By RSIS

Hostilities involving religion have significantly increased globally. While religion is not the problem, people of religion have made it problematic. Government intervention is needed to reduce hostilities, but the onus of redeeming the good image of religion falls on the shoulders of people of religion.

By Mohd Alami Musa

PEW RESEARCH Centre recently released the findings of their study on religion. Social hostilities involving religion reached a six-year peak in 2012. One third of the 198 countries studied had very high or high Social Hostilities Index (SHI), up from 20% six years ago, in 2007. This is bad news for religion. Has religion turned evil? Has it become bad?

In spite of its rare achievement to be an oasis of religious harmony in a troubled world, a cohesive multi-religious society and a functioning secular nation-state for the last 50 years, Singapore’s fear about the social and political divisiveness of religion has not receded. Its religious diversity is often associated with the danger of social fragmentation. A religious controversy like the tudung issue had been cited as a possible threat to good inter-religious relations due to a possible push back from other faith communities. Should religion then be feared?

Religion & hostility – an unholy alliance

Hostilities involving religion are not new; history informs us of the various wars and conflicts that used the banner of religion. Nevertheless, there was a spike in religion–based conflicts in the last two decades. The US State Department’s list of the top 50 terrorist organisations shows not a single religion-based militant organisation in the early eighties. However, the profile changed dramatically when the list was updated in the late nineties. Half of the listed organisations were religious in character. Is religion now showing its ugly head?

Many scholars have come to the defence of religion. They maintain that religion remains a central feature of human life. Religious traditions provide the social organisation, with moral codes and ethical principles that define proper behaviour. Noble acts of love, self- sacrifice and service to others are deeply rooted in religious worldviews. Religion offers analysis of human predicament and provides a kind of future hope in a new age. Notwithstanding the goodness, peace and tranquillity offered by religion, why has there been this sharp rise in hostilities involving religion?

The Pew report cited many causes of these hostilities. Primary among them are the escalation of religious hostilities directed at minorities for acts perceived as threatening to the majority faith. Their places of worship were attacked, followed by forced occupation. Codes of moral behaviour were enforced on the young who indulged themselves in religiously unacceptable behaviour. Mob violence escalated targeting at fellow adherents who were deemed as deviants. Finally, communal violence linked to issues of nationality and identity had significantly increased.

Not a problem but made problematic

The central issue of the role of religion is this: is religion the perpetrator, instigator or innocent victim of abuse?

Mark Juergensmeyer, a renowned scholar on religion, aptly said that religion is not the problem but it can be made problematic by people of religion. According to him, religious traditions contain powerful images of violence, satanisation, conflict and martyrdom. Even the imagery of the slaughter of animals as a ritual provides the notion of bloody sacrifice. All these images inspire individuals to fathom the deepest level of religious imagination to seek God’s mandate to commit violence and destruction.

After all, these perpetrators framed their horrendous crimes within the religious vision of a grand struggle between good and evil and an epic cosmic war between the forces of virtue and Satan, as can be found in religious traditions.

To sum up Juergensmeyer’s analysis, religion has been corrupted to give hostility remarkable power by spiritualising violence and to provide justification to militant movements as they battle against what they perceive as social oppression, hopelessness in modern life, economic injustices and political corruption. The image of religion is now at its lowest ebb. It is seen by many as a destructive and divisive force in society. What can be done to reinstate the good name of religion?

Re-instating religion’s good name

Government should and is expected to play a decisive role to prevent hostilities involving religion. Nevertheless, government’s intervention does not necessarily result in the reduction of hostilities. Of the 20 countries with very high Social Hostilities Index, 75% of them have surprisingly high or very high Government Restriction on Religion Index. This means that in spite of significant government restriction on religion, it did not prevent hostilities from happening.

It could mean that the intervention by governments had been ineffective or worse, it could mean that governments imposed restrictions on religion selectively and chose to close one eye for hostilities to occur.

However, this does not imply that government’s restriction on religion cannot yield positive results. Nine countries studied by Pew which recorded high Government Restriction on religion Index have low Social Hostilities Index. Singapore is one of them. Its restrictions which are found in legal provisions, regulatory framework and policies, on the problematic practices of religious groups, have been effective to prevent hostilities involving religion.

Nevertheless, the onus of redeeming the good name of religion falls more heavily on the shoulders of people of religion themselves. Thus far, they have closeted themselves in their own religious traditions and are pre-occupied with differences with regard to rituals, customs and practices so that the embrace of religion today has been erroneously identified with divisiveness.

End of ‘religion’ as a term?

The great historian of religion, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, shocked the academic world through his book “The Meaning and End of Religion”. He suggested that the term religion should no longer be used. He argued that the language used in the pre-Enlightenment years, with terms like tradition, community of faith or the believing community, was language that produced a unifying rather than a divisive effect.

The term “religion” is a new construct of the post Enlightenment era to conveniently categorise the rituals, practices and institutions of the various religions into neat packages. People of religion are therefore trapped into thinking of differences when dealing with their own religion.

Religious people, while not losing faith in their own religion, need to transcend the differences of specific religious traditions and embrace the unifying spirit behind the big idea of religion per se that enable people to appreciate diversity without heading towards collision and stand together to protect religion from being corrupted.

The world needs to see the true spirit of religion so that the fear of its divisive and destructive potentialities can be reduced.

Mohammad Alami Musa is Head of Studies on Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) in the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. This article has also appeared in The Straits Times.

The article Has Religion Become Evil? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RSIS

China could trigger a paradigm shift in the disputes in the South China Sea if it were to issue charts indicating the outer limit of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) claims from the islands over which it claims sovereignty. A full effect ‘equidistance line’ from the largest islands towards the surrounding coasts would create a large area of overlap between the EEZ claims of the ASEAN claimants and the EEZ claim of China from the disputed islands. This could lead to possible provisional arrangements of a practical nature, including joint development zones, in the areas of overlapping claims.

By Robert C Beckman and Clive H Schofield

CALLS ON China to clarify its maritime claims in the South China Sea have been reopened following the testimony on 5 February 2014 by US Assistant Secretary of State for the Asia-Pacific Daniel Russel, before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Mr Russel stated that the United States takes a strong position that maritime claims must accord with customary international law, and that this means all maritime claims must be derived from land features and otherwise comport with the international law of the sea. He further stated that claims in the South China Sea that are not derived from land features, such as those apparently based on China’s so-called nine-dash line, are fundamentally flawed. He called upon China to clarify or adjust its maritime claims so as to bring them into accordance with the international law of the sea.

Bringing China’s claim under international law

Mr Russel’s testimony raises a fundamental question that has long been at the heart of the legal disputes in the South China Sea. Can China bring its maritime claims into conformity with the international law and still protect its legitimate interests in the South China Sea? We believe that it can, and that it would be in China’s interests to do so, not least because this could open the door to serious discussions on joint development in areas of overlapping maritime claims.

To begin with, China could trigger a paradigm shift in the disputes in the South China Sea if it were to issue charts indicating the outer limit of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) claims from the islands over which it claims sovereignty. China could limit its EEZ claim to just the 12 largest islands in the Spratlys. Although the total land area of these islands is only about two square kilometres, they all have vegetation and in some cases roads and structures have been built on them.

Therefore, it can be argued in good faith that they are “islands” entitled in principle to EEZ and continental shelf rights of their own under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and are not “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” that are only entitled to a 12 nm territorial sea.

The same logic can be applied to the largest features among the Paracel Islands group, together with the Pratas Islands. Claiming only the larger islands will not limit China’s maritime reach significantly, but it would bring these claims more in line with international law.

While it may appear that using only the larger disputed islands to generate its EEZ claim would entail a ‘loss’ of potential maritime areas to China, actually the impact would be minimal because of the way in which the islands are grouped in close proximity to each other, allowing a broad sweep of EEZ claims.

The islands in question could be given full effect – the full 200 nautical mile EEZ limits – in the direction of the open sea in the central part of the South China Sea. In the direction of the mainland coast or main archipelago of the ASEAN claimants, China could limit its EEZ claim from the selected islands to the theoretical ‘equidistance line’ between the islands and mainland coast or main archipelago. This is the mid-point in the waters from the islands claimed by China to the land belonging to the other claimant states.

Advantages to China and ASEAN claimants

Past international practice suggests that the equidistance line is almost always the starting point in delimiting the boundary between offshore islands and mainland territory. Therefore, an EEZ claim extending from the islands to the equidistance line would arguably be a good faith claim comporting with UNCLOS. But is still likely to be contested by other claimants, in keeping with their own claims to sovereignty over disputed islands. They may also argue that such a full effect equidistance line would be inequitable and inconsistent with the reduced effect generally given to small offshore islands by international courts and tribunals.

