By Hussein Ibish*

The current surge of violence among Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is highly unusual in many respects. It is demographically heavily concentrated among youths, primarily aged 13-16, and geographically concentrated in East Jerusalem. It is largely leaderless and appears to be mostly spontaneous actions of individual rage. If there is an organizing force of any kind, it appears to be social media such as Twitter and Whatsapp, through which these youths communicate on their mobile phones. But this is hardly a strong structuring or guiding factor. Those such as Hamas and extremist religious preachers who have been attempting to take advantage of the situation and stoke the flames of rage demonstrate all the hallmarks of opportunists seeking to latch onto an existing phenomenon. The notion that they are genuinely inspiring, let alone driving or directing, the violence is almost certainly wrong. And they don’t appear to have directly benefited socially or politically from the unrest, at least thus far.

Many have suggested that there is a link to anger over holy places, given that East Jerusalem is such a focal point of the upsurge in attacks. This is plausible, but far from certain. Because the nature of the attacks are “lone wolf” stabbings of random Jewish Israelis, there is an entirely different explanation for the focus on East Jerusalem. It is the one place in the occupied territories where Palestinians living under military rule and Jewish Israelis mix freely and readily. Compared to most other cities in the world, Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem is radically segregated, as well as separate and unequal to a remarkable degree. But compared to the rest of the occupied West Bank, and particularly the Palestinian population centers in “Area A,” Arabs and Jews interact regularly in East Jerusalem, certainly to an extent unheard of in, for example, Ramallah. Therefore the random stabbings in Jerusalem may well reflect greater opportunity, as well as a stronger sense of the Israeli presence generally.

This distinction between East Jerusalem and “Area A” also reveals much about the nature of Palestinian anger. “Area A” refers to the self-administered Palestinian areas established by the Oslo agreements in 1993, under the control of a five-year transitional ruling body known as the “Palestinian Authority” (PA). The five-year transitional period has become permanent since 1993, given that 1998 passed by without so much as a whimper. With a few minor adjustments, the opening salvo of the Oslo adjustment to occupation in practice proved to be not the beginning of an end to Israeli rule, but rather the start of Palestinians policing themselves in their own population centers on behalf of Israel and its ongoing settlement program. Palestinians did not achieve the independence they expected to follow the Oslo agreements in 1993, and which they believed had been set in motion through those arrangements. Instead they have found themselves caught in a situation in which, except for East Jerusalem, they are stuck living under the direct rule of a discredited local Palestinian leadership and the broader control of Israel’s military with no end in sight.

It is precisely this feeling of total stagnation that seems to be driving the rage being expressed in the stabbing attacks. Palestinians are not by nature nihilistic. But Palestinian youths, and much of the rest of society, are experiencing a nihilistic moment, in which they do not believe in or identify with much of anything beyond the immediate nuclear family, because there really is nothing for them to latch on to, politically or socially. The PA, and its elderly and decrepit leader Mahmoud Abbas, has lost all credibility with ordinary Palestinians. It is seen as corrupt, ineffective and as representing a diplomatic and political approach to national liberation and independence that is a complete failure. Negotiations with Israel have proven totally fruitless, and the current Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is universally regarded by Palestinians as openly hostile to peace based on a two-state solution. Mr. Netanyahu’s comments during the last Israeli election are seen as definitive and reflective of Israel’s real policies, which completely reject the idea of Palestinian statehood. Mr. Netanyahu’s appointment of the extremist settler and annexationist leader Danny Danon to represent Israel at the United Nations is regarded as further confirmation that Israel absolutely rejects the prospect of living in peace with an independent Palestine. Mr. Netanyahu’s protestations that he is prepared to negotiate at any time, without preconditions, and that he is still committed to a two-state solution have virtually no credibility among any Palestinian constituency whatsoever.

The collapse of the diplomatic horizon regarding peace talks with Israel is compounded by the widespread realization among Palestinians that Mr. Abbas’ “alternative” approach of initiatives at multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court is a similar dead end. Palestinians have seen enough speeches and document signings reflective of this approach that have produced no changes whatsoever on the ground to understand this is not a viable alternative for realizing their national and political rights. Moreover, the tragic collapse of the state and institution building program led by former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad destroyed the once-promising parallel track of developing institutions, governing frameworks and economic structures of an independent state, in spite of the occupation and in order to end the occupation. The amazingly shortsighted Israeli and Western response to Palestinian multilateral initiatives by attacking the PA budget and destroying Mr. Fayyad’s ability to not only pay for his programs but even meet payroll and ruining his credibility as an interlocutor with international donors allowed Fatah cadres and other Palestinian rivals to do away with this annoying reformer and his effective but independent policies.

Indeed, the Israeli and Western attack against Mr Fayyad in a misguided effort to lash out against Palestinian multilateral initiatives, which he ironically was virtually alone in questioning, reflects a consistent failure to consider the impact of their own policies on Palestinian politics and political culture. So does the current wave of unrest. The present upsurge in violence is a tragic and misguided, but also virtually inevitable, response to the new Palestinian generation’s inability to find anything with which it can identify, or through which it can express its political and national identity. All of their potential ideals have been suppressed, trivialized or made into a mockery by either their own failed leadership, or the continued occupation and total lack of any political or diplomatic horizon for ending it. Young Palestinians also find nothing to believe in from Hamas or other extremist groups. Their policies offer nothing but the greater suffering that is readily evident in Gaza, and their rhetoric similarly fails to strike a chord, except perhaps in terms of raw rage and violence. But there is no evidence that such organizations are benefiting in any meaningful sense from the current spasm of violence, and every reason to see them as equally, or perhaps even more, discredited among young Palestinians.

The messages to ordinary Palestinians from all quarters fuels this anger and despair. Israel’s unmistakable message is: “You are defeated and subjugated, now accept your lot.” Palestinian political leaders are all seen as essentially saying: “We are your champions, but we have absolutely no idea about how to advance your interests, promote your cause or gain your independence.” The West, and the international community generally, seems to be saying: “We’ll get back to you as soon as Israel seems to be interested in peace again, now in the meanwhile here are some kind words and limited aid.” And, significantly, the Arab world has no clear message for the Palestinians, since it is completely wrapped up in more immediate crises such as the wars in Syria, Libya and Iraq, and the rise of the “Islamic State” terrorist movement. Palestinians, like all Arabs, get their international political information mainly from pan-Arab TV news channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Therefore they have a keen sense of the extent to which their issues are very much on the Arab back burner, and to which they have lost the attention of even their most ardent champions. The sense of isolation, hopelessness, abandonment and despair can hardly be overstated.

This is the immediate context for the surge in violence, which is also being powerfully fueled by violent repression from Israeli occupation forces and even more violent attacks by fanatical Jewish settlers. So that on top of the existential crisis facing Palestinian political identity comes a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation with settlers, and to some extent even the Israeli military, that further fuels the flames of rage. Without having read, or almost certainly even heard of, Frantz Fanon or his still-relevant essay “Concerning Violence,” the knife-wielding shabab of East Jerusalem do seem to be channeling his notion that, “At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” This would certainly seem to be the de facto answer that the violence posits to the despair and defeat-inducing messages coming from the quarters listed in the previous paragraph.

Of course it is a tragic illusion. No people’s history better illustrates the self-defeating and counterproductive effects of violence, whether collective or individual, random or systematic, than the modern Palestinian experience. Defeat after defeat — beginning with the uprising against the British in the mid-30s and running straight through the Gaza wars of recent years — has been the only real legacy of lashing out. And yet, because of the psychic truth in Fanon’s terrifying formulations, when young individuals see no plausible alternatives and have nothing with which they can identify, or through which they can channel their most basic existential and political needs, violence becomes all-but unavoidable. Violence defines the Palestinian reality. Israel’s occupation is inherently a system of violence, and not just because it is a structure of dominance and military rule over millions of disenfranchised non-citizens. It also facilitates and enforces the ongoing settlement project, which lies at the heart of the occupation, and which relies on the constant reality and threat of brute force. Try imagining a nonviolent settlement program in which persuasion is used to convince Palestinians to voluntarily abandon their property, and individual or communal lands, and hand them over to recent arrivals from Brooklyn, Latvia or Ethiopia. The absurdity of such a scenario readily demonstrates the violence that lies behind the settlement project, as directly expressed daily in the checkpoints and other systems of surveillance, discipline and control which defines the lives of Palestinians, including in East Jerusalem.

The greatest tragedy is that to the youths who are lashing out, the fact that they do so in vain, or are even engaged in a self-defeating project, is almost certainly virtually irrelevant. The psychic logic articulated by Fanon trumps these irrefutable arguments, especially for a new generation of youngsters in East Jerusalem, surrounded and totally suffocated by the occupation. This is a nihilistic moment in which individualized violence against random Israelis as a form of self-assertion becomes more important than the reality that such actions are not only politically and morally indefensible, but also counterproductive to anything constructive. The terrible reality of occupation with no end in sight, and with absolutely no plausible or even implausible framework or horizon for ending it, virtually mandates the emergence of a terrifying “new normal” between Israelis and Palestinians. In those places where they interact daily and routinely, such as East Jerusalem, this almost certainly means the constant threat of individualized and random violence by Palestinians in response to the collectivized and systematic violence of the Israeli occupation. Only a change in the fundamental reality of occupation, an alteration of the basic terms through which the occupiers and the occupied, the dominant and the subjugated, are presently interacting, or the sudden and unexpected emergence of a new political horizon, is likely to succeed in avoiding the routinization of this new and tragic “normal” between Jewish Israelis and the Palestinians living under their control.

About the author:
*Hussein Ibish is a Senior Resident Scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

This essay is a “companion essay” to Asher Susser’s “Violence In Jerusalem: Israel’s Options – Analysis.”

By John Kiriakou*

Hillary Clinton is wrong about Edward Snowden. Again.

The presidential candidate and former secretary of state insisted during the recent Democratic debate that Snowden should have remained in the United States to voice his concerns about government spying on U.S. citizens. Instead, she claimed, he “endangered U.S. secrets by fleeing to Russia.”

After accusing Snowden of stealing “very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands,” she added: “He should not be brought home without facing the music.”

Clinton should stop rooting for Snowden’s incarceration and get her facts straight.

First, Snowden is a whistleblower, not a leaker. Whistleblowing is the act of bringing to light evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, law-breaking, or dangers to public health or safety. Snowden did exactly that when he divulged proof that the National Security Agency was illegally snooping on all of us.

Second, Snowden knew it was impossible to report this wrongdoing through his chain of command at the NSA, where he was working as a contractor employed by the consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton.

I’ve written previously about whistleblower Tom Drake, who went through his own chain of command to report an earlier illegal wiretapping scheme by the NSA. Drake went to his bosses, his office’s general counsel, the NSA’s inspector general, the Pentagon’s inspector general, and congressional oversight committees — only to be charged with 10 felonies, including five counts of espionage.

CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, who reported wrongdoing in a CIA operation related to the Iranian nuclear program through his chain of command, was similarly charged with multiple counts of espionage. Now he’s serving 42 months in prison.

The sad fact is that many national security chains of command are overtly hostile to people who report wrongdoing. I learned this firsthand when I spent nearly two years behind bars for denouncing the CIA’s use of torture years after I left the agency. And I didn’t go to any country club. I went to a real prison.

Indeed, one of my former supervisors at the CIA called whistleblowing “institutionalized insubordination.” In other words, employees should just “follow orders,” even if those orders are illegal.

Didn’t Nazi war criminals say that they were just following orders, too? To me, their compliance was criminal.

Third, Clinton claimed that Snowden would have enjoyed protection from the Whistleblower Protection Act if he’d remained in the United States to make his revelations.

I’m disappointed, frankly, that somebody running for president of the United States doesn’t know that the Whistleblower Protection Act exempts national security whistleblowers. There are no protections for you if you work for the CIA, NSA, or other federal intelligence agencies — or serve them as a contractor. You take a grave personal risk if you decide to report wrongdoing, and there’s nobody who can protect you.

Even the federal body that’s supposed to protect whistleblowers, the Merit Systems Protection Board, got itself in trouble in October for suspending and retaliating against its own whistleblower, who revealed that the agency had a huge backlog of cases and was taking far too long to adjudicate them. That certainly doesn’t inspire confidence.

Finally, let’s get this straight: Snowden didn’t “flee to Russia.” Snowden stopped in Moscow on his way from Hong Kong to South America when Secretary of State John Kerry revoked his U.S. passport. Snowden never intended to move to Moscow. Kerry made that decision for him.

Of all people, Hillary Clinton — Kerry’s predecessor at State — should know that.

I get that Clinton doesn’t like Snowden. I doubt he’s too upset about that. But Clinton should get her facts straight if she’s going to take a stand against those federal employees and contractors who take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously enough to report crimes against it.

She should be celebrating whistleblowers, not vilifying them and suggesting they waltz into the nearest penitentiary.

*John Kiriakou is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He’s a former CIA counterterrorism officer and senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This commentary is a joint publication of Foreign Policy In Focus and OtherWords.

The Republic of Turkey has retained international law firm Amsterdam & Partners LLP to conduct a global investigation into the activities of the organization led by the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen.

