nuclear programme from the public, it is the nuclear bureaucracy that guards its projects and schemes. The Kalpakkam nuclear power facility was battered by a massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004 that left 6,170 people dead in India. The answers given yet are all tellingly short on facts and abundantly long on unsupported reports and media information.

Here the nuclear scientists in India do not learn from all that happens around. India seems to strike its own lonely path even if that happens to lead it towards disastrous consequences. As per an article in the Down to Earth magazine, the AERB identified 134 problem areas during a safety audit in 1995. These has also been identified by the DAE as early as the 70s and 80s. But these reports remain classified and out of the reach of citizens till today and nothing much has changed in many decades since then. And you are certain the normal safeguard are in place?

If one looks at the history of nuclear power projects in India, practically each reactor took longer to build, cost more than projected, and performed worse than had been envisaged when plans were made. The safety record of Indian nuclear power plants are far from reassuring and lack a comprehensive nuclear security culture. For example, in 1993, a fire broke out in the first unit of the Narora nuclear plant, which led to a partial fuel meltdown in the reactor core. Similarly, the Madras nuclear plant suffered a leak of 14 tons of highly radioactive heavy water in 1999. Most recently, in 2009, a radioactive leak was discovered in the Kaiga plant. At least 45 employees were exposed to harmful radiation.

This is obnoxiously true that “Jaitapur” is no different! Even after “Fukushima” the environmentalists who oppose the proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) are branded “green fanatics” and “myopic” and the protesting farmers and fishermen who are likely to lose their livelihoods because of the Park are called “anti-national”.

In summation, this is unfortunate that scientist ignores the fact that Jaitapur’s French-built nuclear plant is a disaster in waiting, jeopardising 40,000 people’s survival. The protestors shouldn’t be treated like ignorant and misguided children to be coached and disciplined by a nanny state. Their leaders are well-informed professionals, including S.P. Udayakumar, who has taught at a US university, M. Pushparayan, a lawyer, and Tuticorin’s Bishop.

Hence blindly following bad policies is neither in any nation’s best interests nor the worlds. Lost in a world of their own, the situation become worse for a nation, when one put at risk enviable reputation as a responsible global citizen for attaining short-term gain.

Sri Lanka Navy Renders Assistance To Indian Fishing Trawler

0
0

The Sri Lanka Navy rendered assistance to an Indian fishing trawler with 4 fishermen in distress in Sri Lankan waters on Thursday.

The trawler had experienced an engine failure while in the seas 8.5 nautical miles north of Delft. It was sighted by an SLN patrol craft attached to the Northern Naval Command in the early hours of Thursday (23rd), the Navy Media reported.

They were provided with meals and refreshment as found exhausted due to the ordeal in the prevailing rough sea condition, and possible technical assistance was extended by the SLN technical staff.

SLN has informed the Indian High Commission for onward action and a Sri Lanka Navy craft on patrol in the area has been directed to monitor the trawler.

On many occasions, the SLN being well-disciplined military organization has extended its assistance to rescue the Indian fishermen in distress on humanitarian grounds.

While arresting the Indian trawlers which intentionally enter into Sri Lankan waters for fishing, SLN continues to extend humanitarian assistance to fishermen in distress also.

Pacific Island Countries Want A World Without Nuclear Weapons – Analysis

0
0

By Neena Bhandari

As political conflicts magnify in the Middle East and North Africa with the spectre of brutal violence from terrorist organisations like ISIS, and the Ukraine crisis reignites the Cold War between the United States, its NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] allies and Russia; it is imperative that nuclear-armed and non-nuclear states together work for total elimination of nuclear weapons. The risk of use of nuclear weapons, by deliberation or accident, leading to total annihilation looms large more than ever before.

Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island countries have been at the forefront of global efforts to implement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which represents the only binding multilateral commitment to the goal of complete disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states. But the Ninth Review Conference of the NPT, from April 27 to May 22, which has three main pillars – non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy – overwhelmingly reflected the views and interests of the nuclear-armed states and some of their nuclear-dependent allies.

So while the 2015 Review Conference was a step backward from the 2010 Review Conference in nuclear-armed states’ commitment to disarmament, it was also a move forward as non-nuclear states steered ahead for disarmament with the signing of the Humanitarian Pledge put forward by Austria. As of July 14, 113 states had signed the Pledge, which commits signatories to work for a new legally binding instrument for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons for their unacceptable humanitarian consequences.

The Humanitarian Pledge has been signed by 10 Pacific Island states – Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu with the exception of Tonga and the Federated States of Micronesia. From 1956 to 1996, the Pacific island countries were unwilling victims of nuclear weapons testing by the U.S, the U.K and France.