As illustrated in the attached map, a full effect equidistance line from the largest islands towards the surrounding coasts would create a large area of overlapping claims in the middle of the South China Sea, with only a small “high seas pocket” beyond the limits of any EEZ claims.

This notwithstanding, the major advantage to China in making such a claim is that its actions would be consistent with UNCLOS and it could no longer be criticised as acting outside of international law. In addition, it would create an area of overlapping EEZ claims in which the States concerned would be under a legal obligation to make every effort to enter into ‘provisional arrangements of a practical nature’ such as joint development arrangements.

Further, the States concerned would be under an obligation pursuant to UNCLOS not to take any unilateral actions in the areas of overlapping claims that would jeopardise or hamper the reaching of a final agreement on the maritime boundaries. Also, if China followed this course of action it would not be subject to the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions in section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS on the settlement of disputes. This is because China has exercised its right to make a declaration excluding disputes on the provisions on maritime boundaries from such procedures.

If China were to exercise this option it would benefit the ASEAN claimants because it would clarify which areas in the South China Sea are not areas of overlapping claims. The areas between the equidistance line and the mainland coasts or main archipelago of the ASEAN States would be within the EEZ of the ASEAN States where they have sovereign rights to explore and exploit the fisheries and hydrocarbon resources.

This would mean that the maritime spaces between the equidistance line and the nine-dash line would not be claimed by China. This is the natural consequence of China recognising that under international law maritime claims must be derived from land features.

Restoring trust and moving towards cooperation

The claimant States could justify any move towards joint development in the area of overlapping claims to their domestic constituents by pointing out that such overlapping claims are based on UNCLOS, that any provisional arrangements are ‘without prejudice’ to their sovereignty claims to the islands as well as being without prejudice to any final agreement on maritime boundaries.

In summary, if China were to clarify the extent of its EEZ claims as described above it would send a clear signal to the international community that it is willing to pursue its interests in accordance with the rules of international law. This would help restore trust and confidence in the region.

It could also trigger serious discussions and negotiations aimed at reaching a consensus on areas of overlapping claims defined in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS and on provisional arrangements of a practical nature, including joint development arrangements, in these areas of overlapping claims.

Robert Beckman is the Director of the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. Professor Clive Schofield is the Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Ocean Resource and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Australia. The authors would like to thank I Made Andi Arsana of Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia for his assistance in preparing the map.

An earlier version appeared in The Straits Times.

The article The South China Sea Disputes: Formula For A Paradigm Shift? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

Hindus are concerned for the safety of Roma (Gypsies) in Hungary after a Harvard University report indicated “need for measures to ensure the physical and psychological safety of the Roma and other minority groups”, suggesting that “warning signs exist”.

Distinguished Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that this report had highlighted the alarming condition of Roma in Hungary and “persistent patterns of violent attacks and actions against the Roma” and European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) should immediately act.

The report, titled “Accelerating Patterns of Anti-Roma Violence in Hungary”, by Francois-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center for Health and Human Rights of Harvard School of Public Health of Harvard University, released this month, calls UN, Hungarian Government and EU to “act to avoid the dangers that the Roma and other minority groups in Hungary have been exposed to in recent years”. Report talks about “Hungary’s mounting incidence of hate crimes, racist propaganda, discrimination, and exclusionary ideologies”.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, noted that international community should take this growing risk to Roma safety very seriously and do something concrete about it. Continued racism, discrimination, xenophobia and violence against an already persecuted community should not be acceptable to the 21st century Europe and world.

Rajan Zed stressed that mechanisms should be urgently developed to protect the vulnerable Roma and racist narrative like “Gypsy crime” should be banned. It should be an EU wide priority to integrate Roma.

Zed pointed out that in Hungary, despite various so called government initiatives, Roma reportedly continued to face blatant discrimination, shanty town living, an atmosphere of hostility, huge unemployment rate, lower life expectancy, prejudice, significantly higher school dropout rate, racism, stereotyping, school segregation, social exclusion, mistrust, human rights violations, etc.

Harvard report also stated: Hate speech…, hate-motivated killings, stigmatization of Romani people, discriminatory practices, and social and economic exclusion were on the rise in Hungary…Roma faced blatant discrimination, violence, and insecurity on a daily basis…Implementation is the most important test in combating hate crime and racially motivated violence, and it is this very test that many states in Europe fail, particularly in regard to the Roma.

According to US Department of State Report for 2012 on Human Rights Practices in Hungary: Roma were discriminated against in almost all fields of life, particularly in employment, education, housing, penal institutions, and access to public places, such as restaurants and bars.

The article Hindus Urge EU To Ensure Safety Of Hungarian Roma In View Of Chilling Harvard Report appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Ukraine’s security service has announced it is launching a counter-terror operation. Radicals have seized over 1,500 firing arms and 100,000 bullets in the last 24 hours, the service said.

The recent events in Ukraine have shown “the escalation of violence and a massive use of firearms by the extremist groups. In many parts of the country, public authorities, military installations and depots with munitions are being seized. Court buildings are burning, the vandals are destroying private property and killing peaceful civilians,” the Ukrainian Security Service head, Aleksandr Yakimenko, said in a statement.

According to Yakimenko, “over the last day more than 1,500 firearms and 100,000 rounds of ammunition have come into the hands of criminals.”

Reacting to the “conscious, purposeful use of force by means of arson, killings, kidnapping and terrorizing people,” which Yakimenko treats as “terrorist acts,” the Security Service and Anti-terrorist center of Ukraine have decided to launch a counter-terrorist operation.

The Security Service head then urged all Ukrainians to stay calm and maintain peace and order. Special measures to reinforce public security and border security are being taken.

President Viktor Yanukovich has been informed of the start of the operation, he added.

Meanwhile in Ivano-Frankovsk, rioters have seized 268 pistols, 2 rifles, 3 light machine guns, 92 grenades and 15,000 ammunition rounds, the deputy head of the Security Service, Vladimir Porodko, has said, adding that the police are searching for the stolen arms. The firearms and munitions were stolen from a Security Service department, and the same departments were also attacked in Ternopol and Lvov overnight. According to Porodko, the buildings came under gunfire.

At least 26 people, including 10 police officers, have been killed and some 800 injured since the start of violent riots in Kiev on Tuesday. The recent and deadliest so far wave of violence in Ukraine started with an attempt by radical protesters to storm the building of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), which prompted fierce clashes with the police. Several buildings in central Kiev, including the office of the Party of Regions, were stormed, looted and set on fire.

Footage from Tuesday’s clashes showed masked rioters firing pistols and rifles from behind the barricades and ramming police cordons with trucks. Reports from the scene claimed both police officers and rioters were hospitalized with gunshot wounds. The official Kiev health department count said that 19 of the victims were shot by live ammunition. Dozens more police officers received serious wounds, with officials noting that many of them were shot in the head or in the neck with “sniper-like precision.”

The article Ukraine: Claims Rioters Seize Over 1,500 Guns appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOR

Former NSA Edward Snowden has been elected to the post of student rector at Glasgow University. He beat three other candidates to the post and has succeeded the Liberal Democrat’s former leader Charles Kennedy. As Eduard Lozanskiy, President of American University in Moscow, said in an interview with the Voice of Russia, Snowden’s nomination symbolizes Europe’s desire for more independence from the US.

Snowden is to become rector in Glasgow University, as we know. Scotland is also a country with controversial political circumstances. Do you think if there is any less obvious background in the choice?

I think it is a pretty symbolic gesture, although nowadays with all this distanced learning technology and access many professors can teach in any place, from Australia to Scotland or to any place in the world. But I think it is pretty symbolic, still. Europe is not very happy with the reveals by Snowden. I believe you heard that Angela Merkel is now talking about a separate network without the US. So, after this disclosure some European leaders became pretty mad and, of course, the intellectuals follow the line. So, I don’t think that an administrative post can be possible when you are so far away. One thing is to talk, but a rector has some administrative functions which would be very difficult to do if you are far away. So, I consider this mainly a symbolic gesture.

And still, if we talk about the attitudes, how do you think Snowden’s controversial world reputation would influence his professional success and recognition among students? How do you think the students in Europe would approach Mr. Snowden? What their attitude would be?

Of course, he is very popular in Europe. Actually, even in the US. I know that in the official Government, Congress and, of course, the establishment are not very happy with Snowden and call him traitor and other names. But some polls show that he is pretty popular in the US as well. And in Europe he is even more popular. So, it is a very strange situation but going back to the University of Glasgow, we know that recently the Scots initiated a debate about withdrawing from England and simply leave the British commonwealth. This is probably an even more dramatic thing than with Snowden.

We’ve just been talking about this symbolic gesture, that it is purely symbolic. Still, if we try to elaborate on that, what does this Snowden’s appointment symbolize?

