On August 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Obama v. Klayman, ruled for the government in the ongoing litigation over the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) telephone metadata program (PDF). The Klayman ruling, while arising out of the context of the government’s foreign intelligence gathering powers, did not opine on the constitutionality of the NSA’s program. Instead, the decision focused on the procedural prerequisites necessary for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case in the first place. Specifically, the appeals court ruled that the Klayman plaintiffs lacked standing to obtain a preliminary order barring the NSA from continuing the telephone metadata program.

Arising from the D.C. District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction against the telephone metadata program in December of 2013, the recent ruling from the D.C. Circuit comes after the short term lapse (PDF) and subsequent 180-day reauthorization of the statutory authority supporting the telephone metadata program. Central to the case is the issue of constitutional standing, embodied in Article III of the Constitution, which provides that federal courts generally can act only in the context of a “case-or-controversy.” That language that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require that a person seeking judicial relief from an Article III court have a genuine stake in a case (i.e., an injury-in-fact that is caused by the illegal action and is redressable by the judicial relief sought). Pursuant to the 2013 Supreme Court’s ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief to stop unlawful government conduct bears the burden of proving that a concrete and particularized injury is “certainly impending” as a result of the allegedly unlawful government action.

Amnesty International arose in the context of a challenge to a different foreign surveillance program – surveillance conducted pursuant to section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (PDF). The challenge in that case failed because the plaintiffs, a group of lawyers and human rights activists who had clients that could be subject to section 702 surveillance, had “no actual knowledge” that the government targeted their communications and could only speculate whether the government would imminently target their communications. The Klayman plaintiffs attempted to distinguish Amnesty International on the grounds that they—unlike the Amnesty International litigants—had proof that they were being subject to surveillance under the NSA metadata program. Namely, the Klayman plaintiffs argued that they had suffered an injury because (1) the nature of the bulk metadata program meant that all telephone records —- including the plaintiffs’ — needed to be a part of the program; and (2) the plaintiffs were customers of Verizon Wireless and a leaked 2013 production order from the FISA Court indicated that the government was collecting phone records from a sister company of Verizon Wireless, Verizon Business Networks.

The D.C. Circuit in Klayman disagreed with the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the district court. The per curiam ruling, while unanimous in concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish standing necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction against the government telephone metadata program, was fairly splintered, with all three judges on the panel releasing separate opinions on the matter. Judge Janice Rogers Brown, had the first concurring opinion in the case and concluded that while she felt the evidence proffered by the Klayman plaintiffs made the case distinguishable from Amnesty International, the evidence proffered only made it “possible” that the government had collected the underlying records, short of the burden needed to obtain a preliminary injunction – a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” The remaining two Judges—senior Judges Stephen Williams and David Sentelle—

disagreed with Judge Brown’s assessment of the standing question, finding the case indistinguishable from Clapper. Judge Williams concluded that while assertions had been made by the plaintiffs that the telephone metadata program obtained all metadata from every major carrier, the government has “consistently maintained” that the collection is not so comprehensive. Judge Williams also noted that, unlike in the recent decision of the Second Circuit finding the telephone metadata program unlawful on statutory grounds, the plaintiffs in the instant case were not even customers of Verizon Business Networks, making the Klayman plaintiff’s arguments about standing speculative and insufficient to meet the burden for establishing Article III standing.

Judge Sentelle concurred in part and dissented in judgment, agreeing “with virtually everything in Judge Williams’ opinion,” save for one point—what to do with the case going forward. Because the appeal was centered on the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and was not an appeal on the merits of the underlying complaint seeking monetary damages and a permanent injunction, the question remained as to whether the Klayman plaintiffs could continue to pursue their case despite their failure to meet their burden to prove the need for preliminary relief. Judge Sentelle, noting that standing is jurisdictional, would have ordered the case dismissed entirely.

Judges Brown and Williams, while disagreeing as to the strength of the plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate standing to pursue the underlying case, agreed that the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to seek jurisdictional discovery to determine whether their records were, in fact, subject to the NSA bulk metadata program. However, as Judge Brown noted in her concurring opinion, there could be roadblocks to the plaintiffs demonstrating standing, as the evidentiary privileges, like the state secrets doctrine, may prevent the Klayman plaintiffs from unearthing evidence about whether they were targets in the metadata program.

While the results of limited discovery remain to be seen, it is also worth noting that recent amendments to the underlying authority of the telephone metadata program were recently enacted as part of the USA FREEDOM Act, and are scheduled to go into effect in late November. Those amendments generally require the relevant collection activities to be limited “to the greatest extent reasonably practicable” by a “specific selection term.” Insofar as these pending changes in law require narrowing of NSA’s collection activities, those changes may further impede these and other plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate that collection of their telephone records is “certainly impending” to a degree sufficient for Article III standing.

By C. Raja Mohan*

That the RSS came out in support of the NDA government’s engagement with Pakistan is not surprising. But the argument advanced by the RSS in defence of a sustained dialogue with Pakistan is certainly interesting and important. After a high-level coordination meeting with the government late last week, the RSS joint general secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, reminded us that Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of India and must be treated not just as neighbours, but as part of an extended South Asian family. Hosabale pointed to the fact that quarrels are not uncommon between brothers. He underlined the importance of improving ties with the South Asian neighbours, including Pakistan, which are tied to India through geography, history and culture.

Some have suggested that the unexpected positive signal from the RSS might be rooted in its ideology of “Akhand Bharat” or “Greater India”. The RSS, then, is damned if it does and damned if it does not. Long accused as the source of the present government’s hostility towards Pakistan, the RSS is now being charged with the ambition to build a “Hindu Rashtra” across the subcontinent in the name of Akhand Bharat.

There was a time when many in Pakistan were deeply offended by the notion of Akhand Bharat, which they believed was a plot to undo Partition. No one today is betting that reversing Partition is either possible or desirable. All of India’s neighbours – from nuclear Pakistan to tiny Maldives – have strong national identities of their own, and no one is ready to dissolve them into the idea of a greater India.

But there is a growing conviction across the subcontinent that the region must overcome the many tragic consequences of Partition, as well as seek a lasting political reconciliation and build deeper economic cooperation. The logic of globalisation and the imperatives of regionalism have also been nudging India and its neighbours to open their borders and reconnect with each other.

The RSS is not the only political formation in the subcontinent that is ambivalent about Partition and imagines the prospect for South Asian unity of some kind. After 1947, many on both sides of the new divide believed that Partition would be temporary. The socialists, for example, kept up the demand for a “confederation” between India and Pakistan.

A leading ideologue of the RSS, Deendayal Upadhyay, and the socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia issued a joint statement in 1964 urging India and Pakistan to explore the idea of a confederation. Lohia’s successors, including Mulayam Singh Yadav, have often reaffirmed that call. Inder Kumar Gujral and Manmohan Singh, two Indian prime ministers hailing from the Punjab that paid with a lot of blood for Partition, were deeply committed to the pursuit of peace with Pakistan. Gujral putKashmir back on the negotiating table with Pakistan and Singh explored a solution to the Kashmir dispute in a back-channel negotiation with General Pervez Musharraf.

The chief ministers of Punjab, whether Amarinder Singh of the Congress or Parkash Singh Badal of the Akali Dal, have demanded normal relations between India and Pakistan and initiated efforts of their own to promote cooperation across the Radcliffe Line in Punjab. In Kashmir, another region that continues to bleed from the wounds of Partition, the idea of an Indo-Pak confederation has long been supported by the Abdullahs of the National Conference.

The neat domestic divide on Pakistan constructed by Indian liberals – between the secular peacemakers and Hindutva hawks – never had much basis in reality. BJPleader Atal Bihari Vajpayee pursued good relations with Pakistan – when he was foreign minister in the Janata government of 1977-79 and then prime minister of the NDA government during 1998-2004 – more boldly than some of his “secular” peers.

PM Narendra Modi, in turn, has consistently invoked Vajpayee’s legacy in putting special emphasis on transforming ties with neighbours. This was not empty rhetoric. Modi spent some political capital in implementing the boundary settlement with Bangladesh, despite considerable opposition within his own party.

Despite apparent flip flops, Modi is acutely conscious that many of the difficulties of dealing with Pakistan are rooted in the tragedy of Partition.

While political leaders of all colours have been aware of the bitter legacies of Partition, they were not, unfortunately, willing to leave some space for the government of the day to do what is right on Pakistan. Meanwhile, the national security elites have cultivated, over decades, a narrow and self-defeating approach towards Pakistan. In recent years, the electronic media has, on a daily basis, injected much poison into the national discourse on Pakistan.

The reminder from the RSS on the special nature of our relations with the neighbours should help detox the current foreign policy debate and allow the Modi government to develop a more coherent strategy towards Pakistan.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a Consulting Editor on foreign affairs for ‘The Indian Express’

Courtesy: (The Indian Express) September 8, 2015

The Senate has no weightier responsibility this fall than consideration of the nuclear agreement recently negotiated by the United States, key world powers, and Iran. The decision facing each Senator this week will be whether to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or to reject it. For me, this decision has been as difficult as they come.

The fundamental question for me is what this agreement means for the prospects of Iran getting a nuclear bomb. This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned, however I have decided the alternatives are even more dangerous.

At home in Oregon I’ve made it a practice to attend as many of the demobilizations for servicemembers coming home as I can. Many Oregon Guard members are returning from their second, third, or fourth tour of duty. I felt I owed it to them to use the time available to really dig into this agreement. I read it and reread it and read it again.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I’ve always pursued international challenges based on two core principles: 1) try hard-nosed diplomacy first, and 2) be guided by the facts. That second principle was especially relevant in 2002 when I stood with just 22 other Senators to oppose the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that if my side had prevailed on the Iraq question, the Senate might not be considering this Iran resolution before us now.

Two years ago, I made the decision to support the President’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. I did, however, make it clear that I was skeptical about the prospects. Iran’s leaders have lied to the international community about their interest in nuclear weapons for decades and they were even caught doing what they said they would not do: constructing secret facilities to build a nuclear bomb. My skepticism was grounded in the history of Iran’s deception and my doubt that Iranian leaders would honor any commitments they made about a nuclear weapon.

