By Aniket Bhavthankar

Sri Lanka’s new Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe came to India for his maiden overseas tour after his election from September 14-17, 2015. Since the appointment of Maithripala Sirisena as president of the island nation, we have witnessed several positive developments regarding India-Sri Lanka relations. Sirisena also chose India as his first overseas destination and visited New Delhi in February 2015. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also paid a visit to Sri Lanka in March this year. A series of meetings between high-level dignitaries within less than a year augurs well for the bilateral relationship. These visits have brought new vigour and dynamism in ties between India and Sri Lanka. Discussions on several issues like trade, Tamil reconciliation, connectivity and maritime security were the highlights of Wickremesinghe’s visit.

Reconciliation of Tamils from the North and East provinces of Sri Lanka is one of the major issues between India and Sri Lanka. Presently, Wikremesinghe heads the national unity government and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is a principle opposition party in the parliament of Sri Lanka. This offers genuine opportunity for the people of Sri Lanka to resolve the Tamil issue with much more credibility. The new Sri Lankan government told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that they are committed to form the constituent assembly of parliament that will adopt a new constitution, besides a truth and reconciliation commission based on the model of South Africa. This is a very good initiative, and in contrast to the ultra nationalist position of the earlier Rajapaksa government. On September 16, 2015, the UNHRC presented its report and asked for international inquiry. India has not changed its earlier position and opposed an international probe in Sri Lanka. India hopes that establishment of this commission may lead to legitimate reconciliation of Tamils. It feels that the evolution of inclusive Sri Lanka is not separable from the authentic process of democratization. India did a good thing by reiterating its support for the national unity government in Colombo. It is pertinent to note that Modi’s government is not totally dependent on support of regional parties from Tamil Nadu, and hence can take a position based on the larger interest of India.

Sri Lanka is India’s major trading partner in South Asia. During this visit, India and Sri Lanka moved one step forward in strengthening trade ties. Sri Lanka sought to finalise the long-pending issue of Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) by mid 2016. During Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime, Sri Lanka’s service industry raised apprehensions regarding CEPA. Earlier, during Modi’s visit, India raised this issue and assured them to take bold steps to address the issue of trade balance. India also sought support for its investors who are keen to participate in Sri Lanka’s energy, infrastructure and transport sectors. India visualizes Sri Lanka as its strongest economic partner in the region.

Connectivity is important for closer ties between the two nations and to push trade and investment. A $5.19 billion road project to connect India and Sri Lanka with a sea bridge and an underwater tunnel is believed to have been discussed by Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremesinghe with union Road and Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari. Both countries have proposed to construct 22 km stretch between Talaimannar in Sri Lanka and Dhanushkodi in India. The Asian Development Bank has shown keen interest in this project. India is investing energy in building up connectivity in its neighbourhood. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN) have signed the Motor Vehicle Agreement to enhance seamless connectivity. India also wants Sri Lanka to join the BBIN Motor Vehicle pact. India is likely to enter into a trans-Asia motor vehicle agreement with Thailand and Myanmar by the year-end. This project will be linked with BBIN.

Gadakari also expressed India’s wish to extend the trans-Asia network up to Colombo. India apparently is working on a design to consolidate connectivity in the rest of South Asia and put pressure on Pakistan.

The maritime domain has acquired a larger space in the Modi government’s foreign and defence policy. India is very sensitive about its maritime neighbourhood and the Chinese presence in this region has set alarm bells ringing in South Block. Sri Lanka is an important constituent of India’s maritime policy. During the earlier regime, Chinese presence near the Sri Lankan maritime border caused concern in India. India understands that it is difficult to match the dollar diplomacy of China and Sri Lanka will not totally bypass Beijing. But India feels that Sirisena knows Indian sensitivities and things are moving in the right direction. Wickremesinghe and Modi also agreed to boost cooperation in combating terrorism and work together for security and stability in the maritime neighbourhood.

The joint statement also takes note of Indian security concerns in the Indian Ocean region. Suspension of China-supported Colombo Port City project for environmental reasons indicates one of the positive developments for New Delhi.

India is eager to channelize process of regionalism in South Asia. Trade and connectivity are important components of this process. Wickremesinghe had extensive talks with the Indian leadership on the subject and Sri Lanka may join the BBIN. India is hopeful that Wickremesinghe’s visit would give a fillip to regionalism and provide a positive direction to maritime cooperation. It is important to note that last month

Seychelles President James Alix Michel expressed his country’s willingness to join the India-led trilateral maritime security framework that also includes Sri Lanka and Maldives. India needs a stable neighbourhood where its pre-eminence is unchallenged, if it aspires to a seat at the global high table and play a role as ‘leading power’. Sri Lanka is key to Indian strategy as it is part of South Asia and also has a maritime dimension.

*Aniket Bhavthankar is a Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies. He can be reached at aniketb@spsindia.in

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty*

There was a time when Muslims from the subcontinent bought one-way tickets to sail to the port of Jeddah, the entry point on the Hejaz coast along the Red Sea for performing the Hajj.

A Muslim is exhorted to perform the Hajj, at least once in his/her lifetime, subject to physical and financial ability. It is regarded as one of the five pillars of Islam.

It was a perilous journey which started with relatives and friends bidding a tearful farewell to the potential Hajji, since many, particularly the elderly, never returned.

The Hajjis faced many obstacles on the journey from Jeddah to Mecca. The harsh Arabian weather, lack of water and Bedouin robbers often left defenceless pilgrims stranded to face the inevitability of death in the desert.

Those who managed to reach Mecca sometimes died during the pilgrimage, succumbing to harsh weather conditions or sickness.

The dead were mourned but also celebrated because to die while performing Hajj was to ensure instant entry into Jannat or Heaven. Not many returned home and acquired the aura that came with prefixing their names with the title ’Al-Hajj’.

The chief Saudi mufti has declared all the dead as ’martyrs’ as if that would be some consolation for the bereaved families.

Worst tragedy in 25 years

The tragedy last week snuffed out over 750 lives and injured over 800 pilgrims, during the annual Hajj ritual of stoning the Devil at Mina, a few kilometres from Mecca.

This incident again highlights a recurring theme that has dogged the Hajj for hundreds of years.

The pilgrims were caught in a massive stampede that was triggered when millions of them were going towards Mina and returning.

In 2006 after another similar carnage, the Saudi authorities erected three massive pillars and constructed a bridge with five levels to facilitate the stoning of the Devil ritual, spending over $1.2 billion.

Yet there is a sickening regularity to these accidents. This time pilgrims across 15 nationalities have lost their lives, including 29 from India so far.

With over 2 million pilgrims turning up for the Hajj, it is a logistical nightmare for Saudi Arabia to manage. The Saudi authorities have been found wanting many times. There is a wrenching history of deaths during the Hajj.

In 1990, over 1,420 pilgrims died in the worst such incident in the history of the Hajj.

The carnage last week is the second deadliest incident and comes days after the deaths of over 100 pilgrims at the Grand Mosque in Mecca when a construction crane on the site fell crashing down inside the mosque.

Iran which has said that 131 of its nationals have been killed has been particularly trenchant in its criticism.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directly blamed Saudi authorities for “mismanagement” and Iranian officials have weighed in by accusing Saudi authorities of “tactlessness” on safety procedures. Iran has charged the Saudi authorities as “irresponsible”, saying that they must be held accountable and has declared three days of mourning.

While the Saudi Ambassador has been summoned to receive a protest at the Iranian foreign ministry, the Saudi authorities have been on the defensive.

Some officials have blamed pilgrims for not following guidelines and lacking patience and one official has acknowledged that for an unknown reason two walkways from Mina had been closed, forcing pilgrims into massing on other walkways and causing the stampede.

The Saudi Crown Prince has ordered an enquiry and called it a tragic incident. By all accounts the elderly, the infirm and physically weak pilgrims constitute the bulk of the dead and wounded.

The principal cause of these recurring stampedes seems to be the rush of pilgrims competing with one another to complete the rituals within the stipulated time frame.

There are too many pilgrims all converging at the same site, pushing and shoving to throw seven stones at the Devil. Failure of management and inadequate infrastructure adds to the chaos.

By all eyewitness accounts gathered by the international media, the failure of the Saudi authorities at crowd control caused the tragedy.

While Saudi Arabia claims to have spent billions on infrastructure, it also earns billions from the annual pilgrimage by charging fees for all services and facilities.

Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world having amassed huge wealth as a major oil producing country. It is, therefore, not hard pressed for funds.

Sometime in the 1980s, the Saudi king adopted the title of ’Custodian of the two holiest Sites’ in an obvious attempt to take over the mantle of religious leadership of the Islamic world.

The repeated tragedies during Hajj have raised serious concerns about Saudi Arabia’s ability to handle the Hajj which draws more and more pilgrims from across the world.

It is clear that the Saudi authorities have ignored safety concerns that have been raised from time to time.

In a country that is so regimented and controlled, it is not surprising that some of the billions spent on managing the Hajj have been misdirected for personal profit.

One obvious reason is the over-emphasis on building malls and hotels that have restricted open spaces for the movement of such a large number of pilgrims.

The other reason is total lack of public accountability in an opaque and authoritarian system. No one has ever been punished for mismanagement that has caused so much human suffering.

This tragedy is a major challenge to the new Saudi King and his revamped administration, all drawn from the ruling family.

The Saudis have got involved in the war in Yemen and in India, recently, a Saudi diplomat was accused of rape and trafficking women.

Apart from the docile and obedient Saudi media and its counterparts in the Gulf sheikhdoms, there is no sympathy for the Saudis in the regional media. For the Saudis, the scorecard has been pretty poor of late.

Critics in the Arab world have echoed earlier calls for handing over the management of the Hajj to a special international Muslim body or the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

This is clearly anathema to the Saudis and there is no need to hold one’s breath for this to happen.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation and a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs. He served as a young diplomat in Saudi Arabia

Courtesy: The Quint

By Linda Heard

Jeremy Corbyn, the darling of the British left, a self-ascribed dyed-in-the-wool socialist and former chair of the Stop the War Coalition recently elected to lead the Labor Party, must have believed he was destined to be a backbencher for all time. And, in truth, the sudden rise of this rebellious activist turned politician has caught the party elites on the hop especially as the odds against him were 100-1 when he initially threw his cap in the ring.

Corbyn’s biggest asset is his authenticity. He breaks the traditional politician mold by refusing to tamper his ingrained beliefs to attract middle ground voters, but ultimately his own truths are coming back like knives strewn in the way of his ever getting his foot under a Downing Street desk.

An object of derision in Conservative circles, Prime Minister David Cameron, who says he was the one who informed Corbyn that he was the frontrunner, has since described the Labor Party under Corbyn as “a threat to national security, our economic security and your family’s security.”

Guardian columnist and comedian Frankie Boyle writes: “Corbyn has survived his first week in opposition despite being attacked by the print media with such ferocity that I can only assume he’s been caught hacking a murdered girl’s phone.”

The corporate media are taking the PM’s lead digging-up as much dirt as they can unearth beginning with Corbyn’s alleged long running affair with his shadow international development secretary Dianne Abbot during the 1970s and his appointment of his close friend John McDonnell who’s hobbies include “generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism” as his shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

He’s also come under fire for being unpatriotic due to his apparent support for the “terrorist” IRA and his refusal to sing the National Anthem “God save the Queen” at a Battle of Britain memorial service. According to a report in the Daily Mail, Corbyn once gave cash to a fraudster claiming he was an IRA bomber on the run from justice. It doesn’t end there. The accusations just keep coming.
The Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan strafed the new Labor leader for his backing of Iran during his a talk prior to the nuclear deal entitled “The case for Iran” when he called for anti-Iranian sanctions to be scrapped and an end to the country’s “demonization” by the West.

Last year, Corbyn was invited to Tehran and was pictured smiling while shaking the hand of the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javed Zarif. In recent weeks, he’s been praised by an aide to the Ayatollah Khamenei as “a lifelong human rights activist who understands that Iran can “bring peace” to the Middle East.

Gilligan also accuses Corbyn, a staunch advocate of the Palestinian cause and a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, of accepting “thousands of pounds in gifts from organizations closely linked to the terror group Hamas — and it’s been widely reported that he has praised Hamas for its “social justice” and has described both Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends.”

Corbyn’s outright hostility to Israel and what newspapers are calling his “dubious ties” have alarmed Britain’s Jewish community. The Jewish Chronicle, published in the UK, wrote that Corbyn had links with “Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright anti-Semites.” Likewise, victims of IRA bombings are up in arms over his friendly relationship with the leaders of Sinn Fein.

But the most damning monkey on his back in the view of the British establishment and the UK’s closest ally the United States has to be the latest revelations picked up by just about every British newspaper.

The man who once referred to Osama Bin Laden’s killing by US Navy SEALS as “a tragedy” earlier crossed an establishment red line with a claim that the Sept. 11 attacks on US symbols of power were “manipulated” to paint Bin Laden as the main architect as a pretext to pave the way for the West to invade Afghanistan.

In 1991, he slammed the US-led Gulf War to oust Saddam’s forces from Kuwait and he was quoted in Socialist Campaign Group News saying: “The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.”

There’s little doubt that his opinions do resonate with a large section of the British public, particularly with the young who are joining the party in droves — and, certainly, editors of the leftist Guardian newspaper are devoting much of the paper’s column inches to Corbyn’s defense under such headlines as “Jeremy Corbyn won. Now deal with it” and “Jeremy Corbyn… couldn’t be more British if he bled tea.”

Whereas many Britons would agree that their country’s stodgy political scene requires a shake-up and while there are a substantial number who see Jeremy Corbyn as a breath of fresh air in the staleness of Westminster, he’s likely to become the shortest-lived Labor leader ever because there’s a growing feeling within the party’s hierarchy that with him at the helm Labor would be unelectable.

Addressing the UN General Assembly summit on Monday, President Rouhani said, ‘We propose that war on terror turn into a document and an international binding rule, and that no government have the right to support terrorism as a method to interfere in nations’ affairs.”

He said Iran stands ready to cooperate in fighting terrorism and setting the stage for bringing about “democratic developments” in the region.

‘With a view to fighting ignorance, dictatorship, poverty, corruption, terrorism, violence and their social, political, cultural, economic and security impacts, I would like to invite the whole world and especially the countries of my region to form a ‘joint comprehensive plan of action’ to create a’ United Front Against Extremism and Violence’.

You may find the full text of the Iranian president’s address at the UN General Assembly hereunder.

Statement by H.E. Dr. Hassan Rouhani

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the General Debate of the General Assembly of the United Nations,  28 September 2015

In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Praise be to Allah, and peace and greetings to Prophet Mohammad and his true companions

Mr. President

I am speaking on behalf of a great nation who is mourning the loss of thousands of Muslim pilgrims and hundreds of its citizens. Old, young, men and women who had come together in the grand and global spiritual gathering of the Hajj, but unfortunately fell victim to the incompetence and mismanagement of those in charge. Due to their unaccountability, even the missing cannot be identified and the expeditious return of the bodies of the deceased to their mourning families has been prevented. The scope of a calamity in which thousands of innocent people from the four corners of the world have been killed and wounded is so broad that it cannot be dealt with as a natural disaster or a local issue. The pain and emotional distress inflicted on millions of Muslims is greater than what can be repaired merely through material calculations. Public opinion demands that Saudi Arabian officials promptly fulfill their international obligations and grant immediate consular access for the expeditious identification and return of the cherished bodies. Moreover, it is necessary that the conditions are prepared for an independent and precise investigation into the causes of this disaster and ways of preventing its repetition in the future.

Mr. President

Distinguished Secretary-General
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am speaking on behalf of a nation that, two years ago, again voted for constructive engagement with the world and I can now proudly announce that ‘today, a new chapter has started in Iran’s relations with the world.’

