“Today we know that the risk of heart attack and stroke may occur early in treatment, even in the first weeks … “There is no period of use shown to be without risk,” says Judy Racoosin, M.D., M.P.H., deputy director of FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products.”

– FDA website

In case you missed it: The FDA has just issued a warning on various prescription and non-prescription drugs that Americans ingest by the boatload. As it happens, these seemingly benign pain relievers can kill you even if you scrupulously follow the recommended dosage. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a blurb from the FDA website:

“FDA is strengthening an existing warning in prescription drug labels and over-the-counter (OTC) Drug Facts labels to indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can increase the chance of a heart attack or stroke, either of which can lead to death. Those serious side effects can occur as early as the first few weeks of using an NSAID, and the risk might rise the longer people take NSAIDs. (FDA Strengthens Warning of Heart Attack and Stroke Risk for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, FDA website)

Notice how the FDA refers to “death” as “a serious side effect.” How’s that for an understatement? Here’s more from the FDA warning:

“The OTC drugs in this group are used for the temporary relief of pain and fever. The prescription drugs in this group are used to treat several kinds of arthritis and other painful conditions. Because many prescription and OTC medicines contain NSAIDs, consumers should avoid taking multiple remedies with the same active ingredient.” The New York Times includes “Motrin IB, Aleve and Celebrex” in this group of “widely used painkillers “.

Why isn’t this headline news? People take tons of these chemicals everyday thinking they’ve been thoroughly tested and are totally safe. Now we find out that’s not the case. Now we discover that you can get a heart attack or stroke “as early as the first few weeks of using” them. Doesn’t that come as a bit of a shock to you, dear reader? Doesn’t that make you suspect that the FDA is not telling the whole truth here, but is simply covering up for a profit-obsessed industry that doesn’t give a rip about its customers health?

Take a look at some of these articles I dredged up on Google News on the topic:

“Doctors issue Ibuprofen toxicity warning.” Daily Telegraph. “Warning: Runners May Be At Risk From Ibuprofen Use.” Australian Marathon Review. “Ibuprofen ‘trebles the risk of a stroke’ doctors warn”, Daily Mail Online. “Ibuprofen Side Effects Land Thousands in the Hospital”, Side-Effects. com. “The FDA’s Dilemma About Ibuprofen And Cardiovascular Risk”, Forbes. “Ibuprofen Blunts Aspirin’s Cardioprotection. FDA Issues Warning”, lexi.com. “Aspirin, Ibuprofen Warnings Advised–Health: Consumers need to be told the painkillers can cause internal bleeding and kidney damage, a panel tells the FDA.”, LA Times.

And how reliable is FDA in determining the toxicity of these medications anyway? Wasn’t the so-called “watchdog” agency implicated in pay-to-play flap just a couple years ago? Some readers might recall another incident when the FDA was caught in a “spying program on its own scientists, lawmakers, reporters and academics” to “discourage whistleblowing.” According to Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg: “top FDA managers “committed the most outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists to recommend approval, and then retaliating when the physicians and scientists refused to go along.” Review procedures at the agency (which approves stents, breast implants, MRIs, and other devices and machinery) were so faulty that unsafe devices – including those that emit excessive radiation – were approved, charged the scientists, provoking an OSC investigation … For reporting the safety risks, the scientists became targets of the now-disclosed spy program and some lost their jobs. “…

(According to FDA drug reviewer Ronald Kavanagh) “While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees. In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination. If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug’s approval – which of course was our job as drug reviewers – management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.” (Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety, Martha Rosenberg, Truthout)

Nice, eh? And this is the agency that’s supposed to protect the public from risky drugs?

Right. Does the name “Vioxx” ring a bell? If not, here’s a little refresher from an article by Fred Gardener in Counterpunch titled “Merck Pays a Pittance for Mass Deaths”:

“Merck has agreed to pay $950 million and has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge over the marketing and sales of the painkiller Vioxx,” the New York Times reported Nov. 23 …

The FDA had initially approved Vioxx (after a hasty “priority review”) in May, 1999 to treat osteoarthritis, acute pain, and menstrual cramps. By September 30, 2004, when Merck announced its “voluntary recall,” some 25 million Americans had been prescribed the widely hyped drug. Evidence that using Vioxx doubled a patient’s risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke —based on a review of 1.4 million patients’ records— was about to be published in Lancet by David Graham, MD, an FDA investigator. The FDA director’s office, devoted valet of Big PhRMA, had contacted the Lancet in a futile effort to stop publication of their own scientist’s findings.

Graham’s data indicate that 140,000 Americans suffered Vioxx-induced heart attacks and strokes; 55,000 died, and many more were permanently disabled. The Merck executives’ real crime was conspiracy to commit murder … An early clinical trial had alerted them to the fact that Vioxx caused coronary damage. Their response was to exclude from future trials anyone with a history of heart trouble!

Once Vioxx was approved, Merck spent more than $100 million a year advertising it … Sales hit $2.5 billion in 2003. And when brave Dr. Graham first presented his irrefragable evidence to an FDA advisory committee in February 2004, Merck argued that the “unique benefits” of Vioxx warranted its remaining on the market. The FDA committee voted 17-15 to keep it available with a black box warning. Ten of the 32 committee members had taken money from Merck, Pfizer or Novartis (which were pushing drugs similar to Vioxx) as consultants. If these MDs had declared their conflicts of interest, Vioxx would have been pulled from the market by a vote of 14-8. By buying an extra seven and a half months, Merck made an extra billion or two, and killed 6,000 more Americans.

Worldwide, Vioxx was used by 80 million people. Assuming their dosages were similar to the 1.4 million Kaiser Permanente patients whose records Dr. Graham analyzed, the death toll exceeds 165,000.” (Merck Pays a Pittance for Mass Deaths, Fred Gardner, CounterPunch)

Is that what’s going on? Is some prestigious organization like Lancet about to release a damning report on these dubious pain relievers, so the FDA is trying to get ahead of the story to save their own kiester? How much has the culture at the FDA really changed since the Vioxx scandal? Is the agency still owned and operated by the industries its supposed to regulate?

Do you really need to ask? The better question would be: What regulatory agency in the U.S. ISN’T owned corporate America? They own it all; lock, stock and barrel.

And, keep in mind, (according to Gardner) Vioxx killed over 165,000 people.

Now guess how many Merck executives went to jail?

Yep. Zero.

I’m not saying these medications don,t help to relieve chronic pain from “debilitating conditions, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis‎, gout and other rheumatological and painful conditions”. They do. But whether they’re useful or not doesn’t change the fact that “even small amounts” of this crap can put you at risk of a heart attack or stroke. That’s what the public needs to know, and that’s the FDA’s job. Here’s an excerpt from an article in the NYT that tries to minimize the dangers:

“The broader context is important. The relative risk of heart attack and stroke from the drugs is still far smaller than the risk from smoking, having uncontrolled high blood pressure or being obese.”

True, and it’s probably less risky that bungee-jumping off the Empire State Building, but what difference does that make. The fact is, it can kill you, the FDA KNOWS it can kill you, and yet they haven,t done anything to counter the relentless tsunami of industry generated propaganda that has convinced the American people that these medications are risk free. Here’s more on that from the Times:

“The agency said it would ask drug manufacturers to change the labels to reflect new evidence that the drugs increased the risk of heart attack and stroke soon after patients first started taking them, and that while the risk was higher for people with heart disease, it surfaced even for people who had never had heart problems.”

Let me get this straight: The FDA knows that these anti inflammatories are killing people and they’re going to “ask” the drug companies if they’ll change the labels? Is this how regulation works in the US nowadays; the agencies basically have to grovel before these cutthroat industries just to get them to do the right thing?

I have a better idea: Why not just prosecute a few of these drug-pushing executives for manslaughter?
That ought to do the trick, don’t you think?

Here’s one last blurb from the Times:

“There is great concern that people think these drugs are benign, and they are probably not,” (said Dr. Peter Wilson, a professor of medicine and public health at Emory University in Atlanta) “The thought is these are good for short-term relief, probably for your younger person with no history of cardiovascular trouble.”

There it is from the horses mouth. Do not presume that these medications are safe just because they’re hyped in the media. Do your own research and decide for yourself whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

King Mohammed VI is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and his family has ruled Morocco for close to 400 years. He is also constitutionally the Amir al Mu’minin, or Commander of the Faithful thereby combining religious and political authority. King Mohammed VI is lauded for his domestic reform policies and pioneering efforts in modernizing Morocco and countering terrorism. He tackles issues of poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion at home, and has improved foreign relations. King Mohammed VI is an influential leader for his control of the network of Muslims following the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, and as a leading monarch in Africa.

In Morocco, the monarchic regime had a strong legitimacy. Deeply rooted in the “Commander of the Faithful” status of the king, this legitimacy had been consolidated by the role played by the monarchy, first, in the fight for independence, and then in the semi-democratic system established after independence.

This semi-democratic system, then subsequently underwent substantial improvements beginning from the early 1990s, when the late Hassan II called for an “alternate government” to be formed by the opposition parties. The pace of these improvements accelerated with the advent of the Mohammad VI, who in particular encouraged the national reconciliation process which called for a radical reform of the judiciary, launched the “regionalization” process, and last, but not least, installed the “Economic, Social and Environmental Council” as a permanent frame for social dialogue and discourse.

All these improvements needed was to culminate in a profound reform of the constitution. It is the merit of the 20th of February movement, which finally precipitated and accelerated this reform process. Morocco has now certainly one of the most advanced constitution in the Arab world.

It clearly reflects the diversity of Moroccan society and culture, including recognition of ethnic Berbers and making their language with Arabic official state language. It explicitly mentions all universally agreed upon human rights. It particularly insists on women’s rights. It establishes a clear separation of powers.

But a constitution is merely still just a text when it is written. It needs to be enacted in the field. And this is where the role of political parties come in. It is in the end their responsibility to mobilize the people and to expand their participation.

In the final analysis, the reforms now extant in Morocco were just a beginning and it will take dedication, hard work, and greater involvement on the part of the parties and the country’s citizens, including 13-15 million young adults, before real democratization can be realized.

But a constitution and an election, while essential building blocks for democracy, are not in themselves dispositive.

What counts is where the leaders want to take this North African nation. Will it move inexorably to democracy? Or will it backslide with pressure from Islamist movements? That was the great irony of the Arab Spring. Its tragedy is that the Islamists, for whom Western-style elections are stepping stones to the eventual imposition of Islamic law, knew how to manipulate the democratic process far better than did their liberal rivals.

Setting up constitutional monarchy, Morocco has initiated a new governing style , that other Arab leaders could possibly follow suit and introduce key amendments to their respective constitutions that will guarantee real democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression. If these constitutional amendments have succeeded in countries like Morocco or Jordan for sure they can witness same success in other Arab monarchies.

The transformation of Arab monarchies into constitutional systems is a matter of when rather than if. The alternative may be less appealing to those in power today. Millions of young Arabs erupted on street calling for sweeping reforms. Some had to pay with their lives (or still are as is the case with the Syrians) others marched and demonstrated peacefully and luckily they had reform minded leaders in front of them. They answered quickly their demands and even went further of their people’s expectations.

Without urgent non-cosmetic reform the Arab monarchies will simply be kicking the reform ball forward. Modern Arab history has taught us of the ramifications of perpetual reform delays on monarchies. One year after King Mohammed bald decision to introduce key amendments to Morocco’ constitution, the Arab monarchies are in urgent need of such visionary leadership.

The 400 year-old Alaoutie dynasty traces its lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad. It sees itself as a continuation of the Andalusian Golden Age of Islam, which was characterised by peaceful co-existence and intellectual and cultural exchange and development. King Mohammed VI exercises vast amounts of power and influence over Muslims in Morocco, throughout Africa, and the rest of the world. He leads one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in the region, which is also the center of a moderate, flourishing Muslim culture.

Once again, a political sideshow is likely to be the sole outcome from the revelations in the recent Planned Parenthood videos, drowning out what could have been an important conversation around another perennially politicized issue.

As could have been a good starting point, the videos show definitely that abortion involves far more than the suctioning of a formless glob of cells. The procedure discussed in detail throughout the videos is the forceable, fatal extraction of human bodies from their protective environment.

Bodies with lungs, livers, hearts, heads, and “lower extremities”—all clearly identifiable, differentiable—with abortions performed systematically to avoid crushing the body parts to be “supplied.”

The “17 weeker” whose body parts are at the center of part of the conversation is a baby who “can move her joints, and her sweat glands are starting to develop.” At 18 weeks, a girl’s uterus and fallopian tubes are formed and in place, and boys’ genitals have been formed, “but he may hide them from you during an ultrasound.”

At 24 weeks—the upper limit at which the doctor in the video performs abortions—the baby is fully formed: “his brain is also growing quickly now, and his taste buds are continuing to develop.”

This of course is simply the latest “in our face” evidence of what abortion actually entails. A similar sound and fury followed the revelation of Gosnell’s grisly late-term abortion clinics, at which the active killing of aborted babies was standard operating procedure—quickly swept under the rug as “exceptional.”

With today’s technologies—ultrasounds that clearly show the humanness of babies in the womb at very early stages; advances in medical care providing high survival rates to “preemies” born at the same age that unwanted babies are being aborted—and with now decades of evidence that universal access to birth control and sex education has failed to produce any reduction in the number of abortions being performed, it is surely time to revisit this issue that Roe v. Wade did nothing to resolve.

Yes, such a conversation will surely be “complicated.” But let’s not follow Gov’s advice that “when things get that complicated, it’s probably best to just let other people worry about it.”

This is clearly not a conversation we can leave to politicians. Asked about the ethics of late-term abortion in light of Gosnell, Nancy Pelosi responded with typical hyperbole: abortion is “sacred ground,” with any question on late-term abortion being the equivalent of declaring “there’s no abortion, it would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in America.”

So can we who claim to uphold the principles of rights, liberty, and responsibility establish a starting point for agreement?

Is the decision over life or death any woman’s, under any circumstance?

In ancient Rome, a husband could order his wife to have an abortion—almost certainly a death sentence for her as well. Selective and forced abortions are accepted public policy in India and China. Are we more enlightened in supporting domestic abortion rates running above a million annually, but “chosen” by a woman by a procedure that (usually) doesn’t kill her?

Do we care how a cavalier attitude towards women and children may undermine our foundational principles of rights to life and liberty?

Are we concerned with what trading in body parts—from bodies that have no say in the matter—may portend for ownership of our own bodies?

The majority of women cite not being able to afford a baby as being the driver of her decision to abort. Can not we—the richest and most generous people in history, the beneficiaries of a tradition, practice, and canon in voluntary society—not produce a rich array of alternative choices better serving our sisters and their babies in need?

A starting point could be supporting counseling centers that help women facing an unintended pregnancy chart a plan that allows her to carry to term; supporting voluntary organizations that help women find employment, housing, job and life skills.

And step up the assault against barriers to educational and economic opportunities: further alternatives to the failed government school system, end licensing, zoning, minimum wage, and other regulations that protect established interests against new entrants.

None of us has to act—but let’s at least stop denying what abortion really looks like.

By Vidisha Mishra*

The issue of declining child sex ratio has long been a national priority for India. However, Prime Minister Modi’s announcement of the ‘Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Yojna’ in January has brought the issue to the forefront again. While initiatives like ‘Selfie with Daughter’ have helped in symbolically mainstreaming the campaign amongst the urban-educated middleclass, it is essential that the built momentum continues and gets translated into concrete results.

The trend of deteriorating Child Sex Ratio (CSR), defined as number of girls per 1000 of boys between 0-6 years of age, has continued since 1981. According to Census findings, the CSR has consistently been on the decline, from 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001 and further to 918 in 2011.