The Republic of Marshall Islands’ (RMI) Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tony de Brum, was nine years old in March 1954, when while fishing with his grandfather near the Likiep atoll, he had seen “the ocean, the fish, and the sky turn red following a sudden intense flash that lit the pre-dawn sky and caused a terrifying shock wave”. They were 200 miles from ground zero and he can never erase the memory of that fateful day.

RMI has been a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament, highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of use of nuclear weapons. Between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islands sustained significant damage and radiological contamination from 67 U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. In a landmark case, it has used its history of people suffering displacement, death, and continued health impacts to take the nuclear weapons states to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

De Brum told IDN, “It is time for the non-nuclear states to work together to achieve a new treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. The evidence has been convincing that the nuclear-armed countries, despite their legal obligations, are not prepared at this point to lead the way. Instead, they believe that they have special rights, which they do not, to base their own security on nuclear possession, nuclear threats and potentially nuclear use. In doing so, these countries are undermining their own security as well as the common security of all states and all people”.

Someone, who participated in the early Pacific-wide protest movement against nuclear weapons testing and militarisation of the Pacific region, Fiji-based Vanessa Griffen says, “In the Pacific, we have collectively experienced the known and unknown consequences of nuclear weapons use, the push by non-nuclear states for a ban on nuclear weapons is the only sensible, humane and responsible course of action to take. Nuclear weapons states should be regarded, collectively, as lawless and flouting international humanitarian standards”.

Griffen has been a representative of FemLINKPacific, a feminist Pacific women’s media organisation and partner member of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC). She says, “Pacific Island states, with an unusually high experiential qualification for speaking up for nuclear disarmament, are a significant number in the United Nations and should use their statehood collectively and effectively on this global issue of nuclear disarmament”.

NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995. Its Article VIII provides that the Treaty be reviewed every five years. The five-yearly review process was to ensure that nuclear- armed states will pursue disarmament as a matter of policy, but in the past five years the nuclear-armed states have pursued costly programmes to modernise their arsenals.

The key findings in the 2015 Yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which assesses the current state of armaments, disarmament and international security, show that “all the nuclear weapon-possessing states are working to develop new nuclear weapon systems and/or upgrade their existing ones”. At the start of 2015, nine states – the U.S, Russia, the U.K, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) – possessed approximately 15,850 nuclear weapons, of which 4300 were deployed with operational forces.

Australia doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, but it subscribes to the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence under the U.S alliance, which is seen as key to Australia’s national security. Australia has not signed the Humanitarian Pledge. As a spokesperson for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) told IDN, “We need to create an environment where all countries, including the nuclear-armed states and those who rely on their nuclear umbrellas, believe themselves to be more secure without nuclear weapons”.

Peace, justice and environmental activists, faith-based and civil society organisations, scientific and medical experts, and United Nations agencies have been calling for negotiations to begin immediately on the elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control.

Deeply immoral

ICAN’s Australia Director Tim Wright, who attended the Ninth Review Conference in New York says, “Throughout the review conference, Australia dragged its feet on disarmament, maintaining that the use of nuclear weapons is legitimate and necessary under certain circumstances. This stance is, in my view, deeply immoral. But I remain hopeful that, sooner or later, the Australian government will join the international mainstream in rejecting nuclear weapons outright. That is what the Australian people expect and demand”.

The landmark nuclear deal signed by the U.S, Russia, the U.K, France, China and Germany with Iran raises new hopes for disarmament. Realising where self-interest lies can change anything in geo-politics. Iran went from being an archenemy, almost militarily invaded by the U.S, to a country that the U.S and others had to deal with more respectfully over the matter of Iraq and ISIS.

In October last year, the Australian Defence Minister David Johnstone even said that Australian commandos could work alongside Iranian forces because of what he said was a common interest in stopping ISIS.

Nuclear weapons are a common threat to all of us and cooperation, even with “enemies”, is possible”, Member of the Board of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Dr Sue Wareham told IDN, adding that “Even Israel must realise that its own nuclear arsenal is a liability, as it is a provocation for other nations in the region to consider acquiring their own”.

Over the last five years, humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been the most active area of progress in disarmament diplomacy. New Zealand, as chair of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), was principally responsible for drafting Working Paper 9, which lays out the possible pathways forward for a legal mechanism to implement the nuclear disarmament obligations in NPT Article VI.

Lyndon Burford, a PhD student in International Relations at the University of Auckland, New Zealand says, “New Zealand insists that such discussion is essential, and urgently needed, but that before it has taken place, it would be premature to select one legal framework over any other. NGOs, however, question why New Zealand has not endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge. The failure to endorse the pledge is particularly puzzling given that the rest of the New Agenda Coalition has endorsed it, and that New Zealand has played such a leading role in the humanitarian consequences initiative”.