My bottom line for any agreement has always been that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unthinkable. There is no need to debate the finer implications of an Iranian bomb. In the hands of a theocratic regime with stated genocidal goals it would be an existential threat to modern civilization. It is the fundamental obligation of all civilized nations to prevent any government or group that has declared as its goal the destruction of another nation or people from acquiring and deploying such a weapon by any and all means.

I began reviewing the details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with all of this mind.

The basic premise of the Iran agreement is straightforward: the Iranians get billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for a decade or more of restrictions on their nuclear activities and infrastructure.

Critics of this agreement have raised a number of important, serious, and reasonable questions. First, with respect to sanctions relief, Iran is the largest supporter of state-sponsored terrorism in the world. It is very disturbing that in all probability, a large portion of the funds derived from sanctions relief will flow to Hezbollah and other groups working to destabilize the region.

Having recognized that, the quandary is that if the United States rejects this agreement, Iran will get more money anyway. That’s because our allies have indicated that they will not support continuing the international sanctions that have been so effective. So whether the agreement passes or fails, the Iranians are likely to get some form of sanctions relief.

Critics are right that this agreement requires Iran’s leaders to freeze many activities rather than completely destroy or dismantle their nuclear infrastructure, as I and others had called for. When key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years?—?a blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in millennia?—?our country will still have to deal with an Iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program. That’s a big problem, but in the absence of this agreement, Iran will have an even quicker path to a bomb, particularly with the certainty international sanctions will unravel without this agreement.

Critics are also right that the Iranian regime will undoubtedly look to push the limits of this agreement. Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its history on this issue, the U.S. must be ready for Iran to attempt to violate its commitments in large and small ways. All contracts and agreements, commercial and diplomatic, are premised on the idea that one side or the other may attempt to violate them. Much of the language of such deals is intended to police those violations. I believe the American government and our allies are entering into this deal with clear eyes and appropriate caution.

I and others have been able to secure from the President written commitments that the administration will treat cheating, however small, as a serious problem warranting a strong response and that our allies will stand with us against Iranian violations, regardless of the commercial interests that may develop over time. We have agreements with our allies to take the strongest possible actions against Iran if it does not fully live up to its end of this deal. These agreements ensure that all of the parties on our side have the complete set of economic, political and security incentives to police and prevent violations of this deal. I will use my seat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to push for zero tolerance for violations.

Finally, opponents are right to be concerned by the issue of access agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran. These two access agreements contain the technical details for how Iran will satisfy international concerns about the past military dimensions of its nuclear program broadly and about one military site in particular. While current rules stipulate that agreements between the IAEA and member countries are not typically shared, this is not a typical case and Iran is not a typical country. I intend to use my position on the Intelligence Committee to push for reforms at the IAEA.

But it is important to note that these access agreements are about reviewing past Iranian activities, the essential details of which are already known. In my judgment the international community’s central concern should be restricting Iran’s current and future nuclear activities.

Having taken part in many negotiations over three decades of public service, I am keenly aware that no agreement satisfies every demand. Rather, the question I have been wrestling with over these past weeks is whether this agreement is more likely than any alternative to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program in its tracks.

This agreement does contain restrictions on the Iranian program.

• It will reduce Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, from 10,000 kilograms?—?which is enough for several nuclear bombs?—?to 300 kilograms, which would not be enough for a nuclear weapon.
• It will prohibit Iran from enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent U-235 for at least 15 years?—?well below the 90 percent needed to make weapons.
• It will remove two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges currently installed in Iran and place them under international supervision, and will limit the remaining centrifuges to first-generation technology.
• It will force Iran to redesign its plutonium reactor so that it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium, and it will require Iran to ship spent fuel from that reactor out of the country indefinitely.
• And the inspections regime, while not as robust as I would support, will for the first time allow for a review of Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain from uranium mines to centrifuge production plants.

Having talked to the technical experts who will be involved with the implementation of this agreement, I have come to the conclusion that its many overlapping provisions will make it exceedingly difficult for the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon in the short term and will lengthen the time required should they choose to break their commitments and try to build one in the future. But weighing these benefits against this agreement’s shortcomings is a tough call and I think people can reasonably disagree about the final verdict.

No one can be certain what will happen if this agreement is rejected, but all signs point to even more risk and even less stability in the region. Our international partners, who helped negotiate this agreement and who now stand behind it, have only reinforced that point, both in public and in my private conversations. If this agreement is rejected the most likely scenario is not one in which a chastened Iran returns to the negotiating table hat in hand to make additional concessions, but rather one where Iran’s leaders continue to test and install new centrifuges and edge ever closer to the bomb, free from the intrusive inspections that this agreement would create. When negotiations between the Europeans and Iran broke down during the Bush administration, Iran went from less than a thousand centrifuges to many thousands. If the U.S. rejects this agreement, I see no reason why the mullahs won’t run the same play again, adding to the already 19,000 centrifuges they currently have.

Nothing about this decision is based on a hope that Iran’s leaders will moderate over time. I have watched for more than three decades the nefarious role this regime has played in the region. When I first came to Congress in January of 1981, supporters of the Islamic Revolution were holding captive more than 50 Americans in blatant violation of international law. Today there can be little dispute that Iran is the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism. I do not discount Tehran’s decades of deceit and I do not believe this or any other agreement is likely to change the fundamental character of this odious regime. Nor do I dismiss as mere rhetoric the statements made by Iranian leaders about Americans and Israelis. As somebody who lost family in Theresienstadt, I agree that when people express a desire to harm you, the safe bet is to take them at face value. The ayatollahs of Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Given that there is now enough support for this agreement in the Senate, the task before all of us is to ensure that this and future administrations implement the agreement fully and enforce it vigorously. It is the responsibility of this Congress to oversee this implementation with all the tools at its disposal. This vote will hardly be the end of the Senate’s consideration of Iranian malfeasance and responding to the ongoing threats posed by Iran’s leaders will require people to move on after this debate and come together again with common purpose. With that in mind, I will vote to support the agreement.

Successfully countering Iranian influence will require the U.S. to shore up our relations with allies in the region, and a renewed focus on supporting moderate, non-theocratic, groups and governments. It will also require a renewed focus on the vital importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance. To that end, I will be working with colleagues in the Senate and the House to strengthen security assistance and cooperation with Israel, and to ensure if Iran’s leaders ever decide to recklessly charge toward war, Israel and the United States will have a qualitative military edge so significant that success will never be in doubt.

*Ron Wyden (Democrat) is a Senator for the State of Oregon.

Today, four Democratic senators announced their support for the Iran nuclear deal.  As of yesterday, there were only 38 Yes votes, which meant that Pres. Obama would’ve had to exercise a veto to defeat the GOP-Israel Lobby campaign against the agreement.  Early today, three senators (Ron Wyden, Gary Peters and Richard Blumenthal) announced almost simultaneously they would support the deal, which put it over the top.  That gave the Democrats 41 votes, enough to sustain a filibuster.  That would preclude Republicans from bringing it to a vote on the Senate floor.  Later in the day, Sen. Maria Cantwell (one of my senators, alas) announced she too was joining the band wagon and would vote Aye.  What took you so long, Sen. Cantwell?

Congratulations to the two major groups which lobbied hardest for the deal, the National Iranian American Council and J Street.  Also, a hearty mazel tov to 42 courageous senators who refused to toe the Lobby line.

The deal is done.  The agreement will be approved.  Sanctions will end.  Iran will significantly restrain its nuclear program for the next fifteen years.  This gives the world a chance to build normative relations with Iran.  It gives Iran a chance to prove that it should be welcomed among the nations.  I can only hope that neither side squanders this huge opportunity to transform four decades of killing and hate into a pragmatic, forward-looking relationship devoid of sloganeering and pandering (on both sides).

The neocon revanchists have not given up.  They know no shame.  Their policies may be utterly discredited.  But they spring back to life, like the proverbial Jack in the Box clown.  Dick Cheney told an American Enterprise Institute audience that the deal was “madness.”  I, on the other hand, think Cheney’s plan to remake the Middle East in his image was madness.  And we’re still paying for his megalomaniacal delusions to this day.

Bibi “Never Say Die” Netanyahu told a closed-door Likud meeting today that two-thirds of the American people opposed the deal.  Apparently, he confused the fact that 58 Republicans (which isn’t two-thirds of the Senate) were voting No, with polling of the American public. When respondents are asked only whether they support or oppose the deal, a plurality (but not majority) oppose it.  But when the contents of the agreement are explained, a majority (not a plurality) support it.

Bibi has not given up either.  The battle may be lost, but there’s always another to fight.  He will return with proposals in Congress to reintroduce sanctions.  There are rumors Ben Cardin is already drafting such legislation.  And yes, the Israeli prime minister does, through his Lobby proxies, propose, write and lobby for pro-Israel legislation.

Regarding new sanctions, all I can say is: bring it on.  If the U.S. wants to make itself the laughingstock of the world by going in the opposite direction of every other nation, be my guest.  Government officials and business executives from across the globe will be flocking to Tehran to negotiate deals on everything from food to oil.  Billions worth of deals promise to be signed in the coming months.  We Americans, on the other hand, will be left holding the (empty) bag.  We will have nothing to show for our efforts (of negotiating the Iran deal).

How long do you think that will last?  How long before some corporate CEO wakes up and says: wait a minute, we’ve been had.  Germans, Britons, French, Russians, Chinese have taken us to the cleaners.  We’ll be last in line and get the leftovers, if there are any.  Did I say “laughingstock?”

Did the Lobby Win or Lose?

There’s been a great deal of debate about the role of Aipac and the Israel Lobby in the campaign.  Some pundits believe the loss will harm the overall perception of the Lobby as an invincible power on matters of U.S. Mideast policy.  Others say it will not harm the Lobby.  I’m torn on the question.  But I think that 42 Democratic senators defying the Lobby on a question that was posed as a life and death matter by Israel’s leadership, is significant.  Netanyahu himself has turned support for Israel into a divisive issue, when previous Israeli governments have taken pains to pursue a bipartisan approach.  Aipac’s kamikaze act on behalf of the deal can only widen this split, with Democrats becoming more emboldened in their approach.