A stable child sex ratio is one of the basic indicators of women’s empowerment; the decline, therefore, indicates deep-rooted gender biases in society. Additionally, economically forward states like Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat display some of the lowest sex ratios in the country. At the policy level, this questions the oft-quoted theory that economic prosperity will eventually lead to gender equality.

Notably, this isn’t a strictly Indian trend. The fear of dowry, the south-Asian phenomenon of son-preference, the lack of equal inheritance rights for women, concerns over safety and security, and the widespread availability of pre-natal diagnostic techniques have led to more than 117 million women across Asia being classified as “missing”. According to Population and Development Review, India and China, the economic giants of South-Asia, account for 90% of all missing girls.

The imbalance in child sex ratio, therefore, reflects both, pre-birth discrimination manifested through gender biased sex selection, and post-birth discrimination against girls, which may be the cause as well as the result of the former. Patriarchal structures discriminating against girls combined with easy availability, affordability and subsequent misuse of diagnostic tools, have been critical in creating the present scenario. According to Minister of Women and Child Development, Ms. Maneka Gandhi, 2000 girls are killed every day in the country.

The situation, needless to say, is dire. However, are our counter-strategies effective and sustainable? While the ‘Beti Bachao Beti Padhao’ campaign aims at spreading awareness and bringing about behavioural change through communications and advocacy, it must be acknowledged that behavioural change and larger social change are not immediate. Awareness and advocacy are not efficient without being supplemented with wider policy changes. It is also hard to measure the efficacy of communications and advocacy initiatives even though, it must be stressed, they are significant in the larger context.

In comparison, the reach and result of incentive schemes and conditional cash transfer schemes (CCTs) can be easily assessed and subsequently made more effective. The lesser talked about ‘Sukanya Samriddhi Yojna’, a parallel scheme was launched on the same day under the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao initiative. The former is envisioned as a complementary scheme to the latter and aims at encouraging the education of girl-children.

Under this scheme, parents of girl children below the age of 10 years can open bank accounts under the children’s names and avail more interest and income tax benefits. The two programmes will initially be implemented in the 100 shortlisted districts, including 12 in Haryana where, as per government records, there are at least 70 villages where no girl child has been born in years.

Both the initiatives are commendable. But, certain caveats apply. First, this scheme comes on top of a variety of state-level cash transfer schemes, promoting girl-children. For instance, the ‘Dhan Lakshmi Scheme’ in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab, the ‘Ladli Lakshmi Yojna’ in Madhya Pradesh, the ‘Ladli Scheme’ in Delhi (during the Congress government) and the ‘Indira Gandhi Balika Suraksha Yojna’ in Himachal Pradesh, to name a few. It is unclear how the central government scheme approaches beneficiaries who already come under the state government schemes.

There is some evidence indicating the positive effects of state-level incentive schemes on the health and education of girl children. But, due to the existence of multiple schemes, the lack of awareness of these schemes, the centre-state discrepancies, the lack of continuity due to change in the ruling party, delayed filling and follow-ups of applications, and the need for excessive documents and certificates to be furnished by applicants; they fail to cause a serious impact on the child sex ratio.

In the context of ‘Sukanya Samriddhi Yojna’, several of these issues have been addressed, however, some persist. Although the initiative has tried to reduce the need for cumbersome documentation, Certificate of Birth of the Girl child, Proof of Address of parents/guardians and Proof of identity of the parents/guardian are necessary. For migrants, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to avail this scheme in the absence of domicile certificates. Further, the scheme is applicable to 2 girl children at the most. Therefore, a third girl child would not be entitled to this, and many other CCT schemes. In sections of the society with high fertility rates, this proves to be problematic and reinforces the notion of birth of girls being burdensome.

Additionally, the scheme offers a stunning rate of interest at 9.2%, for 2015-16, but this isn’t fixed for the entire term and may vary. Due to afore-mentioned reasons, and due to the lock-in period of 21 years, it may be premature to accept the scheme as a long-term solution to the problem.

Though these initiatives may be flawed, they are necessary and could be improved. Moreover, the present monetary and advocacy initiatives mostly target families below the poverty line, it is critical to acknowledge that sex-selection is also prevalent among higher socio-economic sections of the society.

To its credit, the government is approaching the issue of declining sex ratio with a new commitment. It is now important, that the issue is tackled with nuanced policy interventions. Instead of introducing more schemes, the existing schemes could be made more accessible and the loopholes could be confronted.

*The writer is a Researcher with Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: www.swarajyamag.com

US foreign policy vis-à-vis Africa is transactional; corruption hampers fight against Al-Shabaab.

By John Githongo*

We Kenyans generally aren’t rational about President Barack Obama. To most citizens he is the much loved and admired Kenyan son who made good. Indeed, while his visit to Kenya last week was engineered around the US government’s annual promotional Global Entrepreneurship Summit, or GES, this was largely overlooked in local reporting. Kenyans genuinely reveled in the visit itself, swept off their feet by Obama’s lyrical orations and capacity to mesmerize an audience. We were left brimming with pride and inspiration. Newspapers carried details about his vehicle nicknamed the Beast; the location of Air Force One; the names of those receiving a hug; and profiles of young Kenyan men who offered dozens of head of cattle and proposed to Obama’s eldest daughter, Malia.

During the visit more than 30 new-borns nationwide were named “Obama,” and others were named Michelle, Sasha or Malia. A few were christened “Airforce One.” The Republicans in the United States searching for a Kenyan birth certificate for “Barrack Hussein Obama” probably would find one though its bearer won’t be of voting age.

Obama visited Kenya in 2006 as a US senator from Illinois, a hit back then, but a superstar as president. His message was consistent with the one he delivered in 2006. He spoke eloquently about the need for Kenya to up its game in anti-corruption, protect democratic gains, ensure youth opportunity and safeguard the rights of women and other minorities. He took time to meet with the opposition and civil society and even managed a media interview. Lost in the delirium of celebration of Obama, Kenyans forgot that the summit is an event held in countries where the United States is seeking closer economic and other ties. For Kenyans, perhaps understandably, the narrative represented Obama’s much-awaited grand homecoming as president.

In reality, Kenya has been the most steadfast political, military and diplomatic US ally on the eastern side of Africa for more than 50 years. Obama clearly meant to reinforce this. Partly as a result, the Kenyatta team also saw the trip as a massive endorsement conferring much needed legitimacy to a regime that has been weighed down by the International Criminal Court, rolling back democratic gains, with hostility to media and civil society, a myriad of corruption allegations and incompetence in management of public finances and security challenges. During the summit’s run up, Kenyans spoke little of who else was coming or the summit’s agenda. In the public imagination Obama came to Kenya and, by the way, a Global Entrepreneurship Summit happened.

As president of the United States, Obama understandably pushes US interests. In general, US foreign policy vis-à-vis Africa has always been transactional. The bottom line is that the value of Africa for the United States is essentially how to mitigate global terrorism and other issues like AIDS and Ebola that could harm US national security.

Over the past decade Kenya’s foreign policy has shifted emphatically eastward. Economically the Chinese dragon has over the last three years in particular found unprecedented comfort, succor and profit in Kenya under the Jubilee regime. It is an open secret among the chattering classes that businesspeople from the West seeking Kenyan work permits are pushed to the back of the line and Chinese competitors waltz through. The US and other western and traditionally frontline partners have scrambled to respond.

In terms of messaging, Obama was on point regarding the issues that will determine the character of Kenya’s future and he emphasized three challenges: empowering women, encouraging youth entrepreneurship and discouraging corruption. All resonate deeply with Kenyans. He was clear that the answers won’t come from outside the country but from Kenyans themselves. Over the past three years corruption has deepened and spread in Kenya to levels last seen in the 1990s.

President Obama acknowledged Kenya’s contribution to the contingent of African Union, or AMISOM, troops currently propping up the government in Somalia – a strategic priority for the United States.

It is also an issue that has prompted some dissonance among Kenyan policymakers and civil society. In truth, the 2011 entry of Kenyan troops into Somalia was a dubiously justified invasion that has emerged thus far as the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the Kenyan military. The blowback has been intense, catching Kenyans by surprise. The Westgate Mall terrorist attack of September 2013 by Al Shabaab stands out partly because of the soft target: more than 60 were left dead and at least 175 wounded, many middle-class Kenyans and foreigners.

Since then Al Shabaab has proved resilient, despite regular predictions of its imminent demise with its leaders killed, many by US drones. The insurgency has spilled over into Kenya shutting down a significant chunk of the coastal tourism industry. Tourism represents 12 percent of the economy.

Heavy-handed ethnic profiling by Kenyan authorities has served to further confuse citizens and alienate the Muslim community, about 10 percent of the population, while increasing the rate of radicalization within Kenya. Without a strategy, no one seems to have an idea what success should be for Somalia, and this has deepened Kenyan domestic opposition to the endeavor. Indeed, the political opposition has called for a withdrawal of Kenyan troops from Somalia, and in April a poll showed that 88 percent of Kenyans regarded Al Shabaab as a threat with half suggesting that Kenyan troops should be withdrawn from the neighbor to the northeast.

Ironically, corruption, one of the issues President Obama emphasized most frequently in his speeches is partly responsible for the hollowing out of security agencies meant to interdict Al Shabaab. Some analysts argue that countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, which also have troops in Somalia have partly mitigated the blowback because their security machinery, despite some weaknesses, isn’t as dysfunctional as Kenya’s. Media inquiries, for example, demonstrate the extent to which incompetence and corruption facilitated the attack on Garissa University in May this year that left at least 147 students murdered.

Progressives may have been partly assuaged by Obama’s comments before the Africa Union. But many may have a bitter taste, expecting a more robust defense of civil society and media in Kenya’s shrinking democratic space.

Still, Obama’s first trip to Kenya as US president leaves little besides the fondest of memories. It also recalibrated relations with the Kenyatta regime, which at times have been testy. As noted earlier, Kenya has long been America’s best friend in Eastern Africa. The jury is still very much out on the controversial presence of Kenyan troops in the territory of their neighbor Somalia.

*John Githongo is active in the anti-corruption field regionally and internationally. He can be reached at githongo@githongo.com.

By James Stafford

The age of electrification across the transportation sector, the solar panel revolution, and Tesla’s battery gigafactory are igniting a battle for the cheapest battery. That will transform lithium into a boom-time mineral and the hottest commodity on the energy investor’s radar. It has been easy to take lithium for granted. This wonder mineral is the backbone of our everyday lives, popping up in everything from the glass in our windows to our mountains of electronics.

And while investors have long appreciated the steady rise in demand for this preferred mineral, the number of new applications continues to multiply. Smart phones, tablets, laptops, and other consumer electronics demand more lithium. But the largest driver for future lithium use will be in electric vehicles and home batteries for solar panels. That has lithium on the verge a boom for which supply can no longer be taken for granted.

Not since the shale boom have we seen a market transformation of such significance. Lithium has long been used for a variety of mundane purposes, and while the variety is spectacular—with applications in everything from glass, ceramics and greases to a line-up of industrial process—it has flown under the radar for most investors.

Supply has always largely managed to keep pace with steadily rising demand for lithium, and while the mineral is slated for growth with or without the ‘battery explosion’, Tesla’s gigafactory will spark a phenomenal spike in demand that will be no less exciting than the shale boom.

Not only will battery gigafactories change an already attractive lithium demand picture, but the suppliers themselves will change, making way for newer entrants—with more foresight and better technology–that will provide some of the best investment opportunities in the sector.

The lithium story cannot be told without first telling the Tesla story. Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) is developing a cheaper line of electric cars for release later this decade, and to achieve this it is constructing a $5-billion gigafactory to build 500,000 electric cars with the objective of lowering the cost of batteries by at least 30 percent.

Moreover, around one-quarter of the plant’s capacity may be for Tesla’s stationary storage business, which also sells backup batteries for homes, businesses and utilities—all fueled by lithium.

According to Tesla’s brainchild, Elon Musk, demand for stationary storage batteries has skyrocketed to the point that an expansion of the gigafactory may have to be considered before it is even built.

Musk is eyeing a “complete transformation of the entire energy infrastructure of the world to completely sustainable zero carbon,” and what he’s talking about here is lithium-battery production on a mind-blowing scale. Tesla is planning to produce more lithium-ion batteries in this factory than in the entire global marketplace combined.

Lithium—the lightest and most versatile of the metals—is the backbone of this exploding battery market. Lithium is already a key part of our everyday lives, but as batteries become the rule of the day in a new global energy picture, demand for lithium is soaring—and we are only at the beginning of this curve.

Battery manufacturers across the board are moving to lithium because it has the highest electric output per unit weight. And nowhere will this demand soar more than with the production of hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles used by everyone from Toyota (NYSE:TM), Honda (NYSE:HMC), Nissan (NYSE:NSANY), Renault (EPA:RNO), and Mitsubishi (NYSE:MSBHY), to Ford (NYSE:F), Chevrolet and GM (NYSE:GM). And of course Tesla Motors. Without lithium, there will be no gigafactory. In fact, this factory alone will need 15,000 tons of lithium carbonate a year just to get started.

We are on the edge of a profound competition over batteries as Tesla drives down lithium-ion battery production costs, lowers the benchmark and increases cost competition. The response will be new entrants to this market, and competing battery gigafactories.

Tesla’s competitors will make this one of the biggest battles of the century—a battle the entirely depends on lithium supply. Tesla’s biggest rival will likely be Build Your Dreams (BYD), the Chinese automaker backed by Warren Buffet. Already, BYD is building electric buses on American soil and has global gigafactory ambitions. By the end of the year, according to Reuters, BYD should have 10 GWh of battery production capacity, which it expects to increase to 34 GWh by 2020 with a new factory in Brazil—about the same capacity as Tesla’s.

Other Tesla rivals rushing to the battery production scene will be iPhone manufacturer Foxconn and LG Chem, which is already one of the top three battery makers. Samsung is also hot on the trail, having just acquired Magna’s battery production division.

According to Credit Suisse, the lithium industry is “poised for significant volume growth,” which could lead to shortages of supply. As a result producers of lithium are set to enjoy significant earnings throughout the decade.

Even before Tesla’s gigafactory – and its rivals – entered the picture, global lithium consumption had doubled in the decade before 2012, driven largely by its use in lithium-ion batteries for cell phones and power tools. Then electric cars hit the scene in earnest, further boosting demand for lithium, while Tesla’s gigafactory is expected to use up as much as 17 percent of the existing lithium supply, according to Fortune magazine, citing Goldman Sachs.

For investors who are just catching on to the lithium battery revolution, the best way to play the game is to look past the traditional lithium producers. In this boom scenario, investors will be looking at companies with the lowest market caps, solid management and highly prospective deposits.

Currently, lithium is not traded as a commodity; rather, it is managed through a kind of oligopoly situation where there are three or four major suppliers globally and they have rather successfully managed supply and demand for lithium over the past decades. Because of this, everything is priced on a contract basis.

“The problem is that these three or four major suppliers have been responsible for supply and demand but they are not going to be able to meet new demand for lithium,” Dr. Andy Robinson, a Ph.D. in Geochemistry and the COO of Pure Energy Minerals (OTMKTS:HMGLF), told Oilprice.com.

As Robinson points out, however, not all lithium is equal. It’s sold in different types for different prices. For instance, lithium carbonate sells for around $6,000 per ton and is used to make some of the materials for new battery technology. However, many of the new battery technologies—particularly those used by Tesla—use lithium hydroxide as the starting material, which trades at around $2,000 more per ton than lithium carbonate.

And lithium found in salty water, or brines, is by far the most cost effective. According to Dr. Robinson, “brine is the best way to produce lithium because it’s so cheap, as nature has done all the hard work in rendering the lithium into a form that is easy to extract from the ground. All you have to do is drill a few wells and pump the liquid brine.”

