On today’s Liberty Report, we covered the US government’s assassination program. You’ll surely recall when President Obama issued an executive order that said the President has the authority to assassinate even American citizens at his own discretion.

Well, a very important report was issued by The Intercept that gave us a view at how horrendous the US drone program is in practice. The report was from a whistleblower who showed that during a five month period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, 90 percent of the people killed were not the intended targets.

This is very dangerous territory. The immorality should be extremely obvious. But there are also the unintended consequences and blowback that end up flying back like boomerangs.

It is well documented that there is now an epidemic of PTSD among the drone operators. That surely was not an intended consequence. The drone operators would be sitting safety in a comfortable room somewhere. Yet they are experiencing mental disorders nevertheless.

Furthermore, how does the US government imagine that the people on the ground in Afghanistan will think of such killings? Ironically, the US government has warned Russia that their military operations in Syria would invite blowback from terrorists. But isn’t it reasonable to think that the US drone war would stir up the same emotions of anger and hatred as well? If 90 percent of the people killed aren’t even the intended targets, wouldn’t that even add fuel to those destructive emotions?

All of this is unnatural. I believe that people are instinctually good and can change direction. I do not believe that war in natural. Unfortunately, groups of people grab hold of the reins of power and use it for destruction. In this case, it is the neoconservatives.

More Americans need to wake to danger of the US government’s policies.

If you think of a neighbor that has bad habits, you don’t just march into his house saying: “I don’t like how you’re raising your kids, you don’t go to church, you don’t read the right books, and you haven’t been voting lately. I’m going to force you to do it my way!” We wouldn’t even think of doing such a thing.

Well, that’s exactly what the US government does around the world. There’s essentially no concern with the moral implications. There’s no concern with rights, and what a country that’s supposed to defend liberty is all about.

We don’t tell our next door neighbor how to live. We know better! I don’t think it’s any more legitimate for the US government to go around the world telling others how they should live either.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

“Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” — Eugene V. Debs at his trial for sedition: September 14, 1918

Before my son was killed in Iraq, I wouldn’t say that I “respected” or “feared” authority—that’s never been in my nature. However, looking back, I think I was terrified of crossing the proverbial line. Relating my rude awakening and experiences since then, I know that the line is drawn by the violent empire and arbitrarily re-drawn whenever it suits the needs of the Police State.

Since my son Casey was killed in another US imperial war based on lies and waged for profit and I have become an anti-Empire activist, I have now been arrested too many times to keep track: I stopped counting at 20.

Besides the frustration of being “popped” for exercising my so-called constitutional rights, the many, many hours I have spent in jail have been ultra eye opening to me.

I have been in holding cells with fellow activists (of course), accused sex-workers, drug addicts, petty thieves, embezzlers, drug dealers, and once with a woman who had stabbed her common law husband (after years of abuse). 100% of the others arrested have been “crimes” of economic deprivation. I have NEVER once been in jail with a War or Wall Street Criminal.

As uncomfortable or abusive as my arrests and incarcerations have been, I always knew that there was someone “out” there who was working to get me sprung as quickly as possible. I have often been in tears leaving my fellow inmates because I knew that most of them wouldn’t be so fortunate.

One of my worst stays in jail (in the top three) was in the legendary Tombs of NYC after the class traitors in blue had brutally arrested me (concussion and dislocated shoulder).

The four of us activists who were arrested in front of the US mission to the UN were stuck in a large filthy cell for the night with about 20 other women. As bad as that place is, there is the “Abu Ghraib” of the US sitting on an island right off of Manhattan: Rikers.

“Rikers Island is the second largest jail system in the country. It is located on an island in the East River, right next to Manhattan, a mere 300 yards from the runways at LaGuardia Airport. It consists of 10 jails which house an average of 14,000 inmates per night. Since 1990, six class action suits have been filed by the Department of Justice against Rikers due to rampant brutality and gross violations prisoners’ rights. The most recent (2015) class action suit found a culture of “deep-seated violence,” resulting in a “staggering” number of injuries, where “adolescents are at a constant risk of physical harm.”

In combination with #RiseUpOctober against police murder and brutality, a call has been issued for non-violent civil disobedience to shut down Rikers Island. Why am I participating?

As an antiwar “criminal” I have always realized my privilege, but I don’t need any commandments, constitutions, or declarations to dictate my behavior: Every last person on this planet has the same right to dignity. Along with the vast majority of the Prison Industrial Complex of the US, dignity is a human right in very short supply at Rikers Island. The system and its lackeys regularly dehumanize those illegally incarcerated (some without any charges for the past six years) with rampant physical and sexual abuse and torture.

Millions of people in the surrounding area live, work, play, and exist in very close proximity to the scourge of Riker’s Island, and I am confident that most don’t give it, or their fellow humans trapped in indefinite detention there, one thought during the day. We who signed this call do and we are willing to put our bodies on the line for change.

I hope that if it’s at all possible, any one reading this will join us in this very important action on Friday, October 23rd at 9am at the Queens side of Rikers Island.
(Meet at 19th Ave and Hazen Street)

Facebookevent

Go to:
#RiseUpOctober for more information about this protest and more in the three days of action in NYC.

The major influential western print media are engaged in a prolonged, large-scale effort to demonize Russian President Putin, his politics and persona. There is an article (or several articles) every day in which he is personally stigmatized as a dictator, authoritarian, czar, ‘former KGB operative’ and Soviet-style ruler; anything but the repeatedly elected President of Russia.

He is accused of hijacking Russia from the ‘road to democracy’, as pursued by his grotesquely corrupt predecessor Boris Yeltsin; of directing the bloody repression of the ‘freedom loving Chechens’; of jailing innocent, independent and critical oligarchs and robber barons; of fomenting an uprising in the ‘democratic, newly pro-Western’ Ukraine and seizing control of Crimea; of backing a ‘bloody tyrant’ in Syria (elected President Bashar Assad) in a civil war against ISIS terrorists; of running the Russian economy into the ground; and of militarily threatening the Baltic and Eastern European NATO member countries.

In a word, the media have propagated an image of an ‘out-of-control autocrat’, who makes a mockery of ‘democratic’ norms and ‘Western values’, and who seeks to revive the ‘Soviet (aka Evil) Empire’.

The corollary is that ‘Western powers’, despite their peace-loving propensities and fraternal attempts to bring Russia into the democratic ‘fold’, have been ‘forced’ to now surround Russia with NATO military bases and missiles; to finance a violent coup in the Ukraine (on Russia’s frontier) and arm the Ukrainian putsch government and neo-fascist militias to ‘restore democracy’ and violently suppress ethnic Russian ‘separatists’ in Eastern Ukraine. We are told that US and EU sanctions against Russia were carefully crafted ‘diplomatic’ measures designed to punish the Moscow ‘aggressor’.

In reality, the Western media has relentlessly demonized Vladimir Putin in a campaign to further NATO military expansion and undermine the Russian economy and its national security. The goal is ultimately to force a ‘regime change’, restoring the neo-liberal elites who had pillaged Russia’s economy during the 1990’s and whose brutal economic policies led to the premature death of over 6 million Russians due to deprivation and the collapse of the healthcare system.

Putin: Demon or Realist, Autocrat or Democrat, Vassal or Independent Leader?

The Western media has backed every oligarch, gangster and fraudster who has gone on trial and been convicted during Putin’s term in office. The propagandists tell us the reason for this affinity between the Western media and the gangster-oligarchs is that these convicted felons, who claim to be ‘political dissidents’ and critics of Putin’s rule, have been dispossessed, and jailed for upholding ‘Western values’.

The Western media conveniently ignore the well-documented studies on the source of the gangster-oligarchs’ wealth: The violent and illegal seizure of multi-billion dollars-worth of natural resources (aluminum, oil and gas), banks, factories, pension funds and real estate. During the Yeltsin period the oligarchs controlled thousands of armed gangsters and engaged in internal warfare during which thousands were killed, including top government regulators, police officials and journalists who dared to oppose or expose their pillage and property grabs.

Putin’s prosecution of a mere fraction of the most notorious oligarch-gangsters has won the support of the vast majority of Russian citizens because it represents a return to law and order and the return of stolen public wealth.

Only the Western media has dared to refer to these convicted felons as ‘political victims and reformers’. They did so because the oligarchs had become the most loyal and submissive assets in the US and EU governments’ efforts to convert Russia into an irreversibly weak vassal state.

The Western media constantly refer to President Putin as the ‘authoritarian ruler’, despite the fact that he has been repeatedly elected by large majorities in competitive elections against Western backed and funded candidates. His popularity is attested to by opinion polls conducted by Western agencies.

In 2015, President Putin’s support soared to over 85%. The pro-Western Russian neo-liberal politicians scored in the low single digits according to the same independent polls.

Clearly the Russian public does not want to return to the poverty and chaos of the Western-backed gangster politics of the 1990’s.

Whatever reservations working and middle class Russians have over President Putin’s style of decision-making, they clearly value his crackdown on gangster-controlled elections, Chechen terrorism, and his restoration of Russian military defense of its frontiers, including the annexation of Crimea, following the US-engineered coup in Ukraine.

Every day, the Western media recycle reports of the ‘decline and demise’ of the Russian economy, blaming ‘statist’ mismanagement of the economy by Putin. They claim ‘declining living standards’, the ‘negative growth’ of the economy and the ‘growing isolation’ of an ‘expansionist’ Russia in the face of Western sanctions.

These media claims are laughable. Readily available data demonstrate that living standards of the vast majority of Russian citizens have significantly increased under President Putin’s administration, especially after the utter collapse under the free marketers of the1990’s. Russian workers receive their pay, pensioners their pensions, enterprises their loans – on time. During the ‘free market’ days of Boris Yeltsin, workers went up to a year without pay, pensioners were selling their heirlooms in the street to survive and enterprises paid extortionate interest rates to oligarch-gangster controlled banks! Comparative data, easily obtained, are deliberately ignored by the mass media because it doesn’t fit the demonological narrative.

The mass media present the neo-liberal ‘opposition’ and ‘liberal critics’ as Russian democrats defending ‘Western values’. They forget to mention that these ‘liberal critics’ have been directly funded by Western foundations (National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Foundation, etc.) and Russian non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) with longstanding ties to US and EU governments, intelligence agencies and exiled Russian billionaires. The so-called ‘Russian’ democratic opposition revealed their abject servility to Western interests when they openly supported the Ukrainian coup and Kiev’s bloody assault on ethnic Russian-Ukrainians in the eastern ‘Donbas’ regions of Donetsk, Luhansk and Odessa. Whatever shreds of respectability and credibility the ‘democratic opposition’ retained with the Russian public, up to that point, was lost. They were seen for what they are: propaganda arms of Western imperialism and mouth-pieces for neo-fascists.

The Western mass media charge Putin’s government with the same crimes that their own governments commit. After the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland admitted to channeling $5 billion to fund the 2014 coup in Ukraine and after the Polish regime boasted of training far right street fighters, whose mob violence served as a pretext for the coup, and after neo-fascist coalition partners in Odessa of burned alive four dozen ethnic Russian-Ukrainian citizens opposed to the coup, the Western mass media accused Putin of ‘intervening’ in Ukraine. This was because Russia had convoked a referendum in Crimea, in which over 80% of the electorate voted to secede from the illegitimate Ukrainian coup regime and rejoin Russia.

In truth, the Putin government is a victim of the Western power grab in the Ukraine, with Russia having to absorbed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russian refugees driven out of the Donbas, yet the Western media portray Putin as the executioner. Meanwhile the Western coup-makers and their far-right allies are depicted as victims… forced to bomb and decimate the Donbas region.

The charade continued. The Western media portray the subsequent punitive, economic sanctions imposed by the expansionist US and EU on Russia as a result of Putin’s ‘aggression’, referring to Russia’s defense of Crimea’s self-determination and the rights of the millions of bilingual ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine.

The absurdity and convoluted nature of Western demonological propaganda has reached new even more bizarre heights with their hysteria against Russia’s military support of the secular Syrian government against ISIS and other jihadi terrorists.

The Western mass media have launched a global campaign charging that the Russian air force bombs ‘non-ISIS military bases’, presumably the bases of Western-backed ‘friendly’ jihadi terrorists. This ridiculous ‘reportage’ and its accompanying ‘photos’ were published before the Russian air strikes even took place!!

Apparently timing doesn’t matter in Washington’s ‘alternative universe of lies’!

NATO passed its political line to the media that Russian support for the legitimate regime of President Assad must be discredited; that the Russian presence is ‘provocative’ and responsible for ‘creating tensions’ in the region – after years of Western-sponsored jihadi terrorism against Syria!

Obedient to its masters, the Western media breathlessly ‘reported’ that the Russians were ‘really’ engaged in Syria in order destroy the pro-Western ‘fighters’ leaving ISIS alone.

No credible evidence for this propaganda was ever presented. They trotted out aerial photos of wreckage, which had likely been lifted from previous US bombings.

The media’s clumsy execution of the Pentagon’s line managed to embarrass even the US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, who backed off of such claims and called for an explanation from Russia. Even Secretary Kerry, who now seeks to secure Putin’s military support for the US against ISIS while withdrawing Russia’s political backing of President Assad, has cautioned the media to modify its line, now that the US favors ‘greater coordination’ with Russia – but under US leadership. The media has recently conformed to this line, although it has not managed to explain how Washington could now work with the demonic President Putin.

Conclusion

Western media is engaged in an intense long-term propaganda campaign to demonize President Putin. Its role is to convince world public opinion and world leaders to blindly follow the US and EU, as well as their ‘allies’ and vassal states, in a campaign to degrade and undermine Russia, and consolidate a unipolar empire under US tutelage.

The Western mass media is important; but it must be remembered that the media is an instrument of imperial state power. Its lies and fabrications, its demonization of leaders, like President Putin, are one part of a global military offensive to establish dominance and to destroy adversaries.

The more intense the imperial campaign, the riskier the power grab, the greater the need to demonize the victims.

This explains how the escalation of the rabid anti-Putin propaganda campaign coincides with the single biggest Western power grab – the Ukraine coup (‘regime change’) – since West Germany annexed East Germany, and NATO and the EU incorporated the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and the Balkans into the West’s strategic alliance. The West’s bloody break-up of the Yugoslav federation was part of this strategic program.

The problem with the Western demonization of adversaries, whether it is Russia, Iran and China today, or earlier Cuba, Libya and Yemen in the past, is that Washington and the EU face severe economic crises at home and military defeats abroad by armed Islamic and nationalist resistance movements.

