Over the last quarter century, the number of workers receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) in the United States has gone from 25 per thousand in 1990 to 59 per thousand in 2014, bringing the DI trust fund close to depletion, according to a report from CEPR.

While most of this rise is due to demographic factors, like an aging workforce, many have attributed the increase to a decreased willingness to work. As a recent letter from members of Congress to Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez states, part of this increase is likely due to changes in state workers’ compensation laws that shift costs and coverage to public programs like DI. A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) presents strong corresponding evidence that this is indeed the case.

The report, “Rising Disability Payments: Are Cuts to Workers’ Compensation Part of the Story,” examines the relationship between workers’ compensation benefits and the number of workers receiving DI benefits.

“Most of the rise in people receiving DI benefits is explained by demographics, such as the aging of the workforce, rather than people trying to avoid work,” said Dean Baker, an author of the report and Co-Director of CEPR. “It seems an overlooked factor, though, has been a drop in the number of people getting workers’ compensation. As a result of tighter state eligibility requirements, workers who might have otherwise been getting workers’ compensation for work-related injuries are now turning to disability insurance.”

Baker — along with co-author Nick Buffie, a research assistant at CEPR — notes that the rise in the number women entering the workforce and the increase in the retirement age to receive Social Security benefits have also contributed to growth of the number of DI beneficiaries. Health insurance coverage and the weakness of the labor market both during and after the Great Recession played a role in the increase as well. The reduced mortality rates of those workers getting DI benefits is also an important factor in the increase. While these items have been examined for their role in the increase in DI benefits, one topic that has been overlooked is the link between workers’ compensation and DI.

Using data from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), Baker and Buffie explore the relationship between WC and DI. In the course of the report, the authors examine the correlation at the national and state level between the percent changes in WC benefits and new DI awards and the correlation between the change in the number of WC and DI beneficiaries with changes in state WC legislation.

The authors found that in a variety of specifications there is a strong relationship between the decline in state level WC beneficiaries and rise in new DI awards. This suggests that people are turning to DI because they are less able to collect WC benefits.

Additionally, a test of whether the rise in DI awards by state can be explained directly by policy changes to the state WC program found some evidence of a direct relationship. Given the difficulties in capturing the policy changes in the relevant variable, this is strongly suggestive that the rise in DI benefits was in part the result of state-level policy decisions to make the WC program less generous.

According to the report, these estimates suggest that more than one-fifth of the rise in the percentage of workers receiving DI awards can be explained by cuts to the WC program.

This report represents the initial examination of the relationships between the WC and DI programs. While these results are preliminary, the analysis strongly suggests that cuts in WC have led to increases in the number of people receiving DI, the CEPR said.

Today marks a new chapter at the Pakistani Consulate in Jeddah. It is the start of the fresh tenure of a new Consul General who has replaced Mr. Aftab Khokher the outgoing diplomat who is on his way to Beirut, Lebanon as Pakistan’s new ambassador to that country.

The new diplomat, Mr. Shehryar Akbar Khan, will face many challenges in his posting at Jeddah. With more than a million Pakistani nationals, primarily in the western region of the country, the magnitude of the task is enormous. And the numbers don’t end there.

Every year thousands of Pakistani pilgrims make their way to Jeddah on their journey to the two holy shrines to perform Haj and Umrah. Some, unfortunately, meet their death through natural means and formalities have to be conducted with the Saudi authorities for the burial of the body.
Families and dependents of the dead back home have to have someone here to follow up with regard to compensation and due benefits. Some are victims of traffic accidents whose dependents are waiting for the judicial process and insurance investigations to be completed before final dispensation of benefits.

There are also Pakistanis who go missing for one reason or the other, raising concern from their families back home who are in constant touch with the diplomatic mission to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing family members.

Then there are those who still remain in jail even after completing their term of punishment, or are detained pending judgment. There are those being held for whom legal aid has to be arranged even after receiving favorable judgment to expedite their release. It is no secret that some immoral Saudi employers declare such workers as fugitives to avoid paying salaries or end-of-service benefits.

Over the years, I have received a fair number of letters from residents in the Kingdom complaining about how they felt that they were being marginalized by their respective diplomatic missions. In many, but not all cases, the writers felt neglected by their country’s diplomatic representatives.

Many complained about the treatment they were being subjected to by their sponsors and complained that their embassies and consulates were often not interested in hearing about their complaints. The majority of those who chose to share their frustrations were from Asian or African countries.

I remember one instance over 10 years ago involving some fishermen from an Asian country whom I learned had drifted into our country’s waters while fishing and were picked up and jailed. They had been languishing in prison for a considerable length of time without any legal representation. When I learned of the case, I sent off an angry letter to the ambassador of the Asian mission in Riyadh which represented these foreign nationals. An NGO assisted in their eventual release.

But such was not the case with the outgoing diplomat, Mr. Aftab Khokher. In his three years in Jeddah, he made a significant difference for many of his countrymen. I remember that early on in his tenure a controversy broke out in the Pakistani school over the leadership of that educational institution. Mr. Khokher stepped in and soothed the ruffled temperaments of many parents by arranging for the appointment of a new principal and a new board.

He worked tirelessly to resolve the cases of Pakistanis in jail in the western region and ensured that they received the due process of law. He faced perhaps one of the biggest challenges of his career during the government’s amnesty program which sought to correct the legal status of some 10 million guest workers in the Kingdom. With the size of the Pakistani workforce, it was a monumental task that necessitated extraordinary efforts working 16 hours a day seven days a week, and with Mr. Khokher’s leadership at the helm, the task was eventually completed.

Mr. Khokher’s tenure here was more than simply cultivating commercial ties and attending festivities. It was one of sincere concern for the welfare of his countrymen, as well as cultivating good relations with Saudis. He was a true diplomat in every sense of the word. I feel fortunate to have been acquainted with him and wish him all the best in his new post. His are indeed big boots for any incoming diplomat to fill.

The article was published at Saudi Gazette

The October 12, 2015 terror bombing in Ankara, resulting in the death of 127 trade unionists, peace activists, Kurdish advocates and progressives, has been attributed either to the Recep Tayyip Erdogan regime or to ISIS terrorists.

The Erdogan regime’s ‘hypothesis’ is that ISIS or the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) was responsible for the terrorist attack, a position echoed by all of the NATO governments and dutifully repeated by all of the Western mass media. Their most recent claim is that a Turkish member of ISIS carried out the massacre – in a ‘copy-cat action’ after his brother, blamed by the Turkish government for an earlier bombing which left 33 young pro-Kurdish activists dead in July in Suruc, on the Syrian border.

The alternative hypothesis, voiced by the majority of the Turkish opposition, is that the Erdogan regime was directly or indirectly involved in organizing the terrorist attack or allowing it to happen.

In testing each hypothesis it is necessary to examine which of the two best accounts for the facts leading up to the killing and who benefits from the mayhem.

Our approach is to examine those behind various acts of violence preceding, accompanying and following the massacre in Ankara. We will examine the politics of both the victims and the Erdogan regime, and their conception of political governance, especially in light of the forthcoming November 2015 national elections.

Antecedents to the Ankara Terror Bombing

Over the past several years the Erdogan regime has been engaged in a violent crackdown of civil society activity. In 2013, massive police action broke-up a major social protest in the center of Istanbul, killing 8 demonstrators and injuring 8500 environmental and civil society activists defending Taksim Gezi Park from government-linked ‘developers’. In May 2014, over 300 Turkish coal miners in Soma were killed in an underground explosion in a mine owned by an Erdogan supporter. Subsequent demonstrations were brutally suppressed by the state. The formerly state-owned mine had been privatized by Erdogan in 2005 – many questioned the legality of the sale to regime cronies.

Prior to and after these violent police actions against civilian demonstrators, thousands of officials and public figures were arrested, fired and investigated by the Erdogan regime for allegedly being supporters of a legal Islamic social organization – the so-called Gülen movement.

Hundreds of journalists, human rights activists, publishers and other media workers were arrested, fired and blacklisted at the behest of the Erdogan regime, for criticizing high level corruption in the Erdogan cabinet.

The Erdogan regime escalated its domestic repression of the secular opposition in order to concentrate power in the hands of an Islamist cult-ruler. This was particularly the case after the government deepened its support of thousands of foreign jihadi extremists and mercenaries streaming into Turkey on their way to the Syrian jihad.

From the beginning of the armed uprising in Syria, Turkey became the main training ground, arms depot and entry-point for armed Islamist terrorists (AIT) entering Syria. The Erdogan regime directed the AIT to attack, dispossess and destroy the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds whose fighters had liberated a significant section of northern Syria and Iraq and served as an ‘example of self-government’ for Turkish Kurds.

The Erdogan regime has joined the brutal Saudi monarchy in financing and arming AIT groups and especially training them in urban terror warfare against the secular government in

Damascus and the Shiite regime in Baghdad. They specialized in bombing populated sites occupied by Erdogan’s enemies or the Saudi targets especially secular Kurds, leftists , trade unionists and Shiites allied with Iran.

The Erdogan regime’s intervention in Syria was motivated by its desire to expand Turkish influence (neo-Ottomanism) and to destroy the successful Kurdish autonomous government and movement in Northern Syria and Iraq.

To those ends, Erdogan combined four policies:

(1) He vastly expanded Turkish support for and recruitment of Islamic terrorists from around the world, including Libya and Chechnya.

(2) He facilitated their entry into Syria, and encouraged them to attack villages and towns in the ethnic Kurdish regions.

(3) He broke off peace negotiations with the PKK and re-launched a full-scale war against the militant Kurds.

(4) He organized a covert terrorist campaign against the legal, secular, pro-Kurdish electoral party, the People’s Democratic Party (HDP).

The Erdogan regime sought to consolidate dictatorial powers to pursue and deepen its ‘Islamization’ of Turkish society and to project his version of Turkish hegemony over Syria and the Kurdish regions inside and outside Turkey. To accomplish these ambitious and far reaching goals, Erdogan needed to purge his Administration of any rival power centers.

He started with the jailing and expulsion of secular, nationalist Kemalist military figures. He continued with a purge of his former supporters in the Gülen organization.

Failing to gain a majority in national elections because of the growth of the HDP, he proceeded with a systematic terror campaign: organizing street mobs made up of his followers in the ‘Justice and Development Party’, who burned and wrecked HDP offices and beat up activists. Erdogan’s terror campaign culminated with the July 2015 bombing of a leftist youth meeting in Suruc whose activists were aiding Syrian Kurdish refugees and the beleaguered fighters resisting Islamist terrorists in Korbani, a large Syrian town across the border controlled by the Erdogan-backed ISIS. Over 33 activists were murdered and 104 were wounded. Two Turkish covert intelligence officers or ‘policemen’, who knew in advance of the bombing, were captured, interrogated and executed by the PKK. This retaliation for what was widely believed to be a state-sponsored massacre provided Erdogan with a pretext to re-launch his war on the Kurds. Erdogan immediately declared war on both the armed and unarmed Kurdish movements.

The Erdogan regime trotted out the claim that the Suruç terrorist attack was committed by ISIS suicide bombers, ignoring the regime’s ties to ISIS. He announced a large-scale investigation. In fact it was a perfunctory round up and release of suspects of no consequence.

If ISIS was involved in this and the Ankara massacres, it did so at the command and direction of Turkish Intelligence under orders of President Erdogan.

The Suruç Massacre: A Dress Rehearsal for Ankara

Suruç was a ‘dress rehearsal’ for Erdogan’s terrorist attack in Ankara, three months later.

Once again the main target was the Kurdish opposition electoral party (the HDP) as well as the major progressive trade unions , professional associations, and anti-war activists.

Once again Erdogan blamed ISIS, without acknowledging his ties to ISIS. Certain facts point to Turkish state complicity:

1) Why were the bombs placed in the midst of the unarmed demonstrators and not next to the police and intelligence headquarters within a block of the carnage?

2) Why did Erdogan’s police attack and prevent emergency medical assistance to the demonstrators in the immediate aftermath of the bombing?

3) Why did he block popular leaders, independent investigators and representatives from targeted groups from examining the bombing site?

4) Why did Erdogan immediately reject a cease-fire offer from the PKK and launch a vast military operation while promoting rabidly chauvinistic street demonstrators against Kurds engaged in legal political campaigning?

