By RT

Uruguay has become the first country in the world to legalize both the sale and production of marijuana. President Jose Mujica has championed the measure as a way of combatting the illegal drug industry that has decimated parts of Uruguay.

The country’s parliament passed the bill by a vote of 16 to 13 on Tuesday evening. Senator Alberto Couriel, a member of the ruling Broad Front left-wing coalition, called the passing of the bill “a historic day” for Uruguay.

Under the new legislation, the price of marijuana will be set at one dollar per gram, aiming to undercut the current price of $1.40 on the illegal market. The sale and production of the drug will be regulated by a specially-set-up government body which will administer a database of adult citizens registered to consume marijuana.

“This is an attempt to bring an end to the illegal drugs trade by identifying the market and bringing it into the light of day,” said President Mujica in a statement. Mujica added that the law does not promote the consumption of the drug; it merely identifies the consumer so that authorities may “intervene if [the consumer] overdoes it.”

Before the new legislation was passed, the consumption of marijuana in Uruguay was not penalized, but the sale and production of the drug was considered a criminal offense.

A number of conditions will govern the sale and production of the drug. Registered Uruguayans over the age of 18 will have the right to buy up to 40 grams of marijuana from pharmacies every month and cultivate a maximum of six plants on their property. The legislation will also allow for the creation of so-called cannabis clubs, composed of up to 45 members who will be able to grow a maximum of 100 plants.

Uruguay’s National Drug Board estimates that there are around 120,000 marijuana users in Uruguay from a population of 3.3 million. Consumer groups estimate a higher figure, putting the number of users at around 200,000.

The bill has triggered debate in Latin America over the issue of the illegal drugs trade and the problems it creates.

“I think it is unrealistic,” Paraguay’s National Anti-drug Minister, Luis Rojas, told Spanish news agency Efe earlier this year. Despite the new law, Rojas said he believes Uruguay will continue to receive marijuana grown in Paraguay.

Moreover, president of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Alves, said that Brazil was not ready for the legalization of marijuana in neighboring Uruguay. According to police figures, around 80 percent of the marijuana cultivated in Paraguay is exported to Brazil where it feeds the illegal drug trade. Brazil is concerned that the legalization of the drug could lead to a similar system in Uruguay.

The article Uruguay Legalizes Sale And Production Of Marijuana appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOR

Russia must have every lever for the protection of its security and national interests in the Arctic, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. “The formation of new forces and military units for the prospective Armed Forces combat configuration is due to end next year. I request that you pay special attention to the deployment of infrastructure and military units in the Arctic,” Putin said at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, the Voice of Russia correspondent Ilya Kramnik reports.

He stressed that Russia “was intensifying the development of that promising region and returning to it” and needed to have “every lever for the protection of its security and national interests [in that area].”

Putin thanked servicemen and specialists for accomplishing a complex mission involving the restoration of a Russian military base on the Novosibirsk Islands this year. The president said that the islands “had a keynote significance for control over the situation in the Arctic region”.

The reconstruction of airfields in the northern and Arctic zones, including Tiksi and Naryan-Mar, began this year, Putin said.

“It is planned to be concluded, hopefully, this will be done; a state contract to draw up estimates for the development or, in fact restoration, of the Tiksi airfield and the construction and assembly work at the Severomorsk-1 airfield, before the end of this year,” Putin said.

The article Putin Attaches Special Importance To Russian Army Deployment In Arctic appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Randall G. Holcombe

The Congressional Budget Office has just published a study, The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010, which shows that the top 40% of income earners paid 106.2% of total federal income taxes, while the bottom 40% paid -9.1%. This isn’t the study’s headline, so you have to dig a bit to get that information, but look at Table 3 on page 13 of the study to find that information.

The Table shows that the top 20% of income earners paid 92.9% of total income taxes in 2010 (the latest year available), and the next-highest 20% paid 13.3% of total income taxes, so the top 40% paid 106.2%.

Because of refundable tax credits like the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, the bottom 20% got more money refunded to them than they paid in taxes, so paid -6.2% of total taxes. The next-lowest 20% paid -2.9%, so the bottom 40% paid -9.1% of total income taxes. More than 9% of total income tax payments go toward paying out money directly to people who get more back than they paid in.

Another Table in Box 1 on page 7 of that same study shows that households in the bottom 20% of income received an average of $22,700 in government transfers. The federal government’s official poverty threshold for a family of four in 2010 was $22,050, which was less than the average family received in government transfers. (Note that some of those transfers, such as Medicaid benefits, are not counted as income for purposes of calculating the poverty threshold.)

President Obama has frequently said the rich should pay more in taxes. That apparently means the upper 20% of income earners should pay more than 92.9% of total income taxes, and the upper 40% should pay more than 106.2%.

Meanwhile, if we are really concerned more about the poor than the rich, note that under the Obama administration the official poverty rate has risen from 12.5% to 15% of the population. Imagine the outcry if this had happened under a Republican president. The president talks as if he cares about the poor, but they have fared badly under his administration. Results should matter more than intentions.

From a policy standpoint, it appears that President Obama’s route to increased income equality isn’t to bring up the poor, but to bring down the rich.

The article It’s Official: Top 40% Of Income Earners Pay More Than 100% Of Federal Income Taxes – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By John C. Goodman

Years ago, Milton Friedman was asked at a conference what he thought about different schools of economics (Chicago school, Austrian school, etc.) Friedman replied, “There are only two kinds of economics: good economics and bad economics.”

I’m reminded of this by Krugman’s Monday column, in which he asserts that there is a Republican economic theory of unemployment.

Here’s the world as many Republicans see it: Unemployment insurance, which generally pays eligible workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous pay, reduces the incentive to search for a new job. As a result, the story goes, workers stay unemployed longer. In particular, it’s claimed that the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which lets workers collect benefits beyond the usual limit of 26 weeks, explains why there are four million long-term unemployed workers in America today, up from just one million in 2007.

Then he offers this assessment:

Proponents of this story like to cite academic research — some of it from Democratic-leaning economists — that seemingly confirms the idea that unemployment insurance causes unemployment. They’re not equally fond of pointing out that this research is two or more decades old, has not stood the test of time, and is irrelevant in any case given our current economic situation.

As we have pointed out before, the best work on this subject seems to be that of Casey Mulligan, who writes for the New York Times economics blog. (That’s right, the very same newspaper that Krugman writes for!) Mulligan estimates that as much as half of the excess unemployment we are experiencing is the result of overly generous entitlements benefits.

And, no. I don’t know who Mulligan votes for.

[Cross-posted at Psychology Today and John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog]

The article What Paul Krugman Can Learn From Milton Friedman – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Monish Gulati

Nawaz Sharif made a one-day visit to Afghanistan on Nov 30, his first since he was sworn-in as prime minister of Pakistan in June this year. At a midday press conference, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that he and Sharif had discussed “practical steps” to bring Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents to the negotiating table. Analysts had billed Sharif’s visit as an effort to build on the “green shoots” of rapprochement between the two governments that had appeared in August, when Karzai visited Pakistan raising hopes of talks with the Afghan Taliban amongst other issues of mutual interest.

On the eve of Sharif’s visit, cross-border tensions surfaced on the Durand line. The governor of Afghanistan’s Kunar province said Pakistani troops had fired mortars into the Shultan valley of the province’s Shigal district, a mountainous area bordering Pakistan. It was possibly a reminder from the Pakistan army of its clout in Pakistan’s regional foreign policy.

Mullah Baradar

A key takeaway of Karzai’s visit to Islamabad in August had been the Pakistani prime minister’s commitment to release Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Afghan Taliban’s former second in command who has been in Pakistani custody since his arrest in 2010. The Afghani delegation had insisted that Baradar was the key to opening a negotiating channel with the Taliban. After Karzai’s visit, Sharif did release Baradar but restricted his movements within Pakistan and delayed Afghanistan’s access to him. An Afghan High Peace Council (HPC) delegation had recently travelled to Karachi to meet with Baradar. However, according to reports, Baradar appeared to have been sedated and was unable to talk during the meeting.

Pakistan has been playing this cat and mouse with Afghanistan, and not so subtly indicating that some of its demands too have to be met. In Kabul, Sharif insisted that Baradar was free and promised that he would help arrange further meetings with members of the Afghan HPC but mentioned that Afghanistan should consider discussing this matter with the US.

Taliban Office

Another issue which had also come up during Karzai’s visit to Islamabad was that of an office for the Afghan Taliban. During the Islamabad visit, Karzai is believed to have asked Sharif to take a more direct ownership of the Taliban’s interests and steer the Afghan reconciliation process by establishing the Taliban liaison office in Pakistan. A suggestion that Sharif turned down. In Kabul too, Pakistan declined a similar offer stating that Islamabad sees itself as a facilitator and not as a leader of the Afghan reconciliation process. However, according to The Express Tribune, Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to evolve a new mechanism under which both sides would explore options on an ‘urgent basis’ to open a political office for the Taliban in either Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

The Pakistani position on the issue of Mullah Baradar and that of the Taliban office indicates how Pakistan continues to juggle ‘third party” interests along with its own even within bilateral forums.