One of the major obstacles in the total prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons has been the nuclear-armed states’ two set of rules: one for themselves and the other for everyone else. Wareham says, “But a less-recognised impediment is the role played by U.S allies such as Australia, who quietly urge their great ally to maintain its nuclear arsenal while trying to keep up the facade of being at the forefront of disarmament. If a close U.S ally broke ranks and refused “protection” by nuclear weapons, the impact could be enormous”.

Over four decades after the NPT came into force, roughly1800 nuclear weapons are kept in a state of high operational alert. As Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director, Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament of Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy says, “Perhaps, the NPT has passed its use by date and the world needs to transition to a post-NPT era without endangering the existing global nuclear order that is firmly anchored in the NPT. While non-proliferation obligations are binding, verifiable and enforceable under the NPT, disarmament obligations are not. Three conferences have been held to date on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, which might point the way to a post-NPT nuclear-weapon-free order now supported by 159 countries”.

Prof. Thakur suggests three options: “First, ban any use of nuclear weapons as it violates the very core of international humanitarian law; secondly, the overwhelming majority of non-nuclear countries could act on their own to ban the possession as well as use of nuclear weapons; and thirdly, the best but most challenging option would be the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention (NWC) on the lines of conventions banning biological and chemical weapons.”

Keep Space Code Of Conduct Moving Forward – Analysis

0
0

By Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan*

The European Union’s proposed International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities has been making progress for several years now. Responding to U.N. General Assembly resolutions 61/75 (2006) and 62/43 (2007) on Transparency and Confidence Building Measures (TCBMs) in Outer Space Activities, and a request from the U.N. secretary general for concrete proposals for TCBMs, the EU initiated a draft proposal for an international code of conduct. After preliminary consultations within the EU, a more formal draft was released in December 2008 and thereafter in 2010 with the expectation of a large-scale endorsement by 2012.

The code has come a long way since then and the negotiations are set to begin soon. Many countries have been making demands on the EU to start actual negotiations and a drafting process instead of consultations where states were simply offering their views. To the credit of the EU, most of the suggestions that came through the three open-ended consultations in Kiev, Ukraine (May 2013), Bangkok (November 2013) and Luxembourg (May 2014) have been incorporated into the draft code. The May 2015 text of the code has seen big changes.

The U.N. announcement of multilateral negotiations on the code in New York July 27-31 marks significant progress. However, the geopolitical divide between major powers has become sharper in the last couple of years and it remains to be seen how these negotiations will go.

While the need for international rules of the road in the area of outer space is unquestionable, the code ran into troubled waters primarily owing to the fact that this was prepared by the EU on its own without consultation even with other major spacefaring powers or their space agencies. There have also been differences on the substance of the code, but the process issue has been more significant than the substance.

But substantial differences are important too and a few critical ones are highlighted here.

First, the code is seen as placing restrictions on operations and not weapons or capabilities. This point has raised objections in terms of the overall objectives of the code and whether it is just promoting Western vested interests.

For instance, the code protects the right of self-defense of states even in outer space, which has raised concerns mostly from countries in Latin America and Africa. They believe that an overt reference to the right to self-defense in the code could accelerate the trend toward space weaponization. It should be noted that these countries are still in the early stages of developing their space programs and they do not yet have counterspace technologies to defend themselves should there be a need. On the other hand, this is a right that is already part of international law, enshrined in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and so the EU is not trying to introduce any new element. This is one area of serious discord between the established and developing space powers.

Second, countries from Africa and Latin America are also suspicious of the code because it is seen as possibly restricting their development. Given that most of these countries are yet to develop their space capabilities, they perceive any instrument developed by the West as an effort to limit the development of their capabilities, much like the nonproliferation regime that restricted their access to nuclear technologies. This concern is despite the emphasis on international cooperation, including technology transfers, in the code.

A third major objection relates to the nature of the code itself. Several countries including Russia, China, Ukraine, Mexico, Thailand, Brazil and Ethiopia believe the code should focus only on the peaceful uses of outer space and should accordingly be retitled. Though they may have a point, the reality is that it is a thin line between peaceful and military uses of outer space and the dual-use nature of the space technology makes a compelling case for initiating a comprehensive instrument. Many countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Canada have reiterated the need for including military- and security-oriented uses of outer space. India appears to have taken a similar approach.

There are also differences among the major spacefaring powers, such as on whether it is better to have political declarations or legally binding treaties. While there is merit to both types of instruments, a realistic appraisal of the current political climate would suggest that building consensus for a legal mechanism remains difficult as compared with reaching political agreements.

Even as this is unlikely to change in the near future, states must approach outer space security from a long-term sustainability perspective, and accordingly measures to strengthen responsible behavior in outer space must be pursued. This calls for a certain amount of accommodation among the major spacefaring powers. The need for an effective instrument – on account of a number of challenges including space debris, a potential arms race and radio frequency interference – should not be compromised for achieving small gains in the short term.

