By Bhaskar Roy*

India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to China (November 18 to 23) can be seen as a testing step to see China’s real commitment to earnestly combat terrorism in its entirety. Till now, Beijing’s track record on this issue has been patchy, narrowly focussed and politically manoeuvred.

The Chinese side was correct on protocol and the right amount of warmth. Singh called on Premier Li Keqiang, met security Czar Meng Jianghu, and had working discussion with this counterpart Guo Shengkun, State Councilor and Minister of Public Security.

The preamble to the seven-point joint statement says that the two sides reiterated their strong condemnation of and resolute opposition to “terrorism in all forms, its forms and manifestations and committed themselves to cooperate on counter terrorism”.

This is the central phrase in the joint statement that will be tested in due course on counter terrorism and will eventually have to expand and define terrorism as a whole. Will support to so-called liberation armed struggle by groups in other countries be included in the definition of terrorism?

The joint statement gives glimpses into the intentions of the two countries. It is a negotiated document between the two sides and views of the two sides are accommodated, unless there are major differences. The recent rise of the Islamic state (IS) threatening all and the devastating attack on Paris has forced even reluctant participants to come out against terrorism.

The joint statement agrees to hold meetings and contacts between the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Chinese Ministry of Public Security (MSP) periodically. But holding meetings between two Ministers every two years in Beijing and New Delhi suggests somewhat dilution of the spirit of the intention. Nevertheless, an agreement on mechanism has been established officially and openly for the first time.

Paragraph 3 of the joint statement is most important. It envisages exchanging information on terrorist groups and coordinating positions on anti-terrorism endeavours at regional and multilateral levels and supporting each other.

These endeavours would require a more precise and agreed definition of terrorism and terrorist groups.

Are organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM), and the Haqqani network terrorist organisations?

Are Hafeez Saeed, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi terrorists? Is Pakistan’s intelligence organisation the ISI a promoter of terrorism? China will be hard put to lend clarity to these questions.

In August this year, China nixed India’s efforts in the UN for a censure of Pakistan for releasing LET commander Lakhvi, who executed the terrorist attack on Mumbai on 26 November 2008 (26/11) in which 167 people were killed, with a ‘technical hold’. Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to take up the issue with President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Ufa conclave in Russia, but he was snubbed.

China’s focus has been solely on the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an Uighur separatist organisation fighting in the country’s South-Western Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous region. China has for long been aware that the ETIM received safe havens, arms training and Islamic indoctrination from Pakistani radical terrorist organisations. The Chinese told late Pakistan’s Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto when she visited China in 1992. They also told her that she would not be able to do anything as the ISI was involved.

The closest that China came to charge Pakistan on supporting the ETIM was in 2008 in the run up to the Beijing Olympics. Subsequently, with China’s “strike hard” campaign in Xinjiang and pressure on Pakistan, Islamabad either killed or handed over some ETIM leaders to China.

There is huge question here. Why does China deal with Pakistan so delicately when it has also suffered from Pakistan’s sponsored religious terrorism? The core of the answer is very clear. Pakistan has been and will be of immense strategic importance to China. Pakistan’s policy to “bleed India with a thousand cuts” worked to China’s interest and was abetted by China. This is why the ‘technical hold’ on Lakhvi.

For more than two decades a line existed between India and China through intelligence channels. India provided tonnes of information on Pakistan intelligence’s nexus with its state sponsored terrorist organisations, but to no avail. Will china’s position shift after their agreement with India? This should be proved soon.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

A senior Iranian official has warned that the Islamic Republic will halt the implementation of a nuclear agreement with the P5+1 if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not fully close the file of the so-called possible military dimensions (PMD) regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said that the IAEA’s Director General Yukiya Amano has decided to release a report on the Iranian nuclear program on December 1, and the Agency’s Board of Governors will review the report and make a final decision in a meeting on December 15.

Araqchi said the report by Amano should result in the closure of the PMD issue.

“In case Yukiya Amano or the Board of Governors presents their report in such a way that it does not meet the stipulated commitments, the Islamic Republic of Iran will also stop the implementation of the JCPOA,” he said, in reference to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1.

The Iranian nuclear negotiator said he held “constructive and good” talks with the UN nuclear agency chief Yukiya Amano on how to implement a nuclear agreement reached between Iran and six world powers in July.

“This meeting was in line with the roadmap that we had with the agency,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said.

He added that based on the roadmap, Iran and the IAEA should hold a wrap-up meeting before the agency gives its final assessment on the so-called possible military dimensions (PMD).

“We think that we are in a good direction,” the Iranian official pointed out.

Araqchi further said that the IAEA would provide its final assessment to its Board of Governors soon.

“The Board would consider this assessment and conclude its consideration of the PMD case…so we can proceed with the other parts of JCPOA,” he added.

Araqchi also said Russia’s decision to lift the ban on export of uranium enrichment hardware to Iran was “actually based on the JCPOA.”

“Based on JCPOA, Iran is allowed to sell its enriched uranium material and to buy natural uranium or yellow cake in return….So, we can have this business with Russia,” he said.

He noted that Iran and Russia have concluded talks on this issue and would sign a deal soon to begin this swap.

“We will sell our enriched uranium to Russia and we will buy yellow cake in return,” Araqchi said.

He said Iran’s enriched uranium can be shipped out after the closure of the PMD question.

“We will wait for a decision by the Board of Governors of the IAEA to close the PMD file so then afterwards the deal can be implemented,” Araqchi added.

Another senior Iranian diplomat said the Islamic Republic is resolved to honor its obligations under the nuclear agreement with the P5+1 group, calling on the opposite side to adopt a similar course of action so that the accord could be successfully implemented.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for European and American Affairs Majid Takht-e Ravanchi said before the agreement, dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), takes effect, efforts should be focused on closing the file on the so-called possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the roadmap signed between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in July, “everything related to PMD will be finished by December 1 … and then everything will be finished by the Board of Governors of the IAEA, so that the whole file related to PMD will be closed,” he said.

The official further noted that after the so-called PMD file is closed, the Islamic Republic will start doing its commitments related to the Arak reactor and the shipping out of enriched uranium stockpile in exchange for yellow cake.

“As far as Iran is concerned, we are more than 100 percent sure that we will stick to whatever we have agreed. We will commit doing whatever we have agreed,” the diplomat said, expressing hope that the same procedure will be followed by the other side in connection with “the lifting of sanctions.”

As Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has stressed, Iran “cannot accept anything less than the lifting of sanctions” adopted by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union or the United States, Takht-e Ravanchi noted.

“So, in the implementation, we want to see that all the sanctions related to economic issues will be lifted as of the implementation day,” he added.

Meanwhile, in a statement delivered to the IAEA Board of Governors, the Non-Aligned Movement once against expressed support for Iran’s nuclear program.

The NAM statement, which was read out by Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, hailed the Islamic Republic’s fulfillment of its commitments under the roadmap signed between Iran and the UN nuclear agency. Iran is the current rotating president of the IAEA.

The movement also said that it expects the IAEA Board of Governors to pass a new resolution canceling all previous resolutions over Iran’s nuclear program.

(RFE/RL) — The United States has warned U.S. citizens in Kabul of an “imminent attack” in Afghanistan’s capital during the next 48 hours as officials renewed efforts to revive stalled peace talks with Taliban militants.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul urged extreme caution during a period of “heightened threat.”

It did not provide details about potential targets or methods of planned attack.

The warning, posted to the U.S. embassy’s website, said “the security situation in Afghanistan is extremely unstable, and the threat to all U.S. citizens in Afghanistan remains critical.”

The embassy frequently issues emergency warnings. But the latest warning comes as the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan were expected to meet on the sidelines of a United Nations climate summit in Paris.

If the meeting between Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani takes place, it could be a crucial first step toward resuming Islamabad-brokered peace talks with the Taliban.

“We are all brothers, Christians and Muslims”, said Pope Francis, meeting at the Central mosque of Bangui with the Muslim community, to say “no to hatred, to vengeance and violence, especially that committed in the name of a religion or God”.

Greeted by five Imam in the area of the mosque reserved for prayer, the Pope referred to the civil war that broke out in the Central African Republic at the end of 2012. “We are all aware that the latest events and violence that have torn your nation were not founded on actual religious motives. Those who claim to believe in God, must also be a man or woman of peace. Christians and Muslims and members of traditional religions have lived peacefully for many years. Yes, I confirm, Christians and Muslims of this country are condemned to live together and love one another. We must remain united to prevent any action from either side that disfigures the face of God or has at its base the goal of defending particular interests at the expense of the common good,” said the Pontiff.

Pope Francis also stressed that “Christian and Muslim leaders played an important role in these dramatic times in restoring harmony and fraternity among all,” with gestures of solidarity toward fellow nationals of other faiths.

The Holy Father also addressed the political transitional phase underway in Bangui. “We can only hope that the next national vote gives the nation leaders who are able to unite the Central African population, becoming symbols of unity of the nation, rather than representing some faction. I strongly encourage you to turn your nation into a welcoming home for all its children, without distinction of ethnic, political or religious belonging.”

After the meeting with the Muslim community in the PK5 area, Pope Francis will celebrate mass at the stadium of Bangui, marking the final moment of his first Africa trip.

(EurActiv) — It was supposed to be the way the market would cut greenhouse gases by itself: governments selling companies permits-to-pollute, which they could trade among themselves. Over time, the number of permits would be reduced, and the cost to companies of failing to cut emissions would rise.

Yet, 10 years after the EU launched the world’s biggest carbon trading scheme, the effectiveness of the concept is in question and climate activists are disenchanted or hostile.

While there is still support for national or regional markets, not least in China, which plans to launch the world’s biggest scheme in 2017, any hopes of creating a global carbon market at this week’s UN climate conference in Paris look wildly optimistic.

Major corporations, in particular, back the concept because its costs are more predictable than those of prospective future regulations.

In June, a group of European energy companies led by Royal Dutch Shell wrote to the United Nations to call for a global carbon price that would “discourage high carbon options and reduce uncertainty”.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres told them to do more and to spell out price levels, something they have yet to do.

Climate activists say the corporations’ enthusiasm can be explained as a desire to dodge more aggressive measures, such as targets for renewable energy.

“The call for a carbon price is a shield with which to defend themselves from calls for faster change,” says Tom Burke, chairman of the environmental campaign group E3G.

Test case

Even with the jury out, nearly half of the more than 170 national pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions include some form of carbon pricing to meet their targets, officials say.

They range from the top emitter, China, to the tiny Pacific nation of Kiribati, imperilled by rising sea levels.

The best test case, for now, is the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which raised €8.9 billion in the three years to June 2015, according to European Commission figures.

Jos Delbeke, Director General of the Commission’s climate action department and one of the chief architects of the ETS, says it has shown, crucially, that reducing carbon emissions is compatible with economic growth.