US-Iran Thaw

The agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy programme on Nov 24, between Iran and the six permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) has the potential to further complicate Pakistan’s diplomatic duplicity. The successful conclusion of the second (and final) phase of the nuclear agreement would free Iran to focus more actively on issues in its neighbourhood. Iran is likely to test Pakistan’s relationship with China and Saudi Arabia on the developments in Afghanistan.

Iran may have called upon Afghanistan to not sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US, possibly after an assessment that it could manage the strategic environment in Afghanistan and safeguard its interests better in collaboration with China, Russia and India. US presence would be an added complication. Iran must also be feeling confident of containing Pakistani ambitions and proxy interests of Saudi Arabia and its allies.

AfPak Relations

Karzai has perplexed most analysts by his dilly-dallying over the BSA – reasons most feel are best known to Karzai himself. But what his actions in this regard have achieved over the past few weeks is significant. First, it has got most interest groups in Afghanistan to either ‘come out of the closet’ or ‘jump off the fence’ and take a position. A position which is either for or against – the BSA, continued US presence in Afghanistan and in a way the Taliban. Karzai has also got a sense of the support which he (or his candidate in the presidential race) would have if the BSA was signed. Secondly, in doing so he has spelt out the task ahead for the Taliban (and for its all or nothing approach), which over the years has realized that public opinion and expectations will matter in its quest for power post 2014. Lastly, he has managed to hold the door open for negotiations with the Taliban – which has still not climbed down from its position of no foreign soldier on Afghan soil. It is for the last issue that Paki
stani support and cooperation is important and time critical.

Pakistan on its part hopes for some spin offs for itself – besides keeping India at bay – as the situation in Afghanistan develops. It continues to focus on enhancing trade links with Afghanistan, as bilateral trade reached nearly $2.5 billion in 2012. It wants to cement the trade ties with a broad range of road, rail and connectivity projects as well as collaboration in the energy sector. There are officially over 7,000 Afghan students currently seeking education in Pakistani institutes, including 2,000 on fully-funded scholarships offered by Islamabad. In addition, Pakistan has also offered $20 million for training of the Afghan National Security Forces.

Sharif’s visit to Kabul demonstrates Pakistan’s diplomatic jugglery as it pushes competing interests of US, China, and Saudi Arabia in the region, and at the same time seeks to realize its own strategic objectives.

This article appeared at South Asia Monitor and reprinted with permission.

The article Nawaz Sharif Visits Kabul: Pakistani Jugglery Continues – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Kouri

Following the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency initiated a new and exorbitantly expensive covert program that may find itself tossed into the trash bin of history, according to a watchdog group’s analysis of a Monday-released news story.

The “Company” more than quadrupled its number of officers working as what’s considered a glamorous and coveted position called “Non-Official Cover (NOC),” in which instead of being based inside of a U.S. embassy, agents overseas work for businesses, institutions of higher learning and other jobs far from the confines of a State Department installation, according to the nonpartisan Judicial Watch.

The general idea is to recruit the best and most talented undercover agents and place them in other countries in strategic positions from which they will gather information that will eventually become actionable intelligence.

But, according to Judicial Watch, the NOC program was a waste of taxpayers’ money and a waste of time and talent.

It “was a colossal flop,” a former CIA official told a Los Angeles Times reporter.

The CIA spent at least $3 billion on the NOC program, but has yet to see any consistently successful operations after more than 12 years. While CIA headquarters multiplied the number of deep undercover officers — going from dozens to hundreds — very few of them have actually experienced success, according to Judicial Watch analysis.

The reason for the NOC program’s failure is not uncommon among government agencies — incompetence, mismanagement, waste…the list can go on and on.

“Its one thing to have political hacks run an agency as its top executive, but when you have such hacks in management throughout the CIA and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies then you’re asking for failure, scandal and incompetence,” said former military intelligence officer and police detective Michael Snopes.

“Because of inexperience, bureaucratic hurdles, lack of language skills and other problems only a few of the deep-cover officers recruited useful intelligence sources, CIA operatives revealed in the article. Sometimes the CIA didn’t send the right people with the right cover and others were posted too far from where their targets were located,” said the Judicial Watch report.

“[L]ike every bloated, secret government program with no oversight, this one was tainted by financial irregularities,” said Judicial Watch.

While the L.A. Times news story failed to go into detail, a former CIA official and an agency inspector general did reveal that some agents working as NOCs billed the CIA for “unjustified time and expenses.” Few were forced to repay the money, the sources said.

When contacted, CIA brass refused to comment on what Judicial Watch characterized as a “scandal-plagued program that’s proven to be a money pit for taxpayers.”

“The agency does not discuss publicly any cover techniques that it may employ,” a spokesman says in the story. “The CIA does keep the congressional intelligence oversight committees fully informed of its activities, which are constantly evolving to meet the threats to national security. And, while the details of the agency budget remain properly classified, sequestration and budget cutbacks have affected the entire federal government, including CIA.”

This is simply the latest of many scandals linked to U.S. intelligence agencies. In 2012, the agency’s director, Gen. David Petraeus, resigned in shame after having an alleged sexual affair with his biographer.

Also last year Judicial Watch obtained CIA records detailing how it played fast and loose with national security information by granting unusual access to agency files to the filmmakers of the Osama bin Laden movie.

The article Anti-Terrorism Program A Colossal Flop, Says Watchdog Group appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Arab News

By Abdulateef Al-Mulhim

In the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed a dream at a time when segregation between the whites and the colored was the order of the day in various southern states in the US.

MLK’s dream became a reality and the he successfully put an end to the dark chapter in the history of the US by using non-violent civil disobedience. His dream was fulfilled when the African-American population was granted civil rights, provided with equal employment and education opportunities and the African-Americans started to rise above the poverty line and were seen taking up coveted positions in the civil and military administrations.

The election of an African-American as the president of the United States is a continuation of that dream. MLK was assassinated in 1968. At that time he was well known all over the world. Four years before his death, he was awarded the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded this African-American activist the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when an African anti-apartheid leader was sentenced to life imprisonment. The African prisoner was South Africa’s Nelson Mandela. Like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela had many dreams. Mandela accomplished miracles, but, at the end of the day, most of his dreams remained unfulfilled.

Mandela served South Africa but the country did not serve itself. He opened South Africa to the world. It was a country that was boycotted by almost every country in every aspect. South Africa was banned from participating in world events including sports. He paid a very high price. He lost 28 years of his life in prisons. Finally he was released and the rest is history. But, did South Africa really benefit from the eradication of the cruel system?

It is one of the most advanced countries in Africa and well ahead of many others in science and technology. It is rich in natural resources and is one of the most attractive tourists spots. South Africans enjoy a good democratic system and have a very high standard of living. But things are slipping away. Poverty is on the rise even among the white population and diseases like AIDS are widespread. The gap between haves and have-nots is widening. Criminality is on the rise and if the trend continues, it could adversely affect the lucrative tourism and mining industries.

Mandela transformed South Africa from the least respected country in the world to one of the most admired. Freedom and democracy are good for any nation and so are stability and security. Mandela didn’t fight apartheid to see his people suffer from instability. He gave up his own freedom so that his people could enjoy theirs. At this time of mourning, it is important for the South Africans to fulfill the dreams of a man who spent all his life fighting for their freedom.

Email: almulhimnavy@hotmail.com

The article Madiba’s Dreams Yet To Be Fulfilled – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Averko

Last month, the Russian government had high level talks with the Japanese, South Korean, Vietnamese, Egyptian and Serb governments, which indicate actual and potential gains, without seeming to lose anything. At present, the Russian view on Syria appears to have prevailed over the desire to out-rightly see Syrian President Bashar Assad leave office – a matter that is said to have contributed to Saudi discontent with the Obama administration. The Russian-Israeli relationship is civilly interacted, with agreement and some disagreement. Chinese-Russian relations do not seem to have taken a noticeable downslide. Russian-Finnish trade has increased (partly), as a result of European Union (EU) limits. In Russia’s “near abroad” and with Ukraine especially in mind, the Kremlin has been rather ironically accused of bullying, along the lines of a reactionary imperial power.

United States (US) officialdom and some prominent Americans outside of government have expressed mixed views about Russia. Two of the more upbeat opinions came from America’s Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul and former US President Bill Clinton. In what can be seen as an effort to diffuse differences between the US and Russian governments, McFaul pointedly said (at a November 26 gathering in Russia) that Washington and Moscow have more common interests than differences. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu similarly described his country’s relations with Russia during his visit to Moscow last month.) This past September 25 on CNN, Clinton stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is someone who has kept his word. Clinton went on to laud Russia’s potential to further advance itself. The aforementioned segment with Clinton, came two weeks after Putin’s New York Times Op-Ed piece, which drew many posted online comments below that article, in support of his overall perspective – in contrast to the response from some American media and political elites.

