In March 2011 a few teenagers in a southern Syrian city – fired up no doubt by the revolutionary fervour sweeping the Middle East at the time – daubed some inflammatory slogans on a school wall. Unfortunately for them, the Syria that President Bashar al-Assad had inherited in 2000 from his autocratic father was a tightly controlled police state, in which a powerful and all-encompassing security machine ensured that the slightest hint of opposition to the régime was ruthlessly crushed.

The youngsters were hunted down, arrested and tortured. When details of their ordeal became known, protesters took to the streets. The security forces, unable to break up the demonstration, eventually fired into the crowd. That was enough to spark widespread rebellion. Groups antagonistic to Assad’s government began nationwide protests. Gradually, popular dissent developed into an armed revolt. The opposition, consisting of a variety of groups, but primarily the Free Syrian Army, were finally seeking to overthrow the despotic Assad régime and substitute a democratic form of government.

Had assistance of any sort been forthcoming from the US or other Western governments at that early stage, Assad could have been defeated, to be replaced by a democratically elected government. But President Obama hesitated, and then continued vacillating even after it was clear in August 2013 that Assad had used chemical weapons against his opponents, utterly indifferent to the extensive civilian casualties that ensued.

Why did Obama shrink from action? Because he had set his sights on a nuclear accommodation with Iran, which always regarded Syria as essential to its Shi’ite empire. Rather than put his projected nuclear agreement in jeopardy, Obama reneged on his declared intention to punish Assad if he deployed chemical weapons. Instead he seized on a deal brokered by Russia, under which Assad would nominally surrender the whole of the chemical arsenal that he had originally denied possessing.

However the Assad régime did no such thing, concluded US intelligence agencies in July 2015. On the contrary it concealed certain deadly chemical stocks and, adding insult to injury, actually continued developing a new type of chemical munition using chlorine.

Now, more than four years after it began, the full-blown civil war that developed in Syria has killed over 230,000 people, half of them civilians. In addition, the UN estimates, nearly 8 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes. When the additional 4 million Syrians who have fled into neighbouring countries are taken into account, it follows that a humanitarian disaster has overtaken more than half of the country’s pre-war population of 23 million.

This is the outcome to date of the complex series of battles that have developed within Syria over the past five years. An overview of the devastated battlefield that Syria has become reveals no less than six separate conflicts in progress.

There is first the initial domestic battle between the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition seeking a democratic alternative. Both sides are supported by outside forces – Assad by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah; the Syrian opposition by Sunni Arab groupings. The second major battle is between the forces of Assad and those of Islamic State (IS), which is set on extending its territorial gains to encompass the whole of Syria and Iraq.

Thirdly there is the struggle between IS and the US-led coalition that, fighting under the less-than-inspiring slogan of “no boots on the ground”, confines itself to training local forces and supporting their operations with air-strikes. Fourthly, Turkey has renewed its attacks on the Kurdish PKK. As soon as Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, decided to join the fight against IS, he mounted air strikes equally against the Kurds, whose campaign for autonomy is a long-standing source of friction within Turkey.

The fifth conflict on Syrian soil is that of the Kurdish Peshmerga troops against IS – a notably more successful effort than most of the other anti-IS activity over the past few years. Finally, IS finds itself battling intermittently against a number of jihadist Sunni groups that reject the claims of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to be caliph of all Muslims, and his organization to be the basis of an eventual world-wide caliphate.

This maelstrom that is Syria has thrown up three recent attempts to settle the future. One, sponsored by Saudi Arabia, calls for the removal of Assad and his régime, and supports the Sunni Arab rebellion against it. Another, sponsored by Saudi’s rival, Iran, is a four-point plan calling for an immediate ceasefire, a national unity government, the safeguarding of minority rights, and internationally supervised presidential elections – apparently reasonable proposals which did not fool the London-based Arab newspaper, Al Hayat. In an article on August 16, it reveals what it dubs “Tehran’s hidden motives”.

In 2012, the UN and the Arab League adopted a six-point peace plan for Syria, subsequently ratified in the 2014 Geneva II Conference. Integral to it was a call for Assad’s resignation. Inevitably Iran and Russia opposed the proposals, and this new Iranian initiative, Al Hayat asserts, is an attempt to by-pass the Geneva plan.

“By promoting a plan of its own, supported by Russia,” says Al Hayat, “Tehran is … trying to use a cease-fire in order to give an official status to the militias it has built in Syria…The leaders in Tehran talk about a diplomatic solution in Syria, while deploying more and more Revolutionary Guard militias, supported by Hezbollah, to fight alongside Assad. It uses noble rhetoric to deceive the international community.”

The third current peace initiative, conceived by Staffan de Mistura, a UN special envoy, was endorsed by the UN Security Council in mid-August. Although the plan is based on the Geneva II proposals, it calls for a transitional government “on the basis of mutual consent “, implying that Assad and his regime would be party to the arrangement. This plan does envisage the eventual removal of Assad, but at some unspecified time in the future. It has been positively welcomed by Iran, and is backed Russia – possibly one reason for recent media rumours that Russia and Iran are considering abandoning their unquestioning support for Assad.

So what might Syria’s future be? A country wholly over-run by IS, and under its control? A country from which IS has been expelled, the government returned to Bashar el-Assad, and therefore once again firmly within the Iranian sphere of influence? A country split into its component parts, one of which might be an autonomous Kurdish area, possibly linked to Kurdistan in Iraq? A country with a new constitution and a democratically elected government? The possibilities are many and various.

It is, as they say, in the lap of the gods.

The cancellation of the August 23-24 meeting of the national security advisors of India and Pakistan follows a pattern of unrealistic expectations raised and then quickly dashed. This is compounded by Pakistan’s long history of denial on numerous issues. It may be time for both countries to abjure high-profile diplomacy and turn to small confidence-building measures.

By Neelam Deo*

The cancellation of the August 23-24 meeting of the national security advisors (NSAs) of India and Pakistan is one more indication of the inability of the two countries to talk constructively. This time, Pakistan cancelled the talks, stating that this government’s preconditions-of not inviting the separatist Hurriyat and following the terrorism-only agenda as agreed to at Ufa-was unacceptable.

The NSA meeting would have been an attempt to resume the composite bilateral dialogue, but every time such a decision is made at the prime ministerial level, the process falls apart due to unrealistic expectations on both sides. This is compounded by Pakistan’s denial of its support of terrorist activities in India.

This pattern—of hope and then a block—was evident also in the efforts made by former prime ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee after Kargil in 1999, and by Manmohan Singh after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

But renewed expectations emerged in May 2014, when India’s newly-elected prime minister, Narendra Modi, managed a diplomatic coup by inviting the heads of governments of India’s South Asian neighbours to his swearing-in ceremony. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attended, after which a meeting of their respective foreign secretaries was announced. But this government called off the August 2014 meeting of foreign secretaries after Pakistan invited the Hurriyat for talks ahead of the bilateral meet. Pakistan knows that this Modi government does not accept any legitimacy accruing to the Hurriyat; as it would call into question the democratically-elected government in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), of which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is a coalition partner.

In the following months, the Modi government reached out to Pakistan again. Indian foreign secretary S. Jaishankar visited Pakistan in March 2015 in the course of his trip to all SAARC countries. Modi and Sharif had friendly telephone conversations on various occasions, including during the cricket World Cup in February and on the occasion of Eid in June.

But expectations of bilateral talks remained muted until the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting in Ufa, Russia, in July 2015. There, Modi and Sharif announced a sequential resumption of talks, agreeing for “a meeting in New Delhi between the two national security advisors to discuss all issues connected to terrorism.” [1] To be followed by early meetings of the directors general of the Border Security Force and the Pakistan Rangers, and then of the directors general of military operations.

But, once again, these intentions got waylaid when Pakistan invited the Hurriyat for a reception on the evening of August 23. Pakistan thus deliberately crossed the red line drawn earlier by this Modi government, circumscribing interaction with the Hurriyat and ensuring that the proposed NSA talks were cancelled.

Perhaps India could have handled the process better, but it is Pakistan’s behaviour that must be closely examined. After initially agreeing at Ufa to talks focussed narrowly on terrorism, it was Pakistan that went on to ensure that the dialogue process could not resume.

While analysts are apportioning blame, it is worth understanding why efforts to improve bilateral relations are so hurdle-prone. One explanation is Pakistan’s history of denial—starting with organising an invasion of Jammu and Kashmir by tribal militias, in violation of the Standstill Agreement on 22 October 1947. Even now, Pakistan does not acknowledge this massive incursion orchestrated by its army, which resulted in mass killings in J&K and eventually led to the first India-Pakistan war. Another denial is from 1999, when Pakistan’s prime minister actually claimed he did not know that the country’s army had invaded India. Nawaz Sharif said: “Musharraf [then army chief] attacked Kargil and I had no information about this military operation.” [2]

Pakistan also continues to deny that terrorists captured by India during violent attacks are Pakistani citizens. The most egregious example is Ajmal Kasab, who was captured during the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, followed recently by Mohammad Naved, the militant captured alive after a terrorist attack in Udhampur on 5 August 2015.

Given this record of denial, what could have been achieved even if the India-Pakistan NSA level talks had been held? Instead of building up unrealistic expectations around such talks, perhaps both countries should now abjure high-profile diplomacy. Instead, they can undertake small confidence-building measures in specific areas of commercial, consular and civil society interest, to incrementally address long-standing differences.

About the author:
Neelam Deo is Co-founder and Director, Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations; She has been the Indian Ambassador to Denmark and Ivory Coast; and former Consul General in New York.

Source:
This article was published by Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References
[1] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Statement read out by Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan in Ufa, Russia, 10 July 2015 < http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/25452/Statement_read_out_by_Foreign_Secretaries_of_India_and_Pakistan_in_Ufa_Russia_July_10_2015>

[2] Press Trust of India, ‘Musharraf behind Kargil war: Nawaz Sharif’, India Today, 21 February 2009 < http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Musharraf+behind+Kargil+war:+Nawaz+Sharif/1/30025.html>

In Germany in June 2015, G7 countries made major commitments towards decarbonisation and reduction in greenhouse gases, which will lead to binding decisions at the COP-21 conference in Paris in December. Germany pushed for these outcomes, and as one of the most energy efficient countries in the world its technology and expertise can help India’s targets of alternative energy and sustainable industry.

By Jivanta Schöttli*

At the G7 summit hosted by Germany in June 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel was widely credited for having persuaded industrial nations like the U.S., Japan, and Canada to agree to a joint communiqué on combating climate change. In it, the G7 countries committed to achieving a decarbonised global economy by the end of the 21st century. They also endorsed, for the first time, a global reduction target of 40 to 70% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, compared to 2010 levels.

The G7 meeting was seen as a milestone, paving the way to binding decisions expected at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-21), to be held in Paris this December.

Climate change has also become an important foreign policy item for Germany, one where it does not shy away from taking a leadership position within Europe and in the international realm. Some have criticised Merkel for riding popular sentiment, especially in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, which led her to reverse her party’s previous stance on nuclear energy and declare a complete phase-out of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022. However, as a scientist by training and a former environment minister, she has taken a personal interest in the subject.

But Germany’s focus on this issue dates further back—the term “Energiewende” or “energy turnaround” has been a part of the political discourse since the 1980s, advocated then by the Green Party. Governing in a national coalition from 1998 to 2005, the Green Party pushed for the initial nuclear phase-out, a comprehensive ecological tax reform, and Germany’s pioneering renewable energy act in 2000.