He says the EU’s gross domestic product has risen 46 percent since 1990, while greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 23 percent, and that the ETS is still central to EU efforts to tackle climate change.

The scheme sets a cap on how much big emitters, chiefly power plants and factories, can pollute.

Mostly they have to buy the emissions credits at auction. Those who emit less than their cap can sell the surplus credits to companies that exceed their limits, which are progressively reduced over time.

So far, from the more than 11,000 industrial and energy plants covered by the EU ETS, emissions have fallen by almost 15 percent since 2008, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon figures show.

But critics say it is unclear how much of this was a direct result of the ETS, as opposed to Europe’s economic slowdown.

“Loopholes and vested interests”

They also say the revenues generated have merely boosted general government coffers rather than being spent on the environment, let alone on the poorer countries that pollute least but are set to suffer most from climate change.

“The carbon market promised the world lots of things it has failed to deliver. The ETS is riddled with loopholes and in thrall to vested interest,” said Tim Gore, Oxfam’s international policy adviser on climate change.

Most critically, the activists say the polluters have been given an easy ride.

Point Carbon figures show that industry, which lobbied hard for help in dealing with extra energy costs, was given free carbon permits with a tradable value of 77 billion euros in the years to 2014.

Alongside this, the market price of EU ETS permits, and therefore the cost of pollution, has at times fallen to near zero as economic recession and miscalculations led to a surplus of credits.

The allocation system has now been reformed, but the total of free permits is still expected to hit 325 billion euros by 2030.

At the same time, in the absence of a global carbon pricing system, industry continues to complain that the cost of permits is driving it to leave Europe for cheaper regulatory environments.

ETS prices have risen back to 8.5 euros per tonne of CO2 produced, but are still far below peaks of above 30 euros, and too low to encourage investment in lower-carbon fuel. EU regulators are working on further reforms.

Poorer countries

There is a similar story of flawed execution behind another trading scheme, the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism.

This was supposed to allow Western industries and governments to contribute to green projects in developing countries too small to support their own domestic or regional trading schemes, “offsetting” rather than cutting their own emissions.

The United Nations says the scheme has provided more than $315 billion for environmental projects.

However, the value of these certificates also fell from a high of more than 23 euros per tonne of CO2 avoided to near zero in 2014 as the scheme’s credibility was called into doubt and the value of the EU’s permits crashed.

Environment campaigners say the funds were concentrated in a handful of industrial gas projects rather than filtering down to the poorest nations, known as the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who found the scheme hard to access.

“By the time the LDCs were ready to take advantage … the prices had collapsed,” Giza Gaspar Martins, Angola’s climate negotiator for the UN talks, told Reuters.

UN carbon credit prices still languish around 0.60 euros a tonne, but Martins still backs the scheme in the hope that rich nations can push up prices to a level where they can provide significant funds to help the poorest nations adapt to climate change.

As for a true global carbon market – a draft of the agreement to be finalised in Paris, intended as the first ever pact to unite rich and developing nations against climate change, contains only a small, oblique reference to “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes”.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On November 22, 2015, condemned war crimes convicts Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (67) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Standing Committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (66) were hanged simultaneously at Dhaka Central Jail at 12:55 am. Earlier, on November 21, 2015, President Abdul Hamid had rejected their applications seeking Presidential clemency, which they had filed after losing all legal battles against their death sentences on charge of crimes against humanity committed during the Liberation War of 1971.

On July 17, 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal-2 (ICT-2) had sentenced Mojaheed to death after finding him guilty on five of seven charges against him, including the killing of eminent journalist Serajuddin Hossain in Dhaka; mass killings at village Baidyadangi in Faridpur District; the killing of Badi, Rumi, Jewel, Azad and Altaf Mahmud at Nakhalpara Army Camp in Dhaka; the killing of intellectuals in Dhaka; and the killing of Hindu civilians and persecution in Faridpur District. He had filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) on August 12, 2013. On June 16, 2015, the Appellate Division upheld Mojaheed’s death sentence.

Similarly, on October 1, 2013, ICT-1 sentenced Salauddin to death finding him guilty on nine of 23 charges including the Madhya Gohira Genocide, in which the Hindu community was targeted on April 13, 1971; the murder of Nutun Chandra Singha; genocide at Jogotmollopara, in which 32 Hindus were killed; the murder of Nepal Chandra and three others; the genocide at Unsuttarpara, in which an estimated 70 Hindus were killed; the killing of Satish Chandra Palit; the killing of Mozaffar and his son; abduction and torture of Nizamuddin Ahmed; and abduction and torture of Saleh Uddin. He had lodged an appeal with the Appellate Division on October 29, 2013, but his death sentence was upheld on July 29, 2015.

On September 30, 2015, the Appellate Division released its full verdicts upholding the death penalty of Mojaheed and Salauddin, leaving them with the option of seeking a review of the verdicts. Expectedly, both Mojaheed and Salauddin had filed their respective review pleas on October 14, 2015. Again, the Appellate Division dismissed their review petitions on November 18, 2015, with all four judges – Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Hasan Foyez Siddique – concurring, leaving only Presidential mercy as a last resort. On November 21, 2015, Mojaheed and Salauddin submitted their separate mercy petitions to the President, and these were rejected on the same day.

Mojaheed had been arrested on June 29, 2010, and was indicted on June 21, 2012; while Salauddin was arrested on December 16, 2010, and indicted on April 4, 2012.

Salauddin and Mojaheed are the two highest-profile war crimes convicts to walk to the gallows. Salauddin is also the first BNP leader to be executed, and was Parliamentary Affairs Adviser to the then Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, with the rank of a Cabinet Minister. He had also served as Minister of Health during General Hussein Muhammad Ershad’s regime.

Mojaheed had served as Minister of Social Welfare in the then BNP-led coalition Government between 2001 and 2006. He is the third JeI leader to have been hanged for war crimes, after JeI Assistant Secretary Abdul Quader Mollah (65), known as ‘Mirpurer Koshai (Butcher of Mirpur), who was hanged at Dhaka Central Jail on December 12, 2013; and JeI Senior Assistant Secretary General Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (63), the third most senior figure in the JeI, who was hanged at Dhaka Central Jail on April 11, 2015.

Expectedly, on November 22, 2015, the JeI called for a countrywide dawn-to-dusk hartal (general strike) for November 23, 2015. Earlier, protesting the SC verdict of November 18, 2015, JeI had called a countrywide hartal on November 19, 2015. Unlike previous hartals called by JeI protesting against war crimes’ verdicts against party leaders, which had resulted in massive street violence, these two hartals were largely ignored across the country and no major acts of violence were reported.

The War Crimes (WC) Trials, which began on March 25, 2010, have thus far indicted 44 leaders, including 27 from JeI, six from the Muslim League (ML), five from Nezam-e-Islami (NeI), four from BNP and two from the Jatiya Party (JP). Verdicts have been delivered against 24 accused, including 17 death penalties and seven life sentences. So far, four of the 17 people who were awarded death sentence have been hanged. Each earlier judgment had resulted in violence unleashed by fundamentalists, led by the Opposition combine of BNP, JeI and its student wing Islami Chattra Shibir (ICS). According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), the country recorded at least 51 fatalities, including 23 civilians, one Security Force (SF) trooper and 27 JeI-ICS cadres (between December 12, 2013 and December 19, 2013) as violent protests were witnessed across Bangladesh after the execution of JeI Assistant Secretary Abdul Quader Mollah on December 12, 2013. Further, the violence that followed the execution of JeI Senior Assistant Secretary General Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (63) on April 11, 2015, led to death of two JeI-ICS cadres (violent protests continued till April 14, 2015). However, no violent protests have taken place, thus far, after the execution of JeI Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (67) and BNP Standing Committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (66) on November 22, 2015.

Meanwhile, on November 22, 2015, various political parties and organizations hailed the latest executions. The Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) demanded a ban on the politics of JeI and ICS to root out extremism from the country forever. Demanding immediate execution of all other war crimes convicts, Bangladesh Chhatra Federation (BCF), the student front of Ganasanghati Andolon, another left leaning political party, expressed satisfaction over the verdict and declared that it was a reflection of people’s expectations. Sammilita Sangskritik Jote, a cultural organization, also expressed satisfaction over the executions. Gonojagoron Mancha (People’s Resurgence Platform), a youth platform seeking death sentences for all war criminals, took out a procession at Shahbagh in the capital, Dhaka. Further, calling for confiscation of all properties of the convicted war criminals and distribution of the wealth among the families of insolvent freedom fighters and rape victims of the 1971 Liberation War, Shahriar Kabir, Acting President of Ekatturer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee, an anti-war crimes platform, asserted, on November 26, “The properties of Jamaat-e-Islami including its business firms, factories, NGOs, and educational and social institutions, should come under the Government’s control. These institutions have to give compensation as well.”

Surprisingly, the BNP did not announce any programme of protests in the wake of the execution of its leader, Salauddin. At a high-level party meeting on November 25, 2015, BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia did not allow her party colleagues to discuss Salauddin’s execution. After the meeting, Jamiruddin Sircar, a member of the party’s Standing Committee disclosed, “The issue of Salauddin’s execution was raised at the meeting. Madam [Khaleda Zia] offered her condolence at his death. There was no more discussion on it as it was not on the agenda. We now want to make it clear that we are not in favour of war criminals. By not discussing Salauddin, she has saved her party from the accusation of patronizing war criminals.”

Earlier, on November 19, 2015, when a correspondent of Prothom Alo (First Light), a major daily newspaper published from Dhaka city in the Bengali language, contacted seven BNP leaders, including three members of its Standing Committee, one Standing Committee member, preferring anonymity, observed, “Salauddin Quader’s execution will have no impact on BNP. The party is not also discussing this much (sic).”

Indeed, BNP is now trying to extricate itself from its own past. For decades, the party has been facing accusation of patronizing war criminals. Its electoral ties with the anti-liberation JeI have also drawn flak, and the leadership has been facing pressure from both friends and foes at home and abroad to cut ties with JeI. In the past, BNP had joined often violent protestsat the war crimes verdicts and past executions.

Criticizing former Presidents Ziaur Rahman and H. M. Ershad; and BNP Chairperson Khaleda, for rehabilitating those involved in war crimes in 1971, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed observed, on November 23, 2015, “Ziaur Rahman did not try the war criminals. We tried and executed the war criminals. I think through the trial and execution of the war criminals the victims’ family members will at least get some consolation. If we cannot end the trial of war criminals, the nation will never be freed from curse (sic).”

For years now, entities sympathetic to the JeI-BNP combine, backed by several Western nations, have been attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the war crime trials. With the BNP pulling away from the convicted war criminals, it appears that the legitimacy issue has been more than settled, and apologists will find it increasingly difficult to sustain their campaigns against a process that has been abundantly transparent.

*S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

At yesterday’s Stop the War rally in London, Tariq Ali challenged the Cameron government by saying: “If the aim is to destroy ISIS, … then you should be fighting side by side with Assad and the Russians.”