It symbolizes that Europe wants to be a bit more independent. And we know that in the past Europe was talking about its own military and security system. Now, Merkel is talking about a separate informational system, I’m talking about internet and networking. And the Europeans are showing more and more dissatisfaction with the US. It is not very good. I think, probably, the US should do something to repair this damage before it is too late.

As we understand Snowden would be able to get some access to the informational resources of the university. What reactions might it provide, both among students and other public?

I think that the easiest thing for Snowden to do is maybe simply give a course and talk. It is very easy now, distanced learning is so widespread now and you can get a degree with the help of distanced learning. So, the technology is very simple. It is Skype and Adobe Connection, and many other live stream technologies. So, perhaps, he can teach a course. And I think it would be a pretty popular course. Again, I don’t know what he can do in terms of administrative functions, but being a faculty member, maybe, this is something that many students would like to have and hear his course.

Edward Snowden, 30, fled the US via Hong Kong last May after leaking the evidence of extensive internet and phone surveillance by US intelligence. He was stuck at a Moscow airport on his way to Cuba after his US passport had been revoked. Later, he was granted a one-year political asylum in Russia which expires in August.

The article Snowden’s Nomination As Glasgow University Rector Symbolizes EU Desire For Independence From US – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Peter Tase

Based on the soybeans production levels of 2013 and positive prospects for this year, Paraguay is expected to remain one of the largest food producers in the world, at the same time its organic products will increase their presence in the international markets and promote higher standards of living at home.

Soybean production has earned a special place in the list of Paraguayan commodities that are traditionally exported abroad, the plantation fields for this crop have doubled in the last few years and production levels have multiplied seven times in less than a decade, thanks to the application of a cutting edge technology which requires substantial and long term investments from producers.

During the current year, the prospects for soy bean production are very promising, it is estimated to reach over 10 million tons, a mile stone that will be another record in Paraguay’s list of accomplishments in addition to recovering its global status of being considered as the world’s bread basket.

In the first Forum of Agriculture of South America, held in November 22, 2013, in Foz de Iguazu, Paraguayan soybean production received special attention, thanks to its high quality and growing demand in international markets. Paraguay has the potential to produce more than 9 million tons of soybeans in a surface of more the 3.2 million acres. According to Benjamin Fernandez Bogado of Diario 5 Dias in Asuncion, “growth and cultivation efficiency have ranked Paraguay as the sixth largest exporter of soybeans and oil seed products in the world. Only last year it has generated a revenue that reaches US$ 4.9 billion equivalent to more than 9 million tons of production.”

Agriculture in Paraguay represents over 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product as well as soybean exports have reached more than 50 percent of the foreign currency that has entered the country.

In 2014 are expected similar conditions, price of commodities will have a slight decrease even though a large factory of soy processing is built in Paraguay and that will bring an added value to nation in order to reach suitable prices, while reaching a higher revenue than 2013.

Soybean production in the other South American Countries will continue to increase, it is expected to reach 160 million tons. From this amount 90 million tons of soy will be produced by Brazil, this represents an increase of 8 million tons. On the other hand 77 million tons of corn are expected to be exported by Brazil during this year. Good weather conditions favor a regional cultivation of soy which is estimated to exceed 160 million tons.

For many local experts Paraguayan economy will enjoy a robust growth of well above average during this year. Private companies and economists predict a splendid performance of Paraguayan economy, this is due to the growth of a labor friendly sector which will generate new employment and provide a more sustainable growth if compared to previous years.

Paraguay is positioning itself as a country with a greater political stability, robust financial and economic growth and is becoming a more inclusive society. At the same time Asuncion is starting to establish a reputation in the global markets, with its high quality agricultural products, as well as its admirable economic growth of over 13 per cent (in 2013). This country could emerge as an engine of development in the region and beyond.

According to Diario 5 Dias “the Public Private Alliance which combines public and private capital will further strengthen the banking sector, bring greater flexibility in monetary policy as well as avoid a heavy burden that affect the most vulnerable sectors of society. Agricultural production has generated a great level of trust towards foreign investors who are planning to establish their plants and corporations in various sectors. All these positive elements could bring a successful year ahead of us.”

The article Paraguay To Break Another Record In Soybean Production – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

Rosneft President, Chairman of the Management Board Igor Sechin and Bishkek Oil Company CEO Alexander Niyazov signed a framework agreement regarding purchase and sale of the Bishkek Oil Company Group. The document was signed in the presence of Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambaev and the Chairman of the Russia-Kyrgyzstan Intergovernmental Commission Andrey Belianinov.

According to the Agreement, Rosneft is to acquire 100% in the Bishkek Oil Company Group, one of the leaders of the oil products distribution market in Bishkek. Rosneft will thus acquire a branchy retail network in the Kyrgyz capital, as well as several infrastructure facilities.

Igor Sechin said after signing the agreement: “We are interested in the all-round promotion of the Rosneft brand in the high-potential Kyrgyz market. I believe that this acquisition will allow all Kyrgyz motorists to appreciate the high quality of our fuel, besides setting new high standards of operation and additional services offered at our filling stations.”

The transaction amount remains undisclosed. Transaction is still subject to a number of conditions and approvals of anti-monopoly authorities.

The article Rosneft To Acquire Bishkek Oil Company appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

More than 10 Israeli soldiers fired warning shots into the air close to Lebanese Army troops Tuesday as they recovered parts of an Israeli drone that crashed in mysterious circumstances, security sources said.

Eleven Israeli soldiers crossed the barbed wire technical fence at Kroum Al Shiraki but did not trespass the Blue Line, the sources said. The troops surveyed the area for approximately 15 minutes, during which they scanned the area with a detector.

The Israeli soldiers found three pieces of an Israeli spy drone that had fallen earlier that day under mysterious circumstances next to Mays Al Jabal, security sources said.

As they were recovering the drone’s parts, the Israeli troops shot in the air to discourage Lebanese Army soldiers stationed by the Blue Line from approaching. The Israeli soldiers then withdrew and Lebanese Army and UNIFIL troops mobilized in Mays Al Jabal.

In a statement, the Lebanese Army said an Israeli patrol “tried to pull the wreckage of an Israeli drone and then shot bullets into the air” at 3:30 p.m. following the crash of the aircraft close to the Blue Line in the border area of Mays al-Jabal on the Israeli side.

“The Army units deployed in the area took appropriate defense measures to prevent the enemy’s forces from entering Lebanese lands,” the military added.

Earlier in the day, a convoy of Israeli soldiers driving a bulldozer and two large Hummer SUVs made their way to the Israeli settlement of Metula and began excavations around the technical fence close to the Blue Line.

Israeli troops in military vehicles simultaneously patrolled close to the technical fence, starting at Metula and passing along the Wazzani River before reaching the occupied Shebaa Farms.

Israeli warplanes also flew over the Farms and the occupied Golan Heights.

Four smoke grenades, originating from Israeli artillery emplacements deep in the farms, landed on the western side of Shebaa. An Israeli Apache helicopter also flew over the area.

Original article

The article Israeli Drone Crashes In Lebanon appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ramzy Baroud

On Friday, Feb 14, 92 prisoners escaped from their prison in the Libyan town of Zliten. 19 of them were eventually recaptured, two of whom were wounded in clashes with the guards. It was just another daily episode highlighting the utter chaos which has engulfed Libya since the overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi in 2011.

Much of this is often reported with cliché explanations as in the country’s ‘security vacuum’, or Libya’s lack of a true national identity. Indeed, tribe and region seem to supersede any other affiliation, but it is hardly that simple.

On that same Friday, Feb 14, Maj. Gen. Khalifa Hifter announced a coup in Libya. “The national command of the Libyan Army is declaring a movement for a new road map” (to rescue the country), Hifter declared through a video post. Oddly enough, little followed by way of a major military deployment in any part of the country. The country’s Prime Minister Ali Zeidan described the attempted coup as “ridiculous”.

Others in the military called it a “lie.” One of those who attended a meeting with Hifter prior to the announcement told Al Jazeera that they simply attempted to enforce the national agenda of bringing order, not staging a coup.

Hifter’s efforts were a farce. It generated nothing but more attention to Libya’s fractious reality, following NATO’s war, branded a humanitarian intervention to prevent imminent massacres in Benghazi and elsewhere. “Libya is stable,” Zeidan told Reuters. “(The parliament) is doing its work, and so is the government.”

But Zedian is not correct. His assessment is a clear contradiction to reality, where hundreds of militias rule the country with an iron fist. In fact, the prime minister was himself kidnapped by one militia last October. Hours later, he was released by another militia. Although both, like the rest of the militias, are operating outside government confines, many are directly or loosely affiliated with government officials. In Libya, to have sway over a militia is to have influence over local, regional or national agendas. Unfortunate as it may be, this is the ‘new Libya.’