5) Why did the police attack mourners at the subsequent funerals?

Who Benefited from the Terror Attacks?

The terror attacks benefited Erdogan’s immediate and long-range strategic political goals – and no one else!

First and foremost, they killed activists from the HDP party, anti-war leftists and trade unionists. The violent government attacks against the HDP in the aftermath of the massacre has increased Erdogan’s chances of securing the electoral majority that he needs in order to change the Turkish constitution so he can assume dictatorial powers.

Secondly, it was aimed at (1) reducing the ties between the Turkish and Syrian Kurds; (2) breaking the ties between progressive Turkish trade unions, secular professionals ,peace activists and the Kurdish Democratic Party; (3) mobilizing the rightwing ultra-nationalist Turkish street mobs to attack and destroy the electoral offices of the HDP; (4) intimidating pro-democracy activists and progressives and silencing dissent to Erdogan’s domestic power grab and intervention in Syria.

To the question of who is responsible for serial violent attacks on civil society organizations, opposition political parties, and purges and arrests of independent officials in the lead-up to the terror attack? The answer is Erdogan.

Who was behind the campaign of violence and bombing in Kurdish neighborhoods in Istanbul and elsewhere leading up to the Suruç and Ankara terrorist attacks? The answer is Erdogan.

Conclusion

We originally counter -posed two hypotheses regarding the terrorist attack in Ankara: The Erdogan regime’s hypothesis that ISIS – as a force independent of the Turkish government -or even the PKK were responsible for brutally killing key activists in Turkish and Kurdish civil organizations; and the opposite hypothesis that the Erdogan regime was the mastermind.

After reviewing the motives, actions, beneficiaries and interests of the two hypothetical suspects, the hypothesis, which most elegantly and thoroughly accounts for and makes sense of the facts is that the Erdogan regime was directly responsible for the planning and organization of the massacres through its intelligence operatives.

A subsidiary hypothesis is that the execution – the placing of the bombs – may have been by an ISIS terrorist, but under the control of Erdogan’s police apparatus.

By Aniket Bhavthankar*

With invitations to leaders of seven countries from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Mauritius for his oath-taking ceremony, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pulled off a diplomatic masterstroke.

However, over the period of one and half years Pakistan, Maldives and very recently Nepal have emerged as weak links in ‘Neighbourhood first’ policy, an important foreign policy formulation of the Modi government.

Cancellation of Modi’s visit to Maldives in March this year has wrinkled the bilateral relationship with this tiny island nation too. External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Male in the second week of October to hold the first joint commission meeting in 15 years, suggests that India is seriously reworking its strategy towards Maldives and neighours.

It is necessary to know a little background to understand the importance of Swaraj’s visit. India and Maldives were at loggerheads over President Abdulla Yameen’s attempts to victimize his political rival and former President Mohammed Nasheed.

On July 22, 2015, the Parliament of Maldives amended the Constitution which allows foreigners to purchase land within the project site, provided that they invest more than USD 1 billion. It is important to note that 10 Members of Parliament of the ex-president Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had supported this amendment. The unease that China might make the most of this new land law has pushed the Indian government to take note and rethink her strategy towards Maldives.

New Delhi is worried as Yameen government has warmed up its relations with Beijing. India considers Maldives as the cornerstone of her maritime policy in the Indian Ocean and its participation in the Chinese led Maritime Silk route to connect Fujian province (China) to East Africa via South Asia has created ripples in the Indian policy circles. Hence, India has decided to engage ‘constructively’ with the Yameen government.

Within a fortnight after the passage of the amendment, Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar visited Maldives as a part of his ‘SAARC Yatra’. After his visit, India must have thought that it is necessary to have business with the incumbent Yameen government as popular support for Nasheed is on decline.

India’s move to shift her High Commissioner to Maldives, Rajeev Shahare to Denmark before completion of his tenure is considered as an attempt to reach out to the Maldivian government. Since then, the biggest achievement for India has been Swaraj’s travel to this archipelago.

Her visit revived the ties between the two neighbours at the political level. It is pertinent to note that the Indian Foreign Minister’s visit took place when both countries are celebrating 50th year of establishment of their diplomatic relationship.

Besides that, Swaraj sat with her Maldivian counterpart Dunya Maumoon to re-build their bilateral relationship through Joint Commission, which remained dilapidated for the past 15 years. They have worked out a framework for bilateral cooperation in a multipronged manner and in various areas. It is learnt that Defence and Ocean strategies were part of their discussions. Swaraj’s meeting also assumes significance as Maumoon is niece of Yameen and daughter of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Swaraj has developed a good rapport with Dunya Maumoon as it was their second meeting within a month. They met recently on the sidelines of UN General Assembly.

Swaraj also met Yameen and exchanged views regarding diverse issues. Yameen told that Maldives will organize an Investment Forum in 2016. He further reiterated Maldives ‘India First’ policy. This is significant development as ‘GMR episode’ left some deep wounds on the bilateral relationship. They also discussed common challenges in the Indian Ocean. India is eager to win the confidence of Maldives in order to retain her status as net security provider in the Indian Ocean.

Counter-terrorism is a potential area of cooperation between two countries. The recent attack on Yameen by unknown group with suspected ties with Islamic State is an indication of growing radicalization of Maldives. In this context, Maldives invited Indian Forensic Specialists to be part of investigation of terrorist attack is a welcome development.

Swaraj’s visit is just a beginning as many long standing issues are yet to be resolved. Though India says that Swaraj raised the issue of Nasheed with Yameen but official record suggests contrary to this.

A press statement released by Maldives after Swaraj’s visit said that president stated that “his government will not tolerate foreign interference in domestic issues”. India claimed that reference to ‘foreign interference’ was not directed towards New Delhi and intended for bodies like UN and the Commonwealth.
India has not reacted to UN body’s ruling that said Nasheed’s trial had been “unfair”. Rather India just stated that “we expect this issue to be handled in accordance with laws and rules of Maldives”.

Swaraj’s visit raises an imminent question whether India is correcting her course in the neighbourhood? In the past the Indian policy was either to neglect or to micro-manage domestic affairs, creating vacuum in her relationship with the small neighbours, ceding space to China.

Recent episode over the promulgation of the Nepalese constitution reminds us that strong-arm tactics were surely going to be counterproductive.

Swaraj’s visit shows that India has avoided criticizing an incumbent government on public forums. Swaraj’s visit stresses that India is fine tuning its neighbourhood policy and trying to achieve ‘balance’. It will not poke its nose in every domestic aspect but at the same time uphold its own interests.

Swaraj’s visit to Maldives is an essential step to bring back bilateral ties on track but her visit also shows that India has to travel a long way to gain the confidence of her neighbours.

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

The Trudeau family is back in the political seat of governance. Justin Trudeau, Canada’s second youngest leader, will occupy a position his father so comprehensively dominated. Stephen Harper was tossed out of office after having remade the conservative movement in Canada, putting forth a mix of vulgar incitements (the niqab debate; stripping citizenship; anti-terrorist platforms), neoliberal trade policies, and hammed up promises of Canadian glory.

The story of the 2015 election may well be remembered as one when Harper, after nearly ten years in power, finally lost his hold. But it should be remembered as one where the third force of Canadian politics failed to gain power. The National Democratic Party, a party that should have come up with more heft, simply slid away in the last weeks of the campaign.

It did not seem that way at first. Rachel Notley’s victory in Alberta in May suggested that the NDP could match it even in conservative ridings. And the party’s opposition to such police state bunk as C-51 had earned it status as a challenger. Tom Mulcair, in other words, seemed to be doing something right.

At the voting booths, Mulcair was placed through the wringer. The flirting voters, having tantalised the party strategists, were leaving in droves. The party that should have provided a genuine alternative to the Liberal centrist model of elitist capture was soundly crushed.

At the dissolution of parliament, the NDP had 95 seats. At the end of Monday night, it had 40, by any stretch a catastrophic collapse of its base. Its solid Quebec support disintegrated. Mulcair himself barely beat off a challenge in his own riding from the Liberal contender.

An NDP strategist suggested he had not been “angry” enough.[1] He was certainly not charming enough, not like his predecessor, Jack Layton, who managed to win support in Quebec in 2011 in dramatic fashion. The passion was lacking; the businesslike manner was underwhelming. Harper’s legacy in Canadian politics has been so profound in the way it has trundled angry politics onto centre stage.

Instead, the brow beaten Mulcair had to suggest before a hundred supporters or so at the Palais des congrès de Montréal that “this election had to do with change, and today Canadians have turned the page on the last 10 years and have rejected fear and divisiveness.”

The Liberal triumph, in contrast, stole a march on perceived NDP softness, even if Mulcair did seem firm on such points as deficit spending. (Like the Conservatives, the line here was the unimpeachable glory of the balanced budget.) On points such as the niqab ban, Mulcair found himself trapped between Harper’s purported majoritarian sentiment and Quebec sovereigntist Gilles Duceppe, who heartily agreed with such measures.

Commentators have hit upon strained similarities – that the country’s 15^th decade seemed much like its 10^th – 1957-1967. Robert Wright surmised that Canadian “distemper” was not picked up by the managerial types in the form of John Diefenbaker and Lester B. Pearson. Grey Canada had had enough by 1968, ushering in an age of Trudeaumania. Nothing like that is in the wings on this occasion.

There is the usual chatter about reforms the Liberals might initiate. There are mutterings about overhauling the antiquated first past the post electoral system that disenfranchises more than enfranchises – and a range of other measures that are simply unlikely to happen.

Will Trudeau wind back the militarised establishment, and Harper’s trashing of “soft power” options? The latter made Canada a suitably aggressive deputy of US foreign policy. Or will the newly elected leader puncture the security, surveillance state, which the Liberals backed?

The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, had Trudeau’s support, which effectively pitted the legislature against the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Journalists for Free Expression have argued that parts of the C-51 legislation violate that sacred document “in a manner that is not justified in a free an democratic society.”[2]

It should be remembered that it was the Liberals who created C-11, Canada’s own variant of the Stop Piracy Online Act, a statutory creation it subsequently help pass with the Tories. (Fittingly, much of this spirit can be found in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’s Intellectual Property chapter.)

While Trudeau promises much, the element of posturing is fundamental. In debates, he may well have been aggressive against Harperism, but in votes, he did something else. He skipped the final vote on C-24, otherwise known as the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act”, the same act he so roundly condemned as creating a second-tier of citizens.   He backed, along with 29 other Liberals, Bill C-7, given the rather colourful title “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act”.

The centrist, in short, is cursed by calculated compromises that reactionaries do not need to consider. The only ideology of relevance there is one of worn appearances that may, given a moment, vanish. The NDP tended to be less burdened by that legacy. When it came to the polling both, that qualifying feature did not prove enough.

Notes:
[1] http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mulcair-failing-to-maintain-the-momentum

[2] http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2015/10/19/a-canadian-progressives-case-against-justin-trudeau-becoming-canadas-next-prime-minister/

The United States does not have a monopoly on the lynch law murder of black people. Israel, both America’s client state and master, is awash in racist state-sponsored violence. Palestinians are usually the intended targets, but Africans are inevitably caught in this terrorism too. The mob murder of Mulu Habtom Zerhom reveals everything that the world needs to know about Israeli apartheid and the settler mentality which it exemplifies.

Zerhom was an Eritrean asylum seeker living in Israel, confined to one of the camps used to hold Africans. He was at a bus station where a Bedouin man shot an Israeli soldier. Zerhom was trying to flee but was himself shot by the police. Video footage shows him lying bleeding and incapacitated as a mob of Israelis kicked him, threw chairs and benches at his head and shouted “son of a whore,” “break his head” and more to the point, “Kill him!”

News reports say that Zerhom was mistaken for a terrorist but the truth is simpler. Like his American counterparts the policeman lies about Zerhom attacking him. Another video shows Zerhom on all fours, trying to get away from the chaos. The killer cop knows the routine about shooting black people. Just claim to feel endangered and all is right with the world. He may have thought that Zerhom killed the soldier or he may have instinctively reacted the way so many white people do when they see a black face.