The contradiction between this proposition and the rally’s slogan — “Don’t bomb Syria” — seemed to elude much of Ali’s audience.

Yesterday, on just one city — Darayya — the regime dropped 50 barrel bombs.

For the last four years, barrel bombs have been the principle tools of destruction used in a bloody campaign to crush opposition to Bashar al-Assad’s rule, the leading cause of death of a quarter of a million Syrians, and the driving force resulting in the exodus of half the population from their homes.

Since Russia started bombing Syria, an estimated 1,300 people have been killed, a third of them civilians.

Today, airstrikes, believed to have been carried out by Russian jets, killed 44 people and wounded scores of others in a marketplace in Idlib province.

There are legitimate reasons for doubting the efficacy or wisdom in Britain joining the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIS in Syria, but those currently shouting “don’t bomb Syria” seem to be more concerned about who is dropping the bombs than who is being killed by them.

The Syria Solidarity Movement UK issued a statement yesterday explaining why they did not support the Stop the War demonstration.

Syria Solidarity UK and Stop the War have very different concerns regarding Syria: Syria Solidarity is concerned with ending the suffering of Syrians under the Assad dictatorship; Stop the War with opposing any UK military involvement regardless of consequences for Syrians.

We oppose the British government’s proposal to merely mimic the American ISIS-only counter-terrorism war; not only do we believe it is immoral to fly missions in Syria against ISIS while leaving the even greater killer, Assad, free to bomb civilians en masse, we also believe that any war against ISIS that doesn’t put the needs of the Syrian people first will be a failure that can only prolong their suffering.

The Syrian writer and leftwing political dissident, Yassin al-Haj Saleh, points out that our collective failure to act in the interests of the Syrian people has now turned Syria into a global issue.

“[B]ecause the world did not help Syria change for better, I think that Syria is changing the whole world for worse.”

The interventionists will do anything to prevent Americans from seeing that their foreign policies are perpetuating terrorism and inspiring others to seek to harm us. The neocons know that when it is understood that blowback is real – that people seek to attack us not because we are good and free but because we bomb and occupy their countries – their stranglehold over foreign policy will begin to slip.

That is why each time there is an event like the killings in Paris earlier this month, they rush to the television stations to terrify Americans into agreeing to even more bombing, more occupation, more surveillance at home, and more curtailment of our civil liberties. They tell us we have to do it in order to fight terrorism, but their policies actually increase terrorism.

If that sounds harsh, consider the recently-released 2015 Global Terrorism Index report. The report shows that deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically over the last 15 years – a period coinciding with the “war on terrorism” that was supposed to end terrorism.

According to the latest report:

Terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest recorded level. …The number of people who have died from terrorist activity has increased nine-fold since the year 2000.

The world’s two most deadly terrorist organizations, ISIS and Boko Haram, have achieved their prominence as a direct consequence of US interventions.

Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn was asked last week whether in light of the rise of ISIS he regrets the invasion of Iraq. He replied, “absolutely. …The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq.” He added, “instead of asking why they attacked us, we asked where they came from.”

Flynn is no non-interventionist. But he does make the connection between the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of ISIS and other terrorist organizations, and he at least urges us to consider why they seek to attack us.

Likewise, the rise of Boko Haram in Africa is a direct result of a US intervention. Before the US-led “regime change” in Libya, they just were a poorly-armed gang. Once Gaddafi was overthrown by the US and its NATO allies, leaving the country in chaos, they helped themselves to all the advanced weaponry they could get their hands on. Instead of just a few rifles they found themselves armed with rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns with anti-aircraft visors, advanced explosives, and vehicle-mounted light anti-aircraft artillery. Then they started killing on a massive scale. Now, according to the Global Terrorism Index, Boko Haram has overtaken ISIS as the world’s most deadly terrorist organization.

The interventionists are desperate to draw attention from the fact that their policies contribute to terrorism. After the Paris attacks, neocons like former CIA director James Woolsey actually pinned the blame on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden! He claimed that because of Snowden’s revelations about NSA surveillance the terrorists were using sophisticated encryption. He even called for Snowden to be hanged because of it. But it was untrue: the Paris attackers did not use encryption, and other groups had used encryption long before the Snowden revelations.

Terrorism is increasing worldwide because of US and western interventionism. That does not mean that if we suddenly followed a policy of non-interventionism the world would become a peaceful utopia. But does anyone really believe that continuing to do what increases terrorism will lead to a decrease in terrorism?

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

By Mrinal Kanta Das*

A Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadre was killed by a joint squad of Security Forces (SFs), comprising of the 204th Battalion of the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA), District Reserve Group (DRG) and District Force, at Kurcholi village forest under the Basaguda Police Station limits in Bijapur District on November 25, 2015.

Again, on November 24, the DRG had killed a CPI-Maoist ‘commander’ of military “Platoon Number 13”, identified as Padia, in an encounter near a weekly market at Faraspal in Dantewada District. His body was recovered along with a 303 rifle, nine rounds, a .315 bore revolver and six live rounds, while other Maoists fled into the forest. In this encounter, SFs had disguised themselves as local villagers and waited for the Maoists.

On November 22, four woman cadres of the CPI-Maoist were killed in an encounter with SFs in Sukma District. The encounter took place at Nagalguda Hills under Gadiras Police Station limits on the Sukma–Dantewada border. SFs also neutralized a camp of the Maoists’ Malangir ‘area committee’. Bastar Police recovered four bodies of uniformed Maoists, along with a .303 service rifle and two 12-bore rifles. Police also claimed that Ayatu, the ‘divisional committee’ member of the Maoists’ ‘Darbha division’, was shot from close range and sustained multiple bullet injuries during the encounter. However, he managed to flee, leaving behind a truck load of camp items at the spot.

In a separate incident on November 19, two CPI-Maoist cadres, including a woman ‘commander’, were killed in an encounter with a joint team of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the District Police near the Kolayiguda Forest in Sukma District. The two dead bodies were recovered from the encounter spot. The woman Maoist carried a reward of INR 500,000 on her head. In this incident the SFs led the Maoists into a trap, disguising themselves as tribals.

Over the past 38 days, between October 23 and November 29, the Maoists also set ablaze 92 vehicles in the Bastar region. SFs recovered three Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in two separate incidents in Sukma District on November 23. Meanwhile, two security personnel, one of them belonging to the CoBRA Force, were injured in a pressure bomb blast triggered by the Maoists in Bijapur District on November 24.

Between November 3, 2015, and November 25, 2015, 16 Maoists have been killed in encounters in seven separate incidents in Chhattisgarh, while one civilian was killed by the Maoists in Narayanpur District. Significantly, there have been no SF casualties, so far, in November 2015.

According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), 112 people including 29 civilians, 40 SF personnel and 43 Maoists have been killed in LWE-related incidents in Chhattisgarh in 2015, as of November 29. Though a little over a month still remains in the year, Maoist fatalities have crossed last year’s figure, while SF fatalities have fallen to 40 as against 55 in 2014. Further, Maoist fatalities in Chhattisgarh are higher than any of the other States. At second rank, Jharkhand has had 35 LW extremists killed, including 27 from the CPI-Maoist, while the others are drawn from splinters such as People’s Liberation Front of India and Tritiya Prastuti Committee. On the SF fatalities index, Jharkhand is a distant second, with five fatalities. Chhattisgarh alone accounts for 40 of the total of 56 SF fatalities in LWE related incidents across the country.

Significantly, all major incidents that have occurred in Chhattisgarh this year have occurred in the Bastar Division – including the seven southern districts of the State – Bijapur, Sukma, Dantewada, Bastar, Kondagaon, Narayanpur and Kanker – of Chhattisgarh. Despite mounting SF successes in this region, Bastar continues to be the ‘mainstay’ of the Maoist movement, and it is here that the battle against the Maoists would be won or lost. The largest proportion of current violence is reported from just three Districts in Bastar – Sukma, Bijapur and Dantewada – which constitute the nucleus of the Maoist movement. Of these, Sukma shares its border with Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, while Bijapur shares its border with Maharashtra and Telangana. Dantewada abuts Narayanpur, Bijapur, Sukma and Bastar. Interestingly, in 2015 all the eight major incidents (each involving three or more than three fatalities) in Chhattisgarh, have been reported from these three Districts. Across India, a total of 14 major LWE-linked incidents have been reported in 2015, as of November 29.

The data indicates that, since 2012, there has been a gradual increase and concentration of fatalities in these three Districts, which have collectively contributed to 75.48 percent of the total fatalities in the State between 2012 and 2015.

Further, arrest (191) and surrender (130) data confirms that it is becoming progressively more difficult for the Maoists to operate freely even in this erstwhile stronghold, as SFs gradually penetrate into their spheres of dominance. The Maoists have also been hit hard by internal strife and mistrust as evident from several incidents of fratricide.

Tactically, SFs appear to be moving gradually towards specific intelligence based surgical strikes, rather than large scale mobilisation of forces for area domination. Interestingly, in both the Faraspal (November 24) and Kolayiguda (November 19) incidents, small action teams of SFs disguised as villagers successfully ambushed Maoist squads and recovered the bodies too. Better flows of intelligence from Maoist stronghold areas have enabled the tactical shift.

In a decisive step to encourage more Maoists to surrender, the Chhattisgarh Government has made significant additions to the “surrender and rehabilitation policy” for Maoists in the State. The additions range from the possibility of all previous cases being removed from the record to housing for surrendered Maoists, and compensation for ammunition apart from the weapons surrendered. “Anybody who now surrenders with a mortar will be given 2.5 lakh rupees, Rs 5,000 for a wireless set, Rs 3,000 for an IED, and Rs 5 per bullet or ammunition,” a senior official disclosed. It has also been decided that, upon surrender “the individual will be watched for six months, and if his behaviour is deemed to be good”, he will be liable for a government job. A Cabinet Subcommittee “may also take back criminal cases against him.”

The Maoists’ cumulative strategic errors since 2004, and progressive consolidation by SFs, have tremendously eroded Maoist capacities and capabilities across the country, and including their ‘heartland’ areas. It is in Chhattisgarh that they retain their last surviving bastions, and these are also crumbling rapidly.

*Mrinal Kanta Das
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

By Sandeep Bamzai*

It defies all laws of logic and gravity. Ostensibly it is unfathomable. Agreed that an India-Pakistan cricket contest anywhere in the world will gobble up television oxygen, but with heightened anti-Pakistan sentiment prevailing given their almost daily border transgressions and renewed upsurge in proxy war killings in Kashmir, I am amazed that India has gone ahead to play a limited over series at a neutral venue.