During the CNN segment, Clinton spoke negatively of Russia’s pre-Soviet foreign policy, in a way which suggests that thinking is still noticeably evident in the Kremlin. Terms emanating from the pre-Soviet period like “big stick diplomacy” and “colonialism”, have been attributed to other powers, at a time which saw a lesser number of independent nations. Pre-Soviet Russia included numerous instances of cooperation with Western nations. In relative and accurate terms, the disagreements between pre-Soviet Russia and the West should be carefully worded and measured. Western nations have often not been uniform in views. This situation has included serious conflicts among Western nations. As one case in point, Russia’s opposition to Napoleon led France included an alliance between Russia and some Western states.

Ukraine in the Present

A considerable deal has been written about a duel of sorts between Russia and the West over Ukraine. Overall, English language mass media sources have been prone to favoring the opinion that the “pressure” being put on Ukraine is a negative one way street from Russia. Deemphasized, is commentary which either makes the case for the Customs Union (involving Russia and some other former Soviet republics) and /or critically assessing what the EU can practically offer Ukraine. Concerning the Ukrainian government’s suspension of signing onto the EU Association Agreement, Nikolas Gvosdev’s November 26 National Interest piece “Ukraine: Why Yanukovych Said No to Europe“, Anatoly Medetsky’s November 29 Moscow Times article “Economic Logic Pushed Ukraine to Russia“, Nicolai Petro’s  December 3 New York Times Op-Ed piece “How the EU Pushed Ukraine East” and Anthony Salvia’s December 6 American Institute in Ukraine commentary “Yanukovuch is Right to Insist On a Fair Deal For Ukraine“, are among the opinion pieces that go beyond the facile Russian bullying charge and the EU as a logical choice.

When she was American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton advocated an opposition to the Customs Union, because (in her opinion) it marks an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union. Earlier, Brzezinski expressed the thought of lessoning Russian-Ukrainian ties to limit Russian power. There are significant differences between the makeup of the Soviet Union and Customs Union, which make Clinton’s comment on the subject appear shortsighted. Brzezinski’s take on Russia and Ukraine seems based on old school thinking, that is not in sync with the present.

In answer to H Clinton, the Customs Union has no uniform foreign policy, unlike the Soviet Union. As one case in point, Russia is the only Customs Union member recognizing South Ossetian and Abkhaz independence. In response to Brzezinski, English dominated Britain includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Hong Kong is an affiliated part of China. The Customs Union in its current and projected future form is formatted more loosely than the British and Chinese examples. It is therefore erroneous to suggest that closer Russian-Ukrainian ties are a negative blast to the past.

The likelihood of Ukraine joining the EU as a full fledged member anytime soon, if ever, remains in doubt – as that organization has some struggling issues. Meantime, other nations need to find a practical way to better enhance themselves. A recent poll indicates a near split of Ukrainian public opinion, over choosing between either the Customs Union or EU. This finding supports the observation that Ukraine’s younger generation (ages 18-39) show a greater enthusiasm for the EU than the older population. There is a tendency among many younger folks to be idealistically driven into positions, which downplay a practical reasoning for taking another stance. Given the EU limits and the interrelatedness between Russia and Ukraine, it is not inconceivable that pro-EU enthusiasm might eventually wane in Ukraine.

In some circles, much hoopla is made of Russia supposedly not coming to terms with Ukrainian independence. In point of fact, post-Soviet Russia recognizes Ukraine’s internationally recognized independence and Soviet drawn boundaries - an act that has not created such a nationalist uproar in Russia.

The Russian government recognizes Ukraine’s right to forge closer ties to the EU. That recognition does not preclude Russia from restructuring its trade relationship with Ukraine. Unlike the EU, the Russian and Ukrainian governments support three way (Russian, Ukrainian and EU) talks to reach mutually agreeable terms.

Covering Ukraine’s Past to Conform With Current Preferences

Relative to Ukraine, the negative image of Russia has been quite evident within English language mass media. Robert Coalson’s December 4 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article “Ukraine’s East-West Dilemma Evokes Century-Old Memories“, serves as one example, with others to boot.

In Coalson’s piece, reference is made to Ukraine having been part of the (Polish dominated) Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, before becoming affiliated with the Russian Empire. Omitted, is mention of the prior Rus period, which concerns the entity that modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are descended from. For obvious historical and cultural reasons, these three nations commemorate the Rus era, much unlike Poland and Lithuania. Over the course of time, many of the ancestors of present day Ukraine came to view Poland as an occupier. The Russian-Ukrainian literary figure Nicolai Gogol’s historical novel “Taras Bulba”, relates to that sentiment.

Coalson’s article includes the faulty claim that Poland fought on the Ukrainian side during the Russian Civil War. More accurately put, Polish leader Josef Pilsudski was interested in a pro-Polish Ukrainian state, which only comprised former Russian Empire territory. He found a Ukrainian ally in Symon Petliura, whose position in Ukraine was weak. At the time, there were people in former Russian Empire Ukraine, who either supported the Whites or Reds, or were leaning in an indifferent direction. While opposing each other, the Whites and Reds supported some form of Russian-Ukrainian togetherness. At this point in history, the desire for a separate Ukrainian state did not reach the level it now has.

Petliura’s weak base resulted in him forging an alliance with Pilsudski, which included an acceptance that all of Galicia would be a part of Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainians (by and large) agreed to come under the command of the White Russians. Unlike Polish leader Pilsudski, the White Russians did not put stringent conditions on the Galician Ukrainians.

These articles of mine provide a different perspective from Coalson’s piece: “The Russo-Polish History Coverage and Some Related Matters“, Russia Blog, October 28, 2009 and “Pavlo Skoropadsky and the Course of Russian-Ukrainian Relations“, Eurasia Review, May 22, 2011

Lavrov as an Ogre and Some Tangential Points

In Susan Glasser’s Foreignpolicy.com article of this past April 29 “Mr. No“, an unnamed official from a prior US presidency is quoted calling Lavrov a “complete asshole”. Among English language mass media elites like Glasser, such a characterization does not seem to be used when describing Lavrov’s Western peers, who do not appear to be less of an “asshole” (whether “complete” or otherwise) than Lavrov. In sync with Glasser’s use of an anonymous source, I will add that this thought includes several off record personal experiences, from several individuals, as well as how things look from a distance.

Several months after that piece, Glasser’s husband, Peter Baker, came out with a November 5 Foreignpolicy.com piece “The Seduction of George Bush“, which refers to Lavrov as being “hardline”. Over the years, Lavrov has come across as a frank individual, who listens and answers back comments directed at him. He has unequivocally spoken out against the controversial comments that the now former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said about Jews and the Holocaust, in addition to acknowledging that the Syrian government is not blameless in its war against insurgents.

There is a significant difference in how Lavrov is depicted to his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski. Not so long ago, Carnegie Moscow Center Director Dmitri Trenin, praised Sikorski as a pragmatist.

Circa the pre-internet period for much of the 1990s, I recall a National Review article by Sikorski, which described a train ride conversation he had with a Russian woman. At one point, she asks why he (Sikorski) hates us (Russians)? Sikorski’s answer did not deny the basis of the question. Rather, he said that Russians have not come to accept the past faults of Russia. In other instances, Sikorski has noted Poland’s period under Russian Empire rule (with other parts of Poland under German and Habsburg rule) and Soviet domination.

When the shoe was on the other foot (so to speak), the Polish domination of Rus related territory included some unpleasant experiences for the subjugated. Rhetorically put, how is the general Polish awareness of this aspect? Has there been any sugar coated deflective spin on that score?

Around the time of the first wave of post-Cold War NATO expansion, I recall Arizona Senator John McCain (in a PBS NewsHour segment) say that it has been centuries since Poland dominated Russia, unlike Poland’s historically more recent time under Russian domination. He is not alone in giving such a limited historical overview. Besides that period of Polish domination of Russia brought up by McCain, there:

• were the tens of thousands of Poles who joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia in 1812

• a Polish Machiavellian land grab attempt of some (stress some) territory, inhabited mostly by people with more of an allegiance to Russia than Poland during the Russian Civil War

• the fatal Polish prison conditions for tens of thousands of captured Red Army personnel, at the time of the Soviet-Polish War.

I am favorably acquainted with people of Polish, Russian, Russian-Polish and other backgrounds, who readily acknowledge that historical wrongs were done by Russia and Poland. This recognition includes some respectful differences of opinion and the desire to see improved Russian-Polish relations.

Collective stereotyping as exhibited in Sikorski’s pre-internet era train ride story, is an example of an undiplomatically immoderate intellect. In the ensuing years, I have not seen any comments from him which match that expression. People have been known to amend their views at varying points in their life.

I agreeably note Sikorski’s comments about how many Russians suffered under Soviet rule. Post-Soviet Russian administrations acknowledge this matter, in what looks to be an ongoing process of Russia at large coming to grips with its past – a dynamic evident with what other nations throughout the world face with their respective history. May Russian-Polish relations dramatically improve.