Israel is the world’s worst apartheid state. The Palestinian population is physically separated from the Jewish settler community, they are subjected to arbitrary arrest, abuse and outright murder. When they attempt to resist their oppression they are met with a brutal response. Actually they don’t have to resist, they only have to exist and they can be burned to death in their homes or shot by police who plant evidence on their dead bodies.

The Palestinian people are victims of Israeli violence on a daily basis. They risk police brutality, theft of their land, the destruction of their homes and of course murder. While the IDF and Israeli police perfect the art of brutalizing occupied people, their American counterparts arrive like pilgrims, learning how better to subjugate their own population.

Israel would not exist at all without America’s direct intervention in 1948. Its continued existence is the result of American acquiescence and genuflection to what is technically a client state. But in a strange role reversal politicians from presidents down to local city council members regularly travel to Israel in hopes of receiving political patronage from Zionists in this country.

This hold on the political system is so complete, so entrenched, that no one dares to fight against it. Members of congress who buck this system immediately pay a price and face well-funded opponents. Americans who want to advocate against the continued financial and military support of this monstrous system are left with nowhere to turn. Israel’s untouchability is bought and paid for by its American supporters. Zarhom was killed on camera but not one politician in New York or Washington has spoken a word of protest.

Prime minister Netanyahu blandly warned against citizens taking the law into their own hands, but no one has been arrested for a crime committed on camera. It shouldn’t be too hard to find people clearly photographed especially when two of them gave interviews to the media. One identified himself as Dudu and claimed to feel remorse. “If I would have known he wasn’t a terrorist, believe me, I would have protected him like I protect myself. I didn’t sleep well at night. I feel disgusted.” Another man named Meir Saka admitted to being an accessory to the crime. “I was guarding over him with a chair to make sure he wouldn’t move . . . and then I heard gunshots and I realized he wasn’t even a terrorist. There was this atmosphere; everyone who came in, it didn’t matter who was there, boom, kicked him.” In other words, “My bad.”

The black misleaders say nothing about Israel. Israel may bomb Gaza into oblivion, kill children playing football on a beach, or use them as human shields. The obvious violations of human rights never merited condemnation. There is no reason to believe these same lackeys will speak up for Zerhom either.

In 2014 much media coverage was given to basketball team owner Donald Sterling when his racist remarks were revealed to the public. Hardly anyone remembers what he said about Israel. “You go to Israel, the blacks are treated just like dogs.” Sterling hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement. Israel is an American occupier state in miniature with an indigenous population and immigrants who are treated like criminals. The two countries have more in common than the Zionist boosters want to admit.

By Monish Tourangbam*

The story of election campaigns are a curious mix of optimism and pessimism, a mirror of past follies, a vision of a better future and furious duel between “us” and “them” first within parties, then between parties. The attack campaigns feature a host of fear predictions, reflecting (with rhetorical flourishes) primary issues of the time, and often real or perceived failures of the incumbent to resolve them. Many of these fears may not be totally unfounded, but what comes forth most starkly is the scare tactics that candidates employ to entice voters to come out and vote, and not go fishing on the election day.

As clearly amplified in the notorious Daisy ad, Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign reflected the horrors of a nuclear holocaust and impressed upon Americans to vote for Johnson, saying, “… the stakes are too high for you to stay home.” Ronald Reagan used the metaphorical “bear in the woods” as a campaign ad during his re-election bid to remind the American voters why they needed a more prepared President to fend off the uncertain strong bear (read the Soviet Union). If fear of communism had dictated the language of electoral campaigns during the Cold War era, another constant cycle of fear most propagated during elections is the fear of both weak as well as powerful executives. Since federalism and anti-federalism is an enduring theme in American politics, a president is either besieged for being too weak to make bold decisions for the security of America, or he is criticized for being too intrusive.

The philosophy of a government that governs the least has often guided political debates within the United States. However, when crisis strikes as during the Great Depression or the 9/11 attacks, a powerful executive is often tolerated and people rally around him to take firm decisions. As with the launch of the global war on terrorism, threat to western democracy and American way of life became a major narrative of all election campaigns. Another fear that often features in US election campaigns, both presidential and congressional, is the fear of losing American jobs to foreigners a la the fear of offshoring and outsourcing, with emerging economies like India and China being targets.

Rhetoric on outsourcing and offshoring, and the promise of bringing jobs back to America are liberally used, and more effectively in states hit by economic downturn. In election seasons, it is most commonplace to see both parties attack each other for packing off American job overseas. Negative attacks rise to such extent that fear of the other party coming to power is often the overwhelming story than the hope of either coming to the White House.

Come election season, doom and gloom dominates the airwaves with majority of candidates trying to show off how they are going to be tougher than the incumbent on issues of national security. Often American voters are reminded how afraid they should be of the world around them, and why exactly they need a particular he/she to be at the White House, and not someone else. In 2008, Hillary Clinton ran the 3 am phone call ad propagating her credentials and experience as someone who could answer the call to security threats in a “dangerous world.” The same advertisement has come under attack from Republican candidates like Rand Paul in recent times, alleging that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had failed to answer that “3 am phone call” when it mattered, referring to the terrorist attacks in 2012 at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya where casualties included the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

However, a government going overboard on matters of national security also becomes a matter of concern with the American public. Debates about government surveillance over American citizens and its limitations have often been hotly debated among the candidates in the post 9/11 era. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has been speaking against excessive government surveillance. Writing for Time Ideas in May this year, he contended, “…We must do everything we can to protect our country from the serious potential of another terrorist attack. We can and must do so, however, in a way that also protects the constitutional rights of the American people and maintains our free society.”

Republican candidate Chris Christie stands at the opposite end of this debate. Speaking at Portsmouth, New Hampshire the same month, Chris Christie defended the government’s anti-terror and surveillance laws. Vehemently refuting the fears of government encroaching upon civil liberties in the name of national security, he argued, “… Let’s be clear, all these fears are exaggerated and ridiculous. When it comes to fighting terrorism, our government is not the enemy.”

One of the best examples of the scare tactic during campaigns came out of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in 2004, called the Wolves ad. It used wolves as a metaphor for lurking terrorists in the post 9/11 era ready to harm America, and criticized the democratic opponent John Kerry and liberals in the Congress for voting to slash America’s intelligence operations budget, putting the country in harm’s way. According to Ken Goldstein, an expert on campaign advertising and a political scientist at the University of San Francisco, regardless of general perceptions of negative advertising, political strategists swear by them as turnout tools. Goldstein emphasized that “people are more likely to take into account fear than hope in casting a ballot.”

Instilling fears of the other candidate into the minds of American voters has emerged an important feature of election campaigns. The fear mongering, through campaign rhetoric and negative ads, are distributed many times over by the power of new media technologies. As the election season heats up, the language of fear and name calling is rampant within parties and between parties. Alarm bells are being sounded forthreats of all hues and designs against the “American” way of life. Those threats might come from terrorists, rogue states, sexual orientations, abortion, illegal immigrants, socialism or a leader who was incompetent and betraying the “American dream.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “… the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” However, the politics of fear continues to be liberally employed in the greatest act of liberal democracies—”free and fair” elections.

*The author is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, Karnataka

The Mideast map-redrawing ‘Act One’ has begun. Ba’athist/Alawite Syria, Sunni Syria, Kurdistan, Sunni Iraq and Shi’a Iraq are the first batch of new ‘states’ to be formed as the Obama Administration has finally accepted Russia’s role in preserving a Ba’athist Syrian state for the Alawis — the religious sect who makes up about 12% of Syria’s population and remains “loyal to the (Assad) regime even as the economy deteriorates” [Note 1].

Without some sort of compromise beforehand, it is common diplomatic sense that the Obama-Putin private meeting on September 29 could not have crystallized. The picture turned clear when Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “standing shoulder to shoulder somewhere in the United Nations building” on September 30, announced their common vision of resolving Syria’s war through “political process”, thus sealing “an American stamp of legitimacy on Russia’s Syria intervention” [Note 2].

Ba’athist/Alawite Syria

After having hammered out the Iran deal in July, Washington has already been on a set-go position to redraw the Mideast map [Note 3].  What has probably speeded up the move is the rather sudden large influx of Muslim refugees flooding Europe’s heartland since early September. Despite Germany’s bravo opening of gates, it is beyond everyone’s imagination how the United States’ European allies could absorb, let alone assimilate, one to two million non-Christian immigrants. Consequently, such a gigantic pressure on the White House to “ease the humanitarian burden” [Note 4] on the allies’ shoulders is so unbearable to the extent that President Obama must drop the ideal of having “Bashar al-Assad and his supporters … forced from power” [Note 5] and then, as reported on Sept 23, “decided to meet with … Putin in New York, if it can be arranged, for their first face-to-face encounter in nearly a year” [Note 6], even though he still insisted Assad must go in his United Nations speech.

The Russian air strikes in Syria mean that Moscow is attempting to grab as much land as possible on Assad’s behalf during the transitional period which was probably agreed at the Kerry-Lavrov meeting in order to cultivate a fait accompli for the Alawite Syria with Damascus as its capital city. While it is uncertain whether Assad may step down or not, it seems the ruling Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party would stay in power.

Sunni Syria

The rationale behind President Obama’s reluctant but sensible acceptance of Russia’s direct intervention is very simple, namely, the Alawite-Sunni dichotomy. The in-power Alawis are a religious sectarian minority, whereas the Sunni Muslims comprise over 70% of the population.    Since “the dominant Sunni tradition has always considered Alawites as infidels”, the (Ba’athist) regime, because of its secular character and the fact that it is dominated by members of the Alawite minority, never enjoyed any kind of religious legitimacy among Sunnis” [Note 7]. Given neither side can knock out each other after almost five decades, a quick fix before the Sunni Muslim refugee problem will get worse in Europe is to let both sides settle down in newly bordered territories in certain form of secession jointly masterminded by Obama and Putin.

On October 9, when the Washington officials revealed their plan “to assemble a group of Sunni tribes in a ‘Syrian Arab Coalition’ to fight alongside Syrian Kurdish forces against the Islamic State” [Note 8], there was no mention of fighting the Assad government. It is apparently a more mature plan to, after the compromise with Moscow, tailor-make a cradle for upbringing a Sunni political party with a view of governing a new Syrian state, hopefully with Aleppo as its capital city.

A peaceful co-existence between the two new regimes in Syria would gradually stabilize this war-torn country, thus not only alleviating the pain of the indigenous Sunni Syrians but also inducing those refugees being adrift in Europe to return home.

Kurdistan

The Kurds, despite bloodshed everywhere, benefit from the chaos in this region partly because they are no longer governed by Damascus as well as Baghdad, and partly because the “U.S. doesn’t trust anyone except the Kurds” [Note 9]. Although the 6.9 million Kurds living in Syria and Iraq have been disunited by different dialects (northern dialect in Syria vs Zaza and south-eastern dialects in Iraq) and political party affiliations (PUK, KDP and PKK), it has always been their common goal to have the “state of Kurdistan” (proposed by Treaty of Sèvres 1920) realized in the 21st century.

The major selling points to the White House for fostering a Kurdistan state (which will definitely become a faithful agent) are not simply to balance out the influence of Damascus and Baghdad but to place the increasingly disobedient Ankara and Riyadh in check and simultaneously insert an ethnical de-stabilizer inside Iran (4.7 million Kurds in Iran and 15 million in Turkey). With Washington’s trust and the continuous U.S. reinforcement, it would be just a matter of timing for the Kurds to turn their already de facto independence into a real sovereign state.

Sunni Iraq and Shi’a Iraq

The dangerous liaison between the post-Saddam Shi’a Iraqi administration and Tehran is certainly not in the interest of the United States. Strategically speaking, occupation of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militias and thereafter, loss of nation-wide control by Baghdad may not be unwelcome by Washington.

As millions of Sunni Iraqis who are now living along Tigris River from Mosul to Takrit and Euphrates River from Anah to Fallujah are already beyond the reach of the Shi’a authority, a better choice to alienate them from the ISIL is self-government. Such a new Sunni Iraq could further trim the Shi’a government’s political and economic spheres of influence over the already delimbed Iraq after the Kurds’ departure.

