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

Sri Lanka: Despite Poll Reversal, Rajapaksa May Still Be A Man To Watch – Analysis

0
0

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

Former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa has lost two elections in a row – as his incumbent-challenger Ranil Wickremesinghe alone might have done so far in the nation’s post-Independence electoral history. Yet, he might still be a man to watch – if not the man that the nation needs to watch, if he has to move forward from the past that he may have already left behind for it.

The astute politician that he is, Rajapaksa conceded defeat in the parliamentary polls on Tuesday (August 18) as he had done even pre-dawn on the counting day for the presidential polls in January. Unlike then, there were no wild rumours now about the possibility of a pro-Rajapaksa coup this time round.

It could still do him and his supporters a world of good if he himself were to re-visit the pre and post -war past to assess where he might have gone wrong, and where he could have done better. In the past months, of course, he was reported to have said that he had trusted some and too much.

Unfinished task or what?

As president, Rajapaksa was known to have confided in confidants that his family members or party itself could not expect to succeed him as if by routine, as it was against the nature of the nation’s elections. As he was believed to have conceded, no party had retained office after an innings, which however had remained fairly long in the case of other leaders and parties before him. He himself had succeeded fellow – Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) president Chandrika Bandaranaike-Kumaratunga, chip of the original Bandaranaike founders of the party, to the nation’s highest office.

Between them, the two leaders had already completed 20 long years as Executive President. Thus, Rajapaksa’s aim to stay on in power, as if to complete the ‘unfinished task’ of the ‘ethnic war’ and the rest by amending the nation’s Constitution and jumping the mandated upper-limit of two terms, ended up back-firing.

In an IT-driven telescoped world, the new generation Sri Lankan voters did not have the time and patience for a leader who they had loved and respected until the other day, but who had outlived his immediate utility for them.

Minus the LTTE and Prabhakaran, they were moving onto a new Sri Lanka, and they did not want a relic of the past to remind them of what it used to be. The question thus Rajapaksa could be asking himself in the coming days could also be about his camp continuing to beat the war drums in the parliamentary polls, long after it had lost its relevance and emotional appeal. His followers refused to trumpet his other achievement on the ‘rural development’ front – where again he had a first to his credit, though his inspiration might have been the LTTE-slain, rival-UNP president Ranasinghe Premadasa, whose tenure was relatively a short-lived two-plus years.

Mutual support/suspicion

In the coming days and weeks, the Rajapaksa supporters in the camp that he has headed in the elections, would be asking themselves if he would stick on, to lead them from the front – or, would retire quietly as he had said he would after the shocking presidential poll defeat. In turn, Rajapaksa might be asking himself if he could count on all those SLFP-UPFA second-line leaders and those below them, who had enticed him to return from his planned retirement, to lead them in the parliamentary polls.

Both sides might be justified in reviewing their positions on this score. Pragmatic as he is, Rajapaksa would know that his leadership days are over, and unless there is a sudden reversal of his fortune – which no astrologer might have predicted for him just now – there is no meaning in meandering along. As a leader who has loved his party as much as any other, he would need to create space and set the pace for the SLFP-UPFA to move forward beyond him.

Rajapaksa also knows that his son, Namal, or anyone else of his choosing, would have had to put in years and experience before the party and the nation considered him/them for a leadership role. He, along with brothers Chamal and Basil, if not ex-defence secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, had taken off from where their father and uncle had left, in their time – which was before theirs. The experiences of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga or Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, a kin of the late J. R. Jayewardene, the nation’s last full-term president from the United National Party (UNP) that he now leads, are also there.

Yet, it is not unlikely that future day Sri Lanka might want to leave behind its ‘ruling dynasties’ of the yore. Despite a strong party to boast of – better than Rajapaksa could have done, for the parliamentary polls in particular – and a party constitution that has rested in his person all powers and authority, but with shared accountability, though not responsibility – Ranil is yet to win an election in 25-plus of them over the past decade, outright.

This time again, Rajapaksa lost, Ranil did not win – nor did the UNP or the party-led United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG), which rested even more on the Muslim and upcountry Tamil parties than ever before in recent times. The question would then be asked if Ranil and the UNP really won this time, too – or, could have won without the smaller, ‘minority’ parties. Unlike all those ‘smaller’ Sinhala parties, whose need for Rajapaksa was more than the other way round, those ‘minority’ parties with the UNP actually carried substantial vote shares with them.

‘War crimes’ & ‘accountability’

A lot of the nation’s future will depend on how President Maithripala Sirisena leads, not just the nation and the government, but what essentially is a left-leaning, ‘Sinhala nationalist’ party from the very word, ‘go’. There is nothing to suggest that the party has moved or grown with the time. Any effort thus by President Sirisena, in his capacity as the national and party president, could cut both ways.

Already, Sirisena has handed over the limited reins of the government that still rested in the presidency, to the office of the prime minister and the person of Ranil Wickremesinghe, following the enactment of the 19th Amendment that he had ushered in himself. But the party has a left-leaning constituency, whose policies are at variance with those of the centre-right UNP, which is all for ‘market economy’ since the pre-Independence era.

Possibly hoping for Rajapaksa to fail the party, and Sirisena to fail as the party leader, the other left-leaning, one-time Sinhala nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has been crowing that it would be the ruling party the next time round. The party has barely managed to retain the five per cent vote-share, which had ballooned to 11 percent in the company of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga-led SLFP-UPFA combine. Under Rajapaksa, to whom they dictated harsh terms for continuing with the alliance, they lost almost everything, after he had blessed a split in the JVP.

The thrice-split JVP – the other two had no Rajapaksa hand behind them – seemed to be hoping for a disinterested Rajapaksa, a dis-spirited Sirisena and a dis-illusioned SLFP cadre looking for a credible political leadership, which the nation’s voters would trust as more credible and corruption-free, than all those that the nation has had since Independence. It’s too much of a tall order, or seems so just now.

A lot will depend on what Rajapaksa does and how the party treats him and the rest of them all, particularly over the ‘war crimes’ and ‘accountability issues’, now before the UNHRC at Geneva. That would also be one reason that Rajapaksa would need to fight his own political, diplomatic and at times legal battles on his own – and with others, and who knows with the nation or against the nation, as the case may be.

*N. Sathiya Moorthy is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at email: sathiyam54@gmail.com


Saudi Arabia Says Won’t Tolerate Unruly Behavior During Haj

0
0

The Kingdom will not tolerate — as it did not do in the past — any activity that undermines Haj rituals.

Any conduct contrary to regulations and directives in place for the pilgrimage will be dealt with firmly.

Vice Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Chairman of the Supreme Haj Committee Prince Mohammed bin Naif reiterated it during his meeting with the Supreme Haj Committee members at his office in Jeddah.

Prince Mohammed called upon visitors and pilgrims to dedicate full time during the pilgrimage to worship and to refrain from resorting to sloganeering and actions contrary to the teachings of Islam that would disturb the Haj rituals.

Prince Mohammed spoke to the committee about the specific directives and keenness of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz to provide the best services and facilities to pilgrims.

He said all sectors and state agencies concerned with Haj and pilgrim affairs are fully prepared to carry out their tasks, particularly the security sector which will provide maximum safety to pilgrims, and deal firmly with any misconduct.

Saad Orabi Al-Harthy, adviser to the interior minister and secretary-general of the Supreme Haj Committee, said officials discussed a number of topics on the meeting’s agenda, including alternatives to increase the capacity of Mina and personnel requirements for the service of pilgrims during the season.

He said the committee also discussed the development of support services for Al-Haramain and Al-Hijra roads, which link Makkah and Madinah, the development of road transport projects for pilgrims, and the progress of the Two Holy Mosques High Speed Train.

He said relevant and appropriate recommendations and decisions were made in line with the directives of King Salman to excel in services provided to pilgrims and visitors and ensure their safe return.

Iran Ready To Export Gas To Europe Via Azerbaijan

0
0

By Temkin Jafarov

Iran will cooperate with Azerbaijan on gas transportation to Europe through the ‘Southern Gas Corridor’, Iranian minister of information and communications technology, Mahmoud Vaezi said in an exclusive interview with Trend August 20.

Vaezi, who also co-chairs the intergovernmental commission of Iran and Azerbaijan for economic, trade and humanitarian cooperation, added that his country, in addition to Asian market, plans to export gas to the European market as well.

“Transportation through Azerbaijan is one of the ways of bringing Iran’s gas to Europe,” said Vaezi. “I believe we will be able to cooperate with Azerbaijan in the use of the ‘Southern Gas Corridor’. We have held talks in this regard with the energy minister of Azerbaijan and the relevant structures.”

He said both countries’ officials are constantly negotiating on the gas sector, adding that the negotiations will be continued.

The minister also noted that the relations between Azerbaijan and Iran in the oil and gas sector stand at a very good level.

“I believe the parties have a mutual need in each other,” Vaezi added. “At present, Azerbaijan is supplying gas to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (NAR) through swap operations with Iran. On the other hand, at a certain time, Azerbaijan’s demand in gas increases, and we can meet it. In turn, during certain periods there is gas shortage in Iran, which Azerbaijan can cover.”

The ‘Southern Gas Corridor’ will make it possible for Europe to diversify its hydrocarbon sources and increase its own energy security, while Azerbaijan will get a new market in Europe.

Azerbaijan’s gas is intended to go first through the ‘Southern Gas Corridor.’

On December 17, 2013, a definitive investment decision was made on the second stage of development at the ‘Shah Deniz’ offshore gas and condensate field for ensuring the Azerbaijani gas supplies to Europe.

Some 10 billion cubic meters of gas to be produced at the ‘Shah Deniz’ will go to Europe, while six billion cubic meters of it will be annually delivered to Turkey.

In the second stage of development of the ‘Shah Deniz’, gas will be exported to Turkey and European markets through expansion of the ‘South Caucasus Pipeline’ and construction of the ‘Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline’ (TANAP) and the ‘Trans-Adriatic Pipeline’ (TAP).

The proven reserves of ‘Shah Deniz’ stand at 1.2 trillion cubic meters of gas. The contract for development of this field was signed June 4, 1996.

Tianjin Blasts: Lessons For India – Analysis

0
0

By Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan*

Last week’s chemical blasts in the Chinese port city of Tianjin, killing 114 people and injuring another 700, has raised many issues regarding the safety and security of handling hazardous chemicals and such other materials. The area where the blast took place is a major base for petrochemical and other industrial activities. The blast took place in a warehouse of a private company, Ruihai Logistics. The company, established in 2001, apparently was licensed to handle dangerous materials and reportedly managed around 1 million tons of cargo per year. However, the proximity of the site to residential areas (closer than what is permitted) suggests there were loopholes in the current license granting process or possible corruption in securing the license or even failures in the regulatory practices.

While there is yet no clarity on what caused the explosion, it appears to be similar to a long list of safety related accidents that China has seen in recent years. Reports suggest that corrupt practices and lapses in safety and security compliances have contributed to many casualties in China’s mining industry each year. In July this year, there was an explosion at a fireworks depot, killing 15 people and a year ago, another explosion in a car factory in Shanghai killed a dozen people.

While a full probe is being done in Tianjin, initial reports suggest the presence of hundreds of tons of highly toxic sodium cyanide at the explosion site. Authorities claim that there has been no spillage and that steps were being taken to get rid of the material. But there is wide-spread criticism on the manner in which the post-blast situation has been handled. For instance, the public was not provided appropriate information on potential public health threats.