In more recent times Sikorski has:

• irked Lithuanian officials, with his comment about Lithuania’s capital Vilnius, which was part of Poland between the two world wars

• likened the Russian-German gas pipeline arrangement to a modern Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement

• referred to contemporary Russia having a 19th century foreign policy approach.

On the other hand, in a November 23 RT segment, John Laughland attributes an imperial mindset among present day Poles.

I am fully aware that Sikorski has an explanation for the referenced comments he has made as a high ranking Polish official. Western mass media and political elites tend to show a greater understanding of his position and some others, when contrasted to the perspective of Russian officials.

This article first appeared in Global Research on December 10.

The article Russia’s Role In The World: Gauging Moscow’s Active Foreign Policy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IPCS

By Aparupa Bhattacharjee

Elections, national and political reconciliation within, Myanmar becoming the next ASEAN Chair, growing Chinese influences and the American pivot were the major issues of debate in Southeast Asia during 2013. To understand the changes that are expected in 2014 it is essential to have an overview of the last year from the political, economic, and foreign policy perspective.

Malaysia and Cambodia: The Elections Storm

The 13th General Election of Malaysia on 5 May was historical. Eversince 1967, for the first time, the majority party Barisan Nasional (BN) – gained less percentage of votes in comparison to the opposition party, Pakatan Rakayat. Although BN have been able to retain their position as the ruling party due to achieving 44 seats more than PR, however the results were clear indication that Malaysians are not happy with their performance. Important was the shift of loyalty of the Malaysian Chinese population towards PR instead of Malaysian Chinese Association. The reason for the shift was the ethnicity based politics, corruption scandals and failure of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s 2010 new Economic Model.

The second significant election took place in June in Cambodia. The weeks following the announcement of election results, violence prevailed in the streets of Phnom Penh, as both the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) who have been in power since Cambodian independence and the opposition party Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) claimed to have gained the majority votes. Although, the peace was reinstate after CPP formed the government, nevertheless the cold war still prevails between these two parties especial in between the two charismatic leading leaders Hun Sen and Sam Ramsay.

Thailand: Topsy-turvy

Political scenario in Thailand has taken a significant turn, since November 2013. The crisis started after Yingluck Shinawatra’s government tried to introduce an amnesty bill in the Parliament, this bill would have pardoned the corruption charges of Thaksin Shinawatra, and facilitated his return to Thailand from his self imposed exile in Dubai. The protest which was initiated against the bill slowly turned into anti government.

On 9 December 2013, Prime minister dissolved the lower House and declared an election for 2 February 2014. However the protestors have declared that the February election will not be a peaceful one. Several incidents have been reported whereby the candidatures for election were not allowed by the protestors to register themselves for the election. Thus, it is clear that the February election will not be an easy process for the Thais and evidently the political future of Thailand is to be decided by this year beginning.

A Peace deal was signed in between the Thai government and the Thai insurgent group, Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) in March 2013. However, this does not imply that peace was restored everywhere and there was no insurgency attack recorded. The northernmost islands of Malaysia were attacked by group of insurgent from Sulu, Philippines. Similarly, Zamboanga city of Philippines was attacked and captured by the insurgent group Moro National liberation Front (MNLF). All these incidents had questioned the success of the peace talks and peace deals.

Myanmar: National Reconciliation, Unsatisfactory Peace Deals & the Violence Against Rohingyas

The formation of United Nationalities Federation Council (UNFC) an umbrella group of 11 armed ethnic group of Myanmar meeting in order to work towards the ethnic reconciliation was hoped to bring peace in Myanmar in 2013. However, Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) refrained from singing of the ceasefire agreement that was to establish a nationwide cease fire and paved the path towards a peace accord. The KIO refrain to sign due to a confrontation with military in Laiza in February. This further delayed the peace process. Hopefully success will be achieved by UNFC in the year 2014.

The violence against the Rohingyas, minority Muslim who have been denied citizenship by Myanmar government, continued in the year 2013 also. The violence has already taken several lives and displaced many. Two of the worst recorded violent riots against Rohingyas in the year 2013, was reported in Thandwe and Meiktila. Moreover, the roles of the police who have been installed by the government in order to restore peace have been severely criticised. The Myanmar government have been undertaken several initiative in order to resolve dispute with other ethnic groups nevertheless they have not taken any concrete steps in order to resolve the violence against the Rohingyas. The government have also refuse the request by the United States and other countries to rework the 1982 constitution which denies to grant the citizenship rights to the Rohingyas. In fact Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s, the epitome of democracy in Myanmar, silence on this issue, has earned her criticism from her followers.

The Economic Decline

The economic performance of the region has been recorded poor in comparison to the last year’s performance. The GDP growth rate is approximately around 5.2 percentages for this year. The two countries that are worst affected is Indonesia and Thailand. The high inflation and falling export prices have resulted to weak economic growth by Indonesia. In fact, the Indonesian stock exchange has recorded the first yearly loss since 2008, in last year.

Several protests have been reported in Indonesia for the demand of higher minimum wage. All these factors will certainly have its impact on the presidential election this year. Thailand’s economy has been hampered due to the political instability, if continued it might also impact the foreign investments in this year. Interestingly, both Cambodia and Laos have reported a stable economic growth the credit for which should be accounted to the Chinese investments and support to both these countries.

Chinese Influence and the American Pivot

Growing Chinese influence through trade, aids, bilateral treaties and private investment, on most of the Southeast Asian countries was a noticeable factor for the whole world. Moreover, Chinese President Xi Jinping made his first visit to Southeast Asia in October 2013. He visited Malaysia, Indonesia and Bali, where Xi Jinping have attended 21st informal economic leaders’ meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. His visit to region was seen as a milestone in strengthening the relation and reassurance of Chinese commitment of peacefully negotiating the tension over the South China Sea. However, China’s declaration of an air-defence identification zone (ADIZ) over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands has recreated the suspicion against the Chinese move in Southeast Asia. The US involvement has also been a growing aspect, becoming prominent by the increase in number of American ships deployed in Northern Australia, Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries. Typhoon Haiyan hit Philippines have received a huge financial aid from US unlike China who did not play any significant role in assisting Philippines. Nevertheless, the question remains that whether this growing US pivot can negate the Chinese effect or not, can be answered by time.

Forecast 2014

Early this year will witness the general election in Thailand which has been scheduled in 2 February 2014, this election will be crucial for the political future of Thailand. Presidential election is also scheduled for this year in Indonesia; it will be an interesting to note the new President’s strategy to restore the national economy.

Myanmar who is the ASEAN chair for the year 2014, is also expecting crucial political changes. The committee considering amendments of the Myanmar’s constitution will submit its report. These amendments will pave the way to the next general election in 2015 and also involves the stake of all the ethnic groups in Myanmar who are demanding for a federal political system that will give ethnic states greater autonomy.

2014 will definitely be an eventful year for Southeast Asia.

Aparupa Bhattacharjee
Research Officer, IPCS

The article Southeast Asia: Reconciliation in Myanmar, Elections In Malaysia And Cambodia And Unstable Thailand – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IWPR

By Gaziza Baituova

Newspapers that carry criticism of Kazakstan’s government are being squeezed out of existence, media activists in the Central Asian state claim.

The campaign is being conducted by indirect means, through fines and restrictions imposed for minor infractions of publishing regulations. Analysts say the authorities are trying to prevent the independent media from recovering from a series of closures.

Two independent newspapers, Pravdivaya Gazeta and Ashyk Alang/Tribuna, and the Communist Party paper Pravda Kazakstana have been temporarily closed on several occasions over the last year.

Between fines and suspension orders, Pravdivaya Gazeta managed to publish only a few issues last year.

In the most recent incident, it was barred from publishing for three months and fined 560 US dollars on December 28. It was accused of carrying unclear information on its masthead, and of printing an issue two days earlier than scheduled.

Pravdivaya Gazeta was in trouble from the moment it launched in April 2013, when it was fined for not coming out regularly.

Rozlana Taukina, head of media rights group Journalists in Trouble, said the charge was absurd.

“It was the very first issue, so there couldn’t have been any interruption in its regularity. But the fine was imposed nevertheless,” she said.

Two months later, Pravdivaya Gazeta paper received its first three-months suspension, accused of exaggerating its circulation figures.

The Washington-based watchdog group Freedom House sees the latest suspension as “unacceptable interference in freedom of the press”.

“The latest suspension of Pravdivaya Gazeta continues a clear pattern of harassment of independent media in Kazakstan, whereby insignificant issues with printing regulations – such as printing fewer copies than specified in a newspaper’s registration or printing issues on a slightly different schedule – are used as an excuse to suspend and harass media that the government dislikes,” Freedom House said in a January 8 statement which noted that other papers had suffered “interference under similar pretexts”.

The bilingual (Kazak and Russian) newspaper Ashyk Alang/Tribuna was another new arrival that swiftly ran into trouble.