“We have been retained by the Republic to expose allegedly unlawful conduct by the Gülen network worldwide,” said Robert Amsterdam, founding partner of Amsterdam & Partners LLP, during a press conference held today at the National Press Club in Washington DC. “The activities of the Gülen network, including its penetration of the Turkish judiciary and police, as well as its political lobbying abroad, should concern everyone who cares about the future of democracy in Turkey.”

The Gülen network, which operates more than 100 charter schools in the U.S., has become the subject of federal and local law enforcement and regulatory investigation in the United States, said Amsterdam. According to separate cases filed against Gülen affiliated schools, the group has allegedly engaged in systemic abuse of the American visa system, Amsterdam says.

Globally, the Gülen network operates thousands of schools. Amsterdam emphasized the need for transparency for the network’s operations around the world, including its agreement with the African Union to open 1,000 new schools in the region. “We cannot entrust an entire generation of children to a group that claims to uphold the ‘truth of light,’ yet is itself covered in darkness,” said Amsterdam.

With the growing urgency of energy security in an era of climate change, the option to increase the share of renewables and nuclear energy in the energy mix will increasingly become attractive in Asia. Correspondingly, enhancing regional collaborations can play a vital role in ensuring energy security in a sustainable manner including exploring clean energy and upholding the safe use of nuclear power.

By Ong Keng Yong and Julius Cesar Imperial Trajano*

Energy security is critical to sustaining Asia’s rapid population and economic growth as well as national commitments to reduce carbon emissions to combat climate change. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that Southeast Asia’s energy demand will increase by 80 per cent by 2040. To support economic development, the generation capacity of South-east Asia’s power sector will expand by 400GW by 2040, which is equivalent to the current size of Japan and Korea’s power systems. At the same time, China and India are expected to contribute 70 per cent of total electricity generated globally.

Rapid energy demand growth requires stable and secure energy sources. It is therefore essential that we obtain a balanced and diverse energy mix to achieve energy security, economic growth and address environmental concerns. Together, Asian countries can enhance regional partnerships towards this goal.

Future of renewables & the nuclear option

Across Asia, countries are working to meet growing electricity demand, with many investing in renewables amid growing concerns about pollution and over-reliance on fossil fuels. In terms of energy diversification, China, Japan and India are leading the Asian surge to the forefront of global investment in clean energy. Even Singapore, a country known for its resource limitations, has been driving renewables.

However, more can be done. In South-east Asia, wind and tidal energy are largely untapped, and the huge solar potential in the region remains underdeveloped. Moreover, renewable energy sources are often located in remote areas, rendering connection to main power grids a significant technical hurdle.

Nuclear is also an emerging option. China is constructing 27 new nuclear reactors. Japan has re-started its nuclear programme, and Vietnam is embarking on plans for nuclear to enter its power mix, becoming the first in Southeast Asia to do so. Indonesia, too, has expressed interest in tapping nuclear power. However, nuclear safety standards and regulations remain major concerns.

Asia needs to eradicate energy poverty. An estimated 600 million people across Asia suffer from lack of access to electricity and modern energy services. Therefore, we must not only secure the optimal energy mix, but also build the necessary infrastructure to energise isolated and impoverished communities. Sub-regional power trade can help address this issue. For instance, huge hydropower surplus from Laos and Sarawak, Malaysia, may be exported to neighbouring states to alleviate energy poverty.

Regional cooperation in energy security

Regional cooperation can also play a vital role in ensuring energy security in a sustainable manner. One of these infrastructure projects already underway is the Asean Power Grid, which aims to create a power network connecting the national grids of Asean countries to increase energy supply, access and affordability. But there is still a need to further standardise business regulations, technical standards and systems that affect the interconnection of national power grids.

In all, energy infrastructure projects in Asia are projected to require US$400 billion to US$700 billion in annual investment over the next 25 years. China’s “One Belt, One Road” is an example of an initiative that can set the framework for more collaboration between countries in the region to meet this investment need. Financial institutions like the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will also be crucial in financing these projects.

With regard to the growing interest in developing nuclear energy in Asia, regional cooperation is crucial to institutionalise the culture of nuclear safety. In South-east Asia, for instance, the Asean Network of Regulatory Bodies on Atomic Energy (ASEANTOM) was set up in 2011 to facilitate sharing of best practices and relevant experiences in regulating nuclear activities. But stronger national commitments are needed to strengthen ASEANTOM in order to serve as a platform for the promotion of regional cooperation among the regulatory bodies and relevant authorities of the Asean member-states.

Energy security in Asia will be in a stronger state by enhancing regional collaborations, achieving the optimal energy mix, exploring alternative and cleaner sources, and broadening energy access. While challenges are present, the potential is immense. Efforts in this area will put the region in a good position to influence global efforts to combat climate change and sustain the momentum of Asia’s sustainable development.

*Ong Keng Yong is executive deputy chairman of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He will be moderating sessions on energy transitions and their implications on the global landscape at Singapore International Energy Week 2015 from Oct 26 to 30. Julius Cesar I. Trajano is associate research fellow at RSIS’ Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS). This article first appeared in The Business Times.

More than 50 percent of the electorate are women and the United States hasn’t had a woman leader in a long time, thus many voters want to re-elect Hillary Clinton. Although given that her track record during the two years that she was in charge of the country was disastrous, if re-elected, she probably wouldn’t be any worse at being president than George W. Bush. Of course, that is damning her by very faint praise. Nevertheless, Hillary deserved better than the abuse and demagoguery she got at the Benghazi hearing in the House of Representatives.

Before people think that I learned American history in a parallel universe or at least at the University of Mars, I should clarify my previous text. Conventional wisdom is that the United States has never had a female leader, which is just not true. During the almost year-and-a-half from October 1919, when then-President Woodrow Wilson had an incapacitating stroke, to March 1921, when his second term expired, his wife, the un-elected Edith Wilson, secretly ran the country. The reins of power should have passed to the vice president, but Mrs. Wilson hid the extent of the president’s medical debilitation from Congress and the American people and essentially assumed the powers of his office clandestinely.

More important for this discussion, although the United States has never formally elected a woman as president, Hillary Clinton served informally as co-president during Bill Clinton’s first two years in office, and many analysts think that she was the dominant of the two Clintons during that time.

Most of Bill Clinton’s advisers at the time were horrified at Hillary’s “Rube Goldberg” (journalist Evan Thomas’s description) healthcare scheme that made even the later abysmal Obamacare look efficient and cost-effective.

Also, Hillary, again contrary to the advice of Clinton’s best advisers, demanded that this complex and costly scheme be considered by Congress before Clinton’s proposal for welfare reform. His advisers convincingly thought that passing welfare reform on a bi-partisan basis would make passing health care easier, given the good will engendered among Republicans. Hillary would have none of it and insisted that her health care concoction be taken up first and that President Bill threaten to veto any compromise that didn’t provide coverage for 100 percent of Americans. Strangely, Bill went along with all of this, even in the face of congressional proposals providing coverage for between 91 and 95 percent of Americans. Like Woodrow Wilson’s failure to compromise on his beloved League of Nations proposal during his wife’s rein, Hillary’s similar arrogant refusal to compromise fortunately led Congress to reject her health care monstrosity.

Also, again against the wishes of Bill’s staff, Hillary refused to publicly release the records from her time at the Rose law firm while Bill was governor of Arkansas. The records likely showed embarrassing things about the shady Whitewater land deal, overbilling of clients, Hillary’s earning a 1,000 percent return on a sweetheart deal in cattle futures, and her flouting of conflict of interest rules in failing to recuse herself from representing clients doing business with the Arkansas state government. If she had released such documents, there never would have been an independent counsel appointed to investigate Whitewater. Ken Starr then would never have been able to abuse his power as independent counsel and try to entrap Bill in his unrelated sex life after Starr’s investigation of Whitewater failed to pan out. Thus, Clinton wouldn’t have been impeached by the Republican House for lying and obstructing justice over personal sexual matters that had little to do with governing the country.

According to historian William H. Chafe, Bill’s letting Hillary run wild on health care and on her refusal to publicly release Rose law firm records resulted from him owing her for his election in the first place by supporting him in the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal and Hillary’s subsequent backing of him during other sex scandals. Also, Hillary’s choices for Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General flamed out; she fired the White House travel office and then claimed no involvement; and hating the press (which she still does), she closed them off from the White House press secretary’s office, thus ruining an important relationship for quite some time.

And Hillary’s bad judgment and questionable honesty transcended her two years as co-president into her years as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. As a senator, she voted for Bush’s moronic invasion of Iraq in 2003, the primary reason that she lost the race to be Democratic nominee for president in 2008 versus Barack Obama, who was smart enough to have voted against it. Her defensiveness and evasiveness about her private e-mail server as Secretary of State should remind people of the failure to release the Rose law firm records. Her arrogance that norms and rules don’t apply to her is demonstrated by her doing all her business on a private e-mail account housed on the private server.

Lastly, more pertinent recently, after the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq, she was, as Secretary of State, gung ho about toppling another oppressive regime in Libya, again creating chaos, civil war, and terrorist havens. However, what has now saved Hillary is that instead of focusing on her continued unbelievably bad judgment on key decisions, the Republican-led House Benghazi committee continued to focus on the tragic killing of four Americans in Benghazi. Yes, security at the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi could have been better but the Secretary of State is not usually involved on a day-to-day basis with each of thousands of U.S. overseas facilities, and the White House may very well have tried to spin the attack as not being an organized terrorist attack to look better for the upcoming election. It is tragic that the four dedicated Americans died, but this type of spinning was after the attack had already occurred. When compared to George W. Bush’s lying the nation into an unnecessary and ill-fated invasion of Iraq that cost roughly 4,500 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, it is small potatoes.

If the Republicans had wanted to criticize the four deaths as resulting from the chaos induced in Libya by using military force to overthrow Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi in the first place, that would have been more acceptable. But the Republicans couldn’t criticize Hillary’s vociferous support for the aggressive policy toward Libya, because most of them were equally enthusiastic about vanquishing “bad guy” Gaddafi.

The Republican buffoons on the committee, their political witch hunt exposed by their own majority leader and a former committee staff member, played right into Hillary’s hands and proceeded to hand her the Democratic nomination. In the constricted American political system, a voter only gets two real choices for president, so it all depends now on who the Republicans put up against her. Will it be a carnival barker or a serious candidate? Somehow, in the end, I doubt that the American people will be given a sensible choice for whom to vote.

This article was also published at  The Huffington Post  and reprinted with permission.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena says the government is bound to protect the dignity and pride of the defense sector, including the tri-forces, while confronting the alleged human rights violations purported to have happened during the last phase of the war.

Sirisena added he would never let the security sector including tri-forces to be weakened in any way.

Sirisena made these remarks at a Colours Awarding Ceremony of Sri Lanka Army held at Sri Lanka Army Headquarters in Panagoda on Monday.

This is the first time a Head of the State participated in a Colours Awarding Ceremony of Army, after 25 years of such participation of Late President J. R. Jayewardene.

Sirisena who arrived in the Army Headquarters was welcomed with special guard of honour.

Sirisena presented Presidential Colours and Regimental Colours to Sri Lanka Army Regiment and Presidential Colours and Unit Colours to the Sri Lanka Army and the Second Sri Lanka Volunteers Regiment.

A special message to the event issued by the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was presented.

Sirisena also unveiled a 80-feet-high Statue dedicated to War Heroes who sacrificed their lives for our Motherland. “Even though the various people, who believe different political ideologies, say various things using the freedom of speech and democracy ensured by us, the new government is committed to protect the honour and dignity of the War Heroes”, Sirisena further said.

“More space has been allocated to our security forces in the UN Peacekeeping operations as a security force which is well-trained and well-disciplined,” Sirisena said. The President further said that during his last visit to the US to attend the UN General Assembly he has discussed in this regard with the UN Secretary General and with few state leaders.

By Debalina Ghoshal*

Iran recently test-fired the ‘Emad’, a precision-guided medium-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile. The missile has a range of 1700 kms and a payload capacity of 750kgs. Any missile above a 500 kg payload is considered nuclear capable. Emad is liquid-fuelled but with improved accuracy and maneuverable re-entry vehicles for evading enemy defence systems. This improved accuracy is extremely important if Iran is to deliver a conventional payload. The missile is also reported to carry thrusters for course correction. Reports suggest that this missile is an improved version of the liquid-fuelled Shahab missiles.

The maneuverability is achieved by steering warheads that can perform last minute maneuvering even at the terminal phase. According to Iranian Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan, Emad is Iran’s first ever missile that can be guided and controlled until the missile hits the target. The missile’s survivability is enhanced by road mobility with the help of the Transporter Erector Launcher (TELs).

There have been reports that the Iranian Parliament has approved the nuclear deal with the US and that the deal has also been approved of by the Guardian Council of the Constitution. Ever since the deal was finalised in July 2015, Iranian hardliners have been apprehensive of the conventional arms embargo imposed on Iran – which also includes an embargo on the development of ballistic missiles.

One of the probable reasons why the missile was test-fired just prior to the approval of the nuclear deal was probably to prove a point that under no circumstance can the nuclear deal hinder Iran’s progress with its ballistic missile program. This is also clearly evident from Dehghan’s statement where he said, “We don’t ask anyone’s permission to enhance our defence power or missile capability and will firmly pursue our defence plans, particularly in the field of missile…Emad is one of the outstanding examples of this.”