Some will find most convenient ways to explain the chaos: ‘East Libya is inherently unruly’, some would say; ‘it took a strong leader like Ghaddafi to maintain the national cohesion of a country made of tribes, not citizens,’ others would opine. But the truth is oftentimes inconvenient and requires more than mere platitudes.

Libya is in a state of chaos, not because of some intrinsic tendency to shun order. Libyans, like people all over the world, seek security and stability in their lives. However, other parties, Arab and western, are desperate to ensure that the ‘new Libya’ is consistent with their own interests, even if such interests are obtained at the expense of millions of people.

The New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick reported on the coup from Cairo. In his report, “In Libya, a Coup. Or Perhaps Not,” he drew similarities between Libya and Egypt; in the case of Egypt, the military succeeded in consolidating its powers starting on July 3, whereas in Libya a strong military institution never existed in the first place, even during Ghaddafi’s rule. In order for Hifter to stage a coup, he would need to rely on more than a weak and splintered military.

Nonetheless, it is quite interesting that the NYT chose to place Hifter’s ‘ridiculous’ coup within an Egyptian context, while there is a more immediate and far more relevant context at hand, one of which the newspaper and its veteran correspondents should know very well. It is no secret that Hifter has had strong backing from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for nearly three decades.

The man has been branded and rebranded throughout his colorful and sometimes mysterious history more times than one can summarize in a single article. He fought as an officer in the Chadian-Libyan conflict, and was captured alongside his entire unit of 600 men. During his time in prison, Chad experienced a regime change (both regimes were backed by French and US intelligence) and Hifter and his men were released per US request to another African country, then a third. While some chose to return home, others knew well what would await them in Libya, for reasons explained by the Times on May 17, 1991.

“For two years, United States officials have been shopping around for a home for about 350 Libyan soldiers who cannot return to their country because American intelligence officials had mobilized them into a commando force to overthrow Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader,” NYT reported. “Now, the Administration has given up trying to find another country that will accept the Libyans and has decided to bring them to the United States.”

Hifter was then relocated to a Virginia suburb in the early 1990’s and settled there. The news is murky about his exact activities living near Washington D.C., except for his ties to Libyan opposition forces, which of course, operated within a US agenda.

In his thorough report, published in the Business Insider, Russ Baker traced much of Hifter’s activities since his split from Ghaddafi and adoption by the CIA. “A Congressional Research Service report of December 1996 named Hifter as the head of the NFSL’s military wing, the Libyan National Army. After he joined the exile group, the CRS report added, Hifter began ‘preparing an army to march on Libya’. The NFSL, the CSR said, is in exile ‘with many of its members in the United States.”

It took nearly 15 years for Hifter to march on Libya. It also took a massive war that was purported to support a popular uprising. Hifter, as Baker described, is the Libyan equivalent of Iraq’s Ahmed Chalabi, a discredited figure with strong allies in Washington D.C. Chalabi was sent to post-Saddam Iraq to lead the ‘democratization’ process. Instead, he helped set the stage of the calamity underway in that Arab country.

It is no wonder why Hifter’s return was a major source of controversy. Since the news of his CIA affiliation was no big secret, his return to Libya to join the rebels in March caused much confusion. Almost immediately, he was announced by a military spokesman as the rebels’ new commander, only for the announcement to be dismissed by the National Transitional Council as false. The NTC was largely a composition of mysterious characters that had little presence within Libya’s national consciousness. Hifter found himself as the third man in the military ladder, which he accepted but apparently grudgingly so.

Despite the coup failure, Libya will subsist on uncertainty. Arab and Western media speak of illegal shipments of weapons arriving into various Libyan airports. The militias are growing in size. The central government is growing irrelevant. Jail breaks are reported regularly. And Libyans find safety in holding on tighter to their tribal and clan affiliations. What future awaits Libya is hard to predict, but with western and Arab intelligence fingerprints found all over the Libyan bedlam, the future is uninviting.

The article The Libyan Bedlam: General Hifter, The CIA And The Unfinished Coup – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOA

By Mike O’Sullivan

Growing numbers of Americans have no religious affiliation. Some call themselves skeptics or atheists, and others say they are spiritual, not religious. Now, some are getting involved in a movement called the Sunday Assembly, a sort of church for non-believers.

There is inspirational music, a dramatic poetry reading, and a collection to pay for the rented hall.

The Sunday Assembly movement, which started in Britain last year, has come to Los Angeles, one Sunday each month.

Amy Boyle helped set up the Los Angeles Assembly, which she says is godless.

“The organizers do not believe in a personal god, and we realize that most of the people attending do not,” she said. “We do not spend a lot of time belaboring that point. We feel like, if that is our starting point, then the next question is what do we do from here?”

Meeting other skeptics is part of the attraction of the once-a-month assembly, says Louise Monaco.

“Because a lot of people who are atheists and agnostics and skeptics and so forth feel very isolated in the mainstream world, and it is difficult to find a community in which you can speak honestly and openly without expecting some degree of religious condemnation,” she said.

Instead of a Sunday sermon, a visiting professor of secular studies highlights the blessings of disbelief. The Pew Research Center says one in five Americans has no religious affiliation – and one third of those under the age of 30. Professor Phil Zuckerman says many have no need for Sunday meetings.

“But there is a percentage of people who have walked away from religion who still crave the things that religion provides, other than the supernatural beliefs – like community, things for kids, moral and ethical engagement with the wider community out there, causes for social justice, music,” he said.

Members have the chance to volunteer with charities. Some help children with their studies at an inner city housing project.

Organizer Ian Dodd says members of this movement see some value in religion.

“It has been said before, but we are trying to take the best bits of organized religion and just jettison the part that does not work for us. In a way, we are trying to keep the bathwater while we throw out the baby Jesus,” he said.

And create congregations for growing numbers of non-believers.

The article California Sunday Assembly Offers Church For Atheists appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

The battle for Kiev’s Independence Square has reignited as rioters clash with security forces amid sniper fire. The death toll has increased to 35, the Ukrainian Health Ministry confirmed.

It has also announced that 505 people have been injured in the turmoil, with around 300 of those admitted to hospital.

Rioters have reached the Rada building (the country’s parliament), while the police have been pushed back into Mariinsky park nearby. An emergency evacuation has been declared and parliament members and employees are leaving the building.

Protesters hurled rocks and Molotov cocktails at the police on Thursday morning as violence broke out once again in spite of the day of mourning that had been declared as a mark of respect for the 35 people who have died in the unrest. Ambulances have been sent to Maidan and video footage shows several people carried away on stretchers. Police are throwing tear gas grenades at protesters, according to Unian news agency.

Protesters pushed security forces off Independence Square and seized Oktyabrsky Palace – a major concert hall in the Ukrainian capital – and Hotel Ukraine. Gunfire can be heard throughout the Ukrainian capital.

Furthermore, a dozen police officers have reportedly been captured by demonstrators on Independence Square.

The Interior Ministry of Ukraine said that at least 23 police officers had been injured by sniper fire on Independence Square. The protesters are “openly using fire arms against the Berkut [Special Forces],” wrote the Interior Ministry in a statement.

“The injured are currently receiving emergency medical help,” said the Interior Ministry.

Police say that the sniper fire originated from the roof of Kiev’s Conservatory and targeted officers. The Ukrainian opposition claims that protesters were also caught in the gunfire.

“I think the opposition has crossed the line. I think the policy of negotiations has exhausted itself,” said the deputy head of the Party of Regions, Oleg Tsarev, in parliament.

Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich met with opposition leaders on Wednesday evening where a temporary truce was agreed to mourn the victims of the mass unrest. Hardline opposition group Right Sector rejected the truce and urged its followers to continue the offensive.

In response to the continuing violence in Ukraine, the international community has threatened sanctions if both sides do not return to the negotiation table.

Foreign Ministers from Poland, France and Germany were scheduled to meet with Yanukovich and opposition leaders on Thursday, but left the city unexpectedly for security reasons.

US President Barack Obama spoke out against the violence in Kiev on Wednesday evening, warning of “consequences.”

“We’ll be monitoring very carefully the situation, recognizing that, along with our European partners and the international community, there will be consequences if people step over the line,” Obama said.

The article Ukraine Death Toll Rises To 35 As Truce Fails appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

Two Saudis wanted for their involvement in unrest in the eastern town of Awamiya and two policemen were killed on Thursday in a clash in the predominantly Shiite area, the Ministry of Interior announced.

Awamiya has been at the forefront of a protest in the Eastern Province.

Local media reported on Thursday that a court has jailed seven protesters for up to 20 years for joining a demonstration in the area.

A specialized court in Riyadh on Wednesday sentenced the young defendants to between six and 20 years in prison and imposed travel bans of the same duration as their jail terms.