Furthermore, there are only a few places in the world where lithium is present at high enough concentrations in these salty brines and the most famous is in the Atacama Desert, in the “Lithium Triangle” of Bolivia, Argentina and Chile. Supply here is threatened by corruption and politics, making it difficult to capitalize on burgeoning demand.

When Tesla’s gigafactory comes online, everyone will be looking for cost-effective lithium sources closer to home, which brings us full circle to the state of Nevada, where Pure Energy Minerals has the only potential future brine resource in North America. The only other brine resources are located in China, are much smaller and are controlled by Chinese companies.

Lithium is increasingly the tech of choice for battery banks across the board, and when Tesla’s gigafactory is producing batteries one year from now, the winners in this emerging battery boom will be those behind the lithium, and those following the brine.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Warren-Buffett-And-Elon-Musk-To-Spark-A-Lithium-Boom.html

By Lisa Curtis and Olivia Enos*

Pakistan’s Supreme Court took an encouraging step forward last week when it decided to reconsider blasphemy charges against Pakistani Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who is facing a death sentence. This decision provides an opportunity for Pakistan to acquit Bibi and show the world its commitment to protecting its religious minorities. The U.S. must prioritize the issue of religious freedom in its dialogue with Pakistan to discourage any further persecution of religious minorities and to undercut support for Islamist extremist ideologies that leads to targeted violence against these vulnerable communities.

Bibi, a mother of five and a farmworker, was arrested in 2009 after her Muslim co-workers alleged that she had committed blasphemy during an argument about sharing the same water bowl. In November 2010, she was sentenced to death by a Pakistani trial court, a decision that was upheld by the Lahore High Court in October 2014.

Growing Intolerance

Under Pakistani law, blasphemous acts include making derogatory remarks against the Muslim prophet Muhammed and defiling the Koran. Allegations of blasphemy are often fabricated and are commonly used to intimidate religious minorities or settle personal vendettas, including against fellow Muslims. Moreover, blasphemy charges do not require proof of intent or evidence, and there are no penalties for false allegations. Since the laws do not provide details on what constitutes a violation, accusers have broad leeway to define what they deem an offense. In 2013, 38 individuals were imprisoned in Pakistan on blasphemy charges.

Pakistanis who have sought changes to the blasphemy laws or who have defended those wrongly accused have often been killed, demonstrating the rise in religious intolerance and support for extremist ideologies there. In early 2011, Pakistan’s Governor of the Punjab Salman Taseer and Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti were assassinated by religious extremists because of their efforts to defend Bibi and roll back the controversial blasphemy laws. Human rights lawyer Rashid Rehman was assassinated in June 2014 for defending an English professor, Junaid Hafeez, who was accused of blasphemy. Rehman had received several death threats in the weeks prior to his assassination, but the Pakistani government failed to provide him with protection.

Former Pakistan People’s Party parliamentarian and Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, introduced a bill in parliament in late 2010 to amend the blasphemy laws, but she was later forced to withdraw it under political pressure. Ambassador Rehman continues to face threats from extremists due to her support for re-examining the legislation and removing the death penalty as punishment. In January 2013, the Supreme Court of Pakistan approved admission of a blasphemy case filed against Ambassador Rehman for remarks she made on a television program in November 2010. The growing influence of extremist ideologies are endangering Pakistan’s minority communities and jeopardizing the country’s democratic institutions and values, including freedom of religion and speech.

The miscarriage of justice against Bibi is just the latest example of declining religious freedom in Pakistan. The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom’s 2015 Annual Report calls on the State Department to designate Pakistan as a country of particularly concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA)—something it has called for since 2002.[1] Ninety-five percent of Pakistan’s population is Muslim, including a 20 percent Shia minority, which increasingly faces brutal attacks by Sunni extremists. Ahmadis (about 2 percent of the Pakistani population), who consider themselves Muslim but are not recognized as such under Pakistani law, also face discriminatory legislation that prohibits them from calling themselves Muslims or their places of worship mosques, performing the Muslim call to prayer, using the traditional Islamic greeting in public, or publicly quoting from the Koran.

Bibi’s case is a particularly pernicious example of the negative effects of blasphemy laws. Bibi’s family has been forced to go into hiding, and Muslim clerics placed a $5,000 bounty on her head.[2] Bibi also faces extreme health challenges, including intestinal bleeding, that could be life-threatening.[3] If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bibi, the court would overturn the decision by the Lahore High Court to sentence Bibi to death. If Bibi were released from jail, her life would still be in grave danger from vigilantes who could decide to take the law into their own hands. In April 2012, a Pakistani man accused of blasphemy was shot dead by religious zealots after he was acquitted and released from prison.

The U.S. Must Prioritize Religious Freedom in Pakistan

The growing pattern of religious intolerance and persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is threatening the very fabric of Pakistani society and undermining democracy, not to mention putting the lives of millions of members of religious minorities in danger. The U.S. must make the protection of Pakistan’s religious minorities a central plank of its dialogue with the country. More specifically, the U.S. should:

• Publicly advocate for the release of Asia Bibi. While the Pakistani Supreme Court has taken a step in the right direction with its decision to review Bibi’s appeal, the U.S. must keep up the pressure for her immediate release from jail and help ensure that she receives proper medical care.
• Announce that unless Pakistan makes substantive changes to its blasphemy laws and how they are implemented, it will be designated a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The IRFA was passed in 1998 and requires the U.S. Secretary of State to designate annually “countries of particular concern” and to take specific action aimed at improving religious freedom in those countries. A CPC is defined as a country in which the government either engages in or tolerates severe violations of religious freedom.
• Urge Pakistan to review all blasphemy cases. In 2014, the Pakistani courts conducted a review of blasphemy cases but did not include in the review any cases against members of religious minority groups.[4]
• Encourage Pakistan to implement steps called for by the Pakistani Supreme Court in 2014, including creating a special police force to protect religious minorities and elevating the work of the religious minority commission. The U.S. should structure its aid programs to support these activities through technical assistance, training, and exchanges.
• Support increased civil society engagement between Americans and Pakistanis to help elevate the voices of moderation and tolerance in Pakistan. There are plenty of Pakistani citizens who are working hard and, indeed, risking their lives to reverse extremist trends and ensure the rights and freedoms of all Pakistanis. U.S.–Pakistan government-to-government interactions alone will not get the job done. There is a need for more and deeper civil society engagement between our two countries that can help mobilize grassroots support for preserving religious freedom.

Reviving Pakistan’s Founding Vision

Pakistan’s founding father, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, supported the idea of Islam serving as a unifying force and believed Pakistanis had a responsibility to uphold the principles of religious freedom and to protect the rights of religious minorities. Releasing Asia Bibi from jail would be a good first step in reviving the country’s founding ideals of religious tolerance.

About the authors:
*Lisa Curtis is Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Olivia Enos is a Research Associate in the Asian Studies Center.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (Washington, DC: USCIRF, 2015), http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%202015.pdf (accessed July 27, 2015).

[2] Monica Cantilero, “$5,000 Bounty Announced for Anyone Who Kills Pakistani Christian Woman Asia Bibi,” Christian Today, July 10, 2015, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/5000.bounty.announced.for.anyone.who.kills.pakistani.christian.woman.asia.bibi/58573.htm (accessed July 27, 2015).

[3] Olivia Enos, “Persecuted Pakistani Christian Woman on Death Row Severely Ill,” The Daily Signal, July 14, 2015, http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/14/persecuted-pakistani-christian-woman-on-death-row-severely-ill/.

[4] U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Oman has stood her ground in pursuing a non-interference policy for quite some time. Since the invasion of Iraq until the Arab uprisings started leading to the bloody civil war of Syria the Sultanate has officially remained neutral but Iran’s behaviour is increasingly pressuring Oman to assume a clear stance and that eventually means choosing sides.

All the way until the Syrian uprising and the start of the civil war, Iran was regarded as the only Muslim power standing up to Israel. Its support for Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas were considered as praiseworthy and brave undertaking. The Syrian and Iraq wars among others however have entirely transformed that view. Iran’s support for the Syrian government and Shia militias in Iraq has exposed its darker side. Even its support for the struggle against Israel is in hind sight being viewed as one that was of sectarian in nature and of self-interest in essense.

The unrelenting support of Asad’s killing machine has exposed Iran’s true stance towards non-Shia Muslims. Just as much as Bashar al-Asad’s brutality clarified Iran’s violent nature, Iran has made the once Muslim’s Hero, Hezbollah, turn into a villain. Hezbollah is now widely seen as Hezbo-al-Shaitan and Hassan Nasrallah is dubbed Hassan Nasru-Al-Shaitan. Asad’s and Hezbollah’s crimes against non-Shias are now inseparable to those of Iran. Incidents such as the recent bombing that killed two police officers in Bahrain which many believe is the work of Iran’s intelligence doesn’t help either.

Iran is a strong nation that is in a self-destruction mode and as such it is laying on very fragile foundation for the following reasons. Apart from an image that came all the way from hero to criminal, Iran risks losing the only remaining genuinely friendly GCC country because it is an ideological orphan that chose to defy too many countries with shared ideology that now perceive Iran as an existential threat.

Iran is not only facing the GCC but all those nations that support the coalition against Yemeni’s Hoothis because their entry into the coalition underlies their stance on Iran. That union is not limited to Arab countries but almost all Muslim nations which would choose Saudi Arabia’s side whenever called upon. The past five years that have turned Iran into a villain have done the opposite for Saudi Arabia. Once perceived as letting Muslims down, the Kingdom is now seen as the defender of Arabs and Muslims against Iran’s expansionary ambitions.

Due to its proximity with Iran, there is much at stake for Oman if its relationships with the Persian nation go sour but if Iran insists on its present course it would eventually force Oman to choose and the side of Iran won’t be likely. There are good reasons why Oman is in the GCC. Not least is the ideological closeness to the GCC in addition to language, values and culture. Contrary to what is being dealt in the media especially the internet that Oman is closer ideologically to Iran – Ibadhis are more similar to Shias than Sunnis – than it is to Sunni-dominated countries, Ibadhi’s are far closer to Sunnis and the differences are skin-deep at worst. There is a small group of Sunnis who disseminate such discourse and Iran does an excellent job of amplifying it.

What Oman is to Iran is essentially a rescue boat that Iran has to jump into and use it to pursue a more conciliatory path with the GCC, Arabs and Muslims in general.

The relationships between Iran on one hand and the US and EU on the other are seemingly warming-up but for it to become a reality Iran would have to abandon its revolutionary mentality and that effectively means getting rid of the Ayatollah’s. In fact, that maybe the path the West is baiting Iran towards for the sake of Israel. Religious leaders of Iran who are its navigation would fight such a scenario to the death and Rouhani is perhaps as liberal as they are willing to permit.

In this case, never mind the nuclear deal which is born dead and the accompanied photo opportunities, Iran is not only in a faceoff with all the Arabs and essentially all the Muslims but the West and another suicidal state which is Israel as well; not to mention ISIS which wishes to wipe out Iran from earth with the same zeal Iran wants to wipe out Israel. Present allies’ much less neutral countries would risk their own relationships with the world, their national interests and peace for the sake of Iran as it has been imprudently doing for the sake of Bashar al-Asad.

No one wants to embark upon a sinking boat. Believe it or not; Saddam had friends, Bashar also had friends and Gaddafi had even more friends but the links became far more invisible when their doom was near. Iran has weapons and is technologically arguably ahead of many in the Muslim world but sheer mass of opponents makes it a losing war for it and as such one would expect that it would use the few remaining friends to secure an eventual peaceful conclusion.

Iran’s policy of progressive antagonize of its neighbours whilst maintaining affability whose main aim is to distance Oman from the GCC, Iran ought to use the Sultanate’s unique position to attempt to mend its image and avoid having to repair real wounds of the future whence neutrality alter.

The death of the Taliban’s supreme commander, Mullah Mohammad Omar, has been confirmed by the Afghan president’s office and the country’s intelligence agency. Omar died two years ago in Pakistan, the presidential palace said.

“The government … based on credible information, confirms that Mullah Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban died in April 2013 in Pakistan,” the office of President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The government of Afghanistan believes that grounds for the Afghan peace talks are more paved now than before, and thus calls on all armed opposition groups to seize the opportunity and join the peace process.”

The statement came after media reports saying that the death of the Taliban leader has been confirmed by Pakistani authorities to Afghan government officials.

The Pakistani government said the Taliban leader died some two years ago from tuberculosis.

The information appears to be backed up by a former Afghan Taliban minister and top councilman, who spoke with the Express Tribune on condition of anonymity: “Mullah Omar died two years and four months ago, [due] to tuberculosis. He has been buried on the Afghan side of the border,” he said. “Mullah Omar’s son identified the body of his father.”

The Afghani Khaama Press news agency reports that the issue of Mullah Omar’s possible death was discussed by the Afghan Cabinet following confirmation from Pakistani authorities.

The Afghan Taliban are not divulging any information, but have said they will release a statement in due course. The militant group’s representatives have recently been in talks with top Afghan officials for the first time in Pakistan.

This is not the first time the death of Mullah Omar has been reported.

Earlier a Taliban splinter group, the Afghanistan Islamic Movement Fidai Mahaz, announced that the Taliban leader was killed by other leaders from the faction, namely, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansoor and Gul Agha. But the group’s spokesman, Qari Hamza, says the supposedly deceased leader was actually killed in July 2013. The spokesman said he has evidence of this.

Another version of events was offered by The National Directorate of Security (NDS), Afghanistan’s spy agency, which claims that Mullah Omar died last November.

Other reports indicate that following Mullah Omar’s alleged death some two years ago, the Taliban fractured into three separate factions – one backing peace talks with the Afghan government, another opposing them and the third reportedly comprised of “neutral” militant leaders. Intelligence reports in 2014 indicated that, in the event of his death, Omar had given his trusted friend Mullah Mansoor authority to take over.

But despite these rumors, a message attributed to Mullah Omar started making the rounds on July 15, ahead of the celebrations for Eid, which come at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. The message spoke in support of the peace talks with the Kabul government, adding that the objective is the “end to occupation” by foreign armed forces. However, it was only published as text on the Taliban’s website, which further fuelled speculations of Omar being dead or incapacitated.

However, the last anyone has seen of the reclusive leader was following the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by the United States, after Omar had joined forces with Osama Bin Laden, widely believed to be the architect behind the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington.

This month’s premier league final between Cairo’s two storied clubs, Al Ahli SC and Al Zamalek SC, once the world’s most violent derby, was more than a clash between two soccer giants. It was a clash between management styles and diametrically opposed approaches towards militant, highly politicized, street battle-hardened soccer fans. The clash highlighted the advantages of engagement as opposed to the risk of radicalization and escalating political violence.

On the pitch like on the streets and university campuses of Egypt, Zamalek’s emergence as this year’s Egyptian champion despite Ahli having won the derby itself would seem to legitimize the club’s aggressive effort to criminalize its fan base.

The facts on the ground, however, suggest that Al Ahli’s engagement with its supporters has produced far better results, including greater cooperation with a group that like its Zamalek counterpart played a key role in the toppling in 2011 of President Hosni Mubarak and protests against all his successors in the past four years.

Members of Ultras Ahlawy, the Al Ahli support group, and Ultras White Knights (UWK), the Zamalek fan group, form the core of prominent student and youth groups that have been targeted by the government of general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who in 2013 toppled Egypt’s only democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, in a military coup. More than a thousand protesters have been killed on Mr. Al Sisi’s watch while tens of thousands have been incarcerated and thousands expelled from universities.

Zamalek president Mortada Mansour, a larger than life figure, whose at times comical outbursts often persuade the government to maintain a distance even though they support Mr. Al Sisi’s policies, charged that Al Ahli’s victory on the pitch was due to “ghosts and jinns” and that his assertions are “written in the holy Quran.”