The US had invested hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up a shaky puppet regime in US-occupied Iraq, yet the US-trained and supplied Iraqi Army fled as the Baathist-Islamist ‘ISIS’ quickly over-ran half the country.

US troops have occupied Afghanistan for fourteen years, losing tens of thousands of lives and limbs and yet the nationalist-Islamist Taliban can easily take over Afghanistan’s third largest city, Kunduz (population 300,000), and occupies three quarters of the rest of the countryside.

Libya and Somalia are a disaster. And still Washington allocates a half billion dollars to train pro-Western mercenaries to overthrow Syria’s President Assad – mercenaries who give up their arms or join ISIS the moment they cross the border from Jordan or Turkey. The US trained mercenaries have handed over untold millions of dollars worth of heavy and light weapons and armored carriers to ISIS and Al Qaeda. The EU and the US face the dismal reality that Libya, Somalia and Syria are over-run by anti-Western Islamic fighters.

In Asia, China is demonized in the Western media, portrayed as being on the verge of collapse, facing a hard landing, even as China grows at 7%. The Western media wring their collective hands over the crisis in China while Beijing finances two new international development banks for $100 billion, raises its contribution to the IMF and brings 50 countries, including most of the EU but minus the US and Japan, into a new infrastructure lending institution.

Two big questions face the US and EU:

Why do the Western media launch a campaign of demonization that doesn’t correspond to reality? What is the goal of such demonization, which objectively undermines the possibility of forming tactical alliances to end the US’ military losses, political defeats and diplomatic isolation? The US needs Russia to defeat ISIS.

For Moscow, the fight against ISIS is crucial to Russian national security: Thousands of Chechen terrorists (some trained by the US) are fighting with ISIS and threaten to return to the Caucuses and terrorize Russia. Unlike the US public’s opposition to Washington’s role in forcing ‘regime change’ in Syria, the Russian public supports Moscow’s military support for the Syrian government because the Chechens’ campaign of terror within Russia, especially the 2004 massacre of hundreds of school children, teachers and parents in Beslan, is seared into their memory – a fact conveniently ignored by Western media when it ‘sympathizes’ with Chechen ‘freedom fighters’.

In reality, Washington should have a common interest to ally with Russia in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. However Obama is committed to ousting Assad (Russia’s ally) to expand US dominance in the Middle East in partnership with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Clearly there are insurmountable contradictions between short-term military objectives (fighting ISIS) and strategic imperial political imperatives (consolidating US-Israeli hegemony over the Middle East and Iran).

Washington has moved to end its isolation in Latin America by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, Washington retains the economic blockade of Cuba and its huge US military base in Guantanamo. Cuba is seen as a tactical political ally in ‘moderating’ the leftist government of Venezuela and pressuring the Colombian FARC to disarm, even as Washington deepens its military presence in the continent.

Obama signed off on a nuclear agreement with Iran (but the crippling sanctions and blockade remain in place) in order to secure Tehran’s support for the war against ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Temporarily, the Western mass media has ‘toned-down’ its demonological reporting on Iran and Cuba, for tactical purposes.

The Obama regime has adopted a ‘good cop/bad cop’ (or schizophrenic) posture with Russia on Syria – Secretary of State John Kerry speaks of joint co-operation with Moscow while Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter proposes to militarily confront ‘Russian aggression’. The media hasn’t made the switch because they don’t know which orders to obey or which line to ‘parrot’.

In the meantime, the domestic economic crisis deepens, ISIS advances, the Taliban approaches Kabul, the Russians are arming and defending President Assad and millions of refugees, fleeing the war zones, have over- run Europe. European border wars are raging. And Obama wrings his hands in impotence. Demonology offers no allies, no solutions and no positive path to peace and co-existence.

The Pentagon confirmed Sunday that an Oct. 15 coalition airstrike in northwest Syria killed Abdul Mohsen Adballah Ibrahim al Charekh, also known as Sanafi al-Nasr, a Saudi national and the highest ranking leader of the network of veteran al-Qaida operatives sometimes called the “Khorasan Group.”

“The United States will not relent in its mission to degrade, disrupt and destroy al-Qaida and its remnants,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in the statement. “This operation deals a significant blow to the Khorasan Group’s plans to attack the United States and our allies, and once again proves that those who seek to do us harm are not beyond our reach.”

The statement called Al-Nasr “a long-time jihadist experienced in funneling money and fighters for al-Qaida.” He moved funds from donors in the Gulf region into Iraq and then to al-Qaida leaders from Pakistan to Syria; he organized and maintained routes for new recruits to travel from Pakistan to Syria through Turkey; and he assisted al-Qaida’s external operations in the West, the statement said.

Al-Nasr previously worked for al-Qaida’s Iran-based facilitation network, and in 2012, he took charge of al-Qaida’s core finances before relocating to Syria in 2013, the statement said. ‎Al-Nasr is the fifth senior Khorasan Group leader killed in the last four months.

By Kerim Has

The intensification of the conflict in the Middle East, the operation by Russian Aerospace Defence Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic and the diametrically opposed positions of state leaders in relation to the current president Bashar al-Asad continue to be the main events on the agenda. Damascus has become the epicentre of a global political process and a trial for the modern system of international relations, and for the future of regional projects and bilateral relations. Turkey, like Russia, has vitally important strategic interests in the Middle East, and any action by Ankara’s partners provokes either a positive or a negative reaction in the state’s ruling circles. A very important role is also played by the tension in the country’s internal politics, which also affects the state’s conduct on the international stage. In relation to Moscow today one has to speak about the negative nature of the reaction, which should be understood as an interpretation of Russia’s presence in Syria and the plans to strengthen it further in the region. In this context one must take into account that any state aims to protect its own national interests, and Turkey is no exception here.

The act of terrorism perpetrated, according to preliminary information, by members of the IS group on 10 October 2015 in Ankara is the biggest in the history of modern Turkey in terms of the number of casualties. As a rule, events of such magnitude unite the leaders of the international community to fight the common threat; contacts are intensified, and mutual recriminations are relegated to the background. In the context of Russia–Turkey relations, however, this is not yet anticipated.

Despite the fact that the Kremlin explains its fight against IS not only as a priority for its own national security but also as a most important step in supporting the world order and preventing chaos, Ankara regards Moscow’s position from the point of view of an even greater escalation of conflict in the Middle East and in territories bordering on Turkey. The state apparatus has stepped up its negative rhetoric towards Russia, dissatisfaction with Russia’s foreign policy is being openly expressed, and a most important aspect of inter-state cooperation – energy – is being raised. This is explained by several factors:

Firstly, the statements by the Turkish leadership with regard to ceasing energy cooperation or substantially downgrading it are not to be taken literally. Both Ankara and Moscow recognise that so far there is no alternative to Russian gas, and even if imports of hydrocarbons to Turkey can be diversified through other channels, including TANAP, it won’t be in the near future. In other words, it is impossible for the energy relationship between Moscow and Ankara to be broken in either the short or the medium term. At the same time we must remember that disagreements between the countries in relation to regional crises, and most importantly resolving them, complicate the process of mutual understanding and could push Turkey towards intensifying a new round of its energy policy with countries such as Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran and with other states in the Gulf. Russia in turn understands that Turkey’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons does not allow the latter country to take a hard line in regional crises, which also affects Ankara’s perception of Moscow’s foreign policy.

Secondly, we have to understand that the state that once laid claim to the role of leader in the Turkic and Muslim world has found itself a kind of hostage to the situation that has come about. For example, Russia is creating a coordination and information centre in Baghdad with support from Iran, Iraq and Syria; western states have realised that they will have to take account of Moscow’s opinion, despite the fact that the key issue, the figure of President Bashar al-Asad, is still on the agenda. In addition, Moscow has been able to find consensus with the USA and Israel on the question of creating a mechanism to prevent clashes in the air. Russia is planning to develop other mechanisms of a similar nature with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Ankara is finding itself outside the game, although it plays the role of one of the central regional actors, and this is understandably provoking a negative reaction in the country’s political elite. Moreover, we must not forget the July 2015 agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme, in which the Group of 6 countries de facto accepted a bigger role for Tehran in the region in all aspects of its life. Understanding that following the lifting of sanctions Iran’s political and economic influence will also be directed towards Syria, and its contacts with western countries, especially in terms of energy, will multiply, Russia has made another foreign policy manoeuvre. Moscow has thus “moved into the lead” by giving Tehran a clear signal about high-priority partnership and making it part of its strategy in Syria.

Thirdly, it is Turkey, where the flow of refugees is numbered not in hundreds of thousands but in millions, that has run into the problem of the migration crisis more seriously than the other states of Europe and Russia. We should not forget that despite the cultural and religious closeness of the peoples, more than two million refugees have literally and metaphorically put a heavy burden on Turkey. The impossibility of finding a constructive solution in the near future to the problem of accommodation and employment for migrant people is causing a tense social and economic situation within the country, which once again raises the question of security. Moreover, the Turkish side assumes that Russia’s military operation could significantly increase the flow of refugees out of Syria, and the first state to which they flee will again be Turkey.

Fourthly, we must not forget that following the parliamentary elections of 7 June 2015 the situation within the country is far from stable. This is also a result of the increased activity of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), deemed a terrorist group in Turkey, which the government has been fighting for a long time. Russia, however, as we know, does not recognise it as such, and moreover has contacts with the PKK’s “daughter”, the PYD (the Democratic Union Party in Syria). Moscow adheres to a position of cooperation with the Kurdish forces fighting IS in Syria, including those with whom Ankara does not intend to have a dialogue.

In this context we must note the role of the media, which the Russian side accuses of unleashing an information war. Indeed, events are often subjected to a free interpretation in favour of the geopolitical interests of one state or another, and neither Turkey nor Russia is an exception here. We must not overlook, however, the internal processes in the country, which concern both the Kurdish question and its sensitive aspects. Thus, for example, “The Land of Aylan Kurdi”, the documentary film shown on Russia’s central television channel on 16 September 2015, which discussed the fight against IS, the hardships of Syrians and the bloody crimes of the terrorists, put a separate focus on the influence of the Kurdish militia and the women’s battalions of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party on the success of the ground operation in Syria. Moreover, the journalist interviewed not a rank-and-file member of the PKK but Jamil Baik, head of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s coordination council, who is persona non grata in Turkey. Jamil Baik says that despite the PKK’s substantial disagreements with the Turkish side, IS is a common threat, and after it is eliminated “we shall be fully occupied with questions of independence or autonomy”. Obviously such a stance cannot fail to irritate Ankara.

However, while Moscow has until recently diplomatically sidestepped the Kurdish question, letting it be known that it is cooperating with those whom it considers real partners “on the battlefield”, Turkey might take Vladimir Putin’s statement on 13 October 2015 at the “Russia Calling!” investment forum as a nod in its direction. The Russian president again emphasised the friendly direction of relations between the states and especially noted that now it is necessary to understand how to build relations on an anti-terrorist track. “Turkey has many concerns here linked both with the Kurdish factor and with the fight against terrorism. We understand all these concerns and are undoubtedly ready to take them into account in the course of our joint work. There are now contacts at the level of our military agencies,” said the president. This statement must undoubtedly be seen as a definite signal. All the more so, given that Russian warplanes recently violated Turkish airspace, after which the anti-Russian rhetoric within the public and in the country’s political elite rose to a new level.

In this context it must be noted that Turkey’s plans to create a no-fly zone in the north of Syria have not met with success, which is also in a certain sense, according to the Turkish leadership, down to Moscow. In addition, Ankara, like many other states, undoubtedly received a signal after the Russian Navy launched missiles from the Caspian Sea, which is located outside the conflict region. This step was seen by Turkey as nothing other than a show of force and provoked a rise in anti-Russian feeling. Moreover, as Vladimir Putin confirmed in his interview with leading Russian journalist Vladimir Solovyov on 11 October 2015, this action was also a demonstration. The head of state called the new weapons with which it is planned to equip the Russian army high-tech and highly accurate, emphasising separately that there are specialists in the country who know how to use them and, most importantly, have the will to do so.

Finally, if the cooling of Russia–Turkey relations grows from a temporary phenomenon into a trend, attempts by Moscow and Ankara to cooperate and seek solutions to regional crises may reach an impasse. It is obvious that there is a need to build a new line of relations, which are not stuck solely in the economic sector and energy. The policy of “soft power” which Turkey is actively using in its relations with other states gives a positive result when both sides in the conflict win, thereby making the concept of a “win-win strategy” a reality.

* This piece first appeared on the web site of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) on 14 October 2015.

The Supreme Court’s verdict on October 16, striking down the BJP-led central government’s proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) that gives ample hopes of political and governmental manipulations in justice delivery system of India, making early justice more complicated.

The five-judge bench verdict of Supreme Court gives a sense that it has taken the NJAC as an encroachment in their jurisdictional space. The new law envisaged that NJAC, a six-member panel, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and including two senior-most Supreme Court judges, Union Minister of Law and Justice and two “eminent persons” nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, CJI and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha or leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha, will select judges of the apex court and state high courts. The NJAC came into existence in April but it never became functional.

Supreme Court of India cited the Emergency of 1975-77, imposed by the then Congress government, while striking down a new law that would have given the government a role in the appointment of judges.

Friday’s verdict has nullified a 15-year effort by the National Commission to review Constitution, Law Commission, two houses of Parliament, 20 states, successive governments and of various public forums.

Accepting the petitioners’ argument centered on the Emergency when Justice HR Khanna, who dissented against the Indira Gandhi government, was superceded, the court said: “Such control in the hands of the executive… would cause immense inroads in the decision making process” and “could result in judges trying to placate and appease the political-executive segment, aimed at personal gains and rewards.”

The apex court said the changes brought by the government do not ensure primacy of judiciary in the selection and appointment of judges. The “basic structure” of the Constitution would be clearly violated if the process of selection of judges to the higher judiciary was to be conducted, in the manner contemplated through the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission).

Since the executive has a major stake in a majority of cases, the participation of the Union Law Minister, as a Member of the National Judicial Accountability Commission, would be clearly questionable. The participation of the Law Minister in the final determinative process and that of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the selection of “eminent persons” would be a retrograde step, and cannot be accepted.

The sensitivity of selecting judges is so enormous, and the consequences of making inappropriate appointments so dangerous, that if those involved in the process of selection and the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, make wrongful selections, it may well lead the nation into a chaos of sorts.