For example, Rep. Betty McCollum, publicly proposed that Israel be held accountable for the cold-blooded murder of two Palestinian teenagers during a Nakba Day protest near Ofer Prison this year:

“…These killings exemplify, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian youth in the Occupied West Bank is unacceptable and must not be tolerated by the U.S. or the international community,” McCollum wrote. “The murders of Nadeem Nawara and Mohammad Daher only highlight a brutal system of occupation that devalues and dehumanizes Palestinian children. It is time for a strong and unequivocal statement of U.S. commitment to the human rights for Palestinian children living under Israeli occupation.”

McCollum also called on the State Department to investigate whether the 38th Company of the Israeli Border Police — the unit that killed Nadeem and Mohammad — violated the “Leahy Law.” If such a violation occurred, the unit “should be ineligible to receive future U.S. military aid and training and all border policemen involved in this incident should be denied U.S. visas as stipulated by the law.”

McCollum is undoubtedly one of the most progressive members on Israel-Palestine.  In fact, back in 2006, her chief of staff was told by an Aipac operative that McCollum was a “supporter of terrorism” because she refused to vote for a bill the pro-Israel group was touting.  Nevertheless, neither she nor any other Congress member would ever in the past have demanded Israel be held accountable for such killings.  They would’ve been viewed as internal Israeli matters not appropriate for outside intervention.

This is a courageous thing to do for anyone in her shoes.  Undoubtedly, she will pay the price.  She will face a primary challenger who is well-funded with Lobby cash.  Or some such way of voicing its displeasure will be felt.

The point is that there are subtle tectonic shifts happening.  The Lobby remains powerful, but no longer invincible.  Though I profoundly disagree with J Street on much of its political and lobbying agenda, it too has put a few dents in Aipac’s fenders.  This is a slow process.  But it leads inexorably to the same place Israel itself appears headed: political irrelevance and decrepitude.

By Conn Hallinan*

Between now and next April, four members of the European Union (EU) will hold national elections.

They’ll go a long ways toward determining whether the 28-member organization will continue to follow an economic model that’s generated vast wealth for a few, widespread misery for many, and growing income inequality for all.

The choice is between an almost religious focus on the “sin” of debt and the “redemption” of austerity, as opposed to a re-calibration toward economic stimulus and social welfare.

The backdrop for elections in Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland is one of deep economic crisis originally ignited by the American financial collapse of 2007-08. That meltdown burst real estate bubbles all over Europe — particularly in Spain and Ireland — and economies from the Baltic to the Mediterranean went off the rails. Countries like Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Portugal saw their GDPs plummet, their banks implode, and their unemployment rates reach levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Debt levels went through the ceiling.

The response of the EU to the crisis was a carbon copy of the so-called “Washington consensus” that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) applied to indebted Latin American countries during the 1990s: massive cutbacks in government spending, widespread layoffs, and double-digit tax hikes on consumers.

Instead of lowering debt levels and jumpstarting economies, however, the IMF strictures for Latin America did exactly the opposite. Cutbacks, layoffs, and high taxes impoverished the majority, which in turn tanked economies and raised debt levels. The formula was a catastrophe that Latin America is still digging itself out from.

But the strategy was very good for a narrow stratum of banks, speculators, and multinational corporations. U.S, British, German, Dutch, and French banks helped inflate real estate bubbles by pouring low interest money into building binges. The banks certainly knew they were feeding a bubble — land prices in Spain and Ireland jumped 500 percent.

However, as economist Joseph Stiglitz points out, the banks had a trick: Their private debts would be paid for by the public, just as they were in the United States under TARP.

Taxpayers did pick up the tab, but only by borrowing money from the troika — the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission — and accepting the same conditions that tanked Latin American in the 1990s. History was replicated on another continent.

Lines in the Sand

The upcoming elections will pit the policies of the troika against anti-austerity movements in Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Ireland.

If these movements are to succeed, they’ll first have to confront the mythology that the current economic crisis springs from avaricious pensioners, entitled trade unionists, and free spending bureaucracies — rather than irresponsible speculation by banks and financiers. And they’ll have to do so in a political arena in which their opponents control virtually all of the mass media.

Never have so few controlled so much that informs so many.

The election terrain is enormously complex. And while resistance to austerity gives these movements a common goal, the political geography is different in each country.

The left essentially has to fight on two fronts: first, against the policies of the troika, and second, against a rising tide of racist, xenophobic, and increasingly violent right-wing movements that have opportunistically adopted anti-austerity rhetoric. The openly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece and the fascist National Front in France may attack the policies of the EU, but their programs have nothing in common with organizations like Greece’s Syriza, Ireland’s Sinn Fein, Spain’s Podemos, or Portugal’s Left Bloc.

Size counts in this coming battle. Because Greece makes up only 1.3 percent of the EU’s GDP, the troika could force Greece to make a choice between, in the words of former Syriza finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, “suicide or execution” —suicide if Syriza accepted another round of austerity, execution of the country’s banks and financial structure if it did not. Because it is small, Greece’s death would scarcely cause a ripple in the EU. A similar situation exists for Ireland and Portugal.

But not for Spain. Spain is the 14^th largest economy in the world and the fifth largest economy in the EU. Bankrupting it or driving it out of the Eurozone — the 19 countries that use the euro instead of a national currency — would cause more than a ripple. It could sink the entire enterprise. That’s why the austerity measures the troika impressed on Spain were severe, but not as onerous as those inflicted on Ireland, Portugal, and Greece.

Besides trying to ameliorate the worst aspects of the troika program, the anti-austerity left faces an existential question: Should their indebted countries remain in the Eurozone, or should they call for withdrawal and a return to national currencies?

The Eurozone has been a disaster for most its members, except Germany and, to a certain extent, Austria and the Netherlands. While the currency is common, there is no shared responsibility for the results of economic unevenness. In the United States, big economies like California help pay the way for small economies like Mississippi, under the assumption that a common interstate market is a good thing. In the Eurozone, it’s every man for himself — and if you’re in trouble, talk to the troika loan sharks.

Since the euro is controlled by the European Central Bank — read, Germany — countries can’t manipulate their currencies to help get themselves out of trouble the way the U.S., China, Russia, India, Brazil, Great Britain, and others do. A currency union doesn’t work without a political union, and such a union is a bad idea when it puts countries like Germany and Greece on the same playing field. In the end, the big dogs dominate.

A Scorecard

While the issues throughout the Eurozone may be similar, each country is different. A short scorecard:

Greece (September 20)

Syriza, the left-wing party that won the last election, has split. Twenty-five former Syriza deputies have formed the Popular Union party and called for full resistance to the troika’s demands.

Despite retreating from his previous opposition to any new austerity, polls show that Alexis Tsipras — the Syriza prime minister who recently resigned to call new elections — remains popular. The right-wing New Democracy party and center-left PASOK, who formerly dominated Greece, have been badly discredited, and the centrist Potami Party doesn’t have a clear program except “none of the above.”

The left should do well, but it will be divided. Division in the face of the troika is perilous, but this battle is a long way from over, and there are creative ways to resist the troika without taking it head on. A civil war within the Greek left, however, could be disastrous.

Portugal (October 4)

Portugal is currently dominated by the conservative People’s Party-Social Democratic Party coalition that holds 132 seats in the 230-seat assembly. But polls show the anti-austerity opposition running neck and neck with the center-left Socialists, who currently control 74 seats.

The Socialists put in the austerity program, but have since turned against it. The left-wing United Democratic Coalition, an alliance of the Communist Party and the Greens that currently controls 16 seats, and the Left Bloc, which currently holds 8, each look primed to pick up deputies.

There’s a strong possibility that the conservatives will fall, and that the center-left and left opposition will form a coalition government. Together these parties control 98 seats. They’ll need 116 to form a government.

Spain (December 2015)

The political situation in Spain is fluid.

The right-wing ruling People’s Party is in trouble because of several major corruption scandals and its enthusiastic support for austerity. The Socialist Party has recently increased its popularity, but it was the Socialists who instituted the austerity policies in the first place.

Support for the left-wing anti-austerity Podemos Party appears to have stalled, but it has elected, or helped to elect, the mayors of Madrid, Barcelona, Cadiz, and Zaragoza. Unlike Syriza, which is a coalition of left parties, Podemos is a grassroots organization that knows how to get the voters out.

There is also the center-right Ciudadanos Party that did well in spring elections, which has espoused a few populist-leaning positions. But its anti-immigrant and anti-abortion positions complicate matters, and its economic program is at best opaque. Those things are not likely to translate into major electoral gains.

Whatever happens, Spain is no longer a two-party country, and the left will play a key role in any coalition building to form a government.

But there’s a wildcard in this election: the newly minted Citizens Security Law, which the People’s Party rammed through parliament. It’s aimed at suppressing demonstrations, criticism of the government, and free speech. It’s clearly aimed at shutting down Podemos.

Ireland (April 2016)

“Volatile” is the only way one can describe the Irish Republic, where the polls shift from month to month.

The economy is growing, but the troika’s austerity regime is still raw. Over 100,000 mortgages are under water, and since 2008 some 40,000 people — mostly young professionals — have fled to Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, inflicting a crippling brain drain on the island.

The centrist coalition of Fine Gael and Labor currently rules, but that’s likely to change after the election. Polls show Fine Gael at 28 percent and Labor at 7 percent. At 21 percent, the left-wing, anti-austerity Sinn Fein Party is in the number two post, although its support has fallen off slightly since last year.

However, the popularity of its leader, Gerry Adams, has been climbing.

Lastly, there’s a mix of independent parties, ranging from greens to socialists, supported by 24 percent of the voters. Most are anti-austerity and potential coalition partners if the ruling parties fall. The conservative Fianna Fail Party is polling about 20 percent.

Showing Solidarity

In addition to confronting the enormous power of the troika, delivering services, and creating jobs, the left will have the added challenge of differentiating itself from the racism of the right — particularly amid an acute refugee and immigration crisis that governments have been unwilling to find a humane solution for.

Since of the bulk of the refugees are generated by the irresponsible policies of countries like France, Britain, Italy, and Germany in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, the left must clearly link the foreign adventurism of their elites to the flood of people now seeking safety from the storms those elites helped to generate.

None of this will be easy, and disunity will make it harder.

Meanwhile, the left elsewhere in the world cannot expect small countries like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland to take on the power of international capital by themselves. Not since the rise of Nazism has there been such a pressing need for international solidarity.