Two years ago, the people of Iran in a competitive election, with their votes gave me a mandate for consolidating peace and constructive engagement with the world—whilst pursuing national rights, interests and security. This national will, manifested itself through a careful and clear diplomatic effort which resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the six world powers that was immediately turned into an international instrument with the ratification of the United Nations Security Council. From the standpoint of international law, this instrument sets a strong precedent where, for the first time, two sides rather than negotiating peace after war, engaged in dialogue and understanding before the eruption of conflict.

At this point, I deem it necessary to recognize the role of all the negotiators, in achieving this agreement. We had decided to bring about a new environment while maintaining our principles and we succeeded in doing so. Where necessary we moved forward and where necessary we showed the courage for flexibility; and, at each point, we made use of the full capacity of international law and showcased the potentials of constructive dialogue. The key point regarding the success of dialogue is the fact that any actor in the international system who pursues maximalist demands and does not allow space for the other side cannot speak of peace, stability and development. As in commerce and economic activity, where the interests of both parties should be taken into account, in politics and international relations as well multilateralism and win-win solutions should be the basis of engagement.

Mr. President,

The United Nations was established to sustain global peace and security after two world wars. But unfortunately, it must be said that in most cases this important international institution has not been successful or effective. This time, however, the United Nations made the right decision.

Though, we protest the adoption of unfair resolutions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the imposition of sanctions against the Iranian nation and government as a result of misunderstandings and sometimes overt hostilities of some countries, however, we believe, as an old Iranian saying goes, ‘the sooner you stop harm, the more benefit you will reap’. Today, is the very day that harm is stopped.

Security Council Resolution 2231, despite some significant shortcomings, was an important development and the basis for terminating sanctions imposing resolutions against Iran. We consider as unfair the conduct of the Security Council in the past and insist that Iran, due to the important fatwa of its leader and its defense doctrine, has never had the intention of producing a nuclear weapon and, therefore, sanctions resolutions against Iran were unjust and illegal. Sanctions by the Security Council and unilateral sanctions by some countries were based on illusive and baseless allegations and created difficult conditions for our people. But these sanctions never in any way affected the policy we adopted and the approach we took towards negotiations. We proved in these negotiations that there is nothing on Iran’s table other than logic, reason and ethics, and where necessary, legitimate and decisive self-defense against any kind of aggression.

Our seven countries and the European Union expended considerable time and diplomatic capital in these negotiations and, therefore, they should exert their utmost effort to protect and implement the agreement. We deem the compliance of all parties with their commitments as the fundamental factor in the success of the implementation process of the negotiations.

Parallel to the implementation of the JCPOA, we also expect the nuclear-weapon states to take necessary steps to fulfill their commitment of full nuclear disarmament based on Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, we expect them to play a positive role in the creation of a “nuclear weapons-free Middle East” and not to allow the Zionist regime to remain the only impediment in the way of realizing this important initiative.

Mr. President,

The nuclear deal, which is a brilliant example of ‘victory over war’, has managed to disburse the clouds of hostility and perhaps even the specter of another war and extensive tensions from the Middle East. The deal can and should herald a new era and lead to positive outcomes regarding the establishment of sustainable peace and stability in the region. From our point of view, the agreed-upon deal is not the final objective but a development which can and should be the basis of further achievements to come. Considering the fact that this deal has created an objective basis and set an appropriate model, it can serve as a basis for foundational change in the region.

Our policy is to continue our peace-seeking efforts in the region based on the same win-win principle, and act in a way that would lead to all in the region and world benefitting from these new conditions. This opportunity can be seized in order to look to the future and avoid focusing on the past and rebuild our relationships with the countries in the region, particularly with our neighbors, based on mutual respect and our common and collective interests.

Unfortunately, the Middle East and North Africa has turned into one of the world’s most turbulent regions. With the continuation and intensification of the current condition, the turmoil can spread to other parts of the world. In today’s interconnected and borderless world, countries and regions encounter great difficulty in protecting their borders and preventing the spread of insecurity and instability.

The gravest and most important threat to the world today is for terrorist organizations to become terrorist states. We consider it unfortunate for national uprisings in our region to be deviated by terrorists and for the destiny of nations to be determined by arms and terror rather than ballot boxes.

We propose that the fight against terrorism be incorporated into a binding international document and no country be allowed to use terrorism for the purpose of intervention in the affairs of other countries. We are prepared to assist in the eradication of terrorism and in paving the way for democracy, and ensuring that arms do not dictate the course of event in the region. As we aided the establishment of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are prepared to help bring about democracy in Syria and also Yemen. We support the consolidation of power through the vote of people rather than with arms. We defend the rule oft he majority that respects the rights of minorities.

Today, while safeguarding its historic and cultural heritage, Iran is looking to the future—not only the distant future but also the near future with a bright outlook for cooperation and coexistence. I say to all nations and governments: we will not forget the past, but we do not wish to live in the past. We will not forget war and sanctions but we look to peace and development. Through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we were not solely seeking a nuclear deal. We want to suggest a new and constructive way to recreate the international order. An order based on mutual respect, non-intervention in the internal affairs of others as well as on sustained cooperation and co-existence between the members of the United Nations. To build a peaceful future, we must learn our lessons from the bitter past. We know that the only way to perpetuate peace is through development. Peace without development is merely a recess while resentment and suspicion builds. However, peace alongside development lets anger and resentment dissipate and be replaced with hope and respect for others. We have repeatedly said that the only way to uproot terrorism in the Middle East is by targeting its underlying social, economic and cultural causes.

Economic interactions may bring about lasting security, and transform the region into a haven for peace and development. After the JCPOA, Iran will stand ready to show that the practical path to security and stability is through the development that comes with economic engagement.

Iran, with all of its economic and cultural potential, is well positioned to become a hub for export-oriented investment. Iran is also eager to show that we can all choose a lasting peace based on development and shared interests that will lead to a sustainable security rather than a volatile peace based on threats.

We hope to engage with our neighbors in a wide range of social and economic cooperation, which will enable the achievement of political understanding and even foster structural security cooperation. In the international system today, mutual economic ties are deemed the foremost factors in facilitating political cooperation and reducing security-related challenges.

Mr. President,

In 2013, from this very stage, I called for combating violence and extremism. Consequently, you, the representatives of the international community, unanimously gave it a seal of endorsement and hence, the WAVE resolution came to be. The implementation of WAVE requires well-intended solutions and the use of experiences gained in the realm of diplomacy. I am pleased that by placing together the support for the JCPOA with the invaluable support for WAVE, we may now devise a plan to resolve the problems of a shattered Middle East under the claws of brutality and savagery.

With a view to fighting ignorance, dictatorship, poverty, corruption, terrorism, violence and their social, political, cultural, economic and security impacts, I would like to invite the whole world and especially the countries of my region to form a ‘joint comprehensive plan of action’ to create a ‘United Front Against Extremism and Violence’.

This front must:

-Create a collective and global movement to tackle regional problems in a serious manner through dialogue;

-Prevent the slaughter of innocent people and the bombardment of civilians, as well as, the promotion of violence and killing of other human beings;

-Provide for stability in cooperation with established central governments to maintain stability

-And once stability is established, build diplomacy and democratic governance in the Middle East region.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Iraq, Syria and Yemen are all examples of crises being stoked through terror, extremism, violence, bloodshed, invasion and the indifference of the international community. They are similar examples displaying cases of displacement, homelessness and fleeing from the horrors of war and bombardment. Their problems have persisted because the international community has failed them and because of incorrect actions of newcomers to the region and naive trans-regional actors. Consequently, the wave of destruction has gone beyond the Arab world and reached the gates of Europe and the United States and has resulted in the destruction of the relics of civility and precious works of ancient civilizations and, more broadly, has resulted in the death of humanity.

We must not forget that the roots of today’s wars, destruction and terror, can be found in the occupation, invasion and military intervention of yesterday. If we did not have the US military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the US’s unwarranted support for the inhumane actions of the Zionist regime against the oppressed nation of Palestine, today the terrorists would not have an excuse for the justification of their crimes.

Mr. President,

Despite the many problems in our region today, we believe in a promising future. We have no doubt we can overcome the obstacles by wisdom and prudence as well as by the use of new and powerful capacities, and by relying upon our civilizational roots and our serious resolve. We, in light of divine revelation, have faith in humanity’s bright future in which people live in peace, tranquility and spirituality. We believe in the will of nations to pick the path of goodness and purity. We believe that ultimate victory will be won by those with good-natured piety.

Thank you for your attention

By Huseyn Hasanov

Among the leading oil and gas powers, Turkmenistan has first become a major strategic partner of China in natural fuel provision, the Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources of Turkmenistan said.

“The Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China gas pipeline is a model of equal and effective cooperation of four countries covered by this energy-main,” the statement said.

“More than 125 billion cubic meters of gas have been transported through the pipeline since its commissioning in late 2009 till August 2015,” the ministry said. “This is more than 35 percent of the total volumes of natural gas purchased by China. This shows the importance of the Trans-Asian gas line in ensuring energy security of China.”

Currently, Turkmengaz State Concern and China’s CNPC supply the largest volumes of natural gas via the pipeline to China. CNPC develops the fields of the Bagtyyarlyk contract area on the right bank of the Amu Darya in a production sharing agreement.

It is also reported that at present, the Turkmenistan-China gas pipeline system consists of three branches with a total capacity of 55 billion cubic meters a year.

Reportedly, six compressor stations and 10 compressor units operate along the pipeline’s route.

The volume of natural gas supply significantly increased after commissioning the third branch of the pipeline in 2014.

“Moreover, it was noted that the operation of the pipeline system is stable and no emergency situation was recorded there in 2015,” said the message. “All the sides timely carry out the repair work and technical maintenance on the route.”

It is planned to supply gas in this direction in 2015-2016. The supply volume will comply with the contract obligations of the Chinese side.

Ashgabat has recently hosted the 13th meeting of the Coordination Committee on operation of the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China pipeline. The meeting participants discussed current issues related to the transportation of natural gas and operation of the Trans-Asia pipeline system in 2015-2016.

Competing with Pope Francis was never going to be easy. So China’s state media gave their leader a helping hand over the past week, all but ignoring the pope as President Xi Jinping made his own tour of the United States.

By the time the pontiff flew out of Philadelphia on the evening of Sept. 27, China’s national broadcaster CCTV had made no mention of his landmark six-day trip.

“My impression is that coverage of the pope’s visit to the U.S. was minimal in mainland China, if at all,” said Yuen-ying Chan, a director of the China Media Project at the University of Hong Kong, which monitors media coverage in China.

Xi has featured at the top of news bulletins in China since he landed in Seattle on Sept. 22, the same day the pope touched down in Washington D.C.

By contrast, U.S. media coverage of the pope has far outstripped that of Xi. Francis was mentioned 25 times more than China’s president on television and four times more in U.S. press in the month leading up to Sept. 25, the day before Francis left, according to news tracking firm MediaMiser.

In China, where the state controls news media and issues censorship orders to private newspapers, the situation was reversed — and then some.

In a rare acknowledgment that the pontiff was even in the U.S. at the same time as Xi, the Chinese-language version of state news agency Xinhua published a picture of Francis delivering the first-ever speech by a pope to the U.S. Congress on Sept. 24. Without mentioning Francis was on a tour of the country, the caption instead focused on how Democratic Party Congressman Bob Brady took the pontiff’s glass of water after the speech to bless friends and family.

“If you just read the newspapers in China, you would not know the pope is making a trip to the U.S.,” said Jason Chui, a Beijing-based journalist who works for a Hong Kong-based media agency he declined to name.

English-language media in China, which are followed by few Chinese, ran more articles on the pope’s visit but rarely was his popularity in the U.S. acknowledged versus that of Xi.

The China Daily reported how Chinese students had shown up to the White House to support their president, omitting news that nearby protesters shouted criticism of Xi’s policies on religious and minority rights.

“It’s a very critical time that President Xi visits the U.S.,” Georgetown University graduate student He Yazhi was quoted as saying. “While the local papers [in the U.S.] covered more about the pope’s visit on their front pages, I think Xi’s visit plays an important role.”

In an apparent bid to bolster Xi’s image ahead of the end of his U.S. trip Sept. 28, China’s largest circulation newspaper, the People’s Daily, made a short video of foreigners living in China offering gushing praise while highlighting Xi’s softer side. An Austrian man calls Xi “a little bit cute” in one segment, while a man from Chicago compares him to the cartoon character Winnie the Pooh.

On China’s equivalent of Twitter, Weibo, where the Communist party has a harder time controlling discourse, comments appeared more spontaneous.

“The pope is in the United States at the same time [as Xi]. Let’s see who generates more news and discussion,” wrote one user. “We all know who is more popular.”

Bolivia’s parliament approved a Constitutional reform that will allow President Evo Morales, in office since 2005, to run for a new term in office.

The vote of the legislators, mostly members of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) headed by the Head of State, paves the way for a referendum that could be held next year.

Morales in the past days stressed that he doesn’t want to “rule forever”. He however also reiterated his aim to introduce by 2025 the ‘Patriotic Agenda’: a 13-point intervention plan that principally foresees the defeat of extreme poverty and the right to health and education for all.

The Syrian government criticized France late Sunday for carrying out a series of airstrikes on an Islamic State (Daesh) training camp in Syria, arguing that the attacks were not coordinated with Damascus.

“The French president has not coordinated those actions with the Syrian president,” the Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari told the Russian news agency TASS.

“The French military acted without an agreement with the Syrian armed forces. It is impossible to be fighting terrorism other than in cooperation with the legal government in Syria and the Syrian military. This is exactly what [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin meant calling the Syrian army the only legitimate force to deal with in fighting terrorism.”

Jaafari also rebuked French President Francois Hollande for calling for a regime change in Syria on Sunday, saying such a call was in contradiction with the UN charter.

“Words of the kind are clueless, especially at the UN headquarters,” he said, adding that France has no right to “fight terrorism this way — unilaterally.”

“This is an American coalition, not an international one and it is not based on the Security Council’s resolution and is not supported by a consensus,” the Syrian ambassador said according to TASS.

Hollande said Sunday that six French jet fighters targeted and destroyed an Islamic State training camp in eastern Syria, making good on a promise to go after the group that the president has said is planning attacks against several countries, including France.

The airstrikes were the first in Syria by France as it expands its mission against IS.

“The camp was totally destroyed,” Hollande said Sunday after arriving at the United Nations, before the start of a major development summit and the UN General Assembly bringing together world leaders.

“We’re sure there were no casualties” among civilians, he added.

The French president’s office announced the strikes, without details, in a statement hours earlier.

“Our nation will strike each time our national security is at stake,” the statement said.

Hollande told reporters the strikes on the training camp, and others to come, were aimed at “protecting our territory, cutting short terrorist actions, acting in legitimate defense.”

Hollande said more strikes “could take place in the coming weeks if necessary.” The targets were identified in earlier French reconnaissance flights and with information provided by the U.S.-led coalition.

The president announced earlier this month a change in French strategy — expanding its airstrikes over Iraq into Syria.

France has carried out 215 airstrikes against IS extremists in Iraq as part of the US-led coalition since last year, the French Defense Ministry said earlier this month. But it previously held back on engaging in Syria, citing concern over playing into Assad’s hands and the need for such action to be covered by international law.

Officials now evoke “legitimate defense” as spelled out in the UN Charter to support strikes in Syria.

France has already been attacked by extremists claiming ties to Islamic State. Hollande, who has ruled out sending ground troops into Syria, has cited “proof” of plans for attacks on France and the growing danger to Syrian civilians, with a large chunk of the population fleeing in a massive exodus.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls said France was going after IS “sanctuaries where those who want to hit France are trained.”

The goal of the strikes is to “slow, break, stop if possible the penetration of Daesh,” Gen. Vincent Desportes said on the iTele TV station, using the Arabic acronym for IS.

Hollande stressed the importance of seeking a political solution for Syria.

“More than ever the urgency is putting in place a political transition,” including elements of the moderate opposition and Assad’s regime, the statement said.

In New York, the French president said he would be meeting this week “all the partners” in the Syrian conflict.