More seriously, Mr. Mortada has identified the UWK and other militant fans or ultras as enemies of the state aligned with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. He succeeded earlier this year in persuading a court to ban ultras as terrorists on par with the Muslim Brothers. In February, Mr. Mortada took pride in taking responsibility for a confrontation at a Cairo stadium between security forces and fans in which at least 20 supporters were killed.

Mr. Mortada, whose hard line mirrors the government’s tough approach towards its opponents, took his battle earlier this month to Al Ahli after thousands of Ultras Ahlawy were allowed to attend a training of their team in preparation for the derby.

UWK, whom Mr. Mortada accuses of having tried to assassinate him, are barred from Zamalek events. The Ahli fans reportedly used the training to mock Mr. Mortada in chants and hurl abuse at him not only because he heads their arch rival but as a result of his hard-line anti-ultras, pro-government stance. They also demanded a lifting of the ban on spectators attending soccer matches that has been in place for much of the four years since the fall of Mr. Mubarak.

In response, Mr. Mortada accused Al Ahli president Mahmoud Taha of allowing fans to “terrorise citizens” and of displaying a lack of respect for the ministries of defense and interior that controls the security forces. The interior ministry has been the main driver behind the ban. Mr. Mortada said he had filed charges against Al Ahli president Mahmoud Taher for hosting a terrorist organization.

Mr. Taha refused to be drawn by Mr. Mortada, noting in a veiled criticism of the ban on spectators that the ultras had “set an example to follow in terms of discipline, given how they had entered and left the stadium despite their large numbers. Ahli, the leader of Arab and African sports with its titles and trophies, refuses to be drawn into such matters … while stressing its respect for different opinions and views,” Mr. Taha said.

While Mr. Mortada’s hard line reflects government policy, Mr. Taha’s approach proved its value in December when Ahlawy fans stormed a stadium hours before it was to host an African championship final in support of their demand that they be allowed to attend the match.

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Taha stopped security forces from violently evicting the fans and negotiated their peaceful departure in exchange for interior ministry agreement to allow them into the stadium during the match. The fans agreed as part of the deal to subject themselves to security checks and not to disrupt the match, a promise they kept.

For a brief moment, the incident held out hope that the government may be persuaded that engagement rather than brutal repression is more likely to reduce tension and prevent radicalization among frustrated and angry youth who lack social and economic prospects.

Ultimately, the government’s willingness to work with Mr. Taha did not indicate a change of heart but a desire to ensure that the match from which Al Ahli emerged as the continent’s champion went off without a hitch.

If Mr. Taha’s soccer-focused approach has proven that engagement produces results, Mr. Mortada and the government’s insistence on brutal confrontation risks further escalation in a country that is fighting an armed insurgency in the Sinai and is witnessing the sprouting of militant urban groups that target security and judicial authorities.

“We had high hopes. We staged the revolution in 2011. The new generation has nothing to lose. We recognize that football is political. That’s why we are involved not only in football but also in politics. We oppose the brutality of this regime and its pawns. Neither Sisi nor Mortada are interested in politics. Their language is exclusively the language of repression,” said an ultra who is also a student leader.

Across the country people have been keen to offer feedback on the preliminary draft of our new constitution despite several incidents of disruption and vandalism. It seems that many people are excited by recent political developments, and the hope of the nation is that the constitution can bring to an end a decade of political deadlock.

On the other hand, from the very outset, a large part of the population and of the political forces have been demonstrating against the draft arguing that it is not inclusive and that it does not represent the values and sentiments of all segments of society – most importantly, that the draft reflects only the interests of a few political parties and their bosses. Strikes are being called, and protests, vandalism and disruption are affecting every corner of the country.

In such political circumstances, many questions must be asked. Have we allowed enough time for public debate on the new draft? Can the new constitution resolve all existing problems? Can it complete the peace process? Already we are seeing popular dissatisfaction with the draft on the streets, in public forums, in the media and on social media. What is wrong with the draft or how did it go wrong? How can the constitution be sustained if many wish to tear it up even before it is published? It is time for us to take the issue seriously. What, for instance, do we, as a nation and as a people, really want from this constitution? Will it be able to curtail mob rule and the monopoly of a few? Or will it not open the new Pandora’s Box? This article seeks to raise many important questions regarding the draft against which the quality and the legitimacy of the document can be judged.

Firstly, every constitution in the world is founded upon certain principles and norms. For each it is about process and outcome. Was our process of drafting correct? Did our so-called politicians follow the basic principles, norms and rules for such drafting? Did the Constituent Assembly have enough power to discuss the document thoroughly or was the process dominated, as in the past, by a few fat cat politicians of the four major parties?

A constitution is more than just a political document. It is more than just a governmental instrument of instructions, and it is more than political bhagbanda. It must reflect the interests of the population as a whole. The constitution itself represents and belongs to the people. It is the supreme instrument for the running of the nation, and it represents a vision not only of how we wish to govern ourselves today but of how future generations should do so too. It should be about protecting our own future and the future of our children.Therefore, a constitution, as a living document, should provide a vision anda legal parameter for where and how we aim to be even after another five decades in terms of social, political and economic development. It should also be a vision of how we wish to see our nation’s standing as an independent state in the 21st century.

The big question is: does this draft present that kind of vision? Does it cover the social, political and economic needs of the people of today and tomorrow? Does the draft provide answers to these questions?

Secondly, what is a good constitution in itself? What are the basic features of a ‘quality’ constitution? The present draft must be judged by both its content and its quality.Is it comprehensive? As the supreme law of the land, does the draft constitution uphold the ideals of equality, freedom, and justice? Does it adopt and accept the principles of constitutionalism? Is it well written and flexible and provide for bills of rights, the independence of the judiciary, etc? A constitution must be the basis of freedom and freedom must be given the rightful definition. It is the only safeguard for our liberties, dignity and fraternity. Does the draft provide fundamental freedoms for its people? Constitutions have for centuries been celebrated for granting power to the powerless, voices to those voiceless and a strong weapon to those oppressed and marginalized. Is this draft document capable of empowering any of our powerless, voiceless or marginalized citizens?

Thirdly, public debate and consultation with all sectors is very important for the greater legitimacy and public acceptance of any constitution. Broad participation while drafting the constitution is the paramount necessity for the durable sustainability of any law that it subsequently gives rise to. Writing a constitution is itself a broad political process among different political forces. It is about give and take, and it is about sharing values, visions, respecting each other and most importantly sharing the future among the citizens. Did the drafting of this constitution allow such broad political participation? Did we give enough time for public debate and consultation, and did we fully take note of opinions expressed?

The nation has already spent many years, resources and energy drafting the new constitution. Precious time has been lost, but the crucial requirement is not that time and money have been spent but that a good constitution based on values is the ultimate outcome. We do not expect a constitution that is hastily put together or one that is no more than a copy of another.Our new constitution must come as a genuine solution to our problems of the past, and it must adequately represent all sectors of our society.We are told that the new constitution will be promulgated by the end of this month. Shall we then have enough time to consider its content and to inject public opinion and comment into the final draft? Otherwise why is this happening? Why are we rushing at the end?

Finally, a good constitution should reflect the immediate history, culture and traditions of a nation. We must learn from the past. Bad practices must be denied and good traditions continue. Our generation has suffered from the political mistakes of our forefathers. We must not make the same mistakes and allow our coming generation to suffer equally. We must make sure through this constitution that the next generation will not need to fight for political change or for yet another constitution. We must well and truly secure their democratic future through this constitution. Have we fully considered our past constitutions and our past experiences of what went wrong with those? What were the lapses and gaps within those past constitutions? Have we learnt from the failure of the last constituent assembly or from the failure of the political parties and, most importantly, from their leadership? The final document must emerge as the bridge that brings together the various castes, creeds and other segments of our society. It must emerge as powerful glue that sticks the already divided society together. It must emerge as the healer of centuries-old social wounds, divisions and disparities. Does the present draft offer these?

The righting of historical wrongs is most vital for any new constitution.All constitutions are work in progress, and none is  perfect. No matter how well it is written, none can guarantee success. Rather it is our attitude and, most importantly, our greater political commitment and political sincerity that can make a constitution effective, productive and turn lofty ideals into reality.The constitution is the means by which we show how we wish to govern ourselves. We must use this unique opportunity to correct historical mistakes – if not today, then when? Let us pray that the new constitution will come to be celebrated as anew birth of freedom and nationhood.

A proposed United States Senate resolution to support the criminal prosecution of migrants in mass, rapid-fire hearings would perpetuate unfair processes, at great human and financial cost, Human Rights Watch said.

Senate resolution 104, scheduled to be considered in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29, 2015, states that the program, called Operation Streamline, has been a success and that refusing to prosecute “first-time illegal border crossers” would undermine that success.

“Operation Streamline is an unproven, wasteful program that has criminally prosecuted tens of thousands of unauthorized migrants each year,” said Grace Meng, senior US researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Many are convicted of a federal crime for wanting to return to their families or for fleeing persecution and seeking refuge.”

Under Operation Streamline, dozens of defendants at a time are charged, plead guilty, and ultimately convicted and sentenced of the federal misdemeanor of illegal entry, all within a matter of hours and sometimes even minutes. US Customs and Border Protection claims that the program reduces recidivism by deterring migrants from trying to enter the US illegally again. Although the program was originally touted as a “zero-tolerance” program, the Border Patrol sectors in which Operation Streamline is currently active have differing policies as to which unauthorized migrants should be criminally charged and which should go through the usual administrative removal process.

Senate resolution 104 appears to respond to reports in September 2014 that in Yuma County, Arizona, the US Attorney’s Office is no longer prosecuting first-time border crossers, but focusing instead on those who have previously been removed administratively, a policy similar to those in other areas.

The resolution, in contending that Operation Streamline has been a success, disregards the findings of a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) report released in May. The report raised serious questions about the border agency’s data and its claims of Operation Streamline’s effectiveness, as well as citing its significant cost.

The inspector general found that while numerous agencies – including the US Attorney’s Office, US Marshals, Bureau of Prisons, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal courts – incur significant costs to carry out Operation Streamline, Border Patrol does not track how much is spent on Operation Streamline. As a result, the report concluded, Border Patrol cannot determine whether Operation Streamline or some other action – such as straight deportation – “is appropriate given existing resources.”

The inspector general further found that Border Patrol regularly refers migrants to the criminal prosecution program even though they say they fear they will be harmed if they are returned to their home countries. As Human Rights Watch pointed out in a 2013 report, such prosecutions violate US treaty obligations under the 1967 protocol to the International Refugee Convention.

Operation Streamline has contributed to the steep rise in federal immigration prosecutions, which in 2014 made up 40 percent of all federal criminal cases. The vast majority of these prosecutions are for illegal entry and reentry, which are the most prosecuted federal crimes.

Immigration offenders now make up 30 percent of people entering the federal prison system, which increasingly contracts with private prison companies to hold non-citizens convicted of these offenses. Some, like former Arizona Attorney General Terry Stoddard, have criticized immigration prosecutions, saying that they draw resources away from deterring organized crime and other issues that more seriously affect border security.

“The Senate resolution goes counter to the growing bipartisan recognition that the US needs to reduce the number of people in federal prison,” Meng said. “Rather than affirm Operation Streamline, the Senate should reexamine and end a program that essentially treats migrants as criminals.”

By Richard Cores*

On Monday, July 20, 2015, Cuba opened its embassy in Washington, DC to much fanfare. Many were the cheers in support of this momentous occasion, which formally brought an end to an outdated and ineffective American foreign policy toward Cuba based on punishment, rather than engagement. By contrast, the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Havana was dull and muted. To be fair, the re-opening ceremony in Havana will take place on August 14th, when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Cuba to officially inaugurate the new U.S. Embassy and hoist the American flag once more. Mr. Kerry, the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit the island in over 70 years, has clearly stated that “…the interests of both countries are better served by engagement than by estrangement.” [1] The opening of the U.S. Embassy in Havana is perhaps the most significant symbol of this new policy.

Although the usual pomp and rituals were missing on that Monday in Havana when the U.S. Interest Section officially became the U.S. Embassy, what was palpable in the air was the hope and optimism of the Cubans present outside the well-known building in the Vedado district. The sun shone bright and amidst the scourging heat several Cuban citizens held signs which read “Welcome USA” and “We Are Friends”, as members of the news media, photographers and onlookers gathered in front of the newly opened embassy waiting to see if anything more would occur. After only a few hours, the small crowd had dissipated and all was back to business as usual. However, for the future of U.S.-Cuba relations, the status quo will no longer be sufficient. As the last few months have shown, the road ahead is full of changes, obstacles, and unprecedented challenges for both nations.

Remaining Political Opposition

Perhaps the biggest challenge to this new policy of engagement lies in the small, but vocal opposition, in the United States Congress. Although this opposition seems to gradually diminish, there are still those who believe the U.S. has given too much too fast in exchange for what they say is a bad deal for the U.S. and the Cuban people. When the Cuban Embassy officially opened, some South Florida politicians, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo, claimed that the Cuban Embassy would serve as a center for espionage in the United States, and as such, would pose a national security risk. [2][3] Others who oppose further engagement, such as presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, only offered inflammatory rhetoric and promises to abolish everything President Obama has done in regard to Cuba. Mr. Rubio has also vowed to block any appointment for Ambassador to the new U.S. Embassy, as well as any funding for its operation.

Great changes should not cease in the face of opposition. In fact, there has been talk about the possibility of opening up a Cuban Consulate in Miami, and the city’s Mayor has vowed to oppose any such measure. However, the U.S. State Department has the legal authority to approve the opening of a Cuban Consulate and should use it to do so. There is a high demand for consular services in Miami-Dade County, where most Cuban-Americans live in the U.S., and it would benefit them greatly to have a Consulate there. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Cuban-Americans support the path to normalization and restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba. [4] [5] Therefore, neither a city’s Mayor nor a small band of radical politicians, should be able to stop projects that would help the majority of Cuban-Americans in the State of Florida. Some of these people take costly trips to Washington, D.C. each year to receive consular services, which could be easily provided in Miami if a Consulate were established there.

Although the words of these anti-engagement politicians are popular among a dwindling number of Cuban-American supporters in Miami and a few in Congress, they offer no real solutions on how to improve the lives of ordinary Cubans other than by overthrowing the government. In fact, they would rather follow the same ineffective approach that has not worked for nearly six decades. Senator Rubio and Mr. Bush certainly do not rant against dealings with Saudi Arabia – a military and economic ally of the United States – and one of the most brutal regimes in the world, where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment, flogging or even execution, and where women can be legally arrested for merely driving a car. Surely Mr. Rubio and those who oppose dealing with Cuba due to the lack of a multi-party liberal democratic system in the island, as well as allegations about its record on human rights, are well aware that Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy – not a liberal democracy – which tramples on the basic civil liberties and human rights of its citizens as it sees fit.

Therefore, if a clean human rights record and American democratic values were the standard for normalized diplomatic relations with other countries, then the United States would be at a loss for friends in most regions of the world, since dozens of Washington’s most treasured military and economic allies such as Bahrain, Egypt, Vietnam, and China suffer from tarnished human rights records and continue to suppress dissent of any kind. Nevertheless, the U.S. has pursued its own interests in regard to these States and has continued to support their governments with money, weapons sales, and rhetoric. For instance, the U.S. State Department calls Bahrain a vital U.S. partner in defense initiatives. The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet is hosted by Bahrain and the U.S. designated Bahrain a Major Non-NATO ally in 2002. [14] [15] This is all despite the fact that Bahrain has one of the world’s worst human rights records and its oppression of the majority Shiite population by the minority Sunni rulers goes unchecked. The U.S. has consistently claimed that alliances with these regimes benefit the American people due to their geostrategic and military value.

