The tragic death of hundreds of Iranian pilgrims in Saudi Arabia has triggered a tsunami of anti-Saudi sentiment throughout Iran, in light of the blatant self-serving response of Saudi officials, who have blamed the victims and tried to exonerate themselves of any blames whatsoever. Although the Saudi government has begun an official investigation and the final report on the causes of this tragedy has yet to be published, few Iranians vest much hope in it, given the adamant refusal of Saudis to let any other country partake in the investigation.

As expected, Tehran’s call for an independent fact-finding committee consisting of representatives from all the nations where the victims came from, e.g., Pakistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, etc., has fallen on deaf ears and the Saudi rulers have dismissed Iranian leaders’ criticism as completely unfounded. Iran has also called for international supervision of the Hajj ceremony, in order to prevent future such tragedies, which can be envisioned along the lines of the International Olympic Committee, which supervises the Olympic Games and is not considered an infringement on the host nation’s sovereignty.

Meanwhile, based on the available empirical evidence surrounding this tragedy, there are numerous unanswered questions that await answers, one of which the facility with which it has been blamed on a “stampede” with pilgrims trampling on each other, as a result of which thousands were either killed or injured; the final tally has yet to be determined, although by now it is clear that the toll is in the thousands and not hundreds. There are still hundreds missing, including over 60 Iranian pilgrims, after so many days since the “accident,” including a prominent Iranian diplomat, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, thus adding fuel to the furnace of Iranian suspicions about what really happened on that fateful day in Mina.

Although this tragedy has lent itself to a number of conspiracy theories and serious allegations of “mismanagement” and so on, it is important to distinguish facts from sheer rumors or insinuations and focus on direct and circumstantial evidence that guides objective scrutiny of the horrendous event — that is blamed by the Saudis on the failure of some pilgrims to follow the written instructions given to them, the unplanned convergence of two groups of pilgrims moving in opposite directions, and the like. Saudi media and various Saudi representatives have consistently stated that this was a pure accident due to “overcrowding” and nothing more. Their explanation has been by and large adopted by the Western media, that has put it in the same category as the previous accidents claiming pilgrims’ lives, such as the collapse of the giant crane just days before that claimed the lives of some 109 pilgrims including Iranians.

But, there are several empirical reasons to doubt the Saudi explanation and openly ponder the possibility of a “planned accident” that, in turn, raises the issue of an international criminal investigation of the potential culprits. Those reasons are as follows:

1. Evidence that the pilgrims on Street 204 in Mina were deliberately trapped with no ability to move forward or backward for hours.

2. Evidence that many pilgrims collapsed not as a result of any stampede but rather the sheer lack of water in the oppressive heat and human congestion, with the Saudis not taking a minimum step to rush to assist them, despite the presence of hundreds of their crowd control monitors along the route, the proximity of a fire station and a civil defense center, etc.

3. Evidence that the Saudis did not rush to assist the wounded either and the medical assistance did not reach the area until some 2 hours after the incident.

4. Evidence that the Saudis prevented the Iranian medical team from reaching and assisting the pilgrims.

5. Evidence that the standard operating procedure was ignored by the Saudis with respect to the supposed accidental convergence of two crowds and the obvious question is why? After all, the Saudi officials in the central command center closely watching the crowd’s movement with the help of over 4200 closed-circuit cameras (according to their own publications) should have taken immediate action to separate the crowd by implementing their contingency plans, yet somehow they did not and turned into passive observers of the unfolding tragedy.

6. Evidence that the Saudis seriously mistreated many of the wounded by throwing them into containers along with the dead, which may have contributed to the casualty figure.

7. Evidence that the Saudis engaged in a feeble cover-up by announcing that they had beheaded 28 people “responsible” for the tragedy, which both contradicts the official Saudi position that points the finger away from themselves and also adds to the suspicion of foul play with the Saudis trying to bury that initial information given to the Arab press.

8. Evidence that the “accidental convergence” of pilgrims moving in opposite directions was in fact a direct result of the Saudis moving the barricades and opening one-way traffic as clearly shown by the videos that have surfaced on the internet. This suggests more than a mere “negligence” and lends itself to the “planned accident” theory or hypothesis.

9. Evidence that some prominent Iranian pilgrims including Iran’s former ambassador to Lebanon, considered a high-value target by the Israelis and Americans, may have been deliberately targeted, which explains the relatively high Iranian casualty figures as well as the hitherto unexplained mystery surrounding the lack of recovery of the Iranian diplomat’s body.

This article was published at Iranian Diplomacy.

In one of the most despicable incidents of the United States’ 14-year war in Afghanistan, U.S. troops bombed a hospital in Kunduz, killing 22 people, including patients, three children, and medical personnel from Doctors Without Borders, or MSF. Thirty-seven people were injured, including 19 staff members in the Oct. 3, 2015, attack.

U.S. forces knew they were targeting a hospital because MSF, as it does in all conflict contexts, had provided its exact GPS coordinates on multiple occasions over the past months, including most recently on Sept. 29. There was a nine-foot flag on the roof that identified the building as a hospital. After the first strike, MSF contacted U.S. officials and reported the hospital was being bombed and begged them to halt the attack. Nevertheless, the U.S. AC-130 gunship continued to pummel the hospital repeatedly for more than one hour.

“Our patients burned in their beds,” said MSF International President Joanne Liu. “Doctors, nurses and other staff were killed as they worked.”  She added, “Our colleagues had to work on each other. One of our doctors died on an improvised operating table – an office desk – while his colleagues tried to save his life.”

In attempting to explain why they had bombed a hospital, U.S. military leaders changed their story four times. On Saturday, the day of the bombing, U.S. spokesman Col. Brian Tribus said the strike occurred “against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.” On Sunday, Gen. John Campbell, U.S.-NATO commander in Afghanistan, claimed the strike occurred “against insurgents who were directly firing upon U.S. service members … in the vicinity of a Doctors Without Borders medical facility.” On Monday, Campbell announced, “Afghan forces advised that they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support” and “several civilians were accidentally struck.” By Tuesday, Campbell said, “the decision to provide aerial fire was a U.S. decision, made within the U.S. chain of command. A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a medical facility.”

Since the Pentagon has access to video and audio recordings taken from the gunship, they must know what actually occurred. Daily Beast reported that the recordings contain conversations among the crew as they were firing on the hospital, including communications between the crew and U.S. soldiers on the ground. Moreover, AC-130 gunships fly low to the ground so the crew can assess what they are hitting.

But members of Congress who oversee the Pentagon have been denied access to the classified recordings.

Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, “Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the parties to the conflict.”

International law expert Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, said, “The critical question for determining if US forces committed a war crime was whether they had notified the hospital ahead of the strike if they understood the Taliban to be firing from the hospital.”

MSF has said they were never notified that the hospital would be bombed. “Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the MSF hospital compound prior to the U.S. airstrike on Saturday morning,” according to MSF General Director Christopher Stokes.

Parties to a military conflict have a duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and civilians and their facilities cannot be targeted. If the hospital were being used for military purposes, the strike must be proportionate to the military advantage sought, and the U.S. forces had a duty to warn the people inside the hospital that it would be struck. No one in the hospital said it was being used for military purposes, and even if it was, the U.S. forces never warned those in the hospital before striking it.

The U.S. strike was a precise attack on the hospital, because no other buildings in the MSF compound were hit. MSF executive director Jason Cone said, “I want to reiterate that the main hospital building where medical personnel were caring for patients was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched. So we see this as a targeted event.”

MSF is demanding an independent investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC), established under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. But the United States must consent to the investigation. The U.S. government says there are enough investigations – one by the Pentagon, one by a joint US-Afghan group, and one by NATO. But none of these is independent and impartial.

Historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter has written three articles about three different internal investigations the U.S. military used to cover-up operations that should have led to criminal prosecutions against U.S. officers. Why should we believe that this will be any different?

The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court provides several bases for war crimes prosecution. They include willful killing; willfully causing great suffering or serious bodily injury; intentional attacks against civilian or civilian objects; intentional attacks with knowledge they will cause death or injury to civilians when clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage; and intentionally attacking medical facilities which are not military objectives. Although the United States is not a party to the Statute, there could be jurisdiction over U.S. leaders if the Security Council referred the matter to the Court. That will not happen because the United States would veto such a referral. If US leaders are found on the territory of a country that is a party to the Statute, that country could send them to The Hague, Netherlands for prosecution. But the Bush administration blackmailed 100 countries into signing “bilateral immunity agreements,” promising they would not send US nationals to The Hague on penalty of losing U.S. foreign aid.

Other countries can prosecute foreign nationals under the well-established doctrine of “universal jurisdiction.” But since Bush initiated his war on Iraq, no nation has been willing to incur the wrath of the United States by maintaining such an action against a U.S. leader.

Nick Turse and Bob Dreyfuss documented the killing of as many as 6,481 Afghan civilians by U.S. forces from October 2001 through 2012. The U.S. government has killed large numbers of civilians in its drone attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. But Obama rarely apologizes to or compensates the victims. It is only because a Western-based organization was hit and the attendant media coverage has been so overwhelming that led Obama to apologize to MSF.

MSF’s advance provision of the hospital’s coordinates to U.S. forces, its notifications during the bombing, its denial that any fire was coming from the hospital, and the Pentagon’s shifting rationales for the bombing constitute probable cause that a war crime was committed.

Obama should consent to a full, independent, impartial investigation of the hospital bombing by IHFFC. If that investigation shows that war crimes probably occurred, appropriate prosecutions of the U.S. chain of command should ensue.

This piece first appeared at TeleSUR.

While the regional tensions caused by the haze pollution from Indonesia seem to be easing off, they are emblematic of the recurring challenges that undergird Singapore’s relations with its neighbours. Issues around bad air, airspace and assets continue to trouble ties with Indonesia.

By Barry Desker*

The haze enveloping Singapore today highlights the significance of our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. Just as we cannot escape the devastating impact on our health of ‘slash-and-burn’ techniques to clear forested land in Sumatra for palm oil plantations, as neighbours, emerging trends in Indonesia will have an impact on Singapore.

Generally excellent bilateral ties during the years when President Suharto led Indonesia from 1967 to 1998 have been followed by more challenging interactions as Singapore adjusted to the rise of populist democracy in Indonesia. There has been a sharp increase in bilateral exchanges over the years, both at the political and business levels as well as a rise in tourism, increasing student and community exchanges, together with Singapore’s emergence as a major investor in Indonesia and growing bilateral trade. But there are undercurrents which should not be ignored.

Recurring theme in ties

As hotly contested regional elections take place in Indonesia in December 2015, there is a risk that Singapore will be a target of criticism in provincial and district (kabupaten) electoral campaigns in Sumatra, especially in areas where power holders have worked well with Singapore such as in Riau and Jambi. Their critics will highlight the willingness of these incumbents to subordinate Indonesia’s interests to the lure of Singapore’s cash and benefits. A younger generation of internet-savvy Indonesians are also likely to take nationalistic postures and criticisms of Singapore risk going viral.

A recurrent theme in our bilateral relationship has been the mix of envy, fear and suspicion in the minds of some quarters in Indonesia, which has coloured their perceptions of Singapore. They feel that Singapore has succeeded at Indonesia’s expense and that tiny Singapore should be grateful for benefitting from Indonesia. Commenting on the haze, Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla said, “for eleven months, [Singapore and Malaysia] enjoyed nice air from Indonesia and they never thanked us. They have suffered for one month because of the haze and they get upset”.

In dealing with Indonesia, we should anticipate such a ‘big brother’ mindset, even from circles in Indonesia generally friendly towards Singapore. While President B.J. Habibie’s ‘little red dot’ reference to Singapore in 1998 has achieved iconic status in Singapore, most Indonesians are unaware of the reference and of the original derogatory usage.

