By Jonathan Wade of the Sentinel Group

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that Russia and the United States have agreed to enhance their discussions on cooperation against the Islamic State. Through foreign and defense ministers, both nations will keep a dialogue open to reach common goals.

The cooperation could bring both countries closer as their relationship has been drastically harmed since the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Though unlikely, the airstrikes in Syria could be a turning point in US-Russian relations, especially in the field of terrorism and counter-insurgency.

RT reported that Vladimir Putin found the meeting with Barack Obama “very constructive.”

“Today’s meeting was very constructive, practical and surprisingly frank,” the Russian president told the press. “We found a lot of common ground, but there are differences as well. In fact they are known, so there is no need to repeat them.”

During the ninety minute meeting which was only expected to run fifty-five minutes, both leaders agreed they can work together on common problems. Prior to the meeting, a quick photo op, lasting less than fifteen seconds, exposed both leader’s dislike for the other. That said, they were still able to successfully meet with a positive outcome.

Although President Obama did not comment following the meeting, a US official confirmed there will be further talks on exploring options for a political solution in Syria. However, no agreement was reached on the future role of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The dynamics of Russia’s military intervention in Syria

It was agreed that both the Pentagon and the Russian Defense Ministry will conduct military-to-military talks. Whilst Russia is ruling out Russian ground troops conducting operations for now, they have been clear that the air force may conduct airstrikes against Islamic State positions.

Last week, Russia and Israel agreed to “coordinate their efforts over Syria military actions. The coordination aims to prevent accidental clashes between Russian and Israeli troops.”

Twelve Russian Su-25 Frogfoot close air support aircraft are currently deployed at the Latakia air base, an Assad stronghold. The Su-25, the Russian version of the American A-10 Warthog, is capable of conducting tactical airstrikes against Islamic State militants.

The Russian Su-25 may very well support Assad’s troops during offensive operations to drive out ISIL militants from Syria. Su-25 have been designed for this purpose, but could also be dispatched to destroy ISIL entrenched positions and supply depots.

Russia deployed military equipment to Syria at the request of Bashar al-Assad. Assad requested military and technical assistance after seeing his fragile military losing ground against ISIL militants.

The probability of seeing Russian troops near the frontline acting as advisors to the Syrian troops is very high. The same principle is currently used by the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command alongside Kurdish partners.

Prior to this deployment, Russia still operated a naval facility in Tartus: “the only Mediterranean repair and replenishment spot for its navy, sparring Russian warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through the Turkish Straits.” The facility in Tartus could also be an alternative for aerial shipment of goods due to NATO and Ukraine’s decision to close its airspace to Russian military aircraft.

As for the United Stated and its allies, the airstrikes in Syria are deemed illegal by Russia. While Putin was addressing the UN General Assembly, he called the Allies airstrikes in Syria illegal.

“We do not rule out anything. But if we do something, we will do it in full accordance with the norms of international law, “Putin said, answering the question as to whether the Russian military is planning to conduct anti-ISIS airstrikes in Syria. “We talked about this today: Military jets from Australia, France, the U.S., are carrying out airstrikes not only in Iraq – where it is justified under international law, since there had been a request from the Iraqi government – in the case of Syrian territory it is illegal, and we spoke about it too.”

Although the United States did not seek Syria’s approval to conduct the airstrikes, they did notify the Syrian UN representative about their intentions. As of today, countries such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France and Australia are conducting strikes in Syria. Turkey, one of the Allies, also gave permission to the United States Air Force to launch airstrikes from the USAF Incirlik air Base in Turkey.

What Russia stands to gain by supporting Assad

Russia definitely gains from supporting Syria’s al-Assad regime. With the Syrian military losing ground and equipment, Russian defense industries could very well gain many lucrative contracts to modernize and reequip the Syrian armed forces. Russia has been Syria’s main weapon supplier. Through Rosoboronexport, Russia has the ability to sell billions worth of military equipment to Syria.

What Russia also gains by supporting Assad is the naval facility in Tartus. Although it cannot accommodate warships longer than 100 meters, Russia could modernize the facility and deploy ships from the Black Sea Fleet during drills in the Mediterranean.

The fact that Russian ships sail through Turkey to reach the Mediterranean is another reason why Tartus may become a strong geopolitical location to launch warships without sailing through a NATO country. While Turkey is a NATO country, Russia still has unlimited access to the Mediterranean because of the Montreux Convention signed in 1938.

Since Russia and Egypt have enhanced military cooperation, the Tartus naval facility could also become a strategic staging point for both navies. The Egyptian Navy’s port of Alexandria, Port Said, and Marsa Matruh have direct access to the Mediterranean, enabling its navy to conduct routine drills with its Russian counterpart.

The possible cooperation between Russia and the United States against ISIL could become a real nightmare for the Islamic State. However, it is very likely that both countries won’t reach a decent deal due to their completely different position on Bashar al-Assad.

That said, when Russia—because they will—starts conducting airstrikes, militants from the Islamic State will feel pressure from both sides. As for the United States, airstrikes will continue regardless of the outcome of the possible cooperation.

Russia and the United Stated will have no choice but to respect each other’s decision since their aircraft might be flying in the same area of operations.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

For more than a year, the United States has been playing patty-cake with an army of homicidal maniacs who call themselves ISIS. On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he’d had enough of Washington’s song-and-dance and was planning to bring a little Russian justice to the terrorist militias that had killed 225,000 Syrians and ripped the country to shreds. In language that could not be more explicit, Putin said to the General Assembly: “We can no longer tolerate the currents state of affairs in the world”.  Less than 48 hours later, Russian bombers were raining down precision-guided munitions on terrorist strongholds across western Syria sending the jihadi vermin scrambling for cover.

That’s how you fight terrorism if you’re serious about it.   Bravo, Putin.

Putin’s blitz caught the entire western political establishment flat-footed. Even now, three days into the air campaign, neither the administration nor the policy wonks at the many far-right think tanks in Washington have even settled on an approach, much less a strategy, to developments on the ground. What’s clear, is that Putin’s action has surprised everyone including the media which to-this-day hasn’t even settled on it’s talking points.

This is extraordinary. Ask yourself this, dear reader: How can our political and military leaders watch Moscow deploy its troops, warplanes and military hardware to a theater where the US is carrying out major operations and have absolutely no plan of how deal with those forces if they are sent into battle?

If you are convinced, as I am, that we are governed by numbskulls, you will certainly find confirmation of that fact in recent events.

But while the Obama administration is frantically searching for a strategy, Putin’s air-squadrons are unleashing holy hell on the sociopaths, the head-choppers and the other assorted vipers that comprise the Islamic State.  And Mr. Putin is getting plenty of help too, particularly from the crack-troops in the Iranian Quds forces and from the ferocious militia that defeated the IDF in two separate conflicts, Hezbollah, the Army of God. Check this out from Reuters:

“Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters….

“The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies,” said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict….

“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” the second source said. Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.”

(“Assad allies, including Iranians, prepare ground attack in Syria: sources“, Reuters)

A military alliance between Moscow, Tehran and Hezbollah?

You’re darn tootin’, and you can thank Barack Obama and his lunatic regime change plan for that development.

Many critics of Putin’s action have said that “He doesn’t know what he’s doing” or “He’ll get bogged down” or “It’ll be another Vietnam”.

Wrong. The fact is, Putin is more a devotee of the Powell Doctrine than any of the morons at the Pentagon. And he is particularly mindful of Rule Number 5 which states: “Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?”

Has Putin thought about that or has he merely blundered ahead impulsively like US leaders are so apt to do?  Here’s what he said on September 30:

“We naturally have no intention of getting deeply entangled in this conflict. We will act strictly in accordance with our set mission. First, we will support the Syrian army only in its lawful fight against terrorist groups. Second, our support will be limited to airstrikes and will not involve ground operations. Third, our support will have a limited timeframe and will continue only while the Syrian army conducts its anti-terrorist offensive.”

Bingo. In other words, he’s going to bomb these jokers into oblivion and let Quds brigade and Hezbollah mop up afterwards. There will be no Russian boots-on-the-ground. The Russian airforce will get precise intelligence on ISIS locations from Syrian agents on the battlefield which will minimize civilian casualties and limit damage to critical infrastructure. It will also make mincemeat out of anyone on the receiving end of the bombardment. Does anyone seriously believe that  ISIS and the disparate rabble of “moderate” throat-slitters that receive CIA funding are going to be able to withstand this impending onslaught?

No way. Putin’s going to cut through these guys like a tornado through a trailer park.  Yes, ISIS has had some success against the bedraggled Iraqi and Syrian armies. But now they’re up-against the A Team where they are clearly out of their league.  Rolling up these cutthroats is going to take a lot less time than anyone figured.

Russian bombers are already destroying ammo dumps, fuel depots, heavy military hardware, command posts, anything that enhances ISIS’s ability to wage war.  The new anti-terror coalition is going to cut supply lines and hang the jihadis out to dry. And the whole operation is going to be wrapped up before Uncle Sam even get’s his boots laced.  This is from Iran’s Press TV:

“A senior member of Russia’s parliament says an ongoing air campaign by Moscow against militants operating in Syria is going to intensify. Alexei Pushkov, who serves as the chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Russian State Duma, said Friday that Moscow will be intensifying its attacks against the militants in Syria while studying the risks associated with an extensive operation.

“There is always a risk of being bogged down, but in Moscow, we are talking about an operation of three to four months,” Alexei Pushkov said, Reuters reported.

Russia started to launch coordinated airstrikes on the positions of militants in Syria on Wednesday. The move came shortly after members of the Russian upper house of the parliament, the Federation Council, authorized the operations in Syria.” (Press TV)

There’s not going to be any pussyfooting around. Putin’s going to go straight for the jugular and then head for the exits.

Do you think they’ve figured this out at the White House yet?  Do you think they understand that Iranian troops and Hezbollah are not going to distinguish between the “moderate” terrorists and the “extreme” terrorists; that they’re simply going to “kill them all and let God sort it out”.  Do you think they realize that Washington’s Middle East policy just collapsed and that the funding of jihadis and dreams of regime change just ended for good?  Do you think they grasp that Washington’s role as guarantor of global security has just been transferred to Vladimir Putin who has put himself and his country at risk to defend the fundamental principles of international law, national sovereignty and self determination? Here’s Putin again:

 “We are supporting the government of Syria in the fight against a terrorist aggression. We are offering and will continue to offer it necessary military-technical assistance. We must continue a dialogue for the sake of reaching consensus. But it’s impossible to achieve real success as long as bloodshed continues and people don’t feel secure. We won’t achieve anything until we defeat terrorism in Syria.”

Putin is leading a coalition in the fight against terror. We should all be grateful for that.

One of the many gut-wrenching dimensions of the soon to be five-year Syrian crisis is that whenever one surveys the conflict on the ground and concludes that the maelstrom can’t possibly get any worse, it plummets deeper into the abyss. The condition of people in Syria has never been worse in modern times.

This is also the case with the spreading cultural cleansing of our shared global heritage in Syria which this observer views as a precursor to ethnic cleansing. This scourge has been documented in detail by studies from the UN, EU, Archaeologists, Syria’s Directorate General of Museums and Antiquities (DGAM) and others who closely monitor the desecration, looting and destruction at archaeological sites. According to the Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology (APSA) and other surveys, more than 1/3 of Syria’s 10,000 archaeological sites are currently under the control of Da’ish (ISIS) who are looting them on an industrial scale for sale globally on the black market. It is not known with precision which or how many other Islamist nihilist militias are controlling other sites. A new report from the US Congress reports that 30,000 people have traveled, including 250 from the US, to join terror groups in the Middle East and Isis in particular, doubling the numbers of one year ago. “We are witnessing the largest global convergence of jihadists in history,” the report warned.​

Palmyra in early May 2015 before the arrival of Da’ish (ISIS). As of early October 2015 it is not known precisely what has been spared. (Photo: fplamb)

According to the Antiquities Coalition, raising just $1 million from illicit trafficking of historic artifact in Syria supplies the group with more than 11,000 AK-47 machine guns or 1,250 rocket launchers. This is one of the reasons why Satellite images are revealing that archaeological sites in Syria are increasingly dotted by thousands of illegal excavations.