It can’t only be pressure fro the ICC, after all India is the ICC? Is it due to political pressure then? Does the Modi administration want to take a stab at fixing ties with Pakistan and perhaps cricket is a building block in the long and exacting process. As long as Pakistan remains a rogue state with an agenda to pursue its agenda of death by a thousands cuts in Kashmir to destabilise India, then India should not have anything to do with Toxicistan. India needs to be firm in this regard. It is not about doves and hawks, it is about genuine national interest and a sporting embargo against Pakistan has to be uppermost on our policy radar. India cannot speak in dual tones, it simply should not have anything to do with Pakistan.

War minus the shooting is how author Mike Marqusee painted the complex portrait of a sub-continent in ferment, set against the backdrop of the 1996 cricket World Cup, the most extravagant and controversial event in the history of the game. The title is most apt for India-Pakistan cricket jousts. Undoubtedly, a gladiatorial contest between the two nations on the playing field – irrespective of whether the sport is hockey or cricket, it gives the viewer a strange sort of adrenaline rush, pumping up emotions and transporting them into a different zone – it is also a synonym for a proxy war. Eminently similar to the Cold War era when the USA was pitted against the Eastern Bloc nations led by the Soviet Union.

No sporting rivalry can replace this feeling, this level of intensity, this junoon and khans. I know that every time sporting relations between the two nations are normalised, the fires are stoked in this debate. It gets ugly, people get nasty and words are exchanged. The reality sadly is that while sport transcends political barriers, impediments and imponderables, India and Pakistan are a completely different kettle of fish. So, am I one of the faithful who are going to argue for restoration of sporting ties? Far from it. Bah! This is not akin to anything, anywhere else in the world.

The Ashes don’t compare. For sheer continuity, sheer magnetism and as a spectator sport, it is singular.

The contests have an edge, the players raise the level of their game, the ridiculous and the sublime are all part of the tamasha.

At the same time, all this hype and hoopla notwithstanding, India should not play Pakistan, certainly not now and not till something like 26/11 receives closure. Which will never happen, you cannot expect that response from Janus faced Pakistan. India wants the perps of 26/11 to be brought to book, we sound as if we have a bellyache, but a recalcitrant Pakistan couldn’t care two hoots for our pain and suffering.

India’s history with Pakistan, recent and otherwise, is too violent to be recounted here. They are two conjoined twins, inseparable since birth, their fates and destinies in one way or the other intertwined forever. Pakistan’s bloody and turbulent history doesn’t end within its own boundaries, more often than not it spills over into India.

This is the scary part; while wars have been fought repeatedly, Pakistan’s naked obsession with Kashmir pushes the jihadi element to make repeated attempts to destabilise India by using the terror factory.

As I said, Pakistan is duplicitous, Janus faced, it heaps scorn on us, obfuscates, lies and twists facts to suit its own ends.

On another anniversary of the 26/11 attacks, India has nothing to show in terms of naming and convicting the perpetrators of that bloody interlude? Nothing very much. Pakistan is like Teflon, nothing sticks to it. They make bloody sure that it doesn’t stick.

They are glib talkers. Dossiers, transcripts, tapes, pictures are all meaningless as they laugh off their involvement in the vicious attack. Non-state actors, they say, oblivious and yet impervious to our hurt.

The Taj and Oberoi in Mumbai were symbols of a new India, a rising India that Pakistan is extremely unhappy about. Pakistan continues to target Mumbai, in many ways the face of the same emerging India.

The March 12, 1993, serial blasts and the 26/11 terror attack have assumed iconic proportions in the history of the terror network that targets the megalopolis. Pakistan’s eyes are fixated on India’s financial nerve centre. Fortunately they have failed to cripple it. The travesty is that it is not about India preventing an attack, but the ability of Pakistan and its jihad factory to willfully target India.

Their psyche brutalised by the vivisection in 1971. Despite all this we want to play Pakistan in India. Why? Yes, it is a marvellous spectacle, crowds gather in the coliseums and decibel levels and passions run high, and jingoism gets a free run on both sides. But nationalism should prevail and India should step forward to take the lead in ostracising Pakistan from international sport. Sporting segregation on the lines of the sporting boycott of South Africa during the apartheid years is the only way forward instead of falling over ourselves to play with them. The rules of engagement should be delineated and strict enforceability should be ensured.

And it is not that it hasn’t happened in the past. Let me recount the best example.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) withdrew its invitation to South Africa for the 1964 Summer Games because it realised that the team would not be racially integrated. In 1968, there was a move to readmit South Africa, but the threat of a boycott by African nations loomed large and the IOC changed its mind. In 1970, IOC formally expelled SA from the Olympics.

Flashpoint was reached in the Montreal Games in 1976, when African nations raised Cain over the repression in South Africa and threatened a boycott if New Zealand was allowed to compete. Mind you, the Kiwi All Blacks rugby team had continued contact with South Africa. IOC didn’t relent, and the African nations pulled out of the Games.

This brought matters to a head. Commonwealth nations signed on the dotted line ushering in the Gleneagles Agreement in 1977.

The charter held that as part of their support for the international campaign against apartheid, they were uniting to discourage contact and competition between their sportsmen and sporting organisations with teams or individuals from South Africa.

The Commonwealth was seen as a relevant body to impose a sporting ban on South Africa because several of the sports most popular among white South Africans were dominated by Commonwealth member-states – for example, cricket and rugby.

This was a defining moment in South Africa’s history for it began the process of sporting isolation of the white supremacists in the country. The next big step came when the IOC adopted a declaration against ‘apartheid in sport’ on June 21, 1988, for the total isolation of apartheid sport. The ICC had imposed a moratorium on cricket tours to South Africa back in 1970.

But lure of the krugerrand meant that cricketers trooped into South Africa, ban or no ban. From ‘private teams’ replete with mercenaries under the banner of Derrick Robbins XI bankrolled by a millionaire of the same name, essentially made up of English cricketers, followed by the International Wanderers led by Greg Chappell, the embargo was breached repeatedly and with disdain. Till the Soweto Uprising and civil strife in South Africa. In the early 1980s, the rand once again became the flavour of the season. South African rebel tours, as many as seven of them, came at a rapid pace between 1982 and 1990.

The first tour saw Graham Gooch captain a strong English contingent. In a veritable coup, a Sri Lankan XI was cobbled up under the leadership of Bandula Waranapura only to be summarily thrashed by the South Africans. But to bring a Sri Lankan team to SA in those tumultuous days was a staggering achievement. What followed was mayhem.

Top-of-the-line West Indian cricketers rebelled and toured South Africa for anything between $100,000-120,000 each. Star cricketers such Lawrence Rowe, Collis King, Sylvester Clarke, Colin Croft and Bernard Julien showed SA spectators their prowess, matching their star cricketers punch for punch. The first series, again organised in secret and conducted on the hoof, set up a fierce battle when the West Indians returned for a full tour the following season. Clarke was by now the dominant player on either side, claiming four five-wicket hauls in the 2-1 ‘Test’ series win.

The West Indian XI also won the one-day series 4- 2 with the Springboks looking ragged and on the run. Such was the intensity of battle that the South African batsmen had to wear helmets for the first time as the Windies pacers pounded them with short pitched bowling. This wasn’t all. Two tours by Australian teams followed under the leadership of Kim Hughes.

Top Oz cricketers such as Terry Alderman, Rodney Hogg and Carl Rackemaan were present on these tours. England under Mike Gatting became the last team to tour South Africa before their return to international cricket in 1991. One can argue that the power of pelf triumphed over the moratorium. Cricket too triumphed, particularly during the tough, unrelenting series against the West Indian rebels. But the message had gone home loud and clear to sport-loving South Africans. They were dried out, krugerrand or no rand. The BCCI’s love for lucre is well-known.

That it is an autonomous body is also known, but to give in to pressure from PCB or ICCis not the right thing to do. Mumbaikars, nay Indians, cannot remove the embedded images of the 26/11 carnage being played out in the corridors of their mind.

The masterminds of the attack, the handlers, the assailants are all Pakistani and this is an inescapable fact. Sweat them out, play them only on international platforms. Isolate them, that is the only language they understand. Don’t give in. Be consistent.

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

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) emerged as the chief political entity representing the Tamil community in Sri Lanka with the downfall of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009. Despite the lack of meaningful political achievements in the last six years, the party seems to be gaining more acceptance within the Tamil community. This is evident from the fact that in the last general election, the party managed to increase its parliamentary representation by two more seats. Therefore, the developments and/or issues within the party have the capacity to impact the interest of the Tamil community. This article looks at a possible leadership struggle within the TNA.

Sambandan’s Leadership

Rajavarothayam Sambandan, as the leader of the party, was in an unenviable position after 2009, due primarily to three reasons. One, the party lacked decision making experience as the LTTE made all decisions, and the TNA was expected to simply carry out those decisions. The party did its best to implement LTTE’s political decisions. Two, during the war, the party did not operate in a normal political environment, which damaged its capacity to develop a culture of inclusiveness and democratic decision making. At the operational level as well as the decision making level, it is in fact a party of few individuals. Three, it is a coalition of Tamil political parties, which compelled the leadership to focus more on party cohesiveness rather than socio-political issues of the community.

Presently, Sambandan is pretty elderly and he may probably retire from active politics sooner rather than later. His pace is already too slow. Sambandan’s retirement would force the TNA and the Tamil community to search for a new leadership from within the next generation (not in terms of age) of Tamil politicians. This is where the focus could turn to Canagasabapathy Wigneswaran and Mathiaparanam Sumanthiran. Both have been creating controversies and have been at loggerheads. Perhaps, the war has already been started between the two. The cold-war between Wigneswaran and Sumanthiran is certainly on.

Wigneswaran’s Politics

Wigneswaran’s nomination for the chief minister position of the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) raised many eyebrows. He was an outsider and lacked political experience. These two elements, probably contributed to Wigneswaran’s politics as the Chief Minister. Wigneswaran’s politics in the last two years point to two clear trends: (1) he has been radicalized, and (2) his actions are divisive.

Wigneswaran probably was the most moderate Tamil chief ministerial candidate the South could yearn for in 2013. For example, Wigneswaran, in the run up to the Northern Provincial election, accused political parties in Tamil Nadu for unnecessarily interfering and taking advantage of the Sinhala-Tamil issue, which he insisted was an internal affair. He also wanted the Tamil Nadu parties to stay away from the Sri Lankan conflict so that the Sinhala and Tamil people could find a solution on their own without outside involvement.

This was exactly the Sinhala position vis-à-vis the conflict. Tamils traditionally refused to accept the “internal problem” argument and were hell-bent on internationalizing the conflict. Since, Wigneswaran’s position went against Tamil nationalist views, the TNA had to claim that this was Wigneswaran’s personal opinion; not of the party. This was in 2013.

Today, Wigneswaran certainly is one of the most assertive personalities within the Tamil polity. He calls the violence committed on the Tamil people during the last phase of the war “genocide” and wants international community to intervene to punish perpetrators of violence and to find a solution to the ethnic conflict. Recently, for example, during a meeting with Samantha Power, Wigneswaran emphasized the need to pressure the Sri Lankan government to address grievances of the Tamil people. He no longer believes that issues could be resolved bilaterally.