In a very real way, we are all Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Irish. These elections are as much about the rest of us as they are about the parties and movements that have decided to resist a species of capitalism that is particularly red of tooth and claw.

*Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at Dispatches From the Edge and Middle Empire Series.

By Sokari Ekine*

Mdm Youseline Augustin Bell is an educator, psychologist, and attorney. In 1995 together with her husband Bell Angelot they opened the College Bell Angelot in Cap-Haïtien which presently has 1,000 K-12 students. A well known human rights activist and a member of Fanmi Lavalas, Mdm Bell successfully ran for Senator of Haiti Nord in the 2000 elections.

For the past 11 years, Fanmi Lavalas has been prevented from participating in Haiti’s elections, so it was with great hope that Augustin Bell chose once again to run for Senator of Haiti Nord. However as she explains, the legislative elections of 9 August, 2015 were marred by excessive levels of fraud and violence committed in the main by three parties: President Martelly’s PHTK (Party Haitian Tet Kale); presidential candidate Steeve Khawly’s Bou-clier party with close links to Martelly; and Vérité which is backed by former President René Préval In her words, there was a ‘political coup’.

The kinds of fraud which took place were: the physical prevention of party representatives, Mandataires, from doing their job or by handing out their papers too late; the opening of voting stations for shorter than the designated time, opening late and closing early; armed men entering voting stations [in some cases accompanied by the police] leading to voters fleeing; destroying voting equipment including ballots and boxes, removing them and returning later with full boxes; physical violence including the death and injury of civilians and police. All of the above occurred across the country and in some towns only minimal, or no voting was able to take place.

Specifically the following towns in Haiti Nord all witnessed voting fraud and vandalism: Plesance, Limbe, Borgne, Port Margot, Cap-Haïtien, Dondon, Grande Riviere, L’Acul, Plaine du Nord, Saint-Raphael, Bahon, Limonade, Pigeon. MINUSTAH, the UN occupying force in Haiti, who supposedly are in Haiti to protect the population against violence and to act as an additional police force, were conspicuously absent in Cap-Haïtien on Sun-day 9 August. Augustine Bell asks why were they not pa-trolling the streets and/or stationed outside polling booths in the same way they accompany the Haitian police during evictions, protests and even traffic duty?

Despite their absence the UN along with the OAS (Organisation of American States),which presented a weak and clearly partisan statement, determined the election process not only a success but “was a step forward in strengthening Haitian democracy”. The CEP [Provisional Elec-toral Council] response was equally dismissive with its Chief, Pierre Opont, claiming there was only 4% irregu-larity and describing the violence and fraud as merely “a feature of elections” and “realities of the vote” in Haiti.

The truth is, this is not Haiti, and this is not what the Haitian people desire. The west including the UN have chosen to side with bandits and political gangsters. They have chosen to ignore the will of the people and their aspirations in favour of a few local elite and corporate interests and in maintaining an occupation force in Haiti.

THE INTEVIEW

SOKARI EKINE [SE]: Fanmi Lavalas was prevented from participating in the 2006 and 2010 elections, why now?

YOUSELINE AUGUSTIN BELL [YAB]: There could be many reasons why we were prevented from participating. Jean-Bertrand Aristide [JBA] was in exile in South Africa. Now he is here with us so maybe this is why they let us participate. However anytime Lavalas participate in the elections we win. This time, although they let us participate, they knew we would win, and I believe this is why they have tried to prevent us by employing gangs to commit fraud with the ballot boxes.

SE: What was the position of the US and the Haitian government on JBA returning to Haiti in April 2011

YAB: I cannot say specifically but there was a general reluctance on the part of the Haitian administration and international community on his returning to Haiti. Right up to the last minute we were not sure his plane would be able to land in Port-au-Prince.

SE: There have been extensive reports of fraud and violence by political parties and candidates. What was your personal experience with the 9 August election?

YAB: It is the political parties of the government like PHTK, Bouclier and Vérité that formed armed commandos who went into voting stations, stole the ballot sheets, returned them later and placed them in the ballot boxes. The armed gangs caused people to flee, and they also prevented all our Mandataire from doing their jobs. They think this is the way they will win the election. They killed people, beat them. In several parts of the north they carried out a lot of violence and though we cannot say what will happen, we can say there was no election in these places and really the whole country.

SE: You mentioned three parties, PHTK, Bouclier and Vérité. Do you think the three parties are working togeth-er?

YAB: I think they are working together. Vérité are Martelly’s friends; PHTK is his party and both him and his wife, Mdm Martelly, have close connections to Bouclier so they are the same people. They joined forces to steal the election.

SE: What will be the consequences of this fraudulent election?

YAB: Our request is to cancel the election of 9 August but the OAS have just made a statement that the election was a success. We know they are lying because there was no election. It was fraud all the way. And in some parts of the country the CEP cancelled the election so they should do the same thing for the whole country. I know because of the financial implications they may want to keep the elections, but it is a shame for us to keep this election. It is a selection, not an election.

SE: There are two possibilities in cancelling the elections. First to hold new elections despite the financial implications and the CEP and OAS statements; and secondly, Martelly stays in power for a longer period which could be another year or even more, as a de facto dictator.

YAB: Some people, some citizens, have asked for an interim government that can organise a new election. Be-cause if Martelly organises the presidential elections in October we will be in the same situation that we are now facing. We will not accept the result of this election. Several parties have already asked for the total annulment of the election. There is a group of 10 parties who have come together to denounce the election including Fanmi Lavalas, Renmen Ayiti and Fusion. Pitit Dessalin has also called for the cancellation of the election, but they are not part of the group with Fanmi Lavalas. It is going to be very difficult for the government to give a result for this election.

SE: What will be the next step for Fanmi Lavalas and other parties if the elections are not cancelled?

YAB: We will sue them, Fanmi Lavalas will sue CEP be-cause I spent a lot of money and time and was the front candidate for the Nord region. I don’t know what the other parties will do but they may also sue. There will be demonstrations on the street by the different supporters. We also know this government has the support of foreign governments like the US, France, Canada and the UN. The UN did nothing on the election day to protect people on the streets. I did not see them anywhere, so they let the gangsters enter the voting stations. The Haitian law does not permit citizens to carry arms, but we saw people with guns in the polling station and some came with the police who stood around like observers.

Altogether there are 1,362 Bureau Vote [polling stations] in Nord region. I cannot say how many were affected by the fraud, but many did not open or opened late and closed early. This was the responsibility of the CEP and the fraud was not even hidden as you can see from the photos. You can see the boxes were ripped open and stuffed with fraudulent ballots.

We were ourselves stopped on our way to Limbe by civilians with guns and rocks from Vérité and the police were with them. They did not want us to pass but after I showed my identity card and with the help of the police we were able to continue our journey to Limbe. This is the first time I have seen anything like this, the whole election is a terrible experience.

SE: Why do you think the government wants to prevent Lavalas from winning?

YAB: Because if Lavalas was to win there would be a change in the power dynamics in the country with policies more supportive of the masses and also the mining contracts would not be so easily given to foreigners. We are poor and we work in the favor of the poor and they do not like or want the emergence of the poor and masses.

SE: Can you comment on the UN occupation force MINUSTAH and their purpose in Haiti?

YAB: I have evaluated the presence of the UN; they don’t do any work of value. They don’t keep the peace. In their presence, anything can happen. They hurt people, kill people, bring cholera. Maybe they came here to protect the bourgeois. I don’t know what their purpose is.

I don’t know if I am naive, but I thought with their presence the election would be better, but it was a mistake to think like that.

SE: What are your thoughts on the situation with Haitians working in the Dominican Republic and Dominicans of Haitian descent? Many have already been forced to leave due to persecution and violence by both civilians and the Dominican police and are now living in refugee camps near the border.

YAB: Yes they are being persecuted, the poor people especially. And the Haitian government does not help. The UN and CARICOM (Carib-bean Community) did try to help but nothing happened. In fact many of those who the Dominican Republic claim are illegal gave money to the Haitian government to provide them with birth certificates and travel documents but they never received the papers.

The government took the money and did nothing for the people.

The fact is that people are being persecuted and deported illegally. It is racism, and it is discrimination. There is another problem: they do not deport Haitians with money, only poor people. It is an attack on the poor and an attack against Black people. They send poor Black Dominicans to Haiti; so they simply want to get rid of all the Black people in their country.

* * Sokari Ekine is a Nigerian journalist and social justice activist who blogs at Black Looks.

(EurActiv) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the plans unveiled today (9 September) by EU Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker to force the bloc to share 160,000 refugees, adding that even more ambitious and binding agreements were needed.

Juncker delivered the State of the Union speech as planned before the MEPs in Strasbourg, as pressure mounted for an emergency EU summit on the issue.

Following the speech, Merkel urged the bloc to go even further, calling for a distribution of migrants with no limits on actual numbers.

Merkel – whose country expects 800,000 asylum claims this year, and has said it could take half a million annually over several years – said Europe needed a binding long-term deal for the “fair” sharing of the burden.

“We need a binding agreement on the binding distribution of refugees according to fair criteria between member states,” Merkel told the Bundestag.

“We cannot just fix a ceiling and say I don’t care about anything above that.”

The migrants’ plight has touched hearts around the world, spurred by pictures last week of three-year-old Syrian Aylan Kurdi, whose lifeless body washed up on a Turkish beach.

In response to appeals for help from an increasingly-strained Europe, Australia said it would take an additional 12,000 refugees from the Syria and Iraq conflicts, and several South American countries also agreed to help.

But in Europe, mandatory quotas have faced stiff opposition, especially from eastern EU states such as Hungary, which have seen a huge surge in migrants travelling via the Western Balkans to get to Germany.

Police lines broken

As Merkel and Juncker were speaking, at least 400 desperate migrants broke through police lines at the flashpoint town of Roszke on Hungary’s southern border with Serbia, yelling “No camp!” as they scattered in all directions.

Some ran towards a nearby motorway heading to Budapest, which police then closed in the latest confrontation with thousands of migrants pouring across the frontier.

“We don’t want to live any longer in the camps in Hungary or elsewhere, the conditions are horrible. It’s too cold and everything is dirty, and it smells bad,” said a young man from Damascus.