Despite UNSC sanctions on the country since 2003, Iran has already progressed with its ballistic missile development program and its cruise missile development program. Earlier this year, Iran test-fired the Soumar, a sophisticated long-range cruise missile, while the nuclear negotiation process was ongoing. Both missiles are expected to enter service by 2016.

Furthermore, this year, Iran unveiled the extended range Fateh missiles that now have a range of 500kms. However, while Iran’s missile capabilities could put several of its adversaries at threat, Iran claims that its missile development is meant for its defence and is not aimed at any specific country. According to Dehghan, the missile would only add to peace and strategic stability in the region and also enables the country to display its technological prowess. Iran is also concentrating on solid-propelled ballistic missiles with a 2500km range, called the Sejjil missiles. Last year, Iran had also test-fired the Barani ballistic missiles which are capable of being fitted with Multiple Re-entry Vehicles.

Therefore, Iran is not only making progress with its missile systems but these missiles could be capable of evading enemy missile defence system. The ability of the missile to evade the ballistic missile defence systems of its adversaries could put the US’ European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) system at threat. The US under the EPAA has decided to field its missile defence system and related components in NATO countries to be able to counter the Iranian ballistic missile threat.

While the new Iranian ballistic missile is a liquid fuel propelled missile – which is technically hazardous to prepare – many other states such as Russia and China have also concentrated on liquid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

This could be because in comparison to the solid-fuelled missiles, the liquid-fuelled missiles have a higher launch-weight to throw-weight ratio, which provides the missile with a longer range. This could precisely be a reason why Iran could, in future, concentrate on liquid-fuelled missiles for its ICBMs, should it develop the same.

However, this week’s missile test by Iran will certainly draw international criticism from Israel and also from the US. While many analysts could suggest including the issue of ballistic missiles into the nuclear deal, it is only advantageous to not to include the same in the deal. The nuclear deal does not contain any restrictions for Iran on the development of ballistic missiles per se. It is only the UNSC that imposes an embargo on Iran’s conventional weaponry development. Therefore, such missile tests should not hinder the progress of the nuclear deal that has been much lauded by the international community and truly upholds the essence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran’s ballistic missile development program is to be checked, there should be separate regional framework to ban missile development in the West Asian region.

* Debalina Ghoshal, Research Associate, Delhi Policy Group

At the State Department’s daily briefing today, Spokesman John Kirby conceded that the Syrian government led by President Assad may have a role to play in a “political transition” of the country.

The apparent shift was in response to a reporter who pointed out that Assad is not opposed by the entire population of Syria:

…the Assad regime definitely represents a certain constituency in Syria. The minorities, Christians, even a portion of the Sunnis look at the Syrian regime as their representative, in particular at Bashar al-Assad. Why should Bashar al-Assad be complex nixed out of the process, considering that he controls the larger portion on the ground, proudly asserting themselves as the major power in that conflict on the ground? Why should Assad be nixed out of the process?

State Spokesman Kirby replied:

Nobody said that there wouldn’t be a role for Assad or for the institution of his – institutions of his government in the transition.

It appears to be a slight step back from the previous position that no talks could be held on Syria’s future until Assad is out of power. However, this “shift” is more cosmetic than substantive, as Kirby reiterated that, “nothing’s changed about our position on Bashar al-Assad.”

In fact, a “role in the political transition” is just another way of saying “Assad must go.” It means that even as the facts have changed considerably on the ground, the initial US position — a position that led to US support of jihadist mercenaries to overthrow the Syrian government — has not changed.

Kirby was asked again by a reporter, “[Assad] can’t have a long-term leadership role in Syria?”

He repeated: “That is correct.”

Kirby was then reminded by a reporter that the US government is not the sole decider on what happens to Syria:

But you’re not a mediator in this process. You’re one of the countries that has views.

A point that Kirby conceded, but added:

…many of our European allies have taken very much the same position that we have taken. So it’s not like everybody involved has got widely different views here, but there are some different opinions and perspectives on what a successful transition means and what that looks like.

We’re all on the same page, in other words. But are we?

What is a “political transition”? Is it an election where all sides are allowed to compete freely for the vote of the people? Neither the State Department nor the Washington press corps seem able to stomach that possibility.

One reporter asked Kirby:

…what if there is – through some hideous circumstances, you have completely transparent elections and so on, and Assad is elected? What happens then?

Kirby refused to even entertain that possibility:

That’s a great hypothetical that I’m not going to engage in.

Kirby reiterated the US view that the future of Syria should be decided by a country 6,000 miles away. A view that somehow the United States knows what is better for the Syrian people than the Syrians themselves:

This is about coming together to try to reach a consensus view on what an effective political transition can look like in Syria. … The Syrian people deserve a country that they can call home and they can be safe and secure and stable and have a prosperous future. It needs to be unified; it needs to be whole; it needs to be pluralistic.

Kirby’s language toward accepting negotiation with Iran was similarly truculent: Iran can only be “constructive” if it drops its support for the Syrian government and accepts the Saudi-US-Turk regime change project in Syria.

The US is in denial about Syria. Its hope is that Russia and Iran will, after expending considerable financial and political capital to radically change the realities on the ground in Syria, come around to Washington’s view that Assad must go and a new government made up of the opposition must be installed. Perhaps a caretaker government that can organize “elections” like we have seen in post-coup Ukraine, where the parties out of favor in Washington are simply outlawed and not allowed to compete. Stranger things have happened, but it would be a blunder on par with Russia’s vote in favor of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing no-fly zones over Libya. Russian president Putin made the point that Syria’s political future should be decided by Syrians alone. It is a position based on the concept of state sovereignty that the US so closely guards in itself but discounts in others.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s ex-PM Bidzina Ivanishvili said Georgia should diversify its gas supplies, including through purchasing additional gas from Russia’s state monopoly Gazprom, as well as through import and transit of Iranian gas.

Georgia’s Energy Minister Kakha Kaladze met twice with chief executive of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, over the past month – on September 25 in Brussels and then on October 26 in Milan, to discuss extension of contract on transit of Russian gas to Armenia via Georgia and possible supply of gas to Georgia on top of what the country gets from Russia as a transit fee for transporting Gazprom gas to Armenia.

“I do not see anything bad in the fact that the [Georgian] market may possibly be diversified and businesses may be given possibility to buy gas wherever they want,” Ivanishvili told journalists after attending an event in frames of a project for students on self-governance issues, which he is funding.

“The entire Europe is being supplied with the Russian gas today and there is no crime if Georgia buys the Russian gas,” he added

Asked about energy security and reliability of Russian gas supplies taken into account Georgia’s negative experience from a decade ago, Ivanishvili responded: “We should have a possibility to choose. We try, and I am active in this too, to also bring Iranian gas into the Georgian territory for transit and for our own consumption as well.”

He said that Georgia is grateful to Azerbaijan and its state energy company, SOCAR, which is the largest supplier of gas to Georgia, but “there will be nothing but good” if there is more than just one company on the market. He also said that businesses should be able to choose from multiple sources of supply.

On October 20, Energy Minister Kaladze said that Georgia will have to buy gas from Gazprom on top of what the country is already receiving from Russia as a transit fee, claiming that “there is no possibility” to import additional volumes from Azerbaijan, which is Georgia’s main gas supplier.

He said that additional gas will be required to fill the gap amid the increasing gas consumption in Georgia, which he said is expected to reach 2.5 billion cubic meters in 2015, a 27 percent increase since 2012.

Kaladze also said that Georgia was receiving additional volumes of Russian gas on top of the transit fee in previous years as well.

According to the Georgian Energy Ministry, the country has received about 87.1 percent of its total consumption of 2.17 billion cubic meters of gas in 2014 from Azerbaijan.

About 686 million cubic meters of Azerbaijani gas came as part of the deal in the frames of the BP-operated South Caucasus Pipeline, which transports gas from Shah Deniz offshore field in the Caspian Sea to Turkey via Georgia. 1.21 billion cubic meters were imported as part of a separate contract with Azerbaijan.

Georgia received 267.7 million cubic meters of gas from Russia in 2014, of which 206.1 million was taken as a transit fee for transporting Russian gas to Armenia, according to the Georgian Energy Ministry. In addition, Georgia imported 61.6 million cubic meters of Russian gas in 2014.

Asked about Tbilisi’s talks with Gazprom and whether they would pose a threat to Georgia’s energy security, U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, Ian Kelly told journalists on October 22: “This is a sovereign decision for the people of Georgia and the government of Georgia to make in terms of their energy supplies.”

“I think as a general principle it is very important for any country’s energy security not to rely on a single provider, or only a handful of providers. The important thing is a diversification of suppliers. So, that would be my only comment on this,” the U.S. ambassador said.

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker made an appeal to the European Parliament, and to member states, to find innovative ways of financing the migrant crisis, as the EU coffers are running dry.

Juncker addressed MEPs in Strasbourg today (27 October) to debrief them following the last EU summit on migration on 15-16 October, and the mini-summit held with the countries of the “Western Balkans route”.

Juncker said the refugee crisis also affected the European institutions, and their contribution was very urgent in terms of budget contributions. He thanked the Parliament for having backed all of the Commission’s proposals in terms of financing management of the crisis.

The Commission President said that at the last summits, all heads of state and government stressed the huge cost of the refugee crisis. He said he understood them, and that’s why on 15 October, the executive told EU member states that when interpreting the Stability and Growth Pact, it would add a dose of flexibility in interpreting budget deficits, as this was an issue of exceptional gravity.

Several eurozone governments have asked for more flexibility on EU fiscal rules – the Stability and Growth Pact – to cope with the costs of the migrant crisis.

But Juncker added that flexibility will apply on a country-by-country basis. Even among large EU countries, some were not making a big effort, he said.

“If a country makes an extraordinary effort, it must have this recognised,” Juncker said, adding that “countries that do not make an extraordinary effort or cannot prove it, will not have a more flexible interpretation of the Pact”.

“The EU budget is limited and we arrive at the utmost end of our budget possibilities,” Juncker said. He added that the EU budget was too overstretched to respond, by its own means, to the problems to which the Union is confronted.

“I am therefore inviting the European Parliament, the member states, the European Investment Bank, to reflect to additional ways of financing to respond to the crisis. An exceptional situation requires exceptional financing,” Juncker said.

Juncker insisted that EU states had not met to deliver on the commitments they made at the 21 September summit, and that they still needed to deliver €2.3 billion. Member states have been informed that can make available €486 million available.

The Commission President said the EU executive needed experts for the EU agencies, to help register refugees, take refugees, to help in ‘hotspot’ areas. The European Asylum support Office EASO asked for 374 experts, he said. As of yesterday, 20 member states have offered 145 experts, but 229 are still needed, he added. Meanwhile the EU border agency FRONTEX asked for 775 experts and received offers for 326 so far. “We need more,” Juncker appealed.

Speaking about relocation, Juncker said that 9 member states had informed the Commission that they can relocate 700 people. “Let’s not forget that we have a decision to relocate 160,000 people, he said”, an effort which is due to take place in two years.

“The gap between pledges and what is on the table must be reduced, otherwise we are losing all credibility”, Juncker said. He added that the Commission would allocate €10 billion from its budget to tackle the refugee crisis, raising this amount from a previous figure of €4.2 billion.

In November, the Valetta summit on migration with the Africa countries will take place. “I don’t want to arrive in Valetta with promises not kept,” Juncker said.

“How can we engage in a serious and responsible dialogue with our African cousins if we are unable to keep the promises we made to them? We need to arrive in Valetta with pockets full not only with promises, but with promises kept,” he said.

EU ‘not in a good state’

Juncker shed some light on the atmosphere of the meeting, with the countries on the Western Balkans route.

“The fact that I needed to call this meeting shows that the EU is not in as good a state as it should be. I would very much prefer not to call such a summit,” Juncker said.

He said the world saw refugees crossing freezing rivers.

“Soon there will be snow and ice. Winter is approaching, every day counts”, he said, and explained that this is why he decided it was appropriate to bring together some EU member states and three non-members to Brussels, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia, for the leaders meeting held last Sunday.

“Not everything we heard is the sort of contributions that I would like to hear to dialogue on that kind of topic,” said Juncker.

“Last week we saw countries waving refugees from one country to another. We saw fingers being pointed at each other. And we saw countries talking, but not with each other. That is the politics of panic. It gives the illusion of solution, but all it does is harm your neighbours and damage European solidarity,” Juncker commented.

The Commission chief said it was “quite astonishing” that he had to undertake the effort to convince some of member states to inform others member states about the refugee flows heading to their borders.

“That again shows that the EU is not in a good shape,” Juncker repeated.

Council President Donald Tusk, who addressed the MEPs before him, said the atmosphere at the Sunday meeting had been “very worrying”.

Three major challenges

Juncker said that the leaders of the 11 participating countries committed to address 3 major challenges. First, he said, they committed to provide immediate shelter to all arriving refugees so they there are not left outside in below-zero temperatures, and that they receive food, water, and have access to sanitation. He stated that leaders committed to increasing reception capacity for refugees to 100,000 in the Western Balkans.

Second, Juncker said that leaders agreed to managing migration flows together.

“We need to slow down the uncontrolled flow of people. This means registering people when they enter the EU. It also means informing refugees about existing rules and the consequences of refusing being registered. I have to say: No registration, no rights. It’s as simple as that, and refugees have to know this,” he said, triggering applause from MEPs.

Third, he said leaders agreed to strengthen border management.