In September, within three months of setting up, the paper was barred from publishing for a three-month period and fined over 1,000 dollars. On this occasion, the offence was not publishing enough – specifically, failure to inform the authorities that the paper was taking a break over the August holiday month.

Staff reporter Inga Imanbay said that since an early appeal had failed, the editors decided not to contest the decision.

“Court rulings against the opposition press are politically motivated,” she said.

At the outset, Ashyk Alang/Tribuna’s founders took the precaution of registering a second title with the similar-sounding name Sayasat Alangy. Since September, they have published this newspaper instead.

“In Kazakstan, where there is harsh pressure on the media, and the authorities can shut down independent outlets under various pretexts, opposition newspapers need to have a plan B,” Imanbay explained.

Pravda Kazakstana, the weekly outlet of the Communist Party, in opposition since the country became independent in 1991, has been subjected to a similar pattern of repeat suspensions and fines in the last year.

Taukina said that because of financial troubles in early 2013, Pravda Kazakstana went from four to two issues a month. This led to a court order for temporary suspension.

When the suspension period ended, Pravda Kazakstana went back to weekly publication, but a couple of months later, it was fined and again suspended, this time on the grounds that the registration number given in its masthead was out of date.

Taukina said the practice of punishing newspapers for cutting their publishing schedule was new. Press outlets often had to downsize when money is tight, yet this never used to be regarded as a legal infraction.

The real motive, Taukina suspects, is that these newspapers carried reports that the Kazak authorities objected to.

Pravdivaya Gazeta’s first-ever issue carried extracts from a book written by opposition politician Zamanbek Nurkadilov, who was shot dead in 2005. Pravda Kazakstana, meanwhile, covered a story about exiled opposition leader Mukhtar Ablyazov’s wife and a daughter being deported from Italy to Kazakstan last summer.

Ashyk Alang and Pravdivayay Gazeta emerged last year to fill a vacuum left after a crackdown on established opposition media.

In December 2012, a court in Almaty banned eight newspapers and 23 websites affiliated to the Respublika newspaper along with the K+ satellite TV channel, Stan TV and the Vzglyad newspaper, on the grounds that they articulated extremist views.

Respublika and some other outlets were linked to Ablyazov, a former banker and now a staunch critic of President Nursultan Nazarbaev. They also came under pressure because they were the only media outlet in Kazakstan that provided consistent coverage of months of oil-industry strikes in 2011, and their violent culmination in December that year, when police fired into crowds of protesters in the western town of Janaozen, leaving 16 dead.

Igor Kolov, head of the Public Committee for Human Rights, sees Pravdivaya Gazeta and others as just the latest victims of a campaign to purge critical voices that has been going for several years. Only the methods have changed – procedural infractions are less liable to alarm the international community than criminal charges.

“These newspapers give objective information without embellishing it, and without praising the non-existent achievements of the government,” Kolov said. “Critical media are automatically labelled as ‘opposition’.”

He added, “If the authorities see Ablyazov’s presence behind every independent newspaper, [he] must be doing well.”

Another factor, Kolov said, is that the government dislikes media outlets that are financially and hence politically independent, in contrast to state media and also many private outlets that get funding through state contracts.

The authorities will also be aware of the readership for independent press.

“In villages, I’ve seen for myself how people pass these newspapers around and vigorously discuss and comment on the personalities and events they cover,” Kolov said.

Andrei Grishin of the Kazakstan Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law agreed that some newspapers, at least, were popular enough to become commercially viable.

“The newspaper Tribuna [Russian version of Ashyk Alang] has become well known and has reached circulation levels that could allow it to fund itself,” he said.

Political analyst Zamir Karajanov pointed to another factor that made the prospects for the independent media sector look even gloomier. The next presidential election is scheduled for 2016, and everyone is asking whether at 73, President Nazarbaev might decide not to run again. A managed succession is likely to involve hands-on management of the media story, and independent newspapers would hardly fit with that plan.

“Given the prospect of a leadership change, Kazakstan is entering uneasy times, and the media will play an important role in this process,” Karajanov said. “Past experience in Kazakstan shows that the natural course affairs is to tighten the screws on the media.”

Gaziza Baituova is an IWPR contributor in Kazakstan. This article was published at IWPR’s RCA Issue 723.

The article Kazakstan Newspapers: Publish Or Be Damned appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By EurActiv

(EurActiv) — The former prime minister of Luxembourg and long-serving eurozone chief Jean-Claude Juncker has announced plans to run for the post of Commission President, but he may not have the crucial support he needs from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EurActiv Germany reports.

According to reports, Merkel is more interested in supporting International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde as the successor of the current European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso.

Merkel and Juncker may both hail from Europe’s conservative camp but the Luxembourgish politician has fallen out of favour with a number of big players, especially in Germany.

If the European Parliament elections in May hand the centre-left an advantage in the decision-making process, Merkel may be forced to back the current president of the EU legislature, Martin Schulz, from Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD).

German tension

The history between Juncker and Merkel dates back from when the chancellor was still in the opposition. From this perspective, she witnessed the particularly close cooperation between Juncker and the former chancellor for the SPD Gerhard Schröder.

The peak of mutual trust between Juncker and Schröder and simultaneous lowpoint in the relationship between Juncker and Merkel was during summit on security policy in early 2003. It was dubbed the “praline-summit”, after the chocolate producing suburb of Brussels where four European leaders met, Germany’s Schröder, France’s Jacques Chirac, Belgium’s Guy Verhofstadt and Luxembourg’s under Jean-Claude Juncker.

The discussion focused on a highly contentious proposal for a European Security and Defence Union. At the meeting, participation was only intended for those EU countries that were seriously prepared to cooperate on defence policy.

As the meeting was going on Merkel became frustrated with Juncker, who failed to brief her party, the Christian Democratic Union, on the matter, despite their political affiliation with his Christian Social People’s Party. Merkel considered the defence proposals of significant importance to Germany.

During the last European election in 2009, tension between Berlin and Juncker was already apparent. Instead of EU veteran Juncker, Herman Van Rompuy, a relative unknown, was chosen to fill the new post of European Council president.

The appointment of Van Rompuy, along with High Representative Catherine Ashton, was seen as a “double-nobody” solution for the two new political roles.

At the time, Luxembourgers were left unsatisfied by the justification given for the surprise appointment.

Diplomats mused at the time that it was a good feeling to have a big neighbour with a guilty conscience. But it seems that the guilt has not endured. “May his friends protect him”, a German government source said regarding Juncker’s ambitions.

The article Why Merkel Doesn’t Support Juncker For Commission President appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By COHA

By Thomas Abbot

Inequality is nothing new in Latin America; the region has long occupied the unenviable position of being considered the most unequal area in the world. However, the human face of inequality is nowhere more apparent than in Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. [1] Buenos Aires is a study in contrasts: the splendid Libertador Street, punctuated with  art museums, luxury malls, and expensive apartments, stands at points directly across the train tracks from the improvised housing of the villas miserias, or shantytowns. Below Rivadavia Street, as the noted Argentine novelist Jorge Luis Borges put it,  “the South begins,” a land of impoverished suburbs and slums.

Buenos Aires is a maze of overlapping jurisdictions. The metro area numbers some 13 million people, nearly 40 percent of the country’s population, but the city’s mayor, Mauricio Macri, presides over a jurisdiction which includes just  3 million residents. The problem has proven too much for Macri, who has demonstrated indifference towards the task of develop a working relationship with either provincial or national governments. Moreover, Macri and his Propuesta Republicana Party (Republican Proposal, PRO) seem solely interested in projects that benefit the affluent, clearly neglecting the issues of poverty alleviation, environmental cleanup, and improvement of substandard housing. The people of Buenos Aires deserve better. Only with immediate and decisive action can  improvement come for the lived experience of the city’s poor.

Figure 1: Average incomes in Districts of Buenos Aires (Monthly, in Argentine Pesos, with darker colors representing higher incomes)
Source: Buenos Aires City Government – http://www.ssplan.buenosaires.gov.ar/MODELO%20TERRITORIAL/WEB/modelo_territorial.html

The lines of inequality are starkly delineated in the city,  following the North (rich) and South (poor) gradient (see Figure 1). Levels of income disparity in Buenos Aires have grown steadily, along with a 35 percent jump in poverty in the Greater Buenos Aires area, over a 16 year period. Poverty rates rose from 12.7 percent in 1986 to 49.7 percent of the population in 2002, just after Argentina’s economic crisis, according to government statistics. U.N. Habitat estimated the city’s Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality with 0 being total equality, everyone with the same income, and 1.0 being perfect inequality, one person has all the income, at .52 in 2005. This measure, compared to Quito’s .49 and London’s .34, places Buenos Aires  in the category  “among the most unequal in the world” according to the United Nations. [2] The wealth of the highest decile of the population of the city is equal to 28.3 times that of the poorest. Another way of capturing this inequality is to look at city  real estate prices. The cost of one square meter of land in a rich neighborhood is 116 percent higher than a meter in a poor one. [3] As many as 10 percent of the city’s residents live in informal and improvised housing, lack access to public services, and live in crime-riddled communities. [4] These problems reflect dire circumstances, but the city’s government has many of the necessary tools to successfully address them.