A Hungarian TV camerawoman was fired Tuesday after footage appeared to show her kicking and tripping up migrants, including children, as they ran away from a police line during disturbances at Roszke.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has said the country does not want more Muslim migrants.

Austrian officials said 6,000 migrants coming from Hungary passed through Vienna’s Westbahnhof train station in the 24 hour period leading up to Wednesday morning, with almost all travelling on to Germany.

Juncker urged EU interior ministers – who are meeting next Monday (14 September) – to back his new plan for the relocation of 120,000 refugees from Hungary, Greece, and Italy, and a plan first floated in May to relocate 40,000 others in Italy and Greece.

“It is 160,000 that Europe has to take into their arms, this has to be done in a compulsory way,” said Juncker.

He also announced the setting up of a €1.8 billion fund to help desperately poor sub-Saharan countries, the source of many migrants.

Meanwhile, Berlin said it was open to a special EU refugee summit after the ministers’ meeting, and ahead of the next scheduled EU summit on 14 October.

Under the Commission plan, Germany would take more than 31,000 migrants, France 24,000 and Spain almost 15,000 (see details here).

France has already agreed to take that number, while Britain has said it would take 20,000 over five years, although they would come from refugee camps on the Syrian border and not other EU states.

European Council President Donald Tusk warned Monday (7 September) of an “exodus” that would likely last “for many years”.

Latin America to help

On the Greek holiday island of Lesbos, where an estimated 20,000 people have been waiting in squalid conditions to travel to the mainland, a new processing centre was set up on Monday which handled some 14,000 people in just over 24 hours.

Tensions were also high on other Aegean islands, where another 10,000 are stuck waiting to reach the mainland.

“It was horrible the last three days… There are no rooms, no hotels, no bathrooms, no beds, no anything,” said Hussam Hamzat, a 27-year-old engineer from Damascus who finally got his departure papers on Tuesday after an overnight wait.

More than 380,000 people have arrived in Europe by sea this year, figures from the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR showed Tuesday, including close to 260,000 in Greece and 121,000 in Italy.

Some 85% of those coming to Europe are refugees because they have fled war in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, the agency says.

As Australia agreed to up its quota, offers of help also came in from south America, with Venezuela saying it would accept 20,000, Brazil declaring migrants would be welcomed with “open arms” and Chile also pledging to take “a large number”.

Canada’s Quebec province has also said it will take 3,650 this year and Washington has said it is examining how it could provide more help.

Newly-released data show that police in Hungary have in a single day captured a record number of 3,321 refugees crossing into the country from Serbia.

Data published on the police website on Thursday indicated the number of the Wednesday detentions was above the 3,313 arrivals made last Thursday.

With the new arrivals, the number of refugees looking to go to Western Europe from Serbia through Hungary hits nearly 22,000 in September alone.

Meanwhile, neighboring Austria has also faced a new rise in numbers of refugees coming from Hungary, as over 3,000 people set foot on its soil overnight.

According to police, between midnight (2200 GMT) and 3:00 a.m. alone, more than 1,700 asylum seekers crossed the border at Nickelsdorf in eastern Austria, while on Thursday morning some 2,800 people were present at the site waiting for special buses and trains to take them to Vienna and beyond.

Earlier this week, the UN’s refugee agency warned that at least 42,000 refugees are expected to reach Hungary by next week after traveling up from Greece via Macedonia and Serbia.

The development comes as Europe is facing an unprecedented influx of refugees, mainly coming from conflict-stricken countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Most of the refugees land in Italy or Greece, and then head for the wealthier countries of northern Europe by transiting through countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, like Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary.

Some European countries like Hungary and Czech Republic have not shown much enthusiasm in accepting the refugees while others like Germany have taken in large portions.

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel told parliament on Thursday that around 450,000 refugees have arrived in the country so far this year, including 37,000 in the first eight days of September.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, has called on the European Union to agree on a proportional distribution of refugees with no limits on actual numbers.

Original article

While recent volatility in financial markets has unsettled the global economy, the world should have confidence in China’s future, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told participants in the opening plenary of the World Economic Forum’s ninth Annual Meeting of the New Champions.

“China is not a source of risk, but a source of growth for the world economy,” Li said. While he acknowledged that China’s transition to an economic growth model driven by consumption and innovation will be “painful and treacherous”, he explained that “due to the policies that have been adopted, positive factors in the economy are building up. The fundamentals have remained unchanged.” Declared Li: “If there are signs that the economy is sliding out of the proper range, we have the ability to deal with the situation. China will not have a hard landing.”

The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of the New Champions is taking place in Dalian, People’s Republic of China, from 9 to 11 September. The meeting is a leading global gathering on innovation, entrepreneurship, science and technology. It is held in close collaboration with the Government of the People’s Republic of China, with the support of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The meeting has brought together more than 1,700 participants from 90 countries under the theme, Charting a New Course for Growth.

In his speech, Li argued that, despite the slowdown in China’s growth from its previous double-digit performance, Chinese authorities “have plenty of tools at our disposal to take targeted measures and, at the same time, build momentum for sustainable economic growth in the long term.” Because of China’s economic resilience, its adoption of a range of technologies and their application to its broad industrial base, “China is in the process of a new type of industrialization,” Li explained. “This is generating enormous potential for stimulating domestic demand.” China will continue to open up its economy and liberalize sectors including its financial system, with the renminbi gradually achieving full convertibility. “We will continue with our reform efforts, but in a step-by-step manner,” Li vowed.

Most encouraging for China’s transition to a new economic growth model is the “massive wave of entrepreneurship and innovation across the nation,” Li observed. New ways of financing and innovation in R&D are completely changing business models and industries. “Creativity is the greatest asset for development,” he said. “Mass entrepreneurship and innovation are bringing strong support for employment.” He called for greater international collaboration, including global cooperation on managing production capacity by taking advantage of each country’s comparative strengths. “When it comes to production capacity, there will be some competition, but we need to work together. We are committed to opening up for win-win benefits.” Said Li, “China will never resort to a currency war.”

Answering a question about China’s drive to promote entrepreneurship and innovation, Li said that China continues to welcome overseas investment in its development. “I have confidence that foreign partners will bring not only capital, but also expertise. The Chinese government will do its utmost to protect intellectual property rights in China.”

By Gulshan Sachdeva*

Another major crisis is unfolding in Europe. Still struggling to find solutions for the Eurozone and Ukrainian crises, The European elite was hardly prepared to face a serious refugee and migration challenge. The problem has already been unfolding for some time. This year alone, more than 300,000 people have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea (including 200,000 to Greece). Over 2,600 did not survive this dangerous journey. More than 70 people were found dead in an abandoned truck in Austria. Even last year about 3500 people were reported dead or missing in the Mediterranean Sea. For years, these people were seen by many Europeans merely as economic migrants. The images of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi whose body was found on Turkish shores after a failed attempt to reach Greece finally shocked the Europeans and the world. Further, chaotic scenes in Budapest, where the Hungarian government tried to stop Syrian refugees’ journey towards Germany, forced the European media and its institutions to change the narrative. The UNHCR has clearly declared now that “this is a primarily refugee crisis, not only a migration phenomenon”.

The way different EU governments have responded to the present crisis has again exposed structural flaws of common EU policies. The Dublin procedure established that the first EU country where a migrant or refugees enters, is responsible for processing his or her asylum claim. This obviously put tremendous pressure on countries like Greece and Italy where most asylum seekers arrived first. In recent months, Hungary has also joined frontline status as refugees are entering its territory from neigbouring Serbia. As most asylum seekers want to go to Germany, Sweden, France or Italy, questions are raised as to why register and house them in a country where they do not want to stay any way.

To alleviate the problem, the EU proposed a quota system to distribute migrants among different nations. All 28 EU member states were required to accept asylum seekers in proportion to the size of their economy, unemployment rate and population. Although the plan was initially backed by Germany, France and Italy, they have now suggested many corrections. The UK was already out of the system. Many East Europeans say it will not work as most asylum seekers want to settle in West Europe. Spain has also rejected the plan. Some have objected to the principle itself. The Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban asserted that “the idea that somebody allows some refugees in their own country and then distributes them to other member states is mad and unfair”. Later he even added that “the problem is not European, it’s German. Nobody would like to stay in Hungary, neither Slovakia, Poland or Estonia”. The smaller nations in former Eastern bloc feel that policies are being imposed on them by bigger members.

The number of asylum seekers in the EU has increased significantly in the last few years. Eurostat data shows that about 625,000 claimed asylum in the EU in 2014. The numbers were high but perhaps not as alarming as presented in European media. Europe has seen high numbers even before, particularly during the Yugoslav crisis. In 1992 alone, there were close to 700,000 applications. In the first half of 2015, close to 434,000 people have filed applications for asylum in Europe. Last year, the largest number of asylum seekers came from Syria (20%), followed by Afghanistan (7%), Kosovo (6%), Eritrea (5%), Serbia (3.5%) and Pakistan (3%). In fact, more people from Pakistan applied for asylum than from Iraq. About one third people applied for asylum in Germany only. One in four asylum seekers was a minor.

As per the UNHCR, over 4 million Syrians are now refugees. It is not that all Syrians are moving towards Europe. About 1.9 million have taken refuge in Turkey. Similarly, about 1.1 million and 630,000 have found shelter in Lebanon and Jordon respectively. Only about 350,000 Syrians have applied for asylum in Europe.
Europeans know that they cannot run away from their responsibility as many of these people have become refugees due to European involvement in shaping conflict outcomes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Kosovo. Both Russian and Turkish presidents have blamed the western world for their policies on this crisis.

To tackle the crisis, the EU has urged member states to work out a common strategy based on responsibility and trust. So instead of accusing each other, can Europe’s nations agree on some joint action? Many new plans including EU-wide border protection force, destruction of smuggler ships, reallocation plan for already entered refugees, list of safe countries of origin (Balkan states, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Senegal etc) and reception centres closer to conflict areas will be discussed in the coming weeks. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker is soon going to outline his plans to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers across Europe over the next two years.

In the meanwhile, Hungary is building 175 km fence on its border with Serbia. Germany has suspended Dublin rules for Syrian refugees. The Visegrad group (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) has declared that any proposal to introduce quota system is unacceptable to them.