The collegium cannot be blamed for all the ills in the appointment of judges – the political executive has to share the blame equally if not more, since it mortgaged its constitutional responsibility of maintaining a check on what may be described as the erroneous decisions of the collegium. 9)To say that the collegium system has failed and that it needs replacement would not be a correct or a fair post mortem.

It is true that there has been criticism (sometimes scathing) of the decisions of the collegium, but it must not be forgotten that the executive had an equally important participative role in the integrated process of the appointment of judges. The judges agreed that the system could be improved as a lack of transparency, accountability and objectivity had been noted. The Collegium system needs to be improved requiring a ‘glasnost’ and a ‘perestroika’, and the case needs to be heard further in this regard.

The independence of the judiciary and a transparent system for the appointment of judges are of equal importance as both of them are interlinked. However, the Narendra Modi-led federal government tried to rush through the bill to change the system of judges’ appointment in higher judiciary to wrest control of it and the Supreme Court has rightly quashed it, declaring both the 99th constitutional amendment as well as the bill to create the NJAC as unconstitutional. Central government never comes to the rescue of those Indians who are ill treated or denied justice by government system and as such the newly proposed system would grant addition powers to the government to protect the interests of ruling elites and deny justice e to the needy. That would make the life of common people more difficult.

There is no denying the fact that the collegium system for appointment of judges, which has been in existence for over two decades now, is not an ideal system and requires drastic changes. The party said the new appointment system for judges could have been worse than the existing one. If the collegium system is opaque, then the now axed NJAC was heavily loaded in favour of the ruling party. Had it been implemented, it would have led to gross political interference in the appointment of judges. Courts would be automatically brought under the government control.

The Apex court ruled that the Judges will continue to appoint judges. The Supreme Court has invalidated the 99th Constitutional Amendment and National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act “unanimously” passed by both Houses of Parliament and ratified by 20 states. The passage of the NJAC bill and consequent constitutional amendment in August last year was termed as the single biggest effort at judicial reform in independent India.

Though the idea of NJAC was mooted during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government and a bill to this effect was introduced by the UPA I after rounds of scrutiny by parliamentary committees, it got a massive push from the Narendra Modi government. This ensured the passage of the bill in the first full-fledged session since Modi took office.

Communication and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad who as the then Law Minister had piloted the bill in both Houses of Parliament strongly defended the 99th constitutional amendment saying “this was a unique occasion on the political horizon of India when both Houses of Parliament unanimously passed the bill barring one member walking out and 20 states ratifying it.” He cared a damn about the fallout of a judicial system directly controlled by the regime. He reacted to the verdict in the routine way, saying the government “welcomes the judgment and has full faith in the judiciary and respects its independence” but made his criticism of the verdict known.

BJP expected the Supreme court to just approve the government policy. Law Minister Sadanand Gowda expressed surprise at the SC verdict. The Supreme Court has said that it will do away with the shortcomings of the collegium system and make it more transparent.

Prasad said it is an admission that the present system had shortcomings and it needed a correction. Though he said that the government would take a position — whether to seek a review by a larger bench or refer it to Parliament — after a detailed reading of the verdict, he clearly expressed government’s unhappiness over the matter. Prasad named several former judges and chief justices of Supreme Court who had expressed their reservation over the manner in which the collegiums functioned to appoint judges. He said even then Chief Justice JS Verma, the principal author of the 1993 judgment, which brought the collegium system into existence, later said that his verdict had been misread and suggested a review. While speaking for the bill, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had said in Parliament that the amendments will ensure transparency in the appointments of judges. “The effort now is that we restore the spirit of original Constitution.”

There is an argument that the Constitution envisages and puts a system in place to ensure the balance of power involving the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary has the power and jurisdiction to review the functioning of the executive and the legislature and thus, it is supremely important that the appointment of judges remains above board. They can’t have absolute power in appointments. There have been a number of examples where sons, daughters, daughters-in-law and sons-in-law of judges have been appointed judges. Occasional voices of malpractice and corruption in the judiciary keep cropping up.

The issue has generated enough debates in the media, especially in TV channels. Many top jurists and lawyers have expressed their opinion, mostly in favor the judgment. No doubt, the judgment on the vulnerable justice issue is yet another feather in the decorated cap of Indian apex court.

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has made serious errors of law by insisting publicly that Iran’s recent missile test “was a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.” But, this reflects a basic ignorance of the UN-backed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which clearly states that with the new UN Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA, all the previous UN Security Council resolutions on Iran “will be terminated.”

Indeed, it is quite odd, and highly uncommon, that a top US diplomat should display such a grave ignorance of the content of an international agreement that has been endorsed by her government and in effect codified by the UN through the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was prefigured and explicitly anticipated by the JCPOA. According to the JCPOA’s “Annex on Implementation” (18.1),

“In accordance with the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the JCPOA, the provisions imposed in UN Security Council resolutions…1929 (2010) will be terminated.”

In essence, this means that with the passage of Resolution 2231 (July, 2015), all the previous resolutions including 1929 have been rendered moot and, from the prism of UN laws, cannot be invoked by any UN member state, simply because those resolutions have been superseded by the new post-JCPOA resolution. Ambassador Power may need to consult with the law dictionary on the legal definition of “supersede”: Supersede “means to take the place of, as by reason of superior worth or right. A recently enacted statute that repeals an older law is said to supersede the prior legislation.”

Unfortunately, Ambassador Power’s errors are not limited to the careless oversight of the JCPOA’s content and extends to the new UNSC resolution as well.

In her public statements denouncing the October 10th Iranian missile test, Ambassador Power has given the erroneous impression that the resolution 1929 “remains valid” until the JCPOA “goes into effect.” The mere fact that resolution 2231 has endorsed the JCPOA, which as stated above renders moot the previous resolutions including 1929, flatly contradicts this position of the US Ambassador, which reflects a serious oversight of the primacy of UN and international law.

With the legal significance of resolution 2231 thus escaping her attention, Ambassador Power has clung to an untenable position that in effect makes a mockery of the Security Council and undermines its legitimacy.

According to the veteran US missile expert, professor Theodore Postol of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the US’s claim against Iran is “technical nonsense…We know the White House has made technically false statements about Iran in the past and it is astonishing that the US keeps engaging in this pattern that undermines US’s credibility.”

With respect to Ambassador Power’s categorical claim that Iran’s missile test represents a “violation of its international obligations,” suffice to say the following: First, Iran is among 30 nations in the world today that possess missile technology and no one ever accuses the other nations of flouting international norms and obligations by exercising their right of self-defense through missiles.

Second, Ambassador Power has ignored the subtle language of resolution 2231 that imposes an 8-year ban on nuclear-related missile activity on Iran’s part and in Annex B calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” Even the veteran US nuclear expert Anthony Cordesman has indirectly taken issue with Power’s position by admitting that the language of the new resolution is specific and raises the issue of purposeful design for nuclear warheads.

Indeed, the nub of the problem with the US’s condemnation of Iran’s missile test is that there is no tangible empirical and physical evidence to corroborate the accusation that Iran’s ballistic missiles are designed to be capable of carrying nuclear payload. As various Western nuclear experts have readily admitted, substantial technical modifications are necessary in order to substitute nuclear warheads for conventional warheads on Iran’s missiles. As US’s own experience with the conventional modifications of the Trident missiles has shown, this is a formidable, and costly, task that requires a nuanced technical conceptualization — that is sadly lacking in the Iran-bashing discourse of Ambassador Power and other US officials who have made a giant leap of faith by misrepresenting Iran’s flight-test of its new generation of Emad conventional missile as “inherently nuclear-capable.” Attaching the latter label is clearly a clever public relations ploy rather than an apt, and sustainable, diplomatic move.

Resolution 2231 Revisited

Clearly, this resolution remains the new foundation of UN’s approach to the Iran nuclear issue. The US’s interpretation led by Ambassador Power holds that the resolution requires a complete halt of all Iranian ballistic missile tests. Yet, this not consistent with, nor mandated by, a straightforward reading of the text. If the Security Council is now poised, as a result of the US’s complaint, to revisit the provisions of resolution 2231, important evidence and interpretive tool on how that resolution should be read need to be examined.

For one thing, the US’ interpretation omits the drafting history of JCPOA, that triggered the 2231, and was strictly narrow-focused on the nuclear issue and did not extend to the issue of Iran’s conventional arms (and their delivery systems). Also, parallel language in other UNSC resolutions, such as 242, can be used to shed light on the meaning of resolution 2231.

Specifically, this resolution’s nuanced and unambiguous language on the ballistic missiles “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” suggests that the text has a fixed meaning, in light of the fact that “designed” is synonymous with a purposeful activity. In fact, what is lacking in the US’s claim against Iran above-mentioned is a “plain meaning” interpretation of resolution 2231 — that refers to deliberate design of any nuclear-capable missile. There is a full array of UN precedents and opino juris that supports Iran’s position that the resolution’s prohibition on missile tests is not absolute. In other words, the mere allegation that Iran’s conventional missiles can be, technically speaking, converted to nuclear-capable missiles, is not sufficient. By using unambiguous wording, the resolution has clearly implied a distinction between conventional missiles and those that are deliberately designed to be nuclear-capable, yet somehow this important yet delicate difference has evaded the US diplomats, whose arguments are based mostly on an illicit inference, one that generalizes a specific prohibited activity.

But, because Iran’s conventional missiles are not bared under international norms and require flight tests as part of routine upgrade, they do not fall under the prohibitions of nuclear-related tests envisioned in the new UNSC resolution.

Any attempt to deprive Iran of its important missile defense capability would not only be illegal, from the prism of international law, it would also be a stab at regional stability, given the crucial role of Iran’s missiles in the context of regional arms race and the imbalances resulting from the sanctions on Iran and the huge arms sales to Iran’s Arab neighbors in Persian Gulf. Iran’s new precision-guided missiles represent a qualitative improvement in terms of the responsiveness, range, speed, precision, lethality, and freedom of maneuver, which cannot be possibly achieved without conducting flight-tests.

As important and vital components of the nation’s strategic deterrence, these missiles cannot be put on UN’s black list simply because a Western superpower might dislike their deterrent value and seek to target them through the UN machinery.

On October 5, 2015 in Atlanta, trade negotiators from the US and eleven of its allies in the Pacific Rim reached final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), sending the trade agreement back to their national legislatures for final ratification. Once ratified, the TPP will constitute a trade bloc with a share of 40% of the global economy. The TPP region spans North and Latin America (Canada, the US, Mexico, Chile, and Peru), Anglo-Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), and East and Southeast Asia (Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam).

The TPP is one of three major regional trade agreements (RTAs) that the US has been negotiating; the other two are the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union (EU), and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), also with the EU and other key US allies. In the Asia-Pacific region, the TPP and a separate RTA, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), are envisioned to eventually be superseded by the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which is a long-term project of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).1

The TPP faces significant challenges to its final ratification. In the US, the TPP ratification process coincides with the 2016 general elections, and the TPP already faces opposition from leading Republican and Democratic presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.2 Opponents of the TPP in the US, who describe the agreement as “NAFTA on Steroids,” fear that further trade liberalization will lead to increased American job losses. Indeed, some economists have calculated that the increased Sino-US trade following China’s accession to the World Trade Organization led to the loss of over 2 million jobs in the US.3 Civil society groups and non-governmental organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), Public Citizen, Oxfam, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have voiced their opposition to the TPP based on its probable negative outcomes for issues including intellectual property rights and pharmaceutical drug prices. As the actual content of the TPP currently remains under the seal of secrecy, these feared outcomes are based on leaks of selected chapters from earlier drafts of the agreement. At present it remains unknown if these leaks accurately represent the final agreement.4 Even free market ideologues have voiced their opposition to the TPP on the basis that its rhetoric of free trade masks a reality of managed trade catering to special interests.5

China and the TPP

While China is not party to the TPP, it has welcomed the successful conclusion of the negotiations, noting that the TPP will accelerate the economic integration of the region and bring higher economic growth to the Asia-Pacific.6 While China has expressed interest in joining the TPP and TiSA, the US feels that China is not ready to meet the high regulatory standards expected of these trade regimes.7

However, econometric modelling predicts that the exclusion of China from the TPP will carry significant economic costs. While the model calculates that China will suffer a loss of 46 billion USD over the next decade due to its exclusion from the TPP, the TPP countries themselves will too suffer a serious opportunity cost of lower growth. The model calculates that the inclusion of China, South Korea and the ASEAN states of Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines in the TPP will generate a threefold increase in global economic growth, with China earning over 800 billion USD, and the US earning 330 billion USD—a fivefold increase in income—over the next decade. The significant opportunity costs of excluding China from the TPP should hence prompt the US to reconsider its present policy.8

The exclusion of China and the EU from the TPP may prompt both to accelerate their existing efforts to reach a Sino-EU Free Trade Area (FTA). China is the EU’s largest trading partner after the US, and Sino-EU trade reached €467 billion in 2014. The Sino-EU FTA promises to significantly increase this volume of trade. The Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) which China and the EU are scheduled to complete negotiations for in 2016 could increase the scale of bilateral investment flows between China and the EU to match the scale of their trade, and also be a step towards the FTA.9 Likewise, despite China’s exclusion from the US’ TPP and TiSA initiatives, China and the US remain keen on completing their BIT, especially since their bilateral investment flows at present do not match the scale of their trade.10

In the meantime, China is pushing for the early completion of the RCEP negotiations, which some see as a rival trade bloc to the TPP. While seven of the RCEP states are also party to the TPP (Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam), RCEP also includes ASEAN states which are not party to the TPP (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines) as well as the high-growth Asian economies of China, India, and South Korea. As some have noted, while it is true that the TPP countries carry a 40% share of global GDP and the RCEP countries only have a 29% share, in terms of GDP growth RCEP covers a faster growing region than the TPP. In terms of global trade, the TPP and RCEP capture approximately equivalent shares of global trade: 13% for TPP and 12% for RCEP. However, in terms of human population, with its inclusion of China and India, RCEP captures approximately half the world’s population, compared to the TPP’s capture of just 10%.11 As China transitions to a consumer-based economy, and as India accelerates its economic development, their importance as global destinations for consumer goods and services will continue to strengthen. Indeed, some analysts note that China’s economy is probably larger than currently estimated because of the difficulties in fully accounting for activity in the services sector.12 Should both the TPP and RCEP be ratified and come into effect, the seven countries that belong to both trade blocs will enjoy the privileged status of being gateways between the TPP and RCEP, especially for the transit of high-value goods and services from the US and Japan into the key consumer markets of China and India. These gateways will allow manufacturers in the TPP region overcome the problem of the TPP’s exclusion of the massive markets of China and India.13 This future division of the Asia-Pacific into two trading blocs is expected to end when APEC’s FTAAP comes into effect and supersedes both the TPP and RCEP.