Does the Tianjin blasts have any lessons for India? India has several large chemical industry clusters, particularly in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. Despite the dual-use applications of many of these materials, the control of hazardous chemicals has not been exactly foolproof. For India, the threat is manifold. The fact that India is situated in a neighbourhood that combines a deadly mix of religious extremism and terrorism and states like Pakistan that sponsor terrorism makes the threat ever more dangerous. On the other hand, there are also internal challenges from the growing number of research laboratories and private parties handling CBR materials. The ease of access to material, expertise and know-how is also a factor. Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI, London) had done a study in 2012 to evaluate CBR security and safety in India, both in policy and practice.1 The conclusions of this study suggested a mixed picture regarding India’s CBR security. While there were a lot of aspects of domestic CBR security that India can be satisfied with, there were also aspects in Indian policy and practice that required greater focused attention. One of the worrying trends is in terms of policy focus – given the numerous threats and challenges that India faces on its internal and external security front, CBR security appears quite low in the overall security prioritization. The fact that there has been no major incident arising out of security lapses in the CBR arena has made Indian authorities lax about it. These are visible both in the policy and institutional architecture governing CBR security. While the big industry houses are realistic about the threats and accordingly have instituted the best practices available globally, small and medium-size industries project an indifferent approach to the issue. This can cost India dearly from a human, environment and industrial security perspective.

India has several different institutions and agencies – Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), the Central Pollution Control Board – that deal with on-site and off-site security as well as the regulatory functions in this domain. But the absence of an over-arching law covering chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) threats is a big lacunae. While there are separate laws that deal with Chemical, Biological and Radiological aspects, including the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems Act, 2005, the need for one comprehensive and cohesive approach is real because despite these separate rules and regulations in place, there have been incidents that illustrated the need for a more calibrated approach.

There were calls, in the backdrop of the Bhopal gas tragedy, for reforming the institutional and legal architecture but decades have gone by with no action and there are cases of non-compliance in this sector to boot. The chlorine gas leak in the Mumbai port in 2010, leading to the hospitalisation of 118 people and another in 2008 affecting 230 people in Karnataka are just two instances in this regard. It is understandable that controlling the access of these materials poses a major challenge give their large-scale utility in the civilian sector. But the easy access to chemicals is being exploited by terrorists. For instance, ammonium nitrate, a popular ingredient used by terrorists, has large utility in the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors and therefore, despite the control imposed by the government, it still finds way into the open market. This means that factories and industries that use the hazardous materials have to exercise greater control as well as comply with the safety measures in order to avoid a Tianjin-like incident.

Also the central regulatory agencies such as the Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests have come up with guidelines for emissions and discharges for 104 different industry groupings, but failure to comply with safety measures by industry has been an issue. There have also been important variations in compliance and implementation among industries and regions. These need to be fixed if India has to avoid disasters like Tianjin. The big industrial houses, which lead the way and even go beyond national norms in terms of policies, practices and compliance have a role in formulating new norms and ensuring better practices. Trade associations and other industrial bodies that have engagements with global agencies in this regard should also play a role in strengthening greater compliance across the industry. This is an area that truly requires government-private sector cooperation and coordination, in addition to greater regulatory synergy between government agencies.

1. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, Tobias Feakin, Jennifer Cole, Rahul Prakash, Wilson John and Andrew Somerville, Chemical, Biological and Radiological Materials: An Analysis of Security Risks and Terrorist Threats to India (New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2012).

*Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Prevent Radicalisation Of Muslim Youth In India – OpEd

0
0

By Jai Kumar Verma

Sometime back when the director general of National Security Guard (NSG) cautioned about the looming danger of terrorist activities in India by Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda, the policy planners took the warning lightly. However, if terrorist outfits including Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e- Mohammed, Harkat-Ul-Ansar, Indian Mujahideen join hands on behest of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) or IS and plan terrorist attacks in India the situation will become precarious. These groups have several active and passive supporters including sleeper cells in various cities of India and they can plan multiple terror activities in several cities of India simultaneously.

The IS, which is very active in social media, attracts the young people, both literate and semi literate, from developed as well as underdeveloped countries. Both male and female youth leave their homelands to join this terror outfit.

IS, which has no dearth of money, claims that it has already lured thousands of fighters and sympathizers from all over the world and they are ready to fight for establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

It is also reported that the Islamic State is not only in the possession of latest weaponry but also has chemical weapons which it used against Kurds in Iraq. IS also claimed that it is trying to procure nuclear warheads from Pakistan.

At present the impact of the IS group is minuscule in India, and according to official figures only 13 Indians have joined IS, and of them six are already killed. According to another report, 25 teenagers from India wanted to go to Syria to join IS but they were restrained from leaving the country.

Nonetheless, a very large number of Indians are working abroad, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the impact of IS is increasing very rapidly. Majority of these Indians are working in Middle Eastern countries without family and living in pitiable conditions, which can make them easily fall prey to the vicious propaganda of IS. They could join the IS and return to India after training and carry out terrorist activities in the country.

Indians by nature are not religious zealots, but there is a great danger from Pakistan where religious extremism is at its zenith. General Zia-Ul-Haq and several other military and civilian rulers have inculcated and nurtured madrasa culture in the country. Quite a few Pakistanis have joined IS and a very large number adhere to the radical ideology of IS.

Recently a document in Urdu captioned as “A Brief History of the Islamic State Caliphate” was in circulation in Pakistan. The manuscript mentions that the IS will attack India and if United States comes to its rescue then all Muslims of the world would come together and fight back.

The IS is dreaming that the Taliban of Pakistan and Afghanistan would join hands and provoke peaceful Muslims of India, and thus all of them would subjugate India. The IS threatens to execute all who will not obey their dictum.

The influence of IS is increasing very rapidly in Pakistan and among Pakistanis residing abroad. According to a report, the ISI which has already waged a low intensity war against India would utilize this opportunity and send more and more terrorists to India in the name of jihad against infidels.

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and few other terrorist outfits of the country have already expressed their loyalty towards IS which has emerged a formidable force in the region. The influence of ISI would enhance manifold as the present chief of Taliban, Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor, is an old associate of ISI.

In view of use of internet by IS to spread its radical ideology and because of the danger from Pakistan, a high-level meeting under the chairmanship of Union Home Secretary L.C. Goyal was held on August 1. The meeting discussed the ways and means so that IS and other terror ogranisations are not able to radicalize Indian youth. The government would provide counseling to misguided youth, take help of community elders and take immediate steps to stop the young people who want to go abroad to join IS.

Separatists hoisted IS flags for the first time in Srinagar on June 12 along with Pakistani flags, it was an alarming incident, and security agencies must be careful and sincere efforts should be taken to stop its recurrence.

The multiple security agencies of the country should take the threat of IS as indisputable and if remedial measures are not taken now the condition will become precarious. India, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world, is a target of several Islamic terrorist groups, may be because of malicious propaganda of Pakistan.

The home ministry should nominate one security agency as a nodal agency to deal with IS and there is no need to create a new one for this job. Central government and state governments should launch active counter-radicalization as well as de-radicalization programmes urgently. Both these programmes must run concurrently.

As the IS is banned in India anyone hoisting its flag, shouting slogans, propagating its ideology or wanting to join the terror group should be dealt with stringently under existing provisions of law.

Security agencies must strengthen its intelligence wings so that they can collect actionable intelligence. The case of Mehdi Masroor Biswas, a young techie who was operating a pro-IS twitter account for the past few years and was helpful in recruitment of Muslim youth for IS, is a sad commentary on the performance of intelligence agencies of the country.

The union government as well as state governments must strengthen the state police force. There is no dearth of able, competent and honest police officers and subordinates in the state police; unfortunately the police forces are not given the latest weapons, modern gadgets, regular training, refresher courses and freedom to work.

In the latest Gurdaspur terrorist attack, the team of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) commandos killed all three terrorists without suffering any loss of any life because they had the latest weapons and good training, but they were not wearing defensive kit, including bulletproof jackets, which indicates unpreparedness of the State Police Forces.

Religious institutions which preach extremism must be banned and the preachers should be punished severely. Radicalization of Muslim youths will be very dangerous for the country.

Security agencies should also monitor the workers returning to India from terror-affected areas. More than six million Indians are working in Islamic countries and a large number of them are uneducated labourers and can be easily indoctrinated by Islamic fundamentalists. Hence Indian missions in these countries must be assigned the task of monitoring the activities of Indian expatriates. However, the screening should not be anti-Muslim.

Indian security agencies should try to collect the factual data of Indian youths who have gone abroad to join IS or persons who are working for IS in India so that remedial measures can be taken.

Although Government of India has blocked more than 30 websites which were proliferating Islamic extremism but the effort is not enough as these sites can be visited through alternate sites. Experts should try not to block only these sites permanently but block other sites too which are spreading false propaganda and Islamic extremism.

Intelligence agencies should also monitor mosques, madrasas, religious fanatics and places where extremism is preached and propagated. The IS sympathizers would also try to augment Islamic terrorist outfits which have become dormant. The ISI would encourage regrouping of these terrorist outfits.

IS is an international terrorist organization, hence the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) should contact its counterparts in other countries and collect information about IS and its impact on India.

Iran’s Middle East Policy Subsequent To Nuclear Agreement – Analysis

0
0

By Saeid Jafari*

Following the conclusion of Iran’s nuclear deal, the country’s foreign policy has more time to deal with various regional issues. Nuclear talks to which Iran’s diplomatic apparatus was a hostage for over a decade are over and the Islamic Republic, like any other actor in the field of international relations, can now redefine and regulate its priorities on the basis of relations with its neighbors.

Shortly after the conclusion of the Vienna agreement, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif chose Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq as destinations for his first round of regional tours where he talked about the need to improve and expand Iran’s relations with the neighboring countries. Friendly relations between Tehran and Baghdad have continued in the past years, but the kind of official welcome accorded to Iran’s foreign minister in Doha and Kuwait City indicated a new beginning in Iran’s relations with its Arab neighbors along the southern rim of the Persian Gulf. Both Kuwait and Qatar have stressed the need to develop relations with Iran. However, regardless of how cordial are Iran’s relations with Oman, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar, any impartial observer knows that this is not the case about relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and Tehran has been experiencing its most tense relations with these three countries during the past years.

Since two years ago, Saudi Arabia has ignored signals sent by Iran for the improvement of bilateral relations. Since his first day in office, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has talked about the special importance that his administration attaches to relations with its Arab neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia.

However, Riyadh has been expecting Tehran to make basic changes in its Middle East policy. Those changes included reduction of Iran’s role in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; an issue that has never been accepted by the Islamic Republic.

Overt and covert efforts made by Saudi Arabia to cause failure of negotiations were evident throughout the nuclear talks. Those efforts ranged from a visit by then Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, to Vienna during nuclear talks in November 2014, to unfriendly remarks made by the country’s new Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir about the threat that Iran poses to the region. Tehran, however, has been able to get rid of a prolonged dispute and its Arab neighbors should have naturally reached the conclusion that Tehran poses no military threat to them because if this was the case, the United States would have never reached this agreement with Iran.