They were convicted of “taking part in protests,” “chanting slogans against the state,” and “possessing and making Molotov cocktails,” AFP reported, quoting local newspapers.

Original article

The article Saudi Arabia: Four Dead In Clash In East appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IPCS

By Ahmad Khan and Beenish Altaf

The very mention of the word nuclear more often than not invokes a sentiment of antagonism towards nuclear energy. Nuclear pessimists often associate this word with the mushroom cloud, the Three Mile Island incident, the Chernobyl incident, and the Fukushima disaster, among others.

This pessimistic outlook often tries and succeeds in overshadowing the enormous potential of nuclear for peaceful uses. The argument that nuclear energy is a curse for humanity, while it may seem logical to most laypeople,  does not do justice to the concept of impartial judgment.

The argument of ‘no to nuclear energy’ is against the very spirit of scientific discovery, which has revolutionised the human civilization in the 20th century. In fact, the discovery of the atomic structure marks the beginning of the modern world.  Pakistan is the only Muslim country, which has successfully utilised nuclear technology for both peaceful purposes as well as solidifying its defence against its adversary.

The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) has successfully built, operated and maintained Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) with an experience of over 45 years. NPPs are not the only products of PAEC; it has also successfully harnessed Nuclear energy in the fields of food, agriculture, medicine, industry, environment, and Human Resource Development. It has established four agriculture and biotechnology institutes across Pakistan and built 18 state-of-the-art cancer hospitals all over the country. Besides, in the industry and environment fields, Research and Development (R&D) has resulted in enormous successes over the years.

In the past two decades, the continuing energy crisis has been one of Pakistan’s biggest challenges, and has imposed significant threats to its national security. A country’s energy resources – energy reserves in particular – are considered a crucial criterion of the national security matrix. At present, Pakistan is listed among those countries that have dangerously risen in the energy security risk index in past few years. According to International Energy Security Risk Index 2012, Pakistan’s index scores were 1,365, whereas India’s and China’s scores were 1,045 and 1,098 respectively. The economic cost of the energy crisis is a heavy burden for Pakistan.

The situation is dire due to several reasons: energy hydel power generation depends on seasons; coal reserves are not being used effectively for electricity generation; renewable energy generation isn’t even considered, given the government’s inability to afford establishing and maintaining such initiatives on large scales.

While there exists a stalemate on investing in long term energy plans for want of funding, there is one option that Pakistan has experimented with – and has been proven a viable option for several countries world over.

The option of generating energy using nuclear resources stands out as a potential solution to the country’s energy crisis. Nuclear pessimists believe that this form of energy is expensive and dangerous but are unable to comprehend the extents of its sustainability and affordability (tariff cost).

The PAEC has planned to expand its capacity from 730MWs to 8000 MWs – a substantial amount to meet the current and future energy demands. Nuclear energy, along with thermal, hydel, and alternative energy sources (wind and solar) will be sufficient to pull Pakistan out of the energy crisis.

At present, three NPPs are operational, and two more – CHASNUPP 3 and CHASNUPP 4 – are under construction. Additionally, the ground-breaking ceremony for the Kanupp-II (K-II) and Kanupp-III (K-III) projects have also taken place. However, a campaign objecting to the site, design and construction of the K-II and K-III has been perpetrated by some of the nuclear pessimists.

This campaign is based on fears of humanitarian and ecological consequences, and over the potential natural disasters that could occur near the NPP sites. Scientifically, chances of an earthquake are rather slim. Although the design of the ACP-1000 reactor is based on an existing one, it has been upgraded with the passive safety measures.

Furthermore, one of the major concerns raised by nuclear pessimists is that of a potential terrorist strike to sabotage reactor. However, there exist 25000 trained security personnel and a three-layer security system that have been put in place by the Strategic Plans Division for securing these facilities – dispelling the myth of unpreparedness to attacks by anti-national elements.

The bottom line is that none but nuclear-based sources can generate the tremendous amount of energy that Pakistan is in need of, today. The challenges and prospects to utilise this option for future power production and other peaceful uses are plenty; however, turning away from nuclear energy is neither rational nor beneficial in out attempts at addressing our acute energy crises.

Ahmad Khan and Beenish Altaf work for the Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad. They can be contacted at infostrategicvision@gmail.com

The article The Nuclear Energy Debate In Pakistan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SAAG

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

I had mentioned many times before that the Judiciary in the Maldives is the weakest link in Maldives’ march to democracy. This view is confirmed once again when the Supreme Court suo motu issued notices to the Election Commission members last week for contempt of court and disobedience of orders on an event that occurred four months ago!

Stranger still, the Supreme Court is relying on evidence on responses made by the Election Committee members on the repeated postponement of Presidential elections in the People’s Majlis. This is in violation of Article 90 of the Constitution that says that no person will be subject to any enquiry, arrest, detention or prosecution with respect to anything said in the people’s Majlis or any of its committees if such a statement is not contrary to tenets of Islam. This provision has specially been added to provide the Election Commission a constitutional guarantee without fear or favour and independent of other pillars of democracy.

One should recall what Navi Pillai – UN Human Rights Commissioner said on the interference of the Judiciary in the Elections. She said on 30th October- I quote “I am alarmed that the Supreme Court Maldives is interfering excessively in the presidential elections and in so doing is subverting the democratic process (emphasis mine) and violating the rights of Maldivians to freely elect their representatives.”

Presidential elections took place in November despite many hiccups and when the Election Commission was busy preparing the elections to the Majlis on 22nd March, the Supreme Court delivered a “googly” by issuing notices to the four members of the Election Commission to appear before them for contempt of court and disobedience.

This act of the Supreme Court is questionable on all grounds- on law, morals and the timing when more than three months have passed since the elections. This prosecution is taking place after the Supreme Court suo motu framed regulations this month on 6th Feb that allowed the Apex Court to initiate hearings and act as both the complainant and the judge in the trial!

Worse still, the Court declared that no party has the authority to question or criticise its decision as per Article 145 ( c) of the constitution that states that the court shall be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution, the law or any other matter dealt with by the court of law.

The case actually relates to the annulment of the first round of presidential elections held in September 2013 as well as disobeying a Supreme Court order by dissolving the eight political parties that could not muster enough members to be eligible to be recognised as a political party. The order of the Supreme Court amounts to “We are the Gods- Do not question us and if you do it, it will be at your peril, even on what you say in the parliament.”

The point to be noted is that the Supreme Court summoned the four members of the Election Commission on the 12th to an unannounced trial and case documents were given to the accused just a few minutes before the trial began!

The Defence Lawyer of the Election Commission made two major points

1. The court should specify the charges, the specific statements made – at which location, time and date that amounted to contempt of court.

2. The Court should specify which of the commission’s actions constituted a disobedience of which order.

Instead of responding directly to the submission, the Chief Justice is said to have asked the Defence lawyer Siraj to consider to the “ extent that he understood them.” The Chief Justice appears to be an angry man.

Incidentally, four of the judges out of the five member bench, were involved in the decision to annul the first presidential election. Of the four, one is Judge Ali Hameed is the one who has been implicated in a series of sex tapes!

The MDP has rightly accused the court of attempting to further subvert the authority of independent Election Commission in the run up to the Parliamentary elections.

It looks that someone is instigating from behind, the Supreme Court to put pressure on the Election Commission who are already too busy in preparing the electoral rolls and to register afresh those who are in different places outside their place of residence. It is not clear what the motive could be.

The article Maldives: The Supreme Court Strikes Again – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Monish Gulati

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Afghan President Hamid Karzai were in Ankara to attend the 8th Afghanistan-Pakistan-Turkey Trilateral Summit which was hosted by President of Turkey, Abdullah Gül from Feb 12-13, 2014. The theme of the summit was “Sustainable Peace in the Heart of Asia”. The seventh trilateral was held in December 2012.

The main focus of this year’s summit was on security in Afghanistan after the NATO troop pull-out, a negotiated settlement with the Afghan Taliban and measures to restore peace and promote reconciliation in Afghanistan and the region. The summit outcome however was “uninspiring” and it is possible that the forthcoming elections in Turkey and Afghanistan may have damped the proceedings. While Turkey’s ruling AK Party gets ready for local elections next month in what could prove to be the most difficult poll it has contested since coming to power in 2002, Afghanistan is bracing itself for the key political transition being effected through the presidential and provincial elections slated for April this year.

Afghanistan-Pakistan-Turkey Trilateral

The Turkey-Afghanistan-Pakistan trilateral process was launched in 2007 and provides a unique platform for furthering high level political dialogue, security cooperation and development partnership among the three countries. Separate sessions are organised on the sidelines of the summit for foreign ministers, military officials and business leaders from the three countries. Accordingly, Sharif was in Ankara with his minister for defence, advisor on national security and foreign affairs and the chairperson board of investment among other high ranking military and civil officials. Pakistani Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif was also in Turkey for the summit and to hold bilateral meetings with Turkish chief of general staff (CGS) and land forces commander. Karzai too had his complementary set of ministers in attendance including the foreign minister, minister of national defence, head of the High Peace Council (HPC) and the national security advisor.