Underlying the approach of many Indonesian policymakers is the belief that Singapore has no natural resources and benefits from exploiting Indonesia. The self-image is that of Indonesia as a pretty girl courted by everyone at the party. It is not perceived as a relationship of equals but one where Singapore is dependent on Indonesia. Bilateral relations are challenging due to three reasons: bad air or the haze; airspace and assets.

First: bad air

In 2013, at the height of the haze season, then-Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare Agung Laksono complained that “Singapore shouldn’t be behaving like a child and making all this noise”. He added that Indonesia would reject any Singapore offer of financial aid to assist in quelling the forest fires unless it was a large amount.

Singapore offered Indonesia a Haze Assistance Package including aircraft, helicopter, satellite imagery and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) fire-fighting teams and equipment while requesting concession maps and names of errant companies so that we could take action against them. These requests have either been ignored or rejected.

When asked why Indonesia declined Singapore’s offer of assistance, the Minister of the Environment and Forestry, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, said that if the offer of assistance was for 40 planes, and not just one, then maybe the offer could be considered. Indonesia last week accepted offers of aid from foreign countries, including Singapore. But it has taken weeks to come to this position. The irony is that it is Indonesian citizens in Sumatra and Kalimantan who are feeling the worst effects of the forest fires.

Second: airspace

Indonesian politicians and military personnel have also called for Indonesia to ‘take back’ areas over Riau within Indonesian airspace which have formed part of the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR) since 1946, when the International Civil Aviation Organisation allocated the area to Singapore based on operational and technical considerations. The FIR assigned to Singapore includes some of the territorial airspace of Malaysia and Indonesia, and such overlaps are common in many parts of the world including Europe, Africa and South America. The Jakarta FIR, for example, also covers Timor Leste territorial airspace.

While the Indonesians argue that this is their sovereign right as it is part of their territorial airspace, Singapore has managed the FIR as a public good focusing on operational efficiency and the safety of navigation in increasingly crowded skies. The Indonesian media frequently misrepresents Singapore’s management of the FIR claiming that Singapore profits from air navigation charges, delays planes taking off or landing at Batam to accommodate Changi’s traffic and discriminates against Indonesian airlines in flight level allocation. None of this is true.

The fees collected by Singapore are remitted annually to Indonesia and there is proper accounting between the two countries while traffic movements are handled solely on the basis of operational efficiency. A former Indonesian Air Force Chief of Staff even claimed that Singapore would be “destroyed” if Indonesia took over the FIR, simplistically concluding that Singapore’s role as an air transport hub would be undermined and our entire economy would be ruined.

Third: assets and corruption

Indonesian politicians have also blamed Singapore for harbouring alleged Indonesian ‘corruptors’ and their ‘illegal funds’. In an interview on Indonesia’s proposed amnesty for financial crimes, the Minister of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro, said: “We spend our time cursing corruptors but they are safe in Singapore.” He also cited a McKinsey study which estimated that the value of Indonesian assets in Singapore amounted to US$300 billion. Indonesian officials also claim that Singapore has obstructed their finance-related investigations.

When MAS announced that it would no longer issue the $10,000 note from October 2014 because of the risk associated with large-value cash transactions and high-value notes, Indonesian officials claimed that Singapore had given in to Indonesian “pressure”. Singapore has consistently and publicly refuted these allegations, and has in fact been assisting Indonesia’s investigation requests. But such claims will recur. The ability of alleged criminals to leave the country legally will be ignored. The Indonesian authorities have found it more convenient to blame others than deal with the real causes.

I had the experience of meeting a friend from my posting in Jakarta at the Nadaman restaurant in Singapore. He owed his creditors US$500 million and was a fugitive but had left Indonesia legally and was carrying a valid Indonesian passport. He left the restaurant after paying my bill with his diamond credit card! I was hosting some of my former colleagues and was surprised when I wanted to pay at the end of our meal so I asked the manager to see the bill. As the credit card was from one of his creditor banks, I concluded that we had all enjoyed the hospitality of his bankers!

This is not an isolated case. A tax official, Gayus Tambunan, who was convicted of tax evasion of 160 billion rupiah was caught on camera watching an international tennis tournament in Bali in November 2010. He had earlier been seen shopping on Orchard Road with his wife, having travelled legally to Singapore. Relocated to a special prison in Bandung for those convicted for corruption, he was spotted having a meal at a restaurant in Jakarta recently!

Regional spillovers

Singapore benefits when our neighbours enjoy political stability and economic growth. We want them to do well. However, we need to bear in mind that there are groups in Indonesia as well as Malaysia that do not share these sentiments. Their internal conflicts can also spill over into Singapore. As political contestation increases in Indonesia, Singapore has been an easy target to rally domestic support and deflect criticism. We cannot escape our neighbourhood. A continuing foreign policy challenge will be to differentiate ourselves from our neighbours, even as we strive to get along with them.

*Barry Desker is Distinguished Fellow and Bakrie Professor of Southeast Asia Policy, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He served as Singapore’s Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1993. This commentary first appeared in The Straits Times.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie may be favored by only about a total of 12 people in the US to be the next president, but that does not stop the mainstream media from treating him as a frontrunner. After all, what is the support of the mere lumpen-votarian when you have a mission to accomplish? So they continue to thrust the microphone into the face of the rotund one to amplify his neocon words of wisdom.

How does the governor of the state of New Jersey view Russia’s entry into the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria? He is outraged!

“Obama is a weakling,” he says. The United States should be shooting down Russian planes before they can bomb ISIS and al-Qaeda!

Is Christie just full of flatulence in a desperate attempt to gain the attention of the vast majority of the American people who already can’t stand him? The New York Times gives this one-percenter plenty of space to pontificate:

‘My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say, “Listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone,”’ Mr. Christie said on MSNBC. ‘And I mean we’re enforcing it against anyone, including you. So don’t try me. Don’t try me. Because I’ll do it.’

This is the kind of guy we want to have a finger on the nuclear trigger? No one says yes.

What to do about Putin’s entry into the war against ISIS and al-Qaeda? “You take him down,” says Christie.

Take him down. Don’t try me. I’ll do it.

These are the words of a kid bullied on the playground who grows up desperate to prove to the world he is tougher than his one-time tormenters. Most of us simply get past this unhappy stage in life, realizing there are always unpleasant people one must deal with.

But Christie never got over it. He wants to work out his childhood terrors at all of our expense. He happened to be in the general vicinity of the twin towers as they were blown to the ground, yet, shockingly, he wants us to fight in Syria for the same groups he claims took them down.

“Elect me, I’ll start World War Three,” seems a loser of a campaign slogan, but it remains to be seen how the US media will continue to distort his message to marinade it in the stars and stripes of American exceptionalism. Of course he won’t win, but he does not need to win. As Jude Wanniski – and probably Lenin – always pointed out, all the action is on the margin, not in the muddled middle. Define the outer limits of debate and you will control the debate.

“Chris Christie — you are due in make-up and will be up at the top of the hour!”

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

An old adage dictates that “once bitten, twice shy”. The 21^st century version of that adage might very well carry the addendum “with the exception of Thailand’, a country that has seen more coup d’etats than democratic elections over the past 80 years. Indeed, it has been seventeen months since General Prayuth Chan-ocha seized power in Thailand, ousting the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra and promising to reinstate democratic elections in a matter of months. The 2007 constitution was thrown out and an interim statute hastily put into place. The only remnant of the old constitution is a chapter on lèse majesté, dealing with the illegality of insults, perceived or real, to a monarch or ruler.

Since taking power, Prime Minister Prayuth has made full use of lèse majesté, not to mention article 44 of his interim constitution – the article in question is referred to as the “dictator law”. This contentious bit of legalese grants the ruling junta absolute power over all branches of the government and their internal affairs. It is essentially a throttle on free speech, free opinion, free thought and of course, political opposition. The result – journalists have been silenced, activists gagged and political enemies have been detained and subjected to “attitude adjustments” or to put it in more precise terms – reeducation of the sort the world has seen before in the former Soviet Union, China or Vietnam.

In some cases, those in violation of rule 44 have vanished from public view. A case in point – former Energy Minister Pichai Naripthaphan, disappeared shortly after posting a message on Facebook saying that he had been summoned for “another attitude adjustment”. Human Rights Watch is calling for the immediate disclosure of his whereabouts.

And while the junta had promised to step down by the end of 2014, here we are nearing the end of 2015 with no sign of a new constitution, or anything resembling a democratic election on the horizon. Cunningly, Prayuth has tied the reversal to democratic rule to the passing of a new constitution meant to “restore happiness to the people” – a constitution was hashed out by military appointees, only to be subsequently rejected earlier in September by a different group of military appointees. In a failed bid to reassure the international community and the Thai people whose patience is wearing thin, Prayuth announced a mathematical algorithm (the 6-4-6-4 rule) corresponding to the number of months the junta will take to go through the motions of writing a new fundamental document, submitting it to public debate and organizing elections. This is the third postponement and extends the rule of the military government to 2017.

It is becoming increasingly clear that this scenario could drag on for some time. As long as the Thai people have the promise, somewhere in the future, of a democratic process in the offing, they seem content. The commitment to elections, sincere or not, is their assurance that the junta is merely temporary. However, common sense and historical fact dictate that once gained and held, power becomes increasingly difficult to wrest from those who hold it.

The rest of the world has reacted in a manner that has become the norm in such matters. The European Parliament has expressed its “concern at the deteriorating human rights situation in the wake of the illegal coup”. The parliament recently issued more rhetoric and a non-binding resolution calling for the utilization of “all available instruments to ensure respect for human rights and the rule of law in Thailand, in particular by continuing to observe investigations and trial hearings of opposition leaders”. What these instruments might be is not clear – economic sanctions perhaps.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch is voicing their disapproval, and the United Nations, as usual, has done all but nothing – with the exception of having Prayuth address the General Assembly on September 29^th.  At that gathering he madeno mention of the coup, nor did he say when a sense of normalcy would return to his country. Interestingly, the theme for the 70^th General Assembly is “The United Nations at 70: the road ahead for peace, security, and human rights.”

Thailand’s woes seem to be under the radar of the rest of the world, and that oversight might be forgiven as it is a very busy time in history. News cycles are being consumed with more violent matters – a bloodless coup followed by encroachments on civil liberties do not lend themselves to a great deal of press.

And lest we forget, the US is busy in several hotspots around the globe, and have neither the means nor the political will to get mired in another mess in Southeast Asia. It might well be a different matter if oil was involved. Meanwhile, much of Europe is tied up dealing with the refuge crisis. Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin is preoccupied with setting things right in Syria.

For Thailand to return to a democratic state, the desire and drive will have to come from within, from the Thai people. Foreign intervention does not work, as has been evidenced and born out by history. As for Prayuth, seeing a very large image of his benevolent, smiling face over-looking an army concert at a Thai shopping mall, one can’t help but be reminded of none other than North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un.

And if the image isn’t scary enough, the thought of another Kim Jong-Un is.

*Grace Guo is a Vienna-based researcher, working as a Program Associate at an NGO focused on Asian politics.

By Vladimir Kozin*

Last week the biggest event that took place in Syria as part of Operation Hmeymim was the use by the Russian Navy’s Caspian Flotilla of 26 seaborne land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) that hit 11 Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra military targets inside Syria, which were located about 1,500 km. away from the missile launch site.

A massive blow using Kalibr-NK LACMs was struck from the southwestern Caspian Sea. The objects of the attack were factories producing shells and explosives; command posts; ammunition, weapon, and fuel depots; and terrorist training camps in the Syrian Governorates of Raqqa, Aleppo, and Idlib. The cruise missiles, with a Circular Error Probable of about three meters, hit every one of their targets that had been set two days earlier.