As political and military solutions to the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan are nowhere in sight, the refugee crisis in Europe is not going to disappear in a hurry. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres has urged Europe to “reaffirm the values upon which it was built”. Many West European countries led by Germany have shown courage to accept large numbers of refugees this year. Still the message from the Hungarian prime minister to Syrian refugees was entirely different – “please don’t come. Why you have to go from Turkey to Europe? Turkey is a safe country. Stay there, it’s risky to come. We can’t guarantee that you will be accepted here”.

*Gulshan Sachdeva is Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, JNU

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/EuropesRefugeeCrisis_gsachdeva_090915.html

The Egyptian interior ministry, in a potential signal that the country’s military-backed regime recognizes that its choking off of all public space could backfire, has agreed to allow fans to attend international matches played by the national team and Egyptian clubs.

In doing so, the ministry de facto acknowledged that it has put itself between a rock and hard place. Many Egyptians blame the national team’s poor performance on the fact that fans have largely not been allowed into stadia to support their squad or their clubs since the popular revolt that toppled President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

The continued ban risks the government shouldering the blame for the inability of the national team to maintain a track record of being Africa’s most crowned squad. Egypt’s national team was crushed in June when it was defeated 3:0 by Tanzania in a match in Alexandria from which fans were barred.

Sports minister Khaled Abdel-Aziz said the lifting was applicable to all home qualifiers for the 2017 African Cup of Nations and 2018 World Cup and international championship matches played by storied Cairo teams Al Ahli SC and Al Zamalek SC, two of Africa’s top clubs.

“Fan support is crucial to Egypt’s chances in the Nations Cup and World Cup. The authorities are aware of the importance of having the fans back in the stands,” Mr. Abdel-Aziz said. Past Egyptian governments have basked in the success of the national team and used it to shore up their tarnished images.

The opening of international matches to the public however risks mounting anger among militant soccer fans and student protest groups in which the fans play a central role spilling onto the soccer pitch.

Egyptian media speculated that the ministry was testing the waters with its decision and that the move could lead to an overall lifting of the ban on spectators in stadia. A successful reopening of the stadia without incidents would boost a government whose image is dominated by brutal repression.

In calculating its risk, the ministry has several precedents to work with. A partial lifting of the ban in February was quickly re-imposed after some 20 fans were killed by security forces as they tried to force their way into a Cairo stadium. The fans were protesting against the government allowing only a limited number of people into the stadium and over manipulation of ticket sales to control which fans gained entry.

On the plus side, militant Ahli fans voluntarily left a stadium in November that they had occupied hours before their club was scheduled to play an African championship. The incident was a rare example in which Egyptian security forces agreed to a negotiated, peaceful resolution rather than a hard-handed crackdown.

In a deal, negotiated by Al Ahli’s management the fans agreed to leave the stadium in exchange for being allowed to attend the match, being treated with respect rather than humiliated at security checks, and promising not to disrupt the match. Al Ahli won the championship in a match that proceeded without incident.

Militant fans have long been demanding a lifting of the spectator ban. Thousands of hard-core supporters of Al Ahli and Al Zamalek have attended their clubs’ training sessions in recent months to demonstrate that it was not them but the security forces that were responsible for repeated violent incidents.

The interior ministry in lifting the ban for international matches is hoping that fans would not want to be blamed for failures of the national team or their clubs as a result of protests and violence in the stadium.

That remains a risky bet. Egyptian security forces have a history of impunity in which successive governments including that of general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al Sisi have allowed them to get away with mass killings of protesters, mass arrests and torture.

Successive governments, including that of Mr. Al Sisi who staged a coup in 2013 to topple Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother, have backed away from seriously tackling badly needed security sector reform, a key driver of Egypt’s continued turmoil.

Despite Al Ahli’s successful negotiation of the November crisis and management’s continued engagement with hard-line fan groups who played a key role in the protests that toppled Mr. Mubarak and anti-government protests since, relations between the government and some clubs and fans are tense.

Zamalek president Mortada Mansour has accused the Ultras White Knights (UWK), the militant Zamalek fan group, of attempting to assassinate him and has tried to persuade the courts to ban militant soccer support groups as terrorist organizations.

Mr. Mortada stopped just short of praising the death of 20 Zamalek supporters in the stadium incident in February but prided himself on having requested the security force action that led to their deaths.

Large numbers of militant soccer fans are behind bars either for soccer-related incidents or because of their role in mass anti-government demonstrations in universities and flash protests in neighbourhood in which they played a key role.

The limited lifting of the spectator ban potentially creates a space for fans to let off steam and vent pent-up anger and frustration in a country that allows for no controlled public space and has created feeding grounds for radicalization.

The risk for politicized fans considering exploiting a rare opportunity is not only a harsh government response, one they have grown accustomed to, but alienating themselves from a public that is likely to see the matches as a rare chance to get away from the daily grind.

The Iran nuclear deal pursued by the United States will be capitalised by the Islamic State (ISIS) within the aggrieved Sunnis as just another alliance between the West and the Shiites, thus lending more support for the ISIS push for a Caliphate. There will also be a rise in sectarian violence as a Sunni-Shia proxy war could be on the horizon.

By Shahzeb Ali Rathore*

Since the Iraqi war in the 2000s and civil war in Syria in the 2010s, the Sunnis have been ostracised and discriminated against within their respective states. Sunnis have been subjected to violence and treated as second-class citizens under Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad in Syria and by the Iran-backed Shiite militias. The treatment meted out by leaders and entities that are Shiite and backed by Iran, have consequently created sympathy for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) amongst the more extreme Sunnis. Not only did this result in mass mobilisation of extremist Sunni Muslims for the cause of ISIS, but it also contributed to negative sentiments towards the Shiites in the region.

The nuclear deal between Iran and the major powers – United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – constitutes a modus vivendi of sorts between them to limit Iran’s nuclear programme and lift international sanctions against Iran. While the objective of the compromise is to bring Iran back into the international fold, the deal will ironically entrench the notion of ‘Sunni discrimination’ within the aggrieved Sunni populace in the Middle East that would perceive the deal as an alliance between the West and Shiite Iran. This scenario provides ISIS the opportunity to exploit the concerns of Sunnis to their advantage, and strengthen support for their vaunted Islamic ‘Caliphate’.

Adverse conditions of the Sunnis

For instance, al-Maliki used Iraq’s counter-terrorism laws to jail a number of Sunni dissenters in his country. Moreover, he had passed laws that disallowed Saddam-era officials to hold office. Any political power that Sunnis could have possessed was effectively dissolved by such actions.

Similarly, al-Assad’s regime in Syria caused a systematic erosion of Sunni political power. At the same time, al-Maliki was supporting Shiite militias that were responsible for burning Sunni villages during the Iraq civil war. Apparently, these Shiite governments along with the militias have been backed by Iran on one or more occasions. Iran gave sanctuary to al-Maliki during Saddam’s era, while Iran provided important battlefield grounds to Assad during the Syrian war. Iran has also been accused of financing Asaib Ahl al-Haq (a Shiite militant organisation) that was active during the Iraqi insurgency and Syrian civil war. The group has not only fought Sunni militias but it has also allegedly attacked the general Sunni population.

Therefore, based on this systematic discrimination, the disillusioned Sunnis of Iraq and Syria are not only anti-Shiite, but ardently oppose the Shiite centre of gravity, i.e. Iran. The repudiation of the Sunnis propels the extreme Sunnis to support ISIS, which is intolerant of Shiites. In a situation where the alternative is to live under an oppressive and discriminatory Shiite government, the Sunnis consider ISIS a better bargain. In addition, for some extreme Iraqi Sunnis, ISIS represents the glory of the lost power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated Ba’ath party.

US-Iran coalition; Saudi-Iran proxy war

The extreme Sunnis in Iraq and Syria see the US as an invader and ISIS as their liberator. The US is blamed for its tacit involvement in the removal of Sunnis from power in Iraq. Additionally, the US also banned the Ba’ath party in Iraq thereby effectively breaking the political power of the Sunnis, and giving birth to the insurgency within which ISIS was born and thrived.

The nuclear deal will be perceived by the radical Sunnis as another attempt by the West and the Shiites to further suppress their political, economic and social standing. ISIS will use their anti-Shia and anti-West rhetoric to strengthen their legitimacy for themselves amongst the Sunnis and bring in an increased number of recruits.

In light of the Iran nuclear deal, two regional trends in the Middle East will emerge. Firstly, there will be an escalation of the Saudi-Iran proxy wars. Secondly, ISIS’ economic empowerment could occur, strengthening the group. With deeper pockets on both sides, it is only inevitable that sectarian violence will increase in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, for decades, have been involved in proxy wars pitting extreme Sunnis and Shias of other states against each other. The nuclear deal promises economic prosperity to Iran with increased funds pumping into the country. This indicates a possibility that more funds will be directed towards Shiite militant groups, such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq. A vicious cycle of violence can erupt because of growing funding, with more violence being committed against the Sunni population. The aggrieved and extremist Sunnis in Iraq and Syria will be seen retaliating and rallying behind ISIS to prevent themselves from losing the high ground of power.

Saudi Arabia, along with other significant actors, has shown concern over the nuclear deal. Iran’s rise to power represents a threat to Saudi Arabia’s regional supremacy. While responding to Iran’s growing success, the Saudis could increase funding to Sunni militant groups to counteract and reduce Iran’s regional power. Moreover, it is even believed that ISIS pockets are filled by Saudi financiers, who might increase their funding to ISIS in light of the Iran nuclear deal.

Flooding of Oil Market Might Damage ISIS

However, despite a probable increase in ISIS’ funding, the group might also suffer economically because of Iranian oil entering the world market. A dent on this ISIS’ primary revenue source indicates a possibility of substantive losses. With the lifting of sanctions after the Iran nuclear deal, Iran will now have access to the international oil market. Iran will tap into this opportunity by increasing oil production, and as a result, the oil market will be flooded with Iranian oil. Consequently, the increased supply of oil will lower prices potentially harming the profits earned by ISIS. Hence, ISIS’ financial network could face irreparable damage, weakening its operational capabilities extensively.

Nevertheless the Iran nuclear deal will, in all probability, work for the benefit of ISIS. The foundation for their anti-Shia and anti-West rhetoric is strong. Considering how successful and articulate ISIS is in formulating its propaganda to attract more recruits, the Iran nuclear deal can also be used to further strengthen the organisation. The flooding of the oil market may not even make much of a difference; while ISIS’ sale of oil in the black market might hurt its operational capabilities, the ISIS’ ideology would get reinforced.