In two rounds of regional tours, Zarif traveled to almost all countries in the Middle East save for Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. He meant to assure all neighboring countries of Iran that the nuclear deal will only pave the way for the expansion of Tehran’s regional cooperation and is not supposed, as some parties claim, to open a new chapter in Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East. Following the conclusion of the Vienna agreement, Saudi Arabia emphasized that if Tehran wanted to cause problems in the region, it would face powerful reaction of Riyadh. Despite all these saber-rattling, Tehran considers stability and peace in the Middle East region as the utopian goal of its foreign policy approach to this region. Therefore, although Saudi Arabia continues its adversity toward Iran and has not been able so far to accept changes that have taken place in regional equations in the past years, including in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and even Yemen, Iran is by no means willing to fan the flames of tension with the big brother of regional Arab states.

In other words, the national interests of the Islamic Republic require that not only peace should be restored to Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but even instability and unrest in Saudi Arabia should be also prevented. As a result, perhaps after the lapse of some time and continuation of, at least, weakly effective efforts of Riyadh to change the playground, Saudi rulers would reach the conclusion that they better concede to alterations in regional equations and opt for interaction with Iran. During recent years, Saudis have made strategic mistakes in their foreign policy toward the Middle East as a result of which their past friends have become their enemies. This is the case about Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. In the meantime, efforts made by Riyadh to change regional equations have proven ineffective and have only caused the country to suffer serious costs in terms of funds and credibility. Now, after the lapse of four years, there are rumors about the possibility of direct talks between Riyadh and Damascus. So, it is still possible that Al Saud would finally come to grips with the regional realities, understand Iran’s liberated capacity following the nuclear deal, and trust Tehran’s goodwill for the preservation of regional peace and stability, and in doing this, put aside past animosity and welcome a new chapter of regional relations with Tehran.

* Saeid Jafari
Expert on Middle East Issues

Colombia And Venezuela: Border Dispute Over The Gulf – Analysis

0
0

By Daniel A. Tovar*

A long standing border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela over the area known as the Gulf of Venezuela, or Gulf of Coquibacoa,[1] resurfaced when the recent decree of President Nicolás Maduro established this area as an “operating maritime and insular zone of integral defense.”[2] On May 26, after the Guyanese government contracted ExxonMobil to look for offshore oil in an area that Caracas claims as its own, Maduro took measures to establish Venezuela’s sovereignty over several areas, including the aforementioned, through Decree 1.787. As a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, María Ángela Holguin, delivered a note of protest to the Venezuelan government regarding the decree’s implicit claim over the area, in dispute for at least 200 years.

The Differendum

A historical review of the dispute helps to put the current situation in context. Ever since Gran Colombia, the post-colonial state that encompassed Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama, dissolved in 1831, both Venezuela and Colombia have failed to agree on the limits of their territorial waters over the Gulf, specifically Los Monjes islets. The countries have referred to different historical documents and theses to justify their claims to this area. While Colombia insists Los Monjes is within its territorial waters, Venezuela claims it as an extension of its own continental shelf. [3]

Territorial waters, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, are the belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline of a coastal state. Likewise, the convention defined continental shield extensions as the portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. Consequently, both countries claim different rights over the area: Colombia argues that the islets, located at 20 nautical miles from the Colombian shores, cannot be considered as part of the continental shelf. Thus, the Colombian thesis establishes a boundary using the middle-line principle between the mainland territories of the two countries, thus recognizing Los Monjes as an enclave within the Colombian territorial sea. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s thesis is that the islets are an extension of its border thus applying the middle-line principle between the La Guajira peninsula (Colombian territory) and Los Monjes. [4]

The Antecedents

In 1952, during the interim government of Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez, Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs Juan Uribe Holguín[5] acknowledged the sovereignty of Venezuela over Los Monjes islets, through a diplomatic note that was not authorized by the government. Nevertheless, the Colombian Congress did not endorse this statement since decisions over limits and borders are under the jurisdiction of Congress. Then in 1958, during the first United Nations summit on international sea regulation, the middle-line principle was established in order to demarcate shared waters, and seeing that this benefitted Colombia, Venezuela refused to recognize the agreement.[6] Despite extensive negotiations, the two countries were unable to reach agreement on the matter.

The dispute has continued since then. In 1969, the first attempt at negotiation took place in Paipa, Boyacá in Colombia, where Presidents Carlos Lleras Restrepo of Colombia and Rafael Caldera of Venezuela signed the Declaration of Sochagota. The talks began in 1970 and ended in Rome in 1973 without reaching any point of settlement. Then, in 1975, Colombian President Alfonso López Michelsen and Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez handed a proposal to the Colombian and Venezuelan congresses. This proposal became known as the López-Pérez hypothesis and referred to the delimitation of marine areas and the joint exploitation of the submarine areas. The project lacked support in the Venezuelan Congress, however, and was denied.[7]

The Military Crisis: The Caldas Corvettes

The dispute’s most important episode took place in 1987 during the government of President Virgilio Barco, when the National Army of Colombia positioned two corvettes on the disputed waters. Venezuelan President Jaime Lusinchi reacted immediately by sending troops and F-16 airplanes to the area.[8] This situation, known as “the Caldas Corvettes Crisis,” put both countries on the verge of an unprecedented military conflict.[9] According to a report from the Armed Forces of Venezuela, “The Caldas corvettes were placed in an arbitrary way… violating our sovereignty. The Caldas illuminated our patrol in a hostile manner; therefore, the order was given immediately to pointing our guns defensively.” [10]

Although the Venezuelan president had ordered this unprecedented military movement, striking the corvettes and starting a regional war was never contemplated. At the time, Venezuela was considered a role model in the region, as it had not been involved in any war during the 20th century. Diplomatic actions were soon carried out to avoid a military conflict and, nine days later, the Caldas corvettes returned to Colombia.

Things began to turn around between 1989 and 1990 when the two governments managed to implement the Declarations of San Pedro Alejandrino and Ureña, which created the negotiating committee and the neighborhood commission for Border Integration. According to the two governments, “The topic of dispute over marine and submarine waters in the Gulf of Venezuela was incorporated into the process without giving the priority that could undermine the importance of other topics on the bilateral issues.”[11] In 1995, the negotiation committee managed a successful integration process that increased trade and direct investment between Colombia and Venezuela in the amount of $200,000 million USD.[12]

The Military Decree

Negotiations on the disputed waters have been blocked since 2009, however, when the government of Hugo Chávez dissolved the negotiation commission.[13] On May 26, Nicolás Maduro’s government approved and published executive order 1787 creating four Zodimain (operating maritime and insular zones of integral defense) in order to strengthen the country’s security and defense system. Since the decree establishes boundaries affecting the waters in dispute with Colombia, and it is legally supported by the Bolivarian National Armed Forces Law passed in November 2014, the decree could be considered as a military approach to the dispute between these countries.[14] According to this law, the integral defense of maritime and insular areas is “a territorial grouping of forces and means in a geographical area . . . where the operations will be conducted for defense purposes.”[15] Thus, the decree could be considered as a means to define areas of legitimate military presence. [16]

Although the decree “recognizes pending delimit areas that require further negotiations towards definite demarcation,”[17] on June 17, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia delivered a note of protest to the Venezuelan government arguing that Caracas was unilaterally establishing boundaries on these waters. Colombia has had experience with similar conflicts: The country recently faced a lawsuit regarding maritime boundaries with Nicaragua. In November 2012, the International Court of Justice decided that Bogotá had sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, yet gave Managua at least 75,000 km2 of the disputed territory. Nowadays, President of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Colombian Congress Jimmy Chamorro and Minister of Foreign Affairs María Ángela Holguín requested that the diplomatic channels be exhausted in order to solve the boundaries dispute with Venezuela and avoid international mediation.[18]

On June 23, the Venezuelan Ministry for Popular Power of Foreign Affairs responded, “The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela draws attention to the tenor of the statement of the government of Colombia, in which it exaggerates blackmail and media manipulation instead of diplomatic channels and dialogue between good neighbors.”[19] Also, through a press release, Maduro offered to create, first, a joint commission with Colombia to start negotiations on this subject and, second, a presidential commission to define current border affairs between Venezuela and its Latin American and the Caribbean neighbors.[20] However, this response was not enough for Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who claimed, “The Venezuelan’s statement is not an answer to our note of protest.”[21] Santos added, “In order to convene this joint commission, Colombia requires a formal answer to our note of protest. Therefore, I hope this happens within the next hours.”[22] María Ángela Holguín stated, “The joint commission already exists, but it has not met since 2009 . . . We hope opening the negotiation on delimitation again, and his [Maduro] allocution shows an opportunity to do it.”[23] The Colombian members of the joint commission are Angelino Garzón, Fernando Cepeda, Pedro Gómez, and Alberto Casas.[24]

The Civil Decree

After the abovementioned diplomatic incident between Colombian and Venezuela, Maduro issued executive order 1859, replacing the previous decree 1787. On July 6, Maduro announced that the decree contains “all the constitutional, legal, and doctrinaire elements to create the maritime defense zones across Venezuelan maritime territory.”[25] The new decree is exhaustive in explaining that geographical descriptions used to create such zones of defense “do not constitute any decision on territories, marine, and submarine areas of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for which definition is outstanding.”[26] Also, in Article 20, it establishes that “this decree is to set no boundaries, establish delimitation, nor any demarcation process in any sense.”[27] In addition, the new decree does not contain descriptions of the established zones and coordinates, which were some of the details, contained in the Colombian government’s note of protest against the first decree.

In the allocution, Maduro stated that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela was consulted on the matter of replacing the first decree. According to Leandro Area, former member of the joint commission for negotiation and integration between Colombia and Venezuela, “This situation represents the government need for decreasing the military tone of the first decree… the influence of the Venezuelan Armed Forces in that decree is reflected in coordinates as a reaction to every movement of Guyana in international waters. The decree shows strength to Guyana, not to affect Colombia.”[28] Leandro Area continued, “The only paragraph introduced in the new decree shows now a civil language, rather than a military matter. Maduro says he consulted the Supreme Court to ensure that the new decree is represented throughout the Republic, not just part of it.”[29]

In response to the new decree, President Santos expressed his pleasure toward the diplomatic attitude of the Venezuelan government, which allowed both countries to reach a favorable conclusion to this situation. Santos said, “This misunderstanding with the decree issued is resolved. It shows to us that problems are best solved through dialogue, not through confrontation nor insults.”[30] Also, María Ángela Holguín considered “the new decree as a response to our note of protest, since our primary request was to avoid including coordinates in it.” Also, she establishes that “the government of Colombia is satisfied…we render thanks to the Venezuelan government for having heard our request.”[31]

The Diplomatic Resolution

The resolution of territorial disputes within the international community is often contentious. In these situations, the countries usually invoke patriotism instead of turning to the legal bases related to conflict resolution. In this regard, although Colombia and Venezuela have ignored some diplomatic principles, they have reached a favorable conclusion and avoided a regional conflict. First, after Maduro released decree 1787, Colombia took 20 days to submit a note of protest. Then, Venezuela’s response through a press release or allocution was not considered as formal and was instead labeled as disrespectful and not worthy of a response. According to the principles of international law, the 20-day period of silence on Colombia’s part could be considered as acquiescence toward Venezuelan pretention,[32] whereas the Venezuelan subsequent lack of response indicates that there is acknowledgement of any rights on Colombia’s part. In regard to maritime jurisdiction, no Colombian vessel has returned to those waters since the corvette Caldas incident 28 years ago, implying an acceptation of the Venezuelan thesis. The acceptation is due not only to the absence of Colombian armed forces but also because of the lack of statements by eight different Colombian administrations on the issue.[33]

However, the diplomatic channels and political dialogue between Colombia and Venezuela have always been open. Despite the aforementioned circumstances and the current boundary dispute with Guyana, both countries established the basis for a specific agreement on the decree issue. Neither the repeal of decree 1787 nor the enactment of 1859 imply that Venezuela has conceded a single centimeter of it claim to Los Monjes islets. The border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela continues therefore, and there is an urgent need to reactivate mechanisms of international negotiation.