The leaders at the summit discussed ways to promote political dialogue and security cooperation, training of security and law-enforcement agencies and intelligence sharing among the three countries. The importance of the ongoing election process in Afghanistan was highlighted and the joint statement of the trilateral meet indicated a common resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms. While joint projects for socio-economic development were suggested as a measure to build mutual trust and solidarity in the region, the three leaders called for continued international support for Afghanistan’s socio-economic development beyond 2014.

Istanbul Forum

The three leaders were also briefed by the president of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB) on the work of the 8th Istanbul Forum for economic cooperation (or the business session on the sidelines of the trilateral summit) held on Feb 13. The Istanbul Forum was also established in 2007 under the aegis of the TOBB, Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) and Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The forum members agreed that strengthening logistics connectivity between the three countries and further to Central and South Asia will provide a strong impetus to economic integration growth. In this regard they extended their support to Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC)’s Six Corridors Initiative and efforts to revitalize the Silk Road. In December 2013, during the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to Pakistan, a memorandum of understanding between Pakistan Railways and BALO, a logistics company established by the TOBB, had been signed. The forum members also urged the three governments to sign and ratify the ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA) and Trade Preferential System among members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (TPS-OIC) to increase intra-ECO and intra-OIC trade to remove trade barriers.

Military Cooperation

Military exercises with the aim to develop cooperation between the special forces were jointly conducted by Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey from Aug 18-28 last year. The exercises were conducted in the Turkish province of Isparta .Later, Turkey and Pakistan exchanged visits by defence delegations under the High Level Military Dialogue Group, an institutional mechanism created in 2002 for boosting defence ties which has had eight meetings so far. The Turkish Air Force chief flew to Islamabad on Jan 27, followed by a visit of the Pakistani defence production minister from Jan 28 to Feb 3.

Pakistani and Turkish officials exchanged views on the post-2014 scenario in Afghanistan, progress on ongoing defence projects, including upgrades in Turkey for Pakistani F-16 fighter aircraft and construction in Karachi of a logistics support ship for the Pakistani navy by a Turkish contractor, as well as possible technology transfer and exports of military equipment and services.

Assessment

The trilateral summits have also been a forum where Turkey has attempted to narrow the differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan on contentious issues and work towards peace in Afghanistan. However, the last two summits (November 2011 and December 2012) had been preceded by the September 2011 assassination of the chief Afghan peace negotiator and former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and the December 2012 assassination attempt on Asadullah Khalid, director of National Security of Afghanistan, respectively. Post these incidents the atmosphere at the trilateral summits was not conducive to trust building between Pakistan and Afghanistan and consequently there were no political breakthroughs.

In the case of the 2014 trilateral the situation took a different turn. Afghanistan on Feb 13 released 65 Taliban militants despite protests from the US military. After which Karzai said that the US must stop “harassing” his country’s judicial authority and “respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty” on the issue of release of prisoners. The spokesperson for Afghanistan’s HPC, Maulavi Shazada Shahid, went a step ahead and blamed the US for insecurity in Afghanistan and praised Osama bin Laden.

During the current trilateral, Turkey’s President Gul met with the Afghan president while Erdogan met with Nawaz Sharif. After the separate morning meetings, all the four statesmen held a joint meeting at Cankaya Presidential Palace. But there was no commitment from Pakistan on getting the Afghan Taliban to negotiate with Kabul, despite Afghan Foreign Minister Ahmet Osmani suggesting that the Taliban was “under the control of the Pakistani government”.

However, Pakistan and Turkey affirmed their support to Afghanistan. Pakistan agreed to extend the stay of Afghan refugees in the country. It was also decided that foreign ministers of Pakistan and Turkey would visit Afghanistan after the latter’s presidential election scheduled in April to extend their cooperation to Kabul. Another positive from the trilateral was focus on economic integration as a confidence and peace-building measure.

India would note that Turkey as one of the two, NATO, OIC member and ISAF contributing countries (the other being Albania) has appreciable political clout not only in Afghanistan but also with the Central Asian republics. Given its recent efforts to improve relations with Iran, Ankara’s efforts to bolster Pakistan’s role in the region may come at the cost of some Indian interests.

(Monish Gulati is a Research Fellow with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com)

This article appeared at the South Asia Monitor.

The article Turkey Playing Up Pakistan’s Interests In Afghanistan? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By Pratima Koirala

Nearly three months after the successful election to the second Constituent Assembly CA), Nepal’s parliament finally elected Sushil Koirala of Nepali Congress (NC) as the nation’s prime minister. Koirala, the president of Nepali Congress, is the 37th prime minister of Nepal and the sixth prime minister after the first CA election. Koirala won with majority of votes, securing 405 out of 553 voters.

He is now all set to lead the new coalition government, replacing the bureaucratic government led by Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi that was formed on March 14, 2013 to hold the second CA election. There remain two challenges for the current prime minister – first, to promulgate a new constitution within the stipulated time period of one year; and second, to maintain the independent spirit for a sustainable constitution.

Koirala was the sole candidate in the elections that were held under the majority provision, backed by the second largest party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) CPN-UML), the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP) and other small parties. Reconciling their differences over power sharing that was beginning to deepen the political impasse, the NC and the CPN-UML signed a seven-point agreement on Feb 9, 2014 paving the way for Koirala as the new prime minister.

As per the agreement between the two parties, the CPN-UML would give conditional support to the NC-led government. Their demand included the suspension of elections for the post of new president, vice-president and CA chairperson before the implementation of the new constitution.

However, CPN-UML tacitly secured the post of CA chairperson with explicit support from the NC. Another point in the agreement states that the CA will continue with the incumbent President Ram Baran Yadav, and Vice- President Parmanand Jha, who were endorsed by the parliament. In incorporating this provision constitutionally, the parties also agreed to amend the Interim Constitution.

Another clause of the agreement was to draft the constitution within a year according to the spirit of all the agreements reached in the past, right from the 12-point agreement reached in New Delhi in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2008, the Interim Constitution in 2007 and the mandate expressed by the people in the November 2013 election.

They decided to uphold the historical declaration of Nepal being a Federal Democratic Republic that was the result of the first meeting of the last CA in 2008. However, the pro-monarchy party RPP refused the point, assuming that it would be a violation of the mandate of the recent election. And lastly, within one week of government formation, the cabinet will have to announce a code of conduct and Common Minimum Programme for its members.

Importantly, the negotiation shows the clever manipulations of the two parties – NC and CPN- UML – that have come to hold the important positions, while keeping the nation busy with conjectures over the making of the constitution. Sharing the responsibility with its primary coalition partner, Koirala on Feb 10, 2014, announced, “Responsibility to draft a democratic constitution has shifted to the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. We are hopeful that we will deliver a new constitution within a year. I will definitely work with the other parties to fulfill this historic responsibility.”

Though the political development is positive, the history of negotiations, however, shows that the current give-and-take deal between the two allied partners will be anything but sustainable. Also, in the past, the political parties dissolved the CA despite the Peace Agreement signed in 2008 to bring political stability in the country. With complete disregard for the present and future of the country, the leadership in Nepal has had disagreements on questions of national importance, and hence, proved to be a disappointment. Bearing witness to the past, the present, though significant, has to stand the test of time for a ‘promised’ future envisioning a Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The challenges lie ahead for the new government.

Significantly, the politics of power sharing will prove to be a hurdle in deliverance. Since the basis of government formation is outright bargaining, the future seems bleak. There are two possibilities, if the two ideologically opposite allies do not split ties. First, the strategy of bargains leaves the impending constitution far from being formed. Two, considering all the points of bargain how far will the constitution formation resist compromise? With different conceptualisations of Federal Structure the current alliance risks losing the gained support. Earlier in 2008, the question of Federalism was the main bone of contention, leading to the dissolution of the First CA.

With the failure of the idea of Naya Nepal, the onus for a stable political government lies with Koirala and his allies. Today, Nepal stands at the crossroads, of proving its political credibility to the international community or losing whatever minimum it has gained so far.

(Pratima Koirala is an NGO activist from KAT-KATHA. She can be contacted at pratima.jnu2010@gmail.com)

This article appeared at South Asia Monitor.

The article Nepal’s Political Credibility At Stake – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By James M. Dorsey

A mounting number of reports of deaths of foreign workers in Qatar increases pressure on the Gulf state and world soccer body FIFA to urgently address their security and working conditions. While the reports leave questions unanswered they also point to lax efforts to ensure that workers are not exploited by corrupt middle men and human resource managers and are mentally and physically prepared for work in high summer temperatures and often sub-standard conditions.