It is recalled that the looting following the United States-led 2003 invasion of Iraq involved organized international gangs, sometimes with corrupt “Operation Iraqi Freedom” coalition military personnel involved that were contracted to raid the National Museum in Baghdad and Mosul Museum. Mosul Museum director Bernadette Hanna-Metti and Mosul Museum curator Saba al-Omari reported that radio carrying looters also targeted specific antiquities at Nimrud, some with “shopping lists” in hand. Site director Muzahim Mahmud reported that the looters “ignored everything else, went right to that frieze” of a winged man carrying a sponge and a holy plant, “and took it” in a customized looting operation, fulfilling “orders from a buyer.”

The 18 statues that were intercepted as part of one lot in Jordan during 2004 were determined to be filling orders from dealers and within weeks of the looting of the National Museum in Baghdad, US. Customs intercepted an illicit shipment of 669 of its artifacts en route to an antiquities dealer in New York. But apart from police reports labeling these acts “looting to order”, “theft to order”, “stolen to order” or “commissioned theft” no one has even been charged with a crime. Going back to 2005, when al Qaeda was trafficking in looted antiquities, it was second as a source of funding only to kidnappings and ransom.

Similar cultural crimes are being committed today in Syria. It has been documented that Da’ish (ISIS), and Jabhat a-Nusra (al-Nusra Front) use WhatsApp and Skype (Parkinson, Albayrak, & Mavin, 2015), and some militia are using smartphones (Sogue, 2014) as well as employing social-media savvy experts around the world, often teenagers, to design and execute looted antiquities marketing programs.

The financial incentives to looting are very powerful such that to date the international community’s existing methods of prevention are largely ineffective.

But we must not be idle bystanders to a fire sale of our and Syria’s national and historical heritage.

So what can we do now that the continuing destruction of our cultural heritage has sparked a fresh round of global outrage? How can it be harnessed to save other heritage sites under nihilist Da’ish control? Short of defeating the entrenched jihadists militarily which appears highly unlikely anytime soon?

The challenges are great. The tens of thousands of foreign would-be jihadists who have now poured into Syria, most to join the perceived “A-team-Varsity Squads” of Da’ish (ISIS) and Jabhat Al Nusra. There is little evidence of success from international efforts to diminish their ranks. Few on the ground are much impressed by the new Russian hyped 4+1 planned coalition or the Russian proposed bilateral coordination with the U.S. against Islamic State. This is partly because currently, an average of about 1,000 foreign fighters are arriving every month ready to turn Syria into Russia’s new “Afghanistan” with pledges to fight for as long as it takes to expel Putin’s arriving forces. In the past year jihadists from 20 additional countries have entered Syria bringing to more than 100 the total number of countries with fighters in Syria.

Many suggestions have been heard by this observer in Syria including from local officials and citizens who are on the front lines trying to preserve and protect the cultural heritage that we all share. Some are proposing that cultural heritage benefactors buy the looted objects off looters and errant regular citizens and secure them in safety vaults somewhere until the fighting ends. This has actually been done in Syria with modest success but given its sensitivity, without much publicity. It has been reported that nearly 330,000 artifacts, many from lawless non-state actor areas, have been moved to safety from imminent danger from jihadists and profiteers.

The Syrian government currently has 2,500 people working to save Syria’s past, on both sides in many parts of Syria. Fourteen DGAM employees have been killed so far. It’s Director-General Dr. Abdul Karim has reported to this observer and others that “We saved 99 per cent of the collection in our museums. It’s good. It’s not just for the good of the government. It’s for the opposition, for humanity, for all Syria. It is our common identity, our common heritage.”

Ricardo J. Elia, an archaeologist at Boston University, endorsed a moratorium on purchasing trafficked item, arguing that “looting is a function of a system that runs on supply and demand. Would it not be possible for museum associations, dealer associations, auction houses, and private collections to say “look: this is a horrific crisis. Let’s just stop these things. Let’s diminish the demand side.” To avoid collecting potentially looted antiquities, Richard Stengel, US under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, recently proposed: “Don’t sell; don’t buy. That’s the best solution.”

A similar proposal comes from American cultural heritage lawyer Rick St. Hilaire who has prepared a proposal to avoid purchasing “blood antiquities.” It also promotes as a protective measure a “Don’t Buy” initiative backed by strict due diligence. It is worthy of implementation and can be linked to the 2009 Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts authored by individual collectors that is being considered again given our current cultural heritage crisis. It urges the public and all buyers to protect archaeological heritage and uphold the law, check sources, collect sensitively, recognize the collector’s role as custodian, keep artifacts in one piece and consider the significance of groups of objects, promote further study, and dispose of artifacts responsibly.

To achieve these goals, the ethics code highlights common sense due diligence and acquisitions advice, including: “Ask the vendor for all relevant paperwork relating to provenance, export etc. Take extra care if collecting particular classes of object which have been subjected to wide-scale recent looting. Verify a vendor’s reputation independently before buying. Assure yourself that they are using due diligence in their trading practices, and do not support those who knowingly sell fakes as authentic or offer items of questionable provenance. Do not dismember any item, or acquire a fragment which you believe to have been separated from a larger object except through natural means. Consider the implications of buying an item from an associated assemblage and the impact this could have on study. Liaise, where possible, with the academic and broader communities about your artifacts.”

One encouraging sign that those destroying our cultural heritage may be more apt to face legal accountability before the International Criminal Court in The Hague is this month’s arrests and extradition of the alleged Islamic extremist Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi also known as “Abu Tourab” who the ICC claims was a member of Ansar Dine, an affiliate of Al Qaida. He appeared on 9/30/2015 before the ICC and was formally charged with involvement in the 2012 destruction of 14 of the 16 mausoleums and other historic buildings including a Mosque, in Timbuktu, Mali. The entire city of Timbuktu, nicknamed the “City of 333 Saints’” is listed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO and during the 15th and 16th centuries, operated 180 schools and universities that received thousands of students from all over the Muslim world. According to Corrine Dufka of Human Rights Watch’s Africa division, “The Abu Tourab case signals that there will be a price to pay for destroying the world’s treasures.”

On a related matter, during his 9/28/2015 UN General Assembly address, Ban Ki-moon called for the Syrian crisis to be referred to the International Criminal Court. This would include jurisdiction over all cultural heritage crimes committed at Syria’s archaeological sites.

Several encouraging and admirable public and private initiatives are employing creative ways to protect Syria’s millennia-long cultural heritage are currently underway as experts and locals scramble to save what they can. Others are about to be launched, and all warrant our support. .

Some of the current initiatives include, but are not limited to the following.

The Million Image Database is a large-scale scholarly project targeting both object documentation, and trafficked object identification. The project is sending thousands of low-cost, easy-to-use 3-D cameras to volunteers across the Middle East to document sites and objects in their area. Images and videos collected in this way are received for processing by the project’s technical team in the United Kingdom via uploads to the project’s website. Some of these images will be used to create detailed maps of Syrian sites, and to create 3-D models of buildings and artifacts that will be usable as blueprints for full-scale reconstruction. The project website is closed to the public to protect volunteer’s anonymity and also to ensure that the initiative remains a purely scholarly venture, not a social media platform for activists, according to Alexy Karenowska, the project’s director of technology. But she assures that as project progresses, it will find a way to share storytelling from the material to the public. The images are to be collated in a huge, publicly accessible database. Available to all, and under development in collaboration with UNESCO, the vision for this resource is for an ever-growing archaeological catalogue which brings together scholarly information about sites and artifacts, raises awareness of cultural heritage and cultural heritage preservation, and provides a new platform for the identification of trafficked objects. The database will be integrable with existing catalogues and lists of known missing or stolen items and employ the latest image comparison and feature recognition based search technology, removing the need for those inspecting suspect cargo or objects to have specialist knowledge.

Another project would carry out far more detailed scans of antiquities in Syria using laser scanners. The scanners bounce lasers off the surface of objects in the field, measuring millions of points a second to create a data set known as a point cloud. The data can be used to create 3-D images accurate to two or three millimeters to create models or virtual tours of the sites or allow full-scale reconstructions. This project, called “Anqa,” the Arabic word for the phoenix, the legendary bird that rises from the ashes, aims to laser-scan 200 objects in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the region, according to the California-based scanning company CyArk. It hopes to work with DGAM and other antiquities agencies in Syria, as well as UNESCO, to deploy teams in Damascus and other accessible areas.

A recently launched campaign is taking a more low-tech approach aiming at directly protecting at least some sites. The project, by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), provides supplies and funding to local experts and volunteers for crates and other items to store artifacts and also sandbags to pack around unmovable structures to give some protection against shelling or bombs. This, according to LeeAnn Gordon, project manager for Conservation and Heritage Preservation at ASOR also using satellite images to track destruction of antiquities. One problem this initiative has to deal with is that US policy toward Syria prohibits the funding of governmental groups, thus limiting ASOR’s options in a country divided between government-controlled, and jihadist held areas.

We can all help raise awareness in our communities and instruct our politicians to tighten and enforce current national and international laws and to ratify the instruments of international humanitarian law that protect cultural heritage. Specifically the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954) and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999), as well as the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris 1970); to implement them swiftly and efficiently into national legislation and in accord with their spirit and overarching goal to preserve cultural heritage, and to observe and enforce them.

Irina Bokova, the Director of UNESCO has called on governments to implement the U.N. Security Council’s Resolution 2199 which was adopted in February of this year and lays out serious penalties for the illegal importation of antiquities trafficked from regions under cultural threat.

Traveling around Syria one comes upon many heritage unfunded preservation projects through the initiative of local private citizens who love their country and want to preserve the cultural heritage of all of us. Some are reportedly being accomplished in rebel held areas where there is little technology and no resources. One of countless examples is the work of a history teacher, Suleiman al-Eissa who lives in Busra Sham, one of UNESCO‘s six World Heritage sites in Syria. As reported recently by the AP, Suleiman al-Eissa, a history teacher leads a self-created “revolutionary” antiquities department to protect the ruins in his hometown of Busra Sham in southern Daraa province one of the six UNESCO World Heritage sites. Mr. Al-Eissa, like many Syrians, is documenting in writing current damage at local archaeological sites while guarding some sites from looting.

We can and must support new dedicated groups like Heritage for Peace and the more than two dozen NGO’s recently formed that are working to protect archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq. In each of our communities we can work on strengthening our national capacities, training for soldiers, more resources, experts on the ground, and better coordination with armed forces, Interpol, and other actors while encouraging volunteer organizations willing to send international volunteers experts as Cultural Heritage Monitors on the scene. Their work would be to assess, protect, and investigate cultural property destruction and looting. All this while working with locals of all religions and ethnicity who want to protect our and their cultural heritage. In other words we need to establish the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross and Blue Shield providing an emergency response to cultural property at risk from armed conflict.

As Dr. Emma Cunliffe, an archaeologist at Oxford University pointed out recently: “Today’s Monument’s Men are often volunteers. Some are local people, such as the Syrian Association for Preserving Heritage and Ancient Landmarks, who work in Aleppo (a UNESCO World Heritage City) to try and save the monuments and buildings there during the current conflict. In 2006, America formed a Committee of the Blue Shield, a group of individuals committed to the protection of cultural property worldwide during armed conflict. The UK Committee was established last year, and other committees are located across the world.”