“To strengthen Schengen, we agreed to strengthen the external EU border, in particular between Greece, FYROM, Serbia and Albania,” Juncker said.

The EU needs to work with Turkey, Juncker said, but recognised that a number of hesitations and reservations existed among member countries about how far the Union could go.

Turkey needs at least €3 billion in order to combat this crisis, and the Commission has some limited funds, but the rest should come from member states, in addition to the €2.3 billion overdue.

Tall, lanky, cheerful and confident, Esmatullah easily engages his young students at the Street Kids School, a project of Kabul’s “Afghan Peace Volunteers,” an antiwar community with a focus on service to the poor. Esmatullah teaches child laborers to read. He feels particularly motivated to teach at the Street Kids School because, as he puts it, “I was once one of these children.” Esmatullah began working to support his family when he was 9 years old. Now, at age 18, he is catching up: he has reached the tenth grade, takes pride in having learned English well enough to teach a course in a local academy, and knows that his family appreciates his dedicated, hard work.

When Esmatullah was nine, the Taliban came to his house looking for his older brother. Esmatullah’s father wouldn’t divulge information they wanted. The Taliban then tortured his father by beating his feet so severely that he has never walked since. Esmatullah’s dad, now 48, had never learnt to read or write; there are no jobs for him. For the past decade, Esmatullah has been the family’s main breadwinner, having begun to work, at age nine, in a mechanics workshop. He would attend school in the early morning hours, but at 11:00 a.m., he would start his workday with the mechanics, continuing to work until nightfall. During winter months, he worked full time, earning 50 Afghanis each week, a sum he always gave his mother to buy bread. Now, thinking back on his experiences as a child laborer, Esmatullah has second thoughts. “As I grew up, I saw that it was not good to work as a child and miss many lessons in school. I wonder how active my brain was at that time, and how much I could have learnt! When children work full time, it can ruin their future. I was in an environment where many people were addicted to heroin. Luckily I didn’t start, even though others at the workshop suggested that I try using heroin. I was very small. I would ask ‘What is this?’ and they would say it’s a drug, it’s good for back pain.”

“Fortunately, my uncle helped me buy materials for school and pay for courses. When I was in grade 7, I thought about leaving school, but he wouldn’t let me. My uncle works as a watchman in Karte Chahar. I wish I can help him someday.”

Even when he could only attend school part-time, Esmatullah was a successful student. His teachers recently spoke affectionately about him as an exceptionally polite and competent student. He would always rank as one of the top students in his classes.

“I am the only one who reads or writes in my family,” says Esmatullah. “I always wish that my mother and father could read and write. They could perhaps find work. Truthfully, I live for my family. I am not living for myself. I care for my family. I love myself because of my family. As long as I’m alive, they feel there is a person to help them.”

“But if I had the freedom to choose, I would spend all my time working as a volunteer at the Afghan Peace Volunteer’s center.”

Asked how he feels about educating child laborers, Esmatullah responds: “These children shouldn’t be illiterate in the future. Education in Afghanistan is like a triangle. When I was in first grade, we were 40 children. By grade 7, I recognized that many children had already abandoned school. When I reached grade 10, only four of the 40 children continued their lessons.”

“When I studied English, I felt enthusiastic about teaching in the future and earning money,” he told me. “Eventually, I felt I should teach others because if they become literate they will be less likely to go to war.”

“People are being pushed to join the military,” he says. “My cousin joined the military. He had gone to find work and the military recruited him, offering him money. After one week, the Taliban killed him. He was about 20 years and he had recently been married.”

Ten years ago, Afghanistan had already been at war for four years, with U.S. cries for revenge over the 9/11 attacks giving way to unconvincing statements of retroactive concern for impoverished people who are the majority of Afghanistan’s population. As elsewhere where the U.S. has let “no fly zones” slide into full regime change, atrocities between Afghans only increased in the chaos, leading to the maiming of Esmatullah’s father.

Many of Esmatullah’s neighbors might understand if he wanted to retaliate and seek vengeance against the Taliban. Others would understand if he wished the same revenge on the United States. But he instead aligns himself with young men and women insisting that “Blood doesn’t wipe away blood.” They want to help child laborers escape military recruitment and ease the afflictions people suffer because of wars.

I wondered what Esmatullah thinks about joining the #Enough! campaign, – represented in social media by young people opposed to war who photograph the word #Enough! (bas) written on their palms.

“Afghanistan experienced three decades of war,” said Esmatullah. “I wish that one day we’ll be able to end war. I want to be someone who, in the future, bans wars.” It will take a lot of “someones” to ban war, ones like Esmatullah who become schooled in ways to live communally with the neediest of people, building societies whose actions won’t evoke desires for revenge.

A drop of 30% in diarrhoeal disease infections has been achieved in communities in Malawi though a health project by researchers from the University of Strathclyde.

The disease control and prevention project has involved improved access to, and quality of, health facilities, supply of clean drinking water to households and the construction of latrines.

The project, the Scotland Chikwawa Health Initiative, has provided life-saving support to 110,000 people in 150 communities in the Chikwawa District of Malawi since it was established in 2006.

It has now been listed among the top 20 research projects with impact on international development which were submitted to the 2014 Research Excellence Framework, the comprehensive rating of UK universities’ research. The list was compiled by UKCDS, an umbrella group comprising UK government departments and research funding bodies involved in international development.

Dr Tracy Morse, a Research Fellow in Strathclyde’s Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Project manager of the Initiative, said, “We are delighted to have received this recognition from UKCDS. Over the past nine years, our collaborative project with the University of Malawi and the Malawian Ministry of Health has worked with communities and health workers to improve the lives of thousands of children and their families in our target areas.

“However, diarrhoeal disease is still rife. It is preventable and treatable, yet it remains the second largest cause of death in young children – this is unacceptable in the 21st century.”

According to Morse, “We remain firmly focused on the support and promotion of preventive health care at community level in Malawi to reduce the number of children who develop these diseases. It is imperative that we provide the means for stopping diarrhoeal diseases developing in the first place. The impact our work has had so far is only the start.”

The researchers identified assessed various routes of diarrhoea transmission and found that, despite 84% of homes indicating they routinely washed their hands, 75% of people tested had traces of diarrhoea-causing bacteria on their hands, while more than three quarters of household drinking water was contaminated with disease-causing bacteria within storage containers.

The project works with public bodies in Malawi, including the Ministry of Health, Chikwawa District Health Office and the University of Malawi, to implement preventative measures, initially in four targeted communities. These included support for the construction of latrines, enhanced accessibility to, and quality of, health facilities, and clean drinking water supply for households.

The project built and upgraded wells, treated 8.7 million litres of water and trained and equipped new health staff. Its recommendations also served as the basis for Malawi’s draft national diarrhoeal disease control policy and informed its National Health Research Agenda.

The Scotland Chikwawa Health Initiative has been supported by funding from the UK Department for International Development, the Scottish Government and the Wellcome Trust. It forms part of the Malawi Millennium Project, which aims to support the nation people of Malawi train their teachers, scientists, health professionals and engineers of the future.

The project is geared towards the fulfilment of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The 17 goals, announced by the UN in 2015, build on its previous Millennium Development Goals, established in 2000, and include: good health and wellbeing; quality education; clean water and sanitation, and affordable and clean energy.

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, on the anniversary of the country’s membership of the UN, underlined that Spanish legality is firmly entrenched in the international legal system. That is why, Rajoy added, “those who do not respect the Spanish Constitution must be aware that they are also attacking the same legal foundations of the international community”.

Rajoy made the comments in a speech at the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter and the 60th anniversary of Spain’s membership of the UN, an event presided over by Their Majesties the King and Queen, together with the presence of the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon.

Rajoy recalled the fundamental pillars of the San Francisco Charter – the founding treaty of the UN – approved 70 years ago: sovereign equality among States, the peaceful resolution of conflicts and non-interference in internal affairs. Together with these three principles, he said, a fourth is worthy of mention, which is “the keystone of everything else”: the territorial integrity of States.

According to Rajoy, both the founding charter of the UN and the legal acquis of the international organisation “are very clear in this respect” and only admit certain exceptions, such as colonies, territories occupied by force and regions where human rights are not respected.

Rajoy said that if the territorial integrity of States is not respected, “the international system will fall apart”. He added that “the worst disasters of the 20th Century and the most destabilising conflicts of the 21st Century had and have their origin in the violation of this principle, or at least it featured as an aggravating factor”.

Rajoy was resolute in his statement, “Those who undermine or ignore the rules that govern coexistence in democratic States and the rule of law are also in breach of the basic principles enshrined in the charter and on which coexistence between nations is based”. Hence, “they cannot aspire to be admitted to an international community governed by the law”, since “it will not accept them”.

Spain, under the international legal system

Rajoy underlined that Spain, as stated in the Preamble to the 1978 Spanish Constitution, is a nation “firmly committed” to “the international legal system” and to the “strength of peaceful relations and effective cooperation between all the peoples on Earth”.

That is why, “those who do not respect the Spanish Constitution must be aware that they are also attacking the same legal foundations of the international community,” he added.

Spain’s contribution to the UN

Spain joined the UN on December 14, 1955. Over the course of these six decades, “it has become a benchmark nation in terms of the three fundamental pillars of the UN: peace, human rights and development”, Rajoy asserted. Moreover, he added that Spain “aspires to humbly but decisively contribute to a freer, more prosperous and fairer world”.

Rajoy explained that “international society requires us to tackle the major challenges and threats of the 21st Century together”, because “the opposite means going against reason, the sense of history and in breach of the very United Nations Charter itself.”

On this point, Rajoy highlighted Spain’s contribution “in preventing conflicts and in peacekeeping”: 140,000 members of the armed forces and the State law enforcement agencies have taken part in more than 50 peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid missions in all the regions of the world. The President of the Government spoke a few words in memory of the 167 Spaniards who have given their lives on these missions.

Rajoy also spoke about Spain’s commitment to the spirit of the United Nations. “We actively contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights. We are particularly active in promoting gender equality and wholeheartedly defend, among other issues, the abolition of the death penalty, the rights of persons with disabilities and the recognition of the victims of terrorism, whose voice was heard at last week’s Security Council.”

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said that he will fulfill the obligation of eliminating poverty from the country under his regime as previous leaders of the country fulfilled their significant responsibilities towards the country and the nation during their respective regimes.

Sirisena made these observations Friday participating in a ceremony held in Urubokka, Matara to distribute 4000 Ranbima land deeds to the people in the Pasgoda Divisional Secretariat.

The President pointed out that the most significant challenge in today’s peaceful country is the poverty and he further said that the aim of the new government is to create an environment where the people will be able to live freely with a great sense of happiness.

Resolving land issues in the country can play a pivotal role in eradicating poverty in the country, Sirisena said, adding that he will introduce a new land policy to ensure the land rights of the people.

The President recalled that the tension between the rich and the poor began centering in land rights and said that he believes that the new land policy will provide solutions for the issues related to the land demands with increasing population and for the challenges we faced in the local food production system.

Sirisena further stated that the new government is committed to alleviate poverty, strengthen free education and free health and continue the government institutions without corruption and fraud.

The delivering of the land deeds which is under the national program to hand over 25000 Ranbima land deeds island-wide was held in Pasgoda Divisional Secretariat. Accordingly, ¼ of every family unit in Pasgoda Divisional Secretariat received land deeds.

Sirisena symbolically handed over the deeds to the recipients.

Minister of Lands M. K. D. S. Gunawardena, Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils Faizer Mustafa, State Finance Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena, State Minister of Lands T. B. Ekanayake, Chief Minister of Southern Province Shan Wijayalal de Silva, Province Minister Chandima Rasaputhra and Secretary to the Ministry of Lands I. K. H. Mahanama participated in this event.

The President also declared open Pasgoda Divisional Secretariat building. He also made an observation in Vocational Training Authority in Pasgoda and looked into the educational activities of the students there.

By Hussam Abu Hamed

US Secretary of State John Kerry did not want to leave Amman empty handed. In light of his war against Daesh, the bouts of clashes between the Jordanian government and Islamists, and a growing Hashemite nostalgia, King Abdullah II is keen on appearing to be the protector of Muslim sanctities.

As for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he has no qualms about announcing a mysterious agreement, which does not force him to make any guarantees, that stipulates the preservation of the status quo in Al-Aqsa Mosque, and limits the entry of non-Muslims into the mosque to a visit, without performing any prayers. In any case, this does not mean that a truce is within arm’s reach, especially after settlers immediately stormed Al-Aqsa once again in rejection of this agreement.

The main issue is not preserving the status quo in Al-Aqsa. Although the Jewish settlers’ violation of Palestinian sanctities under the protection of the Israeli forces was the spark that ignited the angry Palestinian popular uprising, the Palestinians are not only defending the sanctity of their holy sites. They are also defending their right to a dignified life, and they have not given up their dreams of independence. Throughout his years in power, Netanyahu has never been willing to take critical measures that would change the current situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. This is cited by the apartheid policy exercised against Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948, the wars on Gaza, its besiegement, and the starvation of its people, the isolation of the West Bank cities and the confiscation of land, arrests, repeated settler crimes, the daily humiliation of Palestinians at crossings and checkpoints, controlling their livelihoods and water supply, etc.