The Dagestan, a missile-armed frigate with a displacement of about 2,000 tons, acted as the flagship of the Russian naval assault force accompanied by the small missile patrol ships the Veliky Ustyug, the Grad Sviyazhsk, and the Uglich (with a displacement of about 1,000 tons). Kalibr-NK missiles are extremely difficult to detect: when maneuvering, an LACM flies at high speed in stealth mode, meaning that it emits no signals that would allow it to be tracked by radar.

Russia informed the leaders of Iraq and Iran about the trajectory of these missiles. And in order to ensure the safety of civilians, the LACMs’ flight path was routed over an uninhabited area.

What are the military and political implications of the launch?

This was the first time that Russia’s armed forces had deployed this type of weapon in an actual combat situation – not during exercises – at targets that were so far away. The second important point is that every one of the 26 missiles that were launched struck their intended targets, none deviated from their previously calculated trajectory, not one experienced a technical glitch, and none fell to earth while still on its approach to the object of the attack. (CNN’s incorrect report about four missiles crashing in Iran has been discredited, not only by Russian and Iranian sources, but also by  State Department and  Pentagon speakers). Some targets were dealt a double blow.

Thanks to a successful Caspian Operation, the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces have added an entirely new and quite significant element to their air-combat capabilities in Syria. The most important feature of an LACM is that it strikes instantly and with unparalleled accuracy. They have a hugely demoralizing effect on the enemy, because even if the moment of launch is detected, he can not even predict in what geographic area they will hit. True to form, the US persists in demanding that Moscow ban such missiles, insisting that they violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (but in fact that treaty prohibits only land-based LACMs).

This initial real-world use of long-range LACMs by Russia has significant strategic importance, because the carriers of such systems (surface vessels and submarines), stationed elsewhere in the ocean, can minimize the potential use of nuclear weapons and offensive antiballistic systems by those states that still consider the Russian Federation to be their “biggest potential enemy,” an “aggressor state,” and an “annexing state.” These high-impact weapons systems could be used for preemptive or retaliatory strikes with non-nuclear warheads.

Also, the landlocked Caspian Sea takes on strategic importance for Russia, because from there Russia can inflict surgical strikes using LACMs at the whole Middle East region, without risking countermeasures from NATO’s naval forces.

Now that the Russian armed forces have debuted such high-precision weaponry, the Pentagon can stop throwing away its money trying to build up its military options that are aimed squarely at Russia. In other words, there is no need to spend significant amounts to station American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe or to deploy its land- and sea-based antiballistic infrastructure in Romania and Poland – or in the Asia-Pacific region – since it is perfectly clear that from now on all of that will stay in the cross-hairs of not only Russian LACMs, but quite soon of some even more effective hypersonic, high-precision long-range weapons equipped with non-nuclear warheads.

One might hope that not only the Islamic State, but also Washington and NATO will arrive at immediate, tactical, and deeply strategic conclusions based on the Caspian Operation and will thus end their threats to use force against Russian aircraft and will understand that although they cannot be friends or “strategic partners” with Moscow, they must live in peace.

*Vladimir Kozin is Head of Advisers’ Group at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation.

The term “precision strike” – often associated with Western airpower – is seldom utilized to favorably describe operations undertaken by the Russian Air Force (RuAF). Indeed, the RuAF holds an abysmal record with regard to the employment of precision guided munitions (PGMs) in combat. During the First and Second Chechen Wars PGMs accounted for just 3 and 1.5% of all munitions employed by the RuAF, respectively. In the 2008 Five Day War with Georgia the figure was even lower, accounting for a mere 0.5% of all munitions utilized. The use of large numbers of unguided weapons throughout these conflicts has often resulted in excessive collateral damage and bad publicity for the Russian military. Yet, this time, Russia appears to be placing greater emphasis on the use of guided munitions during its strikes, which are being conducted as part of its military intervention in Syria on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Beginning its strikes against forces opposed to the Assad regime on September 30, Russia’s air campaign over Syria has thus far witnessed a number of different types of PGMs being employed. Perhaps most interestingly, the campaign has seen the RuAF drop satellite guided munitions in combat for the first time. KAB-500S (500kg) bombs can clearly be seen in video footage from Russia’s military airbase in Latakia attached to pylons under the fuselage of Russia’s advanced Su-34 strike fighters. These weapons are guided by GLONASS – the Russian equivalent of the American Global Position System (GPS) – and reportedly offer similar accuracy to the renowned US GPS guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Unlike electro-optical and laser guided munitions, satellite guided weapons are unaffected by adverse weather conditions and tend to be significantly cheaper than their aforementioned counterparts.

In addition to the KAB-500S, Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency reported on Saturday October 3 that RuAF Su-34s were also supposedly employing smaller 250kg KAB-250 guided munitions in their efforts against ISIS. First revealed to the public in 2011, the KAB-250 offers a combined GLONASS and electro-optical guidance capability, and currently constitutes the smallest PGM in the RuAF’s arsenal, making it useful for accurately engaging a wide range of small targets.

The use of satellite guided munitions marks a major step forward in Russia’s precision strike capability since the 2008 Five Day War during which Russian forces made no use of such weapons as GLONASS was not yet fully operational and as attempts to use the American GPS reportedly failed because the United States had temporarily “blanked out” the map of Georgia (it also remains unclear whether any satellite guided munitions were operational and available to the RuAF in meaningful numbers at the time).

Other PGMs being employed by RuAF Su-24s, Su-25s and Su-34s over Syria reportedly include the Kh-29L and, as evident by this video, Kh-25ML short-range laser-guided air-to-surface missiles, both of which have a maximum range of approximately 10km (6 miles). The Kh-29L’s large 500kg warhead makes it effective against a wide range of targets including command centers and storage depots, while the much lighter Kh-25ML is useful against small and mobile targets. Video footage released by the Russian MoD of RuAF strikes against a munitions depot near Maarrat al-Nu’man also suggests the use of KAB-500Kr electro-optically guided bombs in the strikes. Finally, RuAF aircraft operating over Syria have demonstrated the ability to deliver unguided munitions – or “dumb bombs” – with relatively high accuracy, as evident by an October 3 video released by the Russian MoD portraying an alleged Su-34 strike on a hardened ISIS command center near the terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa using BETAB-500 unguided bunker-busting bombs that appear to hit their target.

Commenting on the aftermath of a large number of RuAF strikes across Syria, Russian MoD spokesman, Lt. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, stated that “the targeting systems of those planes allows for hitting ground targets with absolute precision…” The statement, complementing numerous videos from Russian aircraft released by the MoD which exhibit the alleged “absolute precision” of these strikes, is part of an aggressive Russian PR campaign aimed at consolidating support for Russian operations in Syria and creating the image of a powerful and modern Russian military. Yet, as many Western analysts have correctly noted, footage from strikes conducted on September 30 appears to show the bombs missing their targets – on one occasion even by a wide margin. This serves as a stark reminder that, despite being able to occasionally deliver unguided munitions relatively accurately (as was the case in the October 3 example above), employing unguided weapons effectively is much more difficult and riskier than PGMs.

More recent footage released by the Russian MoD appears to show munitions hitting their targets with much higher accuracy and suggests a greater use of PGMs; however, aircraft bombing with large numbers of unguided munitions continue to be a common sight. While employing unguided weapons in large quantities may be an effective approach of combating ISIS and other insurgency in open areas where the risk of collateral damage is low, it is unsuitable for densely populated areas where a bomb falling short of its mark may lead to excessive casualties. Nor does this approach contribute to the prestige of the Russian military; as USAF Deputy Chief for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), Lt. Gen. Robert P. Otto, remarked with regard to Russian strikes on October 1: “To me, it was representative of what you’d expect from dumb bombs, being dropped from airplanes at medium altitudes, which is not that impressive.”

Another interesting aspect of Russia’s air campaign in Syria is the apparent more extensive use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for conducting battle damage assessment (BDA) and other ISR tasks – a major step forward from the Chechen Wars during which UAVs saw only limited use, and the Five Day War during which Russian UAVs were not used at all. However, the UAVs being utilized appear to be 1990s designs; very basic and outdated by Western standards. Similarly, the RuAF’s targeting pods are not up to the standard of their Western counterparts either, thereby making the acquisition and identification of targets more difficult for Russian pilots, particularly at night.

The RuAF currently enjoys the luxury of operating in a permissive air space and relying on its own ground assets as well as friendly forces in the form of the Syrian Army and Iranian troops for assistance with coordinating strikes. But, beyond Russia’s counter-insurgency operation in Syria, how will the RuAF and its equipment perform in combat against a more capable adversary in a medium or highly-contested environment? This is a question Western observers, Russian allies, and potential buyers of Russian arms are all asking. Bombing targets accurately with unguided munitions in contested environments under extremely stressful and challenging combat conditions is not a feasible option. Nor is possible to conduct ISR missions in such environments with Russia’s current unmanned aerial assets.

Likewise, while older RuAF aircraft taking part in the strikes – the Su-24M2 and the Su-25SM – are heavily modernized variants of 1960s and 1970s designs fitted with advanced Russian avionics, a large portion of aircraft in service with the RuAF remain outdated (despite extensive ongoing modernization efforts) and lack the means to accurately deliver unguided munitions or carry a wide assortment of PGMs. It also remains questionable whether Russia will be capable of sustaining this ambitious modernization effort – aimed at modernizing 70% its equipment by 2020 – considering the extensive ongoing strains on the Russian economy. Consequently, while the current operation does indicate a significant improvement over previous experiences in Chechnya and Georgia, it is perhaps a little early to welcome the RuAF into the precision strike club.

*Guy Plopsky is a GIIASS graduate and a researcher at the Center for Advanced Technology, Tamkang University (Taiwan).

By Ignacio Molina and Miguel Otero-Iglesias*

Catalan independentismo won the recent regional elections. But it lost the so-called plebiscite on secession. As a result, Catalonia now faces a difficult future with its society divided and the links with the rest of Spain deeply eroded.

To understand the “Catalan question” it is important to bear in mind that until recently Catalonian society was roughly split into three parts.

One-third was formed by the communion of the rural population and the urban middle and upper classes who feel that Catalonia is a stand-alone nation due to its own language and culture, and greater prosperity than the rest of Spain.

The second third, which is sociologically less cohesive, was formed by descendants of immigrants from other Spanish regions who retain a predominantly Spanish identity and have Castilian as their mother tongue.

The last third has traditionally been made up of those with a shared Spanish-Catalan identity who tend to be truly bilingual. This mixed and complex sociological structure resulted in the dominance in Catalonia of two big moderate parties: the Catalan branch of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE-PSC) on the center-left and the regionalist Convergencia i Unió (CiU) on the center-right — which was in office for most of the period 1980-2010.

The political status quo changed around 2010 for a number of reasons. CiU has been successful in using the regional administrative apparatus for a Catalan nation-building process and many citizens with a shared identity have become predominantly Catalan.

From 2009 onward, Catalonia, like the rest of Spain, experienced its biggest economic crisis since the Civil War. Austerity started to bite. In addition, in 2010 the Spanish Constitutional Court accepted the suit presented by the Spanish center-right People’s Party (PP) and partially outlawed the new home rule (Estatut) that the Catalonian parliament had agreed with the then socialist prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. In parallel, in 2011 the Scottish National Party won a majority in Edinburgh and started negotiations with London to celebrate a binding referendum for independence, which eventually took place in 2014, showing a plausible precedent for democratic secession within Europe.

All these elements have radicalized Catalan nationalism both on the left, which despises the conservative PP government in Madrid (as Scottish nationalists do the Tories in London), and on the increasingly populist center-right, which strives for full fiscal autonomy.

This increased polarization is apparent in the results of last Sunday´s elections. Most of the pro-independence camp, with the exception of the anti-capitalist CUP, had united to create a single list (Junts Pel Sí, or JPS,“Together for Yes”) and had announced that they would present a unilateral declaration of independence if they achieved a majority of seats (68 out of 135 seats).