And there are many others.

The growing global groundswell of popular support spawning an international volunteer movement to confront and expel the non-state actors endangering our cultural heritage in Syria is cause for hope. And it’s a clarion call for each of us to join the growing public support for confronting ‘looting to order’ and ‘cultural racketeering’ in Syria to preserve and protect our shared culture heritage for those who follow us.

When discussing what shapes Russian public opinion, a common theme in US mass media dwells on how the news is covered on the three main Russian national TV channels. The US mass media proponents of this mindset would benefit from taking a more critical look at themselves. As one example, with many to choose from, the September 23, 2015 PBS NewsHour segment with host Margaret Warner and Marvin Kalb, qualifies as propaganda, benefitting a neocon to neolib leaning realist rationale, for not going too all out in confronting Russia over Ukraine.

Kalb and Warner are ironic in the way they depict an unfair world. For them, what has transpired in Kosovo is apparently not illegal, unlike Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Concerning this issue, Kalb and Warner omit the case for Crimea’s changed territorial status, relative to Kosovo and what occurred in Kiev – the latter involving coup like circumstances against a democratically elected president, followed by a series of anti-Russian actions, that offended the pro-Russian community within Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundaries.

Kalb restates Zbigniew Brzezinski’s simplistic claim that Russia is an empire with Ukraine. Is the UK still an empire, given that the Scots and the dominant English aren’t as closely related as Russians and Ukrainians? Yes, the referendum result on Scotland’s status, favors a continued affiliation with Britain. At the same time, there’s no legitimate denying that a clear majority in Crimea prefer being a part of Russia rather than Ukraine – a reality which sees the majority of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea favoring such as well.

Kalb rehashes the broadly inaccurate depiction of Russian history starting in 10th century Kiev. In 1862, Russia formally honored its 1,000 year existence, with a specific and primary reference to Novgorod, which is in present day Russia.

Shortly after 862 AD, the Rurik prince Oleg of Novgorod, shifted his main base to Kiev. Later on, a Kiev grand prince, Yuri Dolgorukiy, is credited with establishing Moscow. Having a legitimate dynastic claim to the Kiev throne, Dolgorukiy’s son, Andrey Bogolyubsky, played a key role in developing the area of Vladimir, which is relatively close to Moscow. With William Sherman’s attack on Atlanta during the American Civil War coming to mind, Dolgorukiy’s armed spat with rivals in Kiev, is arguably more akin to a civil conflict than a foreign entity attacking. (Somewhat related, the American Revolution had a civil war dynamic, as evidenced by the pro-British colonists opposed to those seeking independence.)

Shortly before the Mongol subjugation period, Kiev was showing signs of decline in influence vis-a-vis the rest of Rus. (“Kievan Rus” is a latter day term, used to describe the entire entity in question.) During and after the Mongol subjugation period, the northern territory of Rus (much of present day European Russia) emerged as the most powerful and independent of Rus land. Throughout history, some nations and empires alike have experienced such regional shifts. (BTW, someone brought to my attention that for a good period of Rus’ existence, its land mass included more of modern day Belarus than contemporary Ukraine.)

The topic of Russian and Ukrainian history brings to mind the June 6, 2015 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty piece “In Moscow, Plans For Statue Of Kyiv Prince Vladimir Face Opposition“. Excerpted from that article:

“To some critics, the planned monument looks like a blatant bid to steal some history from Kyiv, and to rope Ukraine to Russia symbolically at a time when many Ukrainians believe their country is under attack from Moscow.”

****

The unnamed “critics“, erroneously suggest theft, when an interrelated centuries long experience is the greater reality. Honoring a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t constitute stealing. On this matter, the claim of theft is on par with saying that the Russians stole Nikolai Gogol. Revisionist history aside, Gogol positively identified with Russia, while exhibiting pride in his native part of the Russian Empire – the territory in present day Ukraine, which was in the Russian Empire.

So there’s no misunderstanding, these observations aren’t intended to deny the developed popularity of a separate Ukrainian national identity (albeit with some differences) to its current level. It’s also undeniable that a good many ethnic Ukrainians maintain a close fondness for Russia. Many of those associated with pro-Russian sentiment in the former Ukrainian SSR have surnames that suggest a Ukrainian background.

A 2009 poll found that Putin would win the Ukrainian presidency, if he ran against the candidates for that office. This survey noted a greater Ukrainian support for the Russian involved Eurasian Union over the EU. In contemporary Kiev regime controlled Ukraine, Putin’s popularity, Russia and the Eurasian Union appear to have taken a hit. At the same time, Ukraine’s current president and prime minister have noticeably unfavorable ratings, to go along with an:

• EU and US, showing limits in aiding Ukraine to get out of its socioeconomic misery
• extreme Ukrainian nationalist wing, considered a minority, while having disproportionate influence.

2009 wasn’t so long ago. Given the past and existing circumstances, pro-Russian sentiment in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine has a chance for a comeback in the future. EuroAtlantic chauvinists are likely to scoff at this notion by emphasizing the greater wealth of the US and EU, when compared to the Eurasian Union. What good is that standing, if it’s not going to be effectively delivered for the overall benefit of Ukraine? It’s paramount for Russia to see a secure and not so downtrodden Ukraine. An extremely impoverished Ukraine has a negative spillover effect for neighboring Russia. The distant neocon to neolib, to flat out anti-Russian advocates in the West aren’t as dramatically affected on this particular.

Related articles:

• “Pavlo Skoropadsky And The Couse Of Russian-Ukrainian Relations“, Eurasia Review, May 22, 2011
• “Humanitarian Intervention Undertaken In Crimea“, Eurasia Review, March 3, 2014
• “Twisted History Against Russia And Serbia“, Global Research, July, 7, 2014

A closely related version of this article was posted at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on September 29.

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama emphasized that we need to do everything we can to strengthen economic growth and job creation. This week, despite the fact that more than half of Republicans in Congress voted to shut down the government for the second time in two years, Congress managed to pass a last-minute bill to keep the government open for another ten weeks. That means that in December, we could face yet another Republican threat to shut down the government. The President emphasized that Congress needs to stop kicking the can down the road and do its job. He stressed that Republicans and Democrats need to work together to pass a budget that fully funds the government and reverses the harmful sequestration cuts, and vowed that he would not sign another shortsighted spending bill like the one Congress sent him this past week.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
October 3, 2015

Hi, everybody. Yesterday, we learned that our businesses created another 118,000 new jobs in September. That makes 67 straight months of job creation, and 13.2 million new jobs in all.

But we would be doing even better if we didn’t have to keep dealing with crises in Congress every few months. And especially at a time when the global economy is softening, our own growth could slow if Congress doesn’t do away with harmful austerity measures.

Now, on Wednesday, more than half of Republicans in Congress voted to shut down the government for the second time in two years. Fortunately, there were enough votes in both parties to pass a last-minute bill to keep the government open for another ten weeks. Unfortunately, that gimmick only sets up another shutdown threat two weeks before Christmas.

Look, that’s not the way America should operate. It just kicks the can down the road without solving any problems or doing any long-term planning for the future. And that’s why I will not sign another shortsighted, short-term spending bill like the one Congress sent me this week.

Here’s why. A few years ago, both parties agreed to put in place harmful, automatic cuts that make no distinction between spending we don’t need and spending we do. Those cuts have actually kept our economy from growing faster. Even worse, they’re actually undermining the middle class.

Here’s one example. If we don’t undo these mindless cuts, then next year, we’ll be funding our kids’ education at the same levels per pupil we did in the year 2000. Compared to my budget, that would be like cutting federal funding for 4,500 schools, 17,500 teachers and aides, 1.9 million students.

That’s not good for our kids or our economy. It’s a prescription for American decline. And it shouldn’t happen. We should invest in things like education today, or we’ll pay the price tomorrow.

Congress should do its job, stop kicking the can down the road, and pass a serious budget rather than flirt with another shutdown. A serious budget is one that keeps America strong through our military, our law enforcement; that keeps America generous through caring for our veterans and our seniors; that keeps America competitive by educating our kids and our workers.

That’s what I want to work with serious people in both parties to achieve. Because that’s how we’ll build on the progress of 13 million new jobs, and help the middle class get ahead.

Thanks everybody, and have a great weekend.

The world is bleeding with blood, or so it seems. The sad fact is: the victims of this orgy of violence around the globe, often times, have no clue as to why they are getting killed or maimed.

Thursday morning was supposed to be an ordinary day for the students at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, USA. They got up like they do every day — ready for class, ready to learn, ready to engage with teachers and fellow students, and ready for home work. But in an instant, their worlds were shattered by bullets – not by some outsider, but by one of their very own, a fellow student – Chris Harper Mercer – who was enrolled in English and theater classes.

According to the Oregon Attorney General, 9 people were killed and 9 were wounded at the college. Apparently, Mercer later killed himself. We are told that he was against organized religion and was fond of the Irish Republican Army. He served in the U.S. Army from November to December of 2008 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, but was “discharged for failing to meet the minimum administrative standards,” the Pentagon said.

If Mercer was a Muslim the western media would have been abuzz with terrorism. But since he was not, and thanks God for that, his horrendous crime is viewed just as any other mass shooting and nothing more.

On the other side of the globe, in the war-ravaged Afghanistan, life has lost its meaning for more than three decades since the Soviet (Russian) occupation of the country in the late 1970s. While the Russians were eventually kicked out after the decade-long war with the local Mujahedeen, funded mostly by the USA and Saudi Arabia, the toll of the war was too high. Estimates of Afghan civilian deaths vary from one to two million.

As a result of Russia’s criminal scorched-earth policy, some 5–10 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, almost a third of the prewar population of the country, and another 2 million were internally displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half of all refugees in the world were Afghan. Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan’s arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet forces. In its unfathomed savagery, before they left, the Russian forces laid mines in fields and roads. As a result, along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans that were disabled and another 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).

With the defeat of the Russians, the power came in the hands of the former rebel leaders who, being abandoned by their former sponsors, fought amongst themselves for power grab in a civil war that was to last for another five years, only to pave the way for the Pakistan-backed Taliban to take control and bring some semblance of peace in the war-torn country.

Then came 9/11 and the rest is history!

Almost 14 years have passed by since George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001 killing tens of thousands but the bleeding of the Afghans has not stopped. They are not safe anywhere, and not even in schools and hospitals run by international NGOs.

Last Saturday night was one such moment for the patients and staffers of an MSF- run (Doctors Without Borders) hospital in the northern city of Kunduz. Nearly a week ago, last Monday the city was overtaken by the Taliban, surprising the USA and her allies. The latter forces have been firing and, as usual, killing mostly unarmed civilians. Shockingly, even though the MSF has already shared its GPS coordinates with the USA and Afghanistan forces, its hospital facility was not spared.

In a pre-dawn strike, an AC-130 warplane carried out sustained fire against a Doctors Without Borders-run hospital on the outskirts of the Taliban-held city of Kunduz, killing 16 including 9 staffers and three children. Doctors Without Borders is demanding clarification on what happened, noting the US airstrikes “continued for more than 30 minutes after American and Afghan military officials in Kabul and Washington were first informed by MSF that its hospital was struck.” The hospital’s location had also been reported to everyone before the bombing started. “MSF wishes to clarify that all parties to the conflict, including in Kabul and Washington, were clearly informed of the precise location (GPS Coordinates) of the MSF facilities in Kunduz, including the hospital, guesthouse, office and an outreach stabilization unit in Chardara northwest of Kunduz,” the charity added.