A pragmatic reason for the necessary dissolution of Iraq is that the Western mode of democratic system may not function normally in a deeply ethnically- and/or religiously-divided country as voting for the same ethnic or religious group is usually highly binding on each citizen.   The ‘tyranny of majority’ without protection for the minorities is very often the result of a series of elections, however open and fair they may be, over time. The inevitable outcome is non-stop sectarian confrontations and violence, thus feeding the extremists’ growth.

Negotiated secession as a political solution

The Obama Administration is co-leading with the Kremlin to help slice the Syria-Iraq area into five or more political states so as to “deconflict” [Note 10] this region and hopefully reduce the attractiveness of ISIL. China, who is eager to see restfulness in this region to facilitate its Silk Road projects, might have made some contribution to the U.S.-Russia deal, bearing in mind that President Obama happened to have several chats with Xi Jinping in Washington three days before his private meeting with Putin in New York on Sep 28.  The Chinese foreign minister’s call for political solution to the Syrian crisis on Sep 30 therefore may not be just coincidence [Note 11].  Having garnered the endorsement of Russia and China, such a state formation project is unlikely to be vetoed at the United Nations Security Council meetings.

Down to earth, ascertaining how the Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and Shi’a Iran may participate in this Sunni-Shi’ite tug-of-war is not easy [Note 12] but what is sure is that, so long as the Arabian tribal traditions remain here, the national borders arbitrarily set by the Western powers during the colonial era to contain antagonistic clans inside a tent can do nothing but ignite fire. For long-lasting peace, with reference to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, why not apply the Platonic principle of “mind your own business” to let the various ethnic/religious groups find a habitat of their own to live their local socio-economic, cultural and political lives?

This article was also published at FPIF.

Notes:
[Note 1]
See p.7 in CRS Report, “Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response”, Oct  9, 2015.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

and p.22 in CRS Report, “Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response”, Aug 20, 2012.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

[Note 2]
See paragraphs 2 and 5 in:

Vox, “John Kerry just made a significant and consequential gaffe on Russia and Syria”, Sep 30, 2015.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9429039/syria-russia-kerry-lavrov

[Note 3]
FPIF, “Iran Nuclear Deal Redraws the Middle-East Map”, July 21, 2015.

http://fpif.org/iran-nuclear-deal-redraws-middle-east-map/

[Note 4]
This phrase “ease the humanitarian burden” can be seen in paragraph 8 in CNN, “John Kerry raises Syria no-fly zone despite Obama’s skepticism”, Oct 7, 2015.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/john-kerry-no-fly-zone-syria-obama

[Note 5]
See p.1 in CRS Report, “Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response”, Aug 20, 2012.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

[Note 6]
See paragraph 1 in New York Times, “Amid Fresh Tension over Syria, Obama and Putin seek to meet”, Sep 23, 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/world/middleeast/amid-fresh-tension-over-syria-obama-and-putin-seek-to-meet.html?_r=0

[Note 7]
See p.7 in Thomas Pierret (2013), “Religion and State in Syria: the Sunni Ulama from Coup to Revolution”, Cambridge University Press; and its footnote 4 quoting Yvette Talhamy, “The Fatwas and the Nusayri/Alawis of Syria”, Middle Eastern Studies 46, no.2 (2010), 175-94.

[Note 8]
See paragraph 22 in New York Times, “Obama Administration Ends Effort to Train Syrians to Combat ISIS”, Oct 9, 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

[Note 9]
See paragraph 26 in New York Times, “Obama Administration Ends Effort to Train Syrians to Combat ISIS”, Oct 9, 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

[Note 10]
This word can be found in paragraph 5 in:

Vox, “John Kerry just made a significant and consequential gaffe on Russia and Syria”, Sep 30, 2015.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9429039/syria-russia-kerry-lavrov

[Note 11]
Reuters, “China again calls for political solution to Syria”, Sep 30, 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-mideast-crisis-china-idUSKCN0RU0FN20150930

[Note 12]
Business Insider, “Saudi Arabia just replenished Syrian rebels with one of the most effective weapons against the Assad regime”, Oct 9, 2015.

http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-rebels-and-tow-missiles-2015-10

Reuters, “Putin reaches out to Saudis”, Oct 11, 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/11/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0S506F20151011

A precious few months after categorical assurances by NASA officials that there is no imminent danger of any asteroid hit on our vulnerable plant, suddenly we learn that NASA is surprised to discover, from a Hawaiian observatory, that a giant asteroid is flying dangerously close to earth at the “extreme speed” of 80,000 miles an hour. Not to worry, says NASA, because it will miss us by a distance of 1.3 lunar, roughly over 300,000 miles, i.e., a trifle 5 hours flight for the “flyby” asteroid. Yet, in the same breath, NASA has described the asteroid as “hazardous” and extremely dangerous, i.e., there is a bit of incoherence evinced here.

The big question is, of course, if there is any chance of orbital change that would put the asteroid’s trajectory on direct impact with earth? Given the “extreme eccentricity” of the big rock the size of empire state building, to paraphrase NASA, I wonder if we can afford to be hundred percent about something that might fluctuate in the days ahead and potentially put human survival at risk?

This is after all going to be a very ‘near-earth’ object — “incredibly close to earth” according to ABC News — that did not appear on NASA’s radar until October 10 and certainly defies the comforting assurances given to us by the NASA officials, who are on record predicting nothing remotely as close and as dangerous as this asteroid “until 2027). With only a paltry budget allocated to tracking and studying the asteroids, NASA is a lame authority when it comes to asteroids, reflected in the fact that by NASA’s own admission, only around ten percent of the near-earth asteroids have been identified so far.

The other big question is why is absolutely nothing being done in terms of contingencies to deal with the earth-approaching asteroids? Imagine if this one was on a collision course with earth, what remedies would we have? And what if there is a last minute orbital change by the “flyby” asteroids due to its extreme speed and other space factors, making it “fly into” earth instead? Should that happen, scientists predict an earth-shattering consequence, i.e., basically the end of earth as we know it, due to the explosion of equivalent of some thousands of Hiroshima bombs.

That is why the world governments must act quickly to consider the available options for rapid reaction to a planetary risk that is the equivalent of the biggest military threat against humanity.

A clue to the pathetic inattention to this threat by world leaders, none of them in their recent UN gatherings bothered to mention it or urge collective action to counter it, as if problems such as climate or regional disputes are more important. US and Russia have signed an asteroid cooperation agreement that remains on paper as a result of the new cold war hostilities between them, which is a pity because of the common threat posed by asteroids and the potential viability of the nuclear option — to nuke the incoming asteroids at a relatively safe distance to divert them or demolish them into smaller, and less dangerous, particles.

World citizens, on the other hand, need to get mobilized and create non-government organizations to raise consciousness about asteroid threats and the potential remedies. With active citizen lobbying, definitely more funds would be allocated to NASA’s asteroid project as well as to the asteroid disaster response programs aimed at preparing citizens with their survival. In the US, this might need to go at both federal and local levels, with towns and communities getting their act together on a matter of highest importance to them, their sheer survival.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the 17-month-old House Select Committee on Benghazi for the first time. The daylong hearing often turned into shouting matches between lawmakers, while Clinton looked on bored or amused.

It looked like an hours’ long heavyweight sparring match. Republicans used their time to portray the former secretary of state as inattentive to the needs of US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the American consulate in Benghazi in the days and months leading up to the terrorist attack in which Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11, 2012. Clinton reacted quickly to all blows, often shifting the blame to others.

While Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, took pains to keep politics out of the eight-hour-plus hearing, she couldn’t resist making a veiled campaign pitch during her opening statement.

The former secretary of state displayed a range of emotions during the hearing.

She bickered with Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia), whom she accused of belittling the diplomatic security corps.

“When you say security professionals ‒ I’m not trying to be disparaging with anybody, but I ‒ I don’t know who those folks were, but…” Westmoreland began.

“Well, they were people who risked their lives to try to save…” Clinton interrupted. Westmoreland continued: “Just my little ‒ in my little opinion, they weren’t very professional when it came to protecting people.”

Clinton then jumped in to defend them. “I have to add, Congressman, the diplomatic security professionals are among the best in the world,” she said angrily.

“I trusted them with my life. You trust them with yours when you’re [out of the country],” she continued.

She described how distressed she had been following the Benghazi attack and during investigation.

When Representative Susan Brooks (R-Indiana) asked Clinton about an email from Stevens from December 2011 that brought up security at the Benghazi compound, the former secretary of state said he had probably been joking.

“One of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor and I just see him smiling as he’s typing this because it’s clearly in response to the e-mail down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale items from the Brits,’” referring to security barricades the British were no longer using because they had shut down their consulate in the city.

Blame Obama, not me!

When Republicans tried to blame the former secretary of state for getting the US involved in Libya in the first place, Clinton shifted the blame up the chain of command… all the way to President Barack Obama.

“At the end of the day, this was the president’s decision. And all of us fed in our views,” she told Roskam, saying she had done her due diligence before making a recommendation to intervene militarily to topple the regime of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi.

Meetings versus emails

Brooks confronted Clinton as to why “there’s not a single email in your records” about an attack on the Benghazi compound in April 2012.

“I did not conduct most of the business that I did on behalf of our country on email,” Clinton responded. “I conducted it in meetings. I read massive amounts of memos, a great deal of classified information. I made a lot of secure phone calls. I was in and out of the White House all the time. There were a lot of things that happened that I was aware of and that I was reacting to.”

The former secretary also had a testy exchange with Representative Martha Roby (R-Alabama) over security at the consulate, with Clinton defending the lack of measures taken to defend the compound after several requests for help from Stevens.

“Well, that’s not what the professionals, that’s not what the experts in security have concluded, if you have read the Accountability Review Board…” Clinton said, before Roby cut her off to say, “I have read it, Secretary Clinton. And it says that security was grossly inadequate.”

Need to check your notes?

During his remarks, Representative Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) paused twice, his tone dripping with condescension, to suggest that Clinton check her notes. She chuckled as she demurred.

Clinton was continuously peppered with questions about her emails, which were sent from a personal rather than government address and were stored on a private server. In particular, she was grilled regarding her exchanges with Sidney Blumenthal, a close friend and quasi-advisor.

The email issue led to a row between Gowdy on one side and Democratic Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), the committee’s ranking member, and Adam Smith (D-Washington) on the other, when the two men asked the chairman to release the transcripts of the committee’s private interview with Blumenthal.

“I don’t care if he sent it by Morse code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals. The fact that he happened to send it by email is irrelevant!” Gowdy exclaimed at one point during the seven-minute shouting match in which Clinton did not say a word.

“You keep referring to Blumenthal emails,” Smith told Gowdy. “I would hasten to remind both of you the only reason we have Blumenthal emails is because he emailed the secretary of state. Those are her e-mails. That’s why they were released…. And she wanted all of her emails released. She’s been saying since March I want the entire world to see my emails.”

Gowdy refused to release the transcripts, saying: “I’m not going to release one transcript of someone who knows nothing about Libya by his own admission while people who risk their lives ‒ you have no interest in their story getting out. You don’t want the ‒ you don’t want the 18 D.S. agents, you don’t want the CIA agents.”

“The only transcripts you want released are Ms. [Cheryl] Mills’ and Sidney Blumenthal’s,” he continued as Clinton looked on, seeming alternatively bemused, bored, and angered by the argument that ended the first part of the hearing.

My first stop, after living for 22 years in a refugee camp in Gaza, was the city of Seattle, a pleasant, green city, where people drink too much coffee to cope with the long, cold, grey winters. There, for the first time, I stood before an audience outside Palestine, to speak about Palestine.

Here, I learned, too, of the limits imposed on the Palestinian right to speak, of what I could or should not say. Platforms for an impartial Palestinian discourse were extremely narrow to begin with, and when any was available, Palestinians hardly took center stage.

It was touching, nonetheless. Ordinary Americans, mostly from leftist and socialist groups defended Palestinian rights, held vigils following every Israeli massacre and handed out pamphlets to interested or apathetic pedestrians.

However, after spending almost two decades living in the US, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and travelling across the globe to speak about human rights – starting with Palestinian rights, history and struggle – I began to grasp the seriousness of an unmistakable trend: where the Palestinian narrative is marginalized and fundamentally misunderstood.