Today, Netanyahu is focusing on the attempts to suppress this uprising by intensifying the systematic crimes and brutality against the Palestinians and letting the settler groups loose to carry out their collective crimes. On the other hand, he invests the individual violent Palestinian incidents in the media and his security forces do not hesitate to fabricate stabbings in order to justify killing more Palestinians, including women and children, in cold blood, or leaving them to bleed to death. The field executions have also spread to include Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948. The killings also have not spared those who are suspected of being Arab. The Israeli hatred can no longer be reined in. Despite its high cost and its use to incite against the Palestinians in the media, unfortunately there are still many Palestinians who encourage such individual acts and call for more stabbings and hit-and-runs.

It seems that the correct reading of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s speech at the United Nations came from the Israeli side. Although the Palestinians debated over this speech and what should have been said, the speech played a role of incitement. The raising of the Palestinian flag at the UN was not only a symbolic measure, as it appeared to have meant a lot to the Palestinians. Abu Mazen is counting on the investment in the popular uprising to restore the Palestinian issue at the forefront of the international scene and to break the deadlock in the political process by pressuring Netanyahu to stop settlements and return to the negotiations table.

The alternative to this is gaining international protection for Palestinians, provided by the UN, and a resolution from the Security Council to end the occupation. It is true that Abu Mazen fears a long-term movement or action which he cannot control and the cost of which is growing, thus putting the PA under different pressures it will not be able to bear. However, it is also true that he is unwilling to risk involving the security forces in the suppression and thwarting of the popular uprising, because it will completely obliterate any popular credibility it has left. The majority of the confrontations with the occupation forces are focused in areas not subject to PA control, such as Jerusalem.

As for Hamas, since the beginning of the uprising, it stopped issuing its statements regarding a long-term truce with the Israeli occupation. Although it realised the reverse results that will occur if it launches rockets from Gaza, it will not hesitate to resort to suicide operations in the West Bank, and will attempt to push this uprising towards militarisation instead of supporting its current popular path. Since Hamas is keen on being at the forefront of the resistance scene, it will find the appropriate time to announce its closeness to reaching the Wafa Al-Ahrar II deal, which will release prisoners in Israeli prisons.

As for the individuals participating in the uprising, they are mostly school and university students who are not tied down by work permits in Israel or PA salaries. They also are not bound by a partisan or factional decision that limits them in their movements. The majority of them are also not one of the previous fighters, which the Israeli authorities call “those with priors”, rather they are networkers, i.e. they organise their actions and movements using social networking and information technology. This makes it harder for the Israeli intelligence agencies to monitor them. They are a new generation of Palestinians who are not driven by desperation or frustration; they are driven by hope, not anger, but the love for life. We can sense this in the bright smiles that they flash when they are being arrested, the celebration of their birthdays at the points of contact, and their dancing as they throw stones. They are not motivated by a desire for revenge; rather they enjoy what they are doing as much as they desire life and freedom.

Under the rubble of media statements made by Palestinian factions and forces welcoming this popular uprising and calling for the need to continue it, we still have not found an effective strategy to support and back it. It seems that each side in the Palestinian arena is content with trying to invest this uprising in a manner that serves its visions and approaches. In light of the current Palestinian division and the state of political and organisational ineffectiveness, the mistake lies in trying to dominate the uprising and turn it into a hierarchical movement under various pretexts, the most prominent of which is these activists’ lack of experience, while the Palestinian factions and cadres possess experience in these matters.

However, the Palestinian people are no longer relying on this expertise and have lost confidence and trust in the traditional political elites. These new activists are moving forward with developing joint visions and perspectives and are establishing plans of action, mechanisms for implementation and a media outlet. They are the new blood that has begun imposing its presence in the Palestinian political arena and is insisting on its right to have its experience and exercise its role.

This horizontal movement witnessed in the Palestinian arena today confirms that the Palestinian people are regaining control of the initiative, even if it fails. It also shows that the Palestinian people are capable of provided unconventional alternatives and this is a true guarantee for the future. This is a new generation of Palestinians, and Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders will have to try their luck with them.

(Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadeed by Middle East Monitor on October 29, 2015.)

By Jayshree Sengupta*

India may be on a high growth path, a beacon among the slow growing economies of the world, but its health sector is in trouble and this has been pointed out by many, including this year’s Nobel Laureate for Economics Angus Deaton who has worked extensively on India especially in the measurement of poverty and health indicators.

Poverty reduction and how to increase the welfare of the people has interested him for a long time. Aggregate data like from the National Statistics Organizations of India, according to him, often mislead policy makers and so he has relied on National Sample Surveys of individual household behavior and incorporated the differences in consumption pattern of people for his analysis. He has worked much in the rural areas along with noted economist Jean Dreze.

People tend to forget that India has 70 per cent of people living in 6 lakh villages and that Rural India has not always been the beneficiary of globalisation and high growth that India has been experiencing in the last few years. One cause for alarm is that in villages, the nutritional standards are still very poor. Deaton found out that when there is a rise in the income of the poor, there is an increase in caloric intake but the effect diminishes at higher incomes. For the last 25 years, the caloric intake has been decreasing in India which could be due to better health care or lower levels of physical activity. But healthcare has not improved so how do we explain lower caloric intake that leads to malnutrition?

Nutrition of children in India is among the worst in the world and India has the highest percentage of malnourished children ( 47 per cent) under the age of five in the world. Malnutrition has much to do with gender relations and how women are eating less and last even when pregnant and giving birth to underweight children.

Proper guidance about nutrition and caloric intake is needed in the villages especially through the Anganwadi workers. But all will depend on the states’ emphasis on such matters and the quality of workers in such institutions.

According to Deaton child malnutrition can also be attributable to the absence of sanitation and lack of clean drinking water and low level of female education. In his book “The Great Escape: Health Wealth and the Origin of Inequality” he talks of net nutrition which is more important than food intake because often due to lack of sanitation and clean water, children have diarrhea, fevers and infections which can lead to loss of nutrition and even death. Thus unhygienic disposal of human waste, lack of protein and micronutrients like iron can lead to malnutrition.

India needs a focused, centrally sponsored, stronger public policy on health and child nutrition and a public campaign about what is important. But since health is a state subject, it is up to the states to improve healthcare. In some states with poor healthcare, when faced with serious diseases, families recede into poverty because they have to go to cities for private treatment which is extremely costly and leads to indebtedness.

Recently, the Director General of WHO has criticised India for treating health sector as a ‘black hole of expenditures’. The NDA government has been cutting the budgetary allocation for healthcare from Rs 37,333 crore in 2014 to Rs 33 ,152 crore for 2016 during its expenditure cutting exercise for fiscal deficit reduction.

An increased devolution of divisible pool of taxes under the 14th Finance Commission has been granted by the Centre to the state which is supposed to give states an incentive to improve their health sector and increase their expenditure on health. But this amounts to placing a huge responsibility on the states because health of the Indian population of 1.3 billion is of utmost importance and the central government spends only a low 1.23 per cent of the GDP on health.

India is far behind in providing sufficient number of doctors and hospital beds for its population. WHO recommends 3.5 hospital beds per 1000 population and in India, there are only 0.7 beds per 1000 population. The number of doctors is also abysmal at 1 doctor for 1700 population. Health sector has not even got the status of ‘infrastructure’ and hospitals have to pay high duties for importing hospital machinery and equipment which makes healthcare expensive and unaffordable. ‘Out of pocket expenditure’ on health in India is one of the highest in the world.

Not having a focused national health policy and leaving it to the states to take care of this serious issue is not going to improve India’s health profile or indicators. This is already evident in the growing number of diseases that make seasonal rounds in all cities and towns. India has also missed meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals targets for infant mortality, under five mortality and maternal mortality.

Also important are efficient solid waste disposal, sanitation and building of toilets in villages. Both will encounter formidable problems ahead because of lack of water and sewerage and it stands in the way of India becoming a developed middle income country. Toilets have been built but they are unusable and dysfunctional. India has 13 of the top 20 most polluted cities in the world also. India’s ranking according to World’s health system is 113 out of 190 countries.

Making available clean water in villages, towns and cities is also a monumental task as the rivers are polluted from the dumping of sewage in them. In all developed countries water can be drunk from the tap but not in India. This clean- up operation is important and cannot be postponed because on these depend the country’s health and most importantly the health of the future generation–children.

Neglecting healthcare is one of the serious gaps in the NDA government as pointed out in the recent issue of Lancet, a famed medical journal. Without good health the benefits of growth will remain unutilized by the population and ultimately arrest growth. As Deaton said in his book– economic growth does not significantly contribute to better health and therefore institutions are of utmost importance.

*The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

By Joshua Foust*

When the Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, came under fire by an AC-130 gunship at the beginning of October, there was a swift and sharp media reaction. Human rights activists, lead by UN high commissioner for human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein immediately accused the U.S. military of committing a war crime, and MSF has said they will consider it a war crime until proven otherwise. The media coverage of the strike amplified that charge for weeks afterward.

There remain many unanswered questions about the Kunduz strike, including how and when the U.S. forces involved in the strike actually learned about the hospital and how they reacted after learning. But in the meantime, it is interesting to compare how both MSF and the international community has responded to this strike, versus other strikes against MSF aid workers. It reveals a troubling double standard about American conduct that policymakers need to learn how to manage.

The closest analogy to the Kunduz strike happened just this week, when the Saudi air force destroyed an MSF hospital in Saada, Yemen. Unlike in Afghanistan, MSF has not called the strike a war crime and the UN has not led the charge to investigate the strike with an independent team (UPDATE: while MSF still does not refer to the strike as a war crime, after I wrote this the Yemen country director did so in a statement to Reuters; however, since many falsely believe the Saudis to be acting on behalf of American interests, the larger point here still applies I think). Saudi officials have admitted to Vice News that they targeted the hospital deliberately, and have accused MSF of not submitting sufficient notification of the hospital’s location to their military. And yet, MSF remains mute about the strike, criticizing it (no one wants to lose a hospital) but not using the same heightened language. And no one has called for a war crimes probe.

The two strikes are similar in a lot of ways: both involve humanitarian workers providing medical care in areas controlled by insurgents (at the time, Kunduz was occupied by the Taliban and Saada is a stronghold of the Houthi insurgency). In both cases, MSF had at some point registered the hospital’s location with the attacking forces, and the attacking forces both believed the hospital had either been overrun or used as a base for engaging in combat. Both strikes could, conceivably, be war crimes if investigations reveal the violated the Law of Armed Conflict governing medical facilities.

Other attacks on MSF workers reveal the same troubling tendency to only call incidents involving Americans a war crime. In August of this year, two MSF doctors in South Sudan were killed during a battle between government forces and rebels in the town of Leer. Despite photographic evidence that the hospital was the site of violence, including defamatory graffiti on its walls, MSF has not called the incident a war crime and it has not called for any party to the conflict to be investigated for war crimes (more than 30 aid workers have died in South Sudan).

The pattern repeats elsewhere: in 2014, in the Central Africa Republic three MSF workers were killed in the capital, Bangui. The attack by the mostly-Muslim Seleka rebels targeted the MSF clinic and killed more than a dozen other civilians. MSF did not call the attack a war crime, and UN did not issue a demand for a full investigation into the incident to see if any war crimes were committed. In 2008, a bomb blast at an MSF hospital in Kismayo, Somalia, killed four volunteers. Same pattern: no media campaign to call it a war crime, no UN demand for an independent investigation, no media campaign against the bombers.

So why is there unique, immediate, and aggressive public outcry when the U.S. is involved in a tragic incident like Kunduz? At least for MSF, the United States is held to a high standard the group simply does not reserve for other parties to conflicts, whether states or non-states. When the Taliban killed five MSF workers in Badghis province, Afghanistan in 2004, the group decided to blame the United States instead of the killers. In MSF’s view, when the U.S. military began providing medical services and humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, it put humanitarian workers in danger. Elsewhere, they chalk up even deliberate attacks against their facilities that kill their volunteers as the tragic and horrible consequence of random violence in a conflict zone. But for the U.S., their only explanation is a deliberate strike.

There is a reflexive, open anti-Americanism from the aid group. The group proudly says it treats everyone at their hospitals, regardless of affiliation: Taliban, Boko Haram, civilian. They find moral courage in treating even “bad” people because of their belief in the humanitarian principle of treating all people equally… unless the U.S. is involved. One soldier who deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 has told me that one MSF facility refused to treat an injured child because she was brought to the hospital by U.S. troops. Their laudable commitment to medical ethics and political neutrality in war seems to falter when Americans get involved.

But reflexive anti-Americanism probably does not tell the whole story: plenty of aid groups are deeply skeptical, even mistrustful, of the U.S. military without displaying MSF’s double standards. Globally, the U.S. is held to a higher standard than any other party to conflict, partly as a consequence of America’s unmatched military power, partly because of American global economic and cultural dominance, and partly because of a general sense of anti-imperialism that influences many internationalists.

This double standard creates a dilemma for policymakers. In war, mistakes happen, people get coordinates confused, and sometimes the wrong target gets struck and innocent people die. The U.S. military, however, is expected to operate with zero mistakes, or at least a zero tolerance for mistakes: collateral damage, targeting mix ups, and acting on flawed intelligence are simply not acceptable to a broad swath of the international community. It can put U.S. troops at greater risk when restrictive ROEs (and rhetoric aside American ROEs exceed the minimum standards required by international law) limit how they can respond to attacks — such as if some Taliban militants set up a firing position from a hospital and Americans cannot respond in kind.