Though Doctors Without Borders reported 16 dead and 37 injured as a preliminary toll, they added that 30 other people are unaccounted for, meaning the tolls will almost certainly rise in the hours to come. At least five of the staff members are in critical condition. One local resident told the Washington Post there had been up to 35 airstrikes in the area over the past five days.

The US Embassy in Kabul expressed “condolences” but did not apologize for the attack, while both the UN Mission to Afghanistan and the Red Cross condemned the strikes, saying it was unacceptable to undermine humanitarian organizations in the warzone.

This is not the first time the US has come under fire for its actions against hospitals in Afghanistan, though it is by far the biggest such incidents. Back in 2009 there were a pair of incidents, including one in which US ground troops attacked a hospital, forcing their way in, and tying up the staff before smashing up the place. That hospital was run by the charity group the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan.

As I have noted drone attacks by the USA and her allies continue to kill thousands of innocent civilians from Pakistan to North-eastern parts of Africa. No civilian is safe in these killing fields. Now Russia has joined the fray to bolster the Syrian Nusayri regime of the war-criminal Bashar al-Assad. Putin’s bombs are being dropped on Syrian civilians, as have US bombs, already terrorized by Assad’s war machines.

And no government wants to take the blame for such civilian casualties. The word ‘apology’ seems an alien word for our modern-day warlords – from Kabul to Damascus to Moscow to Washington DC.

Faisal bin Ali Jaber of Yemen filed a lawsuit in the USA in June to establish that the 29 August 2012 drone strike that killed his brother-in-law and nephew was unlawful. He already had reason to believe his family was collateral damage of US drone strikes in Yemen, the open secret of US counter-terrorism. He had received a cash payment of $100,000 in sequential bills from a Yemeni official. Since the money didn’t come with any acknowledgement that the strike even occurred, let alone an apology, Jaber visited Washington in November 2013. He came to recognize that in his case, justice was not realistic. The most he could hope for from the American government that killed his family in a drone strike was an apology, much as the families of two wrongfully killed westerners received from Barack Obama.

On Monday, Jaber’s lawyers at the human-rights group Reprieve wrote to the Obama administration with a new offer. Jaber would settle his case, attorney Cori Crider wrote to Barack Obama, in exchange for ‘an apology and an explanation as to why a strike that killed two innocent civilians was authorized’.

But on Wednesday, the Justice Department tacitly rejected the offer. Instead, it argued to Judge Ellen Huvelle that the drone strike – or, as they put it, the ‘alleged operation’ – was beyond her power to scrutinize.

Commenting on the Justice Department’s rejection, Jaber’s attorney Crider said, “Sorry really does seem to be the hardest word.” “It is appalling that Faisal was deemed worthy of meetings in Washington DC with White House and National Security Council officials, but that the US is trying its level best to avoid apologizing, and to block his quest for justice by kicking him out of the courts,” Crider added. “There is no good reason that the president stood up in front of the world with the Lo Porto and Weinstein families to say sorry for the US’s tragic mistake, but can’t do so for a Yemeni man.”

Well, Muslim life has been cheaper since at least the days of George Bush when nearly a million Iraqi civilians – who had nothing to do with 9/11 – were wantonly killed or pulverized by his armed forces! Hiding under the cloak of ‘collateral’ casualties has become a fashion for all such war criminals. Even a wedding party – whether held in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Afghanistan, or in Yemen – party is not safe from such mass murderers. Not even safe are the school boys in their school or playing in the beaches.

This brings me to the Oregon shooting case. Anneliese Davis, the Oregon Chapter Leader of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America writes, “I’m going to be blunt: Our kids go to college to learn. Not to be shot. Mass shootings are tragic by definition. But when they touch a college community — a place of learning that’s supposed to be safe — they are that much more devastating. Today’s tragedy marks the 45th school shooting in our country this year, averaging more than one per week. You and I both know it’s time for our lawmakers to stop telling students and teachers to stand up to gunmen — just so they themselves don’t have to stand up to the gun lobby.”

America needs gun control to minimize such regular occurrences that kill innocent people. But the measure alone is not sufficient. It must learn to walk the talk.

A society that is oblivious of the drone attacks and condones such war crimes at its highest level and is unwilling to apologize for such will have its chickens come home to roost. There is no escape from such a rude awakening.

As with many terms associated with ISIS, “Khilafah” is a word that requires neither introduction nor translation. Al-Khilaf on the other hand is a word that describes the Arab world bitter reality. It simply means deep and irresolvable differences.

Islam is the one factor that should be the unifying force for the Arabs but is presently doing the exact opposite; it is causing unprecedented bloodshed with no end in sight. Why have Arabs failed to use the banner of Islam to unify themselves!

The majority in the Arab world don’t agree with ISIS’s approach in applying Islam and indeed most believe that the Islamic State is actually maiming Islam’s image irreparably. But that is unfortunately the end of their agreements.

Differences in the Arab world are across the board. There are secularists who purely wish for Western-type democracy. Then there are those who prefer to keep Islam around but on the sidelines. Also are those who would like Islam’s way of life to dominate but allow room for Western-type lifestyle. The relationship between the three views is characterized by soft friction that could eventually boil over in areas where peace still survives if, as expected, democracy moves towards moral anarchy as is the case in the West. Sizable number of Arabs do want “democracy” but not one in which everything goes.

The other sizable section wants Islam but not the one which is prohibitive of some aspects of lifestyles that true Islam rejects; Malls, beaches, movies and all.
The disagreements regarding the applicability of Islamic law are also a problem that faces the proponents of stricter Sharia application. Namely, the increasingly physical confrontation between ISIS-type approach and the likes of Jabhat Al-Nusra; the world considers both to be unacceptably harsh but interestingly the latter considers itself more moderate. So the spectrum on acceptable level of religiosity within the Arab world is notably wide.

Somewhere in the spectrum there are the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood who are yet to be given a long enough mandate to demonstrate where they stand as far as religious strictness is concerned. The one year that Mr. Morsi spent in power was too boiled up that his true intentions were not given a chance to be fathomed.

Apart from the differences on the level of religious strictness, there are ideologically-fueled differences. These have thus far proven to be the bloodiest differences that have claimed most lives and whose end is nowhere near.

Thanks to Iran’s relentless support to Shias and Saudis counter measures as is the case in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, this is likely to go on for quite some time. Both are well armed, well financed and with fanatic followers willing to carry the guns to the bitter end.

In a world where some want only the world, others want a mix of the two worlds, and others who want nothing to do with the world it is difficult to see a way out any time soon. In a world where people are pulled in different directions by faith depth and sectarianism at the same time, finding a balance is a highly complicated undertaking.

There is one irony that the world, specifically the Western world, must come to terms with. What have led the Arab world to this massive breakdown of law and order has much to do with the decades’ long ill-calculated efforts to subdue Islam. The first step has to be to promote the very thing the West has been hard at work to eliminate, Moderate Islam. So the first task is to figure out what is moderate Islam?. Is it the one that co-exists with Western dominated thought and lifestyles or one where Islamic laws such as lashing and dress code is allowed to sneak back in?

In any case, the Arab world cannot fix its current problems if it continues to sideline Islam as has been the case for decades. Islam must have a bigger says in the affairs of Arabia in order to pull the rug from underneath the truly die-hards like ISIS. The question that needs answering here is whether the current bloodshed, poverty and injustices have been the result of too much of applied Islam or too little?

Forces that are most potent on the ground at present are the extreme ones. ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra and Iran-backed militias are capable of recruiting because there is a portion of Muslims that has been excessively sidelined and muted for a long time. This is the portion that aspires for moderate interpretation and application of Islam and as such must have a major say in how the Arab world is governed. The “moderate” I am alluding to is not the CNN or Al-Jazeera version. The moderate I am talking about is one where sections of the Quran and Hadeeth that have been effectively made obsolete to be reintegrated.

Sharia that takes into account the true application of Islamic criminal and social laws must be an option on the table in order to deprive the ultra conservatives of recruitment source. The total disregard for what Islam is and what it stands for and the continuing watering-down of its laws have left a significant portion of practicing Muslims very little options; Either be with the hard-line secularists or the hard-line Islamists. The number of people in this segment of Muslims might be proportionally small but what they lack in numbers is compensated by determination and as such ignoring them is futile and quite risky on the long run.

I end by giving an example that might make my main point clearer. Before the spread of Islamic banks, a good chunk of Muslims who wished for financial services without stepping on their faith were practically left out but Islamic Banking provided them with an option. Same needs to be done in other areas so that people who are committed to their faith have moderate options.

By Mohammed Al-Sulami

Saudi security forces defused a bomb that could have claimed the lives of many citizens and residents of Riyadh.

The security forces were able to neutralize operations in the preparation of explosives and detonation belts at a house on Al-Fayha Street in Riyadh. A Syrian man and a Filipino worker were arrested during the raid.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said security efforts and comprehensive investigations are on track to follow up on the deviant group’s activities, adding that the security forces successfully foiled a number of terrorist attacks, overthrew terrorist cells and seized large amounts of explosive materials, two laboratories for the processing of explosive belts, and weapons.

Important data made available for the security forces through investigations and undercover operations revealed a fully equipped factory for preparing explosives and detonation belts for carrying out attacks.

The Syrian suspect was identified as Yaser Mohammed Al-Barrazi, who entered the country in 2010. A Filipino, who was illegally residing with the Syrian suspect at the house, was arrested. She was identified as Joy Bali Nang, who went missing 15 months ago, according to her employer.

She is suspected to have been helping the Syrian to make explosive belts for suicide attacks in the Kingdom. Whenever he went out, she wore an explosive belt.

The security forces suspect the house, in the middle of a residential neighborhood, was boobytrapped.

Another terror suspect was taken in from a second apartment in Riyadh’s Al-Jazeera neighborhood. The apartment was used as a safe house by fugitives from the law.

Given the seriousness of this information, the ministry worked carefully to set out an ambush outside the neighborhood to arrest the assailant in order to protect the lives of residents.

The houses in the vicinity of the first neighborhood were evacuated and the area was cordoned off for safety reasons.

Specialized teams defused the explosive material, and fully secured the site without causing any damage.

The seized items included two live explosive belts that were defused, a gas oven connected by metal and plastic tubes attached to a set of pressure pots and a 24 laboratory flasks, 10 high containers of chemical mixtures, cotton rolls, thick fabrics, tapes, and wax pastes.

Also seized were two sewing machines, electronic scales, welding equipment and oxygen cylinder; two detonators and shrapnel screws; two machine guns and 88 shots; two hard disk devices and three cameras.

The raid on the second site at Al-Jazeera neighborhood yielded one person. The site had some furniture, clothing and traces of other household necessities that made it clear that it was used as a safe haven for fugitives.

Law enforcement agencies are still in the process of investigating the activities of the suspects and officials said they don’t want to release anymore information for fear of jeopardizing the probe.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said Friday that the country had achieved a great victory at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) as the international community expressed high appreciation of the steps taken by the government since January. He pointed out that Sri Lanka succeeded in excluding the ‘electric chair’, an international investigation, and a hybrid special court from in the United States sponsored resolution.

Addressing the media at the President’s House immediately after his return from Geneva, President Sirisena this government was able to change the situation within the last nine months to inquire into alleged human rights violations and war crimes before a domestic tribunal under provisions of the country’s constitution by winning over the international community.

He said he would call an all party conference, a council consisting leaders of all religions in the country to discuss this matter and enact the mechanism to bring about lasting reconciliation in a society where democracy is vibrantly upheld.

The President said he would call a forum for intellectuals and scholars in the country and abroad to express their views for this purpose.