Once the ballots were counted, it was clear that the parties campaigning for a single identity — either Catalonian (JPS or the CUP) or predominantly Spanish (such as Ciudadanos) — did well, with the exception of the PP, which is increasingly a minor actor in Catalonia. Those that favor more mixed identity politics, such as the PSC, Unió (the moderate flank of the former CiU) and the coalition around Podemos, performed disappointingly.

In other words, these elections have accentuated the identity split, not only because of the results, but also because the campaign was not based on a rational debate on whether it makes economic sense to have full fiscal autonomy or leave the EU, the eurozone or NATO. Rather, it pandered to nationalistic feelings and prejudices, particularly on the secessionist side.

The PP central government in Madrid is partially responsible for the rise of Catalan separatism. It has shown scant political flexibility, little sensitivity towards Catalan identity, especially on the language dimension, and has attempted to re-centralize power.

Its position is difficult. On the economic front, there is a desire by the business community to have a genuine single market in Spain, instead of 17 regional markets. On the political side, the Spanish Constitution says that Spain is a “nation with minor nationalities,” not a nation of nations like the U.K.  Furthermore, the current semi-federal devolved system empowers the other autonomous regions to veto any further transfer of fiscal autonomy from Madrid to Barcelona that would surely reduce the funding of the poorest ones.

It is therefore debatable that a solution can be found in a binding referendum. The U.K. is an exception and not the norm. Almost no other country in the world has legal provisions to undertake an independence referendum, particularly when there is a divided demographic for identity and ethno-linguistic reasons. A referendum in Catalonia would only exacerbate the polarization. In this regard, although Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy can be criticized for his inaction, his silences have at least not contributed to increasing social tension.

So what will happen next? Sunday’s results cannot be understood as a democratic mandate for a unilateral declaration of independence. Although the pro-independence camp (JPS & CUP) got an absolute majority of seats (72 out of 135), they received only 48 percent of the vote. This is a significant increase on the pro-indepencence population of less than one-third 10 years ago, but far from an outright majority. It is even questionable whether the JPS leader Artur Mas will stay in power, since the CUP has explicitly rejected offering him their support. Thus, the pro-independence camp has not only less power than is assumed — it would not even have enough seats to propose a reform of the Catalan Estatut — it is also ideologically split.

Ultimately, what happens in Catalonia will depend on the results of the Spanish elections in December. It is very likely that the new government in Madrid will be more open to negotiations with Barcelona on more symbolic recognition and fiscal powers. The Socialists, led by Pedro Sánchez, have already announced that they favor a federal “third way”; and even Rajoy has stated that while the current legislature was centered on tackling the economic crisis, the next one will focus on the reorganization of the Spanish state.

Although demonstrably difficult, this third way might be accepted by most Catalans, just as “devo-max” was by the Scots. Our prediction: Political tensions related to Catalonia will run for a very long time. But independence remains a remote possibility.

*About the authors:
Ignacio Molina (@_ignaciomolina) and Miguel Otero-Iglesias (@miotei) are senior analysts at the Elcano Royal Institute

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

This article was published on October 2, 2015 in Politico.eu.

Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, ex-president of India, died on July 27 of this year. Although I never had the privilege of meeting him personally but always admired him greatly. He was an extraordinary human being. He was a scientist, aeronautical engineer and writer who became the eleventh President of India, serving from 2002-2007. But above all his achievements, he was a very humble man, a great teacher and a splendid inspirer.

In spite of being a very spiritual Muslim who would often quote the 13th century Sufi Master Mowlana Rumi in his speeches, he became the most beloved president in the history of India whose population is mostly Hindu.

During his decorated 40-year scientific career, Dr. Kalam pioneered India’s space, missile and nuclear programs, earning him the nickname “Missile man of India”. Some of the posts he held include director of India’s first satellite launch vehicle, chief of the guided missile development program and chief scientific adviser to the Prime Minister. He catalyzed India in ways that no one was able to since the days of MK Gandhi.

Born 84 years ago in October 15, 1931 in Dhanushkodi, India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam joined India’s defense department after graduating from the Madras Institute of Technology. He was a central figure in the development of the country’s nuclear capabilities, and was hailed as a national hero after a series of successful tests in 1998.

Despite his modest beginnings – his dad built and rented boats – Kalam was a bright student who showed promise in science and mathematics. He attended St. Joseph’s College, and went on to earn a degree in aeronautical engineering from the Madras Institute of Technology.

His hope of becoming a fighter pilot was dashed when he narrowly missed out on a spot with the Indian Air Force. Kalam instead joined the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) as a senior scientific assistant in 1958. After moving to the newly formed Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in 1969, he was named project director of the SLV-III, the first satellite launch vehicle designed and produced on Indian soil.

Returning to the DRDO as director in 1982, Kalam implemented the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. He then became the senior scientific adviser to India’s defense minister in 1992, a position he used to campaign for the development of nuclear tests.

Kalam was a key figure in the May 1998 Pokhran-II tests, in which five nuclear devices were detonated in the Rajasthan Desert. Although the tests resulted in condemnation and economic sanctions from other world powers, Kalam was hailed as a national hero for his stanch defense of the country’s security.

Throughout his career as a scientist, one of Dr. Kalam’s goals was to inspire and motivate the youth of India to get excited about science and knowledge. For instance, after his position as chief scientific adviser ended in 1999, Dr. Kalam announced he would personally meet at least 100,000 students in a two year period to help spread the word of science.

In 2002, India’s ruling National Democratic Alliance led by BJP helped Dr. Kalam win an election against Lakshmi Sahgal and he become India’s 11th president, a largely ceremonial post. The opposition Indian National Congress also supported his Presidency.

As a President, Dr. Kalam was different and disregarding his customary ceremonial role, he worked hard to reach out to the youth of India and inspire them. Known as the People’s President, Dr. Kalam set a goal of conducting 500,000 one-on-one meetings with young people over the course of his five-year term. [I doubt if there is a single head of state alive today that even met a tenth of those numbers in his/her entire career.] His immense popularity led to him being nominated by MTV for a Youth Icon of the Year award in 2003 and 2006.

After leaving office in 2007, Dr. Kalam became a visiting professor at several universities. He formed the “What Can I Give Movement” in 2011 with the goal of creating a compassionate society, and in 2012, his efforts to improve healthcare led to the release of a tablet for medical personnel to use in remote areas. Never married, he lived a very simple life who would be waiting patiently for a bus, having breakfast at his favorite teashop, talking to people from backgrounds as humble as that which he had outgrown. In this simplicity lay the secret of his ability to connect with people, across the boundaries of age, class, religion and region.

On July 27, 2015, Dr. Kalam suffered a massive heart attack while lecturing at the Indian Institute of Management, Shillong and subsequently died at the age of 83.

Dr. Kalam was a deeply spiritual man who practiced what he preached, shunning material possessions and rewards. The only material goods Dr. Kalam coveted were books, owning over 2500 of them. His only other possessions were a watch, six shirts, four pants, three suits and a pair of shoes. He did not own any property, a fridge, TV, car or air conditioner.

According to his former media advisor, “He [Dr. Kalam] would never accept a gift, save a book, and whenever somebody brought him a packed gift and tried to pass it off as a book, he insisted on examining what was inside. Anything other than the book was politely returned.”

Dr. Kalam was laid to rest on July 30 with full state honors in his native Tamil Nadu. Over 350,000 people attended his funeral in his home town of Rameswaram.

In honor of the scientist and former president, the southeast Indian state government of Tamil Nadu created a “Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Award,” which recognizes exceptional individuals who promote the sciences, students and humanities. The government has also established Dr. Kalam’s birthday (October 15) as “Youth Renaissance Day.” Discussion about building a large-scale memorial at his burial site is underway.

Wheeler Island – located off the coast of Odisha, which is one of India’s key missile testing facilities, will be named after President APJ Abdul Kalam. Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik announced the move on Monday joining a league of state governments who have taken to honor Dr Kalam, considered the father of India’s missile program and a widely loved public figure. Fondly remembered as the ‘People’s President’, his death was mourned widely. The government of Delhi announced it would rename a key road at the heart of the capital city after the former President last week while the Bihar government named an agriculture college after him.

Among his many accolades, including honorary doctorates from 40 universities, he was granted the Padma Bhushan (1981), the Padma Vibhushan (1990) and the Bharat Ratna (1997) — India’s highest civilian awards — for his contributions in modernizing government defense technology. He also wrote several books, including the autobiography Wings of Fire in 1999.

Dr Kalam was a very wise man whose worth is difficult to measure by anyone. To Shashi Tharoor, probably India’s best known diplomat, Dr. Kalam “was a complete Indian, an embodiment of the eclecticism of India’s heritage of diversity.” “In his life and his work, APJ Abdul Kalam embodied the best of what India can be. India has never had a more beloved president. Active till the end, he left the world in mid-speech, as if to remind us that he still had something more to say.”

Here below are 37 quotations from him that I found worth sharing.

1. Only the person who has the courage to lose sight of the shore can discover new oceans.
2. Life is a very complex interplay of various factors and there has to be acceptance of the risks inherent in coping with it and yet keep moving on.
3. Determination is the power that sees us through all our frustrations and obstacles. It helps in building our willpower which is the very basis of success.
4. No matter what you achieve, you should never be completely satisfied and should always be searching for ways to prove yourself.
5. You have to dream before your dreams can come true.
6. Great dreams of great dreamers are always transcended.
7. If you want to leave your footprints on the sands of time do not drag your feet.
   Dream, Dream, Dream, Dreams transform into thoughts and thoughts result in action.
8. Never give up on your dreams no matter how old you are, no matter where you are today. Do not give up dreaming for a better tomorrow.
9. There is no success without failure. Failures are just intermittent blockades. Success is the final destination.
10. Do not wait for something big to happen, start where you are with whatever you have.
11. To succeed in life and achieve results, you must understand and must master three mighty forces – desire, belief and expectation.
12. Man needs his difficulties because they are necessary to enjoy success.
13. Let me define a leader. He must have vision and passion and not be afraid of any problem. Instead, he should know how to defeat it. Most importantly, he must work with integrity.
14. To succeed in your mission, you must have single-minded devotion to your goal.
15. God, our Creator, has stored within our minds and personalities, great potential strength and ability. Prayer helps us tap and develop these powers.
16. Excellence is a continuous process and not an accident.
17. One of the very important characteristics of a student is to question. Let the students ask questions.
18. Failure will never overtake me if my determination to succeed is strong enough.
19. Don’t take rest after your first victory because if you fail in second, more lips are waiting to say that your first victory was just luck.
20. All Birds find shelter during a rain. But Eagle avoids rain by flying above the clouds.
21. Man needs difficulties in life because they are necessary to enjoy the success.
22. If you want to shine like a sun: first burn like a sun.
23. All of us do not have equal talent. But, all of us have an equal opportunity to develop our talents.
24. Be more dedicated to making solid achievements than in running after swift but synthetic happiness.
25. Thinking should become your capital asset, no matter whatever ups and downs you come across in your life.
26. Those who cannot work with their hearts achieve but a hollow, half-hearted success that breeds bitterness all around.
27. Without your involvement you can’t succeed. With your involvement you can’t fail.
28. My message, especially to young people is to have courage to think differently, courage to invent, to travel the unexplored path, courage to discover the impossible and to conquer the problems and succeed. These are great qualities that they must work towards. This is my message to the young people.
29. When your hopes and dreams and goals are dashed, search among the wreckage, you may find a golden opportunity hidden in the ruins.
30. The best performances are accomplished when you are relaxed and free of doubt.
31. Before God trusts you with success, you have to prove yourself humble enough to handle the big prize.
32. A leader can only be free to lead his team if he keeps abreast of all that is happening around him—in real time.
33. To be a successful team leader, one has to stay back after the din and clutter of a working day to emerge better-equipped and ready to face a new day.
    Life is a difficult game. You can win it only by retaining your birthright to be a person.
34. He who knows others is learned, but the wise one is the one who knows himself. Learning without wisdom is of no use.
35. If a country is to be corruption free and become a nation of beautiful minds, I strongly feel there are three key societal members who can make a difference. They are the father, the mother and the teacher.
36. There are boundaries that dictate life: you can only lift so much weight; you can only learn so fast; you can only work so hard; you can only go so far!
37. “Learning uses creativity, creativity leads to thinking, thinking provides knowledge and knowledge makes you great. Righteousness are moral principles learnt in a spiritual environment from our parents and teachers. When there is righteousness in the heart, there is beauty in the character; when there is beauty in the character, there is harmony in the home; when there is harmony in the home, there is order in the nation and when there is order in the nation, there is peace in the world. Courage is to think different, to discover impossible, to combat the problem and succeed and to travel into an unexplored path.” ~ Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam

How did Dr. Kalam sum up himself? In his book ‘Wings of Fire’, he wrote, “My story—the story of the son of Jainulabdeen, who lived for over a hundred years on Mosque Street in Rameswaram island and died there; the story of a lad who sold newspapers to help his brother; the story of a pupil reared by Sivasubramania Iyer and Iyadurai Solomon; the story of a student taught by teachers like Pandalai; the story of an engineer spotted by MGK Menon and groomed by the legendary Prof. Sarabhai; the story of a scientist tested by failures and setbacks; the story of a leader supported by a large team of brilliant and dedicated professionals. This story will end with me, for I have no belongings in the worldly sense. I have acquired nothing, built nothing, possess nothing—no family, sons, daughters.”