Back in the day, common justifications included: there were not enough Palestinian intellectuals around to speak for themselves; or that the benevolent leftists who took charge of the Palestinian story spent a week in Ramallah and another in Jerusalem, thus they were capable of enunciating the Palestinian experience; or that the struggle of Palestine is part of a larger battle against imperialism, thus one socialist speaker can mention Palestine, along with Cuba, Angola and Indochina in one, all-encompassing paragraph; or that Jewish speakers were more credible, because they are closer to the consciousness of American and western audiences; and so forth.

So it was not uncommon to see an entire two-day conference on Palestine divided into several sessions and many workshops without a single Palestinian on the podium.

Things began to change in recent years, though, especially following the massive shift that the internet and social media has brought about. However, the frame of mind that neglected or avoided the Palestinian narrative has not been defeated completely.

The problem is not a matter of adding a Mohammed, an Elias or a Fatima on the list of speakers as a token to show that Palestinians are incorporated into a discussion which is essentially about them, their past and future. It is, rather, the failure to appreciate the authenticity of the Palestinian narrative to the central discourse of the ‘Palestine-Israel conflict’ at every available platform, be it political, academic, cultural, artistic or in the media.

Thanks to the efforts of thousands of people around the world, there has been a solid push to bring the Palestinian to the fore; alas, it is not enough, because the challenge is multi-pronged.

There is a generational gap, where men of past generations think that the most clever way of reaching the hearts and minds of their countrymen is by obscuring the real Palestinian, whose language, historical references, priorities and expectations might be too alien to, say, an American audience. It is best, they believe, to have sympathetic voices, ‘from the other side’, to address Palestinian grievances.

An equivalent to this would be having sympathetic British, Afrikaans or Germans address the historical plights of Indians, South Africans or Jews and other victims of Nazi atrocities. Not only is it unacceptable, it is also destined to fail.

Even Palestinian themselves, who came from a generation that never stood, or were given the chance to stand at a podium, remain unable to appreciate the value of a genuine Palestinian story, that reflects the language of the fellahin, the refugees and the resisting women and men throughout Palestine and the region. They seek to tell their stories through apologists, ‘soft-Zionists’ and half-hearted supporters because they are defeated psychologically, having been blinded themselves by elitist propaganda that has been churned out over generations. Ultimately this is dangerous as it dilutes the reality of the Palestinian struggle, and distorts authentic history.

The media discrepancies are far more pronounced. The moral crisis in mainstream western media on the subject of Palestine requires volumes, and much has, indeed, been written about it. Palestinian intellectuals in that field are either of the ‘native informants’ variety, as described by Edward Said, or are also used and abused, such as being attacked personally for holding the views that they do. Either way, mainstream media has utterly failed to bring about any measurable change in its biased attitude towards Palestine and its long-suffering people.

The struggle in Palestine requires – in fact, demands – global solidarity, a critical mass of a support base that is enough to turn the tide against the violent Israeli occupation, incorporating governments and companies that currently support, sustain and bankroll Israel’s daily crimes against Palestinians.

Once and for all, there has to be a decisive recasting of roles regarding what solidarity actually means, and how Palestinians fit in as the protagonists of their own story. The first step is that we must learn not to conflate between solidarity and assuming the role of the Palestinian himself or herself.

Palestinian history, from a Palestinian point of view, remains an enigma in the minds of so many Palestinian supporters. That version of the Palestinian narrative, as told by people who lived, experienced and are capable of accurately and clearly depicting their own reality is overshadowed by alternative depictions of that same reality.

For example, some find the media narrative of the Israeli newspaper, ‘Haaretz’, quite adequate, despite the fact that it is operated by Israeli, Zionist Ashkenazi men who represent a distinctive Israeli idea of the ‘left’ which, of course, has little to do with the left outside Israel. For some readers, then, both sides of the media narratives are actually addressed by two groups of Israelis, the right and the left, who, in actuality are in agreement regarding most of the tragedies that have befallen Palestinians, starting with the Nakba.

Once more, imagine the formerly colonized India, Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany being the subject of this discussion in order to understand the intellectual failure to appreciate the centrality of the Palestinian to the Palestinian narrative, whether deliberately flouted or otherwise.

As Palestinians are once more rebelling against the Israeli occupation, we ought to also confront past misconceptions and mistakes. We live in an age where a generation of well-educated and articulate Palestinians are extensively present in hundreds of top universities, media companies, including in theater, film and every other educational and cultural facet around the Middle East and the world. Palestine, itself, is rife with numerous journalists and eloquent women and men, who can do the Palestinian account much justice.

It is time to give them the microphone, let them speak, and let us all listen. We have 67 years of catching up to do.

Last week, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush put forward a healthcare proposal as part of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The plan, which has many moving parts, is intended as a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. If you don’t anticipate getting sick, you might like it. Instead of healthcare exchanges and mandated insurance, Bush’s plan would provide tax credits for buying catastrophic coverage. This means the government would pick up a substantial share of the cost of a plan that has a large deductible, with the insurance only kicking in after a person had paid close to $7,000 out of his or her own pocket, or $13,000 for a couple.

At the same time, the Bush plan would eliminate the requirement that insurers disregard preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, a person with cancer or diabetes can sign up for insurance and pay the same premium as a healthy person of the same age. While the Bush plan does include some protections, it does not guarantee coverage at an affordable price. In this respect, the Bush plan is quite explicitly designed to shift costs from the more healthy to the less healthy.

The goal of the ACA is to get everyone into a common pool and share the costs, regardless of whether we have good fortune in terms of our health. It doesn’t do this perfectly, because there are still choices on coverage levels — consumers who choose gold plans are in a different pool from those who choose silver plans, and so forth — but this is its general direction. The Bush plan would take the country in the opposite direction, making it much easier for healthy people to avoid paying the cost of treating the ill.

In spite of this difference, there is an important area in which the two plans are similar.

Beginning in 2018, the ACA imposes a “Cadillac tax” on healthcare plans that cost more than $10,200 a year for a single individual. The intention of the tax is to discourage plans that cost a lot up front but don’t make patients contribute much at the point of service — through copays and the like. That’s also what Bush’s plan sets out to do by promoting catastrophic insurance with a high deductible.

There are two problems with the logic of this tax. First, the reason most expensive plans are expensive is not the generosity of the benefits; it is the health condition of the participants. Most of the plans that would be subject to the tax have a disproportionate share of older workers with higher medical expenses. So the tax won’t primarily punish executives with luxurious, cushy plans; it will punish older workers who are more likely to have health issues.

The other problem with the tax — and the Bush plan — is that it assumes people would seek out more cost-efficient care if they paid for it out of pocket. But new evidence — from a study that came out the same week as the Bush plan — indicates that when people have to pay at the point of service, they often ignore necessary care. They don’t just skip frivolous or purely optional treatments; they choose their wallets over their well-being.

Furthermore, they do not do the sort of comparison shopping that economists like to see. People might shop around for clothes or cars; they apparently don’t shop around for colonoscopies or mammograms.

So both the Bush plan and the Cadillac tax will transfer costs from the more healthy to the less healthy. Both also rely on a disproven view that patients will be cost-efficient purchasers of medical treatment. Whatever their differences on other issues, Bush and Obama apparently have some common ground on healthcare.

This column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times and is reprinted with permission.

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty*

China has been the defining feature of the international order in the latter part of the 20th century. But in the 21st century that order will be redefined, not only by China, but also by Japan India, Germany and Russia in Eurasia. After 70 years of being constrained, following its defeat in two world wars and being partitioned into East and West Germany, a unified Germany is today poised to be a great power again, having overcome its historical legacy of militarism, and the Holocaust.

Led by the remarkable Chancellor Angela Merkel, often called the most powerful woman leader in the world today, Germany is regaining its role in the international order, commensurate with its economic power and influence. The world and India are welcoming the rise of Germany. Merkel’s handling of the refugee crisis has been applauded globally and put her among the front ranks of those likely to be considered for the Nobel Peace prize this year. It would be a fitting tribute as Germany celebrated its Unity Day as National Day on 8 October, to mark the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty-five years ago.

Highs and lows

Merkel’s recent visit to India marks another milestone in India-Germany relations. Bilateral ties that already embrace a comprehensive array of issues, including those of strategic significance, have been ramped up further. Trade and investment are crucial areas with bilateral trade having reached almost $17 billion. Germany is already the seventh biggest investor in India. Indian investment is over $6 billion in Germany.

India was one of the first countries to recognise the Federal Republic of Germany and waived its right to claim reparations since Indian soldiers had fought in the war against Germany. The Cold War and India’s opting for non-alignment put Germany and India in different blocs, as the Federal Republic of Germany was integrated into the Western camp with East Germany in the Soviet bloc.

Differences surfaced when India integrated the Portuguese colony of Goa in 1961, as Germany decided to back Portugal. In 1971, during Bangladesh’s War of Liberation, Germany was critical of India and when India went for a peaceful nuclear test in 1974, the Germans displayed their arrogance by asserting that a poor country like India should not have nuclear weapons.

Merkel’s visit underlines the changed dynamics of the relationship between India and Germany. The two countries have joined hands in pushing for permanent Security Council membership in the United Nations. Germany has been a valued development partner for several decades and since 1958 has provided around $14 billion as assistance to India in a variety of projects. Germany today hosts over 140,000 people of Indian origin, many of whom are professionals in fields of IT, banking, technical expertise, nursing and business.

Fruitful visit

India-Germany ties have entered a new phase with consolidation and growth. They have agreed to cooperate in the energy and high technology sectors in the context of the ‘Make in India’ and ‘Digital India’ programmes. Eighteen bilateral agreements have been signed during the Merkel visit and keeping in mind the climate change conference coming up in December in Paris, the two countries have put out a joint statement on climate change, energy and technology – the centre piece of which is the “Indo-German Climate and Renewable Alliance” which seeks to build a comprehensive partnership in the field of renewable energy.

An important outcome of the visit is the setting up of a “fast track mechanism” for approving and assisting German investments in India. Japan is the only other country which enjoys this special facility. While almost all major German companies with global brand recognition are in India, most foreign investors complain about endemic corruption, red tape, bureaucratic inefficiency and inadequate infrastructure that they have to face in India.

Germany’s role in reviving the India-EU free trade talks will be crucial and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made a special appeal to Merkel to take the lead in this context. India had called off talks when the EU banned 700 Indian pharma companies from exporting to EU because one company was found wanting on quality standards.

Germany’s role is changing. It does not share the same objectives with the US vis-à-vis Russia, and seeks accommodation in the Eurasian landscape. There is little traction in Germany for a renewed Cold War in Europe. India-Germany ties are a part of the expanding arena of cooperation that began with the strategic partnership in 2001. Merkel’s visit is part of her country’s search for a new role in global affairs that is logical for a less inhibited Germany. For India too, aspiring to be a leading power, the congruence with Germany is opportune as the international order grows increasingly multipolar.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, and a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs

Courtesy: www.thequant.com

By Gerald Robbins*

Hulusi Akar, the recently selected chief of Turkey’s military, confronts a very tense, if not perilous environment. His August appointment occurred amid political uncertainty and increased security concerns. The Turkish government has been at a virtual standstill since last June’s general election, unable to forge a viable coalition based on the results. Shortly thereafter, after a 2 ½ year ceasefire, fighting renewed between Ankara and the Kurdish separatist PKK movement, reigniting a bloody struggle which has cost an estimated 40,000 lives over the past thirty years. Economic uncertainty adds to the nation’s anxiety, along with neighboring Syria’s strategic and humanitarian dilemmas. Another national vote is scheduled for November 1, but recent polling shows little if any change per voter sentiments.

In the past, such circumstances would have prompted the Turkish military to express serious concerns as to how the country was being managed. If civilian authority didn’t heed these warnings, a coup d’etat would usually ensue.  The last thirteen years of Islamist rule has effectively ended the military’s political interventions, albeit by questionable means.  Then Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) launched a series of investigations that accused the armed forces and alleged civilian cohorts of plotting to overthrow their duly elected government.  These probes are riddled with controversy, begetting trials which have purged large swaths of senior officers from the various branches. The overall result has subjugated the Turkish military to non-political status, ostensibly creating a new generation of leadership that respects civilian governance by not meddling in it.