“This political solution requires that all stakeholders are involved,” he said. “We are not excluding anyone.” He didn’t name countries.

At the same time, he said, “The future of Syria cannot be with Bashar al Assad.”

The French government has insisted that while it is part of the US-led coalition, France is deciding independently who and what to hit in Syria.

Hollande announced on Sept. 7 France’s intention to start airstrikes, days after the photo of a dead 3-year-old Syrian boy washed up on the Turkish coast after he and his family fled their home galvanized public concern about Syrian refugees fleeing to save their lives.

In his statement Sunday, Hollande said: “Civilian populations must be protected from all forms of violence, that of IS and other terrorist groups but also the murderous bombardments of Bashar Assad.”

Original article

For decades, DARPA, the secretive research arm of the Department of Defense, has dreamed of turning soldiers into cyborgs. And now it’s finally happening. The agency has funded projects that involve implanting chips into soldiers’ brains that they hope will enhance performance on the battlefield and repair traumatized brains once the fog of war has lifted.

“Of the 2.5 million Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 300,000 of them came home with traumatic brain injury,” journalist Annie Jacobsen told NPR. “DARPA initiated a series of programs to help cognitive functioning, to repair some of this damage. And those programs center around putting brain chips inside the tissue of the brain.”

In her new book about the history of DARPA, “The Pentagon’s Brain,” Jacobsen writes that scientists are already testing “neuroprosthetics” brain implants, but that despite her multiple appeals to the Defense Department, she was not allowed to interview any of the “brain-wounded warriors.”

However, Defense One, an online magazine that covers the military, reported last year on DARPA’s work on brain chips to treat PTSD, and said that DARPA was not yet in the testing phase. “The military hopes to have a prototype within 5 years and then plans to seek FDA approval,” according to Defense One. When DARPA launched its RAM (Restoring Active Memory) program last year, it projected it would be about four years until researchers were implanting chips in human.

Creating super soldiers isn’t the only thing that DARPA is trying to do. According to Jacobsen’s new book, published by Little, Brown, government scientists hope that implanting chips in soldiers will unlock the secrets of artificial intelligence, and allow us to give machines the kind of higher-level reasoning that humans can do.

“When you see all of these brain mapping programs going on, many scientists wonder whether this will [be what it takes] to break that long-sought barrier of AI,” said Jacobsen in a phone interview. For Jacobsen, who has spent her career chronicling war, weapons and U.S. government secrets, digging through DARPA documents provided a glimpse at the future of war, but also raised questions about whether that future is one we really want.

“Are hunter-killer robots right around the bend?” she writes in the book.. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has poured resources into far-out research, from solving infectious disease to transforming humans for the theater of war. The agency is pioneering Iron Man-like exoskeletons to help protect soldiers from fire and the elements so they can keep fighting for longer. And under a program called the Brain-Machine Interface, defense scientists have studied how brain implants could eventually enhance a soldier’s cognition.

The brain emits electrical signals and an implanted chip can tap into those signals to read them. Outside of the government, scientists at places like Berkeley’s Brain-Machine Interface Systems Laboratory are experimenting with how to use such implants to translate thoughts into action for people with neurological impairments, eventually hoping to, for example, help a paralyzed person move.

At DARPA, programs like RAM and REMIND (Restorative Encoding Memory Integration Neural Device) have explored how brain implants might help soldiers returning from war with traumatic brain injuries impacting memory. Other DARPA programs have aimed to help soldiers at battle to communicate by thought alone.

“Imagine a time when the human brain has its own wireless modem so that instead of acting on thoughts, warfighters have thoughts that act,” Jacobsen chronicles DARPA’s Eric Eisenstadt telling a crowd at a technology conference in 2002.

But Jacobsen’s warning is that while helping soldiers suffering in the aftermath of war may seem inherently benign, we must not forget that DARPA is in the business of weapons development. The question that should punctuate everything DARPA does is “How can this be weaponized?”

Understanding the human brain is as important to achieving artificial intelligence as understanding computers. “The Pentagon is clearly very confident that they’re moving toward autonomous weapons,” Jacobsen told me. “The question is where is that confidence coming from?”

By Smruti S Pattanaik

Republican Nepal finally adopted a constitution on September 20, nearly ten years after the initiation of the peace process. It had held two elections to the Constituent Assembly to produce a constitution based on ‘consensus’ as agreed in the comprehensive peace agreement of 2006, which was midwifed by New Delhi. But the constitution, rather than resolving the fundamental problem of political representation and mainstreaming minority communities and women who were historically at the bottom of both the social and political structure, has marginalised them further. The issue of ‘consensus’ that has been at the core of writing a constitution has been eroded through majoritarianism to secure the entrenchment in power of the hill political elites.

The argument that has been a driving force behind the new constitution is this: an elected Constituent Assembly (CA) representing the will of the people should write a new constitution taking into account the aspirations of the people based on transparency and consensus. This was the reason why the Maoists had rejected the Constitution of 1990 as a compromise document dictated by the Monarchy and agreed to by the leaders of political parties who were in a hurry to acquire power when the transition was made from the Panchayat regime to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy. It was at that time, the Masal and Mashal radical left groups came together and formed the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre), which, as part of the United National Peoples Movement (UNPM), participated in the pro-democracy movement that engulfed Nepal in 1990. One of their demands was an elected constituent assembly to write a constitution. Though the Unity Centre participated in the 1990 election, it suffered a split before the 1994 election because Prachanda’s faction was not allowed to contest, which thereupon boycotted the election and declared armed struggle, a ‘people’s war’, against a system that was a symbol of the Hindu religion, Nepali language and khas nationality. The Prachanda faction also carried forth the demand for a republic, secularism and a constitution written by the elected representatives of the people. This was reflected in the various agreements that the political parties signed after Jan Andolan II.

After the formation of an elected Constituent Assembly in 2008, all the political parties jostled to frame a constitution keeping in mind their particular electoral constituency. The victory of the Maoists and the end of constitutional monarchy gave hope to the marginalised groups, especially the Janajatis, that their political aspirations would find a place in the new constitution. Similarly, the Madhesis who have had historic grievances about the lack of proportional representation in jobs, in the army and in Parliament also aspired for accommodation. When their political concerns were not addressed in the 2007 interim constitution, the Madhesis even engaged in violent protest demanding ‘ek Madhesh ek Pradesh’.1. The UCPN-M (United Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist) was reluctant to support the cause of Madhesis because of the fear that its own support base among the Paharis would get eroded. It was only belatedly, that too after Jay Krishna Goit and Jwala Singh broke away to form a separate party, the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), that the UCPN-M extended support for the Madhesi cause. Subsequently, the Madhesis also received assurances from Prime Minister G. P. Koirala in the form of a 22-point agreement with the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, an umbrella group of Madhesi leaders from different political parties led by Upendra Yadav.

While Nepal managed to resolve most contentious issues, it could not resolve the issue of federalism. This remained a sticking point when Baburam Bhattarai dissolved the Constituent Assembly in 2012 and called for fresh elections. There was complete disagreement regarding the basis of creating federal units and their numbers. The problem persisted in the second Constituent Assembly. But since the Madhesis and Janajatis did not have adequate numbers of seats in the second CA, they depended on the UCPN-M’s support to attain their demand.

Kathmandu was rife with rumours of a post-constitution making power sharing deal between the UCPN-M and Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML). It was therefore not surprising that Prachanda decided to abandon the causes of Madhesis and other minorities as well as the principle of consensus that guided the peace-process. The split in the UCPN-M became apparent when Baburam Bhattarai, former Prime Minister, second in command in the UCPN-M, and chairman of the CA committee on dialogue and consensus building, was not present in the ceremony where the new constitution was promulgated. His subsequent resignation from the party as well as from Parliament indicates a certain degree of disagreement within the party on the constitution.

It is true that the absence of consensus on the constitution prevented a settlement given the stance adopted by Madhesi parties and the Janajati groups. But what cannot be ignored at the same time is the fact that the Kathmandu political elites were not sincere about initiating a dialogue process to address the grievances of Madhesis and Janajatis. Ironically, the Maoists who waged a People’s war demanding an elected CA to draw up a constitution by taking into account people’s aspirations, now supports a constitution that is approved only by the majority and in the process marginalising the marginalised classes that at one point in time formed the backbone of their movement. The boundaries of the new provinces have been drawn with a view to preserving the base of the political elite dominated by bahuns and chetris. It is true that the Madhesi parties have remained hopelessly fragmented. As a result, their strength declined precipitously between the first and second Constituent Assemblies; while they held 84 seats in the first CA, it declined to only 46 seats in the second CA election. This made them politically ineffective.

Three issues are of major concern in the Constitution that has been promulgated. First, many of the highest constitutional positions are reserved for those who are citizens by descent only; naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold these posts. The fact that many Madhesis have marriage and familial ties across the border make them ineligible for these posts. Second, children of a Nepali mother married to a foreigner will not get citizenship by descent, thus perpetuating a gender bias in the constitution.

Third is the issue of the boundaries of the newly created provinces, which affects the Tharus, Limbus and the Madhesis. In June, the four major political parties including the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (Democratic) led by Bijay Gachchedar had agreed to the 16 point formula which promised that “The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal will have eight provinces based on five criteria of identity and four criteria of capability.” It was also decided that since the names of the provinces and demarcation of their boundaries was a contentious issue, these would be decided by a Commission. But this agreement was struck down by the single bench of the Supreme Court as contravening Articles 82 and 138 of the interim constitution, resulting in the present crisis. Thereafter, on August 10, top political leaders agreed to divide the country into six provinces in such a manner as to dilute the majority of the Madhesis and Tharus and reduce their political salience in terms of electoral politics.

While Nepal moved to a new era of democratic politics after adopting a constitution drafted by an elected CA which made Nepal a secular, federal republic, its failure to address the grievances of Madhesis and Janajatis and women’s rights make the constitution non-inclusive. Adoption of this constitution and the manner in which the provincial boundaries have been drawn only ensure that the political and electoral base of the Kathmandu based hill elites gets further entrenched.

Indian Concerns

From the outset, India had supported a consensus constitution. Prime Minister Modi while addressing Nepal’s Parliament last year had emphasised upon the need to build a consensus. Nepali political leaders assured New Delhi that they will keep in mind the interests of Janajatis, Madhesis, Dalits and women in the new constitution. Yet, these were completely ignored and the constitution was passed through a majority vote.

India’s reaction has been curt especially since it had held a series of consultations with all Nepali leaders regarding the need to adopt an inclusive constitution. Yet, Nepal’s political parties went back on the assurances that they had given to India. Even Foreign Secretary Jaishankar’s last ditch effort did not help matters with Nepal adopting the constitution by majority voting on 17 September. India has consequently not hidden its displeasure as it is concerned about the increasing polarisation in Nepali politics.

The need for building a consensus is clearly reflected in the MEA statement: “India has been strongly supportive of constitution making in Nepal. We would like its completion to be an occasion for joy and satisfaction, not agitation and violence. We hope that Nepal’s political leaders will display the necessary flexibility and maturity at this crucial time to ensure a durable and resilient Constitution that has broad-based acceptance.”

Nepal has decided to send a Special Envoy to brief the Indian leadership about the constitution and the latest security situation. In the meanwhile, attempts are being made to initiate talks with Madhesi and Janajati leaders. Without a concrete road map and without disbanding the law and order approach to the Madhesi demand, the offer of talks is unlikely to yield result. The continuing violence by agitating parties in the Terai has created a situation where Indian trucks carrying goods and oil are reluctant to venture into Nepal.2. Economic hardship due to shortage of fuel and goods would have a long term impact on India-Nepal relations.

Given the fact that India shares an open border with Nepal, the consequences of violence and instability in the Terai would have consequences for India’s security and may threaten the security of Indian businessmen and traders who are engaged in business in Nepal. Moreover, cross border ethnic linkages and familial ties makes India an interested party. While Nepali political leaders blame India and Indian ‘interference’ and try to arouse anti-Indianism, the same political leaders use New Delhi to further their political ambitions and do not hesitate to take New Delhi’s help to entrench themselves in power. If Nepal does not want India’s involvement, it needs to not only ensure that developments in the Terai do not have a spill over effect but also stop courting the Indian establishment to gain political power.

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

1. Madhesis are dominant in the following 20 districts bordering India: Banke, Bara, Bardiya, Chitwan, Dang, Dhanusa, Jhapa, Kailali, Kanchanpur, Kapilavastu, Mohattari, Morang, Nawalparasi, Parsa, Rautahat, Rupandehi, Saptari, Sarlahi, Siraha and Sunsari.

2. The MEA in a statement on 21 September said, “Our freight companies and transporters have also voiced complaints about the difficulties they are facing in movement within Nepal and their security concerns, due to the prevailing unrest.” http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/25825/Statement_on_the_situation_in_Nepal

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/NewNepalOldPolitics_sspattanaik_280915.html

By David Vine*

With the U.S. military having withdrawn many of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans would be forgiven for being unaware that hundreds of U.S. bases and hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops still encircle the globe. Although few know it, the United States garrisons the planet unlike any country in history, and the evidence is on view from Honduras to Oman, Japan to Germany, Singapore to Djibouti.

Like most Americans, for most of my life, I rarely thought about military bases. The late scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described me well when he wrote in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

To the extent that Americans think about these bases at all, we generally assume they’re essential to national security and global peace. Our leaders have claimed as much since most of them were established during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. As a result, we consider the situation normal and accept that U.S. military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land.

On the other hand, the idea that there would be foreign bases on U.S. soil is unthinkable.

While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 U.S. bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 U.S. “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.

Oddly enough, however, the mainstream media rarely report or comment on the issue. For years, during debates over the closure of the prison at the base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, nary a pundit or politician wondered why the United States has a base on Cuban territory in the first place or questioned whether we should have one there at all. Rarely does anyone ask if we need hundreds of bases overseas or if, at an estimated annual cost of perhaps $156 billion or more, the U.S. can afford them. Rarely does anyone wonder how we would feel if China, Russia, or Iran built even a single base anywhere near our borders, let alone in the United States.

“Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld,” Chalmers Johnson insisted, “one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.”

Alarmed and inspired by his work and aware that relatively few have heeded his warnings, I’ve spent years trying to track and understand what he called our “empire of bases.” While logic might seem to suggest that these bases make us safer, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion: In a range of ways our overseas bases have made us all less secure, harming everyone from U.S. military personnel and their families to locals living near the bases to those of us whose taxes pay for the way our government garrisons the globe.

We are now, as we’ve been for the last seven decades, a Base Nation that extends around the world, and it’s long past time that we faced that fact.

The Base Nation’s Scale

Our 800 bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C. come in all sizes and shapes.

Some are city-sized “Little Americas” — places like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and the little known Navy and Air Force base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These support a remarkable infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, power plants, housing complexes, and an array of amenities often referred to as “Burger Kings and bowling alleys.” Among the smallest U.S. installations globally are “lily pad” bases (also known as “cooperative security locations”), which tend to house drones, surveillance aircraft, or pre-positioned weaponry and supplies. These are increasingly found in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe that had previously lacked much of a U.S. military presence.

Other facilities scattered across the planet include ports and airfields, repair complexes, training areas, nuclear weapons installations, missile testing sites, arsenals, warehouses, barracks, military schools, listening and communications posts, and a growing array of drone bases. Military hospitals and prisons, rehab facilities, CIA paramilitary bases, and intelligence facilities (including former CIA “black site” prisons) must also be considered part of our Base Nation because of their military functions. Even U.S. military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.

The Pentagon’s overseas presence is actually even larger. There are U.S. troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisers like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi Army. And don’t forget the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers. Each should be considered a kind of floating base — or as the Navy tellingly refers to them, “four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory.” Finally, above the seas, one finds a growing military presence in space.