The same can be said for the U.S. alliance with Egypt. According to Human Rights Watch, since General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi took office through a military coup in 2013, human rights violations such as mass killings, mass arrests, mass death sentences, torture, violence against women, violations of due process and restrictions of civil liberties continue to occur. Furthermore, “not a single police or army officer has been held accountable for the repeated use of excessive force and other serious abuses.” [16] Even with all of these atrocious events taking place, the U.S. has continued to bestow millions of dollars upon Egypt’s leaders, as well as military weapons, Apache helicopters, and words of praise [17] [18]. It wasn’t that long ago when the United States had words of support and affirmation for Mr. Hosni Mubarak, one of Egypt’s longest ruling tyrants, and an extremely close friend of the United States. It was only after the Arab Spring uprisings that the U.S. decided to turn a blind eye on its complicit long-time support of his regime and pretend it had never been on his side.

The U.S. has also had its own detestable record of human rights violations in Latin America. Since its founding, the U.S. has intervened many times in the affairs of Latin American countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua and Cuba – in clear violation of their sovereignty – in order to maintain political and economic control over its “backyard” and in pursuit of often narrow corporate interests at any cost. These interventions and violations have not only been military or political in scope, but have gone even further. In Guatemala, the U.S. government launched a medical experiment program in the 1940s and 1950s, in which hundreds of Guatemalans were deliberately infected with sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea. [19] Numerous such examples, including CIA-backed coups in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Panama can be written about which would necessitate much more space than is being allotted for this article. However, one point remains clear: Cuba is no Egypt or Bahrain and its citizens are not routinely killed nor tortured en masse. Why then would the U.S. continue to apply a hypocritical policy toward the island?

History has shown that sanctions and isolation only serve to punish innocent citizens and may do absolutely nothing to cause a nation’s leadership to alter its course. The outdated U.S. foreign policy based on isolation and punishing sanctions could not possibly achieve anything positive or constructive for the Cuban people. Instead, a policy of engagement can bring about greater opportunities to interact with the Cuban people and to mutually cooperate and learn from one another. Although Cuba has continued to make progress in the areas of telecommunications and Internet access, more interaction and the sharing of technical know-how with American companies will allow it to further advance a system that is tailored to the needs of the island and its people. Most of the Cuban youth is smart and technologically savvy despite the obstacles they have had to endure caused by decades of economic hardship. By eliminating the embargo and the remaining barriers that exists between the two nations, Cubans – young and old – will undoubtedly use their resourceful and inventive nature to strengthen their civic institutions and contribute to the betterment of their own societies.

The Thaw Continues

Despite the opposition from some, there are signs that the thaw that began on 17, 2014 with President Obama’s announcement of a new policy toward Cuba, continues to gain strength. Recently, Stonegate Bank reached an agreement with Cuba’s Banco Internacional de Comercio (BICSA), which will open up more opportunities for commerce and benefit American companies wanting to do business in Cuba. [6] Stonegate is also the bank handling the accounts of Cuba’s diplomatic missions in the U.S. More banks are sure to follow in the coming months, since the U.S. Treasury Department has amended its regulations to allow American banks to open correspondent accounts in Cuban banks. Americans traveling to the island are already allowed to use their debit cards and credit cards in Cuba under the new regulations. As more banks follow suit, financial transactions will become more efficient and practical.

In another sign of growing support toward normalization, the GOP-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee recently voted to lift the travel ban to Cuba. It also voted to repeal the law prohibiting banks and other U.S. businesses from financing sales of U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. [8] Even though the embargo with its many economic and trade restriction remains in place, chipping away at the policies that restrict further interaction with the Cuban government and its people will continue to create a better climate for positive changes to occur. Such a step is also being explored by the U.S. government as it considers making changes to the requirements of “People to People” travel, one of 12 categories authorized by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in order to allow individual travelers, not just groups, to visit the island. [9] The current regulations make these group trips extremely pricey (some in excess of $3,000), thus preventing many people who legitimately fall into this licensed category from visiting Cuba. Although opposition to further interaction remains in the House Appropriations Committee among others, it is clear that the tide is shifting and that new initiatives are gaining momentum.

President Obama’s Trip to Cuba

In a recent meeting at the White House, Administration officials stated that President Obama would consider visiting Cuba next year, and that the evaluation of such a trip would most likely take place in January depending on the progress achieved by the Cuban authorities on a number of issues at that time. However, these same officials have stressed that progress in itself would not be a prerequisite for a possible trip. [7][9] The last sitting United States President to visit Cuba was Calvin Coolidge in 1928 – 87 years ago – when Cuba’s President was General Gerardo Machado. Coolidge had traveled to Cuba in order to address the Sixth Annual International Conference of American States in Havana. Times were very different then. Joseph Stalin ruled Russia, Benito Mussolini ruled Italy, and the animosity between the U.S. and Cuba had not yet occurred. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter also visited Cuba in 2002 at Fidel Castro’s invitation and then again in 2011 at Raul Castro’s invitation. In Carter’s own words, his goals were “to establish a dialog with Castro, to reach out to the Cuban people, and to pursue ways to improve U.S.-Cuban relations.” [10] Obama’s visit will most likely seek to accomplish the same thing. However, this trip comes at a time of unprecedented warming in relations between the two countries. Both Obama and Castro are seemingly driven less by ideology than pragmatism. This may be a good thing with respect to U.S.-Cuba relations, especially in a political climate fraught with radically divisive rhetoric. President Obama has said that “isolation shuts America out of Cuba’s future, and it only makes life worse for the Cuban people.” [11] His visit to Cuba would serve to consolidate his new foreign policy and would send a clear message of solidarity and hope to the Cuban people.

Remaining Issues and the Path Forward

In speaking about the re-establishment of U.S.-Cuba relations, President Raul Castro said, “while acknowledging our profound differences, particularly on issues related to national sovereignty, democracy, human rights and foreign policy, I reaffirm our willingness to dialogue on all these issues.” [12] Such an open invitation does not solve the list of contentious issues still remaining on this new path picforward. The U.S. government has expressed its desire to obtain compensation from Cuba for expropriated U.S. properties – currently valued at over $8 billion. Cuba also asserts counter-claims for damages caused by the U.S. economic embargo as well as other hostile measures toward the island, which it estimates at nearly $200 billion. Under the Helms-Burton law in the U.S., Cuban exiles who became naturalized U.S. citizens are eligible to receive compensation for property confiscated by the Cuban government after the Revolution of 1959. However, although Cuba has acknowledge and is willing to cooperate with the U.S. on the legitimacy of U.S. claims, it rejects any type of compensation claims from the Cubans who fled the island. America’s desire to bring its brand of democracy and human rights to the island is also a heated issue. Cuba regards these areas as internal matters and has always maintained that any intrusion into Cuba’s own system is a violation of its sovereignty. Other issues such as ongoing trade and travel restrictions, Internet access, the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, law enforcement issues (such as Cuba returning fugitives wanted in the U.S.), ending the U.S. embargo and more perhaps will go unresolved for many years to come.

Nevertheless, the door of cooperation and dialogue necessary for the establishment of trust and concrete policies between both nations must remain open. Each day more progress is made in the U.S. Congress, as bipartisan bills aimed at lifting the embargo and easing restrictions continue to gain ground. [3][13] A relationship that has been plagued with antagonism, hostility and distrust for decades cannot possibly be mended in a few months. Meaningful and substantial changes will take time. At a recent briefing in the new U.S. Embassy in Havana, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim, said that “engaging, rather than punishing, will bring us closer to the goal of a prosperous and democratic Cuba.” It would seem that only this policy of engagement will in due time bear the fruit of positive change and prosperity that will benefit both countries alike.

*Richard Cores, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article27940231.html

[2] http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/sur-de-la-florida/article27970213.html

[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-embassies-open-a-further-cuban-thaw-faces-hurdles-in-congress-1437352444

[4] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article17056742.html

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/18/forget-what-you-hear-in-washington-most-cuban-americans-favor-diplomatic-relations-with-cuba/

[6] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article28072318.html

[7] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article28479235.html

[8] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-controlled-senate-panel-votes-lift-cuba-travel-32640729

[9] http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/america-latina/cuba-es/article28341589.html

[10] http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc528.html

[11] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/01/statement-president-re-establishment-diplomatic-relations-cuba

[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/full-text-speech-by-cuban-president-raul-castro-on-re-establishing-us-cuba-relations/2014/12/17/45bc2f88-8616-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html

[13] http://www.coha.org/roadblocks-remain-in-us-cuba-rapprochement/

[14] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26414.htm

[15] http://middleeast.about.com/od/bahrain/a/American-Interests-In-Bahrain.htm

[16] http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/egypt-new-leader-faces-rights-crisis

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/middleeast/egypt-warns-morsi-supporters-to-end-protests.html

[18] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/03/us-supported-egypt-188-protesters-sentenced-die-days-mubarak-freed/

[19] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/johns-hopkins-lawsuit-deliberate-std-infections-guatemala

The terror attack in Gurdaspur on 27 July 2015 points at an expanded game plan by the terror outfits and their sponsors in Pakistan. A bloody Punjab fits well into the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT)’s objective of an engorged war with India beyond the traditional theatre of Kashmir. For the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) opening up the Punjab conflict yet again is a much cherished dream. Given that the attack failed attempts to repeat the adventure might be on the anvil.

By Bibhu Prasad Routray and Surya Valliappan Krishna*

A July 2015 photograph of Sardar Gopal Singh Chawla, general secretary of Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (PSGPC) clasping the hand of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) chief Muhammad Hafiz Saeed appeared more like a desperate plea for assistance rather than a friendly handshake between two collaborators. Nevertheless, taken less than two weeks before the 27 July 2015 terrorist attack in Gurdaspur in Punjab, the snap came for much scrutiny on social media. While the identities of the killed terrorists originating from Pakistan and involved in the attack that lasted half a day, are still unknown, the choice of Punjab as a target could have been the culmination of several objectives ranging from expanding the theatre of Jihad to reviving the Khalistan movement.

Chawla, general secretary of PSGPC Gopal Singh Chawla is a rabid anti-India campaigner and an ardent protagonist of the Khalistan movement. Not only the PSGPC celebrates birthday of slain Sikh extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale every year, Chawla’s posts on social media makes no attempt to hide his admiration for terrorists like Hafiz Saeed. Posting his photograph with Saeed, Chawla wrote in mid-July 2015, “Hafiz Saeed kae saath khubsurat lamhae, dushman ka dushman dost, khalistan zindabad, Indian zalam sarkar murdabad“. (Beautiful moments with Hafiz Saeed, Enemy’s enemy is a friend, long live Khalistan, Death to oppressive Indian government.) The project of reviving the Khalistan movement, dead in India but flickering in some countries including Pakistan, runs much deeper than Chawla’s public demonstration of intimacy with Hafiz Saeed.

Between 2012 and 2014, Gurmeet Singh alias Jagtar Singh Tara, leader of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) held at least three meetings with Asdullah Maulvi, an LeT commander in Pakistan. In these meetings, both men deliberated on the intricacies of delivering arms and RDX into Punjab to revive the ‘dead and gone’ Sikh militancy. Tara expressed his inability to find enough foot soldiers to carry out ‘operations’ in Punjab. Maulavi, reportedly based in Sialkot and in contact with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan, volunteered to send his own trained fidayeen cadres along with the hardware into the Indian state.

The LeT was keen on repeating the delivery of an RDX consignment after a similar attempt failed in 2011. On 12 October that year an Indica car with RDX had been intercepted at Ambala in Haryana while on its way from Jammu. The consignment was meant for carrying out a major explosion in national capital New Delhi on the Diwali day few days later. The KTF, on that occasion, had claimed responsibility for the incident.

Tara, an accused in the 1995 bomb blast that killed Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, had remained a guest of the ISI in Pakistan after escaping from Chandigarh’s high security Burail jail in January 2004. The project of reviving militancy in Punjab included six LeT cadres who coordinated with Tara and the entire group functioned under an ISI official of Lieutenant colonel-rank known only by his surname “Chaudhary”. In October 2014, Chaudhury asked Tara to move to Thailand to liaison with other Sikh militants who were turning up in that country from European destinations. Tara entered Thailand on a Pakistani passport and was kept in the house of a Pakistani national at Chonburi, in eastern Thailand, about 100 kilometres southeast of Bangkok. However, Tara’s luck ran out in few months. He was arrested in a joint operation of Punjab Police and the Royal Thai Police and was extradited to India on 16 January 2015. Tara was the fourth high profile Khalistani terrorist with deep nexus with the ISI and the LeT to have fallen into the hands of the Indian authorities in less than four months.

On 17 September 2014, Rattandeep Singh, the chief of the Bhindranwale Tiger Force of Khalistan (BTFK) was arrested from Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. Rattandeep was based in Pakistan since 1993 and is linked to Paramjit Singh Panjwar, who is now a builder in Pakistan and Ranjit Singh Neeta, head of Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF). On 6 November 2014, Ramandeep Singh Goldy, head of the KTF was arrested at the Chennai airport after the Malaysian authorities handed him over to India. Based in Thailand, Goldy was arrested by Malaysian police after he fled Thailand, where he was based since 2011 using the assumed name of Sah Brahmdev and a forged Nepali passport. Goldy had set up an export-import firm named Euro 2014 Private Limited in Bangkok, which provided a cover for his pro-Khalistani activities. Goldy remained in touch with Khalistani terrorists in Pakistan, North America and Europe and was providing logistical support to Khalistani terrorists in Southeast Asia.

A day later, on 7 November 2014, Harminder Singh alias Mintoo, chief of the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) and his associate Gurpreet Singh Gopi were picked up at the Indira Gandhi International Airport after their extradition from Thailand. Based in Pakistan between June 2013-May 2014 and working under the same Lieutenant colonel Chaudhary, Mintoo was tasked with undertaking an extensive European tour with the intent to strengthen the KLF. Before reaching Thailand, where the ISI ran a terror camp at Mae Sot, on the Thai-Myanmar border, Mintoo sought cadres and funds in Italy, Belgium, Germany and France.

Five Sikhs based in United Kingdom including Gursharanvir Singh, a resident of Coventry of England and Piyara Singh Gill, a Birmingham resident also wanted by Punjab Police in August 2009 killing of Rulda Singh, President of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) affiliate Rashtriya Sikh Sangat), are known to have attended the camp at Mae Sot. Extradition requests of Gursharanvir and Piyara Singh are lying with the British authorities. The Mae Sot camp imparted training on assembling and handling of explosives made from locally available material. The ISI, unlike the LeT is no longer confident of being able to move RDX into India.

In the camp, the cadres, especially the Indian nationals, were also asked to develop sleeper cells in their respective areas. Among those who attended the camp was Ramandeep Singh alias Sunny of Bathinda who was picked up by the Bathinda police on 9 November 2014 after he returned to India. Explosive material and a revolver were recovered from Sunny. Intricate information of the Mae Sot camp, the first ever camp be have been organsied by the ISI outside Pakistan, following the arrests severely dented the agency’s future plans of organising similar camps in Thailand. Indian intelligence sources believe that about two dozen Khalistani terrorists in Pakistan (including Paramjit Singh Panjwar, Ranjeet Singh Neeta and Bhindranwale’s nephew Lakhbir Singh Rode) have been advised to coordinate their activities from within Pakistan, without taking the risk of moving into countries like Thailand and Malaysia with whom India enjoys excellent counter-terrorism cooperation.

At one level, these arrests are continuing successes for the Punjab police in dismantling the Khalistani terror network. On the other hand, Tara, Mintoo and Goldy are integral part of a still alive project to revive terrorism in Punjab through the well organised collaboration by the state as well as non-state entities in Pakistan. While a bloody Punjab fits well into the LeT’s objective of an engorged war with India beyond the traditional theatre of Kashmir, for the ISI opening up the Punjab conflict yet again is a much cherished dream.