General Akar represents this changing of the guard. His philosophical bearings noticeably differ from his predecessors, especially concerning Islamist politics. Prior to the AKP’s ascendance, religious activism was a red flag for the officer corps.  There are several episodes in Turkey’s political history where the military deemed Islamist-based organizations to be threatening the nation’s secularist precepts and subsequently were disbanded. A decade plus of the AKP’s governance has effectively chastened the armed forces disposition on this matter.

A more pressing topic for the military these days is national unity.   The renewed hostilities with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) while there’s political impasse raises various questions and concerns throughout Turkish society. Heightening the uncertainty is the increased presence of homegrown radical jihadist networks within Turkey. Much of their material and financial support comes via next-door Syria as well as Iraq, denoting lax, if not compromised border security. (A similar observation can be made about the massive outflow of Syrian refugees from Turkey’s Aegean provinces towards Europe.) Together, the Kurdish and border issues convey an overall impression of teetering state authority.

Another indication of growing restiveness recently appeared at several funerals for soldiers and policemen killed in the latest round of battling the PKK. Their burials have become an outlet for voicing discontent with the current state of affairs. Much of the disgruntling has been directed at Mr. Erdogan, whom mourners accuse of deliberately instigating combat for his own political purposes. The most prominent case occurred at an August funeral ceremony when a uniformed Lieutenant Colonel accused Erdogan of being responsible for his younger brother’s death. It was a widely televised incident, yet pro-government media outlets avoided reporting the officer’s protest and overall clamor. In order to avoid further embarrassment, Ankara subsequently restricted access to these interments, thereby curbing journalistic coverage. Additional methods have been employed to offset the protests via government-friendly social media networks (who accused the Lieutenant General of being a “terrorist” and “PKK sympathizer”) and indictments.

What’s particularly noteworthy about the funeral demonstrations is that they are happening in areas soundly supportive of Mr. Erdogan’s policies. While the AKP effectively represent these citizen’s interests, many questions have arisen about the ceasefire’s collapse and the underlying motives which caused it.

There’s a broad consensus that Mr. Erdogan created the present atmosphere in order to avenge last June’s election results. The  Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) foiled plans that would have allowed Erdogan greater executive authority.  The HDP’s higher than expected vote tally came at the expense of Erdogan’s AKP, ending the latter’s one party dominance since 2003. Adding insult to injury, the HDP is a Kurdish-oriented party that serves as the PKK’s political representative. When Mr. Erdogan was Prime Minister, he took an enlightened stance towards the HDP/PKK arrangement. As President Erdogan, it’s been a complete reversal. The HDP is no longer viewed as an emissary seeking a peaceful solution to Turkey’s Kurdish situation, but a political opponent whose eighty parliamentary seats block the path to an autocratic presidency.

A campaign to discredit HDP is underway which aims at exploiting its PKK connection. There are indications that the PKK wasn’t surprised by recent events and were readily prepared for a new round of warfare.  Nevertheless, analysts believe Mr. Erdogan is taking a huge gamble that will result in a  Pyrrhic victory. The military recognizes what’s at stake and has so far refrained from overstepping boundaries that have been established during the AKP’s reign.  This could change however, depending upon the November 1st election results.

Postscript:

The horrific bombing which recently occurred in Ankara has further heightened pre-election tensions. Indications point to Islamic extremists being responsible for the attack, namely as a warning about Turkey’s Syria policy. The incident has also widened AKP/HDP hostilities. There is a general consensus that the government didn’t adequately safeguard the largely Kurdish gathering. The claim has become politicized with both the HDP and AKP accusing each other of complicity with the operation. Instead of a nation uniting over this tragedy, societal polarization prevails.

About the author:
*Gerald Robbins – an FPRI Senior Fellow – specializes in analyzing Turkey, the Caucasus region, and Central Asia. He studied at Bosphorus University, Istanbul, on a Fulbright-Hayes fellowship and holds an M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from New York University. Robbins has used his Turkish language skills to report for The Weekly Standard, the Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly and the Washington Times. He has served as Program Director for Freedom House in Azerbaijan, managing post-Soviet political and economic programs. Robbins frequently lectures at universities and policy institutes. He authored Azerbaijan as part of Mason Crest/FPRI’s “The Growth and Influence of Islam” series.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

Russia’s military intervention in Syria in recent weeks could possibly be read as Russia’s strategic resurgence, more than Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which in any case were Russia’s Near Abroad and within easy reach of the Russian military.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov justified the Russian military intervention in Syria firstly, as an imperative to safeguard Russia’s national security interests of neutralising or liquidating the ISIS Islamist threat before it touches Homeland Russia. The Russian Foreign Minister stated that the Russian military intervention in Syria was not personality-specific in terms of sustaining the Assad regime in Damascus.

The second reason advanced by the Russian Foreign Minister was that Russian military intervention was undertaken on the specific request of a friendly Government of Syria.

Be as it may, the strategic reality is that Russia has clearly signalled that it has the military capability for conducting military intervention operations in distant areas by a combination of use of Russian Air Force strikes and logistics support and Russian Navy operations in distant seas. Though Russia has only flown in about 2,000 Russian Army contingents, it has further signalled that it is willing to put ‘boots on the ground’ and more f required.

The Russian military intervention in Syria has also enabled Russia to demonstrate the effectiveness of latest Russian military hardware, especially its Air Force assets. Russia used to effect at least three latest versions of Sukhoi combat aircraft. Russia also demonstrated the devastating use of its Cruise Missiles fired from a distance of 900 kilometres from Caspian Sea fleet.

Notably, the Russian military intervention in Syria stands supplemented and reinforced by Iranian military participation, besides the Lebanese Hezbollah.

In terms of tangible results on the ground in Syria, media reports indicate that the Syrian Army so stiffened has made considerable headway in wresting areas won over by the Free Syrian Army operating under US CIA and Saudi Arabian assistance.

Russian airstrikes on ISIS concentrations are reported to have seriously hit 34 of the 37 major ISIS concentrations. Video footage on Internet show significant damage. As indicated in my last Paper, Russian air strikes have incorporated air strikes on Free Syrian Army targets also while hitting ISIS targets. This has drawn strong criticism from the United States, as was expected.

United States and Western nations are in no position to directly intervene against the Russian military intervention. With the United States now engrossed in presidential elections campaigning, no space exists for President Obama to undertake any strong ripostes against the Russian military intervention.

China has come out openly in support of the Russian military intervention in Syria, presumably as a riposte against United States pressures on the South China Sea conflicts and US threats to sail US Naval Task Forces waters in close vicinity of the newly constructed artificial islands in the South China Sea.

More significantly, what is noticeable is Pakistan’s open public support for the Russian military intervention in Syria mouthed by the Pakistani Defence Minister. It is keeping in tune with changing times in Pakistan’s foreign policy of distancing itself from United States and Saudi Arabia and cosying upto Russia. Presumably, Pakistan would expect Russia to register Pakistan’s support and cash its ‘rain-check’ against India at a later date, hopefully.

Stray reports also indicate that Israel too may have been supportive of Russian military intervention in Syria, presumably, because of the ISIS context.

Concluding, it can be asserted that Russia would react strongly against any efforts to undermine the Pro-Russia configuration of the Northern Tier of the Middle East. Surely, the Russian military intervention in Syria has the potential to change the dynamics of Middle East power-play especially between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

So, Johor, Malaysia’s mots southern state wants to leave Malaysia. It is the third, after Sabah and Sarawak, planning to leave a county plagued with massive corruption under the current administration of Najib Razak.

But with Johor, I am confused.

As a life-long student of globalisation, politics, and nationalism, I have always thought that acts of secession throughout history have always been ones of blood-letting and life-giving and the struggle of nationalists or freedom fighters crafting their idea of nationhood through bloody or bloodless revolutions.

But it is always about the ‘peoples’ of one ethnic group wanting to be free from the shackles of oppression and poverty and cultural and racial humiliation imposed by the ‘majority’ (or even minority, as in apartheid South Africa) or more powerful people ruling them. Ireland, Scotland, Bolivia, India, or even the original 13 colonies of the United States come to mind. Or Palestine. Or Montenegro.

But Johor, Darul ‘Expensive’? A wealthy state heavily invested by billionaire-investors from China? A state whose interest now is to get wealthy Singaporeans to live there and work in Singapore, skyrocketing the price of property? A state whose people are happy with Legoland , brand-name premium outlets, proposed Disney Johor, and mega-profit-generating football-culture-industry?

Johor – a state with ethnic diversity as diverse as the composition of Malaysia itself – wishing to secede? What is a ‘Bangsa Johor’ anyway – a word of late coined? I have only heard of Bangsa Malaysia.

Malaysians reading this are either laughing or actually taking it very seriously. I don’t know. I know Texas wanted to leave the United States when Barack Obama was elected president. Americans laughed at the Bush family-dominated oil-rich state. Now talk of leaving the union is no longer heard. The Bushmen of America has stopped talking about wanting to be divorced.

Okay, there is a provision for Johor to leave. It is said that the constitution is ‘silent’ on the wish for states to leave, opening up the possibilities for Malaysia itself to collapse and disintegrate into smaller states. But, granted that the Najib Abdul Razak regime has messed up this country big time, beyond repair in all the glory of utter ridiculousness, to the brink of bankruptcy inching to be like Greece, Malaysia is still not Israel.

The idea of Malaysia is a beautiful one; especially when we can still argue and debate the provisions under the constitution and under a better and more no-nonsense government yet to come, we will be a benevolent nation-state obligated to ‘share the wealth’.

That is the philosophical idea of federalism vis-a-viz state autonomy. This is what the fight against the Malayan Union was also about; one in which the Malays themselves mounted to save their traditional rulers who still enjoy the wealth, power, and prestige till this day.

Not that I love Johor less, but I love Malaysia much more and appreciates the beauty of all the states and see that poorer states can benefit from the progress of others and learn from good governance. I see Malaysia as a showcase of how these different ideologies impact institutions and how ideological state apparatuses are used.

The 1pct and the 99pct

Today the gap between the rich and poor in Malaysia is a hideous picture. Not only there are states that are extremely wealthy, but within the states themselves, classes of people are produced; there is the 1 percent and the 99 percent occupying each. There are homeless people and there are those with homes more than enough and big enough to park 10 monster luxury trucks.

That’s hideousness in the way we have evolved as a nation, when our pledge in the Rukunegara (Principles of Nationhood) is that two-pronged strategy – redistribute wealth eliminate poverty and not to develop economically along racial lines/identifications.

It is unacceptable to see people begging and homeless in Sungai Petani, Kedah and Kangar, Perlis when in Johor Baru and Shah Alam, folks with big bikes ride the highway arrogantly begging for attention to acknowledge their love for Marcos-type conspicuous consumption.
That is the image of hideousness, and if we measure it by the teachings of Muhammad, who left the world with only ‘three dinars’ and an empire of faith, that is not acceptable and tantamount to mass anger the magnitude of the Iranian Revolution.

Did the teachings of Jesus, Siddhartha, Kung Fu Tze, Lao Tzu, and the Hindu philosophers too encourage Malaysia to become a nation of corrupt and arrogant leaders and install an economic and political system meant to kill one another?

I for one am sickened reading about those in power displaying wealth and using wealth to display power arrogantly and to buy more influence and power and to show others that money rules.

I for one am sick of reading about world’s monarchy especially in those so-called Islamic countries parading wealth as if they are the neo-Pharaohs of this post-Apocalyptic-Third Worldish world; arrogantly displaying their hundreds of luxury cars and monster trucks and monster bikes, whilst the poor and subjugated rakyat salivates like Pavlovian animals in amazement and wonderment of why god is so just in granting such ‘divine rights’ to kings.

So hideous it makes me want to watch reruns of Monty Python movies all day – especially the scene of the annoying peasant in ‘Holy Grail’.

No, we need a better Malaysia and not one progressively fragmented that one day, even a small and insignificant state such as Perlis that had only one traffic light in the 70s would want to leave Malaysia and join the kingdom of Padang Besar and become a new nation and fly a flag at the United Nations.

That would lead to the birth of a new and for sure sovereign state called PADANG MELANGIT, complete with a new national anthem ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’ borrowed right from the Beatles, just like how Malaysia’s ‘Negara Ku’ is borrowed from ‘Terang Boelan’, a Hawaiian under-the-moon-joget song.