*Daniel A. Tovar, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[1] http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/nacional/golfo-de-coquibacoa-zona-disputa-entre-colombia-y-venez-articulo-567456

[2] http://elestimulo.com/blog/las-alarmas-tambien-se-encienden-en-colombia-por-creacion-de-las-zodimain/

[3] http://analitica.com/actualidad/actualidad-internacional/semana-claves-del-conflicto-entre-colombia-y-venezuela/

[4] http://www.sogeocol.edu.co/documentos/golf_coq.pdf

[5] http://www.geocities.com/crisiscaldas

[6] http://analitica.com/actualidad/actualidad-internacional/semana-claves-del-conflicto-entre-colombia-y-venezuela/

[7] http://colombiainternacional.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/219/index.php?id=219

[8] Ver al respecto Jorge Bendeck, La corbeta solitaria, Santafé de Bogotá, Grijalbo, 1994http://colombiainternacional.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/219/index.php?id=219

[9] Ver al respecto Jorge Bendeck, La corbeta solitaria, Santafé de Bogotá, Grijalbo, 1994 http://colombiainternacional.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/219/index.php?id=219

[10] Ver al respecto Jorge Bendeck, La corbeta solitaria, Santafé de Bogotá, Grijalbo, 1994http://colombiainternacional.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/219/index.php?id=219

[11] Liliana Obregón y Cario Nasi, Colombia Venezuela conflicto e integración, Santafé de Bogotá, Fescol y CEI Uniandes, 1990, p. 15. Ver también, Colombia-Venezuela: ¿crisis o negociación ?, Varios autores, Santafé de Bogotá, Fescol, CEI Uniandes, 1992.

[12]http://colombiainternacional.uniandes.edu.co/view.php/219/index=1.php?action=edit&id=219#3

[13] http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/nacional/colombia-rechaza-creacion-de-zona-de-defensa-maritima-v-articulo-567421

[14] http://www.diariolasamericas.com/4848_venezuela/3161328_maduro-chavismo-guerrillas-colombiana-farc.html

[15] http://dctos.finanzasdigital.com/Gaceta6156LeyFuerzaArmada.pdf

[16] http://www.diariolasamericas.com/4848_venezuela/3161328_maduro-chavismo-guerrillas-colombiana-farc.html

[17] http://hoyvenezuela.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gaceta-Oficial-n%C3%BAmero-40.669.pdf

[18] http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/nacional/golfo-de-coquibacoa-zona-disputa-entre-colombia-y-venez-articulo-567456

[19] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/06/150623_venezuela_colombia_respuesta_dp

[20] http://www.elheraldo.co/nacional/venezuela-modificara-decreto-que-fija-limites-maritimos-con-colombia-dice-santos-204206

[21] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/06/150623_venezuela_colombia_respuesta_dp

[22] http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/06/150623_venezuela_colombia_respuesta_dp

[23] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[24] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[25] http://www.elheraldo.co/nacional/venezuela-modificara-decreto-que-fija-limites-maritimos-con-colombia-dice-santos-204206

[26] http://hoyvenezuela.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Gaceta-Oficial-N%C3%BAmero-40.696.pdf

[27] http://hoyvenezuela.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Gaceta-Oficial-N%C3%BAmero-40.696.pdf

[28] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[29] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[30] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[31] http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/decreto-de-venezuela-sobre-delimitacion-maritima-asi-corrigio-venezuela/16058436

[32] http://cordovaluis.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010feb23-APUNTES-SOBRE-LAS-FUENTES-DEL-DERECHO-INTERNACIONAL.pdf

[33] http://www.larepublica.co/patrioterismo-vs-derecho-internacional_276581

White House Confirms US Airstrike Kills Islamic State Second-In-Command

0
0

Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group Islamic State, was killed in a US military air strike on August 18 while traveling in a vehicle near Mosul, Iraq, along with an Islamic State media operative known as Abu Abdullah, the White House said Friday.

According to a statement by NSC spokesperson Ned Price, Al-Hayali was an ISIL Shura Council member and, as the senior deputy to ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was a primary coordinator for moving large amounts of weapons, explosives, vehicles, and people between Iraq and Syria.

Al-Hayali supported ISIL operations in both countries and was in charge of ISIL operations in Iraq, where he was instrumental in planning operations over the past two years, including the ISIL offensive in Mosul in June 2014, the statement continued, adding that Al-Hayali was a member of Al Qa’ida in Iraq, the predecessor to ISIL, and previously served as ISIL’s Baghdad military emir and the emir of Ninawa Province.

“Al-Hayali’s death will adversely impact ISIL’s operations given that his influence spanned ISIL’s finance, media, operations, and logistics,’ the statement noted. “The United States and its coalition partners are determined to degrade and destroy this terrorist group which has wrought so much harm and suffering on the people of the region and beyond.”


North Korea Orders ‘Final Attack’

0
0

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un put his front-line troops on a war footing on Friday to back up an ultimatum for South Korea to halt high-decibel propaganda broadcasts across the border.

A North Korean military official says a meeting of senior party and defense officials led by Jong Un met Thursday night and “reviewed and approved the final attack operation.”

The move came as military tensions on the divided Korean peninsula soared following a rare exchange of artillery fire on Thursday that put the South Korean army on maximum alert.

South Korea’s military on Thursday fired dozens of artillery rounds across the border in response to what Seoul said were North Korean artillery strikes meant to back up a threat to attack loudspeakers broadcasting anti-Pyongyang propaganda.

Technically, the two Koreas have been at war for the past 65 years, as the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended with a ceasefire that was never ratified by a formal peace treaty.

Kim has given similarly bellicose orders in the past, most recently in 2013 when he declared “a state of war” with the South, although no clashes resulted.

Over the decades, South Koreans have become accustomed to the North’s provocative and belligerent behaviour, and there was no sense of public panic in Seoul despite the dire threats.

Kim chaired an emergency meeting late Thursday of the North’s powerful Central Military Commission (CMC) which endorsed the ultimatum for the South to switch off its propaganda unit loudspeakers by Saturday afternoon or face military action.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry insisted the loudspeakers would keep operating.
According to the official KCNA news agency, Kim ordered frontline, combined units of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) to “enter a wartime state” from Friday 5:00 p.m. (0830 GMT).

The troops should be “fully battle ready to launch surprise operations” while the entire frontline should be placed in a “semi-war state,” KCNA quoted him as saying.

In response, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff urged the KPA to refrain from any “reckless acts.”

South Korean television broadcast images of President Park Geun-Hye wearing army fatigues as she addressed a meeting of top military commanders outside Seoul.

“Any provocations by North Korea will not be tolerated,” Park told the gathering.

The United States urged Pyongyang to avoid any further escalation, with the Pentagon stressing it remained firmly committed to defending ally South Korea.

Direct exchanges of fire across the inter-Korean land border are extremely rare, mainly, analysts say, because both sides recognise the risk of a sudden and potentially disastrous escalation.

But Yoo Ho-Yeol, a professor of North Korean studies at Korea University in Seoul, said although previous episodes of tense brinkmanship had not escalated into conflict, this could not be ruled out.

New Delhi’s Soft Power Push – Analysis

0
0

Under Modi, India cultivates and promotes soft power of Bollywood, Sanskrit, yoga and democracy.

By Harsh V. Pant*

During his travels, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes a point of promoting India’s soft power – including Bollywood, Sufi music and yoga as well as shared heritage in art, architecture, cuisine and democratic values. It’s too early to assess if India’s efforts are having any substantive impact in meeting the nation’s foreign policy objectives, but for the first time a coherent effort is underway to raise India’s brand value abroad. This is likely to have significant implications for the conduct of Indian diplomacy and the broader role of India in global politics in the coming years.

Releasing its global ranking of soft power, the communications and public relatons consultancy Portland suggests “Modi’s India is definitely a soft power player to watch in the years ahead.” While India does not figure in a list of top 30 countries in terms of soft power, the new effort underlines Modi’s use of social media to engage, inform and encourage participation on both foreign- and domestic-policy fronts.

Previous Indian governments recognized the value of soft power to further India’s foreign policy goals, but the attempts were largely ad hoc. Under Modi, India is taking a strategic approach towards using its soft-power resources to enhance the nation’s image abroad, even as soft power’s role in global politics is under debate. Consider:

• In July, Modi underscored spiritual linkages between India and Central Asia, marking a contrast with growing extremism around the world, suggesting that “the Islamic heritage of both India and Central Asia is defined by the highest ideals of Islam – knowledge, piety, compassion and welfare.” By emphasizing India’s multicultural heritage, Modi undercut prevailing criticisms about his ideological leanings as a Hindu nationalist.

• India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj was keynote speaker for a June Sanskrit Conference in Bangkok. She spoke in Sanskrit to more than 600 experts from 60 nations, describing the language as “modern and universal,” one the gathering should propagate. Underlining the contemporary relevance of the ancient language, Swaraj argued that proficiency in the language could “go a long way in finding solutions to contemporary problems like global warming, unsustainable consumption, civilizational clash, poverty, terrorism.” It was the first time an Indian minister of Swaraj’s rank attended the World Sanskrit Conference outside the country since the group was organized in Delhi in 1972. Perhaps taking a cue from China with its burgeoning Confucius Institutes, the Modi government is taking steps to promote the language internationally with a $20,000 International Sanskrit Award to scholars making significant contributions to the language, institution of fellowships for foreign scholars conducting research in India in Sanskrit language or literature, and opportunities for new learners to pursue courses or research in India.

• Yoga may be India’s most successful and popular soft-power tool. Modi led thousands in a mass yoga program in New Delhi on June 21, the first International Yoga Day. Modi had lobbied the United Nations and managed to win the support of 175 member states at the General Assembly for the resolution setting an international day of yoga. Yoga events were held in 251 cities across six continents with 192 countries participating.
softPower-table2
Race for soft power: Portland examined 50 nations and identified the world’s 30 soft power leaders; here, the leaders in six areas with North America in blue; Europe, red; Asia and Pacific, green (Data: Portland Soft Power 30)

India’s soft power worked its magic before without much government support. This is most notable in the case of Bollywood – the world’s largest film industry in terms of the number of films produced. Indian movies and music are watched and enjoyed in large parts of the world from the Middle East and North Africa to Central Asia. Yet Bollywood trails behind Hollywood in terms of its global reach. Previous governments did create new structures such as a new Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs in 2004 to tap into the growing influence of Indian expatriates and a public policy division within the Ministry of External Affairs in 2006 to enhance cultural exchanges in support of official diplomatic engagements. Yet so far there’s little evidence to suggest that India, for all its many soft-power advantages, has made a dent in global public opinion. According to 2013 Pew Global Attitudes survey, fewer than half, or 46 percent, Americans have a favorable impression of India. Compared to the British Council, Alliance Française and even the Confucius Institutes, the performance of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, with centers in about 35 countries and aimed at promoting Indian culture, has been lackadaisical. India has failed to build its brand value abroad.