Overlapping Jurisdictions

Buenos Aires has been an autonomous region since 1996, when the national government gave up its control over the appointment of the city’s mayor. Today the Buenos Aires mayor is regarded as the third most important political position in the country, after the president and the governor of Buenos Aires province. [5] Macri, scion of a wealthy family and former manager of the popular Boca Juniors soccer club, took office in 2007 after an effective electoral campaign that portrayed him as “business friendly”. The position of mayor is a powerful one, as shown by Figure 2, affording Macri a great deal of independence.

Figure 2: From C40 Cities. Illustrates Macri’s government’s power
Source: C40 Cities – Climate Leadership Group – http://c40.org/c40cities/buenos-aires

Macri is also  the country’s main opposition leader, and this status has figured into his drive to keep the city of Buenos Aires fiercely autonomous. Macri’s policies have moved closer and closer to practices of “city diplomacy,” in which cities, as opposed to central governments, engage in international diplomacy. Scholar Roger Van der Plujim notes that “[i]n instances where local interests are very much represented by central governments, the perceived need by cities to engage in city diplomacy is more limited than in those instances where local interests are less represented.” [6] Essentially, if city leaders do not feel that their interests are represented at the national level, they increasingly have the power and inclination to seek support internationally. On September 17, at an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C., Carlos Pirovano, Economic Development Advisor to Mayor Macri, noted that his administration does not even hold meetings with the country’s central government, lead by Christina Fernández de Kirchner, nor with the provincial authorities of Governor Daniel Scioli. Clearly, the local interests of Buenos Aires are not represented at the national level. Following the framework of Van der Plujim, city diplomacy would then become much more important for Buenos Aires, which must look beyond the national government for diplomatic support. Pirovano’s visit to the United States indicates that Macri’s city government has begun to do just that.

These steps are allowing the Buenos Aires city government to set its own terms without having to negotiate with a complicated set of national actors. Macri has the institutional and diplomatic power as mayor to enact sweeping changes on addressing poverty issues in the city. However, he has made neither just nor efficient use of the power at his disposal, and has failed to address the  problems the city faces.

Fundamentally, Macri has spent his time and the city government’s funds on urban planning projects that benefit already well-to-do Argentines. As William Kinney noted in his piece, “COHA Spotlights CSIS Roundtable Discussion with Macri’s Economic Advisor” for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Macri’s strategy for urban development has revolved around designating different “districts” within the city for a certain categories of economic activity. The artistic neighborhood of Palermo, for instance, was designated as a “film district,” with tax and infrastructure incentives for further development of the film industry. Carlos Pirovano highlighted the importance of these initiatives, especially in the southern neighborhood of Parque Patricios, which was designated as a “technology district.” This neighborhood, which is one of the city’s poorest, has seen a 200 hectare development of office buildings and the growth of technology sectors, with 158 new businesses moving into the zone. [7] Pirovano also noted that increased security in Parque Patricios had led to reduced use of “paco” (crack cocaine) in the area.

While these are worthy enough projects, the jobs created are largely destined for well-educated middle and upper-class Argentines, not those who live in the neighborhood, severely limiting any poverty-alleviation impact from these measures. Indeed, many of the development districts, like the film district in Palermo, are located in already affluent areas of the city. In addition, this emphasis on the development of individual districts has corresponded with a cutback in funds available for other important projects.

The proposed 2014 city budget indicates the lowest spending on social housing in the last decade, a 19 percent reduction from last year and part of a trend of declining funds for those living in improvised and informal housing. [8] This budget received harsh criticism from Daniel Filmus, senator for the ruling Frente Para la Victoria (Front for Victory, FPV) party, who charged that the measure could only result in “lowering salaries, lowering social spending, and increasing debt.” [9] Meanwhile, the budget for the city’s Ministry of Social Development will also be reduced by $20 million USD for next year. These cuts have been put into place despite the fact that it is estimated that 350,000 people in the city are living in a situation of “housing emergency.” [10] Educational organizations in the city, like Igualdad Educativa (Education Equality), have also criticized the 2013 budget’s emphasis on subsidies for private schools. The sums destined for private schools exceeded the funds allocated to the Subcommittee for Education Equality, an organization charged with increasing inclusion and equality in public education in Buenos Aires, indicating a powerfully regressive approach to education.

Macri is failing in other ways. Lamentably, his  government has dragged its feet on the logistics of a cleanup of the Matanza -Riachuelo River along Buenos Aires’ southern border. The site is infamous,  recently mentioned on Time Magazine’s list of 10 most polluted places. [11] A dumping ground for tanneries and other industrial sites, the Riachuelo is heavily contaminated with zinc, lead, copper, nickel, and chromium. Many of the two million people who live along its banks rely on the river for their drinking water, putting their health in jeopardy. [12] While cleanup efforts have begun with an edict from the country’s Supreme Court and with the help of $840 million USD from the World Bank, efforts to relocate more than 2,400 families away from unsafe living conditions on the banks have been stalled by  bureaucratic infighting. Furthermore, a recent report by Acumar, a local government agency, noted the reappearance on the banks of more than 70 percent of the waste that previously had been cleaned from the river’s banks. [13] Finally, the city has not yet addressed the sad fact that there are only 35 inspectors for the more than 16,000 companies located along the river, slowing the pace of clean-up work. [14] The effort could last nine more years and the total cost could be in the billions of dollars, but, as the effects will be felt by only the city’s poorest, cleanup has yet to become a key priority for Macri’s PRO party. These derelictions of duty on the part of the PRO in Buenos Aires take on grander significance when their aspirations toward national office are taken into account.

Macri’s Poltical Future

Macri’s PRO is currently the fourth-largest political party in Argentina, after Peronism, the social liberalism of the Unión Cívica Radical party, and the socialist Frente Amplio Progresista party. [15] The PRO party’s political victories in Buenos Aires demonstrate that Macri has caught the imaginations of Argentina’s urban elite. The trouble is, however, that the mayor of Buenos Aires is clearly more concerned with image and “business-friendliness” than with the real needs of his poorest constituents. The city’s website is dedicated to burnishing Macri’s self image,  presenting a sunny image of the city where on every street corner, happy Buenos Aires residents bask under banners declaring  “En todo estás vos” (you are in the middle of everything). Perhaps Macri believes this, perhaps he thinks that the benefits of his urban planning projects will “trickle down” to the city’s poor, but up to this point, it does not appear to be working. At rallies and other events, youth from the city of Buenos Aires chant “Macri, basura, se fue la dictadura” (Macri, you’re trash, the dictatorship is gone). If Macri has future political aspirations, as he apparently does, he must learn to incorporate the needs of those outside his rosy bubble of “modernity.”

Thomas Abbot, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[1] “Buenos Aires.” C40 Cities. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.c40cities.org/c40cities/buenos-aires

[2]“State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide” UN Habitat. 2008

[3] “2010-2060: Modelo Territorial Buenos Aires.” Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. 2011.

[4] Ibid. Auyero. 2010

[5] Murph, Martin. “Profile: Mauricio Macri.” BBC. June 25, 2007. Accessed November 4, 2013. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6222126.stm

[6] Van der Plujim, Rogier. “City Diplomacy: The Expanding Role of Cities in International Politics.” Netherlands Institute of International Relations. April, 2007

[7] Smith, Romina. “Distrito Tecnológico: Parque Patricios se Transforma: ya se radicaron 158 empresas.” Clarín. September 8, 2013. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.clarin.com/ciudades/Parque-Patricios-transforma-radicaron-empresas_0_989301167.html

[8] Videla, Eduardo. “ La vivienda, con su presupuesto más bajo.” Página 12. November 11, 2013. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-233311-2013-11-11.html

[9]  “Filmus denunció que ‘el presupuesto de la ciudad es de ajuste.” Página 12. October 3, 2013. Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/ultimas/20-230467-2013-10-03.html

[10] Ibid: Videla, November 11, 2013

[11] Walsh, Brian. “Urban Wastelands: The World’s 10 Most Polluted Places: Matanza-Riachuelo, Argentina.” Time. November 4, 2013. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://science.time.com/2013/11/04/urban-wastelands-the-worlds-10-most-polluted-places/slide/matanza-riachuelo-argentina/

[12] Herrberg, Anne. “Argentina’s filthy Riachuelo River faces clean-up.” DW. September 28, 2011. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://www.dw.de/argentinas-filthy-riachuelo-river-faces-clean-up/a-15417355

[13]  “Riachuelo: Más retrocesos que avances.” La Nación. November 13, 2013. Accessed November 19 ,2013. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1637708-sin-titulo

[14] Ibid: Herberg, November 18, 2013

[15]  “Latin American Weekly Report: Modest victory fails to mask uncertain future for Kirchnerismo.” Latin News. October 31, 2013. Accessed October 31, 2013. http://www.latinnews.com/media/k2/pdf/btofe.pdf

The article The Two Worlds Of Buenos Aires: Macri’s Legacy Of Inequality – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Sending an ex-girlfriend an email invitation to join Google+ despite an active restraining order landed a Beverly, Massachusetts man in handcuffs and behind bars.