Visiting my homies as ‘foreigners’?

I hate to think that one day my homies in my old crib in that gangsta-rock-dangdut city of JB will one day be given ‘foreign passports’ and I will visit them as foreigners!

Or I might even have to climb a Mexican border-type of wall trying to seek asylum in a state I used to have fun in, going to the semejid, makan semekut, eating ikan semilang, and at night when it is cold, I use the gebor my mother would get from the gerobok, and I would then have a nice dream of why the world is so violent with all the gobloks running nations!

I love you Johor, but I love Malaysia more. Stay calm and stay there with humility, at least for now. There is a process and issues of practicality to this pipe dream, if you ask political scientists on how to go about being freed.

As for now, the idea of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ is still the nobler – compared to a bangsa of this or that state, rebelling without much substantive reason, except for perhaps an age-old sentiment turned into an agreement but arguably nullified after the shouts of independence.

Come back to our senses. Johor is a very beautiful state. But keep calm. Think Malaysian, always.

By Terri Moon Cronk

US Special Forces supported an Iraqi peshmerga operation earlier today to rescue about 70 hostages from an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant prison near Hawijah, Iraq, Defense Department Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters at the Pentagon this afternoon.

American Special Forces personnel carried out the planned operation at the request of the Kurdistan regional government after learning through intelligence sources that the hostages faced imminent mass execution, Cook said.

The Special Forces mission was consistent with Operation Inherent Resolve’s counter-ISIL efforts to train, advise, and assist Iraqi forces, he emphasized.

One US service member and four peshmerga soldiers were wounded when Islamic State extremists fired on US and Iraqi forces during the rescue, he said, adding the US service member was medically treated but later died.

The recovered hostages were placed with the Kurdistan Regional government, Cook said, adding that no hostages died during the rescue to his knowledge.

“The US provided helicopter lift and accompanied Iraqi peshmerga forces to the compound,” where ISIL held the hostages, Cook said. While it appears more than 20 hostages were Iraqi security forces’ members and the remaining hostages were Iraqi civilians, that review remains under way.

“Five ISIL terrorists were detained by the Iraqis and a number of ISIL terrorists were killed,” he said. “In addition, the US recovered important intelligence about ISIL.”

Cook offered the department’s sincere condolences to the family of the US service member who died in the operation.

“The US. and our coalition will continue to work with our Iraqi partners to degrade and defeat ISIL and return Iraq to the full control of its people,” he added.

The press secretary said the commander of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, offered his condolences in a statement earlier today.

“We commend and congratulate the brave individuals who participated in this successful operation that saved many lives, and we deeply mourn the loss of one of our own who died while supporting his Iraqi comrades engaged in a tough fight,” Austin’s statement read. “Our gratitude and heart-felt condolences go out to this young man’s family, his teammates and friends.”

While the unpublished findings of the ‘Caste Census’ in India might not receive serious attention if ever made public, some of the socio-economic data, made available by the same Census, can set the marketing managers and policy makers thinking.

By Ronojoy Sen and Robin Jeffrey*

Ever since some of the findings of the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) in India, undertaken in 2011, were announced in July 2015, controversy has dogged it. The census was to have been the first to try to enumerate “castes” since 1931. The reasons for its apparent failure are not hard to find.

Perhaps the most important flaw was that the SECC was not conducted by the Census Commissioner of India, which handles the decennial census, but by multiple agencies. The Union Rural Development Ministry was in charge of collecting the socio-economic data in rural areas while the Union Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Ministry was in charge of urban areas.2 The caste census was under the administrative control of the Home Ministry, to which the Census Commissioner reports, but the data were collected by the different state governments.

All this, according to a former Census Commissioner, made the “entire exercise casual and perfunctory with an extremely high rate of coverage omission”.3 Though the United Progressive Alliance government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh initially decided that the Census Commissioner would conduct the caste census in 2011, it later went back on its decision.

Not surprisingly the caste data are yet to be released. With thousands of castes and sub-castes prevalent in India, collecting data on caste is notoriously difficult. The issue is intensely political, because various benefits, based on principles of “positive discrimination”, are associated with lower-caste status. And observers of census procedures around the world know that attempts to enumerate people’s “identities” can have explosive results.

The withholding of the census data has become an election issue in Bihar, which is now in the midst of multi-phase state-wide polls and where caste plays a huge role. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his ally for these elections, former Chief Minister Laloo Yadav, have both demanded that the caste census be made public. On 13 July 2015, Mr Yadav led a march to Patna’s Raj Bhavan to press their demand.4 Incidentally, both Mr Laloo Yadav and Mr Nitish Kumar themselves belong to the ‘Other Backward Classes’ (OBC), a vast, hard-to-define category that gets quota benefits but has never been counted. A recent agitation in Gujarat by the Patel community showed how contested the OBC classification is.

Put on the back foot by the opposition demands, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union Government has appointed an expert committee, headed by Niti Aayog Vice-Chairman Arvind Panagariya, to collate and classify the caste census data. Even without the doubts about the quality of data collection, the complexity of the task is daunting. According to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, the caste census had collected an astronomical 4.6 million different names of castes, sub-castes, clans and tribes. State governments have been given the seemingly impossible task of consolidating these data.5

While the release of the caste data may never happen, the socio-economic data provide interesting insights. The survey identified 244 million households across the country, 179 million of which are rural households. This means an average of about five people per household.

Fast Moving Consumer Goods manufacturers in India have been trying to gauge purchasing power and customer preferences for decades. Indeed, it was a truism in the 1980s that the marketing arm of Hindustan Lever had a better understanding of rural conditions than the Government of India.

The current survey provides fascinating and sobering data about the extent of purchasing power, prosperity and household choices. For example, the long-standing discussion about the size of the Indian middle class is illuminated by questions about household possessions. According to the census, only 11 per cent of India’s 244 million households6 own a refrigerator. However, given the irregularity of electricity in much of India, many families may have gauged that a refrigerator is almost useless unless one has a backup generator. The survey did not ask households whether backup electricity was available to them.

In regional terms, Goa has the largest percentage of households with refrigerators – nearly 70 per cent. It is followed by Punjab and Haryana, both at about 66 per cent. Strangely, Tamil Nadu, now India’s most urbanised major state and a leader on a number of social indicators, has only 32 per cent of households with refrigerators. Less surprisingly, Bihar has the smallest percentage of households with refrigerators – 2.6 per cent. Nevertheless, that amounts to 460,000 refrigerators and a vast potential market for white-goods marketers and for suppliers of cheap, backup electrical power units.

The survey found that in 2011 more than 70 per cent of households owned a phone. For 68 per cent, this meant only a mobile; a further 2 per cent had a mobile and a landline. Puzzlingly, the survey did not ask about ownership of a television set, though it quizzed households about two- wheeled vehicles and four-wheeled vehicles. Only 17 per cent owned a two-wheeler and only 2.5 per cent owned a four-wheeler (presumably a car or tractor).

Among the major states, Punjab households led the way for two-wheeler ownership – 41 per cent. The small state of Goa and Union Territory of Puducherry at 46 per cent and 42 per cent did slightly better. A remarkable runner-up was the distant eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh on the Chinese border, with 39 per cent of households owning a two-wheeler.

Of the major states, Punjab and Kerala led the way among households owning four-wheelers, each at more than 9 per cent. But again, Goa led at 19 per cent, a product presumably of its front rank in the tourist industry.

In collecting data on Scheduled Castes (SCs), the census revealed a remarkable penetration of mobile phones – 67 per cent of SC families nationwide were estimated to own a mobile phone. Fewer than 7 per cent owned a refrigerator, and 11 per cent owned a motorcycle or scooter.

On the basis of these figures, Scheduled Caste households of Punjab appeared better off than those in the other major states. Forty-six per cent of Punjab SC households owned a refrigerator, 75 percent a mobile phone and 28 per cent a two-wheeled vehicle. In contrast, less than 2 per cent of SC households in Bihar owned a refrigerator and less than 5 per cent a two- wheeler. But the mobile phone was widespread: 77 per cent of Bihar SC households were recorded as owning a mobile phone, a slightly higher proportion than in Punjab.

The quality of the “caste” data in this “caste census” is open to question and is unlikely to be taken seriously if it is ever published. However, the survey questions about ownership of consumer goods will intrigue marketing managers in consumer-goods industries and suggest vast areas for expansion. One hypothesis for the paucity of refrigerators in rural areas is the unreliability of electricity supplies. However, Gujarat, which claims the most reliable rural electric supply in the country, shows only 8 per cent of households owning a refrigerator against 15 per cent in Haryana and 14 per cent in Kerala and Punjab’s notable 46 per cent.

About the author:
* 1 Dr Ronojoy Sen is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and at the Asia Research Institute at the NUS. He can be contacted at isasrs@nus.edu.sg. Professor Robin Jeffrey is Visiting Research Professor at ISAS. He can be contacted at isasrbj@nus.edu.sg and robin.jeffrey514@gmail.com. The authors, not ISAS, are responsible for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper.

Source:
This article was published by ISAS as ISAS Brief Number 395 (PDF).

Notes:
2 See http://www.secc.gov.in/staticReport.
3 M.Vijayanunni, “Where is the caste data?” The Hindu, July 15, 2015. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/povertycumcaste-survey-where-is-the-caste-data/article7422082.ece.
4 See http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/lalu-nitish-dare-pm-modi-to-release-caste-census-data/
5 http://www.business-standard.com/article/politics/amid-criticism-govt-sets-up-expert-group-to-collate-caste-count-115071601423_1.html
6 http://www.secc.gov.in/statewiseTypeOfHouseholdsReport?reportType=Type%20of%20Households

By Felix Imonti

The caliphate faces an enemy more deadly than the bombs being dropped upon it. It has not been able to construct a viable economy to provide all of the necessities that a society requires and people will not wait forever to fill their stomachs or for the lights to work.

A film released at the end of August by the Islamic State heralds the coming of a new gold Dinar currency. Najeh Ibrahim, a former member of the Islamist Gamaa Islamiyah, says that this tells the world that the Islamic State is a sovereign state and tells Muslims that their dignity and economic power is being restored.

In November of 2014, the idea of the gold Dinar was first announced. There was a debate within the leading circles of the Islamic State if it was a sound economic plan. In spite of doubts by some, the accumulation of gold and silver for the coins was undertaken, but little more was said of the new currency until the film Rise of the Caliphate: The Return of the Gold Dinar presented the issue as a part of the strategy of the Islamic State to destroy the United States and the West and to create an independent caliphate economy.

Return of the Gold Dinar continues the IS practice of tying every action to the Abbasid Caliphate that ruled much of the Middle Eastern region from 750 to the middle of the thirteenth century, which was an Islamic empire not much different from the Persian and Egyptian empires and minted its own coinage. The new coins are to display religious symbols like those on the original coins. Baghdadi would like his followers to imagine that they are a continuation of the long ago caliphate with only a mere 750-year disruption.

The idea is not new. The proposal to create a gold Dinar was advocated in 2002 when Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad of Malaysia presented it at the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The problems in the economies of Muslim societies were attributed to foreign domination and a gold currency was to be the means of escaping dollar domination by creating a Muslim economic community.

Daesh’s monetary problem is not domination by the USD. Rather, it is that the erasing of the borders between Iraq and Syria did not change the line drawn by two separate economies using two different currencies.

If Daesh intends to create a single economy, it must create a common currency that will enable buyers and sellers to agree upon a price for goods and services without having to first decide upon an exchange rate.

The obvious solution is for Daesh to create its own currency that will circulate throughout the caliphate; but getting the public to accept the new colored pieces of paper from a government that may not exist in a few years makes conversion a near impossibility. The other choice is for people to conduct business in a currency that can be trusted, such as the USD or the Euro. The Turkish Lira is preferred in many cases over the local currencies, but using foreign currencies requires people to have access to them. How can people acquire sufficient foreign funds to finance their daily needs when the economy is isolated from the surrounding countries?

What commerce does occur is of a criminal nature. How much the caliphate acquires from the export of historical treasures or human organs or oil is all a guess. Contributions from wealthy supporters in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States or ransom money from kidnap victims provides only a few drops in a desert that is consuming vast amounts of money to finance an ongoing war.