Recognizing this, the Modi government seems keener than its predecessors to leverage India’s multifaceted soft-power resources from spiritualism, yoga and culture to its democratic ethos in the service of Indian interests.

This is a critical phase in the debate on soft power’s role in global politics. For much of the last decade, China has invested in trying to project an image of a peaceful rising power. Many western observers were in thrall of so-called Chinese success in enhancing its brand value across the globe, but especially in Asia – with its Confucius Institutes, extravagant Olympics displays and rhetoric of a peaceful rise. There are more than 480 Confucius Institutes around the world with plans to expand that number to 1,000 by 2020.

But Beijing’s aggressive posturing on territorial issues in the East and the South China Seas threaten to tatter that image as global analysts tend to emphasize the nation’s unabashed use of its growing economic and military heft to secure its interests.

And there is a broader debate whether soft power holds any lasting, tangible value in a today’s milieu when revisionist powers like China and Russia are threatening the global order and the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State makes hard power ever more attractive and necessary.

The Modi government’s attempt to leverage soft power is meant to position New Delhi at a critical juncture while much of the world continues to regard India as a relatively tolerant and multicultural democracy with a largely benign international influence as well as an emerging economy with the potential of becoming a huge economic success story. India’s cultural links with East and Southeast Asia as well as the Middle East and Central Asia underscore India’s centuries-old role as the font of various religions and cultures. If Buddhism spread from India to China and beyond, Hinduism traveled to Southeast Asia, and Islam linked India to Central Asia.

In diplomatic engagements around the world, the Modi government consistently underscores India’s democratic credentials. At a time when economic turmoil in the West is generating apprehensions about the value of democracy, India continues to signal the virtues of a democratic political order. The Modi government is unlike its predecessors, ambivalent about focusing on democracy, and instead the prime minister emphasizes shared political values to strengthen ties with the West and democracies in Asia. Even when he visited Mongolia, Modi praised the nation as the “new bright light of democracy” in the world, thereby marking a distinction between the democratic values of India and Mongolia and those of authoritarian China. The Modi government is striving to not only revive national pride in the country’s ancient values, but also enhance India’s hard power by using its soft-power advantages.

Sustained effort is needed by New Delhi to succeed as global soft power. India today is more confident about projecting its past heritage as well as its contemporary values on to the global stage, and this can only be good news for the global order in dire need of positive exemplars. An economically successful pluralistic democracy is the best antidote to authoritarianism and extremism rampant around the world.

*Harsh V. Pant is professor of international relations at King’s College London and the author ofIndia’s Afghan Muddle (HarperCollins). Read “The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power” from Portland.

Netanyahu: The Magician’s Apprentice – OpEd

0
0

One has to choose: Binyamin Netanyahu is either incredibly shrewd or incredibly foolish.

Take his Iran policy. Actually, there is little to choose from. Netanyahu has no other policy to speak off.

According to him, Iran constitutes a mortal danger to Israel. If it obtains a nuclear weapon, God forbid, it will use it to annihilate Israel. It must be stopped by any means, preferably by American armed intervention.

This may be quite wrong (as I believe). But it makes sense.

So what did Netanyahu do?

For years, he alarmed the world. Every day the cry went out: Save Israel! Prevent the destruction of the Jewish State! Prevent a Second Holocaust! Prevent Iran from producing The Bomb!

The world did not take any notice. It was busy with many other matters. There are crises galore everywhere, all the time. Economic depressions. Plagues. The warming of the earth.

But Netanyahu did not let off. He used every rostrum, from the Knesset to the United States Congress, to shout his message.

At long last, a weary world paid heed. OK, the Jews warn of the Iranian bomb? So let’s do something to prevent it. Not just something. No. Let’s get all the great powers of the world together to compel Iran to end this nonsense.

And they did. The USA, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – practically the whole world – commanded Iran to start negotiations.

There was only one single issue: preventing Iran from getting The Bomb. Nothing else mattered. Compared to this giant issue, everything else was insignificant.

And then something unexpected happened. Iran’s political system replaced their loudmouth president with a very different one: a soft-spoken, eminently reasonable politician. Negotiations started, and Iran sent an even more soft-spoken, eminently reasonable diplomat to conduct them. The foreign ministers of the world were enchanted.

After playing a little hard-to-get, Iran accepted an agreement. The World got, more or less, everything it wanted. No bomb for a long time. Very intrusive inspection procedures. (They were not really needed. Up-to-date espionage techniques can quickly detect any movements toward a bomb.)

Everybody was happy. Everybody, that is, except Netanyahu. He was furious.

What kind of an agreement is this?

The Iranians will get the bomb. If not now, then in 15 years. Or in 25. Or in 50.

The Iranians will cheat! Persians always cheat! They can’t help it! It’s in their blood! (Not like us, who built dozens of nuclear weapons in secret. After the Holocaust, we are allowed to do things like that.)

And anyway, even if they don’t get the bomb, the Iranians will get legitimization. And money. They will support anti-Israeli terrorists, like Hezbollah and Hamas. (Not very convincing, after Netanyahu had demanded concentration on The Bomb, and not on anything else.)

The huge Israeli propaganda machine was set in motion. The terrible agreement is being denounced from every rooftop. Of course we knew all the time that Barack Obama is an anti-Semite, as is John Kerry. Now we have the proof.

Actually, the play is over. An agreement signed by the entire world cannot be made to disappear with a puff from Bibi. It will be there, even if the US Congress does vote against it and overrides the presidential veto. The world is tired of Netanyahu’s whims. The man got what he wanted, so what now?!

I believe that the Iranians did not want the bomb very much anyhow. According to all available evidence, the agreement aroused joy in the streets of Tehran. The prevalent mood seems to be: “Thank Allah, at long last we’ve got rid of this whole nonsense!”

But the bomb that isn’t has already caused immense damage to Israel. Much worse than if it existed in some dark cavern.

All Israelis agree that the one supreme asset Israel has is its special, unparalleled relationship with the US. It is unique.

Unique and priceless. In military terms, Israel gets the most up-to-date weapon systems, practically for nothing. No less important, Israel can not conduct any war for more than a few days without an airlift of munitions and spare parts from the US.

But that is only a small element of our national security. Even more important is the knowledge that you cannot threaten Israel without confronting the entire might of the United States. This is a formidable umbrella, the envy of the world.

More than that, every country in the world knows that if you want something from Washington DC, and especially from the US Congress, you better pass through Jerusalem and pay a price. How much is that worth?

And then there is the veto. Not the little veto Obama will use to neutralize a Congress vote against the agreement, but the Big Veto, the one that blocks every single UN Security Council resolution to censure Israel, even for actions that cry to high heaven. A 49 year old occupation. Hundreds of thousands of settlers who contravene international law. Almost daily killings.

Condemn Israel? Forget it. Sanctions against Israel? Don’t make us laugh. As long as the almighty US protects Israel, It can do whatever it wants.

All this is now put in question. Perhaps the damage has already been done, like hidden cracks in the foundations of a building. The scale of the damage may become apparent only in coming years.

Another hidden crack is the rift between Israel and a large part of the Jews around the world, especially in the US. Israel claims to be the “Nation-State of the Jewish People”. All Jews throughout the world owe it unquestioning allegiance. A mighty apparatus of “Jewish organizations” is policing the vassals. Woe to the Jew who dares to object.

Not anymore. A rift has opened within world Jewry, that probably cannot be repaired. Commanded to choose between their president and Israel, many American Jews prefer their president, or just opt out.

Who is the anti-Semite who has managed to bring all this evil about? No other than the Prime Minister of Israel himself.

Does this trouble the world? Not really.

We Israelis believe that we are the center of the world. But it ain’t necessarily so.

While Israel is obsessed with the Iranian bomb, great changes are taking place in our region. The almost forgotten 13-century old rift between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has suddenly reappeared all over. This rift, almost as old as Islam itself, was plastered over by the artificial order established by the notorious colonialist Sykes-Picot agreement during World War I.

What is happening now is a political earthquake. The landscape is changing dramatically. Mountains disappear, new ones are formed. The Shiite axis, from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon is overtaking the Sunni bloc of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Libya and Yemen are tossed around, Egypt harkens back to its glorious Pharaonic past, and in the middle of it all, a new power is raising its head – the Islamic Caliphate of Daesh, which attracts Muslim youth from all over the world.

In the middle of this raging storm, Netanyahu is a man of the past, a person whose perceptions were formed decades ago, in another world. Instead of addressing this new world, with its great dangers and great opportunities, he fumbles around with the non-existent Bomb.

The US and the other Western powers are cautiously changing their stance. They are afraid of Daesh, as they should be. They perceive that their interests are getting closer to those of Iran and further away from those of Saudi Arabia. The new nuclear agreement fits well into this pattern. Netanyahu’s permanent trouble-making does not.

Is this being discussed in Israel? Of course not. It’s all about the bomb, the bomb, the bomb. The little quarrels between the Muslims are more or less ignored.

Sunnis, Shiites – they are all the same. Anti-Semites. Holocaust-deniers. Israel-haters.

Yet there are great opportunities. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, as well as Egypt, are already hinting that they could cooperate with Israel. In deepest secrecy, of course. Nobody can shake hands openly with Israel as long as the Arab masses see every day on their TV sets the misdeeds of the settlers, the killings of the occupation army, the humiliation of the Palestinian brothers. Like a heavy weight tied to the leg of a swimmer, the occupation prevents us from reacting to the changes in the region.

Lately, there have been ever-stronger rumors about secret negotiations between Netanyahu and Hamas for an eight or ten year-long armistice, that would amount to an unofficial peace agreement. It would create a tiny Palestinian mini-state, while isolating even more Mahmoud Abbas and the main body of the Palestinian people, who are committed to the Arab peace plan.

All this for what? For enlarging the settlements and perhaps annexing another part of the West Bank (“Area C”).

So is the man shrewd or just foolish? A magician or just a magician’s apprentice?

King Mohammed VI’s Speech On King And People’s Revolution Day

0
0

On the occasion of the 62nd anniversary of the Revolution of the King and the People, King Mohammed VI delivered on Thursday a speech to the Nation. Here follows the full text of the speech:

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

Dear Citizens,

Today, with feelings of appreciation and gratitude,we are celebrating the sixty-second anniversary of the glorious Revolution of the King and the People.

This is an annual opportunity to seek guidance from the values of sacrifice and patriotism embraced by the generation that fought for the independence and freedom of the nation, particularly at this moment in time, as our country prepares to embark on a new revolution.

The implementation of the advanced regionalization plan will be the cornerstone of Morocco’s unity and territorial integrity and will help us achieve social solidarity, as well as balance and complementarity between regions.

Since every era is determined by its men and women, the coming revolution will need honest elected representatives whose main concern is to serve the nation and the citizens who voted for them.

Dear Citizens,

The coming elections, which will be held in a few days, will be crucial for the future of Morocco, given the extensive powers granted by the Constitution and the law to regional councils and local communities.

For the sake of clarity, I will explain the mission and role incumbent upon each and every institution and the impact it is set to have on the lives of citizens, who have the right to know everything about the institutions serving them, so that they may make the right decision and the right choice.