Two principles have been at the centre of the government’s efforts: enhancing efficiency in production and usage, and decentralising energy systems. Investments costing billions of euros were made to encourage German households to install solar panels and to sell the energy generated at a fixed and high price, paid through a surcharge on general electricity bills. Over time the investment has paid off, with zero-carbon energy available at rates that are competitive with energy produced from fossil fuels. According to estimates, more than 1.4 million German households and cooperatives generate their own solar or wind electricity.

As a result, Germany’s energy policy can be credited with having created the mass demand and mass market in particular for solar energy. In 2012 Germany was the eighth-largest energy consumer in the world and heavily dependent on imports to meet its energy needs. Today, Germany ranks as one of the most energy efficient countries in the world, drawing almost 30% of electricity needs from renewable energy.

A further by-product of the Energiewende has been that today, the know-how of German companies is highly in demand, worldwide. To take advantage of emerging international business opportunities, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy has backed two export initiatives.

One is the Renewable Energy Export Initiative, which helps German firms—especially small and medium-sized enterprises—to tap foreign markets and advertise “Made in Germany”; the other is the Energy Efficiency Export Initiative, which assists German providers of energy-efficient products, systems and services in taking their business abroad—from testing products to penetrating and cultivating their target markets.

Over time, Germany has emerged as a frontrunner in a campaign that has been pushed by citizens, politicians and industrialists, to combat and mitigate climate change. In December 2014 the cabinet adopted the Action Programme on Climate Protection 2020, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

At the COP-21, where 196 nations are expected, countries will make nationally determined proposals on targets and climate action plans. Amongst the world’s major climate change players, India has yet to announce its emission target actions and is expected to do so by September 30. In an interview (as reported in the Washington Post in April 2015) Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister, has said that India will announce the expected voluntary measures but will also put forward a plan that would draw upon international financial support, technology exchanges, and incentives.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a vocal proponent of wind and solar energy for India and his government has announced ambitious targets for enhancing efficiency in meeting the country’s growing energy demand through alternative sources. In this quest, German companies and the German government are attractive partners for India.

Existing programmes attest to the new convergence in interests. For example, the KfW (a government-owned development bank) has been financing energy efficient residential buildings in Germany. With the construction boom in India it extended a credit line of up to $56 million to the National Housing Bank of India as well as providing technical assistance. The GIZ, a government agency operating on behalf of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, has been cooperating with India’s Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on climate change adaptation in industrial areas.

Climate change can thus become the area of Indian-German collaboration where ‘Made in Germany’ technology, expertise and know-how meets the ‘Make in India’ goal of promoting an efficient and sustainable industrial base.

About the author:
*Jivanta Schöttli is a lecturer in the department of political science, South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, Germany.

Source:
This feature was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

“That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent-seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business, and standing in the way of the future.”

That wasn’t the Wall Street Journal lambasting the mandate- and subsidy-dependent renewable energy consortium. It was President Obama demonizing critics of his plans to replace carbon-based energy with wind, solar and biofuels, stymie the hydraulic fracturing revolution that’s given the United States another century of oil and gas – and “fundamentally transform” and downsize the US and global economies.

The president thinks this legacy will offset the Iran, Iraq, Islamic State and other policy debacles he will bequeath to his successors. His presidential library exhibits won’t likely mention those foreign policy fiascoes or the ways his energy policies mostly benefit the richest 1% of Americans, especially political cronies and campaign contributors – while crippling the economy and pummeling millions of families and businesses that depend on reliable, affordable oil, gas and coal energy for their income and welfare.

Mr. Obama and his regulators have already imposed enormous financial, labor, ozone, water, climate, power generation and other burdens on our economy – mostly with trifling benefits that exist only in computer models, White House press releases, and rosy reports from advocacy groups that receive billions of dollars from his Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other agencies. On August 24, he announced another billion-dollar program to force America to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030: mostly wind and solar, plus a little more geothermal and biomass.

Those sources now provide less than 8% of all electricity, so this is a monumental increase. If the president wants to take credit for any alleged benefits, he must also accept blame for the abysmal failures.

One of the biggest is Solyndra, the solar company that got $535 million in taxpayer-guaranteed loans just before it went belly-up. A four-year investigation found that Solyndra falsified its financials, sales outlook and other business dealings and omitted material facts. However, the Department of Energy failed in its due diligence obligations and apparently buckled under White House pressure to approve the financing.

Par for the course, though, the Justice Department will not seek criminal indictments of any Solyndra officials, nor penalize any DOE apparatchiks for their willing incompetence. After all, a principal investor in the company (George Kaiser) was a major donor to Obama campaigns.

Of course, dozens of other companies also dined at the federal trough, before going under and costing us taxpayers many billions of dollars. But the administration wants more money and mandates – and more rules that destroy conventional energy competitors – to drive his climate and “transformation” agendas.

Meanwhile, he ignores the one truly and steadily innovative business that has generated real energy, jobs, wealth and tax revenues during his presidency – and largely kept the tepid Obama economy afloat: fracking. In fact, his bureaucrats are working to ban the technology on federal lands and regulate it into a marginal role elsewhere, even as the industry reduces its water use, keeps gasoline prices low, finds ways to produce oil at $45 per barrel, and proves its practices do not contaminate drinking water.

The president also ignores inconvenient facts about his “clean, eco-friendly” renewable energy utopia. For example, wind and solar facilities require vast land acreage and are increasingly moving into sensitive wildlife habitats, threatening protected and endangered birds, bats and other species.

The proposed 550-mile Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline from West Virginia shale gas fields across Virginia to southern North Carolina would impact about 4,600 acres (12% of the District of Columbia), and nearly all that land would be restored to croplands or grassy habitats as soon as the pipe is laid. The fuel is destined mostly for existing gas-fired electrical generating units on a few hundred total acres. If all that gas were used to generate electricity, it would produce 190,500 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.

In stark contrast, generating the same electricity with wind would require 46,000 400-foot turbines on some 475,000 acres of land – plus thousands of acres of towering transmission lines to urban centers hundreds of miles away. They would be permanent and highly visible eyesores and wildlife killers, crossing deforested mountain ridges and scenic areas, and generating electricity maybe 20% of the time. Building them would require millions of tons of concrete, iron, copper, rare earth metals from China’s ruined Baotou region, and petroleum for the monstrous bird- and bat-chopping turbine blades.

Energy analyst Robert Bryce says meeting the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan emission goals would require blanketing 34 million acres (an area larger than New York State) with wind turbines.

A 2013 study estimates that US wind turbines already kill some 573,000 birds a year – 83,000 of them bald and golden eagles and other raptors. Far better data from Europe, however, suggests that the annual US death toll is closer to 13 million birds and bats. And our wildlife agencies exempt wind companies from endangered species and other environmental laws. More turbines will multiply the carnage.

Moreover, we would still need the gas-fired units, operating inefficiently on standby spinning reserve status and going to full power dozens of times daily, whenever the wind stops blowing. Ditto for solar.

Using solar panels to generate 190,500 MWH per day would require 1.7 million acres of land – akin to blanketing Delaware and Rhode Island with habitat-destroying panels – plus long transmission lines and gas-fired units. Los Angeles recently refused to buy power from a much smaller 2,557-acre solar project proposed for the Mojave Desert, because of impacts on desert tortoises and bighorn sheep.

President Obama never mentions any of this – or the fact that greater natural gas use is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which he claims have replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces in driving climate change. This April, US CO2 emissions fell to their lowest level for any month in 27 years. But now that he’s sent coal marching toward history’s ash heap, natural gas is next on his target list.

To top it off, all the billions of dollars, crony corporatism, campaign cash for helpful politicians, feed-in tariffs and Renewable Fuel Standards (mandates and diktats) – and all the habitat and wildlife impacts – will raise the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass share of the nation’s energy mix from 8% today to only 10% in 2040, to supply our growing population, Energy Information Administration analysts project.

Since 2006, US households received over $18 billion just in federal income tax credits for weatherizing homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. But the bottom 60% of families received only 10% of this loot; the top 10% got 60% of the total and 90% of the subsidies and tax credits for ultra-expensive electric vehicles, like the $132,000 Tesla Model S. Worse, that $18 billion could have drilled wells to provide safe drinking water for five billion people!

The United States depends on energy-rich fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric power – not pie-in-the-sky ideas or smoke-and-mirrors solutions to imaginary climate catastrophes. So does the rest of the world. We cannot afford pseudo-environmental ideologies, climate fabrications and dictatorial decrees.
Germany’s Energiewende (mandated energy transformation) program also seeks to replace coal and nuclear energy with wind, solar and biofuels. It has made German electricity prices (including $31.5 billion in hidden annual subsidies) nearly ten times higher than in US states that still rely on coal for power generation. The program has already killed countless jobs and threatens to send still more energy-intensive companies overseas – to countries that justifiably refuse to slash their hydrocarbon use, CO2 emissions or economic growth in the name of controlling Earth’s eternally changing climate.

Every winter, German, British and other European policies literally kill thousands of poor and elderly people who can no longer afford to heat their homes properly. Where is that vaunted liberal compassion?

Why would the United States want to proceed lemming-like down a similarly delusional energy pathway to economic ruin and the needless deaths of birds, bats and our most vulnerable citizens? Other than reelecting Mr. Obama, what did we do to deserve this? And how can we undo the damage?
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

The Holy See press office has announced that two motu proprio will be released on Tuesday, both of which concern the reform of the process for the declaration of the nullity of marriage.

The two motu proprio, Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (The Lord Jesus, a meek judge) and Mitis et misericors Iesus (Jesus, meek and merciful), will be presented at a noon press conference at the Vatican Sept. 8.

The two documents regard the reform of the process for marriage annulment in both the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Those speaking at the conference are Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota; Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Bishop Dimitrios Salachas, Greek Catholic Apostolic Exarch of Greece; Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Msgr. Alejandro Bunge, prelate auditor of the Roman Rota; and Fr. Nikolaus Schoch, substitute promoter of justice at the Apostolic Signatura.

Each of the presenters are members of the commission established by Pope Francis just one year ago – Aug. 27, 2014 – to study reform of the annulment process.

The commission was to “focus on the preparation of a proposal for the reform of the marriage annulment process, seeking to simplify and streamline the procedure, while safeguarding the principle of the indissoluble nature of marriage,” the Holy See press office stated when it was announced.

On September 4, Moroccans went to the polls to vote in local elections, seen as a serious test of the popularity of the coalition government led by Abdelilah Benkirane, head of the Justice and Development Party (PJD), a year ahead of a general election.

53.6% went to the polls to elect new municipal councils, as a fore-runner to legislative elections in a year’s time.

These elections are expected to provide some indication as to the likely makeup of a future government, for, in Morocco, the winning party in the poll provides the premier – who then recommends his preferred cabinet to the king.

The results of the double polls showed that Morocco’s ruling Islamist party PJD won regional councils votes, but loses municipal election to its rival “Authenticity and Modernity Party” (PAM).

The Justice and Development Party (PJD) of Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane won 25.6 percent of 678 seats in regional councils, followed by PAM (19.4) and conservative Independence party (Istiqlal) (17.5pc).

For the first time in its history, PJD, which came to power in 2011 in the height of the Arab spring with anti-corruption agenda, won control of Morocco’s major cities including the capital Rabat, Casablanca, Tangier, Fez, Marrakesh and Agadir.

However, in municipal polls, PAM, a liberal opposition party, came first winning 21.1 pc of the overall seats followed by Istiqlal party (16.2 pc) and PJD (15.9 pc).
The European Union qualified these elections as a first step for the implementation of advanced regionalization that devolves larger competences and autonomy to regions and communes. “These elections, the first local polls since the adoption of the constitution in 2011, will help start to implement the advanced regionalization project”, said the EU spokeswoman for foreign affairs, Catherine Ray.