Much of the wealth of the caliphate comes from taxation of its citizens and sale of grain or petroleum that are kept as caliphate monopolies. Exploiting these resources, though, is finite. Farmers will not plant if they cannot expect a reasonable price for their crops and factories will not manufacture if the owner cannot acquire fuel or materials that he can afford or gain a profit that makes the effort worthwhile.

Getting fresh investment is a near impossibility and the economy is in decline which is making the acquisition of a new medium of exchange a serious issue that cannot be delayed too much longer. Before the rise of the Islamic State, 11 of Iraq’s 35 million people were engaged in agriculture. They farmed twelve million acres of land. In spite of this domestic production, Iraq imported five billion dollars in foodstuffs, much of which was used to provide food packages to the impoverished Sunni in the provinces now under Daesh control.

Since the seizure of large areas of Iraq by the Islamic State, the amount of acreage under cultivation has been cut in half with no possibility of supplementing the loss foodstuffs with imports, while Syria is in even worse condition. Half of the population of 22 million has been displaced and no longer contributes to the economy. If the caliphate cannot provide food and essential services to the people under its control, it faces an insurrection.

The solution chosen by the caliphate is to turn to the gold Dinar that has as much symbolic value as is does as a means of financing the society. While gold speaks of wealth and security in the minds of most people, there is a hazard in adopting a gold currency. The value of the gold coins comes from the quality of gold metal and not from the quality of the issuer. Anyone doubting the longevity of the caliphate will be inclined to horde the coins under a rock somewhere or smuggle the coins outside. The loss of money from the economy will translate into an overall deflation as the scarcity of money raises its value; and that is likely to depress the economy even further.

Return of the Gold Dinar is a declaration of economic warfare upon the United States for reneging upon its pledge to preserve the gold standard and imposing the dollar standard upon the world. The caliphate assures its believers that it will exact its revenge by breaking the dollar and by bringing back the use of gold to finance world commerce.

Egyptian Finance Minister Fayyad Abdel Money, a former professor of economics, points out that there is not enough gold in the world to finance the more than 75 trillion dollar global economy. The U.S. represents a quarter of the total, a power somewhat beyond that of the caliphate.

After all of its talk about the mystical powers of gold, it is their own economy that is a serious weakness in the survival of the caliphate. The caliphate is consuming itself and needs a fresh infusion of wealth.

That means acquiring a commodity that can be marketed outside of the caliphate. The caliphate is targeting for that purpose opium from Afghanistan that produces 90 percent of the world supply and has the extra advantage of being the largest grower of cannabis. It is focusing on The Badakhshan Province, which saw a 77 percent increase in opium production during 2014 and has a minor Taliban presence. The mountainous province extends into Pakistan, Tajikistan and the Xinjiang Province of China. The Russian Federal Drug Control Service estimates that the opium trade is worth a billion dollars.

The move of the Islamic State into Afghanistan is bringing it into conflict with the Taliban, which also relies upon opium as a source of revenue. As its forces strengthen in the north, Islamic State is likely to spread deeper into the Taliban’s territory as both organizations battle to control the illegal drug trade in a Poppy War.

From October 26 to 30 New Delhi will host the third India-Africa Forum Summit summit. 54 African countries are invited. At least 41 countries will participate at the level of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and King; 11 will be represented by ministers; two by officials.

India wii be a great venue for this summit since it enjoys significant political, strategic and economic ties with Africa. Africa is very resource-rich, and has moved from being an underdeveloped continent to having several fast-growing economies, and new democracies. There are key shared interests in battling global terrorism, and piracy in the Indian Ocean. India’s ambition to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council makes it imperative that it engages with all 54 countries of the continent. New Delhi would also want a stronger partnership with Africa on climate change ahead of the COP-21 in Paris.

Over the last 15 years, India-Africa trade has gone up 20 times, and reached, according to the government, $ 70 billion. Indian investment in Africa is between $ 30 billion and $ 35 billion. India has given concessional credit to the tune of $ 7.4 billion, of which $ 3.5 billon has been disbursed. The credit lines have helped create 137 projects in 41 countries. A Pan-African e-Network for education and health is functional in 48 countries. Since 2008, India has extended 40,000 scholarships to African countries.

Health, education, agriculture, training, etc. will remain the broad themes. More lines of credit could be extended. Indian officials have said its approach will be “non-prescriptive” and “non-exploitative”. An elaborate joint declaration covering all aspects of the growing relationship is in the works.

With preparations in full swing for the upcoming India-Africa Forum Summit, it’s time for New Delhi to renew ties with old African friends and establish synergy with new African partners.

The Moroccan sovereign, King Mohammed VI, will be in attendance at the summit – a rare diplomatic privilege and opportunity for New Delhi to boost ties with Rabat. Here it is worth reminding the constant and keen interest of King Mohammed VI in sustainable development in Africa. According to His Majesty, “this is not something which can be achieved through decisions and ready-made prescriptions,” he said. “Nor is there a single model in this area. Each country follows a path of its own, having taken into consideration its historical development, cultural heritage, human and natural resources, specific political circumstances, as well as its economic choices and the obstacles and challenges facing it.”

In a Royal message to the participants in the Crans Montana Forum held in Dakhla south of Morocco , King Mohammed VI stressed that “Morocco’s African policy is based on a comprehensive, integrated and inclusive approach designed to promote peace and stability, encourage sustainable human development and safeguard the cultural and spiritual identity of our populations, while respecting the universal values of human rights.”

“Morocco has been working untiringly to help forge a modern, bold, entrepreneurial and open Africa; an African continent which is proud of its identity, which derives its vibrancy from its cultural heritage and which is capable of transcending outdated ideologies,” he said

The King acknowledged that “the borders inherited from colonization often continue to be a major source of tension and conflict,” and that “Africa is a continent with growing and unsettling security issues”; but he stressed that “Africa’s tremendous human and natural resources should, instead, be a powerful catalyst for regional integration,” and urged that “It is up to us — Africans — to innovate in order to turn them into open spaces where fruitful exchange and interaction can flourish between African states.”

In 2000, King Mohammed VI revealed the new tone and the new ambitions of Morocco in Africa when he announced, on behalf of South-South cooperation, the cancellation of debts of the least developed countries (LDCs) and Sub-Saharan Africa and to exempt their products from tariffs.

Morocco’s efforts to give the South-South cooperation a face full of solidarity, has resulted in its continued commitment to noble causes of peace and development, as well as its constant position to express solidarity towards the concerns of developing countries, and their aspirations for progress and well-being.

Morocco is also seeking to develop a strategy for tripartite cooperation channel aid funds made available in the framework of international programs for the financing of infrastructure projects or socio-economic development in African countries and to entrust those projects to Moroccan companies (consultancies, engineering companies, service providers, etc).

Morocco attaches great importance to national education by providing college scholarships to African students. More than 10,000 students pursue their studies each year in universities and schools through scholarships provided by the Moroccan Agency for International Cooperation (AMCI).

Following the success of this program and the positive results recorded, Morocco expressed to its African partners its willingness to jointly develop a regional development project of artificial inducement of rain in Africa. This would assist African countries with expressed needs in this area, thus contributing to the achievement of the NEPAD strategy for the generalization of access to water in Africa by 2015. Senegal has also been a recipient of technical and logistical support for the country to launch its artificial rain.

Morocco has initiated many African countries to triangular cooperation, rich and varied, based on a true partnership and effective solidarity, in addition to cooperation programs implemented bilaterally. It has many advantages and allows many African countries to benefit from the know-how and expertise already experienced in the land of Africa and to overcome the lack of budgetary resources.

Given the multiple benefits of triangular cooperation, Morocco considers that this type of partnership can be a vehicle for supporting the efforts of developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa and expresses its readiness to invest with donors and regional donors and international collaboration seeking to achieve tripartite programs for countries in SSA..

Export Morocco spares no effort to promote exchanges between Morocco and many African countries, through participation in international fairs and exhibitions, and the organization of business missions, advising businesses, hosting meetings with economic operators, and finally by sponsoring prospective studies of areas and countries.

Morocco has always supported the initiatives of the United Nations for the restoration of stability in Africa and has, since 1960 to nowadays, has provided military contingents at the disposal of UN peacekeeping operations in the Congo, Somalia, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo and Côte d’Ivoire.

In December 2006, Morocco sent a contingent of Royal Armed Forces, consisting of specialists and experts to participate in a demining operation in the Casamance region of Senegal. Morocco has also provided medical field camps in many needy African countries to provide immediate medical assistance.

Moroccan spiritual diplomacy has been very successful in West Africa due to the country’s historic Maliki School through Sufi channels and methods of reaching worshipers in the sub-Saharan region and West Africa. The Tijaniya sufi order widely operating in West Africa was founded in North Africa during the 18th century. Other Sufi orders – including the Qadiriyya and Chadiliya orders – soon followed, gaining large numbers of devotees who identified heavily with Morocco, where the tomb of Sheikh Ahmed Tijani, the founder of the Tijaniyyah order, is buried.

Apparently Morocco’s religious authority – Imarat Lmouminin – is highly venerated by many Africans, whether in Mali, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire… In all his trips in Africa, King Mohammed as Commander of the Faithful, receive all leaders of major Sufi orders. In all his trips in West Africa, he provided thousands of copies of the Quran issued by the Mohammed VI Foundation for Holy Quran Publishing to be distributed mosques and other major Muslim institutions. In short, a credible and very successful spiritual diplomacy led by the King to promote a tolerant Islam that teaches respect, love to other religions and contribute efficiently to counter all extremist voices who unfortunately seem to gain ground in some countries in West Africa.

In March 2015, King Mohammed VI inaugurated the Mohammed VI Institute for the Training of Imams, Morchidines, and Morchidates in the capital, Rabat. The religious training center that aims to instill the values of Morocco’s open, moderate form of Islam, based on the Maliki rite and Sunni Sufism, in the next generation of Muslim religious leaders (imams) and preachers (morchidines and morchidates) from across the region and the world.

The new foundation (Mohammed VI Foundation for African Ulema) will be a key element in Morocco’s ongoing efforts to promote religious moderation and tolerance as a shield against extremism in the region. The spiritual ties between Morocco and many African Sub-Saharan countries are mirrored throughout history in the exchange of muslim scholars, saints and sufis who spared no effort to spread the genuine Islamic values of tolerance and moderation.

Morocco will continue to be present in Africa and reinforce south-south cooperation to contribute to the development of the African continent and collaborate with American and European allies to bring peace and stability to this continent.

At the Moroccan-Ivorian Economic Forum, held in Abidjan on February 24 2014, King Mohammed VI laid out a compelling vision for Africa’s development. He said that “This objective [prosperity for future generations] will even be more readily attainable when Africa overcomes its Afro-pessimism and unlocks its intellectual and material potential as well as that of all African peoples. Just imagine what our continent will look like, once it frees itself of its constraints and burdens!”

In its latest World Economic Forum report, Morocco has been named as the most competitive economy in North Africa. Given Morocco’s strategic location on the western edge of North Africa with a substantial Atlantic costline just a stone’s throw away from Europe, Morocco could be India’s economic entry point into both Francophone Africa and European economies. Taken together, both in terms of economic cooperation and security collaboration, Morocco can be an important lead for India in Africa. This will certainly broaden India’s engagement in Africa, especially in Francophone Africa. Plus, King Mohammed VI’s vision and Morocco’s position outside the Africa Union provide New Delhi an alternative and fresh African voice that will surely enrich India’s strategic depth in Africa. An emerging landscape of stable economies and growing democratic freedoms in much of Africa is allowing the continent, for the first time, to take advantage of its extensive natural resource endowments, its improving human capital, and its increasing attractiveness to global investors. Indian policymakers have shown recent signs of understanding Africa’s position and are seeking to strengthen economic relations with African countries. They would be wise to formulate a comprehensive economic policy, not just with interagency coordination, but also in full partnership with the legislative branch, with the private sectors in India and Africa, and with African governments.

With the right strategies, Morocco and India could reap greater benefits. Morocco would improve its access to the Indian market. India could use Morocco as a platform for the entire Africa. Morocco, therefore could become an interesting trade and economic platform to potential Indian investors and at the same time African countries could benefit from this important trade partnership to access the Indian market. Morocco is then the new gateway to Africa.