But I am sure Dr. Kalam’s story will not end with his burial in a Muslim grave in Tamil Nadu but would continue to be told and retold because he was able to ignite the minds of so many – tens of millions not just in India but all over the globe. His indomitable spirit will live along with us and continue to inspire the generations to come. May Allah have mercy on him!

Speaking at the opening ceremony for today’s ceasefire signing, Burma’s President Thein Sein said, “The NCA [national ceasefire agreement] is a historic gift from us to the generations of the future.

“This is our heritage.”

He was succeeded on the stage by Karen National Union leader Mutu Say Poe, before all signatories took turns at signing the accord at 9:41 am.

Nearly a thousand government ministers, ethnic leaders, foreign diplomats, dignitaries and witnesses attended the event at the Myanmar International Convention Centre II in Naypyidaw on Thursday morning, and the sense of history was in the air as the government looks to officially call a truce to a civil conflict that has lasted 67 years – arguably the longest running civil war in the world.

Representatives from the United Nations, European Union, India, China, Japan and Thailand are acting as witnesses as eight rebel groups sign a ceasefire accord with the government, led by Thein Sein and Commander-in-Chief Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing.

But the truce is overshadowed by controversy as a majority of ethnic groups have declined to sign. In addition, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has snubbed the event. Central Committee member Win Htein represented the National League for Democracy instead.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena invited university lecturers to get together with commitment to serve the country with their knowledge, understanding and professional experience, irrespective of political divisions.

Sirisena made this appeal during a special meeting he had with university lecturers yesterday (Oct. 13) at the President’s Official Residence. The meeting was organized with the aim of obtaining the assistance of university lecturers for the national development.

“If anybody in the current government is engaged in fraud, corruption or indiscretion, I will take any action against them”, Sirisena emphasized.

Sirisena further invited them to contribute the way forward which demonstrates specific characteristics of a government based on Good Governance. “Every attempt by the new government is not for private expectations, but for fulfilling of common aspirations”, Sirisena said.

The President said this is the best time to employ the knowledge gained as intellectuals, for the benefit of the country. Sirisena pointed out the ability to contribute the national development program through the engagement with researches required by the country, adding of new knowledge and implementation of policies.

The University lecturers expressed their appreciation for holding this meeting, paying respect for their knowledge, experience and professional maturity. They also stated they would do their best to bring the victory to the good governance program carried out by the current government.

By John O. Kakonge*

PLANNING LICENCES

LAPSSET is an extremely large project that will affect Kenya, South Sudan and Ethiopia. It will create many complex issues, including questions of land rights involving a world heritage site, the rights of marginalized communities, compensation for displacement, the laying of an oil pipeline, and construction of a refinery. Unfortunately, the project was launched without the conduct of a comprehensive transboundary EIA by all the countries involved: that gap notwithstanding, political leaders played a major role in the approval process. Today, questioning the LAPSSET EIA after the project has been launched by the leaders of the participating countries could be interpreted, at best, as dissent, at worst, as subversion.

In the case of NTHIP, a project funded by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Chinese Government, NEMA required the project to be subject to an EIA, and the AfDB required an ESIA (Environmental and Social Impact Assessment). Under pressure from politicians, the project gained approval despite serious shortcomings in both the EIA and the ESIA.

Securing a planning licence is not the end of the EIA process, for the process also includes a management plan to be annexed to the EIA report that covers problems to be mitigated through monitoring and auditing. Sadly, this requirement is clearly paid much less heed than the need to acquire a planning licence. How else to explain six-story apartment blocks on half-acre plots in Nairobi’s Lavington and Kileleshwa suburbs? Or roads built so that they flood and become dangerous in heavy rain? From the look of things it seems that there is almost no enforcement of the rules once a planning licence is granted.

SUBJECTIVITY

Another problem, as Haie (2006) argues, is subjectivity, which appears to be an inescapable and integral part of the EIA process. As Mostert (1996) states, “subjectiveness occurs whenever the results of an EIA are influenced by the subjective norms, values, and interests of one or more of the parties involved”. This could explain why, in preparing the EIA for the Nairobi-Thika Highway Improvement Project (NTHIP), some of the project’s impacts were seriously downplayed, especially those concerning water quality, water flow rates and volume, soil degradation and soil contamination (Barczewski, 2013). Moreover, mitigation plans for the noise and vibrations caused by construction were entirely absent; and Barczewski shows that the NTHIP EIA suffered from a lack of credible information, particularly on social and community issues. It appears that the Ministry of Works and the Kenya National Highway Authority were reluctant to engage with NGOs and community organizations because they feared that such consultations would slow down the project.

Similarly in the LAPSSET project, the EIA process is full of uncertainties regarding such issues as land rights, compensation and disruption of livehoods, status and protection of world heritage site, etc. Critical information on the project has not been shared with the stakeholders since it was launched in 2012. Ideally, to minimize the extent to which subjectivity is able to influence large-scale projects, such as NTHIP and LAPSET, EIAs should make space for more democratic participation and be less technical in their presentation and content, to enable all stakeholders to get involved in the process.

CORRUPTION

Corruption is a further challenge hindering the EIA process in Kenya. Many project proponents give NEMA staff something under the table and, in turn, these officials turn a blind eye when necessary (Barcweski, 2013). Barczewski adds that, even though the lead agencies are involved, NEMA can simply ignore their comments. This was the case with Silver Crest Limited for a project in the Marine Park in Mombasa and Cobra Corner in a Mara Triangle project. Issuance of the EIA licences for these two projects was in all likelihood facilitated by political pressure or corruption (Barcweski, 2013). Furthermore, there is little need for a developer to spend money obtaining an EIA if he knows that NEMA will not review it.

LAPSSET furnishes another example of the workings of corruption: the feasibility study carried out before the EIA was very expensive but entirely untransparent, because a number of people had vested interests. According to Richard Trillo (2011) in his article “The Lamu Port Corridor: Fantasy or Fraud”, LAPSSET is a “massive white elephant consultancy project with the biggest possible offer to benefit every party involved without, in the end, delivering a feasible programme for actually carrying out the work.” Moreover, Noor (2014) adds that the developers and their government cronies paid scant regard to an EIA: those who lost their land are still waiting for compensation a year later. In short, Noor (2014) regretfully concludes that the entire process is nothing more or less than a scam which is riddled with corruption. The process of acquiring a port has become a massive fraud: it has been exploited by corrupt civil servants and land dealers to make a fortune for bogus claimants who have no land but still expect compensation (Noor, 2014). Clearly, corruption plays a very important part in the EIA process in Kenya.

LACK OF CAPACITY

An additional problem faced by EIAs is the lack of capacity in Kenya to carry out such assessments to the necessary standard. While there are a number of companies which, in theory at least, have the expertise needed to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the reality is that those which are available are far from being acceptable examples of the genre: most are nothing more than consultants’ reports commissioned to enable a developer to get a planning licence.

According to Barczewrski (2013) and Vasquez (2013), NEMA has neither the necessary expertise to review EIS reports nor enough money to hire external experts to do the work. Corruption has killed any incentive that the available professionals may once have had to perfect their work in the field of EIA. If NEMA does not have the funds to recruit environmental officers and to send them out into the counties, county governments must fund the recruitment and training of their own staff with environmental and related backgrounds if they are to guard against the problems that Barcweski quotes from Barasa, namely, that NEMA does not visit upcountry projects. For their part, Barnes and Boyle (2015) recommend that staff of organizations such as NEMA engaged in the preparation of EIAs should have a good understanding of the entire EIA process – including both technical and administrative aspects – instead of merely being involved in processing paper work.

LACK OF POLITICAL WILL

The 1999 Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) is entirely clear on the need for EIAs. Unfortunately, its importance is not universally appreciated. According to Barszewski (2013), what developers endeavour to do is to recruit a NEMA staff member to prepare their EIA so that they are assured of getting a planning licence and their projects can proceed. The example of LAPSSET shows another way of circumventing the EIA requirement: as a flagship project under the Kenya Government’s Vision 2030, it was launched in March 2012 by Presidents Kibaki and Salva Kiir of Kenya and South Sudan without an EIA. Not only is this the wrong order in which these processes should be implemented, it also runs directly counter to section 58 of the EMCA and contravenes sections 42 and 69 of the Kenyan Constitution, which call for the government to protect the environment, natural resources and biological diversity.

Once developers have the licence in their hands, they care nothing about the eventual consequences of their project. According to Barszewski (2013), mitigation measures are neither enforced nor followed up. This is certainly the case with housing in Nairobi where, as noted above, three or four buildings can be built on a half-acre plot, leaving no room for children to play or for adult recreation. Contributing to this state of affairs is the failure by Parliament to take environmental issues seriously and the meagre budgetary allocations that it makes to NEMA. When Presidents Kibaki and Kiir launched the LAPSSET project it sent a signal that environmental issues were not important. Without strong political will and commitment, institutionalization of the EIA process in Kenya will not succeed and the environment will continue to be violated in the name of development.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

According to Barszewski (2013) and other EIA experts, a further bottleneck in the instutionalization of the Kenyan EIA process is caused by the inadequate participation of the public. Again, this is partly because developers want to avoid delays and additional costs. Moreover, most members of the public have little capacity or inclination to review EIA reports. The University of Nairobi organized six public meetings on the NTHIP: these were attended by a total of 197 people, 112 of whom said that they had no idea about the project period or cost.

This low level of public understanding could be due to the fact that the EIA documents are so difficult to understand – or to the government’s reluctance to share the reports for fear of attracting criticism. Nonetheless, article 35 of the 2010 Kenya Constitution stipulates that the government is obliged to increase public awareness and foster healthy debate of any proposed infrastructure project. Such action would help allay public concerns and prevent the need for them to rely on rumours and speculation. As noted above, the LAPSSET project was approved in July 2011 before an EIA was done, in contravention of both the EMCA and the Constitution. People were not given time to comment on the project and its components. As noted by Noor (2014), land was seized and held for over two years, and contracts were awarded despite people voicing their opposition, suspicion, disquiet, and discontent from the time the project was made public. Noor acknowledges further that civil rights groups and legal and environmental experts joined the affected people in a campaign to suspend the project and seek a review to resolve contentious issues.