Answering a question from MAP, the spokeswoman added it is a major stage for Morocco, since the councils of regions will be for the first time elected through direct universal suffrage, noting that the EU’s high-representative for foreign policy, Federica Mogherini, “has decided to dispatch a team of electoral experts in response to an invitation by Moroccan authorities”.

She also insisted that Morocco is an important partner of the European Union at the regional and international levels for the Maghreb’s stability, security, prosperity, neighborliness and regional integration.

Both State Department and EU officials have recognized the importance of these elections and have been enthusiastic about developments in Morocco which they see as momentum for a genuine democracy.

What the elections augur for the future may be unclear. What is crystal clear is that Morocco has set its sights on being a model for regional reform.

Now, arguably for the first time in decades, there is an alternative to ideological repression in the Arab community. Morocco is not yet an exemplar of Jeffersonian liberalism, but it is on a path paved with democratic principles. These municipal and regional elections, held in Morocco Sept.04, enhanced further local democracy and advanced regionalisation projects launched by King Mohammed VI.

A constitution and an election, while essential building blocks for democracy, are not in themselves dispositive. What counts is where the leaders want to take this North African nation. Will it move inexorably to democracy? Or will it backslide with pressure from other Arab states?

There remain many unanswered questions, but on one matter there is not an open question: The reforms initiated by King Mohammed should be greeted with gratitude and respect. At long last there is another model for the Arab future, one that Americans and Europeans should embrace wholeheartedly. It is true that there are still challenges ahead of the democracy path n Morocco but the most important is that Moroccans (civil society, political parties and most important youth) have made their irreversible choice to continue their peaceful struggle towards full democracy. Democracy, therefore in this part of the Arab region, is no more a myth. It is a reality.

Another slam-dunk for American politics was offered up courtesy of master diplomat Sarah Palin. The Alaska governor praised opponent Jeb Bush for his Spanish skills, but confessed she’d rather the general population “speak American.”

One could be forgiving for wondering if such things are actually a PR move, as there’s no shortage of wacky comments coming from the Republican side, with presidential candidates all seemingly vying for the spot of top doofus.

Look out, Donald Trump – your Mexican wall may no longer be enough!

“It’s a benefit of [former Florida governor] Bush to be able to be so fluent, because we have a large and wonderful Hispanic population building America, and that’s a great connection he has with them,” she told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday on ‘State of the Union.’

“On the other hand, I think we can send a message and say, ‘You want to be in America, A, you’d better be here legally or you’re out of here, [and] B, when you’re here, let’s speak American… Let’s speak English, and that’s a kind of a unifying aspect of the nation is the language that is understood by all.”

Trump himself castigated Bush recently for using Spanish when asked a question in the language.

Palin is, of course, no stranger to linguistic mishaps or intriguing claims on a variety of subjects. Knowledge of geography, the location of Alaska vis-à-vis Russia, and Africa (the country) are among some of the people’s favorites.

But the political arena is where Governor Palin’s passions really lie. She can be credited with teaching us that North Korea is a US ally. Or the time she declared: “If I were in charge… they would know that waterboarding is how we baptise terrorists!” She has, on several occasions, demonstrated her knowledge of the Syrian war and “all these Islamic countries.”

One can only hope that the nitty-gritty of politics will continue to be enlivened by Miss Palin’s presence.

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

It was now the turn of the leading opposition party MDP to be duped into yielding to Yameen’s government without getting anything in return though much was promised as a “quid pro quo.”

Having realised that there was no immediate prospect of former President Nasheed being released, with thousands of their workers facing serious charges in the court, with some of their leaders in exile facing trumped up “terrorism” charges and above all, President Yameen in control of both the judiciary and the security forces, the MDP leadership decided to go for talks and reconciliation with the regime sometime in the first week of August.

In accordance with the understanding, the MDP supported all the initiatives taken by Yameen to consolidate his hold though some of them were controversial and against known policies of the party. These included:

• supported the amendment to the constitution to set new age limits for President and the Vice President. ( This was done specifically to induct Ahmed Adeeb as Vice President)
• To support the impeachment of former Vice President Jameel
• To support the second constitutional amendment to allow foreigners to buy land in Maldives for development of Maldivian economy.
• The protests that was a daily affair were to be suspended and the party to go for a dialogue.

In return, the understanding was that Nasheed will be released ( he was under house arrest at that time), charges against thousands of MDP supporters to be dropped and steps will be taken to introduce reforms in the judiciary and independent institutions. ( the only known step taken was to fix a curriculum for the unqualified judges and to start an academy)

While the MDP went along with all that was promised, the Government not only did not follow it but went back on its word and pulled out Nasheed from his house late in the night on 23rd August and put him back in the High Security prison at Maafushi.

Instead of releasing Nasheed, the Prosecutor General has moved for an appeal against the conviction of Nasheed. The High Court is still studying the case whether to take up the appeal at all. Media reports indicate that one of Nasheed’s lawyers was brutally attacked in broad day light on the 6th September. There is enough evidence with CCTV coverage of the assailants and it remains to be seen what the Police is going to do. The Police came in for severe criticism from the criminal Judge (surprising) who found that while the charges against the accused MDP were that they used sharp weapons against the Police in the protests, the CCTV coverage showed that they fought with “bare hands.” Now it is Abdulla’s time for getting sacked!

Nasheed’s return to High Security prison had some ‘drama’ too. Nasheed’s lawyers produced a document issued by the Maldivian Correctional Services that had an official stamp, the State seal and the signature of a prison official, converting the 13-year sentence to house arrest. The officials did not take note of the document.

This was followed by Police investigations the same night about the supposed forged document. Nasheed’s house was raided again and the inmates including his 13year old daughter were awakened and questioned till 4.30 in the morning. The humiliation of Nasheed and his entire family was complete. Nasheed’s visitation rights were also curbed for a while.

It is no wonder that the MDP has renewed its protests. A large number of party cadres assembled in front of Nasheed’s house and the Police had to use pepper spray to make a clearance for the Prison party to move out with Nasheed. The next day there was a huge rally in Male and this is going to be followed by nation wide protests on September 11. Dialogue with the government was also called off and so it is back to square one for the MDP after giving in to all the demands of President Yameen.

Nasheed’s re imprisonment has been criticised universally. David Cameron said that he was deeply concerned and urged the government to release all political prisoners.

The reaction of US State Department was fairly strong. It said “ We renew our call on the Government of Maldives to release former President Nasheed, end politically motivated trials, and take steps to restore confidence in its commitment to democracy and the rule of law including judicial independence and to ensure fundamental rights are respected, including freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly.”

The condemnation of UNHC for Human right was equally forthcoming. It said “ The return of Nasheed in our view constitutes a serious setback to the Human rights situation in Maldives. The High Commission has therefore urged te Government to consider President Nasheed’s early release.”

With the law and order situation likely to deteriorate, the economy is also not doing well. The MDP pointed out that

• Tourist arrivals did not reach the target expected. There is a decline in the arrival of Chinese tourists after the “Shanghai shock.”
• In the first five months, the Government has spent far in excess of it revenue.
• There is a 12 percent decline in export of fish.
• Foreign Investments have not been forthcoming.
• Only 1000 jobs have been added in the last one and a half years when the target for the term is 94000 jobs.

The question that strikes me is – who will be the next to be duped by President Yameen. Judging from the flurry of visits of the two foreign Secretaries of India and Maldives and a personal letter from President Yameen to PM Modi calling for Indian investments and promising to keep the Indian Ocean region free etc, it looks that it will be India’s turn.

By Wasbir Hussain*

On 3 September 2015, China displayed its massive military might in a parade unseen in recent years. It is for the first time since 1949 that so many senior military officers of the rank of generals had actually taken part in such a parade. Wearing a black Mao suit, Chinese President Xi Jinping kicked off the spectacular Stalinist-style parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, with a 10-minute, carefully worded, opening address saying, “We (Chinese) love peace.” As if to allay the fears of friends and foes alike, Xi added, “No matter how much stronger it may become, China will never push for hegemony or expansion.”

He may have used the word “peace” 17 times in that brief address, under possibly scientifically managed cloud-free blue skies, but the parade itself was organised to demonstrate China’s military muscle to the world. And, of course, coming in the wake of the tsunami in the Chinese stock market and Beijing’s questionable handling of the stock market meltdown, the parade is also seen as an attempt to project China as a strong political and economic power that has the ability to withstand pulls and pressures.

No one missed the point that the parade had a strong domestic motive as well because both China’s neighbours and the world at large are in any case aware of the lethality of Beijing’s military hardware, developed and upgraded over the years. It certainly was President Xi’s move to boost his power and position at home. Among the first things Xi did after assuming office in 2012 was to take control of the Central Military Commission (CMC) – by far the key instrument to control the country’s military establishment, one that has a 2.3 million-strong active on-duty army. The crackdown against corruption in the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is something no predecessor of Xi had ever tried. The investigations charged several generals, including the two highest-ranking officers under his predecessor—Xu Caihou (since dead) and Guo Boxiong, of corruption. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to assume President Xi is moving towards establishing himself with an image of being the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. What better way in trying to move closer to this objective than holding the massive parade that is expected to further consolidate his grip over the army?

Ostensibly, the event was organised to mark ‘Victory Day’, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the successful People’s War of Resistance against Japanese aggression or occupation (1937-45). But it was the first time such a huge military parade was held for reasons other than celebrating the CPC’s rule or ‘achievements’. Therefore, one can actually ask whether China really wants to pursue an open strategy to deter Japan. The answer perhaps is yes because President Xi, who has already been demonstrating his aggressiveness and is unapologetic about China’s big power ambitions, could be trying to reinvigorate the nationalist fervour among his countrymen by an open demonstration of anti-Japan sentiments. Could Xi be actually trying to change the Asian order and make things revolve around China, and thereby goad everyone to ignore rising powers or rising economies like India? Such a possibility cannot be ruled out.

As many as 30 heads of state and/or governments were in attendance at the reviewing stand with President Xi during the parade; but no significant leader from any democracy, including India, were present. India’s Modi government deputed Minister of State for External Affairs, Gen. (Retd.) VK Singh, whose other identity is that he is a former chief of the Indian army. Other than showing the minimum courtesy, India did nothing to antagonise Japan. Beijing may be worried about an India-Japan-US axis, but New Delhi has actually gone out of its way to signal that it was keen to improve ties with Japan and China at the same time, while consolidating relations with the US and all of India’s neighbours. New Delhi couldn’t have played ball to the covert corner-Japan plan as it was obviously aware of the Chinese design behind the gala parade.

In fact, the grand parade and the careful use of imagery could even be interpreted as China’s provocation to its neighbours, including India. The public display of its intercontinental ballistic-missile arsenal is surely a warning to the US, whose military might is still believed to be superior. The Dongfeng missile series was among the key display items at the show. Making its public debut was the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, seen as a threat to the US aircraft carrier strike groups.

It remains to be seen whether China, the highest military spender in the world after the US, triggers an arms race in its neighbourhood following the display. But President Xi made a good attempt at neutralising the visual impact by publicly announcing a troop cut of up to 300,000 personnel in the coming days. This is expected to happen by 2017 and would then enable Beijing to spend more in modernising the military; and making the PLA leaner and more efficient.

Whether or not President Xi can handle the large number of decommissioned military men is left to be seen, but during the parade, he certainly relished 12,000 of his soldiers and 50 generals leading troop formations greeting him.

Noticeably, the clear blue skies over Tiananmen Square had disappeared soon after the parade got over. Now, the world has to wait and see if China, having demonstrated its military might, continues to pursue a seemingly expansionist campaign across the Himalayas as well as on the East and South China seas. One would like to believe President Xi that he and his fellow Chinese “love peace” and do not believe in “hegemony or expansion.” India on its part cannot afford to be taken in by Beijing’s rhetoric and has to remain guarded while pushing for better ties with a level playing field.