The problem? Thomas Gagnon, 32, says he never actually sent an email of any sort. Instead, he claims it was Google’s fault.

According to Gagnon, Google automatically sent the invitation without informing him or asking for his consent.

As the Salem News reported, Gagnon was arrested about 90 minutes after his ex-girlfriend notified police. The officers agreed the sent invitation constituted a violation of the restraining order, and while the district court judge acknowledged he wasn’t sure precisely how Google+ processes invitations, he set bail at $500.

While Gagnon argues he did not send the invitation, both he and his attorney, Neil Hourihan, are at a loss when it comes to explaining how the message was transmitted.

When asked about the situation by ABC News, Internet privacy expert and attorney Bradley Shear said it’s possible Gagnon is telling the truth. He cited a Google+ forum topic circa 2011 and 2012 that featured numerous customers complaining about the social network’s automatic invite feature.

“As soon as I add an email to a circle, Google seems to send an email automatically asking that person to join Google Plus,” wrote one user. “Is there any way of turning this off? I don’t want Google to send any email on my behalf without my permission. At least I would expect some sort of warning.”

“If he didn’t send it — if Google sent it without his permission and he was jailed for it — Google could be facing major liability,” Shear added.

The case shines the spotlight on a feature that has rankled many users, but apparently Google’s intention is to continue down this path. As RT reported on Thursday, the company has moved to establish closer ties between Gmail and Google+, allowing any Google+ user to send emails to Gmail users, regardless of whether or not they know their email address.

The feature even extends to those people who users haven’t included in their circles, though the company emphasized that if you do not respond to an email or add someone to your circles, that individual will no longer be able to continue messaging you.

Still, that hasn’t stopped privacy advocates from voicing concern over the feature, which Google lets users opt out of but makes participation the default setting, especially since it only took one automatic invite to land someone like Gagnon in police custody.

The article Massachusetts Man Goes To Jail For ‘Automated’ Google+ Invite To Ex-Girlfriend appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By American Forces Press Service

US Defense Secretary Hagel Chuck Hagel today emphasized to Egyptian Minister of Defense General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi the importance of the Jan.14-15 constitutional referendum in Egypt.

In a statement summarizing the telephone conversation between the two defense leaders, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, said they discussed the importance of the constitutional referendum for Egypt’s overall political transition. Hagel, Kirby added, stressed the importance of a transparent referendum in which all Egyptians have the opportunity to cast their vote freely.

In addition, the press secretary added, Hagel also urged the minister to ensure that international and domestic observers have full access to the proceedings.

Hagel and Al-Sisi reaffirmed their commitment to strong U.S.-Egyptian relations, Kirby said, and the secretary wished General Al-Sisi a blessed Mawlid al-Nabi, an Islamic holiday.

The article Hagel, Al-Sisi Discuss Egypt’s Constitutional Referendum appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station Sunday used a robotic arm to capture and attach the Cygnus supply spacecraft, which carried dozens of new science experiments from across the country and the world to the orbiting laboratory. The arrival capped the first successful contracted cargo delivery by Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., for NASA.

Astronaut Mike Hopkins of NASA grappled the spacecraft at 6:08 a.m. EST and Koichi Wakata of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency attached Cygnus to the space station’s Harmony Node at 8:05 a.m. The Expedition 38 crew members aboard the station will begin unloading the 2,780 pounds (1,261 kilograms) of supplies aboard Cygnus following hatch opening planned for Monday.

The cargo is comprised of vital science experiments, crew provisions, spare parts and other hardware. This includes 23 student-designed science experiments. One newly arrived investigation will study the decreased effectiveness of antibiotics during spaceflight. Another will examine how different fuel samples burn in microgravity, which could inform future design for spacecraft materials.

Orbital’s Cygnus was launched on the company’s Antares rocket Thursday from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Pad 0A at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. Cygnus will remain attached to Harmony until a planned unberthing in February sends the spacecraft toward a destructive re-entry in Earth’s atmosphere.

Orbital Sciences is one of two companies that built and tested new cargo spacecraft under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. COTS was completed late last year with an Orbital Sciences demonstration mission to the space station. Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), the other company that partnered with NASA under COTS, also is providing commercial resupply services for the agency. U.S. commercial cargo delivery flights to the station help ensure a robust national capability to deliver critical science research to orbit, significantly increasing NASA’s ability to conduct new science investigations aboard the only laboratory in microgravity.

In addition to cargo flights, NASA’s commercial space partners are making progress toward a launch of astronauts from U.S. soil within the next three years.

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has been continuously occupied since November 2000. In that time, it has been visited by more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA’s next great leap in exploration, including future missions to an asteroid and Mars.

The article New NASA Science Arrives At Space Station Aboard Orbital Sciences Cygnus Spacecraft‏ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Habib Siddiqui

The former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, known as the Butcher, died Saturday. He was in a vegetative state at the Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv since suffering a stroke in January 2006. It’s rather unusual, not incredible though, for someone to have been in coma this long! The 85-year-old former general defied such odds but like any mortal had to eventually die.

Sharon was born Ariel Scheinerman in 1928 in Palestine, which was then under a British mandate. His parents had settled there after fleeing the pogroms in Russia. At the age of 14, he joined the Haganah, the underground Jewish militant organization, specializing in sabotage and guerilla tactics. In the 1940s the group had carried out anti-British operations in Palestine, such as the bombing of the country’s railroad network, and sabotage raids on radar installations and bases of the British Palestine police. It also continued to organize illegal immigration of Jews.

Six years later, in 1948, Sharon, as the commander of an infantry company, was already ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people from their ancestral homes when David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, had unilaterally declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, to be known as the State of Israel, before the British Mandate for Palestine had ended. In August 1953, he founded and commanded Unit 101, a commando unit of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), on orders from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. The unit was known for raids against Arab civilians and military targets. In one such raid, in the fall of 1953, on the border village of Qibya, Sharon’s men dynamited 45 Palestinian houses and a school and killed 69 people (many of whom were children). Under international pressure, Ben-Gurion publicly apologized for his troops’ excesses.

In the 1956 Suez War, Sharon’s Israeli forces spearheaded an attack into the Egyptian territory on the Sinai Peninsula in support of the British and French forces. A total of 260 Egyptian and 38 Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle at Mitla. His troops however were accused of shooting their Egyptian prisoners but Sharon denied any knowledge of these alleged atrocities. This bloody battle was condemned even by the Moshe Dayan, army’s Chief of Staff, as unnecessarily brutal.

The Mitla incident hindered Sharon’s military career for several years. However, when Yitzhak Rabin became Chief of Staff in 1964, Sharon began again to rise rapidly in the ranks, eventually achieving the rank of Major General. In the 1967 Six-Day War forces when Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on its Arab neighbors, Sharon commanded the most powerful armored division on the Sinai front. In 1969, he was appointed the Head of IDF’s Southern Command. He had no further promotions before resigning from the Israeli army in June 1972 to pursue a career in public life. But his promising political career was temporarily put on hold when he was recalled to active service following the October 1973 War against Egypt and Syria. Sharon strategy in undermining the Egyptian Second Army and encircling the Egyptian Third Army is regarded by many Israelis as the turning point of the war in the Sinai front.

After the war, Sharon joined the Likud party, which he had helped to create with Menachem Begin – who was considered a terrorist by the British authorities. In December of 1973 he was elected to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, as a Likud member. He served as defense adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin before being appointed minister of agriculture by Rabin’s successor, Menachem Begin, in 1977. He greatly expanded the ministry’s influence developing a plan for permanent Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. “I believe that if we establish these settlements,” he said at the time, “we will feel sufficiently secure to accept risks for the sake of peace.” On his settlement policy, Sharon said while addressing a meeting of the Tzomet party: “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Judean) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours. … Everything we don’t grab will go to them.”

He opposed the 1978 Camp David peace accord between President Anwar Sadat and Prime Minister Begin. But he remained, and prospered, in the Israeli government. In June 1982, as the defense minister, he ordered an invasion of Israel’s northern neighbor Lebanon to push out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) fighters who were based there. After two months, 14,000 PLO and Syrian fighters agreed to leave Beirut. But tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees remained behind in camps such as Sabra and Shatila in West Beirut.

Sharon broke his promise given to the Americans and sent his troops into West Beirut, saying that 2,000 PLO fighters were hiding in the camps. Then the fateful event of September 16-18 happened. A day earlier, Lebanon’s President-elect, Bashir Gemayel, had been assassinated by a fellow Christian with no PLO involvement. However, Sharon tried to put the blame on the PLO. While his forces surrounded the camps, blocking camp exits and providing logistical support, he let the PLO’s foe, the Phalangist Christian militia, to go inside the camps. Nearly 3,300 Palestinian unarmed refugees were massacred in a murderous orgy and many others were raped and tortured. Sharon was called the Butcher. But Sharon refused to accept any responsibility for the tragedy.