An interesting question is, why did Wigneswaran transform into a radical warrior suddenly? Perhaps, there are several reasons including the fact that the government is slow in finding solutions to Tamil issues. However, a notable feature is that he became really tough after the collapse of the Rajapaksa government. For example, he resisted the Sivajilingam sponsored “genocide” resolution in 2014. Reports indicate that Wigneswaran was “skeptical” of the use of the word “genocide” in the resolution. In 2015, Wigneswaran himself tabled the genocide resolution of the NPC.

This probably allows him to lead a hardline faction of the TNA and the Tamil community. However, he is engaged in radical politics while alienating the TNA as a party. After winning the chief ministers position with the assistance of TNA votes, Wigneswaran decided to be “neutral” in the last parliamentary election. However, he indirectly asked the Tamil people to vote for the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF). Was there an ethical problem in asking (indirectly) the Tamil voters not to vote for the party while continuing with the position secured with the TNA votes?

Wigneswaran did not think so.

Wigneswaran’s attitude certainly created a rift within the TNA, with Sumanthiran taking the charge against the Chief Minister. It would be interesting to see, if the “neutral” Wigneswaran will seek the TNA sponsorship in the next provincial council election or lead his own group. In fact, Wigneswaran presently maintains that he is not a member of the TNA and he does not have to be loyal to the party. The TNA obviously, is struggling to effectively deal with Wigneswaran’s revolt.

Sumanthiran’s Theories

Wigneswaran’s recent politics should have made Sumanthiran’s cause relatively easy. However, the new politician has been making statements that has created resentment against him within the Tamil community. First, Sumanthiran went to Switzerland and claimed that what happened during the last phase of the war, according to internationally accepted definitions, was not “genocide.” It sounded like Sumanthiran was arguing in the International Court of Justice, of course representing the offender.

He also called Wigneswaran’s genocide resolution “foolish.” The Tamils were upset and blamed Sumanthiran for serving the agenda of external forces. Sumanthiran missed the points that the Tamils have been using the term genocide to mean that serious acts of violence were committed on their community and the genocide case will not go to an international court.

Adding to the Tamil frustration, Sumanthiran recently demanded that the NPC pass a resolution calling the Muslim expulsion from the North by the LTTE an act of “ethnic cleansing.” Remarkably, Sumanthiran claimed that if the NPC does not pass such a resolution, the world will not take their claims of genocide, seriously. There are two important factors here. One, Sumanthiran did not explain how an NPC resolution on Muslim expulsion would change the international attitude on the question of genocide. Two, if this is such an easy task, why did he not approach his party to sponsor a resolution in the NPC. After all, the NPC is controlled by the TNA.

Instead, he went public. Obviously, he was taking advantage of the opportunity to criticize Wigneswaran. Sumanthiran is also leading a demand for the ouster of Wigneswaran from the Party. Sumanthiran has been criticized heavily within the Tamil community for his recent attitude and according to reports from the North,even posters have come up against him.

Obviously, there has been a cold-war between the two most prominent next generation leaders of the TNA. Both obviously are leading factions loyal to them while being delegitimized among others. This could lead to an imminent crisis within the TNA, especially in the post-Sambandan era. One has to wait and see how the party will respond to this emerging challenge.

There is no such thing as “international terrorism”.

To declare war on “international terrorism” is nonsense. Politicians who do so are either fools or cynics, and probably both.

Terrorism is a weapon. Like cannon. We would laugh at somebody who declares war on “international artillery”. A cannon belongs to an army, and serves the aims of that army. The cannon of one side fire against the cannon of the other.

Terrorism is a method of operation. It is often used by oppressed peoples, including the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW II. We would laugh at anyone who declared war on “international resistance”.

Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military thinker, famously said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”. If he had lived with us today, he might have said: “Terrorism is a continuation of policy by other means.”

Terrorism means, literally, to frighten the victims into surrendering to the will of the terrorist.

Terrorism is a weapon. Generally it is the weapon of the weak. Of those who have no atom bombs, like the ones which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which terrorized the Japanese into surrender. Or the aircraft which destroyed Dresden in the (vain) attempt to frighten the Germans into giving up.

Since most of the groups and countries using terrorism have different aims, often contradicting each other, there is nothing “international” about it. Each terrorist campaign has a character of its own. Not to mention the fact that nobody considers himself (or herself) a terrorist, but rather a fighter for God, Freedom or Whatever.

(I cannot restrain myself from boasting that long ago I invented the formula: “One man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter”.)

MANY ORDINARY Israelis felt deep satisfaction after the Paris events. “Now those bloody Europeans feel for once what we feel all the time!”

Binyamin Netanyahu, a diminutive thinker but a brilliant salesman, has hit on the idea of inventing a direct link between jihadist terrorism in Europe and Palestinian terrorism in Israel and the occupied territories.

It is a stroke of genius: if they are one and the same, knife-wielding Palestinian teenagers and Belgian devotees of ISIS, then there is no Israeli-Palestinian problem, no occupation, no settlements. Just Muslim fanaticism. (Ignoring, by the way, the many Christian Arabs in the secular Palestinian “terrorist” organizations.)

This has nothing to do with reality. Palestinians who want to fight and die for Allah go to Syria. Palestinians – both religious and secular – who shoot, knife or run over Israeli soldiers and civilians these days want freedom from the occupation and a state of their own.

This is such an obvious fact that even a person with the limited IQ of our present cabinet ministers could grasp it. But if they did, they would have to face very unpleasant choices concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So let’s stick to the comfortable conclusion: they kill us because they are born terrorists, because they want to meet the promised 72 virgins in paradise, because they are anti-Semites. So, as Netanyahu happily forecasts, we shall “live forever by our sword”.

TRAGIC AS the results of each terrorist event may be, there is something absurd about the European reaction to recent events.

The height of absurdiocy was reached in Brussels, when a lone terrorist on the run paralyzed an entire capital city for days without a single shot being fired. It was the ultimate success of terrorism in the most literal sense: using fear as a weapon.

But the reaction in Paris was not much better. The number of victims of the atrocity was large, but similar to the number killed on the roads in France every couple of weeks. It was certainly far smaller than the number of victims of one hour of World War II. But rational thought does not count. Terrorism works on the perception of the victims.

It seems incredible that ten mediocre individuals, with a few primitive weapons, could cause world-wide panic. But it is a fact. Bolstered by the mass media, which thrive on such events, local terrorist acts turn themselves nowadays into world-wide threats. The modern media, by their very nature, are the terrorist’s best friend. Terror could not flourish without them.

The next best friend of the terrorist is the politician. It is almost impossible for a politician to resist the temptation to ride on the wave of panic. Panic creates “national unity”, the dream of every ruler. Panic creates the longing for a “strong leader”. This is a basic human instinct.

Francois Hollande is a typical example. A mediocre yet shrewd politician, he seized the opportunity to pose as a leader. “C’est la guerre!” he declared, and whipped up a national frenzy. Of course this is no “guerre”. Not World War III. Just a terrorist attack by a hidden enemy. Indeed, one of the facts disclosed by these events is the incredible foolishness of the political leaders all around. They do not understand the challenge. They react to imagined threats and ignore the real ones. They do not know what to do. So they do what comes naturally: make speeches, convene meetings and bomb somebody (no matter who and what for).

Not understanding the malady, their remedy is worse than the disease itself. Bombing causes destruction, destruction creates new enemies who thirst for revenge. It is a direct collaboration with the terrorists.

It was a sad spectacle to see all these world leaders, the commanders of powerful nations, running around like mice in a maze, meeting, speechifying, uttering nonsensical statements, totally unable to deal with the crisis.

THE PROBLEM is indeed far more complicated than simple minds would believe, because of an unusual fact: the enemy this time is not a nation, not a state, not even a real territory, but an undefined entity: an idea, a state of mind, a movement that does have a territorial base of sorts but is not a real state.

This is not a completely unprecedented phenomenon: more than a hundred years ago, the anarchist movement committed terrorist acts all over the place without having a territorial base at all. And 900 years ago a religious sect without a country, the Assassins (a corruption of the Arabic word for “hashish users”), terrorized the Muslim world.

I don’t know how to fight the Islamic State (or rather Non-State) effectively. I strongly believe that nobody knows. Certainly not the nincompoops who man (and woman) the various governments.

I am not sure that even a territorial invasion would destroy this phenomenon. But even such an invasion seems unlikely. The Coalition of the Unwilling put together by the US seems disinclined to put “boots on the ground”. The only forces who could try – the Iranians and the Syrian government army – are hated by the US and its local allies.

Indeed, if one is looking for an example of total disorientation, bordering on lunacy, it is the inability of the US and the European powers to choose between the Assad-Iran-Russia axis and the IS-Saudi-Sunni camp. Add the Turkish-Kurdish problem, the Russian-Turkish animosity and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the picture is still far from complete.

(For history-lovers, there is something fascinating about the reemergence of the centuries-old struggle between Russia and Turkey in this new setting. Geography trumps everything else, after all.)

It has been said that war is far too important to leave to the generals. The present situation is far too complicated to leave to the politicians. But who else is there?

ISRAELIS BELIEVE (as usual) that we can teach the world. We know terrorism. We know what to do.

But do we?

For weeks now, Israelis have lived in a panic. For lack of a better name, it is called “the wave of terror”. Every day now, two, three, four youngsters, including 13-year old children, attack Israelis with knives or run them over with cars, and are generally shot dead on the spot. Our renowned army tries everything, including draconian reprisals against the families and collective punishment of villages, without avail.

These are individual acts, often quite spontaneous, and therefore it is well-nigh impossible to prevent them. It is not a military problem. The problem is political, psychological.

Netanyahu tries to ride this wave like Hollande and company. He cites the Holocaust (likening a 16-year old boy from Hebron to a hardened SS officer at Auschwitz) and talks endlessly about anti-Semitism.

All in order to obliterate one glaring fact: the occupation with its daily, indeed hourly and minutely, chicanery of the Palestinian population. Some government ministers don’t even hide anymore that the aim is to annex the West Bank and eventually drive out the Palestinian people from their homeland.

There is no direct connection between IS terrorism around the world and the Palestinian national struggle for statehood. But if they are not solved, in the end the problems will merge – and a far more powerful IS will unite the Muslim world, as Saladin once did, to confront us, the new Crusaders.

If I were a believer, I would whisper: God forbid.

US crude oil proved reserves increased in 2014 for the sixth year in a row with a net addition of 3.4 billion barrels of proved oil reserves (a 9% increase), according to U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2014, released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

US natural gas proved reserves increased 10% in 2014, raising the US total to a record 388.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf).

At the state level, Texas had the largest increase in proved reserves, 2,054 million barrels (60% of the nation’s total net increase) in 2014. Most of these new oil reserves were added in the Texas portion of the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford Shale play. North Dakota had the second-largest increase—a net gain of 362 million barrels—most of which were added in the Bakken tight oil play of the Williston Basin.