Much of the objective of the ‘Reignite Khalistan’ project, at least till 2013, veered around the game plan of targeted assassination of Hindu leaders and prominent personalities of other sects in Punjab. In 2013, the Punjab police neutralised various modules and sleeper cells created by Mintoo. However, the attack in Gurdaspur- targeting the police station and also the trains- point at an expanded game plan. Given that the attack failed- not being able to inflict high casualty and failing to escalate into a hostage taking situation- attempts to repeat the adventure might be on the anvil. The terrorists and their handlers in Pakistan will have no obligation to confine their targets to the geographical boundary of Punjab.

*Dr. Bibhu Prasad Routray is Director of Mantraya.org. Surya Valliappan Krishna is a Research Intern at Mantraya.org

By N Sathiya Moorthy*

In a meaningful follow-up to the budget initiative of 2011, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa recently distributed Rs 30 lakh as subsidy in a total estimated cost of Rs 60 lakhs to help enable the State’s fishermen to undertake deep-sea fishing in a big way. The immediate effect of the ‘first-of-its-kind initiative in the country’ is that it will help de-congest fishing in the Palk Bay, and thus indirectly help reduce tensions with counterparts along the Tamil-majority Northern and Eastern Provinces in Sri Lanka.

The original Budget proposal after Jayalalithaa returned to power in 2011 had provided for 25 percent subsidy for tuna long-liners. With the fishers and their associations demanding higher incentives for them to take to deep-sea fishing, the subsidy component was raised to 50 percent of the total budgeted cost. Accordingly, some 580 fishermen from 171 fishermen groups will get Rs 51.30 crores as subsidy towards buying the boats. Five fishermen received the subsidy cheque from Chief Minister Jayalalithaa at the State Secretariat on 15 July. As reports pointed out, “No other State has far provided such a high subsidy for fishermen”.

The scheme is applicable to fishers across the State’s 1,076-km coastline, which interestingly abuts the Bay of Bengal for most parts, the Indian Ocean and also the Arabian Sea, and accounts for 15 percent of the total coastline of the nation. The idea is to promote deep-sea fishing as an additional source of income for the fishing community, owing to inevitable stock-depletion caused by various factors, and also to recoup the marine ecology — which is facing near-extinction already — over the medium and long-terms.

Lesser temptation

However, in the short-term, greater focus on the Palk Bay region could also lessen the pressure on the Rameswaram fishers. This could mean that they would face lesser temptation to risk their lives and vessels by crossing the IMBL in the Sri Lankan waters, where again their brethren claim the fish-stock is depleting fast. Indications are that the new vessels would facilitate tuna-fishing during seasons or whenever the catch is good. On other occasions, the vessels could use the ‘gill net’ to increase the catch.

The plans also involve the creation of markets and guidance on pricing mechanisms, to make deep-sea fishing attractive for the State’s fishers, to take it as a profitable vocation, nearer home, without having to risk their lives either in the Sri Lankan waters or those elsewhere, be it Iran or the Gulf region, where too they have either lost their lives or had been detained by local authorities. However, fishers in the State alongside counterparts in other coastal regions of the country expect the Centre to review the Meenakumari report on deep-sea fishing in the nation’s EEZ, where the proposal seemed to favour foreign vessels rather than facilitating and promoting local trade and tradesmen.

Fast-tracking decision

In the case of Palk Bay fishing in the Rameswaram area, for instance, the fishers could/would be encouraged to use one of the fishing harbours, existing or proposed ones that are designated for deep-sea vessels, with additional berthing and storing facilities – expected to be completed in about three years’ time, when the deep-sea vessels hit the Tamil Nadu’s waters in a big way. Even otherwise, fishers are known to be a migrant work-force, shifting and changing their boats and bases to whichever part of the sea, where the catch is said to be good. Hence there is also the problem of Indian fishers crossing the IMBL into Sri Lankan waters. In between, training would also be imparted to the State’s fishers in deep-sea fishing, both in terms of techniques involved in catching and preserving the fish, and also in physical and psychological endurance. As is known, fishers from Thuthoor village in southern-most Kanyakumari district are known to have taken to deep-sea fishing for centuries. At present, fishers from other parts of the State are also known to take to deep-sea fishing, and their numbers could increase in the coming years and decades, owing to the pressure along the sea coast, caused by environmental degradation and ecological concerns, in turn resulting from large-scale industrialisation of the nation, requiring more and larger ports and coast-based industrial infrastructure, oil pipelines, etc.

A clearer picture on the pace and phases of the ‘vessel conversion’ work will be known only when the Centre decides on the State Government’s request for financial assistance for the purpose. In a memorandum submitted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi at their first meeting in Delhi after he had taken over power, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa sought close to Rs 1000 crores for creating deep-sea fishing facilities. Indications from the ground are that the Centre has been evaluating the request, with the seriousness it deserved. The current State Government initiative should encourage the Centre to fast-track the decision.

Traditional rights

For all the State Government initiatives that could help de-congest the pressure on Palk Bay fishing, particularly should the Centre adapt it as a policy priority, aimed at furthering the relations with a ‘friendly neighbour’, whose war-torn Tamil population too requires tranquil waters for their fishermen to re-launch their trade in a big and beneficial way, Tamil Nadu does not seem to be giving up on the traditional right of its fishers in the shared seas with Sri Lanka. With the end of the war in Sri Lanka, the protests over Indian fishing is as much from counterparts in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, over stock-depletion, as by Colombo, whose concerns are also over issues of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘territorial integrity’ – over Indian fishers crossing the IMBL.

Claims over the ownership of Katchchativu too remain. As may be recalled, Jayalalithaa – joined later and independently by DMK predecessor and political bête noire M Karunanidhi – has challenged in the Supreme Court the 1974 bilateral demarcation of the IMBL, causing the ownership and possession of the tiny islet to Sri Lanka. Incidentally, Palk Bay is among the few sea-lanes across the world which the UN Conference on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) confers exclusive yet divided ownership on the two riparian nations. It is also unclear if the Indian Governments or courts can unilaterally cancel the accord after publication under UNCLOS.

In between, fishers from the two nations, meeting in the Union Territory capital of Puducherry along with counterparts from other parts of the world, have revived calls for reopening talks between the fishers from India (read: Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lanka. There is a greater acknowledgement in both nations now about the ‘livelihood issues’ concerning the fishers from the two countries, but working out an all-acceptable solution can become difficult until after the 17 August parliamentary polls in Sri Lanka, followed by Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, due by May 2016.

Forgotten bridge

For now, the Indian Government has bifurcated ‘fishing-related issues’ with Sri Lanka, by bringing in the Fisheries Department in the Union Agriculture Ministry to address long-term livelihood requirements, leaving the detention of Tamil Nadu fishers in Sri Lankan waters to the continued care of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Indian High Commission in Colombo. For their part, BJP leaders in Tamil Nadu taking off from where they had left at the time of the ‘Sea Lotus’ campaign for fishers’ votes ahead of the 2014 parliamentary polls, began talking about Central aid for the State Government’s deep-sea vessels’ project, possibly little realising that the latter alone had the established machinery in place for implementing and supervising a medium-term scheme with a long-term policy orientation.

In between, ruling BJP leaders in and from Tamil Nadu and also senior Ministers at the Centre, including Nitin Gadkari, in charge Road Transport, have started talking about reviving the forgotten bridge-project across the Palk Bay, originally mooted by Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, during his earlier innings over a decade ago. They have priced the project at Rs 23,000 crores and also talked about ADB funding-clearance. However, it is unclear if either the Tamil Nadu Government or that in Colombo has been sounded out on the proposal. Earlier when PM Wickremesinghe mooted the project at a seminar in Chennai, Jayalalithaa as the then Chief Minister, shot it down without trace, citing LTTE threats to a land-bridge of the kind.

*The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter

As Prime Minister Najib Razak strikes back at his critics over the 1MDB scandal, questions arise as to where Malaysian politics will go from here, even as the ruling and opposition coalitions reel in their respective crises.

By Yang Razali Kassim*

Malaysian politics is at an inflection point. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say it is in a mega-crisis. Prime Minister Najib Razak has just countered his critics over the massive 1MDB scandal by sacking his vocal deputy prime minister and the Attorney-General who led a high-level probe. This latest twist has left the country bracing for a backlash of uncertainty. Yet it is not just the ruling UMNO-led Barisan Nasional (BN) government that is in trouble; the opposition coalition is also grappling with its own survival.

It is significant that both sides of the political divide are reeling from unprecedented pressure in disarray – simultaneously. What will come out of this? But it is the crisis in BN that is more critical, given the repercussions reverberating throughout the system due to UMNO’s defining role as the ruling coalition’s anchor party. The latest crisis in UMNO is equally without precedent.

Leadership crisis in UMNO

Prime Minister Najib Razak is fighting for his political life in the face of severe criticisms arising from the scandal in the 1MDB investment fund which he advises. Never before has a sitting prime minister been openly pressured to step down amid a high-level probe. Never before has there been serious investigation into the dealings of a government-linked investment fund whose chief adviser is the finance minister, who is also prime minister.

While the sacking of Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has not come as a surprise given his outspoken criticism of the Prime Minister’s handling of the 1MDB scandal, the premature replacement of Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail ‘on health grounds’ – three months before his retirement – has raised questions. As he was leading the legal team in the special taskforce probing the 1MDB scandal, speculation is rife that his exit is meant to delay the investigation. Gani’s replacement was announced by the government just before Najib’s own unveiling of the cabinet reshuffle that elevated his strongest ally, Home Affairs Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as the new deputy prime minister.

Prior to the reshuffles, Najib’s political position had been in doubt. There had been rumours of actions about to be taken by the taskforce, even predictions of a new prime minister by next month. By removing his deputy and the attorney-general, Najib has clearly shown that he intends to stay on top of the crisis. Interestingly, the reshuffles led to the induction into cabinet of Nur Jazlan Mohamed, the equally outspoken chair of the bipartisan Public Accounts Committee, which is also involved in the probe, along with three other UMNO members of the committee. Will the PAC investigation now be muted?

While Najib appears to have strengthened his hand, which he claims is to preserve cabinet cohesion, it remains to be seen if this is enough to fundamentally resolve one of Malaysia’s most sensational political crises. Muhyiddin has strong support within UMNO where he is deputy president. There is talk of his further purge, which will deepen the split in UMNO. Equally important is the response of Najib’s chief critic, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. Should there be a major counter-push by Mahathir, Muhyiddin and other forces, Malaysia’s political crisis will become more explosive.

Yet, the crisis in the ruling coalition has only just begun. More revelations may emerge and more heads are likely to roll. This latest episode in Malaysian politics is proving to be bruising. Even if Najib survives this, it is hard to imagine how he would emerge unscathed. More worrying for UMNO and BN is whether the ruling coalition will be able to retain power in the next general election, having lost the popular vote at the last polls in 2013 despite winning more than half the parliamentary seats. Muhyiddin made a telling blow when he warned at an UMNO meeting that BN would lose if elections were to be called tomorrow.

Crisis in the opposition

It is fortuitous for UMNO and BN that their political crisis has come at a time when the opposition is in total disarray. The loose opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat (PR), long known to be fragile, has finally come unstuck. Its leader, Anwar Ibrahim, is in jail, while its three coalition partners are in a hyper-fluid state of mutual repositioning. And it’s all because of recrimination over hudud (Islamic criminal code) between PAS and DAP, two long-standing ideological foes who tried in vain to be friends, leaving the third – Anwar’s own party PKR – caught between a rock and a hard place.

The PR is now dead, a victim of the crisis that first began in the Islamist party PAS which led to the dominance of the conservative faction and ouster of its professionals wing. Two other partners – the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Anwar’s People’s Justice Party (PKR) – are trying to reinvent the alliance with a “PR 2.0”, linking up with the purged faction but minus the increasingly conservative PAS proper. The final shape of this reinvented opposition coalition is still unclear, but promises to be appealing to a multi-ethnic electorate – and is likely to be led once again by the unifying figure of Anwar, from behind bars.

What we are witnessing is a reconstruction of the opposition landscape. But no matter how it turns out, the opposition forces will be divided into two blocs – for as long as the original PAS remains outside PR 2.0. This leaves open the possibility of PAS linking up with Najib’s UMNO to create a Malay-Muslim political alliance in a so-called “unity government”.

At this point, an UMNO-PAS linkup is only a theoretical possibility; even the new PAS – the more conservative version – has rejected the notion of a unity government with UMNO. But this position may change depending on how the political equation evolves, both on the opposition front and on the UMNO/BN side. What this all means is that Malaysian politics is entering yet another phase of unpredictability.

What next?

All this is happening at two crucial junctures: Firstly, the country is three years away from the next general election. While this may seem like a long time, it is actually very short given the depth of the crisis on both sides of the political divide. Will they be able to recover in time – if at all – to position themselves for GE14 to capture power? On the BN side, UMNO, as the pillar party, will have to shake off the severe damage from the political tremors surrounding Najib. It must be said, however, that should he survive the 1MDB crisis, Najib would be very hard to defeat politically.

Secondly, this mega-crisis is five years away from 2020 – the epochal timeline which will mark Malaysia’s entry into developed economy status. Ironically it is a visionary deadline set by Dr Mahathir, the man who is now leading the charge to remove Najib. Mahathir would be writhing in ironic chagrin if Najib survives to be the one who delivers Vision 2020 – assuming the economy is unaffected by the political crisis. Mahathir would be happier if it is anyone but Najib as prime minister come 2020. Najib has just shown that he intends to deny his former boss that wish.

Whatever happens going forward, the larger event to watch is the outcome of the “collision of coalitions” in Malaysian politics. Will the system stay the same, or will a new political model emerge from the debris?

*Yang Razali Kassim is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. An earlier version appeared in The Straits Times.

In 16th century India, Judeo-Muslim multicultural bonds were tested by Christian Portuguese rulers.

By Jonathan Gil Harris*

In recent years, especially in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Islam has been increasingly presented as an “implacable” enemy of the other two monotheist religions – Judaism and Christianity. Yet history tells another story. For a long period militant Christianity was arrayed against what can be called a Judeo-Muslim world – especially in India, which during the 16th and 17th centuries witnessed a protracted struggle between the rising Portuguese-Christian colonial power and the subcontinent’s established Islamic dynasties.

In the 50 years following Vasco da Gama’s violent landfall on the Malabar Coast in 1498, the Portuguese Estado da India became a formidable force throughout the subcontinent. By 1550, the Portuguese directly ruled many of India’s best western ports – from Diu in Gujarat and Bombay in Maharashtra to Cochin in Kerala – as well as the jewel in its crown, Goa on the Konkan coast. They also possessed the Coromandel Coast colony of São Tomé de Meliapor in what is now Chennai. These settlements allow the Portuguese to gain a stranglehold over the lucrative spice trade. Informally, the Portuguese also controlled much of the salt trade in the northern Bay of Bengal: The state had imposed a cartaza system that demanded merchant vessels in the area to pay taxes to the Portuguese.

All this would suggest that the Portuguese presence in 16th-century India was one of imperious domination. Yet the records of the Bahamani sultanates – the collection of independent Muslim states stretching across the middle band of the subcontinent – include the names of several Portuguese citizens who came not to conquer but rather to serve Muslim masters.