Apart from RCEP, China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiatives will also help it develop its economic linkages outside of the TPP framework. OBOR consists of two distinct but interconnected development frameworks: the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR). In the countries along the SREB and MSR, China has signed a series of bilateral agreements for the construction of infrastructure megaprojects and other economic cooperation projects. In Pakistan, for instance, China will be developing the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar and will also construct the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: a transportation, energy, and communications megaproject that promises to accelerate Pakistan’s economic development.14 In Southeast Asia, China will be constructing medium- and high-speed rail lines in Laos, Thailand, and Indonesia, along with other infrastructure projects like energy and port development.15 In Central Asia and Eurasia, China’s SREB projects include energy pipelines and industrial parks.16 In Latin America and the US—which could eventually come under the MSR framework—China will be constructing transportation megaprojects including a high-speed rail line linking Los Angeles with Las Vegas, and the proposed Transcontinental Railway linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through Brazil and Peru.17 In Africa, China’s MSR projects include the development of a series of deepwater ports as well as a regional rail corridor connecting Kenya with Uganda, Burundi, and South Sudan.18 These projects of practical cooperation not only manifest what Chinese President Xi Jinping has described as a “new type of international relations” that is based on win-win cooperation, they also function as one of China’s new engines of growth during this transitional period of China’s economic deceleration to a “new normal” of sustainable single-digit growth.19 Indeed, the Pan-Asian Railway from Kunming to Singapore, one of the SREB’s Southeast Asian flagship megaprojects, is estimated to have the potential to add 375 billion USD in additional growth to China and its partner countries. Globally, even with China’s exclusion from the TPP framework, OBOR is projected to increase the volume of trade for China and its economic cooperation partners by up to 2.5 trillion USD over the next decade.20

References
Beattie, Victor. “Obama: China ‘Put Out Feelers’ on Joining TPP.” VOA News, June 4, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-china-put-out-feelers-about-joining-tpp/2806949.html.

“Beijing says it welcomes TPP deal.” China Daily, October 7, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-10/07/content_36753013.htm.

Calmes, Jackie. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress.” New York Times, October 5, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html.

Caro, Felipe and Tang, Christopher S. “Leaving China out of the TPP is a terrible mistake.” Fortune, October 6, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/leaving-china-out-trans-pacific-partnership-terrible-mistake/.

Chandran, Nyshka. “China and Europe may team up to snub TPP.” CNBC, October 8, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/china-and-europe-may-join-forces-in-response-to-tpp-deal.html.

“China Belongs in the TPP.” Bloomberg, October 8, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/china-belongs-in-the-tpp.

“China, Indonesia launch joint venture for Jakarta-Bandung railway project.” Xinhua, October 16, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/947523.shtml.

“Chinese president advocates new type of int’l relations.” Xinhua, September 29, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/945052.shtml.

Chung Ning. “Indonesia signs new deals with China after high-speed rail bid rejected.” Want China Times, September 20, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150920000009&cid=1102&MainCatID=0.

Culbert, Heather. “Why the TPP trade deal is a threat to public health.” The Globe and Mail, July 17, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-tpp-trade-deal-is-a-threat-to-public-health/article25548162/.

Dorobăț, Carmen Elena. “The TPP and the Trade Rhetoric.” Mises Institute, October 6, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. https://mises.org/blog/tpp-and-trade-rhetoric.

“EU backs China joining talks on Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).” European Commission, March 31, 2014. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-352_en.htm.

Garrett, Laurie. “The Drug Tradeoffs in TPP Deal.” Council on Foreign Relations, October 7, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.cfr.org/health/drug-tradeoffs-tpp-deal/p37096.

Goldstein, Steve. “Hillary Clinton’s TPP opposition is latest split from Barack Obama.” MarketWatch, October 7, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-tpp-opposition-is-latest-split-from-barack-obama-2015-10-07.

Gosselin, Peter and Dorning, Mike. “After Doubts, Economists Find China Kills U.S. Factory Jobs.” Bloomberg, June 19, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-18/after-doubting-economists-find-china-killing-u-s-factory-jobs.

Guo Yiming. “China’s railway projects in Thailand, Laos to start.” China.org.cn, September 22, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-09/22/content_36649035.htm.

Hamanaka, Shintaro. Trans-Pacific Partnership versus Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Control of Membership and Agenda Setting (ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 146). Manila: Office of Regional Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank, December 2014.

Ip, Greg. “To Call Trade Deal ‘Nafta on Steroids’ Picks the Wrong Target.” Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/15/greg-ip-to-call-trade-deal-nafta-on-steroids-picks-the-wrong-target/.

Kumar, Kalyan. “RCEP trade talks in Korea gaining global attention as the emerging Asian equivalent of US-led TPP.” International Business Times, October 17, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.com.au/rcep-trade-talks-korea-gaining-global-attention-emerging-asian-equivalent-us-led-tpp-1475572.

Kynge, James and Oliver, Christian. “Li Keqiang pushes for China-Europe investment treaty.” Financial Times, June 29, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0b923c0-1e67-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html.

Lehmacher, Wolfgang and Padilla-Taylor, Victor. “What can the New Silk Road do for global trade?” Financial Times, September 22, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/09/what-can-the-new-silk-road-do-for-global-trade/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “Africa and China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 13 (2015). Accessed October 18, 2015, http://japanfocus.org/-Alvin_Cheng_Hin-Lim/4296/article.html.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “China And The Eurasian Economic Union: Prospects For Silk Road Economic Belt.” Eurasia Review, May 14, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/14052015-china-and-the-eurasian-economic-union-prospects-for-silk-road-economic-belt-analysis/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “China’s Transition To The ‘New Normal’: Challenges And Opportunities.” Eurasia Review, April 2, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/02042015-chinas-transition-to-the-new-normal-challenges-and-opportunities-analysis/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “‘Iron Brothers’: Sino-Pakistani Relations And The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.” Eurasia Review, May 7, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/07052015-iron-brothers-sino-pakistani-relations-and-the-china-pakistan-economic-corridor-analysis/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “Laos And The Silk Road Economic Belt.” Eurasia Review, July 30, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/30072015-laos-and-the-silk-road-economic-belt-analysis/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “Latin America And China’s ‘New Normal.’” Eurasia Review, May 28, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/28052015-latin-america-and-chinas-new-normal-analysis/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “Recent Developments In Sino-EU Relations: 2014 And 2015 State Visits By Xi Jinping And Li Keqiang.” Eurasia Review, July 5, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/05072015-recent-developments-in-sino-eu-relations-2014-and-2015-state-visits-by-xi-jinping-and-li-keqiang/.

Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. “Xi Jinping’s 2015 State Visit To US: The Road From Sunnylands.” Eurasia Review, September 27, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.eurasiareview.com/27092015-xi-jinpings-2015-state-visit-to-us-the-road-from-sunnylands-analysis/.

Macauley, Richard. “Thought the TPP was a big deal? China’s rival free trade pact covers half the world’s population.” Quartz, October 8, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://qz.com/519790/thought-the-tpp-was-a-big-deal-chinas-rival-free-trade-pact-covers-half-the-worlds-population/.

Malcolm, Jeremy. “The Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 9, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared.

Meltzer, Joshua P. “Why China should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Brookings Institution, September 21, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/09/21-us-china-economic-integration-tpp-meltzer.

“Port Laem Chabang: China-Thailand trade gateway.” CCTV News, September 18, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://english.cntv.cn/2015/09/18/VIDE1442555643195246.shtml.

“Railway to connect China, Thailand.” Xinhua, September 20, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-09/20/c_134642585.htm.

“RCEP negotiations to be expedited for conclusion by year end.” Xinhua, August 24, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-08/24/c_134550954.htm.

Scott, Malcolm. “China’s Economy May Be Even Bigger Than You Think.” Bloomberg, October 16, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think.

Singh, Harsha V. “TTIP: A Bridge or Gulf for Multilateralizing Plurilaterals?” Cato Online Forum, October 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/ttip-bridge-or-gulf-multilateralizing-plurilaterals.

Sirota, David and Perez, Andrew. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Terms Still Secret, Even As Nations Agree To Trade Deal.” International Business Times, October 5, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/trans-pacific-partnership-terms-still-secret-even-nations-agree-trade-deal-2127391.

See Kit Tang. “RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about.” CNBC, October 14, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html.

Smith, Noah. “Free Trade Is No Longer a No-Brainer.” Bloomberg, October 7, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-07/free-trade-is-no-longer-a-no-brainer-for-economists.

“TPP without China not expected to make a splash.” Shanghai Daily, October 9, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-10/09/content_36768424.htm.

Turkel, Dan. “A leaked document from the Trans-Pacific Partnership has some high-powered advocates worried.” Business Insider, October 10, 2015. Accessed October 17, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.sg/a-worrisome-leaked-chapter-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership-2015-10/.

Zhang Xiaotong, Li Xiaoyue and Wu Youyou. “Treading carefully in the minefield of the EU-China investment treaty.” Europe’s World, April 1, 2015. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://europesworld.org/2015/04/01/treading-carefully-minefield-eu-china-investment-treaty/.

Notes
1. Jackie Calmes, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress,” New York Times, October 5, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html. “Beijing says it welcomes TPP deal,” China Daily, October 7, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-10/07/content_36753013.htm. Harsha V. Singh, “TTIP: A Bridge or Gulf for Multilateralizing Plurilaterals?” Cato Online Forum, October 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/ttip-bridge-or-gulf-multilateralizing-plurilaterals. Shintaro Hamanaka, Trans-Pacific Partnership versus Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Control of Membership and Agenda Setting, ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 146 (Manila: Office of Regional Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank, December 2014), 15-16.

2 Calmes, “Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Steve Goldstein, “Hillary Clinton’s TPP opposition is latest split from Barack Obama,” MarketWatch, October 7, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-tpp-opposition-is-latest-split-from-barack-obama-2015-10-07.

3 Greg Ip, “To Call Trade Deal ‘Nafta on Steroids’ Picks the Wrong Target,” Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/15/greg-ip-to-call-trade-deal-nafta-on-steroids-picks-the-wrong-target/. Peter Gosselin and Mike Dorning, “After Doubts, Economists Find China Kills U.S. Factory Jobs,” Bloomberg, June 19, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-18/after-doubting-economists-find-china-killing-u-s-factory-jobs. Noah Smith, “Free Trade Is No Longer a No-Brainer,” Bloomberg, October 7, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-07/free-trade-is-no-longer-a-no-brainer-for-economists.

4 David Sirota and Andrew Perez, “Trans-Pacific Partnership Terms Still Secret, Even As Nations Agree To Trade Deal,” International Business Times, October 5, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/trans-pacific-partnership-terms-still-secret-even-nations-agree-trade-deal-2127391. Dan Turkel, “A leaked document from the Trans-Pacific Partnership has some high-powered advocates worried,” Business Insider, October 10, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.sg/a-worrisome-leaked-chapter-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership-2015-10/. Heather Culbert, “Why the TPP trade deal is a threat to public health,” The Globe and Mail, July 17, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-tpp-trade-deal-is-a-threat-to-public-health/article25548162/. Jeremy Malcolm, “The Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 9, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared. Laurie Garrett, “The Drug Tradeoffs in TPP Deal,” Council on Foreign Relations, October 7, 2015, accessed October 17, 2015, http://www.cfr.org/health/drug-tradeoffs-tpp-deal/p37096.

5 Carmen Elena Dorobăț, “The TPP and the Trade Rhetoric,” Mises Institute, October 6, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, https://mises.org/blog/tpp-and-trade-rhetoric.

6 “Beijing says.”

7 Victor Beattie, “Obama: China ‘Put Out Feelers’ on Joining TPP,” VOA News, June 4, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-china-put-out-feelers-about-joining-tpp/2806949.html. “EU backs China joining talks on Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA),” European Commission, March 31, 2014, accessed October 18, 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-352_en.htm.

8 “China Belongs in the TPP,” Bloomberg, October 8, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/china-belongs-in-the-tpp. Joshua P. Meltzer, “Why China should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Brookings Institution, September 21, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/09/21-us-china-economic-integration-tpp-meltzer. Felipe Caro and Christopher S. Tang, “Leaving China out of the TPP is a terrible mistake,” Fortune, October 6, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/leaving-china-out-trans-pacific-partnership-terrible-mistake/.

9 James Kynge and Christian Oliver, “Li Keqiang pushes for China-Europe investment treaty,” Financial Times, June 29, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0b923c0-1e67-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html. Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “Recent Developments In Sino-EU Relations: 2014 And 2015 State Visits By Xi Jinping And Li Keqiang,” Eurasia Review, July 5, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/05072015-recent-developments-in-sino-eu-relations-2014-and-2015-state-visits-by-xi-jinping-and-li-keqiang/. Nyshka Chandran, “China and Europe may team up to snub TPP,” CNBC, October 8, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/china-and-europe-may-join-forces-in-response-to-tpp-deal.html. Zhang Xiaotong, Li Xiaoyue and Wu Youyou, “Treading carefully in the minefield of the EU-China investment treaty,” Europe’s World, April 1, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://europesworld.org/2015/04/01/treading-carefully-minefield-eu-china-investment-treaty/.

10 Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “Xi Jinping’s 2015 State Visit To US: The Road From Sunnylands,” Eurasia Review, September 27, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/27092015-xi-jinpings-2015-state-visit-to-us-the-road-from-sunnylands-analysis/.

11 Richard Macauley, “Thought the TPP was a big deal? China’s rival free trade pact covers half the world’s population,” Quartz, October 8, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://qz.com/519790/thought-the-tpp-was-a-big-deal-chinas-rival-free-trade-pact-covers-half-the-worlds-population/.

12 Malcolm Scott, “China’s Economy May Be Even Bigger Than You Think,” Bloomberg, October 16, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think.