The politics of America’s wars have not caught up to the political reality of American force around the world. Within Congress, and among candidates for President, there is a broad agreement that American military force can and should be used for good around the world — that American forces should directly intervene in conflicts from Libya to Syria to Afghanistan — but do not account for either domestic or international reactions to how they operate. You see the same push from policymakers and working-level analysts: a demand for force to address crises, but little desire to handle the political aftereffects.

In Afghanistan, the result has been a muddling defensive action as the Taliban advance across the country and American troops have fewer and fewer options available to them for defense or counterattack. In Iraq, it limits the U.S. to limited air strikes, which have had few consequences for the ISIS militants they target. A zero-risk approach to war, where troops are kept out of harm’s way but civilians are somehow protected, is not possible. What is possible, however, in a world where American troops are subjected to a double standard no one else is, remains unclear. Policymakers need to start addressing how to respond to this impossible standard in a proactive and deliberate way.

About the author:
*Joshua Foust is a Fellow in the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute as well as a freelance writer based in Washington, DC, covering intelligence and national security. From 2010-2013 he was the asymmetric operations fellow at the American Security Project, where he worked on strategic metrics for the war in Afghanistan, meta-analysis of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and reforming the intelligence community. Before that, he was a senior intelligence analyst for the U.S. government focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. In 2010, Joshua published a memoir of his time in Afghanistan as a cultural analyst for the U.S. Army, Afghanistan Journal.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Following is the transcript of the press conference held in Vienna, Austria of US Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura as released by the US Department of State.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I thank all of you for your patience today and appreciate your waiting around here so we had a moment to come and share some thoughts with you. I want to begin by thanking all of our foreign minister counterparts. Sergey Lavrov and I asked many people to come and many dropped things at the last minute. They changed their schedules and made themselves available. And we’re very grateful that they all sensed the importance of taking time out of their schedules in order to be here, and I think that really underscores the urgency of this issue. I want to thank the United Nations represented by Staffan de Mistura for the role they will play going forward. And I’m very grateful for Staffan’s willingness to take this on.

Four and a half years of war in Syria we all believe has been far too long, and the consequences of that war for so many people, innocent people, is beyond description – devastation in refugee camps, migration effects all over. The result has been a lot of suffering and far too much damage to the economic and social and political fabric of the region. And so we came here – the foreign ministers who came here today – with the conviction that the fighting and the killing absolutely has to end. And it’s up to us to try to find a way to do that.

Our shared task is to find a way to use the tools of diplomacy in order to make that happen. This is a relatively large diplomatic group that met today because there are a lot of people who are stakeholders because there are a lot of neighbors, and there are a lot of people who are supporting, one way or the other, one side or another. And so it will take pressure from many different directions to reverse the escalation of conflict and to lay a credible groundwork for peace.

Daesh and other terrorist organizations, we all believe, can never be allowed to unite or govern Syria. The United States position regarding Syria, I emphasize, has not changed. Sergey Lavrov and Prime Minister Zarif and I and others agree to disagree. The United States position is there is no way that President Assad can unite and govern Syria. And we believe that Syrians deserve a different choice, and our goal is to work with Syrians from many factions to develop that choice.

But we can’t allow that difference to get in the way of the possibility of diplomacy to end the killing and to find the solution. And that is a significance of the decision that was really made here today was that even though we acknowledge the difference, we know it is urgent to get to the table and to begin the process of real negotiations. So we’re employing a two-pronged approach. Speaking for the United States, we are intensifying our counter-Daesh campaign and we are intensifying our diplomatic efforts in order to end the conflict. And we believe these steps are mutually reinforcing. And that is why today President Obama made an announcement about stepping up the fight against Daesh. He authorized a small complement of U.S. Special Operations Forces to deploy to northern Syria where they will help to coordinate local ground forces and coalition efforts in order to counter Daesh.

But at the end of the day, the United States and our coalition partners believe that there is absolutely nothing that would do more to fight Daesh than to achieve a political transition that strengthens the governance capacity of Syria, sidelines the person that we believe attracts so many foreign fighters and so much terror, and unite the country against extremism. Make no mistake, the answer to the Syrian civil war is not found in a military alliance with Assad, from our point of view. But I am convinced that it can be found through a broadly supported diplomatic initiative aimed at a negotiated political transition, consistent with the Geneva communique.

And I want to thank Sergey Lavrov for his efforts to try to find that diplomatic solution and for the commitment of Russia even as it is engaged in supporting Assad, which is not a secret, in believing that we need to move towards a political solution. There is nothing inevitable in our judgment about the war in Syria. The war came about because of choices that people made. And what people have the power to choose, they have the power to change.

To change the pattern of violence in Syria, we have to change some of the patterns of thinking, so that the choice is not between a dictator and Daesh, but between war and peace, between destroying and building, between catering to the violent extremes and empowering the political center.

We’re not going to succeed in that by focusing on how we got to where we are. And frankly, we spent a fair amount of time today making sure that the discussion didn’t get bogged down in the past. And I appreciate the discipline and the effort that all of the participants made to look to the future and to try to find the ways to move there. We have to be creative and we have to be determined in deciding how we go from here and where we go from here. And that was the subject of today’s discussions.

I want to make it clear also, none of us expected today to walk in and have one side or other say to the other, “Hey, Assad’s not an issue anymore,” or, “Assad’s going to do this or that.” That was not ever in anybody’s contemplation. This is the beginning of a new diplomatic process, not the final chapter. But I can tell you that all of us were convinced of the importance of finding a way to get back to the negotiating in a way that’s real. And what makes it real this time, unlike any other previous meeting, every stakeholder was represented there in terms of all of the countries who are supporting one side or another in this conflict.

So I will leave for the rest of my overseas trip with a fresh sense of the possibility of encouragement. I’m a realist. I know it’s difficult and I saw today in some of the conversation just how complicated and difficult it is indeed. But I believe the diplomatic situation is today more promising than it has been in some time because all of the stakeholders came to this table. There were tough conversations today. They were honest, frank. But there is more willingness and commitment by all the parties there today to continue to talk about practical steps, and there is more clarity about intentions. I’m not going to make any great claims here. I’m not going to blow anything up beyond the difficult path that it is. But I can report that we did make progress on the following.

The participants agreed today that Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and secular character are fundamental. We agreed that Syria’s state institutions will remain intact. We agreed that the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination, must be protected. We agreed that it is imperative to accelerate all diplomatic efforts to end the war. We agreed that humanitarian access must be assured throughout the territory of Syria, and the participants will increase support for internally displaced persons, refugees, and their host countries.

We agreed that Daesh and other terrorist groups as designated by the UN Security Council and as agreed by the participants must be defeated. Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva communique and UN Security Council Resolution 2118, we invited the UN to convene representatives of the Government of Syria and the Syrian opposition for a political process leading to a credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance followed by a new constitution and elections. We agreed that these elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the government and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, free and fair, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.

We agreed that this political process will be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned and that the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria. And we agreed together with the United Nations to explore modalities for and implementation of a nationwide ceasefire to be initiated on a date certain and in parallel with this renewed political process.

We will spend the coming days working to narrow remaining areas of disagreement and to build on the areas of agreement, and we will reconvene within two weeks to continue these discussions.

So in closing, let me just reiterate that we all have a sense of urgency. We all know what it is stake. And personally, I have met with refugees, the survivors of barrel bombing, the unspeakable torture that has taken place. I’ve talked to women who struggle to hold their families together despite constant danger, bitter cold, and shortages of shelter and medicine and food. And I’ve heard the blood-chilling stories of doctors and relief workers who are dealing with the humanitarian trauma that this war is creating on a daily basis.

I am aware, as you are, of atrocities that have been committed and are being committed by the extremes on both sides. As I said a couple of days ago, the challenge is nothing less than to chart a course out of hell. And that’s not going to happen overnight, but I am convinced that the steps that we worked on today, if followed up on, if worked on in good faith, can begin to move us in the right direction. And it’s our job to accelerate the momentum so that we’re not back here next year or even the year after facing a Middle East with even more refugees, with even greater numbers of dead and displaced, and with even more suffering and more eroding hope. The time has come to stop the building – stop the bleeding and start the building, and that is exactly what we have set out to do. And I thank Staffan and I thank Sergey for the efforts to at least try to open a new chapter.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: I’ll speak in Russian for the benefit of the Russian media. There is translation.

(Via interpreter) Ladies and gentlemen, today we held a meeting of a group that can be called, as suggested by Mr. de Mistura, a contact group or a Syria support group. As John has already said – and John made a decisive contribution today to our work – all stakeholders have gathered today here at the table.

From the very beginning of the crisis we have pushed for the principle of inclusiveness in – both in all Syrian political process and in the process supported by the external players for the Syria. And I believe that today’s meeting has enshrined a common understanding that it should be that way.

John has talked a lot today about the suffering endured by the Syrian people, about the terrible bloodshed, about displaced people who lost their homes. We want to stop that situation and not to let the terrorists gain power in that country. The terrorist topic was vocal in all the speeches by the participants, and we reached some agreement.

We had agreed upon today and it is stated also in the joint statement that we want to committedly and firmly fight ISIS organizations and all the other terrorist organizations listed by the UN Security Council, as well as to hold additional consultations on how to list other terrorist organizations not yet listed by the UN Security Council.

Russia is committed to fighting terrorism based on the solid basis of international law, whether we’re talking about the military interventions from air or the ground operations. These need to be conducted in agreement with the government or with the UN Security Council.

That is – we are talking about the decision just made by the U.S. President, and John Kerry just said about it. Our position in that regard has not changed, and we want to continuously fight terrorism on the – with the agreement and with the common understanding.

I would also like to highlight some modalities of the joint statement. We have agreed to continue with Syria as a unit, and so that Syria keeps its territorial integrity, so it would be a united country with secular government and to retain the institutions. The rights of all Syrians, despite their religious beliefs or ethnic group, should be protected and observed. Humanitarian access should be provided and the momentum should be accelerated to help refugees and internally displaced people.

And one of the most important agreements of today’s meeting is that this group is asking the UN to invite stakeholders, the Syrian Government and the opposition, to begin the political process. This inclusive political group should create the basis for an inclusive administration, so this administration can create the new constitution and new institutions. We have also agreed so that the new elections would be conducted under the active participation of the UN, and so that all Syrian people, despite of where they are – whether they are refugees or in the neighboring countries – should be able to take part in those elections.

We have also discussed the issue of a ceasefire parallel to the political process, and there was a consensus that the ceasefire should be held in the consultations with the UN with the understanding that if the ceasefire is declared, no terrorist organizations should be subject to that.

As John has said, we have no agreement on the destiny of Assad. Russia believes that it is up to Syrian people to decide within the framework of the political process. It is said in the joint statement that the political process should be done by the Syrian people and belong to the Syrian people, and the Syrian people should decide the future of their country.

Some colleagues leaving the conference were saying that – mentioning that there could be an impression among the observers and the journalists that we are trying to obscure some problem and some issues. That is not so. We are honestly talking to you about these disagreements. The principles that we have created here today in the joint statement lay the basis for serious work, which will be hard, I have no doubt; it will be not a fast process. But this work would make it possible to create trust, especially among the countries of the region. They have some serious issues, but today they sat down at the negotiating table and they held talks. With that kind of trust, we can make sure that Syrian people have the chance to decide their future.

We have tried to create a compromise, and there will be further discussions and consultations. I think the next talks are scheduled to be held no later than in two weeks’ time. The certain date will be stated later. I would like to thank John Kerry for his input today. I would also like to thank Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, and all his office for the support and his work. And I would like to wish every success to my counterparts, because they have very responsible missions to fulfill.

That was for you. (Laughter.)

MR DE MISTURA: Well, I have very little to add. You saw it, you have heard it. Would you have imagined a few weeks ago that we would have been able to have what Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been asking for months, that the Russia and United States, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and many other countries are involved in this conflict in one form or the other, sitting on the same table, and today having both of you sitting here, having come with a meeting of seven hours. No one left the room. No one disagreed fundamentally on the major issues. There is, obviously, areas which have been not covered by an agreement. But look at the outcome – proof. They are going to meet again in this type of contact group, which we can call a special contact group for the peace in Syria – again, within 14 days.

Think about the fact that they have come to quite a convergence on the issue of concrete deliveries. Look at the fact that there will be a push with their support – the UN cannot do it alone – with their support for actual ceasefires and humanitarian aid. The Syrian people need to hear that. They need to see that this is not another conference; this is serious. Seven hours of discussions, constructive discussion.

And then the issue about the political process. And look at the political process between all sides about an inclusive, all-inclusive Syrian governance leading to a new – I repeat, a new constitution, and leading to new elections under UN supervision according to the strictest international criteria, and agreement that at the end of the day, terrorism is the priority but can only be won and defeated if there is a parallel political process. And that’s what we’ll be talking about.

Of course, the work starts now. And it’s going to be a heavy work. But look how much has been already achieved and what type of message we are trying to say together to the international community, but also to the Syrian people: We are serious, they are serious, and everyone is serious about ending this conflict.

So thank you, and congratulations on the both of you for what you have been able to do, and for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. The UN will do its part, by the way. Yeah, I know you have been both challenging the UN – (laughter) – and I have to say, it’s quite a challenge, but we’ll do our part. That’s what we are meant for.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Staffan.