To give just two examples: Sancho Pires, who came to Goa in the 1530s, relocated to the sultanate of Ahmadnagar. Pires proceeded to find service in the Ahmadnagar army, first as a bombardier and later as captain of the cavalry; he became a favorite of Burhan Nizam Shah, the sultan, and eventually took the name of Firangi Khan. In the 1590s, Fernão Rodrigues Caldeira also quit Goa to serve as an advisor to Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah, the sultan of Golconda. Pires and Caldeira, separated by several decades, had something in common beyond Portuguese names: Both were from New Christian families – that is, Iberian Jewish families forced to convert to Christianity after the reconquista of 1492, when Jews and Muslims were expelled from the peninsula. In Spain, the Inquisition hunted down any suspected of practicing non-Christian faiths. Portugal initially held off on instituting the Inquisition. In 1496, King Manuel promised not to inquire into New Christians’ faith for a grace period of 30 years; he renewed his pledge in 1504, and it remained in force until 1534. After all, Portugal’s growing maritime power was dependent not just on skilled Jewish labor – Vasco da Gama’s navigator-astronomer Abraão Zarcuto, for example, was a Jew – but also on wealthy New Christian merchant families with international, or “Judeo-Muslim,” connections extending through North Africa and the Ottoman Empire to the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian Ocean.

I use the term “Judeo-Muslim” deliberately and perhaps a little provocatively. The term “Judeo-Christian” has been bandied around for some time to suggest a longstanding natural bond between the two religious traditions connected by that hyphen. In the United States in particular, some have used the term more recently to imply that Muslims are natural adversaries of both Jews and Christians. Yet for the better part of two millennia, Jews were bonded to Christians primarily as the latter’s enemies.

As the history of Jews in Spain and Portugal suggests, the multicultural bond with the greater historical resonance was Judeo-Muslim. Iberian Jews such as the famous Andalusian philosopher Maimonides, spoke, wrote and dreamed in Arabic; their cultural reference points were Arabic; and their gastronomic preferences were also influenced by their Moorish neighbors. As late as 1490, the Jewish population of the now substantially shrunken Al-Andalus, diminished to the Emirate of Granada by two centuries of Christian reconquest, was still deeply versed in Arabic language and culture. Even in Christian-ruled areas such as Castile and Portugal, Sephardic Jews were speakers of Ladino – a vernacular mixture of Spanish, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. In Ladino, for instance, Sunday is not “domingo” as in both Spanish and Portuguese, but “alhad,” derived from the Arabic “alhat.” The Ladino word for freedom is not the Spanish “liberdad,” but “alforria,” derived from the Arabic “al hurriya.” Clearly Sephardic Jews did not associate the idea of liberty with Spanish Christian rule.

The mass expulsions of 1492 violently disrupted this Judeo-Muslim nexus, but did not end it. By and large, the nexus was simply dispersed to other parts of the world: Many expelled families migrated to Morocco and cities of the Ottoman Empire such as Algiers, Cairo and Istanbul, where communities of Jews and Muslims lived in close proximity. And after 1534, when the Inquisition was finally introduced in Portugal, a number of New Christians – including Pires and Caldeira – migrated to India. It’s perhaps no accident that they often enjoyed more kinship there with local Muslim communities than with Portuguese Christian colonists.

The year 1534 was also the year when – now celebrated as a Portuguese hero and patriot, largely for writing what’s commonly regarded as the first treatise on tropical medicine – migrated to Goa.

In 1534, Orta relinquished a prestigious chair of medicine at the University of Lisbon to accompany the newly appointed viceroy, Martim Afonso da Sousa, to Goa as his personal physician. When da Sousa’s term expired in 1538, Orta did not return. And that was because he had a secret: He was an undercover Jew and had almost certainly come to Goa to flee the specter of the Inquisition. He was joined there by his mother, Lenore, and sister Catarina, and he married a New Christian cousin of his, Briana de Solis, whose family had also migrated to Goa.

The Inquisition eventually arrived in Goa in the 1550s, partly at the urging of the future St. Francis Xavier. Around this time, Orta mysteriously relocated to the Ahmadnagar sultanate, where Sancho Pires was also serving the ruling Nizam. Orta had an advantage in Ahmadnagar inasmuch as he was conversant in Arabic, the lingua franca of the Nizam’s court. Orta met many Arabic-speaking hakims, or doctors, from whom he learned about the tropical medicine he would later write about. During his period of service in Ahmadnagar, Orta dispensed a prescription in Arabic for the Turkish Mamluk Sultan of Bidar’s brother, Hamjam – an extraordinary display of multiculturalism of the Arabic-speaking Indian world. In Muslim Bidar, a former Turkish slave from Christian Georgia, could converse in Arabic with a Sephardic Jew from Portugal.

Orta returned to Goa and published his treatise in 1561, which won him fame and perhaps some respite from the Inquisition. He died a celebrity of sorts and was buried in the principal Goan cathedral. But the Inquisition finally caught up with him. A year after Orta’s death in 1568, his sister was burned at the stake in Goa as “an impenitent Jewess.” And Orta’s remains were dug up, incinerated, and flung into the Mandovi River.

Garcia da Orta, like Sancho Pires and Fernão Rodrigues Caldeira, should be thought of not as Portuguese but Un-Portuguese. Hounded and dispossessed by the Portuguese state, these men like their ancestors were more at home in a Judeo-Muslim world.

*Jonathan Gil Harris is dean of academic affairs and professor of English at Ashoka University in Delhi, India. The author of five books on the drama and culture of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, he has just published a new book, The First Firangis: Remarkable Tales of Heroes, Healers, Courtesans, Charlatans and Other Foreigners Who Became Indian (Aleph Books, 2015). Read an excerpt.

Today, July 30, 2015, the Kingdom of Morocco is celebrating the 16th anniversary of the ascension of His Majesty King Mohammed VI to the throne of Morocco. Following the demise of his father King Hassan II, his son, the then Crown Prince, took over the throne and became King Hassan II on July 23, 1999 and, on July 30, 1999, he was enthroned in Rabat in Morocco.

Here follows the full text of the speech aired on the Moroccan radio and TV channels:

Praise be to God,

May peace and blessings be upon the Prophet, His Kith and Kin

Dear Citizens,

Today, we are proudly celebrating the sixteenth anniversary of my accession to the glorious Alawite throne. This is not just a passing, temporary celebration, but a highly significant moment which embodies the strong vows of shared loyalty, as well as the ever-growing bonds of allegiance between you and your first servant.

This annual celebration is an opportunity for us to pause and ponder on the nation’s achievements and the challenges ahead.

It is also an opportunity for me to extend my thanks to all the stakeholders in the nation who are supporting me in this collective endeavor at the service of our fellow citizens.

I would like to tell them how much I appreciate their contribution to upholding Morocco’s standing and to enhancing the trust enjoyed by the Kingdom, particularly in the current regional context.

However, I do not want to talk merely about achievements; nor do I want to dwell on tallies and figures.

All that has been achieved, no matter how significant it is, remains insufficient for our country, as long as there is a category of the population still living in dire conditions and feeling marginalized, notwithstanding what has already been done.

It is true that this category is getting smaller and smaller, but I want to see to it that all citizens benefit from the nation’s wealth.

I pledged to work, for as long as I live, to achieve this goal, and my ambition for the well-being of Moroccans has no limits.

All you experience in life is of interest to me: what hurts you affects me, and what makes you happy, rejoices me. Your worries are my top priorities.

Hence, we need to pause and look for innovative solutions that will enable that category to catch up with the others.

All political and social reforms and all development initiatives are basically designed to preserve the dignity of citizens.

Setting up institutions, no matter how important they may be, is not an end in itself. By the same token, economic growth can only be significant if it contributes to improving people’s quality of life.

Indeed, despite the development our country has achieved, it makes me sad to see hardships endured by some of our fellow citizens in remote and isolated areas, in the Atlas and Rif mountains, in the desert and dry Saharan regions, in oases and in some coastal and inland villages.

I am aware of the gaps and deficits that have grown in these areas over the decades, despite all the efforts and initiatives undertaken.

That is why, since my accession to the throne, I have pledged to spare no effort to improve the living conditions of those populations and ease their suffering.

To attain this goal and consolidate ongoing initiatives, I instructed the Minister of Interior, who is in charge of territorial communities, to carry out a comprehensive field study aimed at identifying the needs of every douar and every region in terms of infrastructure and basic social services, such as education, health, water, electric power and rural roads.

The study was nationwide and covered more than 29,000 douars, under 1,272 local communities, all listed in a specific order of priority.

Around 20,800 projects have also been screened. They target a population of more than 12 million people, living in over 24,000 douars, with an overall budget nearing 50 billion dirhams.

To ensure the success of this ambitious social scheme, I urge the Government to develop an integrated plan of action, built on partnerships between all government agencies and the institutions concerned, with a view to providing funding for the projects and drawing up a precise timetable for their implementation.

The projects can be integrated into the new vision of the National Initiative for Human Development and appended to the forthcoming programs of the regional and local councils, which now have significant resources and extensive powers.

The regionalization we want for our country must be the outcome of serious endeavors to find appropriate solutions for each region, adapted to its resources, characteristics, potential employment opportunities and development challenges.

The region must become a hub for integrated, balanced development that achieves complementarity between the areas, cities and villages within the same region, thus contributing to halting the rural exodus.

Dear Citizens,

This effort to improve the living conditions of citizens is not limited to rural and remote areas. It also targets suburbs and slums in urban areas.

Accordingly, the National Initiative for Human Development programs have been focusing on bridging social gaps in these places.

The Government has also been instructed to attach more importance to social policies.

Similarly, I take a keen interest in the situation of Moroccan citizens living abroad, trying to strengthen their commitment to their identity and to get them involved in the nation’s development process.

During my visits abroad and when meeting here with members of our community living abroad, I was able to have a clear idea about their true concerns and legitimate ambitions.

I used to think that they only had difficulties while in Morocco. As it turned out, many of them also complained about the way they were treated on the premises of Moroccan consulates.

There are consuls – not a majority thank God – who neglect the mission they are entrusted with and focus on personal and political issues.

Several members of this community expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment they were subjected to in some consulates and complained about the poor services provided, both in terms of quality and deadline, and about administrative obstacles.

I urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take firm action and remedy the problematic situation in some consulates.

On the one hand, those found to be guilty of neglecting their duties, flouting the interests of the Moroccan community abroad or mistreating its members should be dismissed.

On the other hand, consuls should be selected carefully, on the basis of competence, responsibility and commitment to serving our citizens abroad, who are deeply upset when they compare the way they are treated inside Moroccan consulates with the quality of service provided by administrative and social departments in the host countries.

Their requests may not be met, but at least they should be received and treated with respect and courtesy.

Among other issues, they suffer from slow procedures when they have a birth to register or an administrative error to correct, which costs them time and money.

Names for newborns are also an issue that the Higher Civil Status Committee should work on to find reasonable solutions for the cases under consideration, showing flexibility and understanding. There should be no pressure exerted and no name imposed on anybody.

The same goes for the slow, complicated procedures to renew and validate official documents.

In any event, communication and interaction should be improved and services made more readily available to citizens, while procedures should be simplified and upgraded, and human rights and dignity preserved.

As for the problems the members of this community endure when they return home, I insist that anyone who tampers with their interests or takes advantage of their situation should be firmly sanctioned.

Despite all the difficulties they face, it is gratifying to see that the number of Moroccans visiting their home country every year is on the rise. Their love for their country is a source of pride for me and I have told them how keen I am to protect their interests.

Furthermore, in order to increase their participation in national politics, I call for the implementation of the constitutional provisions relating to their representation in consultative institutions and participative democracy and governance bodies.

Once again, I stress the need to develop an integrated strategy based on interaction and coordination between national institutions in charge of immigration issues, to enhance their efficiency and allow them to better serve the Moroccan community abroad. In this regard, the expertise of the Council for the Moroccan Community Abroad should be built on in order to establish a council that responds to the aspirations of this community.

Dear Citizens,

In the context of the reforms launched in order to serve the Moroccan citizen, the rehabilitation of education remains pivotal in achieving development and key in ensuring social openness and emancipation. It shields both society and individuals from ignorance, poverty, fanaticism and reclusiveness.

I have repeatedly advocated a deep reform of this vital sector in order to rehabilitate the Moroccan school and enable it to achieve its educational and development mission.

In this regard, I have entrusted the Higher Council for Education, Training and Scientific Research with a mission to evaluate the implementation of the National Charter for Education and Training and develop a comprehensive strategic vision to reform the education system in our country.

To understand the scope of this reform, a question has to be asked: will the education our children are receiving today in state-run schools help secure their future?

Let us be serious, objective and honest: why do so many Moroccans rush to get their children enrolled in foreign-status schools and private schools despite their prohibitive costs?

The answer is clear: they are looking for appropriate education, based on open-mindedness, critical analysis and foreign language acquisition, which will enable their children to access the job market and start their professional lives.

Despite allegations here and there, I do not think openness to foreign languages and cultures will undermine our national identity, but rather enrich it. Moroccan identity, thank God, is deeply-rooted and diversified, with both European and African components.

I studied in the Moroccan state school, with its syllabi and curricula, but I have no problems with foreign languages.

The Constitution voted by Moroccans advocates the learning and mastering of foreign languages as a tool for communication with the knowledge-based community and for interaction with modern civilization.

In this context, the world recognizes Moroccans’ flair for languages.

No selfish or politically-motivated considerations should be allowed to interfere with any education reform – under the pretext of safeguarding national identity – as that might jeopardize the future of the coming generations.

The future of the nation depends on the quality of education we provide for our children.

Accordingly, the education reform must be aimed primarily at enabling students to acquire knowledge, skills and national and foreign languages, particularly in scientific and technical curricula, in order to be active members of society.

The expected reform should also rid society of the narrow view that the baccalaureate certificate is a matter of life and death for students and their families, and that without it their future may be compromised.

Obviously, some people do not want to enroll in vocational courses because they see them as belittling and only fit for inferior jobs. Moreover, they consider vocational training as a solution for those who fail in their academic studies.

We have to reach out to these people to change this negative perception and tell them that success in life is not contingent upon obtaining the baccalaureate certificate.

We must take objective steps to get them involved in the dynamics of this sector.

All that Moroccans want, at the end of the day, is to secure their children’s future, through curricula that pave the way for access to the job market.

Vocational training has become the cornerstone of all development sectors and we need to move from the conventional model of academic education to a dual training system that will ensure our youth will be employed.

Training centers’ capabilities should therefore be enhanced in all specialized areas, such as new technologies, the motor and aviation industries, the medical profession, agriculture, tourism and construction.

Similarly, innovative, high quality training should be ensured, particularly in post-graduate courses.

The level achieved by Moroccans in various professions is a source of deep satisfaction.

As a result, our country now has a skilled workforce which can be hired by international companies, particularly those which choose Morocco as a platform for expanding their investments and market influence.

In order to ensure the success of our strategic reform policy, all stakeholders ought to embrace it and be actively involved in its implementation.

This reform should be formulated as a national, binding contract-based policy, by means of a framework law that sets out the long-term vision and puts an end to the vicious circle of reform for reform’s sake.

Dear Citizens,

Whereas our domestic policy is designed to serve the citizens, the objective of our foreign policy is to safeguard the nation’s best interests.

For this reason, we have sought to revisit the basic policy and work methods of our diplomatic services while remaining committed to the nation’s immutable values which underpin our country’s foreign relations, namely firmness, solidarity and credibility.

This approach is dictated by the level of development and maturity achieved by the Moroccan model and is in response not only to the sweeping changes occurring at regional and international levels, but also to the need to make the most of the opportunities offered and rise to challenges.

As far as firmness is concerned, and being a responsible partner that honors its international obligations, Morocco will do whatever it takes to defend its best interests.

It will never allow anyone to undermine its sovereignty, territorial integrity or social model; nor will it tolerate any attempt to harm its institutions or offend the dignity of its citizens.

As regards the question of our territorial unity, I clearly and unequivocally spelled out, in the speech marking the Green March anniversary, the reference framework and guiding principles for dealing with the Moroccan Sahara issue, both domestically and at the international level.