13 Kalyan Kumar, “RCEP trade talks in Korea gaining global attention as the emerging Asian equivalent of US-led TPP,” International Business Times, October 17, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/rcep-trade-talks-korea-gaining-global-attention-emerging-asian-equivalent-us-led-tpp-1475572. See Kit Tang, “RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about,” CNBC, October 14, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal-pressures-rcep-trade-talks-in-busan-china-keen-for-progress.html. “RCEP negotiations to be expedited for conclusion by year end,” Xinhua, August 24, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-08/24/c_134550954.htm. “TPP without China not expected to make a splash,” Shanghai Daily, October 9, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-10/09/content_36768424.htm.

14 Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “‘Iron Brothers’: Sino-Pakistani Relations And The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,” Eurasia Review, May 7, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/07052015-iron-brothers-sino-pakistani-relations-and-the-china-pakistan-economic-corridor-analysis/.

15 Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “Laos And The Silk Road Economic Belt,” Eurasia Review, July 30, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/30072015-laos-and-the-silk-road-economic-belt-analysis/. Chung Ning, “Indonesia signs new deals with China after high-speed rail bid rejected,” Want China Times, September 20, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150920000009&cid=1102&MainCatID=0. “China, Indonesia launch joint venture for Jakarta-Bandung railway project,” Xinhua, October 16, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/947523.shtml. “Port Laem Chabang: China-Thailand trade gateway,” CCTV News, September 18, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://english.cntv.cn/2015/09/18/VIDE1442555643195246.shtml. “Railway to connect China, Thailand.” Xinhua, September 20, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-09/20/c_134642585.htm.

16 Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “China And The Eurasian Economic Union: Prospects For Silk Road Economic Belt,” Eurasia Review, May 14, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/14052015-china-and-the-eurasian-economic-union-prospects-for-silk-road-economic-belt-analysis/.

17 Lim, “Xi Jinping’s 2015.” Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “Latin America And China’s ‘New Normal,’” Eurasia Review, May 28, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/28052015-latin-america-and-chinas-new-normal-analysis/.

18 Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “Africa and China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” The Asia-Pacific Journal 13 (2015), accessed October 18, 2015, http://japanfocus.org/-Alvin_Cheng_Hin-Lim/4296/article.html.

19 “Chinese president advocates new type of int’l relations,” Xinhua, September 29, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/945052.shtml. Alvin Cheng-Hin Lim, “China’s Transition To The ‘New Normal’: Challenges And Opportunities,” Eurasia Review, April 2, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.eurasiareview.com/02042015-chinas-transition-to-the-new-normal-challenges-and-opportunities-analysis/.

20 Guo Yiming, “China’s railway projects in Thailand, Laos to start,” China.org.cn, September 22, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-09/22/content_36649035.htm. Wolfgang Lehmacher and Victor Padilla-Taylor, “What can the New Silk Road do for global trade?” Financial Times, September 22, 2015, accessed October 18, 2015, https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/09/what-can-the-new-silk-road-do-for-global-trade/.

A little more than two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu stood on the podium at the UN General Assembly to deliver his address. Not surprisingly, it was a rehash of his ranting against his public enemy No. 1, Iran.

He began with: “Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you greetings from Jerusalem. The city in which the Jewish people’s hopes and prayers for peace for all of humanity have echoed throughout the ages.”

Going on to project Israel as the one true democracy in the Middle East, Netanyahu then unleashed a tirade against the dangers of the nuclear agreement reached with Iran. He then dramatised his speech with a 45-second pause to signify his country’s objection to the deal.

While Netanyahu was unsuccessfully trying to push his alarmist theory to the world, his speech was laced with hypocrisy. Occupied Jerusalem is a killing field today, and the only prayers the Zionists there have is not one for peace but for the total obliteration of the lawful residents of the land, the Palestinians.

In recent times sustained provocations by the Israeli Forces and the bloodthirsty Israeli colonists have been pushing the hapless Palestinians into a very tight corner. They feel betrayed and abandoned by their neighbours as they are left to scrap around against a heavily fortified Israeli militia using knives and stones.

While Netanyahu was wailing and flaying at the UN, his own people were raising the bar in violence against defenceless Palestinians. The Israeli modus operandi has become very apparent. Raise the alarm at external enemies on the world stage, get all attention diverted elsewhere and stealthily continue your grand designs of eliminating every single Palestinian from the land, making it a truly ‘Jewish’ state. This is the democracy Netanyahu failed to highlight in his speech.

While he was in New York raising the alarm against Iran, Netanyahu failed to mention that his forces, along with the colonists, were increasing their provocations with the armed incursions at Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in the Muslim world. Perhaps it was a lapse in memory that he did not talk about how Palestinians were being driven out of their homes only to watch them being bulldozed to make room for new colonies.

Disturbing developments

He failed to mention events surrounding Fadi Alloun, a Palestinian teenager shot dead by Israeli soldiers, who were cheered on by illegal Israeli colonists.

In his oversight, he also did not bring up Abdul Rahman Obeidallah’s story. The 13-year-old Palestinian was shot in the heart by Israeli soldiers while he was returning home from school. The blood-stained shirt of his school uniform seemed not to faze the authorities, who quickly dismissed the incident as an ‘accident’.

A teenage Palestinian girl, Hanin Doyat, was followed and surrounded by Jewish colonists who then proceeded to strip her of her clothes and dignity, before she was shot. A pregnant Palestinian woman was shot in cold blood as she held her arms up in surrender while surrounded by at least five armed soldiers. Six Palestinian boys were shot dead by the Israelis for throwing rocks against the vile Israeli forces.

There are also reports of the Israeli military trying to run over Palestinian pedestrians with their vehicles and, more sinisterly, undercover Israeli soldiers dressing up as Palestinians and attacking them.

These are but a few of the incidents that are being inflicted on the mostly unarmed civilian Palestinian population. Women and children are the targets of this new Zionist order. In less than two weeks since Netanyahu’s speech, around 37 Palestinians have been gunned down and murdered.

While Netanyahu pontificated that “Unleashed and unmuzzled, Iran will go on the prowl, devouring more and more prey,” he failed to bring up the greed that is fuelling his own ambitions for a greater Israel. One that will vanquish the lawful residents of the land forever and make their land into a Zionist kingdom.

Netanyahu needs Iran for that purpose, just as he needed Iraq. As long as he continues to raise alarm, he is setting his troops and the illegal colonists on full course to devour whatever remains of Palestinian lands before somebody wakes up and notices. Well, such sustained and targeted massacres cannot be ignored forever.

Following an emergency meeting a few days ago in Cairo, Arab League chief Nabeel Al Araby charged that “Israel continues implementing plans to change the status of Al Aqsa Mosque through an unprecedented and fierce attack resulting in dozens of martyrs; it is a flagrant challenge to international laws and norms and the will of the international community.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was troubled enough to urge Israel to carry out a “serious review” of the policies of excessive force by its military and security personnel in clashes with Palestinians. Ban noted that “the apparent excessive use of force by Israeli security forces was troubling”. And that this “demands serious review as it only serves to exacerbate the situation leading to a vicious cycle of needless bloodshed”.

But talk is cheap. Israel has been flagrantly violating UN resolutions and flouting international condemnation for decades.

Palestinians meanwhile have been rounded up in pockets waiting to be mowed down as defenceless ducks. Perhaps it is time to arm them with adequate munitions to give them a fighting chance for survival.

This article was published at Gulf News.

The US Treasury’s recent announcement that the government will reach the debt ceiling on November 3 means Congress will soon be debating raising the government’s borrowing limit again. Any delay in, or opposition to, raising the debt ceiling will inevitably be met with hand-wringing over Congress’ alleged irresponsibility. But the real irresponsible act would be for Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

Cutting up its credit card is the only way to make Congress reduce spending. Anyone who doubts this should listen to the bipartisan whining over how sequestration has so drastically reduced spending that there is literally nothing left to cut. But, according to the Heritage Foundation, sequestration has only reduced spending from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion. Only in DC would a less than one percent spending reduction be considered a draconian cut.

Defense hawks have found a way around sequestration by shoving billions of dollars into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account. OCO spending is classified as “emergency” spending so it does not count against the spending limits, even when OCO is used for items that do not fit any reasonable definition of emergency.

Yet, even using OCO to boost military spending by as much as $80 billion does not satisfy the military-industrial complex’s ravenous appetite for taxpayer dollars.

During the majority of my time in Congress, debt ceiling increases were routinely approved. In fact, congressional rules once allowed the House of Representatives to increase the debt ceiling without a vote or even a debate! Congress’ need to appear to respond to growing concerns over federal spending has forced it to end the practice of rubber-stamping debt ceiling increases.

Continuously increasing spending will lead to rising inflation as the Federal Reserve tries to monetize the ever-increasing debt. This will eventually lead to a serious economic crisis. When the crisis occurs, Congress will have no choice but to cut spending. The question is not if, but when and under what circumstances, spending will be cut.

The only alternative for cutting spending in response to economic crisis involves Congress gradually unwinding the welfare state in a manner that does not harm those dependent on federal programs. Congress will not even consider doing this until enough people have embraced the ideas of liberty to force the politicians to reconsider the proper role of government.

Those who accept the premises of the welfare statists are incapable of making principled arguments against welfare and entitlement programs. Thus, they can only quibble over spending levels or how to more efficiently manage the federal bureaucracy. While fiscal conservatives may gain some minor victories with this approach, their failure to challenge the welfare state’s morality or effectiveness dooms any effort to seriously curtail welfare state spending.

Similarly, one cannot favor both serious reductions in the military budget and an aggressive foreign policy. So-called cheap hawks may achieve some reforms in the Pentagon’s budget. They many even succeed in killing a few wasteful weapons projects. However, their unwillingness to oppose a foreign policy of perpetual war means they will always cave in to the war hawks’ demands for ever-higher military budgets.

Those who understand the dangers from continuing on our current path should support efforts to stop Congress from raising the debt ceiling. However, supporters of liberty will not win the political battle over government spending on welfare and warfare until we win the intellectual battle over the role of government. Those of us who know the truth must do all we can to spread the ideas of liberty.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By John R. Haines*

A Swiss government-sponsored unit of the Paris-based Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has defined world soccer body FIFA as a multi-national bound by the group’s guidelines. As a result, the group concluded that FIFA is responsible for the upholding of the human and labour rights of workers employed in Qatar on 2022 World Cup-related projects.

The decision by the OECD, which groups 34 of the world’s richest countries, in response to a trade union complaint about the violation of workers’ rights, rejected FIFA’s argument that the soccer body was a non-profit group and an association under Swiss law rather than a corporation and its attempts to absolve itself of responsibility for sub-standard labour conditions on projects that fall under the group’s contract with Qatar.

In its complaint to the OECD, trade union Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) asserted that the awarding of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar violated OECD guidelines given that the Gulf state’s widespread violation of human rights had long been known and documented. It said further that FIFA had failed to conduct due diligence, lacked a human rights policy as required by the non-binding guidelines, and had refrained from ensuring that its projects would not have an adverse impact on human rights.

FIFA while rejecting responsibility has said it was working with Qatari authorities to improve labour conditions in the Gulf state.

The OECD decision could not have come at a worse moment for FIFA, already embroiled in the worst corruption scandal in its history that has led to the suspension or banning of senior managers, including recently suspended president Sepp Blatter and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) president Michel Platini, who both have close ties to Qatar.

A Swiss judicial enquiry is investigating potential wrongdoing in Qatar’s controversial bid while a US Department of Justice investigation into FIFA corruption could expand to include the Gulf state’s bid.

Qatar has said it had yet to be contacted by Swiss investigators but would fully cooperate with the enquiry. Qatar has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in its controversial bid.

Qatar could also become a US justice department focus given that Singapore-based World Sport Group (WSG) is likely on the department’s radar because it acquired the international broadcasting rights of the Gold Cup and CONCACAF Champions League operated by the soccer confederation for North, Central America and the Caribbean together with Traffic, one of the sport marketing companies indicted in the US.

Traffic´s owner, Brazilian businessman Jose Hawilla, is cooperating with the FBI in its FIFA investigation, a lawyer for Mr. Hawilla told The Wall Street Journal. Under the agreement, Mr. Hawilla has admitted to crimes including money laundering, fraud, extortion, and has agreed to return $151 million in funds.

WSG has a $1 billion marketing rights agreement with the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) that was negotiated by then AFC president Mohammed Bin Hammam, a Qatari national who despite Qatari denials appears to have played an important role in the Gulf state’s World Cup bid.

Mr. Bin Hammam has since been banned for life by FIFA from involvement in professional soccer. A PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC) audit raised questions of potential bribery in the signing of the contract and advise the AFC to seek legal advice on either renegotiating or cancelling the contract.

AFC’s failure to act on PwC’s advice could dog the group’s president, Sheikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, who is expected to announce his candidacy for the FIFA presidency in the coming days. FIFA is scheduled to elect a new leader in February to replace Mr. Blatter.

Mr. Blatter has long asserted that FIFA was not responsible for labour conditions in Qatar that have been denounced by international trade unions and human rights group as modern slavery even though he at times has called for reform of the Gulf state’s kafala or sponsorship system that put employees at the mercy of their employers.

Qatar’s 2022 Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy, Qatar Foundation and Qatar Rail have in response to the criticism adopted standards that go a far way to improve labour condition within the context of existing Qatari legislation. Qatar has yet to incorporate those standards in law.

Responding to OECD questions, FIFA asserted somewhat disingenuously that its Qatari counterparts, the Qatar Football Association (QFA) as well as the bid and supreme committee were organizations that were independent of the government.

In a further bow to trade union demands that Qatar allow the formation of independent trade unions and collective bargaining, Qatari players this month founded the Qatar Players Association (QPA).

“We want to provide all players with the necessary protection. Our aim is to support, advise and represent our members at the local and international organisations in case of disputes. The QPA wants to support the football system in the country. You’ve noticed some of the issues – financial and others – between the players and clubs in Qatar. The QPA wants to represent the players and thus reduce the pressure on the QFA,” said QPA president Salman Al Ansari.

Qatar has suffered significant reputational damage as a result of high-profile labour disputes with foreign players, whose careers were significantly disrupted because they were not allowed to leave the country for extended periods of time under the kafala system while they sought to resolve their issues.

The degree of social segregation in Qatar, a country in which foreigners account for more than 80 percent of the population was highlighted this month with the publication by the municipality and urban planning ministry of interactive maps that identify areas in which migrant workers cannot be housed.

The no-go zones that include central Doha are described as ‘family housing areas,’ which forces employers to house workers on the outskirts of the city. The ban does not apply to service sector personnel and professionals.