The above two projects are important to the government and any delays or criticisms may be interpreted by politicians as attempts either to obstruct progress or to hinder efforts to create jobs and to reduce the country’s high unemployment levels.

QUALITY OF EIAS

EIAs prepared to date do not meet what is normally required by international standards. Some omit useful information and, as shown by the University of Nairobi’s 2013 study of the NTHIP, some important impacts are simply taken for granted. For example, there was no inbuilt monitoring system for the noise and vibration from the heavy machinery or the use of explosives (University of Nairobi, 2013). Similarly, Barszewski (2013), citing the same study, identified noise emission as a serious shortcoming of the NTHIP project. Barszewski also points out that the NTHIP designers did not consult the community on the placement of the footbridges. As reported by the Daily Nation of 29 April 2012, the bridges were thus not sited where most pedestrian traffic needed to cross the river, with the result that people risked their lives with consequent accidents and deaths.

LAPSSET has seven components and its EIAs were only prepared after the project was launched. Information on the EIAs only became available when pressure was placed on the government to release it. Unfortunately, the report released on 31 January 2012 omitted any information on the exact position of the LAPSSET corridor, or its scope, or the infrastructure of the port, its associated city, airport, and tourism resorts, or its likely impact on the outstanding universal value (OUV), or the precise boundaries of the property and buffer zones, or the management plan.

That said, however, EIAs of this low quality are not unique to Kenya: in a 2014 report prepared by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), the authors concede that the problem is widespread. According to the NCEA, only 50 of 114 NCEA prepared reports were of sufficiently high quality and the rest, especially those on land use and intensive livestock farming, were vitiated by a lack of information.

Clearly, as long as EIA reports are seen as sales documents for developers or merely box-ticking exercises for the obtention of planning licences in Kenya, their quality will continue to be poor. Good EIAs and EISs are those that can be easily monitored and evaluated.

SUMMARY

The above discussion clearly shows that, despite the existing legal framework in Kenya, the EIA process faces problems that must be solved if EIAs are to serve any function in promoting sustainable development. The two examples of large-scale projects cited in this study demonstrate the lack of political will at the highest level to accord any importance to environmental issues and the manner in which they affect the lives of ordinary Kenyans. LAPSSET is a transboundary project with seven components, most of them with serious implications for society, the economy and the environment. This project should have been subjected to a transboundary EIA with participation by the governments of South Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya and by the affected communities. The EIA conducted by the Kenya Government, which clearly demonstrate the negative impact which LAPSSET will have on a fragile ecosystem, did not in any way hinder approval of the project: it was, in fact, already in progress (Noor, 2014). As observed by Professor Goldsmith of Pwani University, Mombasa, and quoted by Noor: “The LAPSSET project is a gravy train being pushed to benefit politicians, wealthy individuals, land grabbers and a cartel of foreign investors”. As to whether Professor Goldsmith is right or not in his damning appraisal, time will tell.

For its part, lessons learned from NTHIP include the need for a clearer determination of the project’s critical impacts during the scoping stage of the EIA process; the role of public participation in the EIA process; and the need to suppress corruption.

To conclude, the issues investigated by EIAs are critical and must be taken seriously by government authorities and all other stakeholders. EIAs should form part and parcel of the planning process, especially for large scale or environmentally sensitive projects. Overall, a well-managed EIA process promotes ownership, inclusiveness, transparency, practical environmental options and partnership.

* Ambassador Dr John O. Kakonge is a freelance Principal Consultant Adviser.

REFERENCES

Barczewski, B. (2013): “How well do environmental regulations work in Kenya? The case of the Thika Highway Improvement Project”. Unpublished paper supported by the Centre for Sustainable Urban Development and the University of Nairobi.

Barnes, J.L., and Boyle, J. (2015): “The weak link in EIA effectiveness: challenges in process administration”, Proceedings of the 15th IAIA Conference, 20–23 April 2015, Florence, Italy.

Haie, N. (2006): “Subjective sustainability criteria applied to a renewable energy installation”, Engenharia Civil, vol. 27, pp. 41–49.

Mostert, E. (1996): “Subjective environmental impact assessment: causes, problems and solutions”, Impact Assessment, 14:2, pp. 191–213

Netherlands Commission for Environment Assessment (NCEA) (2014): “Quality remains of the highest importance”, NCEA Newsletter: 2014 and Beyond, July 2014,

Noor, A. (2014): “Development or fraud? Another coastal paradise to die for big oil”. Pambazuka News, issue No.666. http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category.php/features/90644

Trillo, R. (2011): “The Lamu Port Corridor: fantasy or fraud?” Rough Guide to Kenya. http://theroughguidetokenya.blogspot.co.at/2011/07/lamu-port-corridor-fraud-or-fantasy.html

University of Nairobi (2013): A scoping study report on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Thika Highway Improvement Project. chss.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/…/geography/ANNUAL%20REPORT%202013.pd..

Vasquez, P. I Kenya at a Crossroads: Hopes and Fears Concerning the Development of Oil and Gas Reserves. https://poldev.revues.org/1646

By Paulo Gorjão*

Within the space of a few days, between September 12 and 25, Afonso Dhlakama’s security escort was involved in two separate gunfights, resulting in several dead and wounded. Renamo blamed government police and military forces for the attacks in central Manica province.1 The Mozambican government, however, denied any responsibility.2 To make things worse, the national police decided to initiate criminal proceedings against the leader of Renamo and the members of his escort who took part in the second gunfight.3

It is unclear whether it will be possible to determine liability in an impartial and neutral manner. Regardless of whatever happens, the practical outcome of these two episodes is the deterioration of Mozambique’s internal crisis. One should recall that, today, peace and stability in Mozambique rest on extremely fragile foundations and also a turbulent recent past that is still very much alive in the minds of the country’s political actors. In October 2013, following attacks on Dhlakama’s party headquarters in Gorongosa by government military forces, Renamo announced the end of the October 1992 Rome General Peace Accords. The armed conflict, i.e. an undeclared civil war, lasted until August 2014 when Renamo and Frelimo signed an agreement on the cessation of military hostilities.

This understanding allowed for Renamo to participate in the October 2014 general elections — presidential, parliamentary and provincial. However, Dhlakama has not yet recognized the legitimacy of the electoral results, deeming them to be fraudulent, and shortly after demanded the right to govern the six “autonomous” provinces where he claims to have amassed the majority of the votes cast, i.e. to be the winner (Nam- pula and Niassa, in the north, and Sofala, Manica, Zambezia, and Tete, in the center).

How to overcome the political deadlock?

This is the million euro question, to which there is no answer. Certainly, the solution is not a military one, as the events in 2013 and 2014 show. The recent past testifies to the fact that armed force does not help to overcome the political deadlock, but protracts the statu quo, which any of the parties involved have the capacity to sustain on the ground for an indefinite period, despite political, economic and human costs.4 It should not be taken for granted that in the event of Dhlakama’s death — as with what happened in Angola when upon the death of Jonas Savimbi in 2002 — the door will automatically open for a political solution.

Although the renewal of the Renamo leadership would be an inevitable outcome, that would not, by itself, ensure a shift in the party’s political orientation. This uncertainty is, nonetheless, unlikely to stem forbidden temptations among the ranks of Frelimo.

This being said, good judgment points towards prioritizing negotiations, which in turn raises some questions, such as format and content. Regarding the format, it is unlikely that without resorting to an external mediator — surely that CPLP does not meet the conditions (and probably not the will) to play that role — it will be possible to sit both parties at the negotiation table.

As to the content, it is hard to imagine the Mozambican government accepting any of Dhlakama’s and Renamo’s political demands. First and foremost, that would imply Frelimo’s implicit and explicit acknowledgement of electoral fraud, which were deemed free, fair and transparent by CPLP and European Union observation missions. Secondly, the statute of autonomous provinces would certainly deprive the Mozambican state of control over current and future important sources of revenue, in particular from raw materials, such as coal in the Tete province and precious stones and other minerals in the Nampula province. Finally, an autonomous province statute would, in time, pose a risk to the Mozambican state’s integrity, i.e. fragmentation.

Unfortunately, at this point, the minimal conditions are not yet ripe for Afonso Dhlakama to back off on his political demands. That being so, and considering the current deadlock, the most likely scenario in the foreseeable future may be the aggravation of the internal crisis. An uncertain future that may call into question the viability of planned investments, threatening Mozambique’s peace and stability, as well as development and prosperity.

One final word from Lisbon on the crisis in Mozambique.

In recent years, economic relations between both countries have been increasing. Portugal is the third largest investor in Mozambique and Portuguese exports reached their all-time high in 2013. Also worth noting is the fact that these economic relations have a remarkable margin of progression and expectations are remarkably high. On the other hand, the number of Portuguese nationals living and working in Mozambique has been increasing year-on-year, something which goes hand in hand with the ongoing deepening of economic relations. The latest official data made available, from 2013, indicates that there are more than 24,000 Portuguese nationals living and working in Mozambique, whereas in 2008 they were slightly more than 6,000.5

Inescapably, the deepening of economic relations, together with the Portuguese community’s expansion and strong historical ties, adds to the increasingly preponderant position Mozambique has in Portugal’s foreign policy. It is no coincidence that both countries hold regular bilateral summits and also that Portugal regards economic, political and diplomatic relations with Mozambique as an opportunity of huge potential, perhaps as much as Angola.6

That being so, and although an official statement is yet to be made, it can be sure that the Portuguese government is following very closely and with great concern the upsurge in political and military tensions between Frelimo and Renamo.

About the author:
*Paulo Gorjão, Researcher at Portuguese Institute of International Relations and Security (IPRIS)

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints 183 (PDF)

Notes:
1 “Afonso Dhlakama acusa Frelimo de o querer eliminar” (RFI, 13 September 2015); e, “Moçambique : Dhlakama confirma ataque à Renamo” (RFI, 25 September 2015).
2 “Frelimo nega ataque contra Dhlakama” (RFI, 14 September 2015).
3 “Líder da Renamo acusado de homicídio” (RFI, 30 September 2015).
4 See Gustavo Plácido dos Santos, “Mozambique: How Big of a Threat is Renamo to the Frelimo-led Government?” (IPRIS Viewpoints, No. 171, 10 April 2015).
5 “Moçambique” (Observatório da Emigração).
6 Pedro Seabra, “Portugal and Mozambique: Emulating the ‘Angolan Model’?” (IPRIS Viewpoints, No. 92, April 2012).

US President Barack Obama has announced that U.S. armed forces have been deployed to Cameroon to help fight against the Islamist militants Boko Haram, BBC News reports.

The force, which will be 300 strong, will conduct airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations in the region.

Cameroon and Chad have been targeted by the Islamist militants from northern Nigeria.

Obama said the forces would remain in Cameroon until “no longer needed”. In a notification to Congress, he said an advance force of 90 troops were sent to the country on Monday, October 12.

He said all U.S. troops there would be “equipped with weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security”.

Cameroon has become a target for Boko Haram militants since backing the Nigerian military in its fight against the group.

Two female suicide bombers killed nine people and injured 29 in an attack on Kangaleri town in far northern Cameroon on Sunday, October 10.

Do you know what Hillary Clinton and Wikipedia have in common? I do. They’re both waging wars of words against Russia. You can hear it in Clinton’s public comments and you can see it in the articles of Wikipedia. The message is clear. It seems the goal is to get Russia and its president no matter what the facts.

But there’s even a more sinisterly suspicious connection between Clinton and Wikipedia.

What is it? Before I reveal that, let’s first examine some of the commonality they share in the wars of words.

Many media reports claim Hillary once said that Vladimir Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” She is also widely quoted comparing Putin with Hitler. HuffPost Alberta reported she said, “Vladimir Putin cherishes a vision of a greater Russia. His goal is to re-Sovietize Russia.”