The ensuing developments concerning this issue at the level of the United Nations and at domestic level proved us right. By the grace of the Almighty, we shall start implementing the advanced regionalization scheme as well as the development model for the Kingdom’s Southern Provinces.

However, this does not mean the case has been closed. Indeed, we all need to remain vigilant and mobilized to thwart the schemes and plots of our adversaries and counter whatever deviation there may be from the UN settlement process.

As regards solidarity, Morocco’s strategic diplomacy is aimed at promoting active South-South cooperation, especially with African sister nations.

The visits I have paid to a number of African countries have contributed to shaping an economic cooperation model based on shared interest and a desire to improve the quality of life of African citizens.

Being committed to its Arab and Islamic identity, the Kingdom of Morocco has also joined the inter-Arab alliances to fight terrorism and restore legitimacy in Yemen, called for by my brother King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and has supported strategic Arab partners and sister nations.

It is important, in this regard, to achieve negotiated solutions in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya with the participation of all the stakeholders concerned, making sure these countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity are preserved. This is what Morocco has sought to achieve by hosting the Skhirat negotiations to resolve the crisis in Libya.

No matter how complex the situation is in the Arab region due to growing fanaticism and terrorism, the Palestinian cause remains critical for the achievement of peace in the Middle East region.

In my capacity as King of Morocco and Chairman of the Al Quds Committee, I reaffirm my continuous support for the Palestinian leadership and our Palestinian brothers in their endeavors to achieve their legitimate rights and set up an independent Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, with East Al-Quds as its capital.

As regards the credibility of our diplomatic action, it is illustrated by the partnerships we have concluded with a number of countries and regional blocs.

In the Euro-Mediterranean region, Morocco has been actively engaged in developing its partnership with EU countries.

In this respect, I am particularly keen to strengthen Morocco’s exceptional partnership with France by working jointly with His Excellency President François Hollande.

I am also keen to build on the close friendship with His Majesty King Felipe VI to consolidate our cooperation and good neighborly relations with Spain. I am just as eager to develop fruitful cooperation with the other European countries.

As a strategic partner of Europe, Morocco calls for the development of a balanced, equitable partnership that goes beyond narrow, short-lived interests.

Furthermore, I am keen to consolidate our strategic partnership with the United States of America, which is rooted in the values and principles that our two peoples have in common and believe in.

I wish to reiterate Morocco’s commitment to deepening and enriching its partnerships with Russia and China as part of its endeavors to diversify its foreign relations.

In the same vein, our country seeks to open up broader prospects for cooperation with South American and Asian countries.

Morocco’s credibility is also shown by its positive involvement in dealing with various issues of global concern.

The fact that Morocco has hosted a number of important international conferences on human rights, migration, entrepreneurship, the fight against terrorism and climate change clearly reflects the trust and credibility enjoyed by our country at the global level.

Furthermore, our country’s proposed answers to tackle these global concerns represent a quality contribution to the efforts the international community is making to find objective solutions to those issues.

Dear Citizens,

My governance model is based on serving the citizen, safeguarding his identity and dignity and reacting constructively to his legitimate aspirations.

Consistent with the sacred bond between the throne and the people, the country’s first servant commits to continuing our joint action so that our country may be based on the solid foundation of unity and the pursuit of development, as well as on equality in terms of rights, obligations and benefits from the nation’s resources.

I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our Royal Armed Forces, the Royal Gendarmerie, the National Security Forces, the local authorities, the Auxiliary Forces and the Emergency Services for their efforts to uphold the nation’s territorial integrity and preserve its stability.

Dear Citizens,

I can think of no better way to conclude this address to you than to remind you of the need to preserve the sacred trust received from our ancestors, namely our authentic Moroccan identity, for which we are envied.

It is a national duty and a religious obligation for you to safeguard your identity and remain committed to the Sunni, Maliki rite that the Moroccan people have inherited from their forefathers.

Let us not forget why fellow Moroccan citizens made the ultimate sacrifice during the First and Second World Wars in several parts of the globe, and why my revered grandfather, His Late Majesty King Mohammed V – may he rest in peace – was exiled.

Those sacrifices were made so that the universal, human values we all believe in may prevail. Today, in keeping with the same values, we are fighting against extremism and terrorism.

Is there any reason why we should give up our traditions and forsake our cultural values – which are rooted in tolerance and moderation – in order to embrace a different doctrine that has nothing to do with our ethics or the way we were brought up?

Of course not! Therefore, let no one from outside the country give you lessons on how to live your faith. And although I respect all revealed religions, let me say this: do not accept anyone’s invitation to embrace a different rite or faith, be it from East or West, North or South.

I want you to reject any attempt to sow the seeds of division, and to remain – as always – deeply committed to the unity of your rite and to your sacred values, and to be proud of your faith and of belonging to this nation.

“”Eat of the Sustenance (provided) by your Lord, and be grateful to Him: a territory fair and happy, and a Lord Oft-Forgiving!” True is the Word of God.

Wassalamu alaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuh.

(Civil.Ge) — President Giorgi Margvelashvili has appointed Georgia’s new ambassadors to Cuba, Mexico and Portugal.

Giorgi Nikolaishvili, who served as head of the political department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), will become Georgia’s first ambassador in Cuba. Previously Georgian embassy in Washington and then embassy in Mexico were covering Cuba. Nikolaishvili will take the office from mid-September.

Former Abassador to Jordan Zurab Eristavi will take the ambassadorial post to Mexico starting next month. Former Ambassador to Japan Revaz Beshidze, who most recently served as the head of the international organizations department at MFA, will take the ambassadorial post to Portugal starting in January, 2016.

From the initially announced price tag of €80 million, the cost of giving the Macedonian capital a new/old look has risen to €560 million, a BIRN investigation shows.

By Meri Jordanovska

When the grand revamp of the Macedonian capital was first announced back in 2010, the project, known as “Skopje 2014”, envisaged the construction of some 40 monuments, sculptures, facades and new buildings.

Fast forward to 2015 and the number of buildings and monuments has tripled.
The price tag of Skopje’s new look has meanwhile also shot up, far surpassing the initially announced figure of €80 million, to around €560 million, a BIRN investigation shows.

The eight-month investigation draws on data procured through the Access to Public Information Act, the official web page of the Public Procurement Bureau, the “Skopje 2014” audit and a joint report by the government, the Skopje municipality of Centar and the Ministry of Culture, presented after the 2013 local elections.

The database covers more than 130 objects, all financed with public money and whose main investors are the Ministry of Culture, the Procurement Bureau, the municipality of Centar, the City of Skopje as well as other municipalities and joint stock companies with state shares.

The documents obtained by BIRN show that more than 260 legal entities and physical persons have taken part in the revamp.

They show that many obtained multiple contracts and erected several buildings and monuments. They also show that the authors have also been richly awarded for their designs.

For the first time since Skopje 2014 was officially promoted, BIRN has obtained the contracts with the sculptors that have literally shaped Skopje 2014.

The investigation covers the buildings erected in the past few years that have played an essential part in changing the face of the capital.

Some, like the Philharmonic, the headquarters of the state power company ELEM, the criminal court, and the administrative palace “Lazar Pop Trajkov” and others, remain unfinished.

Some are at a stage where only the designs have been chosen, which fuels suspicions that the final price tag of the controversial project will in the end rise even higher than €560 million.

The costs of security and maintenance are constantly sucking up more funds from the state budget.

One company built third of project:

An overview of the data that BIRN obtained shows that the Beton construction company has won most contracts and built most of the buildings and sculptures that form part of Skopje 2014.

The company has earned €163 million, a third of all the money spent on the revamp, from the project.

Four other construction companies, Granit, Strabag, Beton–Stip and Bauer BG, follow as big players.

Some of these companies have not yet been fully paid, therefore, in the absence of other official data, the investigation has used the sums contained in the agreements.

The profiles of these companies and who is behind them is revealed in BIRN’s specific investigation into this issue.

The Ministry of Culture and the Public Procurement Bureau have spent most money on the Skopje 2014 project.

They show up as investors in the biggest projects, such as the Museum of Macedonian Struggle and VMRO, the National Theatre, the Constitutional Court, the Philharmonic and the newly redecorated government headquarters.

According to the documents, the most expensive building in the project is the Constitutional Court, the Archaeological Museum and the State Archive, which cost over €42 million.

The Philharmonic cost €39, about €3 million less. Data show that the National Theatre has cost €37 million, the money spent on no less than 85 contracts.

Annex agreements, additional agreements, contracts for unforeseen construction works and many contracts have formed part of the drive to build the Museum of Macedonian Struggle and VMRO.

Concerning this building alone, BIRN obtained some 90 documents and agreements signed with various people and companies.

At a press conference in 2013, Culture Minister Elizabeta Kanceska–Milevska, the then outgoing mayor of the municipality of Centar Vladimir Todorovic, and the head of the Procurement Bureau, Vase Donevski, said the total cost of the project was €207 million.

However, the documentary evidence that BIRN has obtained show the real figure is more than double that sum.

Top three authors earned €4.7 million:

One of the mysteries about the revamp, apart from the final price tag, which continues to climb, is the sums awarded as fees for the authors of the monuments and sculptures.

Sculptor Valentina Stevanovska has left the biggest mark on Skopje 2014.

She was the author of the 22-metre-high triumphal arch, “Macedonia”, and a similarly vast “Equestrian Warrior” on the main square that clearly depicts Alexander the Great.

She is also the author of the great statue called “Warrior”, which unofficially represents Alexander’s father, Philip, as well as of the complex of statues and fountains located at the square named after the ancient king.

Stevanovska also designed seven statues on the pedestrian bridge known as “The Eye”, the monument to the Ottoman-era revolutionary, Hristo Tatarcev, a gazebo on the main square and another depiction of Philip of Macedonia, also dubbed “Warrior”, located in the municipality of Gazi Baba.

The authorities apparently opted for these vague descriptions for some of the statues to avoid further upsetting neighbouring Greece, which claims that Philip and Alexander are exclusively Hellenic heroes.

The documents made available to BIRN show that Stevanovska received almost €3 million for these sculptures, a sum that included the cost of their construction.

The company Neimar Engineering comes second on the list after Stevanovska in terms of being awarded most contracts for architectural services for key buildings such as the Museum of Macedonian Struggle, the “lazar-Pop Trajkov” palace, the National Theatre and the triumphal arch.

Data from the Central Registry show that Ana Kedeva–Petrova and her husband, Zoran Petrov, own the company.

She is also the sister of the well-known cardiologist Sasko Kedev who stood as presidential candidate for the main ruling VMRO DPMNE party in the 2014 elections and is a former VMRO DPMNE MP.

The firm of Ana Kedeva-Petrova, an ophthalmologist by profession, has won contracts related to Skopje 2014 worth €1.1 million.

A young architect, Zarko Causevski, and the Arhitektonika company, of which he is the director and which his brother, Nikola, owns, has left the biggest mark on the facades that have changed the face of the capital.

The design of the new faux-Baroque surface of the 1970s City Trade Centre, the new facade of government house, the headquarters of the Skopje Waterworks company and the design for the administrative building, on Bihacka street, are all works of Causevski brothers. Documents show that they were paid more than half-a-million euro.

The documents also reveal that the state institutions avoided signing separate contracts with authors that specifically disclosed their fees. Instead, the contracts mention all the works needed for the construction of the sculptures.

For example, the graph “royalty payment” in the contract with Stevanovska for “Equestrian Warrior”, includes the costs of the design, materials, work force, space, transport, plaster, clay and other things.

The former mayor of Centar, Vladimir Todorovic, at the 2013 press conference on Skopje 2014, admitted that it was hard to prove whether the authors were spending all the money they received in the way that their written accounts claimed.

Talking about the monuments to the Ottoman-era revolutionaries Goce Delcev and Dame Gruev, Todorovic said that when the author presented his expenses, he gave the total figure of €300,000 euros.

He added: “These are the expenses that he is showing us and we aren’t checking whether this is true. But, during negotiations, the commission [from the municipality] is always trying to reduce them [the expenditures]”.

Todorovic continued that he hoped “all the authors have been honest”.

The principal authors of the designs for Skopje 2014, Stevanovska, Causevski and the firms Arhitektonika and Neimar Engineering, have received a total of €4.7 million from the budget. All the authors together in the project have been paid a combined total of more than €15 million.

Preparations date back to 2006:

The project was first publicly announced on February 4, 2010, when Todorovic, Kancecka–Milevska and the Mayor of Skopje, Koce Trajanovski, presented a video containing a computer-generated visualization of how Skopje might look in 2014.

No cost was then mentioned. They merely mentioned some ten new buildings, about 20 new monuments, revamped facades and new bridges.

“Skopje is a capital city in which the spirit of Macedonian history and culture should be felt. We will do that best if we honour those who made it,” Todorovic said, speaking in his capacity as Mayor of Centar.

“The central area [of Skopje] should be transformed into a completed architectural and urban whole that will give the city a new artistic look,” he added.

“We will carry out all projects in a transparent manner and verify them using credible experts’ opinions,” Kanceska-Milevska added, noting that they had already “given us huge support as members of the experts’ commissions for selection of design solutions”.

The visualization of Skopje’s new look met mixed reactions from the start, ranging from utter disbelief and outrage about the chosen artistic styles to an all-out support.

On January 6, 2012, during the official promotion of the triumphal arch, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said that he was the project’s real eminence grise.

“I am the one behind this project. I think that it is good, [high] quality and useful and there is nothing wrong in it. Yes, I support and will continue supporting this project,” Gruevski said.

Official documents reveal that the roots of the project date back to 2006, however, when Violeta Alarova was the VMRO DPMNE Mayor of Centar and when Gruevski became Prime Minister.

At that time, the Centar municipality produced the first document on its decision to start the procedure to erect a monument to Alexander the Great. This was the monument on the main square that was later renamed “Equestrian Warrior.”

The authorities back then envisaged spending some €32,000 on the monument’s design.

The call for design proposals was issued in 2007. The municipality did not award the first prize but the second prize went to Stevanovska who received €6,000.

In 2008, she submitted the estimated price for the construction of the equestrian statue – by then no longer officially referred to in documents as Alexander the Great – the accompanying fountain and of the sculptures of lions and warriors.

The final estimate, which included the procurement of materials, transportation of plaster, workers, workspace, as well as casting in plaster and polyester, was €649,000.
Stevanovska did not mention how much of this money would be left for her fee.

The database on the Skopje 2014 revamp reveals the sheer enormity of the project.

About 61 per cent of the entire project has gone on the construction of new buildings, which have dramatically changed the look of Skopje and have cost the budget almost €340 million.

The most expensive facade, according to the documents made available to BIRN, is the one coating the modern-looking government headquarters with Classical ornamentation.

Estimates show this façade alone cost over €15 million, which was three times more than the cost of revamping of all the rest of the facades located in the city centre.

One of the hardest tasks that BIRN faced when working on the database was finding the current locations of some of the first sculptures that formed part of the revamp.
Some of them, like the sculpture “A girl”, have since been moved.

Another sculpture, “Cosmo Integral”, has also been relocated and is now placed behind the National Ballet building. BIRN was unable to find and photograph some of these sculptures as no one could explain whether they had been dismantled or just removed.

During the investigation, BIRN submitted almost 150 public information requests in the search for data on the project. Almost all institutions responded positively although most also broke the deadline that obliges them to supply the requested information within 30 days.

BIRN submitted some ten complaints, after which some of our inquiries were answered. By time of publication, only the Justice Ministry failed to answers our request for the basic contract for the construction of the new Criminal Court.

BIRN’s database is compiled only from official documents and audit reports by the heads of the Centar municipality, the Culture Ministry and the Government.