The following year an Israeli commission of inquiry (Kahan commission) ruled that Sharon carried personal responsibility for disregarding “the danger” of massacre and failing to prevent it in the camps, and recommended that he resign from office.

In the face of global condemnation, he refused to resign from the government, but stayed in the cabinet as a minister without portfolio (1983-84). In the subsequent years (1984-92), Sharon’s political career suffered somewhat; but he did not disappear, and held less important ministerial positions within the government. After Likud’s 1999 election defeat, the party chose him to succeed its former leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

On September 28, 2000, as if by some ulterior design to provoke the Palestinian Muslims to start their Second Intifada, Sharon paid a controversial visit to the holy site in Jerusalem known as the Haram al-Sharif to Muslims. He declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. As expected, within six months of that event, he swept into power in February of 2001.

As Prime Minister he fortified Jewish settlements in the West Bank of the Occupied Palestine by erecting an illegal wall, which remains unacceptable to the world community. To the surprise of many hard-core Zionists who believed in their ever expansionist and apartheid policy, he pulled Jewish settlers and troops out of Gaza while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. This policy was an attempt to define, on Israeli terms, the borders of the state and provide security for Israel, even before a final settlement with the Palestinians. His unilateral measures alienated him from many of the extremists within the Likud Party. Tired of the opposition from within his own party over the withdrawal, in November 2005 he resigned from Likud to form a new centrist party, Kadima.

In December 2005, Sharon suffered a mild stroke. A second, major stroke in January 2006 sent him into a coma from which he never awoke. Israeli press reports say there will be a state memorial service at the Knesset on Monday, after which Sharon will be buried at his private farm in the southern Negev desert.

Like other Zionist leaders, past and present, that has ruled Israel since its unholy birth, Sharon is guilty of practicing its criminal expansionist and apartheid policy that helped to uproot nearly a million Palestinians from their ancestral land and building illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Recognized by many Israelis as a war hero and a brilliant strategist, he would mostly be remembered outside Israel as one more unrepentant war criminal who did not face the International Criminal Court for committing crimes against humanity.

The article Sharon’s Eventual Death – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By John Kerry, US Secretary of State

We’ve taken a critical, significant step forward towards reaching a verifiable resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

On January 20, in just a few short days, we will begin implementation of the Joint Plan of Action that we and our partners agreed to with Iran in Geneva.

As of that day, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will not be able to advance, and parts of it will be rolled back, while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s program.

Because of the determined and focused work of our diplomats and technical experts, we now have a set of technical understandings for how the parties will fulfill the commitments made at the negotiating table. These understandings outline how the first step agreement will be implemented and verified, as well as the timing of implementation of its provisions.

Iran will voluntarily take immediate and important steps between now and January 20 to halt the progress of its nuclear program. Iran will also continue to take steps throughout the six months to live up to its commitments, such as rendering the entire stockpile of its 20% enriched uranium unusable for further enrichment. As this agreement takes effect, we will be extraordinarily vigilant in our verification and monitoring of Iran’s actions, an effort that will be led by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The United States and the rest of our P5+1 partners will also take steps, in response to Iran fulfilling its commitments, to begin providing some limited and targeted relief. The $4.2 billion in restricted Iranian assets that Iran will gain access to as part of the agreement will be released in regular installments throughout the six months. The final installment will not be available to Iran until the very last day.

While implementation is an important step, the next phase poses a far greater challenge: negotiating a comprehensive agreement that resolves outstanding concerns about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

As the United States has made clear many times, our absolute top priority in these negotiations is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have been clear that diplomacy is our preferred path because other options carry much greater costs and risks and are less likely to provide a lasting solution.

We now have an obligation to give our diplomats and experts every chance to succeed in these difficult negotiations. I very much appreciate Congress’ critical role in imposing the sanctions that brought Iran to the table, but I feel just as strongly that now is not the time to impose additional sanctions that could threaten the entire negotiating process. Now is not the time for politics. Now is the time for statesmanship, for the good of our country, the region, and the world.

We are clear-eyed about the even greater challenges we all face in negotiating a comprehensive agreement. These negotiations will be very difficult, but they represent the best chance we have to resolve this critical national security issue peacefully, and durably.

The article Kerry Statement On P5+1 Negotiations With Iran appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

The White House confirmed on Sunday that the landmark agreement Iran clinched with world powers on its disputed nuclear program will take effect from Jan. 20, Agence France-Presse reported.

U.S. President Barack Obama said he has “no illusions” on the difficulty of reaching a final agreement with Iran.

Obama also said that Washington will give Iran a “modest relief” on sanctions if the Islamic republic fulfills commitment on deal, warning that he “will move to increase out sanctions,” if Tehran doesn’t follow through.

The U.S. confirmation comes after Iran’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham told Mehr news agency that the deal will take effect.

“The implementation of the joint plan of action will start from Jan. 20,” Afkham said.

Iran’s official state news agency IRNA also quoted Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirming the news without offering any other details.

There was no immediate confirmation from the other countries involved in the talks, though the semi-official ISNA news agency said a joint statement on the agreement would be released in Geneva and Tehran, the Associated Press reported.

Iran and the European Union agreed Friday on how to implement the deal, but it still must be approved by each country before it can take effect.

The EU represents the so-called P5+1 group of world powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — in the decade-long nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Under the deal reached in November, Tehran agreed to curb parts of its nuclear drive for six months in exchange for receiving modest relief from international sanctions and a promise by Western powers not to impose new measures against its hard-hit economy.

Original article

The article Washington: Iran Nuclear Deal To Take Effect On Jan. 20 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — Officials say at least six police officers have died in back-to-back bombings targeting an adviser to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

A suicide bomber first blew himself up near the convoy of Ameer Muqam as he headed to a political meeting in northwestern Pakistan, according to Abdullah Khan, the local police chief in the Shangla district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.

Seconds later, a remote-controlled device reportedly went off.

Muqam, one of the key leaders of Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, was unhurt.

It was the first attack on a member of Sharif’s party since his government took over in June, although Islamist militants have targeted activists of other political parties.

Sharif has previously said he wants to hold peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban to end a decade-long conflict.

The article Pakistan Bombings Target Adviser To Prime Minister appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Magharebia

By Jemal Oumar

A young journalist in Mauritania faces a possible death sentence after being convicted of apostasy for an article criticising the prophet Mohammed, AFP reported Monday (January 6th).

Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mohamed was arrested January 2nd in Nouadhibou and “was convicted of lack of respect for the prophet”, a judicial source told AFP.

In Nouadhibou, a businessman even offered up money to anyone willing to kill Ould Mohamed.

In describing the January 3rd incident, Nouadhibou-based journalist Mostafa el-Sayed told Magharebia that “businessman and preacher Abi Ould Ali, a resident of Nouadhibou, said during a protest against the offending article that he was willing to pay 4,000 euros to anyone who killed the young author, unless he announced his repentance within three days.”

Yet many who denounced the article were angered by the businessman’s incitement to murder, saying it pushed society towards terrorism.

“Incitement to murder is a bad pattern and a negative way of thinking,” artist Khaled Moulay Idriss said.

Sahara Media journalist Cheikh Mohammed Horma agreed, noting: “The call made by the businessman is a clear incitement to kill and he is legally responsible for what the young man may suffer.”

Punishment falls under the responsibility of the judiciary and the state, he added.

“Those who incite to murder want to terrorise us,” young researcher Salihy Ould Ab said. They are just a group of salafists and Islamists who want us to erase our minds and refrain from thinking and criticism.”

“They are inciting people to kill a young man just because he wrote an analytical article in which he referred to some of the positions of the Prophet Mohammed. This means that Mauritania is on the verge of entering an era of terrorism,” Ould Ab wrote on his Facebook page.

Boone Ould Doff, a famous cartoonist, told Magharebia that the threat was “the language of the mafia”.

“I am totally against it,” he continued. “The sinner or criminal should have been brought to justice so that justice takes its course. That is where the final decision or final judgment should be made. I understand that dealing with sacred issues can prompt reactions from the faithful, those might be right or wrong.”

Meanwhile, Mauritanian Muslim thinker Mohamed Ould Mokhtar Changuiti said that there was no evidence of executing apostates in Islam. He considered the journalist’s matter a personal one.

Mohamed Mahdi Ould Mohamed Bashir, a researcher in traditional sciences and Islamic law, also noted that thinkers such as Ibrahim Nakha’i, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout, Dr Hassan al-Turabi, Dr Taha Jabir al-Alwani and Imam al-Baji considered apostasy a sin between a person and God.

The article Mauritanians Condemn Call To Kill Author appeared first on Eurasia Review.