That, of course, is not an easy task.

* Wasbir Hussain
Executive Director, CDPS, Guwahati, and Visiting Fellow, IPCS

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On September 2, 2015, four eminent personalities, including Chittagong District Court’s Additional Public Prosecutors Ashok Kumar Das and Chandan Bishwas; the Vice-Chancellor of Premier University, Chittagong, Dr. Anupam Sen; and International Crime Tribunal’s Prosecutor Rana Dasgupta received death threats in the form of SMS text messages from the banned terrorist formation, Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT, Volunteer of Allah Bangla Team).

Earlier, on August 12, 2015, Ittehad-ul-Mujahideen (IuM, United Council of Mujahideen), an affiliate of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, Taliban Movement of Pakistan), in a letter sent to online news outlet bdnews24.com issued death threats to 19 distinguished people. The list included Education Minister Nurul Islam Nahid; Social Welfare Minister Syed Mohsin Ali; Awami League (AL) Member of Parliament (MP) Suranjit Sen Gupta; ‘War Heroines’ Ferdousi Priyabhashini and Abdur Rahman; Professor of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology Muhammed Zafar Iqbal; Jahangirnagar University teacher Arafat Rahman; Member of the Udichi Shilpi Gosthi (Progressive Cultural Group, the largest cultural organization in Bangladesh) Makbul Hossain; bloggers Arif Jebtik, Sushanta Das Gupta, Arifur Rahman, Omi Rahman Pial, Ananya Azad, Mahmudul Haque Munshi, Maruf Rasul, Nirjhar Mazumder, Dr. Atik, Ashfak Anupa and Nur Nabi Dulal. Though the list also included Niladri Chattopadhyay Niloy aka Niloy Neel (28), who was brutally killed at his flat in Dhaka city on August 7, 2015; the name was struck through with a red pen. The letter contains the threat in the form of a poem:

Death will come one day friend, today or tomorrow. For the sake of Almighty we will take the life of His enemies. What is your identity if you do not cry for insult of the Prophet? Death will come one day friend, take the life of the enemy.

In the letter the IuM has labeled these people as enemies of Islam and madrasa (seminary) education, atheists, satanic bloggers, Hindustani brokers and munafiqs (someone who outwardly practices Islam concealing his disbelief).

On August 10, 2015, Ansar-al-Islam, the Bangladesh chapter of al Qaeda in the Indian Sub-continent (AQIS), issued a threat on its Facebook page to six activists associated with Gonojagoron Mancha (People’s Resurgence Platform), a group demanding capital punishment for the 1971 war criminals. The post read “There are three anti-Islamic poets & three organizers of blogs. They are the enemy of Islam. We should do what will our aim (sic).” The six persons have been identified as poet Henry Swapan, sculptor Charu Tuhin, poet Syed Mehedi Hasan, organizer of Gonojagoron Mancha in Barisal District, Nazrul Biswas, poet Tuhin Das and Bangladesh Chhatra Union’s Barisal unit general secretary Pritom Chowdhury.

These threats become more alarming given the fact that four bloggers have already been killed in 2015, by suspected Islamist terrorists. On August 7, 2015, Niladri Chattopadhyay Niloy aka Niloy Neel (28), a secular blogger and a Gonojagoron Mancha activist, was hacked to death at his Goran residence in the Khilgaon area of the national capital, Dhaka, in broad daylight; on May 12, 2015, Ananta Bijoy Das (32), a progressive writer, blogger, editor of science fiction magazine Jukti, and an organizer of Gonojagoron Mancha, was hacked to death, using machetes, by four assailants at the Subidbazar Bankolapara residential area of Sylhet city; on March 30, 2015, another blogger and online activist, Oyasiqur Rahman Babu (27), was hacked to death in broad daylight in Dhaka city for his allegedly atheist views; and on February 26, 2015, Bangladesh-born American citizen blogger Avijit Roy (42), the founder of the Mukta-mona.com blog, was hacked to death in Dhaka city. Investigations into these cases later confirmed that ABT organized the killing of these writers for their position ‘against Islam’.

In 2013, ABT had issued a list of 84 “atheist bloggers” on the grounds that “All of them are enemy of the Islam (sic).” Of the 84 atheist bloggers named in the list, ten have been killed so far (till September 6, 2015). In addition to the four killed in 2015, the other six include Jagatjyoti Talukder, killed on March 2, 2014; Mamun Hossain, on January 12, 2014; Ziauddin Zakaria Babu, on December 11, 2013; Arif Hossain Dwip, on April 9, 2013; Ahmed Rajib Haider, on February 15, 2013; and Jafar Munshi, on February 14, 2013.

In a related development, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) personnel arrested Supreme Court (SC) lawyers’ Barrister Shakila Farzana (39) and Mohamad Hasanuzzaman Liton (30); and Dhaka Judge’s Court lawyer Mahfuz Chowdhury Bapon (25), from the Dhanmondi area of Dhaka city on August 18, 2015, in connection with financing the Shaheed Hamja Brigade (SHB), a Chittagong-based terrorist outfit. They allegedly provided BDT 10.8 million to SHB. Shakila deposited BDT 2.5 million and BDT 2.7 million for the outfit in two phases while Liton deposited BDT 3.1 million and Bapon BDT 2.5 million. Attorney General Mahbubey Alam on August 20 stated, “It will be proved in trial whether the three lawyers are guilty or not. No lawyers have been held over such allegations before.” On August 23, 2015, the three lawyers gave confessional statements before the Chittagong District Court, admitting their involvement in financing the terrorist group.

The Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League Government has tackled the rising specter of Islamist extremism and terrorism in Bangladesh with a high measure of success. In a further initiative to consolidate gains, on August 12, 2015, Foreign Secretary M. Shahidul Haque disclosed, “We will take a couple more weeks to put together amendments to the terrorism acts. Some of the global Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) in disguise try to get resources not for real welfare of the people but for this kind of terrorist activities.” Measures like this are the necessary way forward to fight this menace, even as ongoing efforts to reverse the success story have been intensified by radical groupings. The succession of brutal killings of bloggers and surge of threats to people opposing radical ideologies are instances of such efforts. The emerging support base of these grouping among hitherto unattached section of the society is also worrisome.

A measure of ambivalence, nevertheless, continues to tarnish Government responses. Thus, regrettably, urging the bloggers not to ‘cross the limit’ while writing on religious issues, Inspector General of Police (IGP) AKM Shahidul Hoque, at a press briefing at the Police Headquarters in the capital Dhaka city on August 9, 2015, warned, “Do not cross the limit. Do not hurt anyone’s religious belief. The ‘freethinkers’ should keep in mind that hurting someone’s religious sentiment is a criminal offence.”

A space yielded to the extremists by the Government has the potential to derail the success story against Islamist radicalism and terror in Bangladesh, and could provide fertile grounds for an extremist resurgence. Indeed, while the Government had succeeded in minimizing the threat from strong terrorist and extremist formations such as Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) and Hizb-ut-Towhid (HT), the subsequent failure to rein in fundamentalist elements has led to the growth of groups like ABT and Ansar-Al-Islam, and the spate of murders and wider intimidation these groups have unleashed.

Indeed, on August 17, 2015, Tangail Superintendent of Police (SP) Mahfuzur Rahman, observing that, since the August 17, 2005, countrywide synchronized bombings by JMB, a new generation of terrorists had spawned, but there had been no change in Government tactics to deal with them. He noted, “The JMB doesn’t have the organizational strength like that in 2005 following the arrest and execution of its top leaders. But it doesn’t mean the organization has become very weak. The outfit is still active in different areas under different names. We need to monitor the elements whether they are in jails or outside, and fight them institutionally under a coordinated mechanism.”

The emergence of new groups demonstrate the speed with which violent extremists adapt to even to the most extraordinary pressures and changes in the security environment. The processes of Islamist entrenchment have been ongoing for decades in Bangladesh and hundreds of thousands who have undergone various degrees of radicalization remain in the country as a potential pool of recruitment for violent mobilization. It is difficult to predict what could trigger a new cycle of escalation. It is imperative, consequently, for Dhaka to fight through any complacency that may undermine the present resolve to wipe out extremism from the country.

* S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

The global village is facing a water and water quality crisis arising from population growth, urbanization, industrialization upward living standard, as well as poor water use practices and waste water management strategies. As a result of this, waste water is fast becoming an important resource of increasing global importance, particularly in urban and pen-urban areas.

Upon this backdrop, Guru Arjan Dev Institute of Development Studies, Amritsar is organizing a two day (November 27- 28, 2015) IDSAsr National Seminar on the theme Recycling of Waste Water and Reuse System.

Dr. Gursharan Singh Kainth, the organizing secretary of the seminar and Director of the host institute, said that the Seminar will be held in the conference hall of Guru Nanak Auditorium, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and is being partially sponsored by Department of Bio Technology (DBT) of Government of India.

Sh S S Bajaj, Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai will deliver the keynote address, while Dr Rajinder Singh Bawa, Vice Chancellor, Chandigarh University and Chairman of the Research Advisory Committee of the institute will preside over the 7th IDSAsr National Seminar.

Dr Kainth further disclosed that nearly 30 papers will be discussed at the seminar to be attended by more than hundred scientists, scholars, policy makers and administrators, and technocrats from various parts of India and abroad. Dr Kainth further said that scholars from Pakistan, Nepal, Jordan, Bangladesh and Qatar will participate in the seminar.

Dr Kainth further added that the seminar will help raise awareness among various stakeholders and initiate action to mark a way towards strong policies and legal framework to maximize the utilization of water in our life.

By Yohannes Woldemariam*

Asylum quests have become toxic issues in just about every affluent country. Even saving lives along the Mediterranean worries some as a lure that will encourage and facilitate more migrant arrivals.

An empathetic story in the NY Times by Suzanne Daley titled “Refugee Crisis on the Beach in Greece” drew a mere 10 comments as compared to 173 comments reacting to Ross Douthat’s opinion piece. Douthat’s sensationalized framing of the issue as “Africa’s Scramble for Europe” only serves to induce fear of refugees. It really is farfetched to draw parallels between the European scramble for Africa and the current desperate effort by poor Africans fleeing to the shores of Europe. Most refugees arriving in Europe, far from scrambling for European resources as Europeans did in conquering Africa will, if successful, be engaged in hard work most Europeans would not want to do such as cleaning toilets, performing arduous farm labor, the service industry and taking care of the elderly. What is more, in reality only a small fraction of asylum seekers is knocking on the gates of Europe with 86% languishing in camps in poor neighboring states.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch during an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now said: “And yes, 310,000, 320,000 people [in Europe] are a lot of people. But Europe’s population as a whole is about 500 million. So what we’re talking about, the number of people who have come this year is less than 0.1 percent of Europe’s population.” So, is this a real crisis or a fabricated one because the asylum seekers are of a darker complexion?

An Op-Ed article by Goodwell Nzou, a Zimbabwean PhD student titled “In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions” evoked 1,257 passionate comments about the late Cecil, the lion. Nzou quipped “we Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people.”

Personally, I grieve for lions, elephants, rhinos and all the wonderful endangered animals in Africa just as I do for the humans drowning in the Mediterranean. I, however, do understand where Nzou is coming from. Reading through the comments in the NY Times about asylum seekers, I am distressed by the bigotry and total lack of understanding for the plight of refugees. Cecil galvanized a global movement and empathy. In contrast, refugees seem to elicit contempt! It is a paradox to witness a pairing of love for animals with disdain for humans as if the two are mutually exclusive.