The Government is responsible, under the authority of the Head of Government, for implementing laws, developing public policies and drawing up sectoral plans.

It is also responsible for public administration and has a duty to improve administrative services and bring them closer to the citizens.

As I said in an earlier speech, the Government is not responsible for the quality of services provided by elected councils.

The Minister of Energy is not responsible for street lights, water and electricity services or sanitation. By the same token, the Minister of Interior is not responsible for garbage collection or street cleaning, nor is the Minister of Equipment and Transport in charge of local street-paving or urban transport.

Citizens have to be aware that the people in charge of these social and administrative services, which they need in their everyday life, are the people they voted for in their community or region.

Contrary to what some citizens think, Members of Parliament have nothing to do with the management of local affairs. Their duty is to propose, discuss and pass laws, monitor Government action and assess public policies.

Dear Citizens,

If many citizens take only scant interest in elections and do not participate in them, it is because some elected officials do not fulfill their duties properly; in fact, some of these officials do not even know the people who voted for them.

Just like doctors, lawyers, teachers and civil servants, elected officials must work hard on a daily basis and make extra efforts, since they are in charge of other peoples’ interests, not their own.

Some of them, however, think that their mission starts and ends with registering as candidates. Once they are elected, they disappear for years, only to show up at the following poll.

Votes should not go to those who speak more or louder than others and repeat empty slogans; nor should they go to those who hand out a few dirhams during electoral campaigns and sell false promises to the citizens.

Such acts are not only punishable by law, but they are also a blatant sign of disrespect for voters.

Citizens should vote for competent, credible candidates, who are committed to serving the public good.

I would like to say this to political parties as well as to candidates: the purpose sought from elections is not to hold senior positions, but to serve the citizens.

To citizens, I would like to say this: voting is a right and a national duty, a major responsibility that has to be shouldered. It is a tool in your hands; you either use it to change the daily management of your affairs or to maintain the status quo, good or bad.

You should know that the direct election of the president and members of your region gives you the power to decide and to choose your representatives. Make a conscientious, responsible choice, for tomorrow you will have no right to complain of mismanagement or poor services.

It is matter of deep satisfaction that the number of newly registered voters is on the rise. It includes those who abstained from participating in elections in the past because they were not satisfied with the work of elected councils.

Today, they want to use their right and fulfill their national duty, but many of them are still wondering who they should trust and vote for.

Parties and candidates therefore have to convince them, show them how serious, pertinent and realistic their programs are, share their vision and communicate with them.

In this regard, I call on civil society actors and unions to get deeply involved by urging citizens to participate in the electoral process.

In short, the citizens’ power to protect their interests, find solutions to some of their problems, hold their representatives accountable and replace them, can be summarized in one word: “vote”.

Dear Citizens,

I consider serving the citizens as the ultimate goal of all national policies; I also consider the citizens’ security and safety as a top concern.

Nowadays, the world in general, and the Maghreb and Arab regions in particular, are witnessing rapid changes caused by the rise of religious extremism and the proliferation of terrorist groups.

Because, in Morocco, we know that terrorism cannot be ascribed to a given religion or country, the Kingdom has joined the international effort to combat this global scourge.

At the national level, the Kingdom is fighting the causes that might lead to extremism and terrorism and we thank God for the security and stability our country enjoys.

However, just like any other country in the region, if not in the world, Morocco is also exposed to these threats.

Unfortunately, some countries in the region are going through difficult times, due to insecurity and the proliferation of arms and radical groups.

Accordingly, Morocco has had to take a series of preventive measures in order to protect its security and stability.

In this regard, the Kingdom has imposed entry visas on some Arab nationals, namely Syrians and Libyans.

While showing solidarity with these peoples, Morocco has regrettably been forced to take such a measure,given the circumstances.

This decision is not aimed at any party and should not be seen as an unfriendly gesture. It is a sovereign decision and as the defender of the country’s security and stability, I will not tolerate any carelessness or negligence in protecting Morocco and Moroccans.

Indeed, Morocco has been working continuously to preserve its security and fully protect its borders, especially during the past two years. This mission has been accomplished, thanks to the joint efforts of all authorities and forces concerned.

We will continue our efforts, with the utmost vigilance and determination, to prevent anyone from entering the country illegally.

In the past, a number of refugees from countries plagued by security challenges managed to enter the country.

We are sorry about the dire conditions in which some of these refugees live; in fact, some of them have to resort to begging to survive.

In this respect, I do not think I need to urge Moroccans to treat them as guests and come to their assistance.

I am sure they share their suffering and try to help them as much as they can.

In return, these refugees have to abide by Moroccan laws and respect sacred national and religious values, mainly the Sunni Maliki rite.

Any breach of Moroccan law and regulations will lead to deportation.

I am referring particularly to those who attempt to create chaos inside and outside mosques or join criminal and terrorist gangs.

Morocco will nonetheless remain a land of hospitality for its guests, without becoming a land of refuge.

What I am saying is that we have our own priorities and we need to address them.

We are striving to face our own challenges in order to ensure Moroccans enjoy a dignified life.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all security forces for their mobilization and vigilance in order to foil any terrorist plot aimed at upsetting the Moroccan model, which is globally recognized as unique.

I would also like to stress that the country’s security and stability are not the exclusive responsibility of state institutions, but the duty of all citizens, in collaboration and coordination with the competent authorities.

In fact, extremism can only be fought through a participatory approach, based on the promotion of the values of openness and tolerance embraced by Moroccans, and the combination of social, development, religious and educational dimensions, as well as security aspects.

Dear Citizens,

We are grateful for all the blessings the Almighty has bestowed on our country, particularly the symbiosis between the people and the throne and a genuine commitment to the nation’s unity and territorial integrity.

By ensuring the success of regionalization and preserving the security and stability of the nation, we achieve a common objective,which is to serve Moroccan citizens.

It is a historic duty that we collectively have to perform to keep the flame of the renewed Revolution of the King and the People alight and make sure Morocco continues to enjoy unity, solidarity, security and development.

This is the way to remain faithful to the heroes of this epic revolution,first and foremost my revered grandfather His Majesty King Mohammed V and my venerable father His Majesty King Hassan II – may they rest in peace -, along with all the valiant martyrs of the nation.

Wassalamualaikumwarahmatullahwabarakatuh

Greenhouse Gases Caused Glacial Retreat During Last Ice Age

0
0

A recalculation of the dates at which boulders were uncovered by melting glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age has conclusively shown that the glacial retreat was due to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as opposed to other types of forces.

Carbon dioxide levels are now significantly higher than they were at that time, as a result of the Industrial Revolution and other human activities since then. Because of that, the study confirms predictions of future glacial retreat, and that most of the world’s glaciers may disappear in the next few centuries.

The findings were published today in Nature Communications by researchers from Oregon State University, Boston College and other institutions. They erase some of the uncertainties about glacial melting that had been due to a misinterpretation of data from some of these boulders, which were exposed to the atmosphere more than 11,500 years ago.

“This shows that at the end of the last Ice Age, it was only the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that could have caused the loss of glaciers around the world at the same time,” said Peter Clark, a professor in the OSU College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, and co-author on the study.

“This study validates predictions that future glacial loss will occur due to the ongoing increase in greenhouse gas levels from human activities,” Clark said. “We could lose 80-90 percent of the world’s glaciers in the next several centuries if greenhouse gases continue to rise at the current rate.”

Glacial loss in the future will contribute to rising sea levels and, in some cases, have impacts on local water supplies.

As the last Ice Age ended during a period of about 7,000 years, starting around 19,000 years ago, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. But just in the past 150 years, they have surged from 280 to about 400 parts per million, far higher than what was required to put an end to the last Ice Age.

The new findings, Clark said, were based on a recalculation of the ages at which more than 1,100 glacial boulders from 159 glacial moraines around the world were exposed to the atmosphere after being buried for thousands of years under ice.

The exposure of the boulders to cosmic rays produced cosmogenic nuclides, which had been previously measured and used to date the event. But advances have been made in how to calibrate ages based on that data. Based on the new calculations, the rise in carbon dioxide levels – determined from ancient ice cores -matches up nicely with the time at which glacial retreat took place.

“There had been a long-standing mystery about why these boulders were uncovered at the time they were, because it didn’t properly match the increase in greenhouse gases,” said Jeremy Shakun, a professor at Boston College and lead author on the study. “We found that the previous ages assigned to this event were inaccurate. The data now show that as soon as the greenhouse gas levels began to rise, the glaciers began to melt and retreat.”

There are other forces that can also cause glacial melting on a local or regional scale, the researchers noted, such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, or shifts in ocean heat distribution. These factors probably did have localized effects. But the scientists determined that only the change in greenhouse gas levels could have explained the broader global retreat of glaciers all at the same time.

In the study of climate change, glaciers have always been of considerable interest, because their long-term behavior is a more reliable barometer that helps sort out the ups-and-downs caused by year-to-year weather variability, including short-term shifts in temperature and precipitation.

Other collaborators on this research were from the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.

Malaysia-Singapore Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’– Analysis

0
0

Was Singapore’s exit from Malaysia in 1965 a “coup” by Singapore leaders, or an eviction imposed on it by Malaysian leaders? Records show it was Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who made the tough decision that the two go their separate ways.

By Mushahid Ali*

Did Singapore ask to leave Malaysia of its own accord or was it forced out against its will? Fifty years after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia the question is still moot. A review of the events leading to the separation seeks to throw more light on the conundrum.

Singapore separated from Malaysia on 9 August 1965 by a constitutional fiat that formalised an agreed settlement between the state of Singapore and the federal government. The act of separation was effected by the Malaysian Parliament adopting an Amendment to the Malaysian Constitution and ratifying an Agreement on Separation signed by the governments of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. It was put into action by a Proclamation of Independence of Singapore by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that was read over Radio Singapore.

Tunku’s surgical solution

That agreement was negotiated by leading members of the two governments to bring about an amicable solution to an increasingly bitter and intractable conflict between their ruling parties. However it was Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who initiated the move to “hive off” Singapore from Malaysia. As he explained at a press conference after the passage of the Separation Act: “It was my idea that Singapore should leave the federation and be independent. The differences between the state government of Singapore and the central government of Malaysia had become so acrimonious that I decided that it was best that Singapore went its own way. Otherwise there was no hope for peace.”

This confirms that Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia at the Tunku’s behest. It was not Singapore that sought to secede or initiated the negotiation to separate from Malaysia, as some scholars seek to argue.

Indeed in the months leading to its constitutional eviction, Singapore had been warned by Malaysian leaders against seeking secession or a partition of Malaysia between the former states of Malaya and the new states – Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, as well as Penang.

That partition had been proposed by Singapore as an alternative constitutional arrangement for a looser confederation. That proposal had developed from the call made by political parties grouped in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention for a “Malaysian Malaysia” that would ensure equality among all the states and ethnic groups in the country.

This dual demand infuriated the ruling Alliance in Malaysia, especially the dominant United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). Sections of the ruling parties called for strong retaliation against Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) which they accused of treason for seeking secession. Some “ultra nationalists” called for the arrest of PM Lee and even imposing direct central rule on Singapore.