The negotiations set to begin in New York provide an opportune moment for states to narrow down their differences and help establish a comprehensive instrument. The EU on the other hand must be patient and develop the necessary consensus so that it establishes a strong support base, vital for the longevity of the code.

*Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is a senior fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: www.spacenews.com

Ladbroke Grove To Ramadi: From London Gang-Life To ISIS – OpEd

0
0

In a speech he gave on Monday, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, outlined his government’s five-year strategy for tackling extremism. He noted:

For all our successes as [a] multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.

So when groups like ISIL seek to rally our young people to their poisonous cause, it can offer them a sense of belonging that they can lack here at home, leaving them more susceptible to radicalisation and even violence against other British people to whom they feel no real allegiance.

In Britain or any other democracy where there are citizens who lack a sense of belonging, to view this as a condition conducive to the growth of extremism is to underestimate the significance of the problem.

This isn’t just a security problem — it is a failure of democracy.

Where there is a commonly held sense that everyone’s life matters and that equality trumps privilege, there is little risk that individuals will lack the feeling of belonging.

But those who feel they don’t belong, commonly experience a state which fails to represent their interests and a society in which they are treated like outsiders. They often live in neighborhoods where agents of the state (police and other security services) are experienced as intrusive forces which thus commonly meet resistance.

By Cameron’s reckoning, the handful of individuals who end up joining ISIS, never became sufficiently anchored in British culture, but as Tam Hussein describes it in a fascinating essay from which I quote below, these are young people who are culturally adrift in a different way — products just as much of Western mass culture as they are of an extremist ideology.

At Syria Comment, Hussein tells the story of Fatlum Shalaku who came from a Kosovo Albanian family, grew up in London and earlier this year, two weeks after cancelling a holiday in Spain, went instead to Iraq where he died as a suicide bomber during ISIS’s assault on Ramadi.

Hussein grew up in the same part of London — Ladbroke Grove — where Shalaku, “Jihadi John,” and several other ISIS recruits came from. He says:

It is clear that neither foreign policy nor ideology are solely responsible for motivating European youth to go on Jihad. My essay argues that the reason many of these men went to Syria and join specifically ISIS is due to the subtle interplay between religion, foreign policy and gang culture and modernism.

A term that crops up repeatedly in this detailed report is roadman, for which the Urban Dictionary offers this definition:

British word for a young male (14-21). Typically wears a 5-Panel cap and doesn’t give a fuck. Always out with his mates who are normally roadmen as well. Academic knowledge is usually low but street credibility and knowledge is above average.

Hussein writes:

These young men, in typical post-modern style comfortably mixed iconic images of Jihadica with Call of Duty. Sitting in an Italian cafe, Ali, a student who grew up in and around Ladbroke Grove told me even more bluntly what he thought the problem was; “There’s more to it, you have a high percentage of Roadmans who don’t know anything about the faith and they discover Anwar Awlaki on Youtube and it’s a disaster. On top of that everything they watch from Lord of the Rings to 300, to Saving Private Ryan to Black Hawk Down everything about the Western culture celebrates heroism and self sacrifice. Some of their fathers also fought in Afghanistan, they have a fighting mentality because of the streets and once you put religion into it; which says helping the weak and oppressed is good, you got a Jihadi Roadman. It’s so predictable. Notice that most of these Roadmans joined ISIS; the rest with any sense of the faith didn’t.”

Fatlum’s friend Mohammed Nasser was a case in point; going through his twitter feed you notice that Grand Theft Auto Five is mentioned in the same breath as martyrdom, even though GTA is probably the most antithetical to the Islamic moral ethic. On his twitter feed. He flitted from talking about his friends, to messaging Pro-ISIS disseminators like Shamiwitness and talking to the brother of Iftekhar Jaman, the Portsmouth ISIS Jihadi. The connections they were making, the culture they were creating was one particular to their generation. They had their own terminology, they wore their Salafi-Jihadism on their robes, blended it with rebellious Roadmannism, garnished it with a bit of Anwar Awlaki, Quran, Sunnah and a bit of thug life. They could yearn desperately for forgiveness and paradise, and in their youthful ardour want a sense of belonging and adventure. West-side hyperbole turned into “the land of the Muslims have to be defended.” The new generation Jihadi Roadmans short circuited the Salafi-jihadi tradition for just Team Muslim-no matter what; the response was not un-similar to the American patriot who cried Team America: no matter what. These men no doubt sincere in intention had become a law unto themselves and could wreak havoc and go against well established Islamic principles. These men joined ISIS. [All the links in this passage have been added by me for the benefit of readers. PW]

Read Tam Hussein’s complete essay here.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images