The responses are mostly intended to perpetuate a “Fortress Europe” mentality, ranging from threatening military action against traffickers, outsourcing of asylum seekers to poorer countries in exchange for money, to building walls and fences, surveillance, border protection, indifference to life saving measures in the Mediterranean by scraping the Italian rescue operation Mare Nostrum, and warehousing refugees in detention centers.

What is yet to enter the public discourse is Western complicity for the circumstances that generate refugees. The contributions of the U.S.-British “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq and the U.S.-British-French “Mission Accomplished” in Libya to the refugee exodus is rarely acknowledged. Moreover, there is little discussion regarding the obligations of European countries to their former colonial empires. Does Europe owe Africa anything for inflicting structural damage through exploitive practices, and the legacy of drawing arbitrary borders resulting in chronic conflicts and stolen riches? The typical Western response to this is that it is all “in the past”, and that this generation of Europeans cannot be held responsible. Get over it. Clearly, the West has failed to put structures in place for justice and is guilty of glossing over the events that shaped the reality of post-colonial states, further widening the gap between the developed and developing worlds.

Another theme within the comments, including Douthat’s opinion piece, is that population growth drives asylum seekers to make these dangerous journeys. The solution presented is to help Africans with family planning. This solution and the perceptions that surround it is simplistic, at best. It is an excuse to curb the flow of refugees and asylum seekers to affluent countries that would appeal politically to some people who oppose asylum seekers but who don’t want to be accused of racism or xenophobia.

Arguing that underdevelopment contributes to persecution, war and refugees is a stronger argument. However, how underdevelopment occurred would be a necessary inquiry for it would reveal the lopsided and unfavorable terms of trade and wholesale historical injustices perpetrated by European colonialism and slavery.

In his seminal book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney argues that both European power politics and European economic exploitation and oppression led to the impoverishment of African societies. In the contemporary era, war, civil strife in conjunction with political persecution (in Syria, Iraq, Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan), aggravated by the involvement of Western powers, is causing untold loss of life as well as economic dislocation. One would think that the affluent world has a moral responsibility to accept people as they flee violence. Nevertheless there are usually no more than occasional references to this obvious and glaring truth and moral exigencies.

The refugee exodus is the result of many factors, one of the most common being war or fear of war. Overpopulation, while it may be a contributing factor, is not the main cause. Billions of poor people prefer to stay put in their homes and familiar surroundings unless threatened by war or persecution. In addition, a conversation about population growth that ignores unequal patterns of consumption and its effects is disingenuous: “the poorest three billion people on earth, short of half the world population accounted for about 7% of carbon emissions, while conversely, the richest 7% of people accounted for about half of all emissions.”

Language is another potent weapon used to demonize asylum seekers and to frame the issue. Refugees are being described with words laden in negative meanings akin to propaganda – for manipulation of public opinion. Refugees are abused and ridiculed in ways that African American slaves were labeled as “chattels,” “property,” and “beasts” and Native Americans were labeled with dehumanizing language defining them as “non-persons,” “savages,” and “Satan’s partisans.”

Politicians make misleading generalizations for electoral gains while neglecting the main factor that triggers displacement and movement of people: war. British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond refers to asylum seekers in Calais in terms of “marauding,” whose presence will undermine the British “standard of living.” David Camren described asylum seekers as “swarms.” An Israeli Member of the Knesset Miri Regev, referred to asylum-seekers as “a cancer in our body,” and former Minister of Interior Eli Yishai, labeled asylum-seekers as “infiltrators,” “criminals,” and a “demographic threat.” Such incitement has led to a significant increase in hate crimes against Africans in Israel.

However, it is simplistic to think this is just about race. Of course, race is the underlying factor with concerns about assimilation and integration of refugees. But asylum seekers and migrants have not fared better, even in black ruled and relatively prosperous South Africa. South African mobs have doused other Africans with gasoline and burned them alive. South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma’s son, Edward, an African twin of Donald Trump, described foreigners [i.e., African migrants] as drug dealers and a “security threat” who must be deported. According to a SAMP survey, this entrenched view is “held by 55 percent of South Africans.” To be sure, South Africa maybe ANC ruled but economic power is still firmly in the hands of the white minority. The country has very high black unemployment and economic inequality which pits refugees and asylum-seekers against black South Africans.

There is also the attempt to dismiss African refugees as mere migrants looking for economic opportunities. Somini Sengupta of the NY Times writes about how migrants are legally different from refugees. However the vast majority of those crossing the Mediterranean are clearly refugees even by the definition of the 1951 UN convention. According to a UNHCR report, they are fleeing war, persecution and deteriorating conditions in countries hosting refugees. One can also make a case that even the so called migrants are also refugees. While acknowledging that there are people who leave their homes for economic opportunities and to better themselves, the distinction between migrants and refugees is often quite arbitrary and made to suit those trying to justify exclusionary policies.

In retrospect, the 1951 UN convention on refugees is mostly ignored when it comes to Africans and more recently Middle Easterners. When the convention was created, it is safe to conclude potential refugees from Africa were hardly even considered. The world then was a different kind of place with only two African countries as independent states. The rest were colonies. The convention was designed for European victims of Nazi Germany and for defectors from the Soviet bloc. Clearly, the goal behind the dehumanization of African and Middle Eastern asylum seekers is to deny them the right to invoke the 1951 convention.

* Yohannes Woldemariam teaches international relations at Fort Lewis College in Colorado, USA.

By M.A. Athul*

On September 3, 2015, a cadre of the IK Songbijit faction of National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS), identified as Bhaigo Boro alias B. Bilaigra, was killed in an encounter with the Security Forces (SFs) at Saumukhi Nala near Diglipara village in Kokrajhar District. He was reportedly involved in the December 23, 2014, massacre of Adivasis (the “tea tribes” from Central India, who were brought into the Northeast to work on plantations by the British prior to India’s independence) in which 69 people were killed at several places in the Chirang, Sonitpur and Kokrajhar Districts.

Earlier, on August 29, 2015, two NDFB-IKS militants, identified as ‘platoon commanders’ N. Gwndwi and B. Jwanthi, were killed in an encounter with SFs at Oxiguri village in Chirag District.

On July 17, 2015, Police killed a ‘deputy commander’ of NDFB-IKS, identified as Sijoy, at Chautara in Kokrajhar District. He had a bounty of INR 500,000 on him. An unnamed Police official disclosed that Sijoy had led the group of militants which had killed Sonitpur District Additional Superintendent of Police Gulzar Hussain on January 29 2014.

Significantly, soon after the December 23, 2014, massacre, the Government of India (GoI) launched Operation All Out against the NDFB-IKS, the outfit responsible for the massacre. According to a Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) report, during the period from 26.12.2014 to 27.6.2015, at least 383 militants and linkmen of NDFB-IKS have been arrested and 12 militants have been killed by SFs in this operation. Though no further official details are available, according to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) another 43 NDFB-IKS militants has been arrested and seven have been killed since June 28, 2015 (all data till September 3, 2015). Thus a total of at least 426 NDFB-IKS militants have been arrested and 19 have been killed during the course of the ongoing Operation.

The Operation has also succeeded in putting pressure on north-east militants hiding in Bhutan. Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) officials, on July 18, 2015, stated that they have been able to substantially cut off ration supplies to militants holed up in Bhutan because of stepped up counter-insurgency operations against the NDFB-IKS along the international border in western Assam. SSB officials observed, “We have information that the cutting off of the supply line has resulted in significant shortage of ration for leaders and cadres taking shelter in Bhutan. There is also desperation among the cadres to cross the border either for access to ration or surrender.” However, no such surrenders have been reported so far.

Since its formation on November 20, 2012, NDFB-IKS had emerged as one of the most violent groups in Assam. Out of 221 civilian fatalities in the State between November 20, 2012, and December 23, 2014, NDFB-IKS was responsible for 140. The next most violent outfit was Kamtapur Peoples Liberation Tigers (KPLT) with 12 fatalities. Similarly, out of 13 SF fatalities in Assam during this period, NDFB-IKS was responsible for five. The next most violent outfits were United Achik Liberation Army (UALA), a Meghalaya based militant outfit, and the Isak-Muivah faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM), with two fatalities each. NDFB-IKS’ growing presence on the ground is further evidenced by the fact that, out of 181 militant fatalities during the same period, 65 were of NDFB-IKS alone. 27 fatalities among civilians and one among SFs remained unattributed. More worryingly, NDFB-IKS was responsible for two recent massacres in Assam – the May 1-3 2014, massacre and December 23, 2014 massacre.

However, Operation All Out has inflicted a severe blow to NDFB-IKS. Indeed, NDFB-IKS has not been found involved in any of the eight civilian killings in Assam in 2015, although the lone incident in which SFs were targeted was carried out by the NDFB-IKS. A Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) of Assam Rifles (AR) was killed at Sonitpur District on January 2, 2015. 43 insurgency-related fatalities (eight civilians, one trooper and 34 militants) have been recorded in Assam in 2015, till date. In the corresponding period in 2014, Assam had recorded 184 fatalities (95 civilians, five SF personnel and 84 militants), clearly indicating the direct correlation between NDFB-IKS activities and violence in the State.

Although low- and mid-level cadres of NDFB-IKS have been decimated and operational capability of the group has been sharply contained for the present, the top leadership is relatively safe in Myanmar and in jungles along the Indo-Bhutan border. On April 24, 2015, it was reported that NDFB-IKS had removed its ‘president’ Songbijit and its ‘interim general secretary’ B. Saoraigwra was elevated to the post. Songbijit was reportedly sidelined when the outfit took the decision to massacre the Adivasis. The massacre was executed under the direction of G. Bidai, who continues to hold the position of ‘deputy chief’ of NDFB-IKS. The current status of IK Songbijit is unclear. According to information available with security agencies, B. Saoraigwra is believed to be hiding at Manas National Park, bordering Bhutan; while Songbijit is reportedly in Myanmar.

Not surprisingly, the threat from NDFB-IKS remains. In a worrisome development, it was reported in April 2015 that the NDFB-IKS, along with other militant groups such as the ‘Independent’ faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA-I), Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO) and Khaplang faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K), had formed a joint front of militant groups, called The United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (UNLFWESEA). Significantly, UNLFWSEA was responsible for the June 4, 2015, ambush at Parlon in Chandel in Manipur, in which 18 SF personnel and two militants were killed. It was later known that, after the ambush, the ‘victory photograph’, which was widely published in the media’, was taken at the Mawku camp belonging to militant groups, including NDFB-IKS. The camp is situated 12 kilometres inside Myanmar.

Also, according to an August 24, 2015, report 25 militants headed by G. Bidai were still inside Assam and were hiding in thick jungles near the Manas National Park. The group had narrowly escaped on May 7, 2015, when SFs had neutralized their camp. The group has since been on the run. According to information available with security agencies, the group managed to sneak into Bhutan on July 2, 2015, and stayed there for about a month before returning to Assam.

Meanwhile, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which has taken up the December 23, 2014, massacre case, stated that “It has been established by this investigation that members of ‘Adibashi’ community were specifically targeted through these coordinated attacks on December 23, 2014, because the senior leadership of the NDFB-IKS harboured the perception that members of the community had been instrumental in providing information about NDFB-IKS to SFs and that it has resulted in significant ‘losses’ for the organization in anti-terrorist operations conducted by the SFs. This has been substantiated by the confessional statement of an accused.”