MR TONER: Great. We have time for three questions. The first question goes to David Sanger from The New York Times.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you all for coming here and seeing – and talking with us. Can you tell us, Secretary Kerry, how the decision to deploy the special forces bolsters this diplomacy, how you believe that additional special forces’ work out there will in fact encourage Mr. Assad to participate in either the ceasefire or the rewriting of the constitution and subsequent elections?

And Mr. Lavrov, could you tell us whether or not you believe that the President’s decision would accelerate what some have viewed as something of a proxy war in which the United States seems to be backing the rebels and in which Russia has said, as you said just a few moments ago, that you do not necessarily believe that Mr. Assad needs to go? And of course, we believe Russian forces have been attacking some of those rebel groups the U.S. has supported.

SECRETARY KERRY: David, it’s very simple. I think I just said it. First of all, there are too many people who have been made to believe that the choice they have for life in Syria is between Assad or terrorism. And it drives people to Assad, or it drives them out of the country. So to the degree that we can join together with everybody who is united in an effort to end this reign of tyranny that has attempted – it’s not a reign, but this tyranny that is perpetrated by Daesh – to whatever degree that is diminished and people see there is a better alternative, which is this political process, versus what they currently had – that’s a better choice, in our judgment. And we think that will help the process.

Secondly, to whatever degree we show our bona fides in putting our effort into counter Daesh, I think it earns credibility with all of the stakeholders that are involved in this. And that can help us to build the good faith necessary to have a solution.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) I did not say that Assad has to go or that Assad has to stay. I said that Assad’s destiny should be decided by the Syrian people, as well as all other aspects of further development of the Syrian state.

As for certain concerns about the fact that Russian air forces are striking some groups supported by the U.S., terrorist and non-terrorist – from the very beginning, I would like to say and highlight here that we are conducting this operation under request of the Syrian Government. And we asked the U.S. to arrange our cooperation in that sphere. Right now we are at the point where our U.S. colleagues agreed only to create a mechanism of de-confliction, but we’re sure that more can be done and we can more effectively fight terrorism. And I believe – I hope that the agreement that we have today to create a list of terrorist organizations would also help that.

I have already talked about our evaluation of President Obama’s decision to unilaterally introduce some broad contingency, so to speak, to fight ISIS. I believe that neither the U.S. nor Russia want to go back to the so-called proxy war, but the fact that this situation makes the cooperation between the militaries ever more important is very apparent to me. We have a common enemy and we need to make sure that this enemy does not come to power in Syria or in any other country.

MR TONER: Next question will be —

SECRETARY KERRY: I just – hello, I just want to add one thing quickly because I think it’s important to the fabric of this. We have succeeded in doing sort of a minimal and most important level of preventing conflict in the operations between our militaries, and Minister Lavrov is correct that there’s been a request to try to do more. And we clearly want to be responsible about the effort with respect to ISIL – Daesh – and so we discussed today how it might be possible to be able to do more. And one of those ingredients is this cooperation with respect to the political track, which can open up the horizon, perhaps.

But we have some ideas which we discussed today that I’m taking back to Washington. They would need the President’s approval, and so I will keep them to myself until I pass them on to the President. But I’m confident the President wants to make certain that we are maximizing our effort against the terrorists as well as maximizing our effort to bring peace through a political track.

MR TONER: Next question is Stas Natanzon from Russia 24.

QUESTION: Thank you. I shall follow my compatriot speaking in Russian for the same reason, if you don’t mind. There is interpreter, so there is no problem.

(Via interpreter) I would like to go back to the discussion of the contingency introduced to Syria. This information came just at the time when the Vienna reconciliation talks were taking place. Is this an attempt to influence the negotiations or the lack of concerted actions between the military and the political authorities in the U.S.? Or if you can give me any other reason, I would be happy to listen to that. Also, I would like to ask you about the timeline and conditions for the ceasefire in Syria.

Sorry, first question of course was for Mr. Kerry and the second one was for all of you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, I was happily not listening because they were talking – (laughter). Can you give me the question, please?

INTERPRETER: I would like to go back to the introduction of the contingencies to Syria. The information about the —

SECRETARY KERRY: What would you mean by “contingencies”?

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Contingents.

INTERPRETER: Contingents.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, the new people.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Yeah.

INTERPRETER: The special operations forces.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes.

INTERPRETER: This information came just at the time when the Vienna talks were taking place. Is this an attempt to influence the negotiations, to show the power? Or this is the lack of concerted actions between the military and the political authorities in the U.S.? Or if there is any other reason, could you please explain it?

SECRETARY KERRY: None of the above.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: John, we did not plant this question. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: No. This has been a process that I’ve been engaged in – and all of us have on the President’s security team – for many months now. And it happens that it really coincided; it’s coincidence more than anything. The President has been determined to try to make certain that we were going to increase our efforts against Daesh because, to everybody’s obvious perception, more needs to be done.

We’re actually very proud of what we have done over the course of the year. We’ve had over 7,300 strikes in Iraq and in Syria. We believe that those strikes help to keep Daesh from moving further towards Baghdad and gaining more territory. Tikrit has been liberated; 100,000 Sunni have been able to return to their homes in Tikrit. Baiji has been liberated. Ramadi is currently a fight that is ongoing, but we’re going to be doing more to help there.

And in addition to that, Kobani, which many people gave up originally in the media, was saved. Other communities in Syria have been liberated. Eighty-five percent of the northern border of Syria has been liberated of Daesh. There’s still a component there where we intend to do some work together with the Turks in order to make sure Daesh is no longer present there.

So it’s been a serious effort. And we’ve said from the very beginning that if Russia is there, indeed, to fight against Daesh, there are ways for us to be able to be cooperative and find a way to do more. So it’s really a coincidence that it came out today. I had no idea as we were – we began the day, I had heard about it, but it wasn’t until this morning that I knew that the decision had been made.

QUESTION: The second part.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) So the second part of the question was about the timeline, the conditions of the ceasefire. It was discussed in the Joint Plan of Action and the decision was made to continue the discussions with our UN colleagues. There were no conditions to that, apart from the fact that no terrorist groups would be subject to the ceasefire.

MR DE MISTURA: The UN will do its work on that, of course, supported by the international players and partners, and we will be engaging both the Syrian authorities and the opposition in order to make sure that there are areas where we can do the ceasefires and humanitarian assistance. In any case, you will see that whenever there will be a message that there is a political process, the ceasefires will be, by far, easier to be achieved. That’s why the two things need to work in parallel.

SECRETARY KERRY: And the theory of the ceasefire is very simple: Certain parties control or influence people with guns and the ability to fight. And if we do reach an agreement with respect to some of the road forward, there would be a responsibility for those with influence and those with – those who have direct control over certain parties, they would control them. Obviously, with respect to Daesh and al-Nusrah, there is no ceasefire, there would be none, and those are the early parameters. But much more needs to be discussed between militaries, the politics. There’s work yet to be done, but there is a fundamental concept in mind that could bring even greater capacity to do the humanitarian aid to even restore people’s ability to come out of being a refugee back to a home. There are all kinds of possibilities, but they remain to be explored.

MR TONER: Last question is Christian Ultsch from Die Presse.

QUESTION: Yes, hello. Good evening. A question to Mr. de Mistura: When, how, and where do you want to bring representatives of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian authorities to the negotiating table?

And a question to Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov: Today, you have negotiated about Syria without Syrians. Does the contact group has any intention to invite Syrian delegates to their sessions?

MR DE MISTURA: Let me start by addressing even the second question, because it was raised yesterday – why the Syrian representatives or the Syrian Government is not present yet. Well, I’ve been – as you know, that’s one of the privileges of the UN; we meet everyone. So I’ve been meeting a lot of Syrians, especially during July and during the so-called Geneva consultations – 230 different entities, groups, and the government. And they all told me the same thing: We are unable to come to any type of common conclusion unless the international community, the regional partners, players, and the broader international community and the P5 come to some common understanding. Then, we will have enough critical mass to actually come and meet.

Well, what happened today is in that direction; what will happen in 14 days will be in that direction. And I think that will help, especially if those who have an influence – and they were all around the table, believe me – those who have an influence on both the government and the opposition will tell them, time to sit now. That will be soon, I hope, especially if the message comes across from everyone who was attending this meeting today.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

MR DE MISTURA: John, you want to —

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, just to say that the United Nations is the entity that is responsible for and that we have asked to invite the Syrians. The Syrian opposition wasn’t invited today, Assad wasn’t invited today. Because first, a lot of stakeholders who have had very strong positions had to come together and see if they could find a common ground that would make it possible for the United Nations to then engage. And we are both, all of us – I mean Minister Lavrov, myself, all of the ministers who are here today are supportive of trying to get the political process going, understanding that there are still some differences of opinion about how it works. But that’s our job, is to work at that.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) I agree with John. Today, we wanted to reach an agreement on – at least on some aspects and to encourage further political process. Right now, we do not see a unified delegation from the opposition. This was discussed today, and Staffan de Mistura with his team will be doing work in that direction. We have thanked each other already for the great work, and in the end, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the Austrian Government, to the hospitable city of Vienna, and to all Austrians for this great conference and their hospitability.

We will be back. (Laughter.)

MR DE MISTURA: This is the statement that came out today. You will have it, all of you. It will show there are nine points. All of them are very concrete, and they are the outcome of seven hours of serious, constructive discussions. Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: More than one point an hour.

Recent tensions over beef production and eating have seen bans enforced and murder taking place in India. It is linked to a rise in Hindu extremism, but Hindu concepts of tolerance and non-violence indicate another path.

By Paul Hedges*

Hindus revere the cow, most particularly a subgenus commonly found in India marked by its humped back. For many its primary association is with Krishna as cowherd, while as the “vehicle” (sacred animal) of the God Shiva it is prominent in Hindu iconography. Exactly when the cow attained its revered status is not clear, with scholars believing that the early Vedic civilisation conducted cow and other animal sacrifices.

However, during the period that Buddhism and Jainism arose (circa C5th BCE) the concept of ahimsa, “non-harm”, became prominent and probably triggered a revolt against animal sacrifice which remains the norm across Hinduism. While the cow is sacred, most Hindu commentators assert that they do not worship it. Rather it is venerated because of its symbolic qualities along with other animals, including monkeys especially the langur associated with Hanuman.

The cow and identity

However, the cow has become a very central and prominent symbol, and its long association with farming and dairy production have no doubt contributed to its status. Despite this, the distinctive Indian cow is becoming rarer as it has been cross bred to create a more productive farming unit. This has certainly been an issue raised by some Hindu leaders, but Hindu farmers have not responded favourably given the economic benefits. Nevertheless, the cow remains revered, as anyone who has ever encountered one on an Indian road or in a temple will know.

Historically the cow signified difference. With the coming of Muslims to India, food practices were a clear distinguishing marker between Hindus and Muslims: the former not eating beef, the latter not eating pork. In colonial times, especially under the British, the new rulers were sometimes explicitly called beef eaters. Indeed, one aspect of conversion to Christianity during this period might be the act of eating beef as a symbolic sign of leaving behind the old tradition. It should be noted that many Dalits, the traditional “untouchables” or “outcasts” of India, have also traditionally eaten beef and have farmed cattle for leather. For high caste Hindus, this helped defined them as impure.

Devotional attitudes towards the cow have also been seen in the Hindu diaspora, with some Hindu centres in the West running cow sanctuaries. Some years back, in the United Kingdom, a case went to the High Court when a Hindu community whose bull – named Shambu – was diagnosed with bovine TB fought unsuccessfully to prevent having him put down as a legally enforced preventative measure. These attitudes mark communal distinctions with the surrounding secular culture.

Cows, extremism, and legislation

For centuries, the cow has played a part in defining Hindu identity against the Other but recent years have seen it becoming increasingly prominent as part of the ideology of Hindutva, or right wing Hindu nationalist politics. Sensitivities on this are growing, with recent news reports highlighting the case of a Muslim killed by an angry mob who believed that he had eaten beef. The 50-year-old man, Mohammad Akhlaq, was dragged from his house by a mob of over one hundred people. He died in hospital from his wounds, while his son was seriously injured. However, this is not the only incident.

As a secular nation, many argue that reverence for the cow should not feature in Indian legislation, however, laws to ban cattle slaughter and prohibit beef eating have existed for decades. Since Narendra Modi became prime minister last year, there have been increasing demands for these with Maharashtra issuing a ban earlier this year, followed by Haryana. Indeed one BJP MP, Sakshi Maharaj, has called for legislation to make cow slaughter a capital offence.

For farmers and those who rely on the trade (predominantly Muslims, Christians, and Dalits) in the states affected by bans it is likely to lead to economic hardship. Under such circumstances hard-line divisions and social tensions between communities are likely to be reinforced. Political moderation is unlikely: Modi has shown no signs of speaking out or acting on this or other communal tensions, and indeed when, a state governor, many critics lamented his silence and inaction on some of the worst inter-communal riots ever seen in India.

As such, the symbol of the cow is likely to become an increasing rallying call for Hindu extremists and militants in a growing cycle of identity politics, communal conflict, and tensions. Indeed, reports suggest that Hindu extremists have vowed further action and violence.

Meditating tensions

There is a danger of such conflicts escalating within India and elsewhere, especially aggravating grievances between Hindus and Muslims, but also potentially with Christians and Dalits. Hindu and other community leaders, as well as governments, may need to mediate between these groups. Hindu leaders can educate their people that the current Hindu extremist standpoint, including Indian government legislation, is not representative of their tradition.