Maybe she’s right. But she offers no substantiation for her inflammatory claims. And one wonders when she was intimate enough with Putin to see whether he has a soul or for Putin to have confided in her whatever visions he cherishes.

My hunch is that Hillary was just mouthing off with scurrilous allegations on things she really knows nothing about.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia has plenty of equally scurrilous assertions. For example, it quotes British historian Max Hastings describing Putin as “Stalin’s spiritual heir.” Then there’s also the allegation that Putin is a pedophile, and lots more.

These are the same kind of specious allegations heard from Hillary. But Wikipedia has a different modus operandi. Whether factually right or wrong, Hillary at least has the courage to speak her own mind. Wikipedia’s MO is to quote or reference other sources. It claims to use only reliable sources. But from my own careful examination, I’ve found that is a false claim.

Here’s an example I found while writing my book Ukraine in the Crosshairs. One Wiki article states, “The Ukrainian government released photos of soldiers in eastern Ukraine, which the US State Department said showed that some of the fighters were Russian special forces.” Wikipedia references a CNN story.

But CNN was presenting evidence that has been widely discredited. The New York Times had fallen for that same fabricated evidence. Later it humiliatingly had to retract its own front-page story on the subject. Nevertheless, Wikipedia continues to present its fallacious article as though it were factual. Wikipedia’s use of “reliable sources” really just amounts to a case of pseudo-objectivity. It may fool the apathetic reader, but it doesn’t stand up to serious scrutiny.

I first discovered reason to suspect Wikipedia’s political agenda while researching an article for Editors Only, a monthly I publish for online and print publication editors. The article’s theme was to be “audience-generated content.” And since Wikipedia is a conspicuous example of such, I invited its representative to share some information on Wikipedia’s experience with audience-generated content. I wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that hosts Wikipedia and raises funds for it.

The response I got said, “Unfortunately, we cannot accommodate your request due to current time constraints.” It was signed by “Dasha Burns, On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.”

So I had written to Wikimedia but received a response not from the organization, but by somebody answering on its behalf. I checked the domain name in Burns’ email address. It is “minassianmedia.com.”

Out of curiosity I went to the website at that address. All that’s there is a simple business card–type page with the company name, address, and phone number, plus the descriptive line “Content + Communications.” That’s is the whole website. There’s not a single link.

Still curious, I googled the company name. That brought me to a website of The Tribeca Disruptive Innovation Awards. In a report, it identified the president of Minassian Media as Craig Minassian.

And when I googled his name, what did I find?

He is the chief communications officer at the Clinton Foundation. That’s worth saying again: he is the chief communications officer at the Clinton Foundation. I wondered if this meant the Clinton family has Wikipedia under its thumb.

All this googling was being done early this year, around the time the NBC Brian Williams scandal was a big item. He had been caught exaggerating the danger he was in while visiting a world trouble spot.

I remembered that Hillary Clinton had been caught in a similar imbroglio over her 1996 visit to Bosnia, claiming to have exited her airplane amidst enemy fire. Years later, video emerged that proved her story to be as false as the Williams’ story.

How did the Wikipedia coverage of these similar predicaments compare? I wondered. Here’s what I found: The Williams fib story takes almost 1,000 words to tell. It’s full of clickable links that take you to other sites to substantiate the story.

Hillary’s fib is covered in a mere 40 words. That’s just 4 percent the verbiage devoted to the Williams scandal. And the Clinton coverage seems to really gloss over Hillary’s Bosnia fabrication. This Wikipedia entry has only one footnote. It’s to a book published in 2010. There’s no clickable link to any content. The footnote just gives the authors’ names and the page numbers, not even the name of the book. So it’s like a dead-end reference.

Then I postulated that the great difference in the fib coverage might be a result of the freshness of the Williams story, whereas Hillary’s became news back around 2008. So I checked out another famous fib. It was that of Dan Rather’s when he touted a false story about George W. Bush’s questionable National Guard service. This was from 2004, older than Hillary’s story. It got around 1,000 words in Wikipedia, just like the Williams story. So the short treatment of Hillary’s fib seems to have nothing to do with how far back it was.

Certainly this is not an exhaustive examination of Wikipedia manipulation. But it sure looks suspicious. Do the Clintons hold sway over Wikipedia’s content? Or is there some other explanation?

Wikipedia clearly seems to minimize an embarrassing transgression of Hillary’s and to amplify fabricated defamatory allegations about Russia and its president. Isn’t there anything that can be done about this kind of shenanigan?

Actually, there is something concrete you yourself can do about this troubling situation.

Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor. All you have to do is go to the Wikipedia site and create a free account. Then you will be able to edit existing content and add new material. If you see new information somewhere that is not covered in relevant Wikipedia articles, add it. If you see Wiki content that’s wrong, change it.

Don’t expect this kind of intervention will be a cakewalk, though. Wikipedia has self-appointed gatekeepers. They are people who are experts on Wikipedia’s intricate and confusing rules for editing. And you should expect they will invoke that expertise to obstruct your efforts to introduce truth. One observer remarked, “I have a son who has made a particular correction on a subject in Wikipedia countless times. It is always immediately deleted and returned to the original lie.” It seems to me those Wiki gatekeepers practice a kind of cyberbullying.

In October 2013, MIT’s Technology Review magazine ran an article titled, “The Decline of Wikipedia.” Among its conclusions: “Authoritative entries remain elusive.”

The Wikipedia ideal is that a loose collective of well-intentioned editors will ultimately produce an outstanding encyclopedia. That’s turned out to be a naive notion. It seems never to have contemplated that a loosely connected clique could use Wikipedia to distort the truth in serving their own ends. The result today is simply this: Wikipedia can’t be trusted.

By Jemimah Joanne C. Villaruel*

The simmering territorial and maritime dispute in the South China Sea seems poised to lengthen and grow even more complex with ASEAN states such as the Philippines and Vietnam trading barbs with China over the conflict. In fact, the Philippines-China maritime dispute has now reached a pivotal point as the arbitration case submitted by the Philippines to the UN is currently underway. Meanwhile, the US and Japan have criticized China’s reclamation activities and in turn, China has accused the US of meddling in the disputes and militarizing the area. While the nexus of maritime security issues and its corresponding actions in ASEAN region grows convoluted, the recent resolution of the maritime boundary dispute between India and Bangladesh in the Indian Ocean is a welcome development.

While all eyes are fixed on an increasingly volatile South China Sea, the Indian Ocean is also fast becoming a locus for strategic and maritime competition between major and rising powers. As the world’s third largest ocean, the Indian Ocean covers a vast area of approximately 66,000 kilometers of coastlines and serves as one of the world’s major sea lines of communication linking the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia as a critical trade route for oil exports from Gulf nations.

Bangladesh, for its part, has limited natural resources. With its naturally concave coastlines, Bangladesh’s proposed maritime zones overlaps with those of India and Myanmar, presenting complications in exploring and exploiting its maritime domain.

An island in the Bay of Bengal

The case known as the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between India and Bangladesh has undergone a long and arduous process of negotiations starting on 8 October 2009 when Bangladesh lodged an arbitration case concerning the delimitation of its maritime boundary with India pursuant to Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The arbitral tribunal ruled on the location of the land boundary terminus, delimitation of the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles between the two states.

The maritime dispute between India and Bangladesh began in the 1970s when a small island named New Moore in India, and South Talpatti in Bangladesh, first emerged in the mouth of the Hariabhanga River in the Bay of Bengal, which serves as a river border between India and Bangladesh. Both countries immediately claimed sovereignty on the island. Although the island has since disappeared, the maritime dispute remained unresolved for many years until the UN tribunal handed down its decision in 2014.

Myanmar and India, situated on either side of Bangladesh, favored a maritime delimitation based on equidistance. But Bangladesh countered that due to its natural and unstable concave coastline, the equidistance method would be disadvantageous and result in the country being zone-locked. Utilizing the equidistance method would also restrict Bangladesh’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to 180-190 nautical miles instead of the 200 nautical miles provided by UNCLOS, which would deprive its entitlement to an outer continental shelf.

UN Decision

The arbitral tribunal decided that using equidistance to arrive at an impartial solution was the appropriate method in delimiting the EEZ and continental shelf of India and Bangladesh. A provisional equidistance line was then constructed by the Tribunal which would serve as a basis for measuring the EEZ and continental shelf of both countries. The Tribunal acknowledged that due to the concavity of the coastline of Bangladesh, the provisional equidistance line necessitated an adjustment in favor of Bangladesh. As a final step to the delimitation, the Tribunal also conducted a Disproportionality Test to ensure that both countries were allocatedwith a maritime space proportional to their respective coasts. The delimitation by the Tribunal, however, gave rise to a ‘gray area’ located beyond 200 M of Bangladesh’s coast but within 200 M of the coast of India. To address any potential dispute in undertak-ing maritime activities in this area, the Tribunal decided that Bangladesh has sovereign rights to explore the continental shelf, sea-bed and subsoil such as for oil and gas, while India has sovereign rights to its waters which would encompass fishing activities.

Thus, on 7 July 2014, the UN tribunal handed down its long-awaited decision on the delineation of maritime boundaries between the two countries awarding 19,467 sq. km of the 25,602 sq. km sea area of the Bay of Bengal to Bangladesh. Although the bulk of Bangladesh’s claim to the continental shelf was not admitted by the Tribunal, it was still able to gain an outlet to the extended con-tinental shelf allowing it to explore oil and gas in the Bay of Bengal. The award was also positively received by India as it was able to keep a majority of its claimed maritime area and gain control over the disputed waters surrounding the now submerged New Moore Island.

The role of UNCLOS

While the maritime dispute between India and Bangladesh was positively concluded, it was beset with its own set of challenges over roughly four decades. However, there is no doubt that the peaceful resolution of these decades-long maritime disputes will yield tremendous benefits for both countries, allowing them to freely explore and exploit the marine resources of their respective territories, enhance their bilateral relations, and contribute in the preservation of peace and security in the region.

In comparison, the Philippine maritime arbitration case with China is confounded by political and legal challenges. Part of what makes the arbitration case so complex and contentious is that the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the UN Tribunal itself to implement and enforce the provisions of the Convention is called into question by China. The Philippines and China are both signatories to the Convention, unfortunately, China is unwilling to submit to the processes of the Tribunal. This contrasts with the case of India and Bangladesh that are both signatories and have consented to undergo third party arbitration to resolve their maritime dispute. This illustrates that some Asian countries view arbitration and other international legal processes as an acceptable form of resolving differences.

The arbitration case between India and Bangladesh is remarkable as it has shown that arbitration is an internationally recognized, friendly, rules-based and peaceful method of resolving maritime disputes. Respect for international law, particularly UNCLOS, by countries big or small is thus crucial in promoting peace and stability in the seas. Despite India being a greater power, it did not use its significant naval capabilities to forcefully assert its claims. Both countries allowed the rule of law to prevail.

As Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario stated in his speech before the UN Tribunal in July 2015, international law serves as a great equalizer among states. Recognition and respect for these rules serve an important purpose – to ensure that fairness is served and states act within the ambit of internationally set laws and conventions. The Philippines has always reiterated its call for a peaceful resolution to the maritime disputes in the region. With its maritime arbitration currently underway, and with mounting pressure from China to withdraw its legal case, the Philippines can draw inspiration from the positive outcome of the India-Bangladesh maritime case. This ultimately serves as an example of state best practice in managing maritime disputes through an arbitral tribunal.

About the author:
*Jemimah Joanne C. Villaruel is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Ms. Villaruel can be reached at jcvillaruel@fsi.gov.ph.