The United States isn’t, however, the only country to control military bases outside its territory. Great Britain still has about seven bases and France five in former colonies. Russia has around eight in former Soviet republics. For the first time since World War II, Japan’s “Self-Defense Forces” have a foreign base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, alongside U.S. and French bases there. South Korea, India, Chile, Turkey, and Israel each reportedly have at least one foreign base. There are also reports that China may be seeking its first base overseas.

In total, these countries probably have about 30 installations abroad, meaning that the United States has approximately 95 percent of the world’s foreign bases.

“Forward” Forever?

Although the United States has had bases in foreign lands since shortly after it gained its independence, nothing like today’s massive global deployment of military force was imaginable until World War II.

In 1940, with the flash of a pen, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a “destroyers-for-bases” deal with Great Britain that instantly gave the United States 99-year leases to installations in British colonies worldwide. Base acquisition and construction accelerated rapidly once the country entered the war. By 1945, the U.S. military was building base facilities at a rate of 112 a month. By war’s end, the global total topped 2,000 sites. In only five years, the United States had developed history’s first truly global network of bases, vastly overshadowing that of the British Empire upon which “the sun never set.”

After the war, the military returned about half the installations but maintained what historian George Stambuk termed a “permanent institution” of bases abroad. Their number spiked during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, declining after each of them. By the time the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, there were about 1,600 U.S. bases abroad, with some 300,000 U.S. troops stationed on those in Europe alone.

Although the military vacated about 60 percent of its foreign garrisons in the 1990s, the overall base infrastructure stayed relatively intact. Despite additional base closures in Europe and to a lesser extent in East Asia over the last decade, and despite the absence of a superpower adversary, nearly 250,000 troops are still deployed on installations worldwide. Although there are about half as many bases as there were in 1989, the number of countries with U.S. bases has roughly doubled from 40 to 80. In recent years, President Obama’s “Pacific pivot” has meant billions of dollars in profligate spending in Asia, where the military already had hundreds of bases and tens of thousands of troops. Billions more have been sunk into building an unparalleled permanent base infrastructure in every Persian Gulf country save Iran. In Europe, the Pentagon has been spending billions more erecting expensive new bases at the same time that it has been closing others.

Since the start of the Cold War, the idea that our country should have a large collection of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops permanently stationed overseas has remained a quasi-religious dictum of foreign and national security policy. The nearly 70-year-old idea underlying this deeply held belief is known as the “forward strategy.” Originally, the strategy held that the United States should maintain large concentrations of military forces and bases as close as possible to the Soviet Union to hem in and “contain” its supposed urge to expand.

But the disappearance of another superpower to contain made remarkably little difference to the forward strategy. Chalmers Johnson first grew concerned about our empire of bases when he recognized that the structure of the “American Raj” remained largely unchanged despite the collapse of the supposed enemy.

Two decades after the Soviet Union’s demise, people across the political spectrum still unquestioningly assume that overseas bases and forward-deployed forces are essential to protect the country. George W. Bush’s administration was typical in insisting that bases abroad “maintained the peace” and were “symbols” of “U.S. commitments to allies and friends.” The Obama administration has similarly declared that protecting the American people and international security “requires a global security posture.”

Support for the forward strategy has remained the consensus among politicians of both parties, national security experts, military officials, journalists, and almost everyone else in Washington’s power structure. Opposition of any sort to maintaining large numbers of overseas bases and troops has long been pilloried as peacenik idealism or the sort of isolationism that allowed Hitler to conquer Europe.

The Costs of Garrisoning the World

As Johnson showed us, there are many reasons to question the overseas base status quo. The most obvious one is economic.

Garrisons overseas are very expensive. According to the RAND Corporation, even when host countries like Japan and Germany cover some of the costs, U.S. taxpayers still pay an annual average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad than in the United States. The expense of transportation, the higher cost of living in some host countries, and the need to provide schools, hospitals, housing, and other support to family members of military personnel mean that the dollars add up quickly — especially with more than half a million troops, family members, and civilian employees on bases overseas at any time.

By my very conservative calculations, maintaining installations and troops overseas cost at least $85 billion in 2014 — more than the discretionary budget of every government agency except the Defense Department itself. If the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is included, that bill reaches $156 billion or more.

While bases may be costly for taxpayers, they’re extremely profitable for privateers of twenty-first-century war like DynCorp International and former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. As Chalmers Johnson noted, “Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries,” which win billions in contracts annually to “build and maintain our far-flung outposts.”

Meanwhile, many of the communities hosting bases overseas never see the economic windfalls that U.S. and local leaders regularly promise. Some areas, especially in poor rural communities, have seen short-term economic booms touched off by base construction. In the long-term, however, bases rarely create sustainable, healthy local economies.

Compared with other forms of economic activity, they represent unproductive uses of land, employ relatively few people for the expanses occupied, and contribute little to local economic growth. Research has consistently shown that when bases finally close, the economic impact is generally limited, and in some cases actually positive — that is, local communities can end up better off when they trade bases for housing, schools, shopping complexes, and other forms of economic development.

Meanwhile, for the United States, investing taxpayer dollars in the construction and maintenance of overseas bases means forgoing investments in areas like education, transportation, housing, and healthcare, despite the fact that these industries are more of a boon to overall economic productivity and create more jobs compared to equivalent military spending. Think about what $85 billion per year would mean in terms of rebuilding the country’s crumbling civilian infrastructure.

The Human Toll

Beyond the financial costs are the human ones.

The families of military personnel are among those who suffer from the spread of overseas bases, given the strain of distant deployments, family separations, and frequent moves. Overseas bases also contribute to the shocking rates of sexual assault in the military: An estimated 30 percent of servicewomen are victimized during their time in the military, and a disproportionate number of these crimes happen at bases abroad. Outside the base gates, in places like South Korea, one often finds exploitative prostitution industries geared toward U.S. military personnel.

Worldwide, bases have caused widespread environmental damage because of toxic leaks, accidents, and in some cases the deliberate dumping of hazardous materials. GI crime has long angered locals. In Okinawa and elsewhere, U.S. troops have repeatedly committed horrific acts of rape against local women. From Greenland to the tropical island of Diego Garcia, the military has displaced local peoples from their lands to build its bases.

In contrast to frequently invoked rhetoric about spreading democracy, the military has shown a preference for establishing bases in undemocratic and often despotic states like Qatar and Bahrain. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, U.S. bases have created fertile breeding grounds for radicalism and anti-Americanism. The presence of bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden’s professed motivation for the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Although this kind of perpetual turmoil is little noticed at home, bases abroad have all too often generate grievances, protest, and antagonistic relationships. Although few here recognize it, our bases are a major part of the image the United States presents to the world — and they often show us in an extremely unflattering light.

Creating a New Cold War, Base by Base

It’s also not at all clear that bases enhance national security and global peace in any way.

In the absence of a superpower enemy, the argument that bases many thousands of miles from U.S. shores are necessary to defend the United States — or even its allies — is a hard argument to make. On the contrary, the global collection of bases has generally enabled the launching of military interventions, drone strikes, and wars of choice that have resulted in repeated disasters, costing millions of lives and untold destruction from Vietnam to Iraq.

By making it easier to wage foreign wars, bases overseas have ensured that military action is an ever more attractive option — often the only imaginable option — for U.S. policymakers. As the anthropologist Catherine Lutz has said, when all you have in your foreign policy toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Ultimately, bases abroad have frequently made war more likely rather than less.

Proponents of the long-outdated forward strategy will reply that overseas bases “deter” enemies and help keep the global peace. As supporters of the status quo, they’ve been proclaiming such security benefits as self-evident truths for decades. Few have provided anything of substance to support their claims. While there’s some evidence that military forces can indeed deter imminent threats, little if any research suggests that overseas bases are an effective form of long-term deterrence.

Studies by both the Bush administration and the RAND Corporation — not exactly left-wing peaceniks — indicate that advances in transportation technology have largely erased the advantage of stationing troops abroad. In the case of a legitimate defensive war or peacekeeping operation, the military could generally deploy troops just as quickly from domestic bases as from most bases abroad. Rapid sealift and airlift capabilities coupled with agreements allowing the use of bases in allied nations and, potentially, pre-positioned supplies are a dramatically less expensive and less inflammatory alternative to maintaining permanent bases overseas.

It is also questionable whether such bases actually increase the security of host nations. The presence of U.S. bases can turn a country into an explicit target for foreign powers or militants — just as U.S. installations have endangered Americans overseas.

Similarly, rather than stabilizing dangerous regions, foreign bases frequently heighten military tensions and discourage diplomatic solutions to conflicts. Placing U.S. bases near the borders of countries like China, Russia, and Iran, for example, increases threats to their security and encourages them to respond by boosting their own military spending and activity. Imagine how U.S. leaders would respond if China were to build even a single small base in Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. Notably, the most dangerous moment during the Cold War — the 1962 Cuban missile crisis — revolved around the construction of Soviet nuclear missile facilities in Cuba, roughly 90 miles from the U.S. border.

The creation and maintenance of so many U.S. bases overseas likewise encourages other nations to build their own foreign bases in what could rapidly become an escalating “base race.” Bases near the borders of China and Russia, in particular, threaten to fuel new cold wars. U.S. officials may insist that building yet more bases in East Asia is a defensive act meant to ensure peace in the Pacific, but tell that to the Chinese. That country’s leaders are undoubtedly not “reassured” by the creation of yet more bases encircling their borders. Contrary to the claim that such installations increase global security, they tend to ratchet up regional tensions, increasing the risk of future military confrontation.

In this way, just as the war on terror has become a global conflict that only seems to spread terror, the creation of new U.S. bases to protect against imagined future Chinese or Russian threats runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. These bases may ultimately help create the very threat they are supposedly designed to protect against. In other words, far from making the world a safer place, U.S. bases can actually make war more likely and the country less secure.

Behind the Wire

In his farewell address to the nation upon leaving the White House in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the nation about the insidious economic, political, and even spiritual effects of what he dubbed “the military-industrial-congressional complex,” the vast interlocking national security state born out of World War II. As Chalmers Johnson’s work reminded us in this new century, our 70-year-old collection of bases is evidence of how, despite Ike’s warning, the United States has entered a permanent state of war with an economy, a government, and a global system of power enmeshed in preparations for future conflicts.

America’s overseas bases offer a window onto our military’s impact in the world and in our own daily lives. The history of these hulking “Little Americas” of concrete, fast food, and weaponry provides a living chronicle of the United States in the post-World War II era. In a certain sense, in these last seven decades, whether we realize it or not, we’ve all come to live “behind the wire,” as military personnel like to say.

We may think such bases have made us safer. In reality, they’ve helped lock us inside a permanently militarized society that has made all of us — everyone on this planet — less secure, damaging lives at home and abroad.

By Clément Doleac*

Since the election of President Ollanta Humala in Peru in 2011 priority has been given to neoliberal policies, free trade agreements, integration into the Pacific market through the Pacific Alliance (with Mexico, Colombia and Chile), and the intent to increase exports in order to promote wealth in the country. It appears, if one takes a look at macroeconomic indicators, that the economic situation in Peru is going very well: the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased 25 percent since 2010 with a growth rate around 6 percent in the past 5 years, the country debt has decreased from 25 percent of the GDP to 20 percent, and inflation remains impressively low at about 3 percent.[1]

While the economy is on the rise, Peru´s economic model is based on a certain abundance of natural resources. The main exports of Peru are primary products due to excessive mining and deforestation leading to many problems for local populations and Indigenous People. Gold represents around 20 percent of the country’s exports, copper ore around 18 percent, the refined petroleum nearly 7 percent while lead and refined copper account for 4.2 percent each, which means that more than half of Peruvian exports are based on extraction of resources.[2] This economic model, based on primary resources, is now at its limits because of new global economic turmoil. The demand for commodities will decrease and competition will intensify among countries that export their resources with the decline for European markets and the difficulties of the Chinese to shift from an export-driven economy to one based on internal consumption. If this pessimistic forecast holds, decreasing commodity prices and increasing production due to competition will result in an environmental catastrophe.

Deforestation and economic development

Economic growth has been set as the most important goal of the Peruvian government under President Ollanta Humalla and is a priority that Peru wants to achieve at all costs. As stated by Mary Menton from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), an international center of investigation that conducts research on the use and management of forests in less-developed countries, “much of this growth is happening — and is likely to keep on happening — at the expense of the Peruvian Amazon.”[3]

According to the data gathered by the non-profit Rights in Resources Initiative (RRI), an important U.S.-based NGO working on forest and tenure rights, Peru´s forests cover about 67.8 million hectares, or more than half of the land area in Peru (53 percent).[4] Officially, and as claimed by the Peruvian Ministry of Environment, the goal of the government is to achieve zero net deforestation through the conservation of 54 million hectares of forest. On the ground, the situation is very different and it appears that priority may be given to emphasizing neoliberal economic growth.

Infrastructure projects and deforestation in Peru: a Brazilian hand

The official claim from Peruvian authorities to fight against deforestation and to support mechanisms such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)[5] is in complete contradiction with a titling process that promotes the development of the agro-industry in the Amazon. Furthermore, it does not take into account the future energy and infrastructure expansion in the region.[6] The link between the development of infrastructure and deforestation was demonstrated in a 2010 paper titled the Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR), which synthesized the most recent studies establishing a link between highways, roads, and deforestation. The conclusion of this study was clear: the construction of new highways and roads in the Amazon region is one of the main drivers of deforestation.[7] Thus, the official zero deforestation goal is unobtainable under current development strategies.

As noted by the Guardian, the infrastructure development in the Amazon is mainly driven by the Brazilian economy and its search for expansion towards the Pacific.[8] In fact, Brazilian expansion in recent years is mainly due to a boom in commodities and the massive exportation of soybean, minerals, and oil to China.[9] It is therefore understandable that the Brazilian government promotes infrastructure projects crossing the Brazilian Amazon toward the Pacific, through Peru. These development projects are mainly financed by the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) as well as other regional banks.[10]

One of these projects, and probably the most representative one of this move to the Pacific, is the South American Integration Initiative (Iniciativa para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana (IIRSA), which is a new set of infrastructure projects in the region. Included in this initiative is the highway projected to pass through the Amazon, financed by the BNDES, and estimated to cost around 70 billion USD.[11] As reported by the Guardian in December 2013, the project also “include[s] more than 500 mega projects, including hydroelectric dams, highways, waterways, ports and gas pipelines stretching across the Amazon basin.”[12]

The development of the agro industry in Peru and government involvement:

The dams, highways and other expanding infrastructures have huge consequences on the rainforest, and not only by direct deforestation. The BNDES is linked with other economic sectors that act with a mindset of developmentalism, which means that the rainforest is seen as an unavoidable casualty on the path to economic development.

The new and future inter-oceanic highways will cause the Peruvian Amazon to suffer major consequences with the expansion of settlements and buffering of deforestation zones.[13] According to an article published by the CIFOR, the destruction of the Peruvian Amazon is rising and “expanding over more than 145,000 hectares last year”, which is an 80 percent jump compared to the beginning of the century.[14]

According to the NGO Imazon, which monitors the deforestation rates in the Amazon with the use of satellite images, “1,373 square kilometers of rainforest was chopped down between August 2014 and December 2014, a 224 percent increase relative to the prior corresponding period a year before. Forest degradation from selective logging and fires is pacing 664 percent ahead of last year. Forest degradation typically precedes outright clearing.”[15] And this pace is concerning, because Brazil, which is the driver of this new trend, is one of the Amazonian countries that has improved the most on deforestation thanks to the soy bean moratorium.[16] Brazil is operating under a double standard by working to mitigate deforestation issues at home, while continuing to support indirect deforestation in neighboring countries. In Peru, Suriname and the Guyanas the rates of deforestation are far worse than in Brazil.[17] In the case of Peru, the annual forest loss has multiplied by nearly 3 since 2001.[18]

The government is actively encouraging settlement in the Amazon, largely due to immigration from the highlands.[19] Consequently, the government has promoted a set of policies to encourage the expansion of agriculture for local consumption and in several cases for international markets such as palm oil.[20] One of these policies aims to grant land titles to people that “add economic value to the land,” which means in nearly every case that they convert forest land to agriculture.[21]

This movement toward deforestation, excessive logging and mining, at the hands of large or small holders, has led to consequences that could have been avoided, such as the threat on Peru’s food system.[22] As explained by Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato in National Geographic, there are several regions of the Peruvian Amazon where legal and illegal loggers are selling wood, palms, and fruits in order to make quick cash. This practice is in turn leading to a quick deforestation of these areas and a complete disequilibrium of the national food market. According to the Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana (IIAP) “in Iquitos, 17,000 female aguaje plants are cut to satisfy the city’s demand for aguaje fruit.”[23] The local products coming from deforestation are now being sold abroad, which leaves the local market in need with prices rising, a trend that is foreseen to continue in the next years.