As the conflict of words raged and Malay passions were roused, Malaysia’s senior leaders feared that violence might break out leading to racial clashes across the whole country. It was against this deteriorating political situation that the Tunku began to consider a surgical solution to this intractable problem, to cut the Gordian knot, as it were.

Decision post-London

The Tunku had left for London in mid-June for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference. In London, the Tunku was hospitalised with shingles and he thought long and hard about the problems with Singapore. His conclusion: “There would be no end to the bickering with Singapore except perhaps if Mr Lee Kuan Yew is made Prime Minister in the real sense of the word.”

Indeed the Tunku asked Minister Lim Kim San, who had gone to London with him, to tell Mr Lee (‘your PM’) “he can attend the next Prime Ministers Conference on his own”. That was the first indication by the Tunku that he would give Singapore independence, Mr Lim later said, though he missed the implication of the Tunku’s cryptic remark at the time.

The Tunku wrote to his Deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, telling him how he felt about the relations with Singapore and to talk things over with Mr Lee. Razak met Lee on 29 June but found it impossible to reach any meeting of minds. In Lee’s recounting of the meeting in his memoirs The Singapore Story, Razak went back on his previous agreement to consider a looser arrangement for Singapore and insisted on total capitulation in political activity, defence, foreign affairs, security and finance.

However, as narrated by Dr Goh Keng Swee, when he met with Razak and Dr Ismail, the Home Affairs Minister, in Kuala Lumpur on 13 July, he proposed that Singapore leave Malaysia to become an independent state. This proposal jived with the Tunku’s idea for Singapore to leave the federation.

At a second meeting on 20 July Dr Goh told Razak and Ismail that Mr Lee was in favour of secession of Singapore and it should be done quickly, by 9 August when Parliament was to reconvene.

On his return from London on 5 August the Tunku was asked by pressmen at the airport if he would be meeting PM Lee to discuss the political differences raging between the two sides. His reply was non-committal, almost nonchalant, saying he would meet Lee if there was anything to discuss. Little did we know that serious talks between Razak, Ismail and Dr Goh were going on in Kuala Lumpur, with PM Lee in the Cameron Highlands consulted, on the total hiving off of Singapore from Malaysia.

Tunku’s emergency meeting

Razak gave a full report to the Tunku on his return home. After Razak and Ismail had negotiated the terms of separation with Dr Goh and E W Barker, the Tunku held an emergency meeting of his core Cabinet members on 6 August and approved the draft Bills to amend the Constitution and get Singapore to withdraw from the federation.

On 7 August, the Tunku said, the “big shots” of the PAP (meaning Mr Lee), called at his Residency and signed the Separation Agreement, while other members of the Singapore cabinet signed it in Singapore or at Singapore House, KL.

Even at the last minute Mr Lee asked the Tunku if he really wanted to break up Malaysia which they had spent years to bring about. Wouldn’t it be wiser to go back to their original plan for a looser federation or confederation? But the Tunku demurred. “There is no other way out. I have made up my mind. You go your way and we go our own way,” Mr Lee recalled him saying.

Secrecy had to be of the essence on both sides of the causeway for fear of opponents of separation reacting with violence to the agreement. The first inkling we in RTS had that something was happening was the departure of several ministers from Singapore to KL on 7 August. I was instructed to fly to KL on 8 Aug. to cover the special session of Parliament on Monday 9 Aug. I was joined in KL by fellow reporters Lim Kit Siang and Fuad Salim.

In Parliament we found only Mr Devan Nair, PAP Member for Bangsar, present. Some of the Singapore MPs were at Singapore House. Mr Nair and I listened to the Tunku’s speech moving the Separation of Singapore Bill on a certificate of urgency, via the in-house sound system in his office.

When the session was adjourned we learned that the Bill was passed without opposition, though UMNO Secretary-General Syed Jaafar Albar had left the chamber before the vote and expressed his disagreement with the separation. He like the other Ultras wanted to maintain Malay rule over Singapore, forcibly if need be.

Tunku’s agonised decision

When Separation was announced by the Tunku over Radio Television Malaya and the Proclamation of Singapore’s Independence read over Radio Singapore at 10 a.m. Singaporeans received the news with a mixture of relief, regret and foreboding, though some quarters in Chinatown let off firecrackers in celebration.

And when Mr Lee went on Television Singapore to explain the circumstances leading to the separation, it was clear that he was forced to accept Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia. It was, he said, a moment of anguish for him, having devoted his whole life to bring about a united Malaysia whose people were bound by ties of kinship, geography and history.

He and Dr Goh had negotiated the terms of Separation to ensure that Singapore would be truly independent while continuing to have access to the water supply from Johor for its survival. And Singapore would be on its own for all its multi-racial population, living in peaceful amity with the rest of Malaysia.

Thus did Singapore achieve independence while avoiding a forcible integration in a Malaysia riven by inter-racial tension and hostility from a communal political system. That is the “coup” that PM Lee and his PAP colleagues carried out for the people of Singapore, to achieve an independent and sovereign Singapore.

However, it was the Tunku who played the decisive role in this saga of Singapore’s separation. It was his agonised decision to let Singapore go that tipped the scale in favour of separation. Otherwise the fracas between the state and central governments could well have become more intense and impossible to resolve, with no way out but an inevitable forceful denouement – the arrest of Lee Kuan Yew and his senior lieutenants and the imposition of direct federal rule by the central government in Singapore.

The Tunku was magnanimous in telling Lee to leave Malaysia. If there’s one person that Singapore should thank for its independence it is Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia.


*The writer, a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, was a reporter with Radio Television Singapore from 1963 to 1966 and later with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1970 to 2001. This appeared earlier in The Straits Times.

US Providing Cover For Use Of Banned Weapons In Yemen

0
0

By Thalif Deen

The United States is providing a thinly-veiled cover virtually legitimising the use of cluster bombs – banned by an international convention – by Saudi Arabia and its allies in their heavy fighting against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Asked if cluster bombs are legitimate weapons of war, “if used appropriately”, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters: “If used appropriately, there are end-use regulations regarding the use of them. But yes, when used appropriately and according (to) those end-use rules, it’s permissible.”

But Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch told IPS the State Department official makes reference to “end use regulations.”

“Any recipient of U.S. cluster munitions has to agree not to use them in populated areas. Saudi Arabia may be violating that requirement. State and Defence Department officials are looking into that,” he said.

The Saudi-led coalition of Arab states, which has been uninterruptedly bombing rebel-controlled Yemen, includes Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

The 80 non-signatories to the convention include all 10 countries, plus Yemen. The United States, which is providing intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition, is also a non-signatory.

Asked whether it would be alarming or disconcerting if the coalition, is in fact, using American-supplied cluster bombs, Kirby told reporters early this week: “I would just tell you that we remain in close contact, regular contact with the Saudi Government on a wide range of issues in Yemen.

“We’ve urged all sides in the conflict – you’ve heard me say this before – including the Saudis, to take proactive measures to minimize harm to civilians. We have discussed reports of the alleged use of cluster munitions with the Saudis,” he added.

Goose said a U.S. Defence Department official has already said the U.S. is aware that Saudi Arabia has used cluster munitions, so there is no real need for the State Department to confirm or deny.

“Cluster munitions should not be used by anyone, anywhere, at any time due to the foreseeable harm to civilians,” Goose added.

He also said the States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions are meeting for the first Five Year Review Conference of the convention next month and are expected to condemn Saudi use and call for a halt.

Cluster bombs have also been used in Syria, South Sudan, Ukraine and by a non-state actor,

the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), among others.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions, which was adopted in 2008, entered into force in 2010. A total of 117 states have joined the Convention, with 93 States parties who have signed and ratified the treaty.

The convention, which bans cluster munitions, requires destruction of stockpiles, clearance of areas contaminated by cluster munition remnants, and assistance to victims.

Human Rights Watch, a founding member of the international Cluster Munition Coalition, the civil society campaign behind the Convention on Cluster Munitions and publisher of Cluster Munition Monitor 2014, said last May that banned cluster munitions have wounded civilians, including a child, in attacks in Houthi-controlled territory in northern Yemen.

HRW is preparing another report on new use of cluster munitions, scheduled to be released next week.

On Sep. 3, the Cluster Munition Monitor 2015, which provides a global overview of states’ adherence to the ban convention, will be released in Geneva.

An HRW team, in a report released after a visit to the Saada governorate in northern Yemen, said the Saudi-led coalition and other warring parties in Yemen “need to recognise that using banned cluster munitions is very likely to harm civilians.”

Ole Solvang, senior emergencies researcher at HRW, said, “These weapons can’t distinguish military targets from civilians, and their unexploded sub-munitions threaten civilians, especially children, even long after the fighting.”

In one attack, which wounded three people, at least two of them most likely civilians, the cluster munitions were air-dropped, pointing to the Saudi-led coalition as responsible because it is the only party using aircraft.

In a second attack, which wounded four civilians, including a child, HRW said it was not able to conclusively determine responsibility because the cluster munitions were ground-fired, but the attack was on an area that has been under attack by the Saudi-led coalition.

In these and other documented cluster munition attacks, HRW has identified the use of three types of cluster munitions in Yemen and called upon the United States to denounce their use.

HRW also said the discovery of cluster munitions in Houthi-controlled territory that had been attacked by coalition aircraft on previous occasions and the location within range of Saudi artillery suggest that Saudi forces fired the cluster munitions, but further investigation is needed to conclusively determine responsibility.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com


South-East Europe On Edge Of Civilization: Self-Blame Strengthen – Essay

0
0

“To let  individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!…”

In Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo*, and Slovenia there is a very popular song from the band No Smoking Orchestra from Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Zabranjeno pušenje) titled Museum of Revolution from 2009 in which there are the words:

“I am big and all of you are the small beings, in principal you are lower species
If you are so clever, why you do not have a couple a million of Euros…”

Why is that?

Because, the environment in which there exists the manipulation with religion, nationalism, corruption, education and establishment has made that possible. The most popular characters are the ones who are on “black pages” of the newspaper and the one who cheated the State’s tax office.

Having that in mind, people suffer confusion when faced with the failure of the “rule of law” and the establishment of the “law of the rule”. They keep asking themselves exactly those words quoted above from Noam Chomsky’s Ten Strategies of Manipulation.

Complete societies within South-East Europe, regardless if in power are from the “left” and/or “right” and/or “center” or of any kind have been established in a way to protect the ones who are in power, instead of protecting the people.

That is why the biggest number of the employed people within the abovementioned countries are within state-owned offices, within bureaucracy buildings. They are secure with everything and they will, for sure, defend that system, while the unemployment rate varies from 20% (Croatia) up to 44% (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

How should the media literacy be established “abusing” exactly this Number 9 Strategy of Chomsky’s? To establish non-governmental, independent bodies that will do independent research (with the obligation of the Parliaments to obey the findings) within the whole fields of economy (privatization process after 1990, taxation issues, corruptions…) and…have the TV, Radio shows, Internet portals and social networks (all in the same time) which will on daily basi inform the public about the findings…Not just punish the thieves (as it is now for just a couple of years) while their money is waiting for them when they get out 24 months from now, but also to take it all, really all, from them and give it back to the state. Of course, if it has been proved that there money was “earned” illegally, then they should be put in jail for a long, long time.

There is a simple saying of mine which might be reflected on all states of South-East Europe:

“The difference between a mob/mafia guy and politician is that mob/mafia guy does illegally what politician does legally.”