The operational successes against the NDFB-IKS have been achieved due to the significant role played by the Central Forces. The Central Government has deployed about 9,000 Army and paramilitary personnel for the Operation, but these Forces cannot be expected to remain permanently. Eventually, it will be the responsibility of the State Police to sustain the gains made by the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs). Unfortunately, although Assam has a Police-population ratio of 173 to 100,000, as against a national average of 141 [NCRB data for 2013], the State Police is in no shape to take charge of counter insurgency operations in the State. The poor condition of the State Police was documented in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) year ending report (March 31, 2014), which had stated that 26 per cent of weapons and same percentage of ammunition with the Police Force were obsolete. It also stated that the objective of establishing the Counter Insurgency and anti-Terrorist Training Schools (CIAT) had not been achieved, as the 4,769 personnel, who completed training at these schools were not trained in various aspects of counter insurgency such as “night training, underground firing and jungle warfare training”.

Crucially, gains on the security dimensions need to be quickly followed by vigorous interventions by the civilian administration to gain the support of the ‘contested population’ through effective economic and social programs. Successive Governments in Assam have been extraordinarily myopic, inefficient and riddled with corruption, and have failed fairly comprehensively in this regard. Most significantly, the issue of illegal migration across the still porous borders remains entirely unaddressed, even as the demographic destabilization and political polarization caused by past illegal migration – the original cause of the many insurgencies in the State – not only continues to be ignored, but has, in fact, become an integral part of electoral manipulations in Assam, resulting in the polarisation of society along ethnic lines. As long as these conditions persist, and despite extraordinary efforts and successes by the SFs, militancy, like a Lernaean Hydra, will refuse to die.

* M.A. Athul
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Sri Lanka is poised to revamp its foreign policy with a diversion towards a more pragmatic Asia-centric middle path. This is a deviation from experimental shifts in the past from pro-British to socialist tilt, non-alignment to pro-US and pro-West to look-East as well as look Africa, South America and finally getting closer to the Asian giant.

Addressing the First Session of the 8th Parliament, President Maithripala Sirisena said as we are living in a globalized new world, every country in the world is important to us. There are many things we can learn from them and they can learn from us, and openness and friendship with all will remain as the foundation of our foreign policy, he added. Pointing out that we have entered the Century of Asia, he said, “My Government will pay more attention towards an Asia-centric middle-path foreign policy.”

What is more important than examining the pros and cons of the new policy at this juncture is to examine how well it is compatible with the foreign policy outlook of the major partner in the government, the United National Party (UNP).

Detailing the foreign policy priorities the President made several interesting remarks. “I believe that during the past few years, the word ‘Geneva’ took up a lot of space in our discourse on foreign policy. From the moment I took office as the President on 8 January, the perspective of the international community towards us has changed in a very positive manner. The faith placed on us by the international community and their cooperation and consensus is very important, when we face the complex situations successfully. I am very happy to state that during the past seven months, my government was able to change the then existed situation towards our country in a positive way while restoring the good name and reputation of the country.”

President Sirisena briefly spelt out the economic benefits of this policy, stating that, “The 21st century is the century of Asia. It is our fortune that we are geographically situated in a position which helps us to get benefits of the economic opportunities generated in a context where Asia is emerging as the hub of the world economy. Our key responsibility is to make future economic policies, plans and strategies in a way to take maximum benefits from this great opportunity endowed upon us by the nature.”

Look East Policy

In the recent past we tried to experiment with a ‘Look East Policy’. In spite of the popular look east option for the countries in South Asia, it would amount to policy myopia of the first order for countries of this region to overlook the need to integrate more fully and dynamically among themselves, in South Asia, first. Such integration at the moment is of the most negligible kind and it would be in the interests of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for its members to increasingly strengthen their economic links while looking at growth prospects outside this region.

Unfortunately major SAARC partners have a tendency to look for areas of differences rather than prospects for cooperation. The South Asian nations need to interact with increasing trust and confidence among themselves and should do their best to play down any ‘Big Brother’, ‘Small Brother’ fixations in inter-state relations which have played a considerable role in hampering our regional growth prospects in the past. The need for sustained, region-centred development is felt by both ‘big’ and ‘small’ currently. Inasmuch as the ‘small’ need the ‘big’, the latter too need the former, for, it is to the benefit of the major powers of Asia to have around them countries which prefer ‘to do business’ with them rather than with major economic and military powers outside the Asian region.

Sri Lanka needs to fashion an increasingly Asia-centric foreign policy while attaching equal importance to building and sustaining cordial relations with the West because the latter’s ‘day’ is by no means over. In fact, we need to bear in mind that the major powers of the West, such as the US, are pragmatic in the extreme in their dealings with the predominant economic powers of the Asia-Pacific region. Considerations of political ideology, for instance, have little say, if any, in such ‘East-West’ interactions. A case in point is the US’ relations with China.

Enlightened self-interest

Sri Lanka should approach its tasks in the foreign policy sphere in a spirit of enlightened self-interest. While pursuing the Asia-centric policy, it just would not do for Sri Lanka to fall completely foul of the West. Sri Lanka needs to be truly Non-aligned in fact. Hence the importance of what President Sirisena said about Asia-centric middle path.

When we are in the threshold of the Century of Asia, this continent is of extreme significance for us. At a time when China and India forge ahead, several South-east Asian nations with a strong regional architecture which has helped in maintaining peace as well as enabling economic growth in its region are potential partners for our growth. ASEAN not only stabilized relations among Asian States, but helped them manage regional hegemonic interests from China in the region as well as engage beyond with other strong powers.

There is a gap in South Asia, given the limited powers of SAARC and its inability to gain momentum due to lack of leadership and political will and this gap makes small States like Sri Lanka vulnerable when larger countries such as China show greater interest. Managing to hold onto our sovereignty is crucial in this instance.

It is in this juncture that South-east Asia, as a region, gains significance for Sri Lanka. Unlike in South Asia, South-east Asia has a strong regional architecture which has helped in maintaining peace as well as enabling economic growth in its region.

However, we have to understand our geographical placement and should not make blind attempts to join any groupings elsewhere as we attempted 35 years ago during the UNP Government. In 1978, Sri Lanka made a futile attempt to join ASEAN. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadas openly expressed Sri Lanka’s desire to join ASEAN without prior consultations with the group.

The then government instructed the High Commissioner Gunasingham in Singapore to explore the possibilities and he had sent an analysis of the emerging geo-political situation in South-east Asia. In that note he said that he discussed the subject with Thanat Khoman, the then Thai Foreign Minister, who ‘seemed to welcome the idea’ of Sri Lanka’s membership. Gunasingham also felt that other member States were sympathetic to the idea.

Gunasingham got no reply from Colombo. His analysis was that the Government came under pressure from the left parties and also from India ‘which feared that its sphere of influence might be eroded’. China and Soviet Union also opposed the move. Some non-aligned countries also felt that Sri Lanka would be giving up its policy of non-alignment.

Independence in 1948

During the first decade after attaining Independence in 1948, Sri Lankan foreign policy did not differ from that of the United Kingdom. Although the then UNP Leader Sir John Kotelawala was a partner to Bandung Principle of Panchashila, there was no deviation from the pro-British policy until the power shifted to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike in 1956.

The foreign policy of middle path articulated today by President Sirisena is, in fact is the continuation of the non-aligned policy followed since Bandaranaike era. Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike played a major role in promoting this policy internationally and hosted the Non-aligned Summit in 1976.

However, there were sharp foreign policy disparities between the SLFP and the UNP. In 1977, President J. R. Jayewardene adopted a pro-US policy and later he allowed Israel to set up an Interest Section in the US Embassy in Colombo much to the displeasure of India. Resultant covert and overt assistance to insurgence and attempts to interfere in our internal affairs is history.

President Ranasinghe Premadasa, who assumed office in January 1990 openly confronted India, by giving quit notice to Indian Peace Keeping Force and later earned displeasure of Britain when he declared High Commissioner David Gladstone persona non grata.

President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s regime handled foreign relations with care, without antagonizing either of the big powers or the two Asian giants. However, India was concerned about pro-West tilt when Ranil Wickremesinghe became the Prime Minister in 2001.

Supreme Court

There were expressions of concern in some quarters over the move to give post-Tsunami administrative powers to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) under the PTOMS pact, which the Supreme Court struck down.

Despite above aberrations, today Sri Lankan leaders have an excellent rapport not only with India, but also with China, the United States, the European Union and Russia. President Sirisena paid his first official visit to India after assuming office and Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave him a grand welcome. During the visit as well as PM Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka later, great personnel rapport in addition to close friendship and the desire to cooperate with each other was quite visible.

Similar affinity was witnessed in President Sirisena’s tour to China and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s visits to US and Europe.

Wickremesinghe, as the new Prime Minister too selected India for his first foreign visit, marking the similarity of the foreign policies of the President and the Prime Minister.

In the era of Cold War, it was America’s interest in Sri Lanka that troubled India. However, the US phobia seems to have vanished from the South Block or the Indian Ministry of External Affairs now. But, now the Indians express apprehensions over China’s interest in Sri Lanka. With the change of government in Colombo, India is not overly worried over ‘China factor’.

Whether you talk of global economy or Asian security, it is important to see how China figures in our scheme of affairs. Sri Lanka need not be a satellite State of either China or India, but can continue to strive for a fine balance by managing expectations between the two countries.

In this globalized world, economic and foreign policies are inseparable. China and India are the new heavyweights of the global economy and it would prove prudent for countries, such as Sri Lanka, to increasingly integrate their economies with those of the Asian growth centre, for, global economic prosperity is currently unthinkable without the two Asian giants.

The unique relations that exist among Asian countries have been shaped by close religious, cultural, and linguistic ties. Asians share not only a common continent but share many characteristics such as language, religion, history and culture. For example Buddhist ties spread from Sri Lanka and Burma in South Asia to Thailand, Laos and Cambodia in Southeast Asia and to Japan and China in the Eastern Asia. The robust relationships that exist needs to be fine-tuned along with the changing reality in order to preserve the ‘everlasting peace and friendship’ and also to address newer challenges in the region.

This article was released by the Sri Lanka government

Mexico should immediately address the failures of its investigation into the enforced disappearance of 43 students in September 2014, and bring those responsible to justice, Human Rights Watch said. The Attorney General’s Office should promptly investigate the claims of abuse and obstruction of justice made by an international group of experts that evaluated the government inquiry into the disappearances.

On September 6, 2015, an international expert group appointed by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IAHCR) published a report refuting the official account of the fate of 43 students from a teacher’s college in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero state. This held that the 43 had been detained by municipal police and handed over to members of a criminal group, who killed them and burnt their bodies in a nearby municipal dump. According to the expert group, those conclusions hinge on allegedly coerced witness testimony that is contradicted by physical evidence.

“This report provides an utterly damning indictment of Mexico’s handling of the worst human rights atrocity in recent memory,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Even with the world watching and with substantial resources at hand, the authorities proved unable or unwilling to conduct a serious investigation.”

Austrian forensic experts identified the remains of only one student, allegedly found near the dump. The whereabouts of the other 42 remain unknown.

The report challenges key aspects of the official findings presented by the Attorney General’s Office, which claimed it had solved the case in January 2015. According to the expert group, it is “impossible” that 43 bodies were cremated in the garbage dump, and there is “no evidence” to support that hypothesis.

The official investigation was marred by the mishandling, loss, and possible destruction of key evidence. State authorities failed to adequately secure and document different crime scenes, leaving crucial pieces of evidence, such as blood and hair, vulnerable to contamination and manipulation. In July 2015, more than nine months into the investigation, the group discovered that multiple articles of clothing belonging to the victims had been collected but never examined.

Federal prosecutors neglected to review security camera footage until requested by the expert group, at which point much of it had been erased. For example, a video recording of a confrontation between students and police was destroyed in the custody of state judicial authorities, the group said. Authorities also failed to search the homes and offices of key suspects in the municipal police. Two bus drivers who witnessed clashes between the students and police were not interviewed by prosecutors until April 2015.