The President said while the inquiry is continued, the traditional, social and cultural matters would be taken into consideration and if these are matters which cause any harm, those would be taken before the UN for alterations. He said there is only a resolution against Sri Lanka which consists of proposals and not a set of orders.

He said the Sri Lankan government’s achievements were successful despite 37 groups operating at international level upheld the Eelam concept and stood against the latest resolution. He pointed out that a group led by Vaiko in India staged a protest against this latest resolution against Sri Lanka.

President Sirisena pledged that the dignity of the forces and the country would be protected by himself and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. He also appreciated the support of the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, ministers and others.

He said such resolutions have been moved not only against Sri Lanka but against some other countries as well. President Sirisena said most countries dragged those inquiries for a long period but Sri Lanka would not burden the people. He said this issue will be solved within a short period without causing any damage to any party. He added that there would only be a domestic mechanism, which would be implemented within the provisions of the Sri Lankan Constitution, without impinging on the sovereignty of the nation, unity and peace.

He added that the previous administration had deliberately squandered goodwill of the international community and the world body.

Apart from giving compensation to those affected by the war along with giving houses and lands to those who had lost them during the war, the President explained that the civil administration in the North and East would be strengthened.He said that a special local legal board would be established, adding that both members of the armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam cadres with allegations of human rights violations against them would be given an opportunity to present their cases.

The President added that he would soon be convening discussions with political party leaders along with a summit with religious leaders, intellectuals and expatriates with regards to sharing ideas and recommendations concerning the resolution. He emphasized that although alleged war crimes had taken place during the previous regime, it was now the sole responsibility of the incumbent government to ensure that the burden would not be handed down to those taking over the reins in the future.

Property and lives were also destroyed in Colombo and the South during the war. We will implement what is acceptable in the Darusman report and the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, Udalagama Commission and the Paranagama and Desmond De Silva Commission reports, he said.

The President said the government would follow a moderate policy with regards to the implementation of the mechanism and if there are issues that arise as per the opinion of the public and the country’s culture we will take up the matters again with the UNHRC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

“I will not be taking arbitrary decisions but will work in consultation. I take pity on those who accused us of being stooges of the West and of conspiring with overseas intelligence agencies. Thirty-seven powerful pro Eelam organizations opposed the resolution. We must be mindful of these situations and conditions too. We have proven in the past eight months that we intend to establish democracy, good governance and promote peace and reconciliation and that we will continue to do so. We will not allow the country to be divided,” President Sirisena assured.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, Ven Athuraliye Ratana Thero, Ministers S.B. Dissanayake, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Arjuna Ranathunga, Nimal Siripala de Silva, W. D. J. Seneviratne and Mahinda Samarasinghe were also present.

By Scott N. Romaniuk

Japan appears to be coming out of a long coma of non-violent political action in spite of being caught between domestic political violence and terrorism, and its relationships with Western states battling a seemingly never-ending war against terrorism. The idea that Japan is an island no longer serves as a metaphorical instrument in the geopolitical world of today. Al Qaeda’s global reach woke the world up well over a decade ago, and that world is being jolted again by the activities of the Islamic State (ISIS), which demonstrates an ideological pitch far exceeding that of other terrorist organizations operating today.

Reaching further back into history, even before the Gulf War, Japan opposed dipping more than its toes into the realm of international conflict management, anti-terrorism efforts, and peacekeeping missions. As early as 1954, a non-binding upper house resolution proscribed Japanese missions overseas, regardless of a mission’s purpose. Less than half of the Japanese population was in favor of Japanese involvement United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions in 1986. By the end of the 1980s, less than a quarter of Japan’s population said they would support the dispatch of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF). Tokyo’s position over the use of the SDF has become a tad relaxed, but even minor changes have brought major concerns, most notably from former-SDF members about the security of personnel currently overseas. Can Japan afford to get caught-up in America’s wars abroad?

Indeed, Japan was one of the latecomers in the US-led War on Terror, but it can no longer afford to overlook the growth and concentrations of ISIS influence in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. “When we have a meeting with a president or prime minister from another country,” said Indonesian President Joko Widodo, “always they say that now the number one issue is ISIS … Indonesia [is] the same.” Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario, speaking to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), affirmed that the ISIS threat to the Philippines is real. “At least 100 of our young Filipino Muslims have already infiltrated Iraq to undergo training to return and be jihadists or militants,” stated former president, defense secretary, and armed forces chief Fidel Ramos.

Even China must heed the threat of ISIS from Afghanistan, where major operations can be funded by drugs production and trafficking. China’s Foreign Ministry underscored its position in the face of ISIS, nothing that, “China opposes all forms of terrorism. China is willing to strengthen cooperation with the international community to fight together against terrorist forces, including the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM),’ in order to protect regional and global security and stability.”

Japan’s lethargic response to international terrorism has been somewhat puzzling because of its geographical proximity to the key actors in what the US described as the “Axis of Evil.” No other key ally, not even Israel, is close to as many of the main state-sponsors of international terrorism as Japan. But like Israel, Japan is no stranger to political violence and terrorist activities.

Terrorist attacks were a large part of the Showa Restoration – the Blood Oath Corps (Ketsumeidan) involved assassinations. After World War II Japan fought the Japanese Red Army (JRA) (Nihon Sekigun) and other indigenous terrorist groups and organizations like the Chukaku-ha. Supreme Truth (Aum Shinrikyo) is a notable case. Japan has also had its close and intimate encounter with homegrown terrorism that acquired deadly materials abroad. The use of chemical agents in the Tokyo subway system came as a shock to Japan, in what some have described as chemical warfare on Japanese soil, but surprisingly few measures were implemented to circumvent future attacks.

Japan’s somewhat inconsistent experience with terrorism is still considerable, especially compared to those of some Western states like the U.S., which only began to focus a lot of energy on the issue of international terrorism during the latter half of the 1990s – although the US has definitely not been distant from political violence. The U.S. even managed to dodge a lot of the terrorist activity that Western European states had become used to throughout the 1970s and 1980s as well as Israel’s violent experiences during the 1990s.

The European Union’s (EU) response to terrorism has been closely aligned with actual terrorist attacks from 9/11 to Charlie Hebdo, and ISIS’ wave of terrorism. There has been priority focus on the issue of “foreign fighters,” pressure placed on travel and movement, propaganda, and the revival of Passenger Name Records (PNR). Attention was placed national competence because the EU recognized that this is where supranational polity has less powers to act. In Japan, reaction to terrorism has been conspicuously absent. Anti-terror initiatives in Europe have been fed by real and violent events for years but in Japan only the events of ISIS have provoked a reaction, if one could even call it that.

Although Japan has been one of the closest allies of U.S. in the post-War period, and even during America’s recent charge against international terrorism, the Japanese model of domestic security and poor response after 9/11 was a product of the US’ occupation of the Japanese home islands. Japan’s poor security defense systems, what eventually factored in to Japan becoming one of the “weak links” in the coalition against international terrorism, were established by the security framework which came about by looking to either the Soviet Union or the United States. Yet Japan is not a lame duck. It has received billions of dollars from Washington over the past seven decades in economic and security assistance. Japan will be expected now to move beyond its past responses to terrorism, which have previously involved reliance on domestic policing, appeasing terrorists, and putting limited domestic laws into practice.

What makes the Japanese security paradigm so unique?

Positive and negative points characterize the Japanese security paradigm. Tokyo’s criminal justice system and domestic policing policies interact harmoniously, and its prison and rehabilitation systems deliver results. Japan, as in the case with JRA, cannot simply pass its terrorist threats onto other states and move on by providing indirect and passive support. Japan assumed that the decline of some terrorist organizations presupposed a decrease in the threat that terrorism more generally posed to Japanese society.

9/11 figures as a step forward in Japan’s counterterrorism progression but not as significant as in other states. New laws, and the Self Defense Forces (SDF), while meaning that Japan could be present in the War on Terror, did not enable it to play a major and active, even proactive, role. Japan remained and remains reactive in terms of terrorism. Japan has moved beyond providing medical supplies/services, transportation, information gathering, and recognizing the need to protect US military facilities, in addition to the extension of sporadic humanitarian, economic, and other emergency assistance operations. The enactment of new security legislation is a continuation of Japan’s previous policy moves to make it able to play a part in combating international terrorism but this merely provides a framework. Receiving praise from the US Department of State (DoS) for bringing security legislation in line with Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation, Tokyo is acting divisively by contradicting its own constitution.

Fighting terror, now, requires Japan to avoid its past mistakes and to step lightly given the position of its domestic constituents and international partners. It needs to move beyond establishing a veneer of cooperation and activity in the face of growing terrorist threats and address the core of its anti-terrorism capabilities. Its war-renouncing constitution will always be a hindrance. Its poor and self-contained intelligence apparatus and institutions require further reform if they are to truly support any future anti-terrorism task forces. Since early in 2015, Japan has made little progress in fixing the main components of its counterterrorism efforts. Japan does not lack the essential elements to make a strong and proactive contrition to peace by combating terrorism. This is precisely what Tokyo’s response to the ISIS hostage crisis, concerning two Japanese civilians, cultivated. Japan’s financial and human resources, and political commitment are certainly in line with those of the United States and the most contributory actors in an ongoing WoT.

A number of remarkable intelligence gathering models, like the UK’s MI6, the US’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst [BND]), exist for Japan to pattern itself after and provide indirect security to tangible and intangible infrastructure. Japan’s baby steps in enhancing its law enforcement and domestic policing initiatives, however, do not speak to the level of commitment required for the country to make that necessary contribution. Rather, they contradict the very simple and clear message made by General Kiyofumi Iwata of Japan’s SDF, delivered nearly a year ago that: “[t]errorism is never tolerated.”

This article appeared at Geopolitical Monitor.com

People of Tamil Nadu in general and Tamil politicians in particular are annoyed that the UN resolution pushed by the US is in favor of the Sri Lankan government, its military war crimes unleashed on Lankan Tamils, and is adversarial to Sri Lankan Tamils. Tamils in India and Sri Lanka therefore feel dejected by the US sponsored resolution and the negative approach of the Indian Union government as it did not take any steps over the unanimous resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to pursue the Tamil cause.

Coming out strongly against a UN resolution that endorsed a domestic probe in Sri Lanka over alleged war crimes, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Friday expressed deep disappointment and anguish while DMK chief Karunanidhi termed it shocking. Both Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi blamed the Centre for not acting on a September 16 resolution of the Tamil Nadu Assembly seeking an international probe.

“The resolution passed yesterday will in no way render justice to Sri Lankan Tamils. This resolution is in favour of Sri Lankan government and adversarial to Sri Lankan Tamils,” Jayalalithaa said in a statement.

Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa has asked the Modi government to be on the side of Indian origins living in Sri Lanka.

Former Sri Lanka President Rajapaksa, who was instrumental in committing mass murders or genocides in Tamil localities, is opposed to Lankan Tamils getting justice from the new government tin Colombo and he plays a dubious game with both the Sirisena government and Lankan Tamils. .

The US with its famous Asia pivot targeting China wants Sri Lanka to ignore the Chinese financial support. In order to get Sri Lanka on US-India board against China, Washington is supporting the Rajapaksa pressing the Sirisena regime to give up investigation and punishment for criminals who killed so many Tamils.

The UN Human Rights Council had on October 1 adopted a resolution paving the way for a probe involving foreign judges and prosecutors into the alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. Jayalalithaa said although the resolution has features like participation of foreign judges it would in no way be equal to an international judicial probe. “This weak resolution adopted by perceiving a change of heart of the Srilankan government will not do any good to Srilankan Tamils,” she said.