When we beat that, we will be able to avoid the Self-Blame Strengthen “task”.

Turkey: Erdogan Calls For November 1 Elections

0
0

Turks will be called back to the ballot box on November 1 for the second legislative election this year, after parties failed to agree on a coalition in an initial round, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during televised remarks Friday.

“Currently, the date that has been announced in November 1,” Erdogan said, as cited by the state-run Anadolu news agency. The election board had proposed this date.

The snap elections come just months after the last poll in June, which saw the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which Erdogan helped found, fail to achieve a majority in parliament for the first time since it swept to power in 2002.

Coalition talks saw wide divides between the AKP and the other three parties in parliament, in part over the role Erdogan would play in governance.

Erdogan was directly elected as president last year. He has since taken on powers not wielded by his predecessor as head of state and has called for this de facto situation to be recognized through constitutional changes.

In the campaign before the last election, Erdogan had urged voters to back the AKP so it could enact legal amendments and empower the presidency, but this bid failed.

The official 45-day mandate to form a government ends on Sunday, after which the date for the fresh election can be made formal. It is meant to be set by the election commission.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, leader of the AKP, already announced this week he was giving up trying to form a coalition with a junior partner.

Erdogan is expected to meet the speaker of parliament on Monday to prepare for the next stages, including the formation of a temporary government to carry the country over until the election.

This government could contain members of all parties in parliament, should they be willing.

The June election also saw the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) enter parliament for the first time.

Last month, the ceasefire between the armed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the state broke down, putting pressure both on the ruling party and the pro-Kurdish civilian movement.

By Shabtai Gold

Original article

What’s Behind PM Modi’s New Love For UAE – Analysis

0
0

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty*

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was his first attempt at engaging the Arab world in India’s near West.

The joint statement issued captures the sentiment in its opening para: “The visit of an Indian Prime Minister to UAE after 34 years marks the beginning of a new and comprehensive strategic partnership between India and UAE in a world of multiple transitions and changing opportunities and challenges.”

The West Asia plan

This initiative comes after Modi’s ‘neighbourhood first’ policy, engagement with big powers, Central Asian nations and ‘Act East’ policy.

His visit to the UAE, one of the important Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, is set to test India’s diplomatic skills in the region. Modi has picked up the gauntlet, in so far as balancing India’s interests are concerned.

India’s relations with the countries of West Asia can be understood as a triangle, with Iran, Israel and the GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain) forming the three angles. India enjoys good relations with all of them and has built up considerable stakes in these countries.

This outreach to Arab Muslim countries will not go unnoticed within India either and in the broader region of South Asia. The UAE visit is the first step in a comprehensive plan of engagement with the region, which sees strained relations between the three angles of the triangle.

Turmoil in the region

Modi’s visit to the UAE comes at a time when several countries in West Asia are afflicted by turmoil. The GCC countries, though, are relatively stable.

The winds of change that swept several governments out of power in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya did effect the GCC countries, but the ruling families managed to maintain stability.

However, Syria and Yemen are embroiled in civil war. The instability in these countries is causing horrific humanitarian consequences.

The Islamic State, operating in parts of Iraq and Syria, is casting an evil shadow over the region and beyond. The brutality of the Islamic State, its gleeful and menacing publicity of human slaughter over social media, has set new benchmarks of degrading human behaviour.

In contrast, the pragmatic and moderate leadership of the UAE has steered the country as the fastest growing economy in the Arab world, drawing admiration and praise from Modi.

Why UAE is crucial

India’s interests in the GCC countries are intimately tied up with its energy security, trade, employment for Indians and remittances.

The UAE hosts over 2.5 million Indians, the bulk of whom are blue-collar workers. The stability of their jobs contributes to the welfare of their families back home. The UAE has emerged as India’s second-largest trading partner and an important source of remittance.

The stability and security of the GCC countries is crucial for India. In his interview to Khaleej Times prior to the visit, Modi described the UAE as a “mini India”, a theme he picked up again in his rousing speech to Indian citizens and others in Dubai.

Clearly, one priority for India is investments from countries like the UAE, which have substantial sovereign wealth funds for investment. This was reflected in the joint statement, with the announcement of an investment fund worth Rs 4.5 lakh crore, for infrastructure development in India.

The terrorism angle

Another important objective is the continuing fight against terrorism and allied criminal activities like money laundering. Both aspects found mention in the joint statement, which denounces and opposes terrorism in all forms and manifestations.

The statement calls on all states to reject and abandon the use of terrorism against other countries, no matter where and by whom it is committed, dismantle terrorism infrastructure where it exists, and bring perpetrators of terrorism to justice.

In his public speech Modi emphasised this point, making the same oblique reference to Pakistan without mentioning it by name.

In this respect, the announcement of bumping up the bilateral relationship with the UAE to a comprehensive strategic partnership is a major move.

The joint statement lays out numerous platforms for cooperation in countering radicalism, misuse of religion to incite hatred, and perpetuating and justifying terrorism for political aims.

For the first time, bilateral cooperation will extend to counter-terrorism operations, intelligence sharing and capacity building.

The agreement to establish a dialogue between the two National Security Advisers and the respective National Security Councils and other security cooperation mechanisms underline the growing security relationship between the two countries.

This cooperation will encompass cyber security, maritime security, inter-operability and collaboration for mitigating humanitarian and natural disasters in conflict zones. The two countries have also agreed to conduct joint defence exercises and enter into joint ventures for the manufacture of defence equipment.

Filling a void left by the US

The joint statement reflects a major leap of faith for the UAE. The Islamic pull factor had given Pakistan an advantage in the early evolution of relations between them.

Rich sheikhs hunted the endangered bird, the Great Indian Bustard, in the deserts of Sind. Criminal gangs from India operated out of the UAE and escaped to Pakistan with the connivance of the UAE security authorities. Even wanted terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim and his cohorts found refuge in the UAE in the past.

Pakistan had also cashed in its early advantage of flying UAE air force aircraft and training their pilots. That era of coziness may be ending to some degree as Pakistan struggles with its proliferating domestic problems and an anaemic economy.

India’s energy and economic security is intimately intertwined with the GCC countries. It is, therefore, logical that in the security domain, India should step up cooperation with the UAE.

This will be a new and significant initiative as the USA, the primary security provider to the GCC countries, disengages from the region or reduces its profile. The USA is now self-sufficient in oil and gas, and its energy security has been unshackled from sources in the region.

For India, its future energy security will remain intimately tied up with energy suppliers in the region. Hence, protecting energy supplies will remain one of the highest foreign policy priorities for India.

The Indian Navy’s role in anti-piracy operations to protect the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) is already well known. Greater security and defence cooperation with the UAE will, therefore, enhance India’s security role in the region. As India and the USA also enhance their security and defence ties, certain synergies in this domain are emerging.

The GCC and other countries also accept that India’s relations with Iran and Israel will follow independent trajectories, not necessarily impeding or impinging on India’s relations with them.

Modi’s visit opens various doors for closer engagement with this region, at a time of significant global geo-strategic shifts.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a former secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs

Courtesy: http://www.catchnews.com

Obama: It’s Time For Congress To Pass A Responsible Budget – Transcript

0
0

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama spoke to the economic progress that our country has made, from 13 million new jobs created over the past five and a half years, to 17 states raising the minimum wage. Congress needs to do its part to continue to help grow the economy, but instead left town last month with a great deal undone. Congress failed to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, which enjoys bipartisan support and is tasked solely with creating American jobs by growing exports. And most pressingly, the Republican Congress failed to uphold their most basic responsibility to fund the government, leaving them only a few weeks once they return to pass a budget, or shut down the government for the second time in two years. The President made clear that Congress needs to get to work on behalf of the American people and reach a budget agreement that relieves the harmful sequester cuts and keeps our economy growing.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
August 22, 2015

Hi, everybody. Seven years after the worst economic crisis in generations, our economy continues to grow and create jobs. In fact, our businesses have created 13 million new jobs over the past five and a half years.

But if we want to keep this momentum going – to make sure that working families feel like their hard work is being rewarded with a basic sense of security – then we all need to do our part.

That’s why my Administration has been partnering with states and cities to help grow the middle class. Over the past few years, nearly 20 cities and counties have implemented paid sick days. Six states have enacted paid sick days or paid family leave. Seventeen states, and more than two dozen cities and counties, have raised their minimum wage. All of this will help working families. And across the country, folks are proving that preparing all our kids for the future doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. Seattle, a city with a Democratic mayor, just passed universal pre-k, while Indianapolis, a city with a Republican mayor, is starting citywide preschool scholarships. All told, 34 states have increased funding for preschool. And that’s good for all of us.

Now, we need Congress to do its part to boost the economy, as well. Unfortunately, Congress left town for five full weeks – and they left behind a stack of unfinished business. For the first time ever, Congress failed to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. That left thousands of business owners and their employees at a serious disadvantage compared to their competitors overseas. That’s not good for jobs. It’s not good for our economy. When it returns from recess, reauthorizing the bank ought to be a top agenda for members of Congress.

Congress also hasn’t passed a budget – and when they return from vacation, they’ll only have a few weeks to do so, or shut down the government for the second time in two years. They’ve had all year to do this. Months ago, I put forward a detailed plan to strengthen our economy and our national security in a fiscally responsible way. And for months, I’ve said I will veto any budget that locks in the sequester—those senseless cuts to domestic and national security priorities. Remember, we can’t cut our way to prosperity. We should be investing in things that help our economy grow today and tomorrow, like education or infrastructure or scientific research.

Democrats in Congress have made it clear they’re ready to sit down and work with Republicans to find common ground on this. After all, Americans expect Congress to help keep our country strong and growing – not threaten to shut down our government. When Congress gets back, they should prevent a shutdown, pass a responsible budget, and prove that this is a country that looks forward – a country that invests in our future, and keeps our economy growing for all Americans.

Thanks, everybody and have a great weekend.

Amsterdam-Paris Train Attack Suspect Visited Syria Last Year: Spanish official

0
0

A Spanish official has confirmed that the main suspect in a recent attack on an Amsterdam-Paris train had travelled to Syria last year, furthering concerns about the threat posed by militants coming back from battles in the Middle East.

The unidentified official from Spain’s anti-terrorism unit said Saturday that the individual, who has been identified as being originally a Moroccan, had traveled to Syria before returning to France for engaging in potential militant activities.

The source said that the suspect had lived in Spain until 2014 and then moved to France before going to Syria.

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said earlier in the day that the 26-year old had been flagged by Spanish intelligence authorities to French intelligence forces for potential links to radical groups.

European governments have been facing an increasing threat of attack by those of their nationals who have been to Iraq and Syria to fight for militant groups there. Since the crisis began in Syria in 2011, Damascus has repeatedly accused the Western governments of not preventing their citizens from joining militant groups in the Arab country.

Intelligence estimates show that more than 3,400 Westerners have traveled to Syria and Iraq over the past years, with a majority of them believed to be from European countries.

The Friday attack on board the Amsterdam-Paris train happened as the high-speed Thalys train was traveling near the northern French city of Arras.

The assailant, who was carrying a knife, a handgun and cartridges in addition to his Kalashnikov rifle, was reportedly subdued by two off-duty US Marines, who were on board the train. He was taken into custody after the train arrived at the Arras station. Three passengers, including a high-profile actor, were injured during the attack.

Original article

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images