The expert group concluded that multiple detainees suffered injuries caused by intentional abuse. A number of suspects told the experts that they were tortured by security agents.

Moreover, the report reveals that federal prosecutors only focused on four buses carrying students, and did not investigate the possible link between the disappearances and a fifth bus carrying students. Federal authorities told the group that the fifth bus had been destroyed by students prior to the clashes with security forces – a claim that, according to the international experts, was contradicted by multiple witnesses and the initial investigation by state-level authorities.

The omission had “serious consequences” for the investigation, as this bus is likely a “key element” in the case, the experts said.

The expert group’s findings are based on a six-month review of available evidence and the judicial file, independent crime scene examination, and interviews with suspects, federal authorities, surviving witnesses, and family members.

The report calls on Mexican authorities to redouble their efforts to bring those responsible for the enforced disappearances to justice, clarify the whereabouts of the disappeared students, and thoroughly investigate links between authorities and organized crime groups. Although the group’s mandate expired on September 2, 2015, the Mexican government is considering an extension.

The failure of authorities to resolve the Ayotzinapa case is all the more troubling given the unusually intense public scrutiny the case received, and the government’s repeated assurances that it was committed to resolving it, Human Rights Watch said.

Enforced disappearances by security forces are widespread in Mexico. Dozens of corpses and several mass graves were unearthed in Iguala during the course of the Ayotzinapa investigation. There are over 300 open investigations into alleged forced disappearances in the municipality of Iguala alone, according to the Attorney General’s Office. Nationally, more than 25,000 people are missing, according to an official national registry.

As of April 2014, no one had been convicted of an enforced disappearance committed after 2006, according to official statistics. In August 2015, a representative of the Attorney General’s Office told Human Rights Watch that they were engaged in efforts to update official information on enforced disappearances.

“Without this report, the full extent of the investigative failures would probably never have come to light, and the case of the 43 students would have remained closed,” Vivanco said. “The expert group’s mandate should now be extended so it can monitor new investigations into this and other human rights cases. The country’s justice institutions need external scrutiny to avoid a repetition of this shameful performance.”

At a time many Republican presidential candidates and state legislators are furiously focusing on private morality – what people do in their bedrooms, contraception, abortion, gay marriage – America is experiencing a far more significant crisis in public morality.

CEOs of large corporations now earn 300 times the wages of average workers. Insider trading is endemic on Wall Street, where hedge-fund and private-equity moguls are taking home hundreds of millions.

A handful of extraordinarily wealthy people are investing unprecedented sums in the upcoming election, seeking to rig the economy for their benefit even more than it’s already rigged.

Yet the wages of average working people continue to languish as jobs are off-shored or off-loaded onto “independent contractors.”

All this is in sharp contrast to the first three decades after World War II.

Then, the typical CEO earned no more than 40 times what the typical worker earned, and Wall Street was boring.

Then, the wealthy didn’t try to control elections.

And in that era, the wages of most Americans rose.

Profitable firms didn’t lay off their workers. They didn’t replace full-time employees with independent contractors, or bust unions. They gave their workers a significant share of the gains.

Consumers, workers, and the community were considered stakeholders of almost equal entitlement.

We invested in education and highways and social services. We financed all of this with our taxes.

The marginal income tax on the highest income earners never fell below 70 percent. Even the effective rate, after all deductions and tax credits, was still well above 50%.

We had a shared sense of public morality because we knew we were all in it together. We had been through a Great Depression and a terrible war, and we understood our interdependence.

But over time, we forgot.

The change began when Wall Street convinced the Reagan Administration and subsequent administrations to repeal regulations put in place after the crash of 1929 to prevent a repeat of the excesses that had led to the Great Depression.

This, in turn, moved the American economy from stakeholder capitalism to shareholder capitalism, whose sole objective is to maximize shareholder returns.

Shareholder capitalism ushered in an era of excess. In the 1980s it brought junk bond scandals and insider trading.

In the 1990s it brought a speculative binge culminating in the bursting of the dotcom bubble. At the urging of Wall Street, Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated investment from commercial banking.

In 2001 and 2002 it produced Enron and the corporate looting scandals, revealing not only the dark side of some of the most admired companies in America but also the complicity of Wall Street, many of whose traders were actively involved.

The Street’s subsequent gambling in derivatives and risky mortgages resulted in the crash of 2008, and a massive taxpayer-financed bailout.

The Dodd-Frank Act attempted to rein in the Street but Wall Street lobbyists have done everything possible to eviscerate it. Republicans haven’t even appropriated sufficient money to enforce it.

The final blow to public morality came when a majority of the Supreme Court decided corporations and wealthy individuals have a right under the First Amendment to spend whatever they wish on elections.

Public morality can’t be legislated but it can be encouraged.

Glass-Steagall must be resurrected. Big banks have to be broken up.

CEO pay must be bridled. Pay in excess of $1 million shouldn’t be deductible from corporate income taxes. Corporations with high ratios of executive pay to typical workers should face higher tax rates than those with lower ratios.

People earning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year should pay the same 70 percent tax rate top earners paid before 1981.

And we must get big money out of politics – reversing those Supreme Court rulings, providing public financing of elections, and getting full disclosure of the sources of all campaign contributions.

None of this is possible without a broadly based citizen movement to rescue our democracy, take back our economy, and restore a minimal standard of public morality.

America’s problems have nothing to do with what happens bedrooms, or whether women are allowed to end their pregnancies.

Our problems have everything to do with what occurs in boardrooms, and whether corporations and wealthy individuals are allowed to undermine our democracy.

Having no health insurance in the United States is a precarious situation to be in. You tend to rely on charity care and an insufficient safety-net, and you have fewer hospital options. What’s worse, a study by IESE’s Núria Mas shows, you are also more likely to die of a heart attack.

American health care is currently undergoing a transformation with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (widely known as Obamacare), signed in 2010, with most major provisions in effect as of 2014. The act aims to expand access to affordable care while slowing the pace of escalating costs in a country already notorious for high-priced care. “Now more than ever, it is important to understand the effect of hospital financial stress on the quality of care the uninsured received,” Mas writes. This is the goal of her study, published in the International Journal of Health Services in 2015.

By analyzing hospital discharges in California over a decade, Mas uncovers a disturbing trend: Amid pressure on hospitals to cut costs under managed care, the quality of health care went down for uninsured patients and for anyone else who found themselves in government hospitals, a traditional provider of charity care. This trend is bad news for the uninsured and the insured alike.

A Broken Safety Net

In 2012, the number of Americans without medical insurance reached 48 million, around 15 percent of the total population. Approximately two-thirds of the uninsured were poor or near poor, according to data from 2007.

Because there is no universal health coverage in the United States, the uninsured tend to rely on charity care for serious medical conditions. Most of this charity care is provided by hospitals — especially government hospitals, teaching hospitals and those located in poor areas.

In the past, a series of cross-subsidies, referred to as a “hidden tax” on paying patients, allowed hospitals to cover the costs of charity patients. But mounting financial pressure on hospitals to cut costs is fraying this life line. In a previous article for the International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics in 2013, Mas studied this pressure on hospitals. She found that institutions offering charity care were shuttering such crucial services as obstetrics and emergency care or closing down entirely. This has caused uninsured people, in particular, to have fewer places to go. Her 2015 article follows up with a look at who gets hurt most — analyzing the impact of managed care on the quality of care provided.

How it Happened

The rise of managed care in the United States is very relevant to both Mas’s 2013 and 2015 investigations.

The strictest form of managed care in the United States is the health maintenance organization (HMO). Since the Health Maintenance Organization Act was passed in 1973, HMOs have come to dominate U.S. healthcare. Unlike traditional insurers, HMOs require their customers to go to approved doctors and medical professionals within a network. Approved doctors and administrators must compete to keep medical costs as low as possible. The system includes financial incentives for selecting cheaper treatment options and limiting hospital stays.

Enrolment in HMOs and other managed care programs has steadily increased for decades. In 1988, 27 percent of privately insured Americans had a managed-care contract; by 2001 it was 93 percent.

Studying a Matter of Life and Death

In order to home in on the effects of managed care practices, Mas’s 2015 article follows patients admitted to and discharged from Californian hospitals following a heart attack from 1985 to 1995, the period when managed care came to dominate the region.

Focusing on heart attack patients, Mas is able to measure the quality of care received. Heart attack sufferers are a particularly good group to study because if they receive prompt and proper care, the attack need not be fatal. While measuring the quality of health care can be subjective at times, the difference between surviving a heart attack and dying from one is hard to argue with.

Mas studies the percentages of admitted patients who died and breaks it down by how patients were expected to pay (e.g., self-pay, insurance, charity), the type of hospital, and whether or not the patients came from a poor neighborhood.

The study finds high death rates among the uninsured, and also among the insured at the same government hospitals treating the uninsured. The reason is that increasing financial pressures encourage charity-care patients to concentrate into government hospitals. Government hospitals, in turn, face the challenge of providing health care to a greater proportion of non-paying patients. This outcome suggests that the strain placed on government hospitals in regions where managed care dominates is resulting in sub-par care for all.

The results provide a fresh perspective on the financial pressures faced by hospitals and their importance to our health, indicating that further research should continue to look beyond hospitals’ efficiency to analyze their effects on the overall health care market.

“Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?” — Viktor Orbán, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sep 3, 2015

The Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, is getting his figures, and history, muddled. In many contexts, history is often cited, less as an opportunity to inspire than to enrage and enforce a status quo. The better spirits of men and women are left behind, and in place, fear plays takes centre stage.

The human throngs making their way to various European transit points as of this writing have struck fear into the rightwing Orbán government. A range of measures have been enacted, the sort of one would expect from a government in fear of its own life.

These include three-year jail terms for those breaching the razor-wire barrier being built along the Hungarian-Serbian border. Hungarian citizens who collaborate or provide assistance to that end, including aid and shelter, also face state sanctioned punishments.

Orbán’s views on resettling Syrian refugees, among others, in Europe, are making their way up the charts of populist eccentricity. For him, Europe is under incessant siege, and rather than treating Clio as wise and far sighted, he is treating the Muse of history as insightfully dangerous.

The Turkish horde that besieged Vienna twice during the might of the Ottoman Empire has been reincarnated. “We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim.”[1]

This theme is a constant one for Orbán, despite having been an atheist. The mysticism that accompanies the craft of protecting the state brings with it strange stimulants. The sacred state becomes the voice of God – or some deity, and Orbán doesn’t resist harking back to it.

The European centre, in this context, is Christian, and by definition, opposed to perceived rivals. This insular myth allows Orbán to keep busy about a fiction: that Europe was somehow immutable in its institutions and cultures, worshipping at the same altar. Islam had no role to play, despite being Europe’s cultural incubator for centuries as the sacred centre slumbered.

By implication, allowing non-Christian individuals (read Muslim) into the centre is an invitation to conquest, surrender and subjugation. “Everything which is now taking place before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe. We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation.”

This is the classic counter rhetoric that warns of re-visiting victimisation. The Hungarian sense of being done out of history’s rewards is powerful. From empire to ruin is a powerful theme, one that resounds from the battlegrounds of Mohács (1526), where Suleiman the Magnificent dealt the death blow to the Jagiellon dynasty, to World War II. Outsiders, invaders and sinister external forces are the demons to be wary of. As with the aftermath of Mohács, partition from all sides will stare you in the face.

Orbán, suitably aware of these historical references, has put his money (well, the taxpayers) where his mouth is. Church-owned schools have been allowed, courtesy of benefits, to flourish, enabling the spread of “national, Christian and European traditions”. These are the symbolic trenches, awaiting the enemy that is around the corner.