Writing in The Peninsula, Qatari columnist Rashed Al Audah Al Fadly complained that the long-standing ban was not being strictly implemented. “These bachelor workers are threatening the privacy and comfort of families, spreading like a deadly epidemic that eats through our social fabric,” Mr. Al Fadly said in a reflection of Qatari fears that their culture is threatened by the massive influx of foreign labour, some of which were contracted for World Cup-related projects.

In today’s globalised world, where knowledge is a key driver of growth, socio-economic development and livelihood improvements, countries emerging from violent conflict need immediate, substantial and long-term support for (re)building and reforming their higher education systems and institutions.

By Dr. Savo Heleta*

One of the main roles of higher education is to develop human capital for socio-economic development and good governance. Universities are places where critical thinkers, administrators, civil servants, technicians, scientists, doctors and teachers are developed.

In many developing and conflict-prone countries higher education has been a neglected sector for decades, receiving insufficient support from local authorities and international donors. In addition, in countries experiencing violent conflict, higher education institutions often face repression, threats to academic freedom, brain-drain and destruction.

Without human capital, post-conflict countries will not be able to improve living conditions of their citizens and develop. Quality higher education can contribute to the recovery, peace-building, economic development and better governance.

However, rebuilding higher education systems and institutions in post-conflict settings is not a priority of local and international actors and does not feature in post-conflict planning. External actors’ main priorities are conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance, basic education and democratisation; local authorities often prioritise security and self-enrichment while ignoring education and livelihood improvements.

Neglecting higher education

The World Bank report on education in post-conflict settings notes that prioritising basic education while neglecting higher education creates long-term imbalances and challenges:

Much of the energy and resources of the international community have been directed at basic education, while education authorities have been left to their own resources to deal with the needs of the other subsectors. The result has been that system recovery has in some instances been out of balance in ways that will directly affect economic and social development in the longer term.

Even though the international community’s focus is on basic education as part of the humanitarian response, the total spending on rebuilding the education sector – including the basic, secondary and higher education – is still minimal, accounting for only 2% of the overall humanitarian assistance.

When it comes to the aid for higher education in developing and post-conflict countries, ‘only a small share of aid is currently intended to strengthen higher education systems in recipient countries. About 70% of aid to post-secondary education is intended for scholarships to study in donor countries.’

While many universities from the developed and emerging world as well as a number of international organisations and NGOs have been involved in projects aimed at capacity building and assisting higher education institutions in post-conflict countries, most of the initiatives are isolated, small-scale, ad hoc and short-term, without a strategy or framework that consider the long-term impact. In addition, there is no coordination, sharing of experiences and collaboration between institutions that offer assistance. Often, this is due to ‘turf wars’ and competition over funding.

Meaningful assistance

In today’s globalised world, where knowledge is a key driver of growth, socio-economic development and livelihood improvements, countries emerging from violent conflict need immediate, substantial and long-term support to (re)build and reform higher education systems and institutions. Post-conflict countries need to be able to develop university graduates who can contribute to reconstruction, development and the establishment of lasting peace and stability.

Support for rebuilding and reforming higher education in post-conflict settings ‘is key to ensuring more equitable access to better living conditions, increasingly specialised and better-paid jobs, and a more sustainable environment as well as sustainable economic and social development.’ Higher education plays a ‘critical role in developing the knowledge-intensive skills and innovation on which future productivity, job creation and competitiveness depend’ and needs to become one of the post-conflict recovery priorities. The 2015 York Accord sets out important recommendations for protection and rebuilding of higher education systems and institutions in the aftermath of armed conflict.

The reality in many countries affected by conflict is that higher education institutions are not able to provide quality education to the population in the aftermath of war. In such cases, it is inevitable to focus on ‘intervention-style’ assistance which will have to be delivered by external organisations and universities.

In the medium-to-long-run, it is crucial to provide meaningful assistance that can help (re)build physical infrastructure and institutional capacity of the higher education sector so that universities in post-conflict countries can deliver quality education to their populations instead of being dependent on outside assistance.

Higher education institutions from Europe, United States, South Africa and elsewhere can help universities in post-conflict settings through networking, partnering and joint sourcing of funding for projects. International partners can also assist through staff exchange, joint research, student exchange and development of mechanisms for accreditation and quality assurance. Donor funding will be the key in this process. Most universities from the developed and emerging world cannot on their own assist post-conflict countries to build capacity in the higher education sector without support from international donors.

Apart from assisting post-conflict countries and their institutions as part of the academic solidarity and engagement, international partners stand to gain from this involvement. International travel, teaching and research opportunities will help internationalise their academics and staff, who will develop new knowledge, perspectives and competence which can then be utilised in work with students at home institutions.

Changing divisive discourses

Universities and organisations interested in assisting higher education institutions in war-torn countries must be culturally sensitive in their engagement and ensure that they do not impose their own ideas, values and/or ideologies on the recipients of their assistance. Instead, they need to fully understand the societies, systems, problems, needs and challenges and work closely with local actors to design, develop and deliver country-specific projects informed by local needs and challenges. Wherever possible, they should involve local academics and experts in their programmes, thus helping build local capacity in the process.

Apart from the mainstream academic programmes such as economics, engineering and science, it is important to promote programmes that can contribute to stabilisation and peace-building, such as conflict management and peace studies. Peace-building needs to be incorporated into the curriculum in order to develop individuals and institutions capable of changing divisive discourses and contributing to conflict prevention and stabilisation.

Other priorities in the education sector – such as rebuilding primary and secondary education – should not be cut down to accommodate rebuilding and reform of higher education in post-conflict settings. Primary and secondary education are crucial for well-being of any society but they are not enough on their own for development and progress.

Higher education institutions are places where the capacities for innovation, critical thinking, creation of new knowledge and progress are developed. Rebuilding higher education systems and institutions after armed conflict needs to become one of the key priorities as countries cannot move forward and improve living conditions in the long-run without quality higher education.

*Dr. Savo Heleta is the manager of Internationalisation at Home and Research at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University’s Office for International Education (OIE) in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He is also researcher in OIE’s Research Unit for Higher Education Internationalisation in the Developing World. 

This article is a brief summary of a following paper: Heleta, S. 2015. Higher Education in Post-Conflict Societies: Settings, Challenges and Priorities. Handbook Internationalisation of European Higher Education. Vol. 1. 2015. Stuttgart: Raabe Verlag.

By Bhaskar Roy*

While the World Bank raised the status of Bangladesh to a lower middle – income country and World Bank President,Jim Yong Kim lauded Bangladesh’s role in empowering women,terming the country a model in women’s progress,rising terrorism has cast a shadow on the nation

.In the last six years,since the Awami League– led progressive and secular coalition government under Prime Minister Sk.Hasina came to power,the GDP grew over six per cent despite global economic slowdown, exports increased and foreign exchange reserves went up seven times.This is no mean achievement for a country which was described as a “basket–case” by Henry Kissinger.No efforts were spared after liberation, by a section of the people, (with foreign assistance), to convert the liberal country into a right wing Islamic nation run by Sharia law.It may be kept in view that through Saudi funding to spread the extreme Islamic ideology of Wahabism, madrassas sprouted all over the country and over 250,000 mosques were built.

The ethos of Bangladesh was split between the citizens and political parties,between those who rejected Pakistani culture and Islamism and won freedom for the nation in 1971,and those who clung on to the character ofPakistan.

President Zia-ur-Rehman, a highly decorated freedom fighter revealed another side of his character.From a major in the Pakistani army he rose to become chief of army staff of Bangladesh through dubious means including assassinations and betrayals, becoming president of the country through a coup. Shunned by all political parties, he floated his own party, the BNP, in 1978 ;rehabilitated the banned Jamaat-e-Islami,but was eventually assassinated in1981.

The Jamaat which was anti-liberation and staunchly pro-Pakistan was involved in the rape and killing of pro-liberation citizens.Many of Jamaat’s top leaders are being tried for genocide and crimes against humanity,being sentenced to life-imprisonment or death in open trials by a special court.

In the interim, between 1978 and 2006, the BNP and Jamaat’s Islamic conservatism and politically supported terrorism took roots.Especially during the BNP-Jamaat government,many terrorist organizations such as the Jamatul Mujahidin Bangladesh(JMB), HUJI and others were used for crimes.The political patrons of terrorism remain strong,well-funded and active.

When she returned to power as prime minister in 2009, Sk. Hasina asserted that her prime aim was to eradicate terrorism from Bangladesh and counter terrorism elsewhere.Her party won with a sweeping majority,signifying the deep disillusionment and disgust that voters felt about the previous government. First time voters resoundingly rejected terrorism, political assassinations,high handedness and corruption.They wanted jobs, development and progress – something that Sk. Hasina’s government has striven to give and the global community and institutions have recognized the same.

Sk. Hasina, a victim of terrorism herself and survivor of an assassination attempt in 2004,initially succeeded in her counter terrorism agenda.But it is apparent that she is being challenged severely.The JMB has not only reared its head in Bangladesh but has infiltrated into India across the porous border.

In the meanwhile, several other terrorist organizations have taken birth.The Ansarullah Bangladesh Team (ABT),which claims affiliation to the Al Qaeda,killed four secular bloggers in separate incidents earlier this year. Al Qaeda chief, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, gave a call last year for the establishment of his organization in Bangladesh.

The recent killing of two foreigners,Italian NGO worker Cesare Tavella (Dhaka,Sept.28) and Japanese citizen Kunio Hoshi (Rangpur,Oct.3) has created a new concern. An American for-profit enterprise,SITE reported that the Islamic State (IS) had claimed responsibility for the killings.The killings led to the UK, US and Australia issuing advisories to their citizens in Bangladesh to be alert.

The above two incidents had immediate effect on Bangladesh’s economy.Fewer foreign businessmen are seen in Dhaka. Some foreign purchasers of garments have either cancelled or delayed their visits.The garment industry, which is the biggest foreign exchange earner is beginning to feel threatened.

It is still being questioned whether the IS has really entered Bangladesh. According to a report, Indian intelligence agencies are not convinced that the IS was involved in the Tavella and Hoshi killings.The argument is based on the premise that these were not signature IS killings.Tavella and Hoshi were shot by three men on a motorcycle, whereas the IS uses terrifying methods like beheading, burning and drowning.

This differentiation or identification appears a little too simplistic. The IS has entered Afghanistan and is fighting the Taliban. There has not yet been any dramatic IS signature execution of prisoners. Their method of killing depends upon the geography, social conditions and psyche of the killers.

As the IS expands beyond its Iraq and Syrian stronghold, where it claims to have established a caliphate, it will have to depend on its recruits.

Enticed by IS propaganda over the internet, several Bangladeshis have joined the IS, travelling to Syria via Turkey. An extended expatriate family from UK crossed over to IS earlier this year. Similarly, around 15 Indians joined the IS but some of them returned after experiencing horrifying conditions.

The IS, with an ideology far retrograde to Wahabism does not accept Wahabism because the latter embraces a king.They are unlikely to accommodate the ideology of Bangladeshi terrorists or of the Jamaat. The Jamaat accepts a woman prime minister as a political strategy, but once it wins,if ever,it will impose its ideology which has no place for women.

Police in Dhaka arrested two IS recruiters in May this year. One of them,Aminul Islam, was a computer science graduate and the other, Sakib bin Kamal, was a teacher in an English medium school in Dhaka. Both were in their thirties and were involved with the JMB.Over a period from September 2014, police have arrested around 20 suspected IS members. Most importantly, JMB cadres are shifting towards the IS. Saturated with the ideology of terrorism, it is not surprising that cadres from JMB and other such organizations are ideal for recruitment by the IS.

Interestingly,the Jamaat elders have never condemned the IS and its entry or potential entry into Bangladesh.While the Jamaat has sharply criticized the government for the rise in terrorist incidents, they have to explain how two of their leaders, former lawmakers Mia Golam Parawar and Mojibur Rahman were arrested from a house in Dhaka with 20 home-made bombs.

Parawar is an assistant general secretary of Jamaat, while Rahman is an acting Naeb-e-Amir of the party (bdnews24.com dated 7 Sept. 2015). Crying conspiracy will not help.

At the same time, the government must take much stronger steps to arrest culprits and bring them to justice.Several international observers are of the view that the government does not want to alienate the conservative Muslim voter. This policy will not help.It could encourage deviationists who may think they have found a door open to them.

Obviously, the opposition feels that if the government’s development plan collapses and progress stalls,voters will turn to them.Hence they aid and abet these activities, not realizing that if the terrorists succeed, they will also be swept away.

The IS is a huge international concern.The world, including Bangladesh’s friend China,will not allow an IS supremacy in Bangladesh. Strong action by the government and international assistance to Bangladesh in this regard is an urgent necessity. The IS may not come to Bangladesh, but lone wolf attacks are very likely to proliferate.Apart from strong law and order initiatives, the government and the clergy need to think out of the box using the progressive media and the internet to explain to the people that the IS has no connection to Islam and is a noxious organization.

*Note: The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst.He can be reached at email grouchohart@yahoo.com.

Parties to Yemen’s armed conflict should take all necessary measures to protect Sanaa’s Old City, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. International humanitarian law provides special protections to buildings and other structures that are part of humanity’s cultural heritage.

Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, has been controlled for the past year by the forces of Ansar Allah, better known as the Houthis. In recent weeks, Yemeni forces loyal to the government of President Abd Rabu Hadi, backed by troops from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, have been advancing on the town of Marib, 170 kilometers east of Sanaa, perhaps in preparation for an attack on the capital.

“Beyond the loss of civilian lives, it would be a terrible additional loss to humanity if Sanaa’s Old City, inhabited for 2,500 years, became a battlefield,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director. “Both Houthi and coalition forces need to abide by international legal protections and keep the Old City out of any future fighting.”

Since late March 2015, a Saudi Arabia-led coalition of nine Arab countries has attacked Houthi-controlled cities and towns and imposed an economic blockade on the country. The United States has provided intelligence and logistical support. The fighting has caused the deaths of more than 2,100 civilians, according to the United Nations.

The coalition air campaign has been responsible for most of the civilian deaths, according to the UN. Many of these airstrikes on Sanaa, the Houthi northern stronghold of Saada, and other cities have been indiscriminate or used cluster munitions, in violation of the laws of war. The Houthis too have committed abuses, including indiscriminate rocket attacks, the mistreatment of detainees, and enforced disappearances of political opponents.