Pennsylvania added 10.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas proved reserves (the largest net increase for any state in 2014) driven by continued development of the Marcellus Shale play. Texas added 8 Tcf of natural gas proved reserves, mostly from the Eagle Ford Shale play and natural gas associated with the state’s gain in oil reserves in the Permian Basin. Natural gas from shale formations was 51% of the US total of natural gas proved reserves in 2014.

US production of both oil and natural gas increased in 2014. Production of crude oil and lease condensate increased about 17% (rising from 7.4 to 8.7 million barrels per day), while US production of natural gas increased 6% (rising from approximately 73 to 77 billion cubic feet per day).

Proved reserves are those volumes of oil and natural gas that geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.

By Michael Lelyveld

As China’s foreign trade falters, there are signs that the government is looking for someone to blame.

So far this year, the country’s trade performance has been dismal. In the first 10 months, exports have dropped 2 percent in yuan terms, while imports have plunged 15.2 percent, according to customs figures.

Analysts have cited a host of now-familiar factors, including deflationary energy prices, weakening economic growth and sluggish worldwide demand.

But the government may be casting about for other reasons, combining criticism of a key trade initiative with the latest major targets of its anti-corruption campaign.

On Nov. 10, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) announced an investigation of Ai Baojun, Shanghai’s deputy mayor, on suspicion of violating unspecified disciplinary rules, state media said.

The Ai investigation was reported along with a similarly opaque CCDI probe of Lu Xiwen, deputy chief of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in Beijing.

Both officials were removed from their posts on Nov. 16.

Taken together, the commission’s new punishments marked a milestone of sorts.

“Corrupt officials above ministerial level have been found in all 31 provincial regions of the mainland,” the official Xinhua news agency said.

After sporadic lulls in the pace of high-profile corruption cases, Xinhua has taken pains to deny that President Xi Jinping’s three-year crackdown has run out of steam.

“Back in April and May, when no major corrupt figure was found, some said the campaign had ground to a halt,” said a Xinhua commentary.

“No one should underestimate (the) CPC’s determination to root out corruption,” it said, suggesting pressure to find new targets for the campaign and counter impressions that it may be winding down.

That could explain the CPC’s recent expansion of conduct rules that bar activities like membership in golf clubs as grounds for punishment.

Xinhua hinted that the crackdown has shifted its focus “from locating corruption to preventing it.”

“Golf and gluttony are now disciplinary violations,” it said.

Tens of thousands disciplined

On Nov. 22, the CCDI said that more than 71,000 officials were disciplined under the austerity rules last year.

But there were also hints that the campaign has become a tool for punishing poor execution of central government initiatives, citing corruption as the cause.

In Ai’s case, attention has focused on his role as director of the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone (FTZ) Administration Committee, making him responsible for a signature reform initiative of Premier Li Keqiang since 2013.

The FTZ was planned to serve as the laboratory for liberalized trade, investment and monetary measures that would gradually spread throughout China.

Similar FTZs have since been opened in the port of Tianjin and coastal provinces of Guangdong and Fujian to boost trade and financial flows with markets including Macao, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

On the surface, the Shanghai experiment has been a success.

By October, the zone included 1,959 foreign-funded enterprises with a contract value of more than U.S. $30 billion (191.5 billion yuan). Chinese firms had signed 596 foreign investment deals valued at U.S. $17.2 billion (109.8 billion yuan), the Ministry of Commerce said.

Incentives have included a “negative list” for foreign investment, taking the guesswork out of off-limit sectors, streamlined customs procedures and a recent plan to allow direct overseas investment by “qualified” individuals with eased capital controls.

But not far below the surface, the government has shown dissatisfaction with the experiment.

Most of the enterprises registered in the zone were “disappointed with the slow pace of reform,” the official English-language China Daily reported after Xi toured the FTZ last year.

In a survey last March by the American Chamber of Commerce, 75 percent of respondents said the FTZ offered no tangible benefits to their businesses, the online publication Quartz reported.

And the most recent announcement from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) of eased investment rules and capital controls represented a step back from earlier reform plans, The Wall Street Journal said.

The PBOC has set no time frame for the measures, which would benefit “only a handful of people,” China Daily reported. Officials are said to be worried by the risk of massive capital outflow.

The setbacks may feed suspicions that the FTZ is doing little more than attracting trade that would take place outside the zone anyway.

In the first 10 months, Shanghai’s total trade fell 2 percent from a year earlier, according to the FTZ’s website.

The performance is better than the 8-percent decline for the entire country but still a far cry from the government’s goal of a 6-percent increase for the year.

If the government was looking to the FTZ as a way to bring back the boom times of double-digit trade growth, it is likely to be disappointed.

“The Shanghai FTZ has been troubled from the outset,” said Derek Scissors, an Asia economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, noting Premier Li has largely kept his distance from what was supposed to be his pet project.

Li wants ‘stronger reforms’

On a visit to the Shanghai offices of the PBOC last week, Li urged “stronger reforms” and further investment access to financial service institutions in the zone, Xinhua reported.

“The pace of reform has been very slow,” said Scissors. “Despite all the newly registered firms, no one spends any money because they don’t see any gain from doing so,” he said.

Most of the reluctance to press ahead with more significant market-opening reforms seems to be coming from Beijing, but Ai’s ouster has highlighted troubles at the FTZ, also known as the free trade area.

“The fall of Ai, head of the Shanghai free trade area (FTA) — a symbolic reform initiative — has cast a shadow over the FTA,” Xinhua said. “How can reform succeed if the FTA stewardship was riddled with holes from the start?”

It is unclear whether Ai will be made the main scapegoat for China’s trade slowdown at the national level, but reports suggest that his alleged violations stem from his prior career in the steel industry rather than his political posts in Shanghai, which started in 2007.

According to sources close to the CCDI investigation quoted by the South China Morning Post, the probe focused on “economic crimes” during Ai’s tenure at the Baosteel Group, one of China’s biggest steelmakers.

Dai Haibo, the FTZ’s former executive deputy director, is also being investigated for graft, the paper said.

Ai may have been targeted because of links to the family of former President Jiang Zemin, who previously served as party secretary of Shanghai, the website of the Epoch Times said.

While corruption in China has been widespread, the Shanghai cases may be providing a convenient cover for problems that might otherwise be traced to central government backtracking on its own initiatives.

“Unless it wasn’t actually meant to accomplish anything, the Shanghai FTZ is clearly a failure to date. There are signs of a political dispute over this, and Ai taking the fall purely on policy grounds would be no surprise,” Scissors said.

By Anand Kumar

Though religious extremism in Bangladesh has been put in check under the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government, the radicals have been trying hard to regain lost ground. In recent months one can see an increase in extremist activity in Bangladesh. Extremists have been involved in a number of killings. They also seem to have widened the range of their targets. While it is true that the Hasina government could have done a better job of containing their activities, Bangladesh and the region is still better off compared to what it was during the rule of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led four party alliance.

To begin with, extremists targeted bloggers whom they claimed to be acting against Islam. This year, the first blogger to be targeted was Avijit Roy who was killed on February 27. This was followed by the killings of two more bloggers Washiqur Rahman Babu and Niloy Chottopadhay. The Islamists have contended that these bloggers were atheists and wrote offensive blogs against Islam. While it is difficult to justify the killings of bloggers, it is at the same time important to note that many in Bangladesh, including the government, did indeed find some of the blogs hurtful. For this reason, the government suggested that not only was it necessary to check the actions of Islamists but also for the bloggers to exercise restraint.

This attitude of the government has unfortunately resulted in the lackadaisical response of the law enforcement authorities, who did not act promptly to control the situation and bring the culprits to book. The charge sheet in the killing of bloggers has still not been filed. So far, law enforcers have only arrested a few suspects. Unfortunately, in this phase, the government, constantly facing demonstrations from the opposition parties, did not want to be seen as acting on behalf of the bloggers who were presented as anti-Islam.

The Islamists have gradually expanded their scope of targets. After bloggers, they have started targeting foreigners. They killed an Italian aid worker and a Japanese farmer. The killing of foreigners has given the Islamists the impact they wanted to create in Bangladesh. Now foreigners, especially the Western diplomatic community in Bangladesh, are feeling unsafe. Most of these countries, which include the US, European countries and Australia, have issued advisories to their nationals and diplomats to keep their visits to Bangladesh and movements outside Dhaka city to a minimum.

Western countries claim that their intelligence agencies had information that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is going to increase its activities in Bangladesh. They also claim that they had informed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s staff about the threat when she was attending the 70th UN General Assembly in New York. The Bangladesh government, however, says that it did not receive any actionable intelligence from the United States. Moreover, several times in the past, the intelligence provided by the West has been faulty. The most prominent example was Iraq where the US and its allies intervened claiming that Saddam Hussain was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

Western intelligence agencies from the so-called Five Eyes alliance, which includes Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, also allege that there is a disconnect between them and their Bangladeshi counterpart. This disconnect is because of the distrust that exists between them. This distrust, some say, is because of the suspected role of the West in the 1975 killing of Mujib-ur-Rahman. Another reason is the cool response of the US to the re-election of Sheikh Hasina in January 2014 and the withdrawal of the special facility by the US to Bangladesh in the garment industry. In August 2015, the United States renewed its Generalised System of Preference (GSP) facility for 122 countries, but Bangladesh was not one of them. Bangladesh had lost these trade benefits in mid-2013 after the Rana Plaza collapse and Tazreen Fashions fire, which left more than 1,200 people dead.

The lack of trust and coordination between the government of Bangladesh and Western countries has allowed BNP leader Khaleda Zia to take the moral high ground. During a recent visit to London in November 2015 she claimed that militancy has grown in Bangladesh during the rule of Awami League and it was the BNP government which had effectively controlled it between 2001 and 2006. Nothing is, however, further from truth. The fact of the matter is that the chief of the militant outfit Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) Abdur Rahman and his deputy Siddiqul Islam alias Bangla Bhai spread their “Jihadi” movement precisely during the period when the BNP was in power.

Lately, the concern in Bangladesh about Islamist violence has increased especially after one publisher was killed and another critically injured. Both were publishers of the writings of the slain secularist writer-blogger Avijit Roy. This has created an environment of fear in the country. The situation has further worsened with Islamists attacking policemen in Ashulia. Once again, ISIS claimed responsibility for these attacks.

The Awami League and Sheikh Hasina blamed these attacks on the BNP and Khaleda Zia They said that these attacks were launched to create lawlessness in the country so that the two war criminals, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, could be protected. They also alleged that through these actions the BNP and Jamaat want to stop the continuous and steady growth of the economy.