In April 2015, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) published a report called “Deforestation by Definition.” This report exposed “the ongoing and looming threat of illegal deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon due to installation of agro-industrial monoculture plantations, such as palm oil,” and came to an astonishing conclusion.[24] EIA’s Peru Program Director Julia Urrunaga stated that, “the Peruvian government is allowing corporations to destroy primary forest in violation of national law by using a skewed interpretation of the legal definition of forests. The current practice of defining forests according to agricultural productive capacity, regardless of the presence of standing trees, is not only illogical, it’s illegal.”[25] In fact, the government is failing to define forests as forests and using many different tactics to promote the production of palm oil, one of the main products exported by the country and other agro business in the Amazon.

In theory, thanks to the Peruvian forest law number 27308, the conversion of land from its original use is forbidden in Peru, which means that deforestation is not allowed if the land is originally recognized as forest for its “best land use capacity (BLUC)”.[26] The agro industrial projects such as palm oil plantations are supposed to be only promoted on land that is BLUC designated for agricultural purposes. But as stated by the EIA report, “The government has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the BLUC of Amazonian forested land. Currently, out of Peru’s 74 million hectares of forests, there are approximately 20 million hectares of forests to be found in the country that have not been classified and lack official studies to define their BLUC. Forests within these 20 million hectares are vulnerable to BLUC assessments that, based on soil and climate characteristics, may define them as agriculture land.”[27]

As shown by the EIA report, there are numerous cases of this ongoing trend. In Tamshiyacu, the enterprise Cacao del Peru Norte is planning to develop a palm oil plantation with the Melka Group. In Tierra Blanca and Santa Catalina and in Maniti and Santa Cecilia there are other similar planned projects for palm oil production. Palm oil plantations already exist in Nueva Requena, Tocache and Palmas de Shanusi, and Palmas del Oriente. [28]

In other words, the Peruvian government does not, on purpose, classify forests as forestry BLUC in order to switch land use and convert it into palm oil plantations or other agro industrial projects. This is accomplished with the active help of the private sector, including large corporations such as Grupo Romero, which operates in 12 countries in Latin America and exports products to 23 countries around the world. The Grupo Romero also benefited from loans from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the financial arm of the World Bank.[29]

Not only is the agro industry damaging the forest, but also legal and illegal mining activities:

One of the other main drivers of deforestation is the mining sector, both legal and illegal. As reported by The Guardian on many occasions, large and small-scale extractive operations have been mapped and their advance into the forest is growing.[30] Gold miners are working in hundreds of small groups that are difficult to identify. Mr. Greg Asner, who developed the Carnegie Airborne Observatory (CAO) stated, “In all, we found that the rate of forest loss from gold mining accelerated from 5,350 acres (2,166 hectares) per year before 2008 to 15,180 acres (6,145 hectares) each year after the 2008 global financial crisis that rocketed gold prices.”[31] As reported by Mongabay, based on a study from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), “the extent of gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon has surged 400 percent since 1999 due to rocketing gold prices, wreaking havoc on forests and devastating local rivers.”[32]

Mining not only destroys tropical forests, but also causes the release of mercury filled sediment into rivers leading to severe effects on aquatic life. This mercury pollution has been reported as a consequence on several occasions.[33] Illegal and small gold mining operations are responsible for an estimated “30 tons of toxic metal in rivers and lakes in the Amazon region every year” and native communities have often been poisoned with it severely.[34] As reported by the Guardian, “Native communities had levels of mercury roughly five times that considered safe by the World Health Organisation (WHO)”.[35]

The expansion of mining is currently ongoing. The Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP) in a June 2014 blog post documented “how gold mining deforestation continues to expand within the Department of Madre de Dios, Peru [and in the] Amarakaeri Communal Reserve, an important Peruvian protected area that is co-managed by indigenous communities, as well as Peru’s National Protected Areas Service (known as SERNANP).”[36] Even national reserves and indigenous reservations are no longer protected by these deforestation and clearing trends.

Is this kind of economic development really alleviating poverty?

In Peru, nevertheless, poverty has been more than halved during the past decade, from 48.5 percent of the population in 2004 to 25.8 percent in 2012, according to the World Bank database.[37] And according to many government officials, this is due to these economic activities.

Despite this, the economic growth that allowed the poverty reduction will have consequences on climate change that in return will strongly impact the wealth of the Andean region. As reported by the Guardian, “Peru has already lost 39% of its tropical glaciers due to a 0.7C temperature rise in the Andes between 1939 and 2006.”[38] The United Nations, through its United Nations Development Program (UNDP), reported that extreme events, which are expected to increase due to climate change, will lead to a dramatic reduction of people´s well-being and the destruction of people’ assets can lead to significant deterioration of skills and opportunities in nutrition, health, education, and income over middle and long term.[39] In other words, the path of development chosen by Peru is unsustainable. While it has effectively led to economic growth and to an increase of the Human Development Index by 28% between 1980 and 2012 (life expectancy at birth increased by 14.2 years; Peruvian schooling increased by 3.2 years and the Gross National Income per capita increased by about 60%), all of these achievements are now threatened by climate change.[40]

This formula for poverty reduction through economic development seems to mandate environmental destruction in Amazon forests and Andean glaciers. In Peru’s highlands, 60.3 percent of the population is still classified as poor and 21.1 percent as extremely poor, and economic development based on deforestation is claimed to help alleviate poverty.[41] As reported by a CIFOR blog post from January 2014, citing Che Piu, lead author and president of the Environmental Right and Natural Resources (Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, DAR), “the indigenous people and other rural people that conserve and sustainably manage the forests can never obtain property title over those forests, creating a contradiction that we need to resolve in order to create real incentives against deforestation.”[42] The reality is that while small stakeholders can contribute to deforestation, the profits always go to the elites, both on an international and local level, rarely benefiting local communities and indigenous people.[43]

This economic development path, even if it can have short and medium term benefits as well as positive effects on the alleviation of poverty, is likely to have worse consequences over the long term, and among the first to suffer the consequences of climate change will be those living in the Amazon forests and in the Andes, since these regions are expected to be the most affected by climate change. As the Guardian reported, the Andes in Peru will probably suffer an increase of 6 Celsius degrees on average by the end of the century, and even if Peru directly contributes only “0.4% of the world’s greenhouse gases, it was ranked third after Bangladesh and Honduras, in climate hazards risks” by the UK’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.[44]

Ms. Maria Eugenia Mujica, one of the UNDP report’s authors, states that “If we disregard [environmental] sustainability, whatever progress we have made in poverty reduction or improvement of human development will just be erased due to climate change.”[45]

Indigenous rights, inequality and economic development

The only path to stop this trend and encourage sustainable economic development is by strengthening community forest rights and by mitigating climate change. These two essential changes are based on a RRI – World Forest Institute (WRI) report released in July 2014.[46] The key findings of this study are that “when Indigenous Peoples and local communities have no or weak legal rights, their forests tend to be vulnerable to deforestation and thus become the source of carbon dioxide emissions,” but also that “legal forest rights for communities and government protection of their rights tend to lower carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation [and to] maintain or improve their forests’ carbon storage.”[47] Qualifying the benefits of its recommendations, the report pessimistically states that even with legal rights to their forest, local and indigenous communities can suffer from government actions that ignore their rights and lead to high carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation, as it is the case in Peru.

Local and indigenous populations are struggling against this movement towards deforestation and against their own government, and the fight seems difficult to win. During the last 14 years, 132 land rights titles have been given to native communities, a number that pales in comparison to the 737 titles awarded between 1990 and 2000.[48] In July 2014, a new law promoting foreign investment and economic development leaves even the idigenous population with unprotected land titles. The State now has the right to give a land title to foreign enterprises for oil industry development, gas projects, or for infrastructure without consultation of local and indigenous population.[49] In 2009 the largest indigenous protest in Peru in decades ended in a blood bath with 34 deaths, an event that has been named locally as El Baguazo. The state also sued several community leaders in asymmetric legal warfare.[50] Clearly, indigenous land rights have deteriorated since the 1990s.

Slowly, however, the struggle has paid off and the government has progressively recognized the right of indigenous and local communities trying to promote a law that obligates previous consultation. On March 16, 2015, as stated by the non-profit Rights and Resources “7 indigenous organizations representing 52 Amazonian communities met in Lima to finalize the implementation plan for Prior Consultation in the regulation processes of the Forestry Law (Law N29763). This plan has been developed with indigenous stakeholder participation since 2012.”[51]

Deforestation

Unfortunately, more setbacks have come in recent years. The executive branch of the Peruvian government is promoting what is known as Paquetazos, a set of laws that give priority to extractive industries on the local and indigenous communities. As stated by UpsideDownWorld, these set of laws are “neoliberal reforms that threaten to undermine environmental and labor protections and is a gift to the extractive industry.”[52] One of the most critical parts of this legislation is the deregulation of environmental norms and the reduction of the Ministry of Environment (MINAM) authority; the MINAM has been stripped of several of its main functions such as setting and regulating environmental norms. Now, this power is given to the Council of Ministers, placing this power under the government umbrella.[53]

A national movement of the people took place last June 2015 to protest these paquetazos.[54] Antolín Huáscar Flores, President of the National Agrarian Confederation (Confederación Nacional Agraria, (CNA) said in an interview with Servindi that “[we] consider that environmental paquetazos are to destroy our land and deliver it [to] large transnational companies,” mostly in the extractive sector.[55]

The Forest People Program reported that, “the council of AIDESEP, which represents over 1800 communities in the Peruvian Amazon, called for the repeal and shelving of recent legal reforms being pushed through Peru’s parliament that threaten to further weaken indigenous peoples’ rights to land in favor of development projects. They also announced that they would file a formal complaint with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) if promised changes to a nationwide land titling program remain undelivered.”[56]

In September 2015, the AIDESEP reported during a conference at the Inter-American Development Bank that the titling program led by the government aims at individual titling and not community titling, thus allowing poor individuals to sell their titles for a pittance to big private companies out of desperation. Far from being supportive of sustainable growth and indigenous people’s land and tenure rights, the Peruvian government is still an opponent to the progressive movement. Consequently, the AIDESEP is now aiming at filing a complaint with the IDB

Economic Development over Indigenous Rights: Applications to the Whole of South America

An evolution in how economic development is conceptualized has not only occurred among Peruvian leaders, but also among Brazilian authorities, who are trying to create a new economic block under its dominion in South America.[57] These efforts, led by Brazil but also pushed by many other South American countries, have been seen as a way to escape the hegemony of the United States, a country that has considered the hemisphere its natural back yard.[58] Further encouraging the formation of a South American economic bloc is the rise of economic ties with China, one of the foremost trading partners of South American countries. Brazil and neighboring countries have seen this as an opportunity for emancipation and escape from U.S. domination.[59] Yet, it remains to be seen if American domination will be replaced with Chinese domination.

Indeed, far from leading to emancipation, this relationship has already evolved into a new form of dependency. As Mr. Pierre Salama, a French economist puts it, the Latin American economies are under a regime of early de-industrialization, and the main countries in the region are reorienting their economies by focusing on commodities.[60] In practice, that means that Brazil can make more money thanks to exportation of soybeans by clearing the rainforest than by promoting massive investments in high-level technology and industry. Argentina, Chile, and Mexico are all tempted this path. In Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia, the situation is even worse: the dependence on commodities and oil prices is increasing year after year and the possibilities of developing a strong and diverse economy are diminishing.[61]

In Bolivia, Evo Morales, who built an electoral platform on the preservation of Indigenous People rights and land, is now turning his back on his supporters and is backing a highway in protected areas, such as national parks and the indigenous territory Isiboro Secure. Recent laws he has supported in Bolivia are opening protected areas to oil and gas exploitation.[62] In Colombia, as in other surrounding countries, the commodity boom “unleashed a new scramble for oil, minerals and cropland that is accelerating deforestation and fueling a new wave of land conflicts from Colombia to Chile.”[63] As the Washington Post reported, “in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and the other five nations whose territories cover 40 percent of the Amazon basin, the loss of vegetation increased threefold in the same period, wiping out a combined area of forest cover larger than the state of Maryland. Last year, the pace of deforestation in those nations jumped 120 percent.”[64]

Even if the commodities prices are recently going down, the competition is only going to increase, as governmentsstruggle to maintain economic growth by preserving their market share. The unavoidable consequence will be increasing pressure on forests and tenure rights, as well as the multiplication of conflicts in the coming years.[65]

Throughout South America, but more specifically in Amazonian countries, the Indigenous People and activists repeat the same sentiment: this economic development is not sustainable and is spurring violence. Peru registerd 213 conflicts for the month of August, ofwhich 142 were related to socio-environmental issues.[66] When will progressive governments stop fueling social conflicts and propose an alternative to the very kind of economic development they denounced 15 years ago?

*Clément Doleac, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[1] “Peru Economic Outlook” in Focus Economics, August 11, 2015. Consulted on http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/peru on September 13th, 2015.

[2] Data collected on https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/per/ on september 13th, 2015.

[3] BADGERY-PARKER, Imogen, “Despite enthusiasm for REDD+, deforestation in Peru continues” in Forest News CIFOR, on January 9th 2015. Consulted on http://blog.cifor.org/20927/despite-enthusiasm-for-redd-deforestation-in-peru-continues#.VfWZg_lViko on September 16th, 2015.

[4] Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010; 2 Extent of Forest and other wooded land 2010

[5] Read more about REDD on : http://www.un-redd.org/aboutredd consulted on 13th September 2015.

[6] BADGERY-PARKER, Imogen, “Despite enthusiasm for REDD+, deforestation in Peru continues” in Forest News CIFOR, on January 9th 2015. Consulted on http://blog.cifor.org/20927/despite-enthusiasm-for-redd-deforestation-in-peru-continues#.VfWZg_lViko on September 16th, 2015.

[7] ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ Claudia, CUETO LA ROSA, Vanessa, “Propuestas para construer gobernanza en la Amazonía a través del transporte sostenible, Análisis de la Eficacia del Programa para la Gestión Ambiental y Social de los Impactos Indirectos del Corredor Vial Interoceánico Sur – tramos 2, 3 y 4” Derecho Ambiente y recursos naturales (DAR) http://www.bicusa.org/en/Document.102484.pdf Consulted on 09/16/2015.

[8] The following paragraph is based on the following articles: GUEST Pete, “Amazon roads and dams pose threat to rainfrst and indigenous peoples” in The Guardian, on December 20th, 2013. Consulted on : http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/dec/20/amazon-dams-roads-threat-rainforest-indigenous on September 16th, 2015.

[9] SALAMA Pierre, Les économies émergentes latino-américaines, entre cigales et fourmis, Armand Colin
Collection U, 2013

[10] GUEST Pete, “Amazon roads and dams pose threat to rainfrst and indigenous peoples” in The Guardian, on December 20th, 2013. Consulted on : http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/dec/20/amazon-dams-roads-threat-rainforest-indigenous on September 16th, 2015.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] BADGERY-PARKER, Imogen, “Despite enthusiasm for REDD+, deforestation in Peru continues” in Forest News CIFOR, on January 9th 2015. Consulted on http://blog.cifor.org/20927/despite-enthusiasm-for-redd-deforestation-in-peru-continues#.VfWZg_lViko on September 16th, 2015. As cited in the article: ““These historical deforestation rates do not reflect the effects of new and future interoceanic highways nor the recent agroindustrial expansion in the Amazon,” said Hugo Che Piu, lead author and president of Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR).”