Pressure mounted this week with the first confirmation that high death rates are prevalent not only among Nepalese workers in Qatar – the focus of international trade unions and human rights groups until now – but also in other communities. The Indian embassy in Doha reported that more than 500 Indian workers had died in Qatar in the last two weeks. Indians account for 22% of the estimated 1.2 million workers in Qatar – a number that is expected to increase substantially as work begins on infrastructure exclusively related to the Gulf state’s hosting of the 2022 World Cup.

The Qatari committee responsible for delivery of stadiums and other World Cup-related infrastructure had hoped that its release last week of a 50 page document setting out standards for the living and working conditions of foreign workers would counter widespread criticism and repair significant reputational damage already suffered by the Gulf state. The International Labour Organization (ILO) and Amnesty International welcomed the document as a step forward but noted that there was much more that Qatar needed to do, including address the issue of its kafala or sponsorship system, which severely limits workers’ rights and makes them dependent on the whim of their employers.

The longer it takes Qatar to address fundamental issues, the more international criticism of its labour environment will fester, and the more difficult it will be for Qatar to achieve a key goal of its hosting of the World Cup and its overall investment in sports: the creation of the kind of soft power it needs to compensate for the fact that it will never have the hard power to defend itself.

Similarly, festering criticism will make it increasingly difficult for FIFA to argue that as a sports association it lacks the power to force Qatar to implement the kind of change trade unions and human rights groups are demanding. FIFA has so far insisted that depriving Qatar of its hosting rights is not an option. There is no guarantee that FIFA can maintain that position in the absence of fundamental change.

To be fair, Qatar has gone considerable length to address the issue by engaging with multilateral and non-governmental international organizations; setting improved standards for workers and looking at ways of cutting out corruption, abuse out of the migration cycle particularly in the recruitment phase; and ensuring proper adherence and policing of existing rules and regulations. The Qatari labour ministry said this week that it had significantly hiked its number of inspectors, had sanctioned 2,000 companies last year and another 500 since the beginning of this year for labour law violations and taken steps to improve workers’ access to healthcare and their ability to file complaints.

Yet there are steps Qatar could take even without addressing the kafala system as well as demands that workers have the right to freely organize and bargain collectively that could significantly alter the country’s political and social structure. These include making the standards for workers’ living and working conditions set out by the committee responsible for delivering World Cup infrastructure mandatory in Qatar as a whole. So far, only the Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy and Qatar Foundation have issued updated workers’ charters. While these were drafted in close cooperation with the labour ministry, which has echoed in statements much of their language, those standards have yet to be formally adopted for the country as a whole fully embedded in legislation.

Greater transparency would also help Qatar counter criticism. This would include detailing the kind of labour law infringements for which companies were sanctioned, what those sanctions entail and what steps are being taken to address the issue.

Given Qatar’s financial resources, it could take its efforts to rid the recruitment system of corruption by helping primarily Asian countries supplying labour prepare workers for employment in the Gulf state and ensure that they are physically and mental fit for working in harsh temperatures – a responsibility the supplier countries have failed to shoulder.

While the number of workers’ death reported so far is unacceptable and likely to rise, it remains unclear how many of those were work-related although that is likely to be a majority. Workers often do not have a precise understanding of the conditions they will be working in nor do they undergo a proper health check before their departure.

In addition, Qatar has yet to crack down on the practice of citing a heart condition for a workers’ death even if it involved a work-related incident because that entails less bureaucracy and allows companies and authorities to fend off investigations and post-mortems.

Recent high-profile cases of professionals, including soccer players, who were banned from leaving the country for lengthy periods of time because of labour disputes and the travails of an American family accused of responsibility for the death of their adopted daughter highlight not only problems associated with kafala but also with Qatar’s legal system as a whole.

Addressing these issues and taking further steps to improve workers’ conditions would help Qatar demonstrate that it is serious about change but will not make the issue of the kafala system or workers’ political rights go away. Qataris are divided with progressives seeing the World Cup hosting as an engine of social, if not political change, and conservatives fearing that Qatar’s system of an enlightened, secretive and opaque autocracy as well as the control of society by Qatari nationals who account for at best 15% of the population is at stake.

That is a discussion Qataris no longer can avoid even if they have yet to realize that the train has left the station. It is one that put the very nature of Qatari politics and society on the table and will resonate not only in Qatar but throughout the Gulf whose systems are similar.

The article Mounting Workers’ Deaths Increase Pressure On Qatar, FIFA And Asian Countries – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Robert J. Burrowes

If we want to take appropriate action to fix something that is not working properly, then it is necessary to understand, precisely, the nature of the problem. Obviously, if our diagnosis is inaccurate, then the solution applied is unlikely to work. This principle of needing to understand a problem accurately before we can devise and implement an appropriate solution applies in all fields of human endeavour, whether it be a mechanical, scientific, health or environmental problem, or a conflict at any level of human relationships.

The most important impediment to understanding and resolving any problem or conflict is our fear of knowing the truth. We spend a lot of our time trying to deal with problems and conflicts by deluding ourself about the cause and/or the solution necessary.

For example, the truth is that most of us are addicted to using violence in one or more of the following ways (among many others): we want to reserve the right to use violence to control or ‘discipline’ our children, we want to pretend that our unhealthy diet is not the cause of our ill-health if we like eating all of those unhealthy foods, we want to be able to consume more than we really need and pretend that the ongoing destruction of the natural environment and the accelerating climate catastrophe are unrelated to our own behaviour, and/or we want to buy those cheap consumer goods made by exploited workers (and sometimes even child labor) in those factories in Africa, Asia and Central/South America where the largest corporations are less encumbered by such considerations
as a requirement to pay fair wages and taxes, to address health and safety concerns, and to consider other human rights and environmental issues. And we want to blame other people for our conflicts if looking ourselves deeply in the mirror might tell us something about ourselves that we don’t want to know.

But if we want to deal adequately with any problem or conflict, first of all we need to be courageous enough to acknowledge the truth, including any truth about ourselves. Why is this so difficult? Why have we become afraid of the truth?

Like all of our fears, the fears that tell us that we cannot understand a problem and that we cannot fix it originate in our childhood experience.

Evolution has given all human beings an enormous array of potential
capacities for knowing the truth in a diverse variety of circumstances.

These include sensory perception such as sight, hearing, smell and touch to provide accurate information about the external world; feelings such as thirst, hunger, nausea, dizziness and physical pain to provide accurate information about the state of our body and what it needs; memory to store and provide access to learning from past experience; a ‘truth register’ to detect lies and other misinformation; intuition to ‘listen’ to and remain in touch with ‘the big picture’ of life as a whole; conscience to enable us to make and act on those difficult moral choices that, for example, might ultimately require us to act against social conventions or unjust
laws; more feelings such as fear, happiness, emotional pain, joy, anger, satisfaction, sadness, sexual ones and a vast variety of others to tell us what is happening for us in any given situation and to give us the power to behave appropriately in this context when the time is right; and intellect to acquire, interpret, analyse and evaluate information from these and other sources, such as written material.

Tragically, however, much of modern socialisation seriously inhibits or even destroys the development of these genetic potentialities – by inflicting what I have called ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence on us throughout our childhood: see ‘Why Violence?’
http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’ http://anitamckone.wordpress.com/articles-2/fearless-and-fearful-psychology/ – because they would make us powerful in ways that run counter to what society wants: as a result, we each become a ‘socially-constructed delusional identity’ (student, employee/soldier, citizen) who is readily manipulated and coerced by society instead of becoming the powerful individual – our ‘True Self’ – that evolution intended.

For most of us, one outcome of this violence is that we learn to not trust ourselves and to fear the truth that is internally communicated to us. As a result, decisive action, outside that which is obviously socially endorsed, becomes impossible.

In contrast, powerful individuals who know the truth are not unthinkingly obedient. Powerful individuals trust their ‘inner voice’, as Gandhi called it: ‘You should follow your inner voice whatever the consequences’.

Despite the fact that our fear is often telling us that some problems are monumental and there is no way forward (which, for example, our fear might tell us in relation to the vast environmental challenges we now face), in fact there are sensible, straightforward solutions to virtually all of our problems. And while this will mean that we often need to change our own behaviour, most of those changes will require little effort and can be easily accomplished. Of course, the genuinely powerful individual is able to take responsibility for making changes that set an example and inspire
others to act too. In contrast, if we wait for others to take the lead or
if we lobby elites to act on our behalf, we will usually find the
experience pretty disempowering and this will reinforce our fear that problems cannot be solved.

So, for example, if you want to take powerful action on the full range of pressing environmental problems yourself, then you can certainly do so.