Blaming the central government led by Narendra Modi, Jayalalithaa said that the easy passage for the UN resolution shows that the union government did not take any steps over the unanimous resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

Recalling writing to Prime Minister Modi over the issue seeking action on the Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution, she said that the Central government has not taken any positive steps over this issue has caused unhealable wound.”

The Tamil Nadu Assembly had unanimously adopted a resolution asking the Centre to move a “strong resolution” in the UNHRC for an international probe into the alleged war crimes in the 2009 war in Sri Lanka. “I had clearly stated in the Tamil Nadu Assembly that the Indian government had the duty to prevent a resolution asking Sri Lanka itself to probe into war crimes,” she said.

Also, she had pointed out that a September 1 resolution of the Sri Lankan Northern Provincial Council had sought an international probe. International probe was sought so as to ensure justice, to strengthen the Council’s resolution and in deference to the feelings of all Tamils, she said.

Expressing shock over UN resolution, Karunanidhi said it was tantamount to vesting the power to probe in the very hands of the accused and doubted if even such a watered down version would be implemented.

Both Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi has asked PM Modi to take the issue seriously and get justice for Lankan Tamils at the earliest as Lankan government is trying to delay and deny justice while USA is trying to add fuel to Lankan crisis by supporting the military actions. The tamil leaders want PM MOdi to step up pressure on Sisisena before the matter becomes further complicated.

Meanwhile, President Sirisena should keep his own words given to the world about justice for country’s Tamils as part of his reconciliation policy.

Tamils expressed dissatisfaction over President Sirisena’s slow peddling attitude about justice to Lankan Tamils and his double talks about justice for Tamils who voted for him, for a positive change in the governance.

Peace is not just an option, but the only option before Sri Lankan government. It is an obligation on Sirisena’s part to arrange speedy justice delivery to Tamil populations who are yet to come of the fear of military attacks. They expect the island president to do the needful quickly enough without falling into the trap of Rajapaksa or his military bosses.

Elections come and go, but Sirisena has a promise to keep.

On March 23, 2015, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and his CEO Abdullah Abdullah conducted their first official visit to the U.S. in an effort to strengthen the bilateral relationship. In his long flattering speech to US officials Ashraf Ghani talked about peace initiatives for Afghanistan. He stated that; “When sanctuaries end then peace begins. We are cautiously optimistic that we will bring peace”. By ending sanctuaries he meant the insurgency movement across the Pakistani border. If president Ghani’s optimism for peace materializes, it will be a testing ground for a new type of power relations between the Global (US and China) and regional powers (Pakistan, India and Iran) involved in the Afghan conflict.

Ashraf Ghani’s prudent optimism lost ground when the new Taliban leader denied talking to the Afghan government. The Taliban in a rhetorical statement issued to the media in the aftermath of their new appointed leader, Mullah Akhter Mansur, hinted at adding fuel to the war to prove the notion that the country is the “Graveyard of Empires”. In addition, the recent war in the Northern Province of Kundoz greatly complicates diplomacy and may potentially even deteriorate the military situation in the region. Therefore, it certainly requires both countries to maintain a level of co-operation with each other to avoid further deterioration. Afghanistan is however confident that Pakistan is behind the Taliban and it is Islamabad that is the biggest challenge to achieving peace. To understand the complexity of the multi-dimentional blame game one must look briefly at the consequence of events and the decision making process between Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

From right after the invasion, Pakistan has pursued several goals simultaneously in the Afghan conflict: started close ties with Mujaheddin in their war against the Soviet, brought the Pashtons residing on other side of Durand Line closer to Islamabad to the extent that they drop the separatist claim from their agenda, increased anti-Indian sentiment in the region, and most importantly increased its military capability to a nuclear power, all at the cost of Global Super Power competitions.

With ability to have influence on resistance groups who eventually took the power in 1992, Pakistan achieved its strategic depth against India in Afghanistan. In 1996 the Taliban victory finally gave Pakistan’s politico-military leverage to establish indirect rule at a low-cost, high-return for achieving its strategic objectives. A long-sought goal: through what some analysts believe to be a “cliant regime” in Afghanistan, one that would grant it strategic depth against India. Pakistan’s close ties with the Taliban pushed India to close its embassy in Kabul.

Since 2001, although both countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan) were strategic allies of the United States in its war on terror, the tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan has increased because of escalating mistrust and misinterpretation of one another. Pakistan is blaming Afghanistan for allowing the over presence of India in the region and the Afghan government is accusing Pakistan for harbouring the Taliban and other insurgency groups against it. There is no doubt that Afghanistan in the last fourteen years has followed a foreign policy with an over weighted relations with India, United States and Iran at expense of Pakistan. In light with this foreign policy, the media, governments’ staff and civil society in Afghanistan have contributed in building more mistrust and misinterpretation towards Pakistan. In sum, the political game in Afghanistan contributed to Pakistan-India relations as strained and Afghan-Pakistan relations much more hostile.

There are several underlying assumptions culminating in Kabul and Islamabad that have strained the relationship between the two nations. Kabul believes that Afghanistan’s economic strategic location has already encouraged China, India, Azerbaijan and Gulf countries to be serious investors in Afghanistan. Secondly, for Pakistan to play the game of Pashtun territory (FATA) as a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan to extend Pakistan’s influence into Afghanistan and prevent Afghan influence from radiating into Pakistan proper is over now because Pakistani Taliban and local Pashtuns are challenging this anachronism game. Thirdly, ethnically fragmented Pakistan with separatist armed groups (Baluch), politically grieved Pashtuns, Sindhis and other dissatisfied minority groups represents a dismal political, economic and social situation in Pakistan. In contrast Pakistan overall assumption is that the crisis in Afghanistan is in Islamabad’s national interest because it gives the country more leverage by having the Taliban as big threat to Afghan government. Pakistan is also cautiously calculating that the West will eventually substantially reduce their support for the Afghan government, and this more likely brings Afghan government to its knee and at mercy of Pakistan.

Regardless of what the Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s assumption on each other is, today there are at least five major different security threats emanating in the region: foreign terrorists; Afghan Taliban; Pakistani Taliban; sectarian groups and organized crime that is exploiting the situation. Military operations first in Swat and Waziristan and lately by general Dustom in North Afghanistan has proved the vulnerability of both states in maintaining peace and stability in the region through military efforts and without the help from each other.

At the international level both countries are gradually facing challenges. All the attempts and efforts by President Ghani seeking assistance from China, Saudi and Gulf states to intervene inclusively failed. Also internally president Ghani faces challenges; widespread corruption, drug dealers, criminal groups, and the Northern Alliance Council in Kabul: product of years of armed conflict with fragmented leadership respectively ready to take off their boots, even before seeing the level of the water. Recently despite strong rejection by Gen. Murad Ali Murad, commander of the ANA ground forces, General Dostum concentrating on a more kinetic strategy widely to build a militia to confront the Taliban threat directly, but soon had to withdraw as backlash intensified.

Similarly Pakistan’s foreign policy is to bring its already improved relationship closer to China at the cost of dissatisfying it’s another generous and old strategic partner United States. Plus, creating more mistrust and suspicious from India resulted in both superpower to invest in destabilizing the security of the region.

All these bring us to summarize that the best possible way to end the conflict in the region is to make the peace talk real and both countries need political break through. To do so, Afghanistan must take as granted its potential geographical location at the intersection between (Middle East, Central Asia and South East Asia) which proves its importance as economic strategic location. By this Afghanistan needs to realize that despite the historical, political, territorial differences India and Pakistan may have, they share the same economic views on the region. Both countries are disparately in need of Central Asia energy which Afghanistan is the only transit route.

In addition, both countries are looking for Central Asia as a potential market to sell their products and services. Thus, Afghanistan must balance it relations with Pakistan and India as regional powers and partners, not preferring one over the other. To eliminate foreign interfering in the region, Afghanistan needs to develop a “Friendly No” foreign policy, similar to the policy it played during the British and Russian empires in the 19th and 20th centuries. Afghanistan as member of non-alignment club does not need to commit itself to military strategic agreement with super powers and regional powers.

Pakistan must review its strategic depth policy, by at least decreasing interference in the Afghan’s affairs. Pakistan must not look at Afghanistan the way they used to during the 1980s’ 1990’s and 2000s’. This includes ending the anachronism game of influencing and dictating from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Both countries must realize a new era (economic prosperity, security and stability) that is shaping the future of Asia in which neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan should and can pursue its goals through military efforts, but more through economic and diplomatic efforts. Pakistan needs to include the power of historical thinking in its policy towards Afghanistan. It means to think of unthinkable; if the current tensions between India and Pakistan, which is not very unlikely, lead to arm confrontation, it certainly again needs a neutral and impartial policy from Afghanistan.

In sum, for many reasons both countries understand very well that the Taliban is not the block road in bringing peace in the region. Taliban is used as scapegoat for the luck of a shared strategy and consensus among the new type of major power relations between the Global (US and China) and regional power (Pakistan, India and Iran) involved in the Afghan conflict. Therefore, for both countries to avoid worst tragedy in the region; Afghanistan needs to address social, political and economic grievances of the Taliban and Pakistan must allow the Taliban to choose independently their political faith. In order to avoid the worst in investing in the regional conflict, Pakistan needs a more balanced relation with both Global Power (US and China) not preferring one over the other. Afghanistan needs to retreat back to its traditional foreign policy of “non-alliance” that fits its geopolitical location

Mohammad Dawod is an Afghan writer and geopolitical analyst at Afghanocentricism.com. He worked for several international committees and organizations in the humanitarian field for more than 20 years. Recently he has obtained his Master’s degree in International Affairs from Carleton University. Author can be reached at dawod555@yahoo.com and tweets @dawod5551

By Hossein Kebriaeezadeh*

Recent incidents during this year’s Hajj rituals both at Masjid al-Haram and Mina have made Riyadh target of a great wave of criticism, which ranges from positions taken by such radical groups as al-Qaeda to remarks made by officials of such a rival country as Iran, who denounced irresponsibility of the Saudi government in the face of this accident.

However, it is not the first time that such incidents take place in the world’s biggest religious gathering. Earlier in 1990, 1994, 1997, and 2006 similar incidents had taken place, including destruction of a bridge or fire in the pilgrims’ tents. Even in 1987, clashes between Hajj pilgrims and the Saudi police left about 600 Iranian pilgrims dead, or in 1979, the floor of Masjid al-Haram turned into a battleground between the Saudi police and members of the extremist group, which was led by Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani.

The frequency of such incidents had already convinced the Saudi officials to beef up security and safety measures for the Hajj ceremony, especially taking into account that a great number of Hajj pilgrims are senile and lack physical strength. However, the political and security approach that had grown within the Saudi government following the unrest in 1979 and 1987, has made Riyadh to focus more on increasing the number of security and police forces in recent years and pay less attention to the quality of medical services. As a result, during this year’s Hajj rituals, there were only 25,000 medical personnel as compared with 100,000 police forces. Therefore, although a week has passed since the Mina incident, the exact number of the victims and their nationalities are still unknown.

The shock given to the public opinion in the Muslim world has elicited different reactions from Islamic countries toward this incident. In the meantime, the harshest positions taken on this incident came from Tehran as a result of which the Saudi charge d’affaires has been summoned four times by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. This reaction was, of course, predictable in view of the past history of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of Iranian pilgrims including improper treatment of a number of Iranian pilgrims by security guards at Jeddah airport during the current year and the high number of Iranians killed both in Mina incident and after the collapse of a tower crane at the Grand Mosque.

The deepening of adverse attitudes and ideas at the level of the two governments, which has recently spread to their societies and the two Iranian and Saudi nations, is a bad news, which has unfortunately given birth to certain emotions in the political spheres of the two countries without having any benefit for either of the two states.