[14] NBCNEWS, “Peru’s rainforest turns to wasteland from illegal gold mining” in NBC NEWS, on December 2nd, 2015. Consulted on http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latin-america/perus-rainforest-turns-wasteland-illegal-gold-mining-n260006 on September 16th, 2015.

[15] BUTLER Rhett A., “Deforestation Climbing – along with fears – in the Amazon” in Mongabay, on January 13th, 2015. Consulted on http://news.mongabay.com/2015/01/deforestation-climbing-along-with-fears-in-the-amazon/ on September 16th,2015.

[16] BUTLER Rhett A., “Brazil’s soy moratorium dramatically reduced Amazon deforestation” in Mongabay, on January 23rd, 2015. Consulted on http://news.mongabay.com/2015/01/brazils-soy-moratorium-dramatically-reduced-amazon-deforestation/ on September 16th, 2015.

[17] BUTLER Rhett A., “Deforestation Climbing – along with fears – in the Amazon” in Mongabay, on January 13th, 2015. Consulted on http://news.mongabay.com/2015/01/deforestation-climbing-along-with-fears-in-the-amazon/ on September 16th,2015.

[18] Ibid.

[19] BADGERY-PARKER, Imogen, “Despite enthusiasm for REDD+, deforestation in Peru continues” in Forest News CIFOR, on January 9th 2015. Consulted on http://blog.cifor.org/20927/despite-enthusiasm-for-redd-deforestation-in-peru-continues#.VfWZg_lViko on September 16th, 2015.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] BLOUDOFF-INDELICATO Mollie, “Deforestation Threatens Peru’s Food System, Environment” in National geographic – the Plate, on March 23, 2015. Consulted on http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/23/deforestation-threatens-perus-food-system-environment/ on September 16th, 2015.

[23] Ibid.

[24] “Deforestation by definition” in Environmental Investigation Agency, on April 06, 2015. Consulted on http://eia-global.org/news-media/deforestation-by-definition on September 16th, 2015. The full report can be read here http://eia-global.org/images/uploads/150325.1_EIA_Peru_Palm_Report_P06-WEB.pdf

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] GOMEZ Adriana, “IFC Provides $10 Million to Peruvian Logistics Company Ransa Comercial”, IFC, Consulted on : http://ifcext.ifc.org/ifcext/pressroom/ifcpressroom.nsf/1f70cd9a07d692d685256ee1001cdd37/5f2ca2b1cdf90f0d852570130053615d?OpenDocument on September 16th, 2015.

[30] BUTLER Rhett A., “Gold miners invade Amazonian indigenous reserve” in the Guardian, on June 17th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/17/gold-miners-invade-amazonian-indigenous-reserve on September 16th, 2015.

[31] The CAO is a fixed-wing aircraft that sweeps laser light across the vegetation canopy to image it in brilliant 3-D. The data can determine the location and size of each tree at a resolution of 3.5 feet (1.1 meter), a level of detail that is unprecedented. By combining field surveys with this airborne mapping and high-resolution satellite monitoring the team has been able to detail myriad ecological features of forests around the world. ; see more in COLLYNS Dan, “Extent of Peruvian Amazon lost to illegal goldmines mapped for first time” in The Guardian, on October 29th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/29/peruvian-amazon-illegal-goldmines-mapped on September 16th, 2015.

[32] BUTLER Rhett A., “Gold mining in the Amazon rainforest surges 400%” in Mongabay, on October 28th, 2013. Consulted on http://news.mongabay.com/2013/10/gold-mining-in-the-amazon-rainforest-surges-400/ on September 16th, 2015.

[33] COLLYNS Dan, “Illegal gold mining exposing Peru’s indigenous tribes to mercury poisoning” in the Guardian, on September 9th, 2013. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/09/peru-amazon-indigenous-tribe-gold-mining on September 16th, 2015.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] “Image #6: Expanding gold mining deforestation enters Amarakaeri communal reserve (madre de dios, Peru)” in Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAPP), on June 14th, 2015. Consulted on http://maaproject.org/2015/06/image-of-the-week-6-gold-mining-deforestation-enters-amarakaeri-communal-reserve/ on September 26th, 2015.

[37] “Peru Country Overview” World Bank. Consulted on http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/peru/overview / on September 16th, 2015.

[38] COLLYNS Dan, “Why climate change threatens Peru’s poverty reduction mission” in the Guardian, on December 13th, 2013. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/dec/13/undp-climate-change-peru-poverty-reduction on September 16th, 2015.

[39] As transalted from “Cambio Climático puede poner en riesgo el progreso en el desarrollo humano del Perú” in PNUD, on November 28, 2013. Consulted on http://www.pe.undp.org/content/peru/es/home/presscenter/articles/2013/11/28/cambio-clim-tico-puede-poner-en-riesgo-el-progreso-en-el-desarrollo-humano-del-per-/ on September 16th, 2015.

[40] Ibid.

[41] BADGERY-PARKER, Imogen, “Despite enthusiasm for REDD+, deforestation in Peru continues” in Forest News CIFOR, on January 9th 2015. Consulted on http://blog.cifor.org/20927/despite-enthusiasm-for-redd-deforestation-in-peru-continues#.VfWZg_lViko on September 16th, 2015.

[42] Ibid.

[43] “Community forests help cut pollution and deforestation” in RRI, consulted on http://www.rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/Sci-Dev-Net.pdf on September 16th, 2015.

[44] COLLYNS Dan, “Why climate change threatens Peru’s poverty reduction mission” in the Guardian, on December 13th, 2013. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/dec/13/undp-climate-change-peru-poverty-reduction on September 16th, 2015.

[45] Ibid.

[46] STEVENS Caleb, WINTERBOTTOM Robert, SPRINGER Jenny, Securing rights, Combating Climate Change, World resources Institute and Rights and Resources Initiative, on July 2014. http://www.wri.org/securingrights Consulted on September 16th, 2015.

[47] Ibid.

[48] BAJAK Frank, BRICEÑO Franklin, “Difícil lucha de indígenas ambientalistas en Perú” in the Huffington Post, on December 11th, 2014. Consulted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20141211/ams-gen-conferencia-climatica-indigenas-peruanos/ on September 16th, 2015.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Rights and Resources Initiative, “Indigenous Organizations reach an Agreement on the Forestry Law and Prior Consent in Peru,” in RRI, on March 24th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.rightsandresources.org/news/indigenous-organizations-reach-an-agreement-on-the-forestry-law-and-prior-consent-in-peru/ on September 16th, 2015.

[52] SULLIVAN Lynda, “Peru passes a packet of neoliberal reforms, erodes environmental protections and labor rights” in UpsideDownWorld, on July 25th, 2014. Consulted on http://upsidedownworld.org/main/peru-archives-76/4956-peru-passes-a-packet-of-neoliberal-reforms-erodes-environmental-protections-and-labor-rights on September 16th, 2015.

[53] Ibid.

[54] SERVINDI, “Perú: “Paquetazos destruyen y entregan nuestras tierras a empresas extractivistas,” in SERVINDI, on June 19th, 2015. Consulted on http://servindi.org/actualidad/133768 on September 16th, 2015.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Forest Peoples Programme, “Indigenous peoples of Peru unite to denounce imminent legal reforms that threaten land rights,” in Forest Peoples Programme, on April 28th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/rights-land-natural-resources/news/2015/04/indigenous-peoples-peru-unite-denounce-imminent-le on September 16th, 2015.

[57] DOLEAC Clément, “Development Bank in Latin America: Towards a So-Called Radical Emancipatory Project?” in COHA, on January 9th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/development-bank-in-latin-america-towards-a-so-called-radical-emancipatory-project/ on September 17th, 2015 ; BIRNS Nicholas and BIRNS Larry, “Brazil between Caracas and Washington: Roussef and Vieira try to chart a middle course ar a time of Hemispheric polarization” in COHA, on March 23, 2015. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/brazil-between-caracas-and-washington-rousseff-and-vieira-try-to-chart-a-middle-course-at-a-time-of-hemispheric-polarization/ on September 17th, 2015.

[58] DOLEAC Clément, “Are the Organization of American States’ Imperialist Roots too deep to Extirpate Today” in COHA, on December 4, 2015. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/are-the-organization-of-american-states-imperialist-roots-too-deep-to-extirpate-with-today/ on September 24, 2015.

[59] SALAMA Pierre, Les économies émergentes latino-américaines, entre cigales et fourmis, Armand Colin
Collection U, 2013 ; BURGES Sean, « Coha Announcement : « revisiting consensual hegemony : brazilian Leadership in question », in COHA, on February 3, 2015. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/coha-announcement-revisiting-consensual-hegemony-brazilian-regional-leadership-in-question-by-coha-research-fellow-sean-burges-ph-d/ on September 17th, 2015. See also DOLEAC Clément, “Development Bank in Latin America: Towards a So-Called Radical Emancipatory Project?” in COHA, on January 9th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.coha.org/development-bank-in-latin-america-towards-a-so-called-radical-emancipatory-project/ on September 17th, 2015 ; ELSON Anthony, “Dragon among the Iguanas” in Finance and Development, December 2014, Vol. 51, No. 4.

[60] SALAMA Pierre, Les économies émergentes latino-américaines, entre cigales et fourmis, Armand Colin
Collection U, 2013

[61] Ibid.

[62] HILL David, “Bolivia opens up national parks to oil and gas firms” in the Guardian, on June 5th, 2015. Consulted on http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/jun/05/bolivia-national-parks-oil-gas on September 17th, 2015.

[63] MIROFF Nick “South American commodity boom drives deforestation and land conflicts” in Washington Post, on December 31, 2014. Consulted on https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/south-american-commodity-boom-drives-deforestation-and-land-conflicts/2014/12/31/0c25e522-78cc-4075-8b21-31bcc3e0fddb_story.html on September 17th, 2014.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] SERVINDI “Perú: Registran 213 conflictos sociales en agosto, 142 de carácter socioambiental” in Servindi, on September 9th, 2015. Consulted on: http://servindi.org/actualidad/139021?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Servindi+%28Servicio+de+Informaci%C3%B3n+Indigena%29 on September 17th, 2015.

Warmly greeted as the hero of Iran nuclear agreement that has (hopefully) resolved one of the most vexing international issues, Iran’s President delivered a powerful and dignified speech before the General Assembly on Monday that resonated with the current mood in the international community in favor of civil and diplomatic resolution of disputes instead of resorting to violence and war.

Unfortunately, Rohani had to cut his trip short and return to Iran for the ceremony retrieving the bodies of Iranian pilgrims killed in the Hajj stampede, which he forcefully blamed in his UN speech on Saudi mismanagement and incompetence. A day before, at a private session with a group of American pundits, Rohani expressed his regret that contrary to his wishes, the relations with Saudi Arabia had deteriorated since the takeover of new leadership in Riyadh. The Saudis’ refusal to either apologize or issue a statement of regret over the death of so many pilgrims under their control has angered Iranians and effectively ended Rohani’s two-year overtures. Adding salt to injury, the Saudi foreign minister has reportedly declined to meet with Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif, who has demanded an inquiry into the deaths of some 220 Iranian pilgrims alone.

In his speech, Rohani defended the nuclear agreement as a victory for global diplomacy and reiterated Iran’s commitment to uphold its obligations, while urging the other side to do the same. The lifting of sanctions on Iran is a top priority and there are still unresolved questions that have been raised at the Iran and “5 +1” nations discussions on the sideline of UN summit. According to members of the Iranian negotiation team who spoke with the author, another issue is the redesigning of heavy water reactor in Arak.

Concerning the latter, according to the nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the reactor’s core needs to be removed and replaced with a new one that produces considerably less amount of plutonium. This is a technically challenging process and might take time. Per the JCPOA, an international advisory group would finalize the new design, but that has not happened yet and, in turn, this presents a complicating factor because if Iran moves ahead with its commitment to remove the core and yet the West procrastinates on the new core, then Iran will be indefinitely deprived of a heavy water reactor that produces radio isotopes for various medical and other purposes. In that case, Arak would become a certificate of Western betrayal and bad faith negotiations, and politically taxing on the moderate Rohani government. It is therefore incumbent on the Iranian team to make sure that the Arak core is not touched until there is full-proof agreement on a re-designed core, otherwise prospects of a major vulnerability for Iran looms.

With the JCPOA altering the international climate in Iran’s favor, Iran’s President’s UN trip was also aimed at shoring up support for Iran’s regional and international policies, which is why he focused on the need for coordinated action against terrorism and extremism. Iran, Russia, and Iraq have now entered a new intelligence-sharing agreement with respect to the ISIS terrorists, and this has clearly irritated Washington, that prefers to keep Moscow at a distance and play leadership role in Middle Eastern affairs. This might explain the rather harsh tone of President Obama’s speech, the fact that he accused Iran of fomenting instability in the region and, yet at the same time, left the door a jar open on US’s cooperation in the fight against ISIS.

Russia’s President Putin in his speech called for a WWII-style alliance against ISIS, which ought to appeal to some US policy-makers who recognize the importance of defeating ISIS through collective efforts. Presently, the US’s anti-ISIS policy is mired in incoherence, given the negative influence of Saudi Arabia and other conservative Sunni states who finance and support the radical Jihadists fighting Shiites headed by Iran in the region, including in Syria.

With respect to Syria, Rohani has emphasized the need to single prioritize on the fight against terrorism, arguing forcefully that fighting terrorism and the government of Syria at the same time is a recipe for disaster. He recognizes the need to reform the Syrian government but insists that a sequence of actions beginning with the defeat of foreign fighters and then the return of refugees prior to political changes is necessary. Iran and Russia and a number of other countries are working together to draft a new Syria action plan that will likely fall on deaf ears in US if Washington continues with its present hostilities toward the government of Bashar al-Assad.

But, Iran is hopeful that the US will turn around and adjust its Syria policy simply because the present US policy is bound to have long-term disastrous results by paving the road for ISIS’s takeover. Some of US’s Western allies such as France have come to this point, which is why the Iranian and French presidents had a constructive meeting at UN and recognized their “meeting points” on Syria.

“We are discussing Syria with the Americans through the Europeans,” an Iranian diplomat confided, adding that they are not authorized to discuss non-nuclear issues with the US. In his trip, Rohani also met a number of other European officials including the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who stated his government’s commitment to the terms of the nuclear agreement. London is on a new cordial path with Iran and about to dispatch a huge trade delegation to Iran, a visible sign of growing normalization of Iran-West relations in the post-JCPOA environment.

By K.V. Rajan*

Nepal has a constitution at last. On September 20, 2015, an overwhelming majority of an elected Constituent Assembly voted in favour of a constitution ushering in a federal, democratic, secular republic.

Following the end of the Maoist insurgency, for the past seven years political parties had been debating ad nauseum a new draft constitution which would transform Nepal into a federation with full devolution of powers and equality to all sections of its population, including the long marginalized Madheshis and Tharus in southern Nepal, bordering India; the Dalits, Janjatis and women. The first Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 2012 without producing an agreed statute. Fresh elections were then held, and a new CA with a different political complexion came into being, in which the pro-ethnic based, pro-federal parties

(Madheshis as well as well as Maoists) were overtaken by the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist). There was painful but recognizable progress by March 2015, with encouraging convergence in the approaches of the major parties, including the Madheshis, especially on the vexed question of number and boundary delineation of provinces.