On October 2, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a deeply flawed resolution that ignored calls for an international inquiry into mounting abuses in the country. The Netherlands originally put forward a draft resolution that would have mandated a UN mission to document violations by all sides since September 2014. Several members of the Saudi-led coalition conducting military operations in Yemen – including Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates – openly opposed the proposed UN inquiry.

The Houthis have been moving into Sanaa’s Old City since 2011, and placing any troops, weapons, or headquarters there would make them military targets. On June 12, an explosion in the Old City destroyed several buildings and killed five people. The coalition denied that the explosion was the result of an airstrike. On September 19, a coalition airstrike hit an apartment building in the Old City, killing nine members of a family, international media reported.

After the June 12 explosion, UNESCO’s director general, Irina Bokova, urged all parties to protect Yemen’s cultural heritage. “I am profoundly distressed by the loss of human lives as well as by the damage inflicted on one of the world’s oldest jewels of Islamic urban landscape,” she said. “I am shocked by the images of these magnificent many-storied tower-houses and serene gardens reduced to rubble.”

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and its 1999 protocol seek to protect “property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people,” by prohibiting parties to an armed conflict from using the property for purposes likely to expose it to destruction or damage. Hostile acts may not be committed against such property unless it is being used for military purposes and there is imperative military necessity for doing so.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes it a war crime to deliberately attack historic monuments, among other structures, unless they are military objectives.

The Houthis should be redeploying their forces away from and not into the Old City, Human Rights Watch said. Coalition forces have an obligation to take the Hague Convention protections into account if they attack any Houthi forces there. The US, the United Kingdom and other countries backing the coalition should raise their concerns about possible damage to the Old City and Yemen’s cultural heritage.

“The US and other coalition supporters should send a clear message to Saudi Arabia and others to do all they can to avoid fighting in Sanaa’s Old City,” Stork said. “In a year when so many of the Middle East’s greatest architectural wonders have been damaged and destroyed, it would be a terrible tragedy to add Sanaa to the list.”

If in South-East Europe corruption reigns, then the lie becomes an all-seeing eye, and hypocrisy becomes the spiritus movens of everyday life.

If Academic degrees are acquired overnight, and gas stations per capita are in a greater number than in most developed European states …

If the marginalized call themselves writers, and yet are party cronies who have circulations thanks to the party structures that are purchased by the pens of nonsense …

If the veterans of the Homeland / Patriotic War became yesterday’s members of the UDBA, KOS and similar birds (KOS translated from the BHSC language into English is BLACKBIRD) …

If in Sarajevo, Belgrade, Podgorica and / or Zagreb the words: “Beware, the bullet!”, becomes to be recognizably a local tourist offer …

If the people are happy only when the neighbor’s cow dies, sorry, when the neighbor lost a job.

If there is no future now and neither will there be, at least for the next fifty years or so …

Well, my dear Milan (Serbian guy), dear Mehmed (Muslim guy) and dear Mario (Croatian guy), now nicely take a bucket of water and clean up the graffiti that you wrote at the entrance to our institution. And come on inside, to take your therapy, as today things will be a  little enhanced. The General Manager is coming for an inspection. So for us to it is better to be safe, sorry, to ensure that all is ok. Just in case.

Apocalypse / Armageddon

Since the beginning of the Twentieth Century statistics have shown that so many people lost their lives in the senselessness of waging war, so many so that we do not need any more.

And when one thinks that there is something, well, a little, calmed down, there you have cataclysms, and the Apocalypse or Armageddon, I am confident that it is behind the curve. Will it be by a meteor or a catastrophic earthquakes, as was the one in Japan, which wrapped that country into a black hole, but also the entire planet, or does that not matter at all.

How so? Just because a human, that worthless form of laboratory experiments that originated in the energy databases something of whom we are explicitly call God/Allah or so, we the poor, does not deserve anything better. We are mortal, being aware of that, but only at the end of our journey.

Meanwhile, we are running for the money and fame and surviving on the hatred of others and those who are different from us and live on the other side of the fence. When we think that we are at the end of our journey, and have finally reached the end of our visions, there appears a cataclysm that has swept entire towns, as if a reflection of the tsunami of the soul, earthly one. The area of ​​the Balkans, to be more precise, the area of South-East Europe…to be more precise, even — the territory of Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina — really deserves a tsunami of pure intentions, that aspires towards ascension. But what will happen soon, and I’d love to, oh, how I wish to be wrong, is the conflicto in viva burdened with unresolved problems of the identity, the country, the nation. Uber Üllés!

Looking at today,  and occasionally the TV channels from the above-mentioned areas, I am reminded of the 1990-1992 years when the HE, the other one, was to blame because he is alive. Because, he breathes MY air. Because, he is walking on MY land. Because, he boasts with MY successes. Because, he lives my life. And we do not even realize that Yugoslavia will never be again, but there will be no Greater Serbia or Greater Croatia, but, by God, not the Greater Bosnia and Herzegovina … Because we are so small within our misery that no tsunami, or the Ecumenical energy which sends that, with the help of an internal enemy, we are not within an interest at all.

Believing this because for us the world rotates on its axis. Hating the success of others and is different precisely because he knows, he always wants to live a better life of its own intentions. I always wanted to live a decent life. Those desires generated by short-reflections. I do not blame anyone nor will I ever do it because the fact that being in the status of Outstanding / Distinguish artist in this region is a curse on the road of ascension! The struggle is constant, but never at the expense of other and different. Now, there’s a problem. I miss that small “rib” in my head that it makes. Too bad! And it could be a beautiful story. Of hatred.

Surplus of history

And yet, again, we are producing a history that we cannot bear:

1. In the past few years we have the fact that Serbia apologized (via the Board of Directors of Radio Television Serbia) for all incitement and bad words that the broadcaster did or sent not only to on their own, but also to the nations outside Serbia in the nineties, and that, behold, in 2011 caught a General Mladić, poor one, for whom did not know where he was when he was 16 years old. O tempora, O mores! Lie of the worn truth!

2. Croatia in the EU, while Euro-skepticism like tsunami goes around that beautiful country. They do not realize, poor ones, that here is just the Great Hall of Globalism. Namely, that the EU is nothing, but the final incarnation of Orwell’s vision of the world. And we do not complain.

3. Bosnia and Herzegovina even after twelve months from the elections it still does not have a proper government. Sorry, there is one, but a truncated one. And for us, the poor ones, it does not matter because both — within the government and without — there is no difference. Poverty, pain and the melting of a state. Ah, what Republic that used to be!

4. Macedonia cannot even use its name. She is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I swear to Greek!

5. Montenegro is a country ruled by Milo Đukanovic. The people call him a Chameleon — Of adaptability: Communist, Nationalist, Jingo, Liberal – 4 in the 1. He is stronger than Ness coffee – 3 in 1.

6. Slovenia lives much worse than it was before entering the European Union. But, for poor one, Brussels doesn’t hear this!

7. Finally, the issue of Kosovo. It is a state, outside of Serbia. But if it is a state, then ask Serbia? Obviously, poor ones, neither of them cannot get together with each other. So why then do they not restrict it? It cannot be, poor ones, because who is going to do that?

Last, but not least, misery here is not nonsense, yet it is a basic postulate of living.

Because, if there is no misery, fools could not rule and manipulate with tens of millions of wretches, nor argue or fuss and truly be the miserable ones, but after the elections, instead of enjoying themselves in misery. Indeed, one question, which I address first to myself, and then to you, dear reader, is inevitable:

“Is there anything we can do to make us feel better? We cannot! For what reason? Due to the surplus of history!”

Hypocrisy Uber Üllés

When you cannot look into the personalities who yell loudly … enough … louder that cannot be, as we ought to live this little quantity of years in front of us that remains quietly and without objections towards invertebrates of the spirit that controls earthly efforts of the souls. Mine.

When you cannot feel sorry for, and you do not hate, the callousness of fellow writers … who awards named by antifascist author to exactly the fascist authors. To emphasize, because of the gray home which is called life.

When you see that white is white and that cannot be whiter. And black has lost inwardly its meaningless suggestions. South-East Europe, your awakening will never happen, because you have never fallen asleep.

When you cry over the graves of the local princess while the hope is vanishing that she will, perhaps, one day, be resurrected and hand over the happiness, whatever it is.

When on the funeral of your dear friend, the poet and master of the short story, Samir Tahirović, the good soul from Donji Vakuf (Bosnia and Herzegovina), you meet former communists who worship towards the imaginary friend for adults …  the same people who twenty-five years ago were arrested for salaams in public places. But who you are to judge?

When you know you’ve left a mark. Still just waiting the future Indiana Jones, while using a thin, dry brush, to clean up traces of the soul and reveal the future. Not yours, as you said, that left a mark, on your soul.

When you see that, however, you survive, selling your own products to get through each month. And those products, of the moment when they get into the hands of potential customers, become part of their sincerity. At least that is something you surely have.

When the bearded man with short pants no longer swoops in and just using words and threatens the faith of your ancestors. They are pulling out the rifles. The Great Ape has not been announced yet with the decision to cut them off!

When you know that more that 50 essays have been written for Eurasia Review is not a small portion. But, then not everything has been written, and not even read. On record, especially.

Moscow has largely forgotten about Transdniestria recently, a Russian analyst says, a reflection of Russia’s problems elsewhere. But the geopolitical role of that breakaway republic and its significance for Russian civilization are so large that continuing neglect could have “catastrophic” consequences for Russia as a whole “already next year.”

In emotional language, Aleksandr Sergey of the Caucasus Geopolitical Club, a group which appears to have close ties to the Kremlin, argues that Moscow must act and act quickly in order to prevent a collapse in the breakaway Moldovan republic, an indication some in Moscow are in fact focusing on Transdniestria (.kavkazgeoclub.ru/content/rossiya-spasi-pridnestrove).

Because that could have enormous security implications not only for Moldova but also Ukraine, Sergeyev’s argument about the nature of problems there, the ways they could affect Russia are especially noteworthy, and what steps Moscow should take are particularly noteworthy.
The economic situation in Transdniestria, Sergeyev says, is “balanced over a deep abyss.” As of the start of 2016, the breakaway republic will lose the chance to export to EU countries; and given that nearly “100 percent blockade” on the Ukrainian border, that will lead to “an economic catastrophe with all ensuing social consequences.”

Transdniestria’s military-political situation, between two hostile states, is “not better,” he continues. As a result, the population of the breakaway republic is “ever more strongly subjected to fear which is gradually being transformed into widespread social frustration.” That too has political consequences.

In addition, the Ukrainian Maidan and the economic crisis in Russia have led to a sharp decline in the standard of living of people in Transdniestria. Wages and pensions have been but by 30 percent, and many people are angry. Indeed, he continues, such “unpopular measures” have lowered the status of the government.

Next year, there are elections for both the parliament and the president, and those could become the occasions for destabilization in Transdniestria., especially if there are new threats from Moldova or Ukraine. A combination of these could become “explosive” and create a situation that could easily “get out of control.”

Sergeyev says that the current government in Transdniestria has made a number of serious mistakes. Its propaganda work has been especially weak. As a result, it often loses at home to propaganda efforts from abroad and even against those at home who might otherwise be inclined to work with it.

To cope with this situation, the Russian analyst says that Moscow elites and civil society leaders need to pursue the following goals:

• First, they must pursue “the gradual legal recognition of the Transdniestria Moldovan republic and the creation of the necessary conditions for this,” including the establishment of an air corridor with the Eurasian Union.

• Second, they must allow Transdniestria businesses to work in the Russian economic space on an equal basis with Russian ones.

• Third, Moscow must communicate to Russian elites that Transdniestria is “vitally important” for them and that they cannot afford to lose it.

• Fourth, Moscow must give Russian passports to “100 percent” of Trandniestria residents.

• Fifth, Moscow must ensure that Transdniestria has “genuine military security” by “significantly increasing” the size of the Russian troop presence.

• Sixth, Russia must supply sufficient funds to cover Transdniestria’s state budget deficit.

• Seventh, Moscow must give Transdniestria residents access to Russian scientific, cultural and educational institutions on an equal basis with Russians.

• Eighth, Moscow must prepare the necessary legal arguments for Transdniestria’s acquisition of international legal status by arguing for the continuing legitimacy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocols, thus undermining Moldova’s claims and by raising issues of the “acts of genocide” against the Transdniestria population in 1992 in international forums.

Even if all these things are done, Sergeyev says, there will still be problems, but they will be sufficient to ward of the catastrophe that appears likely to emerge early next year.

The Israel Football Association (IFA) acting on orders of the police has suspended what it calls ‘sensitive’ matches, a reference to professional and amateur games between Israeli Jewish and Israeli Palestinian squads.

Police said the suspension on soccer pitches that have long signalled mounting tensions, violence, and racism in Israeli society was because their forces where stretched to the limit in attempting to prevent Palestinian lone wolf attacks on Israeli Jews.

The police and Israeli military have been accused in recent weeks of using excessive force, including shoot-to-kill, in their effort to counter mushrooming peaceful and violent protests in against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

Supporters of arch rivals Beitar Jerusalem, Israel’s most hard line anti-Palestinian club, and Bnei Sakhnin, the only Israeli Palestinian team in the premier league, hurled rocks at one another earlier this month. Last month, shots were fired when supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv clashed with Palestinians who were celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

A militant support group, Maccabi Tel Aviv Fanatics, hoisted a banner during a match saying “Refugees Not Welcome,” after their club said it alongside some 80 teams competing in the Champions and Europa League would donate 1 euro per ticket to support Syrian refugees from their first home games. The banner was a play on banners saying “Refugees Welcome” that are frequently hoisted by fans in European stadia.

Two other recent incidents highlight the degree to which violence has become rooted in Israeli society as it is a tool in Palestinian resistance to Israeli rule among disenchanted and disenfranchised West Bank youth.

“We are all human beings we are all equal. It does not matter if an Arab stabbed me or a Jew stabbed me, a religious, orthodox or secular person. I have no words to describe this hate crime,” Uzi Rezken, a supermarket employee, told Israeli television. Mr. Rezken was speaking from his hospital bed after having been stabbed by an Israeli Jew who mistook him for being a Palestinian.

“You deserve it, you deserve it. You are bastard Arabs,” Mr. Rezken quoted his attacker as saying as the supermarket employee shouted at him that he was Jewish, not Palestinian.