*Shahzeb Ali Rathore is a research analyst with the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Paulo Gorjão*

On September 4, António Guterres announced he will leave his post as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) by the end of this year.1 The former Portuguese prime-minister was elected by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in June 2005 and re-elected in 2010 for a second-term, which should have expired last June. However, with the deepening of the refugee crisis, in February 2015, upon recommendation of the UN Secretary-General, the UNGA decided to extend his mandate until the end of the year.2

So far, Guterres has not confirmed whether he will run for the role of UN Secretary-General. Nonetheless, his interest in the position is an open secret. It should be noted that the selection process is only now taking its first steps. On September 11, for instance, a resolution granting Member States the right to receive candidates’ résume’s and hear their views is expected to be submitted to the UNGA, where it is due to be put to a vote. The resolution also calls on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the UNGA to begin with the candidate selection process — which is to be done through a letter inviting Member States to submit applications, if they wish to do so, and explaining the mechanisms for the selection process.3 In any event, such as in past, the selection process threatens to characterize itself by opaqueness, under a formula that continues to grant permanent members of the UNSC discretionary power in the backstage.

The UN Charter is very clear on this issue. Article 97 limits itself to stating that the Secretary-General shall be appointed by the UNGA upon recommendation by the UNSC. In practice, according to a resolution approved by the UNGA in 1946, the UNSC shall recommend only one name, under a process in which the five permanent members of the UNSC — China, France, Great Britain, Russia and US — have veto power. The unwritten rule also establishes that the UNSG shall not originate from one of the five permanent members and respect the principal of geographic rotation.

Ban Ki-moon’s mandate expires at the end of 2016 and, in theory, the next UNSG should originate from the Western European and Others Group. However, the Eastern European Group is claiming that right, since, due to the Cold War context, there has never been a UNSG from that region.

In the event Guterres decides to enter the race, he will have to face capable rivals from the Eastern European countries. Some have already officially assumed their bids and enjoy overt support from the governments of their own countries. Such is the case of Danilo Türk, former President of Slovenia,4 Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria,5 or Vesna Pusic, current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia.6 The list of possible candidates is, nonetheless, much broader — I refrain from enumerating the other two or three dozen names already mentioned in the international media — and, of course, is not limited to the Eastern European Group. In effect, at this point there are potential candidates for everyone’s liking.

In the midst of this abundance, would an eventual bid by Guterres be successful?

The answer is far from being clear. Currently, Guterres is confronted with strong political and diplomatic pressure coming from the highest level of the UN to choose a candidate from the Eastern European Group. That is exemplified by the fact that Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, has on several occasions claimed the primacy of that requisite.7 Naturally, regional countries appear to be aligning with Russia with regard to such a demand, despite it not having been yet decided who that candidate will be.

The former Portuguese prime-minister also faces a considerably powerful lobby focused on choosing a woman for the post, since this has never happened. The resolution to be voted on September 11 in the UNGA explicitly invites Member States to submit female candidates and not male ones. Having said this, the office doesn’t lack female candidates with strong backgrounds and résume’s, as noted above, in a list that is highly likely to be still open.

Additionally, Guterres may have to face an unfavorable calendar. In case the UN’s dominant orientation prevails, according to which the list of candidates must be finalized by November and the short-list closed in December, the former Portuguese prime-minister’s bid becomes practically unfeasible, even if the final decision is taken sometime during the second semester of 2016.

Clearly the wind doesn’t blow favorably for Guterres. That being said, nothing is yet lost. It is not granted that the Eastern European Group will be able to name the next UNSG. In fact, Churkin’s activism may well work in the opposite direction, in part because not every candidate from the region will pass the Russian screening, especially at a time when the Ukrainian crisis is far from being solved and considering that a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe were — and some still are — particularly tough with Russia.

The gender factor may also not prevail, especially when there are — or on the verge of being — several women in top positions in various UN agencies. Former prime-minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, heads the United National Development Programme (UNDP). As mentioned above, Irina Bokova is director-general of UNESCO. Moreover, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, former prime- minister of Denmark, has recently announced her bid for the position of high commissioner of the UNHCR.

On the other hand, however, the extensive network of contacts which Guterres acquired over his ten years as high commissioner of the UNHCR, as well as his deep knowledge of the UN inner workings, are relevant political trump cards favoring the former Portuguese prime- minister. Finally, as far as anyone knows, Guterres may benefit from the fact that he has not generated antibodies among the permanent members of the UNSC.

In a nutshell, Guterres doesn’t currently seem to be among the favorites. Despite this, although not being a favorite, he may still be close enough to be allowed to battle for victory in case the wind blows in his direction. Let us not forget that, in past occasions, the favorites didn’t always end up being the final choice.

In any event, the moment for making big decisions draws near. Guterres has not officially communicated to the Portuguese government his intention to enter the race and, as such, the minister of Foreign Affairs, Rui Machete, has not yet initiated diplomatic démarches to garner votes. That said, it is unlikely that the Portuguese government has not informally carried out some preparatory work. After all, if and when the former Portuguese prime-minister’s bid goes forward, that will ultimately be a national cause, regardless of the next government’s party composition.

About the author:
* Paulo Gorjão is a researcher with Portuguese Institute of International Relations and Security (IPRIS)

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints 181 (PDF)

Revised and enlarged version: “António Guterres: futuro secretário-geral da ONU?” (i, 8 September 2015), p. 31.

Notes:
1 “Head of U.N. refugee agency to step down this year” (Reuters, 4 September 2015).
2 “General Assembly Extends Term of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Appoints France to Committee on Conferences” (United Nations, 2 February 2015).
3 Carole Landry, “UN states want voice in choosing secretary general” (Agence France-Presse, 4 September 2015).
4 Türk’s bid received support from former Slovenian prime-minister, Alenka Bratušek. Unsuprisingly, the new prime-minister, Miro Cerar, who took office in September 2014, maintained his support for the candidature. See “Govt Endorses Former President’s Candidacy for UN Sec-Gen” (The Slovenia Times, 2 January 2014); and, “Türk’s UN Sec-Gen Candidacy Endorsed by PM, President” (The Slovenia Times, 7 January 2015).
5 Bokova’s bid received support from former Bulgarian prime-minister, Plamen Oresharski. The current prime-minister, Boyko Borisov, who took office in November 2014, maintained diplomatic support for the candidature. See “Bulgaria nominates Irina Bokova for UN Secretary General” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs [Bulgaria], 18 June 2014); and, “Bulgaria to Support Irina Bokova’s Nomination for UN Secretary-General” (Sofia News Agency, 9 January 2015).
6 Vedran Pavlic, “Foreign Minister Pusic ́ to Be the Croatian Candidate for the UN Secretary General” (Total Croatia News, 3 September 2015).
7 Dulcie Leimbach, “Has Russia Dashed All Hopes for a Female Secretary- General?” (PassBlue, 30 April 2015).

Jailed Iranian labor activist Shahrokh Zamani was found dead in Rejaishahr Prison by other inmates. HRANA and Kaleme websites report that his death was “sudden” and preliminary reports indicate that it was caused by a stroke.

Zamani’s body was found on Sunday September 13 when other inmates tried to wake him up for the morning walk in the prison yard.

A founding member of the Committee for the Establishment of Independent trade Unions for Construction Workers and Painters, Shahrokh Zamani was arrested in Tabriz in June of 2011 and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

He was charged with establishing an anti-regime group as well as assembly and collusion against national security.

Zamani had gone on hunger strikes for long periods on several occasions to protest his arrest and poor prison conditions.

By Mohammad Ali Dastmali*

According to the constitution of the new Iraq, part of the country’s Kurdish regions have been designated as a federal region known as “the Iraqi Kurdistan Region” whose management has been left to Kurds. This region includes the Iraqi provinces of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah in addition to the Halabja region, which was recently recognized as its fourth province. This region borders three countries of Syria, Turkey and Iran and in view of the revolutionary background of its old parties – which dates back to early decades of the 20th century when they started to fight for independence – the region is of special political significance.

When the Iraqi Kurdistan Region was established, two Kurdish parties, that is, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Jalal Talabani, swayed the highest power with smaller Islamist and leftist parties also having limited activities within its limits. However, at present, there are 37 small and big parties active in this region, and in addition to having its own defense force known as the Peshmerga with 70,000 armed personnel, the Iraqi Kurdistan Region sells its oil independently to global markets through Turkey while also receiving an annual budget from the central government in Baghdad.

During recent days and weeks, the issue of choosing a leader or a president for the Iraqi Kurdistan Region has turned into a major problem. The tenure of Massoud Barzani is legally over, but he is not ready to relinquish power easily.

Sending their high-ranking diplomats to the Iraqi Kurdistan, the United States, Iran and Turkey have been doing their best to help political parties in that region reach a final conclusion on this issue as soon as possible. The president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region is in charge of such important matters as the general command of the armed forces, setting direction of the region’s foreign policy, determining macro policies on relations with the central government, heading the security apparatus of the region and, at the same time, having complete control of the region’s oil revenues. Therefore, having such immense powers, the presidency has practically marginalized other parties and institutions. This is why the opposition parties argue that the Iraqi Kurdistan Region must be run through a parliamentary system, but Massoud Barzani and his party, that is, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, believe that the best political system for this region is a presidential system.

Dissociation between form and content of democracy in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region

At present, the Iraqi Kurdistan Region avails itself of such important means and symbols of democracy as the separation of powers, a parliament, elections, a cabinet of ministers, media, the possibility of holding elections, and the possibility of political activities by various parties. In other words, it has all the means that a democratic system should have.

The reality, however, is that these means have not gone beyond a simple façade and all major decisions are made behind the scenes through bargaining among various parties and through their agreement on how to divide benefits, without any visible sign of the majority vote having a say over the minority. In addition, one of the most important problems plaguing political parties in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region is that the transfer of power from the first leader of the party to the next leader is practically not possible. Mullah Mustafa Barzani continued to lead the Kurdistan Democratic Party since it was established in 1946 up to his death in 1979, after which, his son, Massoud Barzani, has been leading the party.