Rather a more moderate live and let live approach must prevail, which is embedded in the long Hindu tradition of tolerance for the other. Indeed, if Hindus believe ahimsa means they should not eat cows, it should also suggest they should not murder humans even if they infringe certain religious sensibilities. Meanwhile, other communities should not play up to the Hindu extremists by focusing upon beef eating as a symbol of opposition or antagonism as has happened historically.

Legislation on cattle slaughter and beef eating seem out of place within secular countries, yet there needs also to be an awareness and sensitivity towards Hindu beliefs on this matter which governments with significant Hindu populations need to acknowledge.

*Paul Hedges is Associate Professor in Interreligious Studies for the Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He maintains a blog on Interreligious Studies and related issues at: www.logosdao.wordpress.com.

World events and media portrayal of Islam over the last few decades has projected negative images, which are based on a total misunderstanding of Islam and the principles it encompasses.

Islam through many eyes is seen as a homogenous view of the world. In addition, many elements of the media have stereotyped Islam as an extreme religion. This situation has not been assisted by the lack of published academic and intellectual thought by Muslim academics themselves, which could assist in providing to the public domain more balanced views about what the principles of Islam stand for in society.

The focus of most published works on Islamic economics and business has been in the domains of finance, which leads most to the conclusion that Islam has little to contribute in the theories of economics and business.

The first and most comprehensive model of Islamic economy in modern times was published by Dr. M. Umer Chapra in the early 1990’s. His hypothesis was that existing economic models of capitalism, Marxism, socialism and the welfare state have failed to provide full employment, remove poverty, fulfill needs and minimize inequalities of income distribution. Both the market and centrally planned models have been weak in providing overall wellbeing, where problems of family disintegration, conflict and tensions, crime, alcoholism, drug addiction and mental illness have indicated a lack of happiness and contentment in the life of individuals.

With these failings, an alternative system needs to be considered which could optimize human wellbeing. An Islamic view may have potential to solve common economic problems due to the overall humanitarian goal of achieving the wellbeing of all members of society. An Islamic model of economy has never been implemented in any world economy, only versions of political Islam, laced with tribal customs.

The message of Islam derives it’s principles from the Al-Qur’an, which is believed to be the direct word of Allah. The Hadĭths are documents made up of lessons taken from the life of the Messenger Muhammad, written down by a number of apostles, which put the knowledge from the Al-Qur’an in context in which they were revealed, and assist in developing a general and universal significance for the information sourced within the Al-Qur’an.

The Islamic faith claims that the Al-Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, who was born into a trading family and brought up by Abu Talib, who was a trader. Society in the Prophet’s time was almost totally dependent on trade as a means to earn a living and unlike any other religion, the Al-Qur’an is heavily written in the metaphor of business and trade.

Within many parts of the Al-Qur’an life is paralleled to a business venture, where one earns profits to gain entry into heaven – profits meaning faith and good deeds to others and those that accept Allah’s guidance as a bargain to save them from punishment on judgment day.

Islam urges individuals to strive their utmost to earn large monetary rewards and spiritual profits, while at the same time being inspired to be successful and honest people. This is part of the concept of ad-din, which makes material and spiritual pursuits inseparable, where one’s whole life is concerned with the needs of humankind here on earth to secure a comfortable life in the Hereafter. Consequently, Islam does not prohibit worldly success, in fact the Al-Qur’an states that Allah has provided opportunities for humankind to obtain success and it is certainly the responsibility of the individual to do so. However involvement in business should also carry with it benevolent intentions for others while seeking success for oneself.

Islam espouses a market economy with freedom of the individual to operate a business with minimal outside interference;

“He who brings goods to the market is blessed with bounty, he who withholds them is cursed.” (Ibn Majah & Al Hakim)

A market mechanism is urged with free flowing knowledge without exploitation by middlemen;

“Do not chase after those who are going to the market before they reach the place.” (Al-Bukhari & Muslim)

Islam also prohibits price manipulation;

“Anyone who withholds goods until the price rises is a sinner.” (Muslim).

Thus Islam espouses that free trade is a major factor in the enhancement of living standards of the general community, subject to some constraints on business in the interests of the wider community.

Central to Islam and human existence, which relates to all activities is Tawhid “…a man’s commitment to Allah, the focus of all his reverence and gratitude, the only source of value. What Allah desires for man becomes value for him, the end of all human endeavor.”

Tawhid is the Islamic way of life, the fundamental of all Islamic civilization, which is process, means and end together. Tawhid is both the essence of the individual and the society he or she lives in. Tawhid is acceptance of one creator and His divine guidance of humanity. Tawhid implies both the mission and morality of humankind in both social and spiritual contexts.

Mankind’s responsibilities under Tawhid fall into two categories, fard’ain which is an individual’s obligation to perform his or her religious duties and fard kifayah, which is an obligation for man to serve the entire community, through services to each other, necessary for the community to live safely and comfortably. Thus the obligation to improve the Muslim Ummah (community) falls under fard kifayah, where undertaking business is the principle method of improving the economy and community;

“Be involved in business as nine out of ten sources of income lie in business” (Ihya)

The principles of Tawhid

The building blocks of Tawhid are the concepts of al-iman (belief), al-ilm (knowledge) and al-amal (pious acts and efforts). Al-iman is the belief in the existence of one God and Creator, with a commitment to His teachings and revelations, revealed through the Al-Qur’an, and Prophets, through the Hadĭths and Sunnah, i.e., What the Prophet Muhammad said, did, agreed or disagreed to. Faith in Allah must be reflected in daily behavour, influenced by our moral system formed and contained within us. It is our inner self;

“Faith is not expectations and not outward ornamentations, but implanted in the heart and realized through actions.” (Ibn Najjar & Dailami)

Al-iman is deepened by al-ilm, which is the responsibility of all Muslims to seek in order to fulfill and perform al-amal. Knowledge (spiritual, wisdom and scientific) is the foundation of all acts of al-amal which would be futile and unproductive without the search for further knowledge to enhance the wellbeing of society. Islam places great importance on scientific discovery, knowledge and wisdom to develop civilization. Al-iman and al-ilm manifested through al-amal is the basis of the advancement of civilization for the benefit of humankind and the Ummah (Muslim community), in particular. This is undertaken under the principle of ad-din (relating humans to Allah through spiritual acts), which is referred to as ibadah.

In Islam a person, who of faith, knowledge and pious devotion, manifested in effort and acts, using reason and experience and adheres to the teachings of the Al-Qur’an and Prophets is a person of Taqwa, adhering to the philosophy of Tawhid. He or she is fulfilling their purpose on Earth to perform ibada to God, through obedience (ta’ah), which conforms to his or her true and essential nature (fitrah) of humanity. This relates a person to God through everything an individual does, including spiritual duties, thoughts, actions, and deeds to other people.

As humans operate in a social environment, Islam prescribes a number of forms of business organization, through which obligations can be fulfilled. A mushharakah (organization) can take a number of forms. Such business organizations are founded and operated on the principle of al-ta’awun (mutual assistance and cooperation) among members of a society for both their mutual benefit and that of a society as a whole.

Islamic business is governed by the rules of syar’iah, the path by which all Muslims should follow. The syar’iah is the divine law that establishes the standards of justice and human conduct, as well as what is permitted and prohibited in action. The syar’iah is based on the Al-Qur’an, Sunnah and interpretations by Islamic scholars. Some Muslim scholars have stated that these standards are beyond human and are a goal or path of guidance, where others see these utopian ideals as mandatory for advancement of the community.

Central to the syar’iah are the concepts of Halal and Toyyibat, which govern all the economic activities of man in wealth production and consumption of wealth, where certain means of gaining a livelihood are declared unlawful. Halal means lawful or permitted for Muslins, a concept that is much wider than just issues of food, concerning as to whether things are undertaken according to the syar’iah. Toyyibat is a much wider concept, meaning good, clean, wholesome, ethical in the Islamic concept. In nutrition, toyyibat is much wider than halal, as food must also be clean, safe, nutritious, healthy and balanced. Toyyibat would also mean that agriculture must be undertaken within sustainable practices, and in business all things must be undertaken with good intentions.

In Islam, the individual’s vision, mission and objectives in business is to achieve both success in this world and the hereafter. This is al-falah. Islam puts very little restriction upon the scale of worldly success, except specifying, it must be reasonable, provides the comforts of worldly life, with consideration to the poor and suffering, and within the balance of worldly and spiritual life. Human success must also serve the legitimate needs of the ummah.

Allah equipped humans with the faculties of understanding right and wrong, so they may obtain a bright destiny. Humans have a free choice in what they choose. Opposition and straying from his/her true nature (fitrah) will bring discord to the individual where negative attributes will distort his or her true nature, which could lead him into doing evil deeds.

The individual has his al-iman and al-ilm to keep him from this path of self destruction (al-fasad), which would manifest itself through nepotism, favourtism, envy, greed, corruption, injustice and ignorance. This in Islam is the influence of satan, manifested in many different ways to humankind to lure one away from God’s chosen path. Humans can become unfocused through ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Achieving al-falah means that a human has lived up to God’s trust placed upon him or her, through performing ibadah, while obeying all the laws of the syar’iah. This is where humankind can overcome their general weaknesses in the service of Allah through righteous deeds (amal), in the obligation of fard kifayah. A human has reached the state of amanah, fulfilling the trust God has put in him or her.

Islam also specifies the way organizations should be operated and managed. An organization must base all its work on al-amal and ibadah with the overall management objective of achieving al-falah for the organization as a whole and each individual within it.

This is based upon a foundation of al-iman and al-ilm, within a civilization based upon a tawhid philosophy, so that employees have the opportunity to achieve taqwa and avoid straying towards the state of al-fasad. Central to achieving this are the concepts of shura (participation in decision making and community learning) and adab (justice and rights).

Shura is total organizational community participation in decision making to ensure an organization gets the best views, is creative, to develop employees understanding of decisions made, to achieve better implementation of decisions and strengthen the Islamic fraternity. Shura can also be seen as an organizational control mechanism to prevent management and individuals within the organization from straying down the path of ignorance, greed and oppression, so that the organization can continue to serve its members and the wider community and thus sustain itself. Shura creates a positive learning environment within and organization, similar to the concepts of learning organization proposed by the management guru Peter Senge in the 1990s. The Al-Qur’an states that the concept of shura is mandatory upon an organisation.

An organization should build its foundations upon the basic principles of human rights in its administration based on the concept of adab. Adab is based on the existence and recognition of Allah and recognition of his commands and laws (syar’iah). Within an organizational context, adab persuades a person to do good and avoid evil (al-fasad), in accordance with the nature of man (fitrah) and nature of his action (al-amal).

Adab comprises four major responsibilities, 1. responsibility to God, 2. responsibility to oneself, 3. responsibility to society and other human beings, and 4. responsibility to the universe and other creatures.

Over the last few decades Western management ideas and ethics have moved closer to Islamic principles and ethics. Stephen Covey, a devout practicing member of The Church of Latter-Day Saints, evangelistically preaches personal development, fulfilment and spirituality within the context of the organisation.

There are similarities with Peter Drucker, Dale Carnegie, David Allen, and Peter Senge in the approach. Dale Carnegie’s work is also on the rise again in popularity and consequently, corporations are taking notice of the importance of employee personal growth within the corporate environment.

Western management scientists have taken the initiative on similar principles that were laid down in the Al Qu’ran and Hadiths, more than 1500 years ago.

Islam somehow lost the intellectual initiative and needs to regain its place and dignity in the world.

There are three main reasons for the need to develop this ethical framework to bring Muslims back to Islam;

Firstly, is the nature of man himself: Man has both the potential to rise to great spiritual heights and also disintegrate into total immorality. Man’s ability to act rightly or wrongly is a matter of moral choice. Under the Islamic viewpoint, man’s purpose on earth to carry out ibadah (relates man to Allah through spiritual acts) and follow God’s will with total devotion, according to his natural disposition (fitrah); where everything fits into the divine pattern under the laws of Allah. Submission to the laws of Allah brings harmony to man, however man was created with many weaknesses, forgetfulness, greed for material comforts and power, is capable of oppressiveness and ignorance, is rash and impatient, stringy and miserably, ungrateful, quarrelsome, ruthless, and full of self-interest, which can easily lead him astray.

Secondly is the amoral society we live in today: General society has become amoral and lapsed in faith, believing that truth and reality is based on what can be touched, smelled, seen, heard and tasted. This has led to a society that has become materialistic and less spiritual. This absence of spirituality is leading business into immoral activities such as stealing, lying, fraud and deceit, making people believe that they cannot succeed without pursuing the same practices.

Finally and most importantly, the underdevelopment of Islamic societies: Approximately 80% of the World’s Muslins live in poverty, as cultural minorities in other countries, with high incidences of unemployment and low productivity. Countries with majority Muslin populations, are declining in their knowledge generation, research, innovation and educational standards, have a generally a lower life expectancy, higher illiteracy rates, lower GDP per capita rates with the majority of people living in fragile and non-arable lands, poorer infrastructure and water supplies and a larger number of dependents than the non-Islamic World. Islamic GDP as a percentage of total World GDP is estimated to be only 45% of what it should be, in order to be on par with the rest of the world.