Days earlier, members of La Familia, Israel’s most violent, racist soccer fan group that supports Beitar Jerusalem, the only top Israeli club that refuses to hire Palestinian or Muslim players, attacked a supporter of rival club Hapoel Tel Aviv with an axe.

Members of La Familia wearing Beitar T-shirts, many of who openly support the outlawed racist Kach party, marched earlier this month alongside supporters of Lechava, a right-wing grouping seeking to prevent the assimilation of non-Jews in Israel through Jerusalem shouting “Death to Arabs” and “Mohammed is dead,” slogans frequently heard on the stands during Beitar matches, and “may your village burn.” Palestinians account for about 20 percent of Israel’s citizenry.

The soccer violence with La Familia in the lead is likely to complicate Israeli efforts to ensure that world soccer body FIFA does not become the first international organization to suspend Israel. Israel evaded suspension last May when Palestine withdrew a resolution demanding that Israel be penalized for its policies, including racism in soccer. A FIFA committee is seeking to mediate an Israeli-Palestinian compromise that in the current environment is likely to prove increasingly difficult.

The Palestine Football Association (PFA) has been documenting alleged violations of Israeli promises to work with FIFA and the Palestinians to eliminate Israeli obstacles to the development and functioning of Palestinian. Among incidents cited is Israel’s reported refusal earlier this month to allow a player of the Palestinian national team to return to the West Bank from the squad’s qualifier in Qatar for a regional tournament when he arrived on an Israeli-controlled bridge linking the West Bank to Jordan.

The threat of a FIFA suspension weighs heavily with international public opinion increasingly critical of Israel and the Palestinians likely to step up their campaign to isolate Israel in international organizations.

Spanish football club Sevilla FC recently rejected a $5.7 million sponsorship deal to advertise tourism in Israel on its players’ shirts. The 2015 UEFA Europa League champions turned down the offer because it conjured support for Israel, Spanish sports newspaper Mundo Deportivo reported.

Israeli sports reporter Adi Rubinstein writing on his Facebook page noted that soccer pitches often serve as early indicators of societal trends. “What has been happening in Israel since… (last month’s) beginning of (the Jewish calendar) year is more than anything else reminiscent of what happened in Yugoslavia in 1990s. That is precisely how it started (there) How did it end? Well, we all know,” he wrote referring to the Yugoslav wars.

Speaking to Al-Monitor, Guy Israel, a member of La Familia, which has several of its members behind bars and like Beitar Jerusalem faces several judicial and administrative investigations, appeared to be downplaying the political and racist nature of much of the group’s activity.

“It’s a matter of letting off steam. At present, there are restrictions on anything and everything. You mustn’t swear, and you shouldn’t smoke in the pub. There is a long list of bans and prohibitions. You are limited wherever you go. And the rage builds up inside you until it finally explodes,” Mr. Israel said.

By Akhil Shah*

At face value, Qatar’s engagement with the world is impressive. Doha has not only cultivated a strong alliance with the United States as the host of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and extended overtures to Israel, but until recently the tiny emirate truly also competed with its larger neighbor—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—for a dominant role in the Sunni Arab world. A closer examination of Qatari foreign policy, however, demonstrates that a number of Doha’s initiatives have proven unsuccessful, diminishing the ultra-rich Persian Gulf emirate’s global presence.

Until 2011, Qatar sought to use soft power, particularly diplomacy, to increase its presence and establish the Gulf nation as a major actor on the international stage. However, after the Arab Spring erupted across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Qatar quickly shifted its foreign policy strategy. Instead of focusing on soft power, Doha became increasingly involved in regional conflicts, most notably in Libya and Syria. In the process, Qatar’s work to cultivate relations based on soft power was quickly undone and Doha’s status as an influential regional actor was diminished.

At this juncture, a key question remains unanswered. Where does Qatar go from here? It appears that the emirate is seeking to re-cultivate its soft power influence. However, rather than relying on diplomacy, the Qataris seem to be using the culture of competitive sports to promote their views. Branding is central and critical to Qatar’s long term plan, and they are heavily investing in global sporting ventures to promote their image before the world.

Mediation and Diplomacy: 2003–2011

Despite Qatar’s tiny size—both geographically and demographically—Doha’s foreign policy earned the emirate significant influence from 2003 until the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011. Prior to the Syrian crisis, Qatar’s strategy was to maintain positive relations with all influential actors without committing to any one particular party. From 2003 onward, Emir Sheikh Hamad formulated foreign policy in a manner that garnered Qatar a reputation for being an “honest” peace broker.

This reputation was evident in the peace that the former Emir of Qatar helped broker between the U.S., UK, and Libya over the dismantling of the Libyan nuclear program. In 2008, Doha played a highly productive role in resolving Lebanon’s internal crisis, thereby preventing another Lebanese civil war from erupting. The Qataris also exerted their diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts and tensions in Afghanistan, Darfur, Palestine, and the Horn of Africa.

Throughout this period, Doha relied heavily on al-Jazeera (Qatar’s state-run news network), currently referred to as one of the major wings of Qatari public diplomacy. By 2006, the network had added a twenty-four hour channel and diversified its reach by broadcasting programs in Turkish and even Swahili; by 2010 it was reported that seventy-eight percent of the Arab World relied upon al-Jazeera for international news. Attracting such a wide and diverse audience played a critical role in the cultivation of Qatari soft power throughout the 2000s. The Qatari leadership was quick to realize that via al-Jazeera the emirate was able to promote its values and ideas, as well as a positive image, throughout the MENA region.

Furthermore, al-Jazeera enabled Qatar to manipulate international events to advance Doha’s interests. A key example of this occurred in 2009. In a cable sent to Doha, the U.S. Embassy claimed that Sheikh Hamad told then-Senator John Kerry about a bargain he had in place with then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Al-Jazeera would not broadcast any programs on Egypt or its government, in exchange for a shift in Cairo’s position on Israel-Palestine negotiations. Though Mubarak is reported to have said nothing in response, there is little doubt that al-Jazeera is not as editorially independent as it claims.

Direct involvement: 2011-2012

In 2011, Qatar inexplicably changed its strategy. Soft power was swapped out for direct military involvement. In Libya, Doha took an active role against Muammar Gaddafi. Not only did the emirate provide serious funding and an estimated twenty thousand tons of weaponry, but it also trained and sent Libyan exiles and other militia groups to fight. Doha also became deeply involved in Syria and Egypt’s Arab Spring uprisings. Yet Qatar’s failure to advance its interests in these countries significantly diminished Doha’s credibility. Qatar’s soft power card suffered, as did al-Jazeera’s reputation after it was heavily criticized for an alleged editorial bias.

Egypt is the clearest example of Qatar’s fall from grace. According to many observers, Qatar used al-Jazeera to spread its pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda. Following the Egyptian coup d’état of July 3, 2013 which ousted Mohammed Morsi, a growing number of Egyptians began viewing al-Jazeera as little more than a promoter of Qatari interests. The military takeover in Cairo forced Qatar to withdraw from Egypt, leaving its Gulf rival Saudi Arabia to capitalize on the situation and provide the junta with USD 13 billion in aid, reasserting Riyadh’s position as a regional mediator.

The World Cup Bid

In December 2010, Qatar won the bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, beating Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. This was arguably the beginning of Qatar’s efforts to cultivate a new form of soft power in which Doha would promote itself as a global sporting destination.

However, since securing the bid, Qataris have been subjected to high levels of criticism. Voices accuse Doha of becoming the host of the World Cup in 2022 through corrupt maneuvers, as well as failing to protect the human rights of its migrant work force. Consequently, the domestic brand and image that Doha sought to promote is not what the world sees today. While many commentators argue that the allegations have set back any new ambitions of Qatar, Doha’s reaction is telling. While Qatar’s leadership has hit back against allegations surrounding the infamous Mohamed bin Hammam, Doha views the World Cup as simply one wing of Qatar’s overall strategy. In part, this seems to be due to the smart and wide-ranging investments that they have made since winning the bid. Although Qatar’s image has been damaged, it is premature to conclude that this damage is permanent.

The Future

It appears that in recognition of their dwindling regional influence, the Qataris have embarked upon a new strategy of cultivating soft power through sport and culture. Since 2010, the Qataris have invested massive amounts of wealth into a number of major sporting companies and ventures. This strategy represents both a diversification of the Qatari economy as well as a move to regain its lost international status. Doha is aware that the emirate’s natural gas reserves cannot last forever and Qatar is already facing growing competition from the U.S. and Australia. Bloomberg’s energy desk believes that by 2018 Australia will be the leading manufacturer of Liquefied Natural Gas. At this juncture, Doha views sports as a means to open new doors into more financial deals and to re-cultivate international influence following failed foreign policy strategies regarding the Arab Spring.

In the near future sporting culture will form an increasingly central part of Qatar’s international strategy. In the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the FIFA World Cup bid, it is vital that Qatar builds a successful international brand and this is exactly what is happening. The Qataris, recognizing the importance of branding and have made strategic investments in this sector.

Only large, globally recognizable brands will be found in the Qatari portfolio. Key examples include Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, two of the best known and most successful football teams which are now Qatari-owned. The spillover effects from these investments may eventually translate to growing economic and political relationships with the French and Spanish governments. Beyond this, Qatar has also reportedly made a USD 7 billion bid for a controlling stake in Formula 1 Racing. The emirate has also invested in UK horse racing, Deutsche Bank, and American Express, just to name a few strategic moves.

By engaging with projects across the world, Qatar is positioning itself to regain influence on an international scale with an entirely different strategy. By associating with global brands, Doha is embarking on a new course of creating relationships and developing partnerships with key actors and institutions. Presently, Qatar’s influence is markedly less than it was in 2010. Yet, the dream of establishing a dominant global presence is not over. Qatar’s immense natural resource wealth will secure a prosperous future for the Gulf state. Ultimately, this prosperity will ensure that the tiny emirate’s presence remains disproportionately large.

*Akhil Shah is a counter-terrorism and foreign policy analyst based at the University of Chicago.

This article was originally published by Gulf State Analytics on October 14, 2015

Over the last two decades, the Middle East has proven to be a focal point of Western foreign policy and political intrigue. From the optimism that marked the USA’s forays into the region’s complex dramas in the early 1990’s to the ongoing War on Terror, the Middle East has certainly shaped today’s political climate. But while great focus has been given to countries such as Iraq or Syria, another serious emerging threat is a nation historically seen as marginally important by the US: Mauritania.

Mauritania, located between Senegal and Morocco, is a large but sparsely populated country. A former French colony, Mauritania has been touted as an ally in the fight against terrorism in West Africa. While up until recently, Mauritania had little to no interaction with the United States, existing more in European spheres of interest, reports of Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters being trained in the West African country put it on Washington’s radar.

An influx of militants, weaponry and toxic ideology has been steadily spilling in from post-Gaddafi Libya and northern Mali. The country doubled down on its efforts after a string of attacks targeting Western nationals and buildings, leading to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to declare a jihad against the country. The current situation in Mauritania has been compared to pre-9/11 Afghanistan, an unjust comparison seeing the overall stability of the country. Nevertheless, some analysts see Mauritania as a potential source of the next significant terrorist attack on the West, which is why the country has embarked on an ambitious war on terror.

Under president Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, a former army general who ousted his pro-Islamic predecessor in a 2008 coup, Mauritania became one of the West’s most important West African allies. In 2014 the US Africa Command gifted Mauritania with a $21 million pair of military aircraft, equipped with advanced surveillance capabilities, for the purposes of counter-terrorism. France and the United States have also aided in the training of soldiers to form an elite anti-terror brigade. At the same time, the country sought to stem the influx of terrorists by starting a de-radicalization campaign by reaching out to the nonviolent Islamist opposition, previously repressed.

So far, the campaign has been successful, with the US State Department lauding Mauritania for disrupting al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) at Ouagadou Forest and Bessiknou, while also foiling several bomb plots directed at its capital. A new counterterrorism law passed in July 2010 was also noted for its ambitions to prosecute suspects of terrorism and continue the training of security forces.

While the country has long battled with accusations of human rights abuses and slavery – the latter having deep roots in Mauritanian society as result of a caste system implemented by an Arab invasion dating back to the 11^th century – the strong campaign against terror implemented in recent years served as an impetus to take progressive steps forward. Abdel Aziz signed and implemented international laws against torture and enforced disappearance and made great strides towards clamping down on slavery. An August law, doubling the maximum prison sentences for slavery crimes, was welcomed by the UN Special Rapporteur Urmila Bhoola.

Abdel Aziz has been a friend to the West and a stalwart ally in his attempts to battle terrorism in West Africa. However the support Aziz receives in the international community has not necessarily carried over into his homeland, where he has faced a great deal of opposition. The most notable source of this opposition is Mohamed Ould Bouamatou, a Mauritanian millionaire and former ally to President Abdel Aziz.

Bouamatou, who is not widely reported on outside of French-speaking media, began his career as the head of a bread factory. From there he was able to found a candy company Cogitrem, and become the first Mauritanian partner to the well-known brands such as Gallina Blanca, Phillip Morris and Nissan. Rumors of bribery surrounded many of these deals. These suspicions, however, did little to prevent Bouamatou from declaring himself a banker and establishing his own bank, (and the first private bank in the county’s history) the Générale de Banque de Mauritanie (GBM). Bouamatou soon created his own insurance company (Assurances Générales de Mauritanie), telecommunications company (Mattel) and airline (Mauritania Airways), further extending his wealth and influence.

By the end of 2012 Bouamatou had long been one of the power players in Mauritania, bankrolling politicians and deflecting accusations of nepotism. But by the end of 2012, three of Bouamatou’s companies had come under investigation for unpaid back-taxes amounting to roughly 10.3 million euros. Bouamatou fled to Morocco but has still managed to keep a hand in Mauritanian affairs. In May of 2015 a reporter named Nicolas Beau was accused of being paid by Bouamatou to write articles smearing and heavily criticizing President Abdel Aziz. And in August of 2015, Bouamatou unveiled his “Foundation for Equal Opportunity in Africa,” a campaign centered around fighting poverty and developing democracy in the African continent. However the foundation was not met with acclaim, especially not in Mauritania where many claimed Bouamatou’s intentions were more political than philanthropic.

With elections coming up in Mauritania in 2019 it seems that Bouamatou is taking out all the stops to put himself in a positive position vis-a-vis the Mauritanian electorate. And with a greater number of terrorist groups seeking to get a foothold in the country, it is imperative that a trustworthy leader be in power. Not only for the security of Mauritania, but the security of the international community as well.