Then came the devastating earthquake of April 2015. It seemed to be a welcome trigger to speed things up on the constitution front, and leaders of the four major parties, including the Nepali Congress, CPN (UML), Maoists and the Madheshis represented by Bijay Gachchedar, agreed on a new draft constitution. This was welcomed in most quarters. As the major parties went ahead with an attempt to push it through the CA, doubts about whether it was seeking to significantly reverse earlier agreements on empowering hitherto marginalized groups spread. The long-oppressed Tharus, who had been asking for a province of their own, were being given nothing, the Madheshis who had expected a provincial status in an east-west stretch parallel to the Indian border, recognizing their ethnicity and linguistic status, were instead asked to be content to be merged with a number of north-south provincial offerings in which they would be a minority as compared to the hill populations. The basis for determining seat entitlements, both under the first-past-the-post and under the proportional representation formulae, had also been changed to ensure that the Tarai and Tharu representation would be substantially less than what their populations would entitle them to.

The Tarai-based representatives, including Gachhedar, therefore boycotted the voting. Serious violence erupted in protests in the Tarai, even as the other three parties (NC, CPN-UML, and Maoist), confident of their combined numbers, proceeded at astonishing speed to push their draft through, until its endorsement by more than a two-thirds majority by the CA and its formal promulgation on September 20.

Former Maoist prime minister Baburam Bhattarai’s comment as he came out of the CA after the promulgation was perhaps the most honest description of the appropriate national mood: “There is no room for celebration, when half of our population is unhappy with the constitution.

India, for its part, made no bones about its disappointment and concern, throughout the process and right up to and after promulgation, cautioning against a statute which was unacceptable to a large chunk of Nepal’s population as being non-durable, calling for flexibility and accommodation on the part of its proponents to ensure the broadest possible support, deploring the violence and unrest close to its borders, and conspicuously declining to congratulate Nepal on this achievement after it was finally announced.

India has more reasons than one to be seriously concerned – with the content of the constitution text, as much as the way it was rushed through. It is widely recognized, even in Nepal, that a small band of political leaders (K.P. Sharma Oli from the CPN (UML), Sher Bahadur Deuba from Nepali Congress and Prachanda from the Maoist party) were intent on pushing it through for their own political reasons, as it would enable Sushil Koirala to vacate the prime minister-position in favour of Oli, Deuba to take charge of the NC as party president, Koirala to become president of Nepal and Prachanda to regain power and political clout.

The suggested delineation formula would also safeguard the political fiefdoms of these and other key leaders instead of surrendering them to the Tharus and Madheshis. In the process, the unpalatable prospect of ethnicity/viability-based federalism which would have institutionally ended the centuries-old monopoly of power by a few upper caste communities from the hills, could be shelved indefinitely. As Indian reservations became more strong, the added space for revival of the panchayat-era concept of nationalism – anti-Indianism to cement unity and safeguard the interests of the traditional elite in the power structure, opened up — for at least some of the key players. What better way of cutting India down to size than by ignoring its advice and having a democratically endorsed constitution of Nepal’s choosing, one moreover which was clearly to China’s liking?

Two big questions are also ripe for speculation. What was the real reason for Prachanda, he who had led the movement for a federal inclusive Nepal in the first CA for empowering the Madheshis and the downtrodden, to suddenly back this regressive document, despite the obvious political cost this would entail in terms of loss of credibility and future votes? Second, was there a master mind, some huge incentive, offered to these key players by some unseen force, internal or external, who was counting the possible strategic gains from the institutional re-orientation and its fallout?

The developments of the past few days may throw up a host of new challenges for Nepal, India and in the direction of India-Nepal relations. If unrest in the Tarai spirals out of control, India will have to review its options and priorities. The visit by Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar to Kathmandu, barely a day before Nepal was all set to promulgate the Constitution, was not “too little too late”, or a strategic blunder as some have described it. It was made in the knowledge that there was little chance of Nepalese leaders heeding India’s advice at such a late stage. The intention was to give to all concerned — the traditional elite in Nepal, the Madheshis and other underprivileged, Nepalese civil society — a public, high profile warning that Nepal could not hope to achieve a durable constitution, or for that matter meaningful development or peace with half the population not on board. There was also a subtext: India would not be a passive spectator if the Tarai unrest becomes a major security preoccupation for itself.

A new “twin pillar” policy embracing the Tarai belt and the power structure in Kathmandu may have to be evolved in the coming days. The China factor could well become more prominent again, as the India-Tarai-Kathmandu triangle becomes a living reality. The positive atmosphere that had been built up after the Narendra Modi visits is already becoming a distant memory, and a review of India’s policies of generous support for Nepal’s development, and generally the spirit of non-reciprocity which has usually guided Indian actions in Nepal, is likely. How all this will affect the “special relationship” between India and Nepal, at the level of states and peoples, only time will tell.

*K.V. Rajan is a former Indian ambassador to Nepal. He can be reached at krishnavrajan@yahoo.co.in

By Abhimanyu Singh*

Today, there is little doubt in the international fraternity that the foreign policy of the US in West Asia since 9/11 has caused only turmoil in the region. The nuclear deal sealed between the P5+1 global powers and Iran is a defining moment to reshape and rebalance West Asian politics. The region is in utter chaos and there was an urgent need for an overhaul of US foreign policy towards West Asia. The deal has been in the making for the last thirteen years and had become the focal attraction for many countries of the world that are going to have a direct impact on their security and economy after this deal is given final effect by the respective parliaments of both countries.

It will not be an exaggeration to say that once this deal comes into effect, West Asia will never be the same again. The thought of the potential comeback of Iran has already been cause for concern in the Sunni fiefdoms and the Zionist homeland, all of whom are making an unnecessary hue and cry over the issue to protect their interests.

Additionally, the western media has not shied away from portraying this deal as a saviour for Iran and the only way for its resurgence in West Asian politics, comfortably ignoring the fact that this deal is as much crucial for the US as it is for Iran. The deal is a shot in arm for President Obama who has been heavily criticised for his foreign policy and for non-fulfillment of his election promises. The outgoing President of the US yearns to be remembered as an idiosyncratic President, who ended US stalemates with long-time rivals like Cuba and Iran.

It would be safe to say, at this juncture, that this deal is a historic opportunity for the US to initiate a new approach towards West Asia by developing a new regional security framework in which both countries can work with each other to advance their interests instead of thwarting them. Additionally, the US has diversified its options in West Asia as it will then not have to wholly rely on long-term allies in the region. The deal will also help the US in finding a prospective long-term solution for Syria, as it would have been almost impossible for them or any foreign power to achieve this feat without involving Iran, which is a major stakeholder in Syria.

This deal also comes bundled with economic benefits for the US and other western powers. In the present dynamics of international trade, there is little the US has been able to do to check the ever increasing dominance of China in the existing international markets. Hence, the US has been actively scouting for new markets, especially for its companies in automobile, telecommunications, food & beverage and pharmaceutical sectors, whose bottom-lines have been severely affected because of the stagnancy in the markets of western countries, who offer little returns and virtually no scope for their expansion in the near future.

The deal also has its own share of pie for Iran, which is going to make a comeback on the global oil trading platforms and hurt the already active players banking on the absence of one major player in the market. The crude prices are speculated to be down by US$ 4-5 per barrel in the next one month, which will hurt the crippling profits of other major oil producers in the short-term. Moreover, the Indian companies that were charging a premium of 20-30 per cent over the base price for exporting basmati rice, sugar, corn and soybean to Iran will not be able to reap such dividend for a long time, as the country will be free to buy commodities at the best available price from the international market.

The biggest incentive for Iran will be the access to billions in frozen assets and oil revenue that will help build-up road and rail infrastructure in the country, which will be key to its future growth. If the country has to exploit its unique position in West Asia and portray itself as the gateway to the Central Asian Republics, then it will have to invest billions to modernise its aging infrastructure. Iran should also finalise some big ticket investments, like the Chabahar port project with India, where the Indian government intends to invest INR 1 lakh crore in developing a urea plant and railway line connecting Iran to Afghanistan and Central Asia, besides developing the port.

Several governments across the world have already started engaging with Iran on the economic front. A Polish delegation of 60 traders recently visited Iran, and a similar British trade delegation is scheduled to visit next week. Several other western countries, including Germany, have already begun talking with Iran on several long pending projects, which will give a sudden boost to Iran’s economy in the near future. It will be interesting to see how Iran’s leadership is able to successfully harness the new found western enthusiasm for its economy, and develop itself as an economic hotspot in West Asia, in sharp contrast to its conflict-torn neighbours in the region.

* Abhimanyu Singh
LLM Candidate, The Australian National University

In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence or revolution.

This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a “democracy.” In making this hardly-veiled threat, he redefined the word in the vocabulary of international politics. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards,” as Lyndon Johnson said, with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.

A century ago the word “democracy” referred to a nation whose policies were formed by elected representatives. Ever since ancient Athens, democracy was contrasted to oligarchy and aristocracy. But since the Cold War and its aftermath, that is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word “democracy,” he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies, no matter if the country is a military dictatorship or its government was brought in by a coup(euphemized as a Color Revolution) as in Georgia or Ukraine. A “democratic” government has been re-defined simply as one supporting the Washington Consensus, NATO and the IMF. It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an “independent” central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centered in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.

Given this American re-definition of the political vocabulary, when President Obama says that such countries will not suffer coups, violent revolution or terrorism, he means that countries safely within the U.S. diplomatic orbit will be free of destabilization sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Defense Department and Treasury. Countries whose voters democratically elect a government or regime that acts independently (or even simply seeks the power to act independently of U.S. directives) will be destabilized, Syria- style, Ukraine-style or Chile-style under General Pinochet. As Henry Kissinger said, just because a country votes in communists doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. This is the style of the “color revolutions” sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy.

In his United Nations reply, Russian President Putin warned against the “export of democratic revolution,” meaning by the United States in support of its local factotums. ISIL is armed with U.S. weapons and its soldiers were trained by U.S. armed forces. In case there was any doubt, President Obama reiterated before the United Nations that until Syrian President Assad was removed in favor of one more submissive to U.S. oil and military policy, Assad was the major enemy, not ISIL.

“It is impossible to tolerate the present situation any longer,” President Putin responded. Likewise in Ukraine: “What I believe is absolutely unacceptable,” he said in his CBS interview on 60 Minutes, “is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through “color revolutions,” through coup d’états, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych. … We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything.”[1]

Where does this leave U.S.-Russian relations? I hoped for a moment that perhaps Obama’s harsh anti-Russian talk was to provide protective coloration for an agreement with Putin in their 5 o’clock meeting. Speaking one way so as to enable oneself to act in another has always been his modus operandi, as it is for many politicians. But Obama remains in the hands of the neocons.

Where will this lead? There are many ways to think outside the box. What if Putin proposes to air-lift or ship Syrian refugees – up to a third of the population – to Europe, landing them in Holland and England, who are obliged under the Shengen rules to accept them?

Or what if he brings to Russia the best computer specialists and other skilled labor for which Syria is renowned, supplementing the flood of immigration from “democratic” Ukraine?

What if the joint plans announced on Sunday between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia to jointly fight ISIS – a coalition that US/NATO has refrained from joining – comes up against U.S. troops or even the main funder of ISIL, Saudi Arabia?

The game is out of America’s hands now. All it is able to do is wield the threat of “democracy” as a weapon of coups to turn recalcitrant countries into Libyas, Iraqs and Syrias.

Notes:
[1] “All eyes on Putin,” CBSNews.com, September 27, 2015

By Richa Sekhani*

As China is confronting property market challenges, overcapacity in industries, debt burden and financial risks, the recent slowdown in the economy and the devaluation of the Chinese currency has heightened major concerns for the various economies across the globe, including Africa.

Over the past decades, China has been a major and the largest trading partner of Africa, with bilateral trade amounting to $220 billion in 2014. China imports a wide range of products-from copper to oil-from Africa and the continent has become an increasingly important source for feeding the appetite of the consumer-rich Chinese economy. However, the dramatic slowdown of the Chinese economy has left the African region looking vulnerable.

The past few months have seen a significant deterioration in Africa’s trade balance with China. In fact, the lower forecast growth rate of 3.1% of China depicts the fragile picture affecting the dynamics of Sino-African relationship.

So, what is the exact impact of the Chinese slowdown on African economies? According to researchers at IMF: “No region may be more affected by the financial meltdown in China than Africa. If China sneezes, Africa can now catch a cold.” China is highly dependent on Africa for its mineral resources, oil and cheap labour. Given the fact that exports to China from Africa accounted for 30% of the region’s total exports between 2005 and 2012, African resource exporters are going to suffer negative shock-waves to their industries. Lower demand from China will shrink the economies of Africa and eventually heightened the debt burden.

For the top five exporters-Angola, South Africa, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo-a 1% decline in domestic investment growth would mean a 0.8 percentage point decline in the region’s growth. According to Fathom Consulting research, Zambia-which has the large community of Chinese immigrants, having established successful businesses in the retail and the construction industries, followed by South Africa-is most exposed to the Chinese economic slowdown. Last month, with the devaluation of the yuan, South African stock markets suffered from heavy losses with the fall in the value of the rand by almost 8%. In addition to the damage caused on the rand, analysts also noticed the impact of the slowdown on the South African steel industry, which found it difficult to compete against cheaper Chinese steel exports. Moreover, Chinese firms are finding themselves increasingly at odds with their African hosts over environmental and labour issues.

Additionally, the tourism sector of Africa may have to bear the burden of the slowdown. The favourable exchange rate and wildlife has attracted Chinese tourists to Africa. A devaluation of the yuan would lower spending from China and thereby impact tourism. In South Africa, the situation is compounded by new complex visa regulations. For that country, the global volatility would create a double jeopardy for the local tourism industry.

Given these developments, the slowdown may bring benefits to the Indian economy. The India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) in October will be a testing time for India to seek a proactive and meaningful engagement to make the best of the times. Though not as strong as China, India’s commerce with Africa has seen considerable progress over the years. In 2013, the trade between both the regions stood at $70 billion. Nigeria and Angola account for more than a quarter of India’s oil and gas imports. India’s private sector has established a significant presence in South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania and Mauritius, which has led to strong entrepreneurial ties in sectors such as retail services, mining and commodities trading.

In light of Africa’s increasing dependency on and trouble with Chinese actors, African leaders are beginning to look beyond China in an attempt to diversify. Considering that the demand for African resources will get affected from the Chinese slowdown, India and the long-standing presence of Indian businesses in the continent can help Africa deal with the losses. Compared to China, the Indian economy is expected to grow more rapidly, at 7.5%, and offers a large consumer market. With growing energy demands and Make-in-India, further engagement with Africa is possible. Moreover, India provides a useful model for democratic development. The learning experience from India can help Africa strengthen its judicial system. Additionally, India can be a useful partner to support Africa against terrorism.

The upcoming IAFS will be an occasion to harness this opportunity and a meaningful strategic engagement beneficial to both the countries.

*The author is a Research Assistant, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: The Financial Express, September 28, 2015

By Chayanika Saxena*

With the baggage of a moribund predecessor to tow around, the inception of United Nations was seen as a moment when initiatives geared at creating and sustaining international security could be reclaimed. Claiming to have learnt from a past that was bridled with many moments of delinquency, inefficiency and indifference, the creation of the UN was treated as yet another, but a conclusive step towards installing a global society, albeit of a kind that was to be led by some leaders. Acknowledging that the realization of a harmonious order would inevitably demand the placation of those who were ruling the roost of nation-states at that moment, the United Nations was created with a beefed-up and more powerful Security Council that was to be at the helm of all its binding affairs.

But since its inception with the adoption of the Atlantic Charter by the 51 founding member countries — of which India too was a part — in 1945, both the UN and the world in and for which it works have come a long way. The common realists’ refrain — balance of power — has witnessed a considerable transformation in the contemporary era, having moved from bipolarity to a multi-polar order. In fact, as the contenders for cultural, economic, military and political power inflate in numbers like never before, the multi-polar tendencies in the world order are becoming more bold and vocal. Demanding representation that is reflective of the changes in the international circles, this multi-polar order is asking for reforms within the Security Council, particularly through an expansion in its Permanent Membership (P5) to ensure that an already disaffected international community does not shun a rusting UN because of its anachronistic core.