Source:
This article was published by FSI. The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s U.S. visit from 26-30 September managed to attract a lot of attention from Indian-Americans. However, not a lot of business was done. The diaspora hopes that Modi visits the U.S. again next year but the focus must shift to showcasing India’s commitment towards progress of “Make in India”, self-reliance in energy and commitment towards elimination climate change.

By Nishith Acharya”

As Prime Minister Modi departed the SAP Center in San Jose, California on 27 September, there was almost an expectation to hear an announcement with his 2016 American Tour Dates – “tickets going on sale soon for shows in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Atlanta”. It is the only thing separating Modi from Indian film industry’s touring stars.

During his five day trip to the U.S, he didn’t accomplish much, but continued to build relationships with his two largest constituencies– corporate America and Indian-Americans. Modi understands, as a leader and as a politician, that the support of these groups (through the trials and tribulations of the economic reform process in India) is critical to maintaining India’s momentum and attracting global investment.

In New York, Modi sat down with Fortune 500 CEO’s, the top media companies, and with Wall Street titans. In each case, the meeting was to reassure them of his commitment to economic reforms. The Fortune 500 is committed to India in the long-term because of its huge market. Even in the most frustrating times, they will not give up on India, but simply shift their focus elsewhere. Modi’s visit was to reassure them that he is doing his best to take advantage of this moment in history, where he has a majority, public support and an economic agenda that global business likes. Although he has not been able to deliver on reforms like the Goods and Services Tax or land bill, he needed to reassure financial investors and corporate leaders that the vision had not changed.

In Silicon Valley, his meetings with technology executives and entrepreneurs was similarly meant to transfix their gaze on India. Modi positioned himself as tech-savvy – bantering with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Elon Musk of Tesla Motors — as if he was about to don a hoodie. He positioned his administration as one that understands the role of technology in advancing society – not just for the interests of India’s IT companies, but more broadly to provide services, connect communities and create value. Less than 1% of India’s population can afford a Tesla. So the point of meeting Elon Musk was not to promote Tesla sales in India – it was to showcase India as a nation poised to adopt cutting-edge technology and innovation to promote the common welfare. Visits to Facebook and Google similarly showcased Modi as someone who understands what access to information and connectivity can do for the human condition.

The second constituency to address was the Indian-American community. Narendra Modi has had a concerted and strategic effort to engage the global Indian diaspora in an unprecedented way.

His remarks tugged at their heartstrings and played to their nationalism. He spoke to them as Americans but implored them to not forget their country of origin. He laid out his agenda as one that creates opportunities for Indians that are similar to those that NRIs receive – access to a high quality American education, good health care, technology and the ability to live without corruption. This resonated with the guilt that NRIs feel for having left India.

Historically, the diaspora has been a dilemma for Indian politicians. While these emmigrants maintain deep cultural, familial and business ties to India, they have been hesitant to mobilise on India’s behalf. For Indian-Americans, it has been particularly hard, as the interests of the U.S. and India have rarely aligned in the past.

But here again, Modi is different. He has spent time with the Indian diaspora. He has stayed at their homes all over the U.S. He purportedly is a fan of American Tex-Mex cuisine (vegetarian nachos in particular). He knows that his right-wing allies in India – the VHP, BJP and others, have large organisations in the U.S., Great Britain and Canada.

Although Modi did spend this visit announcing new programs like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the UN and the push for ‘Digital India’ in Silicon Valley, he had no discussion on the progress of Swachh Bharat, ‘Make in India’, or Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhar and Mobile (JAM) initiatives. It was fine for this trip, but it won’t be acceptable next year.

The diaspora hopes tickets to see PM Modi next year do go on sale. That will be an appropriate time to visit Chicago, the heart of American manufacturing, to talk about the progress of “Make in India” and Houston, the world’s energy capital, to talk about India’s growing self-reliance in energy and impressive commitment to climate change elimination. On both counts, there must be progress to talk about.

Only then will the diaspora stand across from him with their commitments, and fertilise the blossoming India-U.S. relationship.

About the author:
*Nish Acharya is a Visiting Fellow, India-U.S. Studies at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. He currently leads the Indian Diaspora Investment Initiative with the Calvert Foundation, is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress, and a columnist for Forbes Media. Nish previously served in the Obama administration, where he was appointed by President Obama as the director of innovation and entrepreneurship and senior advisor to the secretary of commerce.

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

On 1 October 2015, India submitted its INDCs to the UN. The ambitious goals set by the Narendra Modi government have no doubt silenced its critics. However, to achieve these lofty goals, India needs a paradigm shift in the kinds of business and development models it encourages.

By Rajni Bakshi

India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on October 1, opens with this peace prayer[1]. The spirit of this Vedic invocation and the ambitious carbon emissions targets outlined in the document raise the level of the challenge to which India has now committed itself to.

Ever since Donald Trump rose to front-runner status in the 2016 GOP presidential field, we’ve heard dismissive talk about how he’s not a “serious” candidate. Pundits and political-party leaders have made this claim, in efforts ranging from seriously intended but unserious commentary to the tactic of hoping that if you act as if something is true it will be considered so. But whether or not Trump is a serious candidate, one thing is plain: these politics wonks have no idea what that is.

“Serious” in the sense it’s being used by the establishment types is not only a weasel word, but also akin to the tactic of calling an Internet commenter who utters uncomfortable truths a “troll”; the water-muddying message is, “Oh, you don’t have to pay attention to that; he’s not serious.”

But what is a “serious candidate,” anyway? Does it reflect seriousness when a politician says, as Jeb Bush has, that violating our borders and invading our nation is an “act of love”? How about Carly Fiorina saying, two weeks after 9/11, that Muslim civilization was once “the greatest in the world” and “was driven more than anything, by invention”? What about when a brain-frozen Hillary Clinton blurted out, “Don’t let anybody…tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs”? Or what about when, subject to normal oversight as any public official should be, she petulantly exclaimed about Benghazi, “What difference at this point does it make?!”

Then there’s the supposed savior of Democrat electoral fortunes, Joe Biden. When he said that Franklin Roosevelt got on TV to address the 1929 stock market crash, not realizing it predated the television age and Roosevelt’s presidency, was it suggestive of a serious candidate? And how about his boss, Barack? He thought “Austrian” was spoken in Austria, pronounced “corpsman” “corpse-man” three times in one speech and called the “transcontinental” railroad the “intercontinental” one (you know, the intercontinental ballistic railroad developed during the Cold War). Would a serious politician have such a poor knowledge base?

We could also mention Senator Marco Rubio, a.k.a. Aquaman, who promised conservatives he’d never support an immigration bill whose first priority wasn’t enforcement, but then told Spanish language station Univision (in Spanish) “First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.” If such a shameless liar and panderer can be considered a serious candidate because he has a pretty face, we need to reevaluate our priorities.

Again, though, what is a “serious” candidate? Well, imagine a doctor refuses to render a correct diagnosis, but instead tells the patient what he wants to hear, because he thinks the truth will be unwelcome. Or imagine he’s a witch doctor who doesn’t know the truth in the first place. Would you consider him a serious physician? If “serious” has any meaningful significance in the context of politics at all — as opposed to just “serious about conning you” or “serious about attaining power by any means necessary” — integral to it is knowing the truth and being willing to speak it. Otherwise the person is as serious as Joe Isuzu.

Now, one quality characterizing almost all our candidates, to at least an extent, is political correctness (PC). But what is PC? It can accurately be defined as “the suppression of truth for the purposes of advancing a left-wing agenda.” Conclusion?

It can roughly be said that a candidate can only be serious insofar as his pronouncements are not politically correct.

And, question: who is the most politically incorrect candidate running this election cycle?

Answer: Donald Trump.

Thus, Trump in this sense is not just a serious candidate — he’s perhaps the most serious candidate in the race.

Punctuating this point is that he has talked the most, and the most seriously, about one of the most serious issues of our time: the invasion of our nation euphemistically called “illegal immigration” (hint: illegal entry isn’t any kind of immigration).

This isn’t to say that any candidate, including Trump, is as “serious” as I might like (hey, I’m not running). Everyone has his deficits and his “filters.” For starters, none of the presidential aspirants seem to grasp — or are willing to say — that our legal immigration regime is a far, far bigger problem than illegal migration. Nonetheless, there are lessons in the Trump phenomenon that must be understood.

First, any one of the other GOP candidates could have tapped into what Trump has capitalized upon. But they either

• lacked the wisdom and/or guts to do so.
• are of the Karl Rove school and believe that such brash political incorrectness can’t win the general election (lamentably, given how morally degraded the country has become, this may be true).
• have neocon instincts and actually subscribe to the PC nonsense.

But what exactly is Trump capitalizing upon? To begin with, there’s a certain truth that his rise illustrates:

Tens of millions of Americans fear being politically incorrect.

But relatively few Americans actually embrace political correctness.

In this our nation is a bit like the old Soviet Union: the man on the street didn’t believe in the state ideology, but everyone feared the ideological machinery of the state. Trump is saying (to an extent) what countless Americans want to but fear to; he is the champion striking a blow against an unpopular social code enforced by a minority via fear and intimidation.

This isn’t to say there aren’t millions of useful idiots who subscribe to PC. But what percentage of Americans supported the forced resignation of marriage advocate and former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich or the firing of the Miami school principal who merely voiced support for the McKinney, Texas, police officer? PC is largely a phenomenon of the pseudo-elite, not the street. And it has its sting — Trump himself has lost major business deals (and is the rare person who can afford to) because of his immigration stance — but the privacy of the voting booth is one place where Americans don’t yet have to fear being politically incorrect.

The second thing Trump has tapped into is related to the first, and it was brilliantly articulated by one Julius Krein in a September Weekly Standard article. He wrote of Trump:

[W]hat defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests. … His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.

In other words, Trump is tapping into what is the historical norm and has only been dispensed with, quite recently, by the suicidal West: a “tangible…nationalism,” as Krein put it. The makes him stand out in a time when an European Union insider can self-righteously say “sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us,” home-owner association officials can fine residents for flying the American flag, and an establishment-choice presidential candidate can call an invasion an act of love — and not be tarred and feathered and “warned out of town.” Trump talks like a patriot in a bizarro world where treason has become the norm.

Of course, a lack of seriousness does bedevil us. But understanding that PC is the antithesis of seriousness puts this in perspective. The arenas claiming to be able to identify “serious candidates” — the media and academia — are themselves the most PC of all and thus wholly unserious. And since they, along with PC entertainment, drive the culture and help shape opinion, they are partially responsible for what is the root cause of our problems: unserious voters.

Whatever our candidates may or may not be, they just reflect us, an unserious civilization in serious and unstable condition.

US President Barack Obama had an exchange with author Marilynne Robinson that will be published in the November 5 edition of the New York Review of Books.

The subject was Christianity. Here is a question that President Obama asked Robinson:

“How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?”

If the subject were Islam, it is not likely the president would make an analogy between religion and intolerance, even though there are reasonable grounds to conclude that devoutness in the Muslim world is associated with terrorism. No, it is Christianity that worries him. He made this clear in 2008 when he connected Christianity to those who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.”

Some will defend the president saying there is evidence that Christians are more intolerant of others than the unaffiliated are. In 1991, I reviewed all the major surveys on tolerance, beginning with the Stouffer study in the 1950s, and found that most indeed came to this conclusion. But I also found that these studies never challenged verities held by secularists. To be specific, “tolerance” means “to put up with.” Given the secular bias of most social scientists, measurements of tolerance always seek to grade respondents on whether they are offended by attacks on traditional moral values. Ergo, secularists appear more tolerant—not because they are (if they were then Hollywood would be a bastion of tolerance)—but because it is easier for them “to put up with” attacks on these moral values.

Ironically, even though Obama sat through 20 years of listening to the intolerant sermons of Rev. Jeremiah—”God Damn America”—Wright, he is no more suspicious of this brand of Christianity than he is of Islam.