While there is an element of truth in the allegation of the Bangladesh government, it cannot escape its responsibility for maintaining law and order, which is essential for economic growth and creating a safe environment. There is a general feeling in the country that had the government acted tough and promptly after the killing of the bloggers, subsequent terror incidents could have been avoided. Fortunately, the government of Bangladesh has realized this mistake and is now taking steps to improve the situation. In a special drive to maintain law and order, the joint forces of Bangladesh, comprising members of the police, Armed Police Battalion, Rapid Action Battalion, Border Guard Bangladesh and Coast Guard, have arrested possible trouble makers from a number of districts. This step is likely to help the government improve the law and order situation. The international community should strengthen the hands of the Sheikh Hasina government in its endeavour. It has a proven track record of working against extremists and terrorists. Any attempt to unnecessarily corner this government would prove counter-productive.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/india-need-support-bangladesh-fight-against-extremism_aanand_301115

On Friday, a gunman killed three at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. Later, in explaining his motive to the police, he said “no more baby parts.”

Last Monday, gunmen opened fire on Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis who were demanding action against two white Minneapolis police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Jamar Clark, 24, an unarmed black man, on Nov. 15.

Evidence shows the accused shooters were linked to white supremacist organizations operating online.

In a video that surfaced before the shootings, one of two men on the way to the protest says “we’re going to go see what these f—– dindus are up to,” using slang insulting toward African Americans. He then brandishes a pistol and says, “we are locked and loaded.”

Meanwhile, the FBI reports an upturn in threats on mosques and Muslims in the United States.

In Connecticut, police are investigating reports of multiple gunshots fired at a local mosque. Two Tampa Bay-area mosques in Florida received threatening phone messages. One of the calls threatened a firebombing.

In an Austin suburb, leaders of the Islamic Center of Pflugerville discovered feces and torn pages of the Qur’an.

Hate crimes will never be eliminated entirely. A small number of angry, deranged people inevitably will vent their rage at groups they find threatening. Some will do so violently.

But this doesn’t absolve politicians who have been fueling such hatefulness.

Perpetrators of hate crimes often take their cues from what they hear in the media. And the recent inclination of some politicians to use inflammatory rhetoric is contributing to a climate of hate and fear.

Carly Fiorina continues to allege, for example, that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts of fetuses.

Although the claim has been proven baseless, it’s been repeated not only by Fiorina but also by other candidates. Mike Huckabee calls it “sickening” that “we give these butchers money to harvest human organs.”

Even in the wake of Friday’s Colorado shootings, Donald Trump referred to videos “with some of these people from Planned Parenthood talking about it like you’re selling parts to a car.”

Some candidates are also fomenting animus toward Muslims.

Huckabee says he’d “like for Barack Obama to resign if he’s not going to protect America and instead protect the image of Islam.”

Ben Carson says allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is analogous to exposing a neighborhood to a “rabid dog.” Last September Carson said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

Since the attacks that killed 130 people in Paris earlier this month, Trump has advocated registering all Muslims in the United States and putting American mosques under surveillance.

He’s also claimed that Muslim-Americans in New Jersey celebrated by the “thousands” when the World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, although there’s no evidence to back that claim.

Indeed, much of Trump’s campaign is built on hatefulness. And Trump not only fails to condemn violence he provokes but finds excuses for it.

After a handful of white supporters recently punched and attempted to choke a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his campaign rallies, Trump said “maybe he should have been roughed up.”

Trump began his campaign last June by falsely alleging Mexican immigrants are “bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

Weeks later in Boston, two brothers beat with a metal poll and urinated on a 58-year-old homeless Mexican national. They subsequently told the police “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.“

But instead of condemning that brutality, Trump excused it by saying “people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.”

I’m not suggesting Trump, Carson, Fiorina, or any other presidential candidate is directly to blame for hate crimes erupting across America.

But by virtue of their standing as presidential candidates, their words carry particular weight. They have a responsibility to calm people with the truth rather than stir them up with lies.

In suggesting that the staff of Planned Parenthood, Muslims, Black Lives Matter protesters, and Mexican immigrants are guilty of venal acts, these candidates are fanning the flames of hate.

This itself is despicable.

The planet’s climate has constantly been changing over geological time. The global average temperature today is about 15C, though geological evidence suggests it has been much higher and lower in the past. However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation, or variability, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming that has serious implications for the stability of the planet’s climate.

The greenhouse effect refers to the way the Earth’s atmosphere traps some of the energy from the Sun. Solar energy radiating back out to space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions. The energy that radiates back down to the planet heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder, making our planet hostile to life. The effects of a changing climate can also be seen in vegetation and land animals. These include earlier flowering and fruiting times for plants and changes in the territories (or ranges) occupied by animals.

Since the industrial revolution began in 1750, CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% and methane levels have risen more than 140%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. Satellite data shows an average increase in global sea levels of some 3mm per year in recent decades. A large proportion of the change in sea level is accounted for by the thermal expansion of seawater. As seawater warms up, the molecules become less densely packed, causing an increase in the volume of the ocean. But the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets are also important contributors. Most glaciers in temperate regions of the world and along the Antarctic Peninsula are in retreat.

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events – though linking any single event to global warming is complicated. Scientists forecast more rainfall overall, but say the risk of drought in inland areas during hot summers will increase. More flooding is expected from storms and rising sea levels. There are, however, likely to be very strong regional variations in these patterns. Poorer countries, which are least equipped to deal with rapid change, could suffer the most.

Plant and animal extinctions are predicted as habitats change faster than species can adapt, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, water-borne disease and malnutrition. As an increased amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, there is increased uptake of CO2 by the oceans, and this leads to them becoming more acidic. This ongoing process of acidification could pose major problems for the world’s coral reefs.

Paris COP21

The UN has endorsed a goal of limiting global warming to no more than 2C over pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. But more than 100 poorer countries and low-lying, small-island states are calling for a tougher goal of 1.5C. Developing nations say industrialized countries should do more to cut emissions, having polluted for much longer. But rich countries insist that the burden must be shared to reach the 2C target. One of the few firm decisions from the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen was a pledge from rich economies to provide $100 billion (93 billion Euros) a year in financial support for poor countries from 2020 to develop technology and build infrastructure to cut emissions. Where that money will come from and how it will be distributed has yet to be agreed.

The UN climate conference, known as COP21, organized by world dowers to find credible solutions for fast tempos of climate change, is scheduled for 30 Nov – 11 Dec 2015 in Paris where a terror attack has caused havoc and it appeared world leaders would be forced to focus on terror instead of climate challenge.

World leaders opened pivotal climate talks in Paris, saying the stakes are too high to end the talks without achieving a binding agreement to help slow the pace of global climate change. “A political moment like this may not come again,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told leaders gathered for the conference. “We have never faced such a test. But neither have we encountered such great opportunity.”

The talks opened with a moment of silence for victims of the November 13 terror attacks in Paris, and the tragedy served as a touchstone for world leaders who opened the conference with addresses urging action. “What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it,” President Barack Obama said in his speech. French President Francois Hollande noted that “never have the stakes been so high because this is about the future of the planet, the future of life.” “And yet two weeks ago, here in Paris itself, a group of fanatics was sowing the seeds of death in the streets,” he said.

COP 21 – the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties – will see more than 190 nations gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the threat of dangerous warming due to human activities. Leaders of 150 nations, along with 40,000 delegates from 195 countries, are attending the conference, called COP21. COP stands for Conference of Parties, an annual forum to try to tackle climate change on a global political level. The leaders have one mission: Agree on legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions meant to hold global average temperatures short of a 2 degrees Celsius increase over preindustrial global temperatures.

The ultimate aim is to limit warming to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, widely seen as a dangerous threshold. Since 1880, the average global temperature has already risen by almost 1C. About 0.6C of this has occurred in the past three decades.

Paris conference tries to hammer out a deal to tackle global warming. Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions), trapping more energy and increasing the temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change. The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few days. Most man-made emissions of CO2 are through the burning of fossil fuels, as well as through cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human activities, but their overall abundance is small compared with carbon dioxide.

US President Obama says the current generation is ‘the last that can do something’ about climate change. Negotiations for climate deal began on November 29 afternoon but the main talks start from the next day. US President Obama says the current generation is ‘the last that can do something’ about climate change. $20bn annual funding for clean energy projects to be announced, starting in 2020, from public and private sources. About 150 world leaders are due to attend the Paris talks including US President Barack Obama, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif and India’s Narendra Modi.

On November 30, the leaders of the main players necessary to achieve the ambitious climate goal — China and the United States — sat down together at the COP21. They are the largest producers of greenhouse gases. Obama told the conference that the United States recognizes its role in creating climate change and its role in solving the issue. But he said the agreement should be global in nature, assertive and flexible. He also addressed economic issues associated with climate change, saying recent economic growth in the United States has come despite a lack of growth in carbon emissions, proving that climate advancements need not come at the expense of the economy or individual livelihoods. “That’s what we seek in these next two weeks — not simply an agreement to roll back the pollution we put into the skies, but an agreement that helps us lift people from poverty without condemning the next generation to a planet that is beyond its capacity to repair,” he said. He also said developed countries must help island nations and others that have contributed little to climate change but are the first to be feeling its effects.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said that the conference “is not a finish line, but a new starting point” and that any agreement must take into account the differences among nations. “Countries should be allowed to seek their own solutions, according to their national interest,” he said.
US President Barack Obama has said the UN climate conference in Paris could be a “turning point” in global efforts to limit future temperature rises. President Obama urged negotiators to deliver a meaningful deal, because the “next generation is watching”. He added that recent years had shown that the global economy had grown while emissions had remained flat, breaking the old arguments for inaction “that economic growth and environmental protection were in conflict”.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also addressed the conference. During negotiations for the preceding Kyoto Protocol, Russia was the last industrialized nation to ratify the global agreement, allowing the landmark deal to come into force in 2001.

Echoing President Obama, Putin said: “We have demonstrated we can ensure economic development and take care of our environment at the same time.” In a diplomatic play on semantics, probably to highlight the differing points of view between industrialized and emerging economies, Chinese President Xi Jinping told the conference he did not see the Paris talks as a turning point nor a “finish line, but a new starting point”. He said that climate change went beyond national borders and that it was “a shared mission for all mankind”, before reiterating China’s pledge to start cutting its emissions from a peak in 2030.

Protests

Hundreds of thousands of people have marched worldwide to demand action to stop climate change, the day before a UN summit starts in Paris. One campaign group says more than 570,000 protesters took part in marches on all the main continents. Activists want action at the Paris talks to limit the rise in the average global temperature to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels. In Paris itself, more than 200 demonstrators were arrested after clashes. The climate changes affect us all and it is here, through mobilization, that we show how united our countries are against those larger nations that continue to pollute and refuse to cut back.