To critics, the Hungarian leader has one, repeated rebuff. And yes, it comes in the form of historical experience, because that explains everything. To former Polish prime minister and current president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, Orbán explained that he had “to say that when it comes to living together with Muslim communities, we are the only ones who have experience because we had the possibility to go through that experience for 150 years.”[2] (He conveniently leaves the Serbs and Greeks out of this equation.)

Such commentary seems at odds with what was said in 2013 during the opening of a Hungarian cultural centre in Istanbul. Then, at least, the historically invasive Turk was treated with greater accommodation. “Being Hungarian in Turkey is a good thing,” suggested Orbán, “and being Turkish in Hungary is a good thing.”[3]

Not so now. The militarisation of the entire refugee issue is in full swing. From London to Budapest, there is a sense that asylum seekers and designated refugees have hidden arms, dangerous messengers of a subterranean Caliphate. People trafficking networks are their allies.

In all of this, Orbán gives an impression that Europe should thank this modern soldier against immigration, guarding the gates against the hordes. All this, despite the recent decision to use buses to transfer the initially detained refugees to Austria and Germany. “Ceterum censeo: there is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders.” This absurdity which leads to a self-imposed logic of fear is reductionist and even pathological: avoid, whatever the cost, another Mohács.

Notes: 
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/muslims-threaten-europes-christian-identity-hungarys-leader-says/

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/world/europe/hungarian-leader-rebuked-for-saying-muslim-migrants-must-be-blocked-to-keep-europe-christian.html?_r=0

[3] http://dailynewshungary.com/orban-opens-hungarian-cultural-centre-in-istanbul/

THE MISDEEDS of Napoleon’s occupation army in Spain were not photographed. Photography had not yet been invented. The valiant fighters against the occupation had to rely on Francisco Goya for the immortal painting of the resistance.

The partisans and underground fighters against the German occupation of their countries in World War II had no time to take pictures. Even the heroic uprising of the Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw was not filmed by the participants. The Germans themselves filmed their atrocities, and, being Germans, they catalogued and filed them in an orderly way.

In the meantime, photography has become common commonplace. The Israeli occupation in the Palestinian occupied territories is being filmed all the time. Everybody now has cellular phones that take pictures. Also, Israeli peace organizations have distributed cameras to many Arab inhabitants.

Soldiers shoot with guns. The Palestinians shoot pictures.

It is not yet clear which are more effective in the long run: the bullets or the photos.

A TEST case is a short clip taken recently in a remote West Bank village called al-Nabi Saleh.

Every Israeli has seen this footage many times by now. It has been shown again and again by all Israeli TV stations. Many millions around the world have seen it on their local TV. It is making the rounds in the social media.

The clip shows an incident that occurred near the village on Friday, two weeks ago. Nothing very special. Nothing terrible. Just a routine event. But the pictures are unforgettable.

The village al-Nabi Saleh is located not far from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. It is named in honor of a prophet (Nabi means prophet in both Arabic and Hebrew) who lived before the time of Muhammad and is said to be buried there. His extensive tomb is the pride of the 550 inhabitants.

Al-Nabi Saleh is build on the remains of a crusader outpost, which in its turn was built on the remains of a Byzantine village. Its history probably goes back to ancient Canaanite times. I believe that the population of these villages has never changed – they just changed their religion and culture according to the powers that be. They were in turn Canaanites, Judaeans, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and finally Arabs.

The latest occupation (until now) is the Israeli. These new occupiers have no interest in converting the locals. They just want to take their land, and, if possible, induce them to go away. On part of the lands of Nabi Saleh an Israeli settlement called Halamish (“flint”) was set up.

The conflict between the village and its new “neighbors” started immediately. Between them is an ancient well, which the settlers have renovated and claim as their own. The village is not ready to give it up.

Like in many other villages in the area, such as Bil’in, on every Friday, right after the prayers in the mosque, a demonstration against the occupation and the settlers takes place. A few Israeli peace activists and international volunteers take part in them. The demonstrators are generally non-violent, but on the fringes teen-agers and children often throw stones. The soldiers shoot rubber-covered steel bullets, tear gas and stun grenades, and sometime live bullets.

As in many small Arab villages, most inhabitants belong to one extended family, in this case the Tamimis. One Tamimi boy was shot dead in one of the demonstrations, a girl was shot in the foot. It is a Tamimi boy who features in the recent event.

THE CLIP that rocked the world starts with one lone soldier, who was obviously sent to arrest a boy who had (or had not) thrown a stone.

The soldiers jumps across the rocky terrain, looks for the boy who is hiding behind a rock and catches him. It is 12 year old Muhammad Tamimi, with one arm in a plaster cast.

The soldier puts his arm around the neck of the boy, who cries in terror. Soon his 14 year old sister appears, and soon after that his mother and other women. They all tear at the soldier, who tries to push them away with his other arm. During the wild struggle, the sister bites the arm of the soldier, the one which holds his gun.

The soldier is masked. This is a new thing. Why are they masked? What are they hiding? After all, they are not Russian policemen who fear the revenge of the gangsters. When I was a soldier, long ago, masks were unknown.

During the melee, one of the women succeeds in ripping the soldier’s mask off. We see his face – just an ordinary young man, recently out of high school, who is obviously at a loss of what to do. There seem to be photographers all around. One sees their feet.

Would the soldier have used his gun if the photographers had not been there? Hard to say. Recently a brigade commander shot and killed a boy who had thrown a stone at his car. The army condones and even lauds such acts of “self defense”.

For some minutes the scene goes on – the boy crying and pleading, the women pushing and hitting, the soldier pushing back, everybody shouting. Then another soldier approaches and tells the first soldier to release the child, who is seen running away.

WE DON’T know who the soldier is. It is hard to guess his background. Just a soldier, one of many who enforce the occupation, who face the demonstrations every week.

Another angle to the event is provided by one of the protesters off camera, so to speak, who was caught for a fleeting moment. He was recognized.

He is a teacher who bears the names of two illustrious persons – the Zionist founder Theodor Herzl and the composer Franz Schubert. Herzl Schubert is a veteran left-wing peace activist. I have met him in many demonstrations.

On the morrow of the showing of the footage on all Israeli television stations, the cry went up to dismiss him. What, a leftist peace demonstrator in the schoolroom?

Schubert was not accused of preaching his opinions in class. His peace activities did not take place during working hours. The very fact that he took part in a demonstration in his own free time was enough. His case is now “being considered” by the education ministry.

This, by the way, is no exceptional case. A respected female educator who was chosen as headmistress of an art school was blocked by the discovery that many years ago she had signed a petition calling on the army to allow soldiers to refuse service in the occupied territories. The petition did not call for refusal but only respect for the moral decision of the refusers. That is enough. The ministry, now led by a nationalist-religious demagogue, promised “to consider the matter”.

These cases of a new McCarthyism concern, of course, only leftists. No one demands the dismissal of the rabbi who prohibits the selling or renting of apartments to Arabs. Or the rabbi who wrote that under certain conditions it is permissible to kill non-Jews, including children. Their salaries are paid by the state.

MANY MILLIONS around the world must by now have seen the Nabi Saleh footage. It is impossible to assess the extent of the damage.

It is not that this clip is especially revolting. Nothing terrible happens. It is the face of the occupation, the present face of Israel, that imprints itself on the minds of the viewers.

For many years now, almost all news footage coming out of Israel has concerned the deeds and misdeeds of the occupation. Gone and forgotten is the face of Israel as the progressive state created by the victims of the most hideous mass crime in modern history. The state of pioneers who “made the desert bloom”. The bastion of freedom and democracy in a turbulent region.

That picture has long been wiped out. The Israel that presents itself to the world now is a state of occupiers, of oppressors, of brutal colonizers, of soldiers armed to the teeth who arrest people in the middle of the night and persecute them during the day.

This face changes the perception of Israel throughout the world. Every TV clip and news item adds imperceptibly to this change. The attitude of ordinary people around the world, also including Jews, is changed. The damage is lasting and probably irremediable.

The terrified face of young Muhammad Tamimi may well haunt us for a long time to come.

By Ross Harvey*

In the midst of a global commodity price bust and a rapid Chinese economic slowdown, South African mining companies are struggling to keep shafts operational. Exacerbating this difficulty is a generally strained relationship between mining firms and the government over mineral rights.

The most recent episode involves Aquila Resources, which will seek judicial review if a resolution with the Department of Mineral Resources fails to materialise. Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi informed the company last month that its mining right application for the Gravenhage manganese deposit had been denied. Its prospecting licence had also been rescinded and granted instead to the Pan African Minerals and Development Company, in which the South African state’s mining company has a stake.

This is a predictable problem when the state is both player and referee in the mining game. It can no longer be an independent and objective allocator of mineral rights. Combined with a lack of clarity in the latest amendments to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill over how rights applications will be processed, this does not bode well for generating investor confidence in the industry.

The minister also recently suspended – and then promptly reinstated – Glencore’s Optimum Colliery mining licence. It is conceivable that the government may have viewed the suspension of Optimum’s licence as a deterrent to other companies considering retrenchments. In the long run, however, it is difficult to see how the threat of licence suspension will preserve jobs, as it generates uncertainty for investors. Without investment, there can be no production. Without production, there can be no job creation. The Aquila dispute fuels this general uncertainty even further. Reallocating a prospecting licence to a government-favoured entity without due process being followed is sub-optimal practice.

The government does however recognise that the mining industry is in crisis. Since 2008, on average, commodity prices have been declining. Gold, platinum, iron ore and coal – South Africa’s major exports – have all reached prices that render average production marginal. New mines with easily accessible ore bodies, where the marginal cost of production is lower than the marginal price received, will likely survive the storm (all else being equal). The majority of mines, older and with rapidly escalating costs of production will likely shut down. Data from the Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration show that between April and June this year, 23 321 employees across the economy were notified that they were likely to be retrenched in the coming months. More than half of these jobs (11 901) are in the mining sector.

This is the stark reality, and it cannot easily be reversed. Its devastating effects on employment can only be minimised if unions, firms, the Department of Mineral Resources and the Minerals Ministry devise a stable roadmap for the future. The Framework for a Sustainable Mining Industry (FASMI), drawn up by former deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe in 2012, seems to have dissipated into the ether. Crisis talks last month seemed to yield a commitment from all parties to try and save jobs, but the government’s credibility may be undermined by news of its Aquila licence decision.

Revoking a mining licence should not be done in haste, especially not in a country that remains so heavily dependent on the mining industry for employment. Suspending a licence is, technically, an acceptable end-game move in principle. However, given its seriousness, the exact regulations that have been flouted should be made clear to the public, so as to generate trust that due diligence has in fact been followed. Similarly, the process by which prospecting and mining rights are allocated needs to be transparent to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. Without high levels of trust between the state and firms, the latter perceive that their security of tenure is under threat, which disincentivises both new exploration and production investment.

There is a better way. Few dispute the importance of meeting social obligations, and of endowing governments with the power to wield a stick when absolutely necessary, but achieving compliance in this respect should be a function of partnership rather than animosity. As painful as it is, South Africa also has to accept that the commodity super-cycle is over. Input costs have soared while profits have plummeted, not to mention the added difficulty of electricity supply uncertainty. Revoking licences is therefore one of the most unhelpful things that the government could do to save jobs in a time where saving jobs is crucial to maintaining some level of social wellbeing and stability.

A better route would be to revisit FASMI, along with the National Development Plan’s call for reduced ministerial discretion, and forge a real partnership between unions, the state and mining. The mining phase of Operation Phakisa offers an opportunity in this respect. All stakeholders should make every effort to iron out their grievances in a way that does not undermine whatever mining growth potential remains.

*Ross Harvey is a senior researcher in SAIIA’s Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme. This article was first published by Business Day.