On the other hand, such unfriendly measures as rejecting a request by Iran’s representative office in New York to meet with Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister for the follow-up of the situation of Iranian pilgrims in Mina, and a few days of delay in issuing visas for an Iranian delegation tasked with following up on the situation of Iranian pilgrims in Saudi Arabia have further intensified unfriendly rhetoric in the two countries’ media. As a result, the crisis in the two countries’ relations has been extended to the two nations as well, and this issue will cause the process of dispelling misunderstandings between these two regional actors more difficult and time-consuming in future. The reality, however, is that ideological conflicts aside, the crisis in the two countries’ relations is affected by regional policies of Riyadh and Tehran, as a result of which when such incidents take place, the ensuing crisis reaches a very tangible level.

It is not uncommon in the world of politics for two hostile countries to have friendly cooperation in nonpolitical fields, especially when it comes to humanitarian issues, and this can help them get closer. An example in point is the relief aid sent by the United States for Iranian victims of earthquake in the southeastern city of Bam. As a result, two decades after that incident, the positive attitude of the Iranian society toward the American nation helped the nuclear talks to reach a positive conclusion. Therefore, Saudi Arabia is expected to take steps for creating new opportunities in the two countries’ relations by accepting responsibility for the Mina incident and act with goodwill for correct management of the crisis in the two countries’ relations instead of choosing for a behavior, which does not conform to international norms.

Apart from relations between Tehran and Riyadh and regardless of the improper political stance of the Saudi officials in the face of mourning nations, the Mina incident reminded Saudi officials of technical shortcomings and flows which starts at the level of small caravans in Islamic countries and continue all the way up to the highest decision-making levels and approaches.

In the meantime, apart from all negative consequences of the Mina incident for Saudi Arabia’s domestic and foreign policy, this country can still take advantage of the capacity of world religions to hold Hajj rituals away from state biases. Riyadh can also take a large-scale nongovernmental approach to this issue and come up with a management model acceptable to the entire Islamic world in order to continue hosting this global congregation. Saudi Arabia can, in the meantime, sympathize with victims of the incident and with an eye to proximity of religions, provide grounds for taking advantage of the experiences of other religions for holding big religious rituals in sacred cities.

* Hossein Kebriaeezadeh, Expert on Middle East Issues

By Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka*

Over the past two years, Boko Haram has grown in influence and spread across the West African region with specific impacts on the rights of women and girls. The 500th day anniversary of the kidnapping of the Chibok girls in Nigeria recently passed. Despite a global movement calling for their return, most remain missing, with more women and girls abducted by Boko Haram each week. Millions have been displaced as a result of Boko Haram violence.

In light of this ongoing and deepening insecurity, UN Women welcomes the release of the report this week by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on violations committed by Boko Haram.

We underline the call to affected States and the international community to place gender equality at the heart of interventions. This is the only sustainable, systemic way to prevent and respond to the spread of violent extremism. Empowered women and empowered communities are the best defense against radicalization and further violence. We must engender counter-terrorism.

The OHCHR report’s findings include disturbing accounts of widespread and targeted violations against women and girls, from forced marriages and sexual slavery, to forced pregnancies and forced abortions. Recognizing that the acts committed by Boko Haram, and the strategies used to counter them are profoundly gendered, the report recommends that governments of affected States ensure a gender sensitive approach to analysing and responding to extremist violence “by ensuring effective participation of affected persons”.

Practically, that is a strong call to act to empower women, and women’s movements, to participate. These messages are in line with the key findings of a 15- year review of women’s role in peace and security that is soon to be released.

The report’s findings provide strong evidence of the dramatic positive effect of women’s engagement on the durability and success of response to conflict and achievement of settlement. Our efforts must also involve building the capacity of women’s civil society groups to actively engage, and strengthening our knowledge of the drivers of extremist violence.

Alongside this strategic role, there is the immediate urgent need to involve women in the design and provision of humanitarian response that addresses the specific needs of women and girls. They must be involved as equal partners. Protecting civilians, providing remedies for women and girls whose rights have been violated and ensuring they have access to comprehensive and integrated services is critical.

In this respect, the report recommends a number of measures including establishing a mechanism for nullifying forced marriages, provision of psychosocial counselling, rehabilitation and social reintegration, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services including HIV treatment and access to safe abortion, and measures to address stigma experienced by women and girl victims of sexual violence and their children.

The report brings to light the negative consequences of both terror and anti-terror activities. UN Women calls on affected states to give more consideration to the negative impacts of counter-terrorism strategies on civilian populations, particularly women and girls. Motorcycle bans, for example, have limited movement of teachers and children trying to go to school.

For girls, the interruption in their education has increased their exposure to further rights violations including child marriage and trafficking. Schools must be kept going, not only for the education they give, but for the strength, security and solidity that their routines provide to children whose world is being so profoundly disrupted.

UN Women supported OHCHR with the provision of a sexual and gender crimes investigator, and welcomes the quality of the report’s gender analysis and findings on gender-based violations.

We join OHCHR in calling for affected States to take up the recommendations in this report, as well as those in the 15-year review of women, peace and security, and stand ready to support these efforts. Together, these actions provide us with a strong foundation to build the resilience of communities and the region against the influence of Boko Haram, and permanently address the root causes of extremist violence.

*Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka is UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director. This Viewpoint includes the complete text of her October 2 Statement on Boko Haram

By Samir Salama

Emiratis of all ages swarmed polling stations across the country on Saturday to elect their representatives in the Federal National Council.

More than 224,000 citizens elected 20 FNC members, while the remaining 20 members will be appointed by the Rulers of the Emirates.

A total of 36 polling stations across the country received eligible voters between 8am and 9pm. Voting across the country was slow in the morning, but as the day progressed the turnout gradually picked up, with significant participation from women throughout the day. Voting was extended for one hour due to a technical glitch that caused certain polling stations to begin later than scheduled. The preliminary results will be announced immediately once the booths are closed.

His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, visited on Saturday the polling centre for the Federal National Council (FNC) election at the Dubai World Trade Centre.

Shaikh Mohammad was impressed with the election process, considering it a successful democratic experience in a state where citizens and candidates proved their integrity while fulfilling a national responsibility.

Shaikh Mohammad commended the role played by young volunteers whom he spoke to during his tour, 1,500 of whom had volunteered.

Shaikh Mohammad said: “This is how we grew up and were brought up in the councils of our fathers and forefathers, and this is how we educate our children now, so that they cling to these customs and traditions in order to become worthy successors to a wonderful past.”

Shaikh Mohammad also pointed out the importance of linking citizens to the empowerment programme launched by President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan for the advancement of political and active participation

Shaikh Mohammad explained that this programme and the legislative election represent a key dimension complementing the development of the country.

Many citizens made it to the polling stations, but they were not allowed to exercise their franchise because their names were not on the electoral rolls.

Appeals against results can be made for three days from October 4 to 6, and the National Election Committee will respond to the appeals over two days — on October 7 and 8.

The NEC will approve the final list of winners on October 11, if no election run-offs are required.

A total of 37,663 Emiratis cast their ballot in the first early voting in the FNC election, while more than 1,300 exercised their franchise in the UAE’s missions abroad.

In Abu Dhabi, thousands of voters headed to the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre (Adnec) to cast their ballot.

Ahmad Al Suwaidi said he didn’t pick a candidate from his own tribe, instead voting for “a candidate [he] believed can represent [him]”.

Dubai saw a healthy turnout from women voters, while many elderly Emiratis strove not to let their age prevent them from participating in the election, being accompanied to the polling stations in wheelchairs.

Voters in Sharjah and Ajman took part in election day amid a ‘festive’ mood. Voters in Masfout polling centre were greeted with flowers upon arrival. Zayed Abdullah, 70, from Fujairah said that he “wanted to be among the first people to perform their national duty”.

Many voters in Umm Al Quwain said they have placed more importance on the track record and personality of candidates, placing them over campaign promises, since “anyone can make promises”.

And in a basketball court turned voting station, Ras Al Khaimah voters cast their vote at the indoor sports hall of the Higher Colleges of Technology.

Abdul Rahman Al Shaer, director of the voting centre, said: “We’re seeing less people here than we did last week. A large number of Ras Al Khaimah citizens have already cast their vote during the early voting process.”

Original article

The director of the Holy See press office has issued a statement in response to Vatican official Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa’s declaration in a recent interview that he is homosexual and has a boyfriend.

Msgr. Charamsa, 43, granted a video interview to Italian agency Corriere della Sera published on Oct. 3 in which he, speaking in Polish, announced that he is “a homosexual priest, with a partner.”

Following the revelation, Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J. issued the following Oct. 3 statement:

“Regarding the statements and interviews released by Msgr. Kryzstof Charamsa, it must be considered — notwithstanding the respect warranted to the events and personal situations and reflections on the issue — the choice to make such a pointed statement on the vigil of the Synod’s opening seems very serious and irresponsible, since it seeks to impose on the Synodal assembly undue media pressure.”

Certainly, he said, “Msgr. Charamsa will not be able to continue performing his previous duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Universities, whereas other aspects of his situation are under the competence of his diocesan ordinary.”

In the Corriere interview, Msgr. Charamsa said that he made the announcement so that the Church and community would know his true identity. He said he was proud of his orientation and suggested the Church’s stance on sexual abstinence for homosexuals is “inhumane,” asking for change.

Msgr. Charamsa has served as an official for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Since 2009 he has served on the theology faculty of Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and Regina Apostolorum University. In 2011, he was appointed as secretary of the International Theological Commission.

The CDF is responsible for appointing theologians to the International Theological Commission.

On Friday, the day before the Corriere interview was published, a conference was held featuring testimonies by persons with same-sex attraction who are living chaste lives.

Sponsored by Courage, an apostolate which offers pastoral support for men and women with same-sex attraction, participants called for the Synod fathers to defend the Church’s teaching on chastity.

The international gathering was entitled “The Ways of True Love – Pastoral Approaches to Welcome and Accompany those Living with Homosexual Tendencies,” and was held at the Pontifical Thomas Aquinas University, also known as the Angelicum.

The Synod on the Family will be addressing pastoral care in the Church for persons with same-sex attraction. It begins tomorrow, Oct. 4, and will close Oct. 25.

(EurActiv) — Portugal is holding a general election this Sunday. The polls point to a victory for the right, but political disillusion could lead to record levels of abstention. La Tribune reports.

Portuguese voters will go to the polls on Sunday (4 October) to renew their unicameral parliament. This election appears to be a non-event for the country’s creditors, as well as the European institutions.

Portugal is not bracing for a political earthquake, and the financial sector is so calm about the vote that the rating agency S&P has released its latest credit rating even before the election has taken place.

The ‘Portuguese miracle’?

The outgoing legislature was marked by a severe dose of austerity, punctuated by large-scale demonstrations in 2012 and 2013. The measures enacted by the ECB, falling energy prices, the relaxing of austerity policies and enhanced competitiveness have all helped improve the situation in the country.

Unemployment fell by two points to 12.1% in one year, and defenders of austerity in other countries often hold up Portugal as a shining example of best practice. German Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schäuble, highlighted the Portuguese turnaround during the Greek crisis as proof that “efforts pay”. But in reality, the country is still in a worrying position.

A difficult economic situation

Unlike Ireland or Spain, Portugal has not experienced a post-austerity boom. Its economic growth has been weak for a country that has made brutal cuts to salaries.

In 2014, the Portuguese state cut its payroll by 2.3%. The country’s economy grew by 0.5% during the first two quarters of this year, but the European Commission predicts annual growth of 1.6% for 2015 and 1.8% for 2016. The IMF predicts only 1.4% and 1.5%.