Elsewhere across the world: an estimated 50,000 people took part in a march in central London, where opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed crowds. some of the earliest protests in the day took place in the Marshall Islands, a US territory in the Pacific Ocean threatened by rising seas. in Kenya, a march took place across the equator/ a small group took part in a march across a glacier in the south of Chile; the mayor of Sydney in Australia tweeted to say that there were “at least 45,000” demonstrators, making it the biggest ever such march in the city.
Earlier, a human chain was formed by hundreds linking arms in the French capital along the route of a march that was called off after the 13 November attacks that killed 130 people. A gap in the chain was left in front of the Bataclan concert hall, where 89 people were killed. Hundreds of pairs of shoes were left on Place de la Republique to remember those left frustrated in their plans to march. Among them were a pair donated by Pope Francis, who has called for urgent action on climate change.

Some of the demonstrators in Place de la Republique in Paris were apparently protesting against France’s state of emergency, and have been disowned by the main organizers. The order, banning public gatherings, was put into place after the 13 November attacks. Many of those involved in the clashes wore masks or covered their faces. Candles from a makeshift memorial in the square were thrown at police. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said 208 people had been arrested, of whom 174 are still in custody.

Meanwhile, the leaders of 10 of the world’s biggest oil companies have offered their qualified support for a new global treaty on climate change. The producers of 20% of the world’s oil and gas say they share the ambition to limit warming to 2C. They promise to work to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the global energy mix. But green groups were dismissive, saying that “arsonists don’t make good firefighters”.

The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative represents major producers including BP, Shell, Saudi Aramco and Total among others.

Future

Given the flexibility of world leaders in dealing with climate change and the very nature of climate change process it is not an easy task to suggest future of global climate.

However, announcements like this by world leaders will increase the sense of optimism. However, goodwill alone won’t secure a deal as divisions among the parties about the form, costs and content of an agreement run deep. Negotiator countries will try to reach a deal within two weeks aimed at reducing global carbon emissions and limiting global warming to 2C (3.6F).

Much of the discussion in Paris is expected to centre on an agreement to limit global warming to 2C (3.6F). However, assessments of the more than 180 national climate action plans submitted by countries to the summit suggest that if they are implemented, the world will see a rise of nearer to 3C. When the Earth warms about 2C above pre-industrial times, scientists say there will be dangerous and unpredictable impacts on our climate system.

Let us all wait for the concluding communiqué of the Paris COP21.

22 June, 2012. An F4 jet from the Malatya air base was shot down by Syria without warning, even though it was alone, unarmed and had its recognition systems on. In the wake of that incident in which two Turkish pilots died, the Turkish Armed Forces changed their rules of engagement vis-à-vis Syria. Under the new rules, any military vehicle approaching the Turkish border from Syria would be treated as a military target.1

The new rules were immediately put into operation. Immediate retaliation followed an incident on 3 October, 2012, when an artillery shell fell onto Turkish territory and killed five citizens. Jets approaching the border were forced back with appropriate warnings. Four of those jets that were warned off were Russian.

There has been a considerable increase in such violations during aerial attacks on Turkmen regions of Syria in recent days. These have not been made public directly, but they have been raised at high-level meetings with Russian military officials.2 Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov was summoned to the Foreign Ministry following another violation of Turkish air space by Russian planes on 3-4 October, and he was duly reminded of the rules of engagement.

During the incident that occurred on Tuesday, November 24, Turkish officials stated that warnings began being issued from 15 miles, that these warnings had been repeated every 2 minutes, but that the jet had ignored them. NATO, convened at Turkey’s request on that same day, issued a statement saying, “The information we have from other Allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey.’3 An F15 jet sent by the U.S. to protect Turkish air space last week was also reported to have witnessed the incident. The U.S. put the violation in question and the warnings issued by Turkey to the U.N. in an official letter.4

By referring to ‘a plan of unknown nationality’ in its initial statement, the Turkish General Staff made it clear that Russia was not being targeted. The Turkish president also issued a statement saying, “We regret having witnessed this, but sad to say we are experiencing the pain of it having happened.”

Although some analysts maintain that Turkey acted as it did to express its unease at the aerial bombardment by Russia of Turkmens in Syria, there is no justification to that idea. It is of course alarming to Turkey that Russian planes are targeting Turkmen areas. Some of the areas targeted are civilian districts with no radical groups. Indeed, in the wake of that Turkey again encountered a large flow of refugees. However, diplomatic initiatives were taken, Turkey communicated its concerns to Russia and, on November 21, former Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu called FM Lavrov together with U.S. Secretary of State Kerry to draw attention to border violations and the attacks on the Turkmens. Prime Minister raised the issue with the U.N. Security Council and demanded that the requisite measures be taken.5

Turkey would never shoot down a plane belonging to a friend, Russia, on such grounds. Above all else, the risks are too great.

The incident in question is therefore, not retaliation, but the consequence of the rules of engagement.

It needs to be borne in mind that Turkey is surrounded by Ukraine to the north, the scene of continuing clashes, and Syria, which is one huge ball of fire, and Iraq, with which tensions have never decreased, to the south. In other words, world states have become involved in the war right next to it, and the Turkish border is therefore frequently in the firing line. The border region is not only home to civilian settlements, but also to places where refugees are housed. Turkey’s longstanding demand for a safe zone is constantly rejected by the U.S., meaning that the line is exposed to attacks. Turkey’s sensitivity over its own border is definitely perfectly understandable.

However, it is impossible for us to approve a measure such as engagement that is likely to end in death and that endangers both the pilots in the air and people on land. Border security is of course important, but different diplomatic means should be used to that end, and different solutions should be considered. A move that may end in death is not the only option, and a different strategy needs to be adopted.

Moving on to the steps to be taken next:

Russian leader Putin has a strong and sensible nature. Turkey has always trusted Putin’s leadership and friendship. The Turkish people expect the Russian leader to behave with the same good sense on this occasion. We must not forget that although Russia and Turkey hold diametrically opposed positions on matters such as the Ukraine Crisis, the Crimean problem and Syria, they have never impaired the neighborly and, even more importantly, the friendly relations between them. The Russian and Turkish nations are a single entity. Efforts to incite strife between them and warnings along the lines of, ‘Turkey is dangerous, so do not go there,’ will therefore founder the basis of friendship between the two peoples. Putin’s harsh words in the wake of the incident stunned not only the Turks, but also journalists from Moscow. The moderation they expected was not there.6 The presence of Turkey in the Middle East has always acted as a guarantee for them. They are unwilling to lose that.

Turkey and Russia are unwilling to lose one another’s friendship. Therefore, in these warm days, angry talk must be abandoned, emotional responses must be avoided, and it must be remembered that every angry move may have terrible consequences that cannot be rectified. Nothing that might end in regret, damage our existing friendship or even turn friendship into enmity must be spoken. Rational leaders must exhibit great sensitivity on this issue, and must focus on issuing moderate messages and diplomatic initiatives. Particularly in the first weeks after this incident.

As a person of ideas who has long opposed all the plots intended to isolate Russia from the rest of the world, I have a strong faith that the Russian leader will consider the foundation of peace and ensure that love and brotherhood are kept alive. Russian-Turkish friendship is very important for us, and we will continue to strive to make it grow even after this. However, leaders acting in the light of good conscience and common sense must adopt an approach that values love and friendship by having no truck with the covert plans for way of deep state apparatuses. The world needs such initiatives, and these days are a time for self-sacrifice.

Notes:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian%E2%80%93Turkish_border_clashes_(2012%E2%80%9314)
2. http://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/rus-ucaklarinin-ihlal-ler-inden-sonra-36391yy.htm
3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-russia-turkish-airspace-violations-syria
4. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-turkey-shoots-warplane-airspace-intrusion-35385774
5. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKBN0TC0GZ20151123
6. http://www.ozgurdusunce.net/soguk-dus-makale,50.html

The newly created Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) has shortly got the momentum as an economic hub for the countries of the region. The EEU includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia as its members, whereas; the Organization is a continuation of contemplation for establishing the integration projects by the Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia since 2007. The Organization fundamentally promotes the ideas of streamlining the flow and transportation of services and goods between the member states, therefore, it greatly attracts the interests of many stakeholders and according to the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, many international organizations and the economic giants like China has shown great interest in the creation of free trade zones through the EEU.

The present political and economic importance of the South and Central Asian region along with free trade and economic potential across the Eurasian region greatly appeals almost every regional and international country, whether may they be developed or developing nation seems eager to come in bilateral and multilateral engagements with these organizations and the states in the region. The cooperation that is vital to the many states’ national interests consists of the fields of security, economic, energy, bilateral, free trade, scientific education and cultural interactions. Most particularly, the Russian Federation and China have leading ambitious roles in region’s economic and infrastructural developments. In addition, the growing significance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the present scenario has further enabled China and Russia to become a dominant player on the global economic and political arena. This in turn has also provided small or developing nations to benefit from the mutual benefit efforts of the SCO, EEU and other forums for their industrialization and national economic development goals.

The security issues in Afghanistan are the main obstruction in EUU’s direct trade with South Asia. Alternatively, there are two other options which connect the free trade activities with the regional market either through the North¬-South corridor between Russia¬, Iran and India by way of the Caspian and then the Arabian Sea and or the China¬ Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Pakistan is also ardent to benefit from the free trade engagements of the EEU and willing to sign free trade agreement with the EUU. Given its geopolitical location, Pakistan could gain huge economic and trade benefits. Pakistan has also offered Belarus to sign a Potential Trade Agreement (PTA) to facilitate trade connections between the two countries.

Belarus is a landlocked and one of the most industrialized countries located in the heart of the Europe and because of its significant geographic position Pakistan could achieve better access to the Eurasian and Eastern European markets through its free trade engagements with Belarus and the EEU. In addition, both the countries can also generate huge revenues through the industrial cooperation, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and other trade cooperation, therefore, for the reason Pakistan has invited the Belarusian side for a Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) and hopefully both the countries will soon reach the accord. Apart from that, the Belarus has also a Custom Union with the Russian Federation and the Kazakhstan which is a growing free trade entity and a major trading partner of the near future. Pakistan also zealously seeks Belarusian support for Pakistan’s entry in the EUU and later on conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

The bilateral trade between both countries also demands increase and Pakistan’s exports to Belarus in 2014 were only $15.23 million. Despite of the fact that there are immense bilateral economic opportunities for the two sides, but its need of hour to explore the variety of ways for further extending their bilateral trade relationship as Pakistan has exceptional potential to meet Belarusian demands of textile, food commodities, chemicals and many other domestic products. Whereas, Pakistan can also benefit from the Belarusian industrial expertise and it can import tractors, synthetic fiber, and oil and energy resources. Besides vast trade and development opportunities there is a dire need of cultural interactions and educational exchanges.

Other than its extraordinary trade and economic potential, the EEU also faces the challenges to its further enhanced role and enlargement, though it has been unsuccessful in integrating the former Soviet satellite states but still it seems eager to attain this goal. The Organization however needs to strictly ensure its political sovereignty otherwise, the objectives of rapid expansion in current geopolitical scenario despite of lack of any reasonable framework and structure makes EEU prone to make it a partial success like its predecessors.