But where an increasing proliferation of other political groupings and economic forums are demonstrative of shifting allegiances, why does the clamor for an expanded Security Council not peter out? The answer lies in the symbolic and material significance that an organization like the UN — with a near total global participation and its all-mighty organ, Security Council, have come to enjoy.

A major case that is often taken up in the academic ‘agent-subject debates’, multiple arguments have been sounded to effect change in the Security Council — but often with little actual traction. At one level, where as an agent in itself, it is demanded of the UN to break the relative immunity of the Security Council to transformative changes much the same way in which its other organs — like the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and Trusteeship Fund — have accommodated to the changing realities through their expansion and dissolution respectively, the pressures on it as a subject of the international community has drummed up this demand to an even higher level.

Hence, where on the one hand, the need for reforms within the Security Council is being projected as a way to provide the UN with a new lease of life, on the other, the claimants for an equal share of power within its most powerful organ are being depicted as a rightful right of these burgeoning power houses.

The calls for expanding the permanent membership of the Security Council are in part being made for the high status that an entry into this core comes along with.

This major power vested in the P5 in the UNSC is well-known and is contained in a small, but powerful word – Veto. As a power that allows the members of the P5 to shoot down any proposal/resolution single-handedly, and often without scope for its resuscitation through second time tabling, the symbolic and material significance of this privilege is what most of the contenders for admission into the permanent circuit are vying for — and rightly so.

As the most powerful organ of the UN that it is, the fact that the Charter through its Chapters VI and VII accord the Security Council power to impose and execute economic and military sanctions, and even define what qualifies and what does not qualify to be a ‘threat to and breach of international peace and security’ elevates the status of both the Council and its permanent members to an enviable position. Thus, with all that is granted to it, no wonder there is a growing (and justified) demand for the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council to ‘reflect the current geo-political realities better’.

Having been asked for long, a substantial, if not substantive moment in its journey was witnessed a few days ago, when the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a negotiating text to outline and pave way for the subsequent discussions on the reforms within the Security Council. Prepared by the General Assembly Task Force on Security Council Reform, this Negotiating Text was much like a farewell gift given by the outgoing president of the General Assembly, Sam Kutesa, to the international community. Prepared in time for the 70th General Assembly meeting, this negotiating text had some momentous moments to its credit. Touted as a tipping point of sorts, the adoption of this text by consensus and not by vote marked a major goal for the diplomatic parleys that have been on for long. Signaling a growing international intent to have the Security Council reformed, this 144 page-long text has finally paved way for a resolution to be drafted, which when passed can officially open discussions and negotiations on the “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council”. To this effect, many member states have submitted drafts of what they think the potential resolution should have in it, even as US, China and Russia have registered their opposition in varying intensity on it.

Building on the initiatives that had begun gathering steam as the Cold War faded from the scene, the much-sought reforms in the Security Council include the following aspects: (1) categories of membership; (2) Veto power as held by the Permanent Members; (3) greater regional representation in sync with the modern times; (4) the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods and (5) the relationship between the Security Council and General Assembly.

Setting the stage for a discussion on the impending reforms, the Negotiating Text has been acclaimed as a historic milestone in what is (still to be) a long way to the realization of the reforms that are being sought. Both a procedural and substantive challenge that it is bound to be, it will be instructive to quote from the Charter to emphasize the terseness and tortuousness of the path that lies ahead: “Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. (UN Charter, Article 108)”.

Where the procedural requirements are a challenge in themselves, what further compounds the issue of putting these reforms into action is the opposition that it is receiving from different quarters. On the one hand, the P5 have expressed their resistance to the expansion of the Permanent Membership of the Security Council with all its power and privileges, the Chinese seat is pretty perturbed with the very claims for admissions that have been sounded by India for long. Outside the P5 orbit, there are countries that are opposed to the expansion for the regional rivalries they maintain vis-à-vis the individual contenders for the permanent posts.

Having evolved in their nomenclature from something as loose as the “Coffee Club” to a title that sounds more official and stern, “Uniting for Consensus”, this group of naysayers includes the likes of Pakistan, Italy, South Korea and Argentina, whose respective regional rivalries have them convinced about the dismal consequences that the proposed expansion would have for them. Finding their regional rivals in the list of contenders for permanent seats in the Security Council, the G4 — which has India, Germany, Japan and Brazil asking for a fair share of power and representation owing to their rising currency in all the aspects of international affairs – would surely have to up their game.

The variety of African caucuses and the lack of consensus among them on the issue of regional representation can be another stumbling block in the long-winding path to the UNSC reforms. Demanding representation on the counts of culture and geography, while the African nations had agreed on rotating two seats in the expanded Security Council, the dynamics governing this process continue to remain unclear. And, while it did not spring up as a concern during the adoption of the Negotiating Text, in all the likelihood it can be a potential speed-breaker that can arrest the progress of discussions and stall the formulation of resolutions within the General Assembly by a good margin.

As the leaders of 193 countries gather to mark the 70th year of UN’s existence, the reforms within the UNSC will undoubtedly be on the top of the agenda. A milestone that this negotiating text is, it is warranted of a contender like India to make the most of the momentum that has been built around the much-sought reforms and not let it get lost in the bungle of diplomatic play-offs and bureaucratic procedures.

*Chayanika Saxena is a Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies. She can be reached at chayanika.saxena@spsindia.in

The complexity of the international realpolitik is a systematic process towards the struggle and competition for the creation of a balance to challenge the status-quo of dominant powers. Particularly, such balance is not often easily sustained by any single state, therefore; burden sharing and alliance formation becomes an imminent choice to achieve the desired goal.

The great powers always seek such opportunities, for centuries the Russia has also tried to become a member of the European family of nations. And even after the collapse the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation also looked forward towards the formation of an alliance with Germany; an alliance depending upon the German technologies and relying over Russian resources, this was primarily a notion based on the collective burden sharing and mutual cooperation to create a counterweight against the US dominance.

Particularly, after the German reunification, the Russia and Germany developed a strategic partnership concentrated mainly on the principles of interdependence in the fields of energy and investment. Interestingly, the long awaited ambition turned immensely against the Russia after the Ukraine crisis and the seizure of Crimea in 2014. Moreover, it was Germany, which played the leading role along with the Britain, France and the US in the imposition of the harsh economic sanctions against the Russia which badly affected the Russian oil and banking industries and also became a reason for the devaluation of the Russian ruble.

Eventually, for Russia, the partnership with China has always been a much easier task as both have many commonalities such as their lack of stronger relations to many of the European nations and both the countries also experience distrust against the United States which naturally binds these two countries in a close partnership for collaboration despite of having many varied interests. This relation is interdependent as Russia needs China for its economic interests and China needs Russian support to become a partner in Eurasia and these both have a common interest to become able to maintain an effective counterweight against the US and its allies.

China is an emerging global economic power that has produced solemn challenges for many powers like the United States and European Union etc. Many defence and security analysts believe that the strengthening of the SCO is a reaction against the US and NATO’s antagonism in the China’s neighbourhood that twisted a feeling against its interests and strategically surrounded it from both Asia Pacific and Central Asian sides, therefore, the Organization was seen as an instrument to neutralize the military power of the United States in the region. The nonviolent entrée in the Eurasian region is also seen as another greater objective by China to get an equitable place in the international affairs.

The Sino-Russian axis under the SCO extends far from the question of just containing the US dominance in the region, but it also has a vision to control the extra regional involvement of other Western powers and institutions like the EU and NATO. This is particularly due to post Cold War era fears of Russia when the NATO combined all the Central Asian States in its Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and according to Russia’s view point these states were also under Western pressure to participate in the Partnership for Peace Programs and the Conference on Cooperation and Security where the Western powers started to interfere with the internal policies of the Central Asian States.

The European Union was also one of the dominant factors in employing the Western strategies of controlling the Central Asian region and later on, Russia started to counter-weight the growing external involvement through collective security arrangements with its former Soviet bloc members. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) were reproduced to take place of the Western institutions involved in the region but unluckily these moves did not prove to be that successful to contain the Western involvement and control the Central Asian States with these instruments but however, with the support of viable SCO the Russian Federation might become successful and in such way it would again depend upon stronger partnership with China and this in turn would ultimately, provide a chance China and Russia to alter the current unipolar world and US dominance at the global level.

The Sino-Russia axis and its expanding influence beyond the region and is sometimes also termed as a gradual move towards the global ascendancy as both states are already in alliances and the purpose of their alliance formation is not primarily confined counter the expansion of NATO in the region, but actually these states sought to split some common interests and strategic partnership to avoid any bilateral conflict that would pave the way to invite any external player to dominate their sphere of influence and put their interests on stake.

The Sino-Russian relations in the shape of expanding SCO is an alarming message for many states that these can build a power bloc which has a prominent role in the international affairs by having their diverse policy than the West as they don’t believe that power is hidden in the secrets of interference in other’s internal affairs and dominating world through rouge means.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

It’s the first bilateral visit of its kind that has remained a low-key affair, particularly for the southern Tamil Nadu polity – hence for the national and even regional media as well. That owes to the greater realisation across the state that the new government in Sri Lanka should be given a chance, and that the views of the peripheral sections of the pan-Tamil polity and civil society nearer home are at variance with the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people in the island nation.

The current public opinion in Tamil Nadu is shaped by the strong and repeated backing that the moderate Tamil National Alliance (TNA) gets in every one of the post-war elections in Sri Lanka, even to the near-exclusion of the position taken by Justice C.V. Wigneswaran (retd), the ‘hard-liner’ party chief minister of the Northern Province. There is thus an inevitable realisation also about the dichotomy in the Tamil Nadu polity/civil society approach, which is at variance with the positions taken by the TNA.

In a way, on all issues involving Indian interests, concerns and participation, Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Ranil Wickremesinghe have more or less reiterated the known positions of their respective governments. These views have not changed dramatically either. What has changed, instead, is the leaderships in the two countries, more so in Sri Lanka where the predecessor presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa had been continually in the eye of one international storm after another.

Domestic enquiry

Independent of what the UN Human Rights Council probe report has had to say on ‘war crimes’ and ‘accountability issues’ in Sri Lanka – which boils down to nothing new or shockingly unknown before — India has reiterated its 2014 position taken by the then Manmohan Singh government against an international inquiry. In a way, the changed US/UNHRC position is akin to the continual India-Sri Lanka stand favouring a domestic inquiry, though technically for different reasons.

However, the US and the UNHRC, with the EU alongside, have declared that they would be sort of monitoring the progress made by the domestic mechanisms, promised and volunteered by the Sri Lankan leadership of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. This may have provided unintended breathing space for India too, but New Delhi need not wait until it arrives to decide on the future course, should one fine morning the international community (read West) were to feel dissatisfied still with the Sri Lankan domestic mechanism.

The Centre should use the time between now and the time Sri Lanka is expected to report finally back to the UNHRC on its findings and follow-up action, to engage the TNA on the one hand, and the Tamil Nadu government, legislature and the mainline polity on the other. The latter would be a tougher task and the political priorities and ideological prejudices of the ruling party at the Centre should not come in the way of the Indian government doing the right by India, the nation.

Ahead of the 2016 assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and also the Narendra Modi leadership’s greater proclivity to look at the distant horizon than the immediate neighbourhood and even the interior nation, India should not lose sight of the more problematic possibilities lying ahead, even while hoping and working for its avoidance.
In the light of repeated Tamil Nadu Assembly resolutions on ‘accountability’ issues in Sri Lanka, the like of which was passed unanimously on the very day the UNHRC probe report was tabled in Geneva, and constant Tamil Nadu political pressure on the Centre to take a particular line of the Sri Lankan issue for which there is no Tamil political support even in that country, India needs to re-tune and fine-tune its collective responses in future.
If India still has to take any line that is at deviation from the current one, it should be through consultations, and mutual respect for constitutional provisions. It cannot be based on the Centre’s initial indifference of the past kind getting overnight replaced by internal pressures. The Modi leadership can start with discussions/discourse viz the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Tamil Nadu unit, whose Tamil TV talk show guests often talk at variance with the policies furthered by the party-led government at the Centre.

Retrieving the Initiative

In doing so, India needs to retrieve the initiative from the West, where it now rests, and also work assiduously with the stakeholders in Sri Lanka where alone the final solution to all of the ethnic problems reside.

In doing so, India needs to breathe in deeper and persistent inquiry and, greater clarity about its own role, priorities and concerns viz Sri Lanka and the issues in that country, and involving Colombo than ever before since the two nations attained Independence successively in the late ‘40s.

For their part, the Sri Lankan stakeholders, the TNA included, need to stand by a declared position (collective, wherever possible) on any competent role for India, consistent with the acceptance of the undeniable Indian perception that Sri Lanka lies in its traditional sphere of influence and that India has an equally undeniable role in the neighbourhood context to protect Sri Lanka and also its citizenry.

Deep sea fishing

The relative lull on the ethnic front viz India could also provide the right atmospherics for the two sides to find a permanent solution to the fishermen row. Both prime ministers have reiterated their predecessor governments’ known position on a dialogue-based solution, deriving from the ‘humanitarian problem’. Neither has qualified the ‘humanitarian’ aspect one way or the other, but there has to be a greater acknowledgement on the Indian side that the Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen are the greater sufferers, even granting that the Tamil Nadu fishermen too have been hit.

For his part, Prime Minister Modi has acknowledged for the first time possibly that India was looking at deep-sea fishing without describing if it could be the final goal to end the current malady. Despite its tough position on the Indian fishermen’s ‘traditional rights’ in the ‘historic waters’, and also over the Katchchativu issue the Tamil Nadu government seems to have acknowledged the long-term inevitability of the need to diversify and encourage deep-sea fishing in a big way.

The 50 per cent subsidy programme for deep-sea vessel conversion initiated by Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa has yet to receive the kind of financial grant sought by the state government. Prime Minister Modi should fast track the same and create, by involving the state government (and setting aside all political interference and party interests from every side), a workable solution that does not demand amends and changes with every change of government, either at the Centre or the state. It could be a pilot project, whose benefits may be replicated elsewhere across the country.

Pending the Tamil Nadu position and the Supreme Court case on related issues, including Katchchativu, there is also an urgent need for the Centre and the state to coordinate their efforts to discourage the southern coastal fishermen to risk their lives and livelihood on a deadly mission. Going by the claims of the Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen in the North, their seas could be laid bare any time soon.

European crisis

A third issue that might have been of concern for and in Tamil Nadu during Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s visit does not seem to have been addressed at the Delhi talks. The European migrant crisis may have silenced Western initiators of moves for India to repatriate the 100,000-odd Sri Lankan refugees residing in government-run camps across Tamil Nadu. While issues remain, there is a need for India to educate its Western/UN counterparts that the known Indian position owes not necessarily to similar issues elsewhere in the country, but more to the traditional Indian culture that negates saying ‘No’ to guests, particularly those in distress.

The Modi-Wickremesinghe meet could not have come at a better time for India and for bilateral relations as a whole. After the China-centric hiccups caused during the final months of the Rajapaksa rule, the Wickremesinghe visit now has ‘re-stabilised’ bilateral relations. But on every front, including China, there has not been any forward movement worth the name during the Delhi talks.

Sure enough, every time the Sri Lanka Navy arrests “Indian poachers” in “our waters”, Tamil Nadu would recall not only the Delhi talks but also Prime Minister Modi’s re-assertion of the unmentioned Indian position on continued defence ties and training with Sri Lanka. To the extent the Sri Lankan government gets out of the ‘accountability’ mess and finds a political solution to the ethnic issue, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the international community would be satisfied.

India can breathe easy on the Sri Lankan front only when the fishermen row, the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) issue and the Katchchativu case also reach a finality, and almost simultaneously. That might be easier said than done, and more difficult than Sri Lanka resolving the ethnic and accountability issues. Until then, even if the two nations were to sign the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), as India has desired and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe promised in Delhi, despite protests and promises to the contrary in Colombo, and decide on a land bridge, the traditional hiccups could still come in the way.

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