Compared to the vast economic contraction of 8.9% between the third quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2015, this is very weak. Portuguese GDP is still 22% lower than the eurozone average in terms of purchasing power parity.

The fall in unemployment is also fragile, as almost 90% of the change is due to temporary construction projects and economic emigration. 121,000 Portuguese citizens have left the country in the four years since austerity policies were first imposed; a phenomenon not witnessed since the Salazar government.

And the country has been left with a considerable public and private debt, which will only continue to grow as economic growth and inflation stagnate. Portuguese private and public debt is equal to 400% of the country’s GDP. A situation that is obviously untenable in the medium and long term. In short, the ‘Portuguese miracle’ is a myth.

The right with the wind in its sails

But for several weeks, the ruling right-wing coalition of the Social Democratic (PSD) and Conservative (CDS-PP) parties, known as ‘Portugal a Frente’, has been leading the polls. This alliance was for a long time neck and neck with the Socialist Party, but currently holds a comfortable lead.

According to Electograph, a polling company, Portugal a Frente holds a five to seven point lead over the Socialists, with between 38% and 40% of votes.

Is this the triumph of a population that has (finally!) understood the virtues of ‘effort’? Perhaps, but it merits a closer look.

Why the right is so popular

The apparent rise of the Portuguese right is due to a number of factors. First among these is the economic upturn. Many Portuguese citizens are understandably relieved to see the country coming out of recession, and the fall of unemployment is an argument in favour of political stability.

But the success of Portugal a Frente is not purely down to falling unemployment. In August, at the time when the right began its rise in the polls, unemployment actually increased to 12.4%.

Another explanation can be found in Greece. Portuguese voters may never have been tempted to experiment with parties like Syriza, but the inability of Alexis Tsipras to throw off the yoke of debt and creditors certainly helped to subdue the left, despite attempts by the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS) to take an anti-austerity line.

This situation had three distinct effects on the electorate. The first was to make voters choose ‘security’ by electing a government favoured by the country’s creditors. The second was to punish the Socialist Party for its hazy economic discourse, to the benefit of the more radical left.

The radical ‘Left Block’ (BE), which has turned Eurosceptic after the events in Greece, has risen in line with the decline of the PS. Between 16 July and 28 September, the BE almost doubled its support among the electorate from 4% to 7.1%. At the same time, PS support fell from 38% to 31.8% and the right rose from 37.8% to 39%.

Rejecting politics

The final explanation is the outright rejection of politics by a large part of Portugal’s electorate. All the polls indicate that the number of voters that are undecided or intend to abstain from Sunday’s election has greatly increased since July.

According to polling company Aximage, this group has risen from 10% to 13.6% of the voting age population. This is a phenomenon that deserves to be highlighted: the closer the country comes to the elections, the less motivated Portuguese voters appear to be.

Antonio Costa Pinto, a political analyst, told Bloomberg he feared the abstention rate could even beat the record of 41.9% of registered voters set in 2011.

Austerity and the example made of Greece appear to have led to a rejection of politics and general disillusion among Portuguese voters.

A ‘victory for austerity’?

So despite the strong position of the political right, it would be wrong to declare a ‘victory for austerity’. The two radical left parties, the CDU (a communist coalition) and the BE, could together collect around 15% of the vote. In 2011, they won 13% of the vote, already a large share for the radical left in Europe.

Portugal may not have an opposition like Syriza or Podemos, but the left is still strong. In Spain, for example, even Podemos would struggle to win more than 15% of the vote in a general election.

But even the success of Portugal a Frente is relative. In 2011, the coalition won 50.4% of the vote. Although if it remains the country’s strongest political force, the growing abstention rate is likely to cost the governing coalition between 10% and 12% of its votes in this Sunday’s election. Seen in this light, any victory for the right would be very relative, and would not necessarily reflect a broad public approval for austerity.

What government?

One important area of uncertainty persists: who will govern the country after the election?

The Portuguese electoral system is similar to the Spanish one. The 230 members of parliament are elected using the D’Hondt system of proportional representation, calculated in each of the country’s 22 constituencies.

This system tends to favour larger parties, while squeezing out the smaller ones. In 2011, the PSD won 38.6% of the vote, but took 45.6% of the seats (105 of 230). In the same election, the Left Block, the smallest parliamentary party, won 5.2% of the vote and only 3.5% of the seats (8 of 230).

Absolute majority for the right?

By presenting a united front, the Portuguese right hopes to benefit from the electoral system to win an absolute majority. But the left, including the PS, the CDU and the BE, is still likely to poll close to 50% of the votes, without even counting the Maoist PCTP (1.1% in 2011) and the Livre party, a kind of ‘moderate Podemos’, expected to poll at around 2%.

These divisions could prevent the left winning a parliamentary majority, even if they win over 50% of the popular vote; an outcome that cannot be ruled out.

The feasibility of a left-right coalition

The most likely outcome is that nobody will win an absolute majority. In this case, three possibilities will arise.

The first will be for the left to form a minority government. This would be a challenge, as a united right could cause parliamentary gridlock. Under such circumstances, a minority government could hardly hope to govern successfully.

If the PS comes second, it could perhaps fall back on the informal support of the CDU and/or the BE. This situation would closely resemble the second possibility: a left-wing coalition.

But is this much mooted alliance possible in practice? The CDU and the BE are highly sceptical about Portugal’s ability to throw off the yoke of austerity whilst remaining in the eurozone, but have expressed their readiness to work with the PS.

For its part, the PS is in favour of remaining in the eurozone and cutting the deficit, while reducing austerity. But any formal collaboration would be far from simple, as the policies and ideals of the CDU and the BE also differ greatly in a number of areas.

Towards a grand coalition?

That leaves just one possibility: a grand coalition between the PS and the right, or a minority right-wing ‘reformist’ government, with the informal support of the left. For both economists and the markets, this is the most likely outcome.

This may not be the most credible option. It is hard to imagine the PS supporting the current prime minister, who symbolises a brand of austerity politics that sometimes outstripped even the Troika.

In short, political deadlock cannot be ruled out, and contrary to what we might hear on Monday morning (5 October), whatever the election result, it will surely not constitute a resounding endorsement of austerity.

This article was previously published by EurActiv France. La Tribune by Romaric Godin translated by Samuel White

A full investigation is underway in coordination with Afghanistan’s government to “determine exactly what happened” when a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, came under fire, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Saturday.

Army Col. Brian Tribus, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in an initial statement that U.S. forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz at 2:15 a.m. local time today that “may have caused collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.”

A statement later in the day said the airstrike was targeting insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members advising and assisting Afghan security forces in the city, near a Doctors Without Borders facility.

‘A Tragic Incident’

In a statement on what he called “a tragic incident,” Carter noted that the area has been the scene of intense fighting over the last few days. U.S. forces in support of Afghan security forces were operating nearby, as were Taliban fighters, he said.

“While we are still trying to determine exactly what happened, I want to extend my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected,” Carter said, adding that the United States will continue to work with its Afghan partners toward ending the ongoing violence in and around Kunduz.

Army Gen. John F. Campbell, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in a statement that he has spoken with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani regarding the incident.

“While we work to thoroughly examine the incident and determine what happened, my thoughts and prayers are with those affected,” Campbell said. “We continue to advise and assist our Afghan partners as they clear the city of Kunduz and surrounding areas of insurgents. As always, we will take all reasonable steps to protect civilians from harm.”

Scientists have recorded evidence of the brain turning off its memory inhibitor to make new memories.

In 1953, a man named Henry Molaison underwent a surgery which removed most of his hippocampus in an attempt to cure his epileptic seizures. The surgery was a qualified success though, because in addition to curing him of seizures he also lost the ability to form new long term memories. It was Molaison’s memory problems that led doctors to conclude that the hippocampus was the part of the brain responsible for long term memory.

Since then, the hippocampus has been studied frequently and it is generally accepted that it plays an important role in memory. What haven’t been studied enough are the physical processes that occur when new memories form. Scientists at the IBS Center for RNA Research and Department of Biological Sciences at Seoul National University in South Korea have discovered multiple repressive mechanisms in the hippocampus during memory formation and published their findings in this month’s issue of Science.

IBS Center for RNA Research used a tool called Ribosome profiling (RPF) as well as RNA-seq to analyze mouse hippocampi. In contrast to the widely held belief that memory formation relies on protein formation in the brain, the research group found that the genes encoding hippocampal ribosomal subunits, the organelle responsible for translating mRNA into protein, are translationally suppressed. Additionally, they found that hippocampal levels of translating ribosomes are much lower than those from other organs (livers, testes and kidneys).

They carried out RPF and RNA-seq with the mouse hippocampi after contextual fear conditioning by comparing them to an untested control group after 5,10 and 30 minutes and 4 hours post-conditioning. Through the analysis of the data, the research offers insight into translational and transcriptional regulations in the brain during memory formation at the genomic scale. The observations showed two types of repressive events were induced after learning: an initial wave of transient translational regulation at around 5 to 10 minutes and the suppression of genes through decreases of mRNA levels after 30 minutes, which continued through 4 hours.

Why did this happen? It seems that in order to make new memories, the brain needs to turn off genetic processes which act to inhibit memories from being formed. IBS researcher Jun Cho explains, “Some of these genes might be ‘memory suppressor genes’ that need to be down-regulated for memory formation.” After analyses it was found that Nrsn1, one of the newly identified genes undergoing rapid translational repression, may act as a suppressor of long-term memory formation. Additionally, activating estrogen receptor ESR1 in the hippocampus also impaired memory formation.

When an animal experiences no stimulus in an environment the hippocampus undergoes gene repression which prevents the formation of new memories. Upon the introduction of a stimulus, the hippocampus’ repressive gene regulation is turned off allowing for new memory creation, and as Jun Cho puts it, “Our study illustrates the potential importance of negative gene regulation in learning and memory”.

This work wouldn’t have been possible without the use of RPF, which allows sensitive and quantitative measurement of translation at the genomic scale. RPF yields quantitative information about the mRNAs undergoing translation and this was the first time it was used for an application involving the brain and memory formation. In the future, RPF could be used in other applications in order to gain a greater understanding of translation. More than anything else, this research highlights that new approaches need to be taken to understand the yet-unappreciated gene-regulatory events during memory formation.

Infants given asthma medications during their first 2 years of age are likely to be stunted in later life, according to research presented today at the 54th Annual European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology Meeting. The findings highlight the importance of using these medicines in infants appropriately.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) – medications used to treat conditions such as asthma – are frequently used in infants with recurrent wheezing. However, these medications may have harmful effects, for instance a reduced growth rate in development and a shorter height in adulthood.

In this study, researchers from Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland analysed information on the height, weight and asthma medicine intake of 12,482 Finnish children aged 0-24 months. The researchers found that children who used inhaled corticosteroids during the first 2 years of life were too short for their age. This result was more evident in children taking the asthma medicine budesonide for more than 6 months.

Many factors that alter development in children, such as chronic illnesses and long-term use of oral corticosteroids, may cause a shorter than normal height in adulthood. “Previously, the impact of corticosteroids on growth was looked at in older children and was thought to alter growth only temporarily,” said lead researcher Dr Antti Saari. “However, studies on inhaled corticosteroid use in infants are practically lacking and thus this has been questioned in the recent study. Our research shows a link between long-term treatment of ICS during infancy and stunted growth at or after the age of 2 in otherwise healthy children.”

The group will next focus on assessing the impact of inhaled corticosteroids on growth in older children and observe them for longer time periods. “According to our research, we could only assess the impact of inhaled corticosteroids on growth in infancy until 2 to 3 years of age. The longitudinal impact of these medications is not clear and we would therefore like to investigate this further,” said Dr Saari.