On the other hand, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan has been under the leadership of Jalal Talabani since 1975. Although he has been practically playing no role in running the party since two years ago due to a stroke, he is still considered the leader of the party and his wife, Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, and son, Qubad Talabani, sway great power within the party.

On the other hand, the leader of the Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party, Muhammad Haji Mahmud, has been trying to transfer the power to his brother.

The same situation governs the Islamist parties as well and almost in all cases, the highest political, executive and security posts are controlled by high-ranking officials of those parties. Masrour Barzani, the son of Massoud, is heading the region’s intelligence service; the son of Talabani is deputy prime minister; the son of a given Peshmerga commander is a minister and other families have been also swaying control over various positions of power as a result of which financial corruption is quite rampant in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

In any elections, it is easily possible for the participants to use government or partisan financial resources for their personal gain and cheating is also quite possible. People can vote using birth certificates of dead people while some lawmakers and state officials who are in high posts can be easily bribed.

Finally, what remains in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region is a flawed and half-living model of democracy, which may seem desirable on the surface, but beneath the surface, it bears no resemblance to a democratic political system. Therefore, even if the problem of choosing a new head of state is solved one way or another, such an inefficient system of democracy is sure to give birth to more problems in the future.

* Mohammad Ali Dastmali
Expert on Turkey Affairs

(RFE/RL) — Germany has introduced controls on its border with Austria in an attempt to limit the influx of refugees arriving in the country.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere announced the measure on September 13, saying it might lead to a disruption of railway services.

He said the aim of the checks is “to limit the current inflows to Germany and to return to orderly procedures when people enter the country.”

Hours after Berlin’s announcement, German officers began carrying out the first passport checks near the Austrian border.

The move came as EU interior ministers are to discuss later on September 14 European Commission proposals to redistribute about 160,000 asylum seekers across the bloc.

Germany’s Federal Police agency said it was moving units into the Austrian border area with the aim of limiting uncontrolled entry into the country by people lacking proper documentation.

All trains between Germany and Austria were suspended for 12 hours.

De Maiziere said his country would remain committed to European and national guidelines on protecting refugees.

He said that Europe’s “Dublin rules,” which require asylum seekers to apply in the first EU country they reach, continued to be valid.

The asylum-seekers must understand that “they cannot choose the states where they are seeking protection,” he told reporters.

The European Commission said the decision by Germany appeared legally justified.

“The temporary reintroduction of border controls between member states is an exceptional possibility explicitly foreseen in and regulated by the Schengen Borders Code, in case of a crisis situation,” the European Commission said in a statement.

The statement added that the executive would keep the situation under review.

The commission said the aim would be to return to the normal situation of no border checks between member states of the Schengen zone “as soon as feasible.”

Some 13,015 migrants arrived in Munich on September 12. Germany is expecting 800,000 new arrivals this year.

Around 700 people had arrived at the main station in Munich on the morning of September 13, according to federal police spokesman Simon Hegewald.

Three special trains are due to move the migrants to other parts of the country.

The majority of migrants entering Germany make the journey through Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, and Austria. Many of them are escaping war and violence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other troubled areas.

German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said in an interview published on September 13 that his country was now reaching its limit as thousands of refugees continue to stream across its borders every day.

“It’s not so much the number of refugees as the speed at which they’re arriving that’s making it so difficult for the states and the municipalities to cope,” he said.

Meanwhile, the flow of migrants into Hungary hit another record on September 12 after a total of 4,330 migrants walked across the border with Serbia.

Hungary has almost finished building a four-meter high 175 kilometer-long, razor-wire fence on its border with Serbia and as of September 15 will enact new rules that criminalize border crossings and speed up decisions about asylum requests.

More than 4,000 Hungarian soldiers will help police enforce the ban on the border.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to relax the asylum laws has caused “chaos.”

Orban, who has taken a hard line on the crisis, told Germany’s Bild newspaper he welcomed the new border controls, saying they were “necessary to protect German and European values.”

The Czech Republic said on September 13 it will boost controls on the border with Austria over the refugee crisis.

Interior Minister Milan Chovanec told Czech Television that Germany’s decision to reimpose border controls with Austria meant the Czech Republic is “now the only bypass” for refugees.

“Further steps will be determined according to the number of refugees heading to the Czech Republic,” Chovanec said.

The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has issued warnings that criminalizing illegal border crossings could violate the UN Convention on Refugees if those crossing are asylum seekers.

Russians continue to support Vladimir Putin as a kind of “distant ‘ambassador of Russia to the world’ who somewhere defends [their] ‘interests,’” but “the gap between support of Putin and the absence of support for real power locally and the system of power built by Putin as such is enormous,” Vladimir Milov says.

The Russian politician and former deputy energy minister says that “Putin is Putin, but the real administration in Russia is being carried out in an entirely different way. Putin doesn’t participate in it … and people have had enough of the monopoly system of administration” the Kremlin leader has put in place (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=55F4568D6E1D6).

Many haven’t noticed this divide, Milov continues, because they are distracted by television reporting on “’Putin and his international adventures,’ but the dissatisfaction of people is very obvious” especially since “the Ukrainian theme, Crimea and the Donbas in general do not have importance. These are marginal themes which in general don’t agitate people.”

To be sure, he continues, “the passivity and the lack of faith in the possibility of change for the better among people is great.” Consequently, “the task of politicians is to overcome this passivity and shake people up.” Despite polls and voting patterns to the contrary, “this is a completely achievable task.”

Putin’s ruling “United Russia” Party “is an absolutely dead brand, like monarchy in 1917. No one will follow it anywhere,” and thus it is far from clear “how they will raise this dead body for the 2016 Duma elections.”

“In general,” Milov says, “this situation looks like the one in 2011 [when protests spread across Russia] even though all sociologists predicted ‘business as usual’” and confidently predicted “victory for the party of party in the Duma elections.”

There is a reason sociologists do so: they “telephone one and the same set of grandmothers once a month who answer in the same way.” Politicians have a better grasp of the situation, he suggests, because “they work on the land and feel the real attitudes” of the people. And thus he urges everyone to remember that “no sociologists predicted” the 2011 protests.

We live in a high-octane, fast-paced world. Although we are surrounded by natural, artistic and technological wonders, too often they remain unnoticed as life speeds by. When was the last time you felt truly awestruck? Now researchers have revealed that feeling awestruck a little more often could be good for you, and for your society.

Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the new paper suggests that the feeling of awe can bind us to our fellow humans and make us behave more generously. Through a series of five studies, the research team, led by Paul Piff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behaviour at the University of California, Irvine, tested the hypothesis that awe can result in a ‘diminishment of the individual self and its concerns, and increase prosocial behaviour’.

The first study showed that those disposed to experience awe showed greater generosity in an economic game above and beyond other ‘prosocial emotions’ – that is, feelings connected to helping other people. In follow-up experiments, inductions of awe increased ethical decision-making, generosity, and prosocial values.

Finally, the researchers found that when participants stood in a grove of towering trees, their prosocial helping behaviour was increased and their sense of entitlement decreased compared to participants in a control condition. The Guardian reports that those study participants who spent time looking upwards at high eucalyptus trees were more likely to help a researcher who had dropped some equipment than were those who looked at a building.

But why does awe have an effect on our ‘prosocial’ emotions and behaviour? According to the research team, the effects of awe are explained, in part, by feelings of a small self. As the study abstract notes, ‘These findings indicate that awe may help situate individuals within broader social contexts and enhance collective concern’.

How can we keep track of our experience of awe? Speaking to Scientific American, lead author Paul Piff suggests that people try keeping an ‘awe diary’ for two weeks and every day soak up whatever evokes it—a sunset, a bird’s feathers. ‘Shifting your focus toward something vast is bound to put your problems in perspective, he observes, and open you to the greater world’.

Although some commentators have registered a certain ambivalence about trying to scientifically decode an emotion like awe, which is tied to a deep sense of wonderment and mystery, the Guardian acknowledges the value of this exploration: ‘Most of us spend much of our lives trying, in one way or another, to get the world under control, to make reality predictable and explicable and non-intimidating. So it probably can’t hurt to have researchers remind us of the vast emotional rewards that come from realizing we never will.’

Source: CORDIS

Eating a lot of fish may help curb the risk of depression–at least in Europe–suggests a pooled analysis of the available evidence, published online in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

The association between a fishy diet and mental health appears to be equally significant among men and women, the first analysis of its kind indicates.

Depression affects an estimated 350 million people worldwide, and is projected to become the second leading cause of ill health by 2020.

Several previous studies have looked at the possible role of dietary factors in modifying depression risk, but the findings have been inconsistent and inconclusive.

The researchers therefore pooled the data from relevant studies published between 2001 and 2014 to assess the strength of the evidence on the link between fish consumption and depression risk

After trawling research databases, they found 101 suitable articles, of which 16 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. These 16 articles included 26 studies, involving 150, 278 participants.

Ten of the studies were cohort studies, which involve monitoring a group of people who don’t have the condition in question for a period of time to see who develops it. The remainder were cross-sectional: these look at the association between a condition and other variables of interest in a defined population at a single point in time or over a brief period.

Ten of the studies involved participants from Europe; 7 those from North America; the rest involved participants in Asia, Oceania, and South America.

After pooling all the data together, a significant association emerged between those eating the most fish and a 17% reduction in depression risk compared with those eating the least. This was found in both cohort and cross-sectional studies, but only for the European studies.

When the researchers looked specifically at gender, they found a slightly stronger association between high fish consumption and lowered depression risk in men (20%). Among women, the associated reduction in risk was 16%.

This is an observational study so no definitive conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, added to which fish consumption was measured using different dietary assessment methods across the various studies. But there may be a plausible biological explanation for the link, suggest the researchers.

For example, it has been suggested that the omega 3 fatty acids found in fish may alter the microstructure of brain membranes and modify the activity of the neurotransmitters, dopamine and serotonin, both of which are thought to be involved in depression.

Furthermore, the high quality protein, vitamins, and minerals found in fish may help stave off depression, while eating a lot of fish may be an indicator of a healthy and more nutritious diet, suggest the researchers.

“Higher fish consumption may be beneficial in the primary prevention of depression,” they conclude, adding: “Future studies are needed to further investigate whether this association varies according to the type of fish.”