One way is to participate in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on
Earth’ http://tinyurl.com/flametree and to invite others to participate as well.

And if you are unafraid to know and act on the truth – that human violence in its many manifestations now has extinction howling outside our door – then you might also like to consider joining the worldwide movement to end all violence by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’
http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com

The bottom line is this: Can you still hear your inner voice? And do you, like Gandhi, have the courage to follow it ‘whatever the consequences’?

The article Why Do We Fear The Truth? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By ISN Security Watch

With talks now resumed in Geneva, Shashank Joshi asks whether the P5+1 Joint Plan of Action (JPA) with Iran will bear fruit or not. He believes that curtailing Tehran’s nuclear program is possible, but only if negotiators resolve six open questions about its future direction.

By Shashank Joshi

Iran and the world powers – grouped into a bloc known as the E3+3 – have finally ironed out the details of the interim nuclear deal that they agreed upon in Geneva, November 2013. That deal, known as the ‘Joint Plan of Action’ (JPA), took effect on 20 January and will run for a renewable six months.

US President Barack Obama has publicly stated that the odds of converting this limited, short-term agreement into a longer-term deal are no more than 50/50. Remaining disagreements over the eventual size and scope of Iran’s nuclear program, political hostility towards diplomacy in both Tehran and Washington, and continued tension over issues like the Syrian civil war are all sound enough reasons for his caution. Indeed, the history of diplomacy is littered with agreements that lose momentum and remain stuck at the interim stage, the Israel-Palestine peace process being a prime example. Complicating matters further, sceptics contend that Iran’s ultimate aim is to force world powers into accepting the status quo. So, with Iran and the E3+3 now reconvening to discuss the parameters of this final status, what is the likely way forward?

Six Key Issues

The JPA – with its acknowledgement that Iran is to be permitted a mutually defined enrichment program – has changed the terms of the debate. As President Obama noted in December 2013, ‘we can envision an end state that gives us an assurance that even if they [Iran] have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity’. Accordingly, the debate is no longer about whether Iran will be permitted to enrich uranium, but how much uranium it will be allowed to enrich. Under a final accord, Iran is to be permitted a ‘mutually defined enrichment program’. This amounts to a conditional recognition of Iran’s long-claimed right to enrich, albeit on more rigid terms than Tehran would have wanted.

Consequently, there are now six key issues confronting negotiators: 1) how many centrifuges should Iran be allowed?; 2) should Iran be permitted to use or conduct research and development with more sophisticated centrifuges (it presently uses only inefficient, first-generation technology)?; 3) how much enriched uranium will Iran be allowed to accumulate, and in what form?; 4) at which locations will Iran be permitted to enrich uranium, and will this include the deeply-buried facility at Fordow near Qom?; 5) how will Iran’s under-construction heavy-water reactor at Arak – capable of producing plutonium if a reprocessing plant is added – be treated?; 6) and perhaps hardest of all, how should the IAEA-supported allegations of Iran’s past nuclear weapons research be addressed?

If Iran and its interlocutors can agree on answers to these six questions, the nuclear dispute would be largely resolved. However, they remain far apart at present. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has insisted that he will not “dismantle” any centrifuges, while other Iranian officials have said that they will not shut down Fordow or Arak. In addition, every Iranian leader from the Supreme Leader downwards continues to assert that Iran has never sought nuclear weapons. However, these contentious issues may not be as intractable as they seem when we boil each side’s position down.

Core Red Lines

Iran’s core red line is simply that it must maintain some enrichment as part of a final deal. In return, the West must be satisfied that Iran has no ongoing weapons-related activity, and that it cannot quickly produce fissile material. There will be intense debates within the Western camp over what “quickly” means and how much verification is enough. These will be matched by equally intense debates in Tehran over how much enrichment is enough. But the degree of potential overlap is greater than observers often imagine.

For example, Iran could make a large number of centrifuges inoperable by removing key parts and storing the disabled machines under tight international safeguards. Tehran could thereby claim that it had not, technically, “dismantled” these, but the West would be satisfied that the equivalent outcome had been achieved. Iran could reduce its number of remaining centrifuges to between 2,000 and 4,000 and agree that its total stockpile of enriched uranium would never rise above 800kg. Tehran could claim that this would be all it needed as an insurance policy against disruptions to foreign fuel supplies, and the West could be confident that this would leave Iran a year away from producing a bomb’s worth of fissile material if it chose to do so. Iran could agree to convert Arak into a more proliferation-resistant light water reactor (LWR), allowing it to produce energy – always its stated rationale for a nuclear program – while easing Western concerns that plutonium might be extracted. Indeed, the head of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, former foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, said this month [February 2014] that Iran would be open to modifying Arak to produce less plutonium in order to “allay the worries”.

This still leaves a number of key questions that will inevitably need answering. For instance, how long should any restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program last? Any comprehensive agreement will tie Tehran’s hands for a certain period, but the JPA implies that Iran will be treated as any other state when this time lapses. Iran will want this period measured in months, and the US in decades . Moreover, how can Iran’s desire to continue research and development be squared with the West’s desire to lock it into using only its current crop of slow, first-generation centrifuges? However, there’s also room for compromise hereoiweverH: Western powers might agree to transfer other civil nuclear technologies to Iran in exchange for Iranian restraint.

Stuck on No. 6?

The hardest issue of all may well be answering the sixth question: how to deal with allegations of past Iranian nuclear weapons research. For one thing, this overlaps with the IAEA’s own engagement with Iran. The JPA established a Joint Commission comprised of experts from Iran and the E3+3, and part of its remit may be to work with the IAEA in resolving these concerns. But for Iran to admit to nuclear weapons research would be entirely contradictory to the insistence of President Rouhani and other Iranian leaders that Tehran has never sought nuclear weapons. An artful compromise may be necessary: one where the E3+3 – and particularly the United States – agrees not to impose any further sanctions in response to complete Iranian revelations of any illicit activity they conducted in the past, as long as all details are revealed.

A longer-lasting deal – one that would end a crisis that has dragged on for longer than a decade – is, therefore, far from impossible. Both sides have compelling reasons for compromise. Iran wants to ease the burden of crushing sanctions, whereas the West wants to forestall the collapse of diplomacy, the renewed growth of Iran’s nuclear program, and the prospect of war.

But the more difficult issues are more political than technical. Although the US Congress’ push for new sanctions has slowed, hardliners in both Washington and Tehran remain committed to maximalist positions, and will seek to portray compromise as acts of surrender. The challenge for negotiators is to work fast and achieve the outlines of a final deal within the six month lifetime of this JPA, because buying more time may prove politically impossible.

Shashank Joshi is a Research Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, where he focuses on South Asia and the Middle East. He is also a PhD Candidate at Harvard University, and holds degrees from Cambridge and Harvard Universities.

The article Making The Joint Plan Of Action Work – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Geopolitical Monitor

Jax Jacobsen -

It has been wonderful to see the show of solidarity that Western nations have demonstrated before and during the Sochi Olympics, rallying in protest on a global stage against Russia’s awful law targeting homosexuals. Here in Halifax, a rainbow flag proudly flies in front of City Hall, while Germany proudly marched in the opening ceremonies wearing uniforms that distinctly looked like rainbows. Google altered its logo, not an unusual event, to reflect its stance against this openly discriminatory and unjust law which has been enacted and enforced in Putin’s Russia.

It’s a masterful how the international community has found a way to actively participate in the Sochi Olympic Games, yet pointedly express a deep-seated opposition to this heinous legislation. And it has been wonderful to watch much of the world come together in defending gay rights.

That being said – all of this postulating against the law is playing right into Putin’s palm.

First, let’s step back a bit.

Putin was faced with a very real conundrum after Sochi was awarded the 2014 Olympic Games by the International Olympic Committee in 2007. Bringing the Olympics to Russia was assuredly a coup de grace for his government, which has long aimed to return Russia to its (rightful, in some minds) predominant place in world affairs.

But hosting the Olympics also brings an at-times uncomfortable focus on the host country, which would undoubtedly raise uncomfortable, if necessary, questions about corruption and political repression in Russia.

Thankfully for Putin, he is no novice when it comes to diverting the public’s attention when necessary. A relevant skill, really, for any dictator – and an absolutely necessary one for a country which looms so large on the world stage as does Russia.

Months of intensifying domestic rallies against Putin’s regime throughout 2012, led by Alexiy Navalny, brought global attention to Russia’s less-than-democratic system of governance, and many observers awaited the fall of Putin and his cronies from power. How could a government withstand week after week of growing crowds disrupting the streets of Moscow, demanding reforms and an end to Putin’s particular style of power?

Putin was saved by the awful tale of a US woman who, after adopting a Russian child, sent the child back on a plane, unaccompanied, with a note strapped to his shirt, detailing how he was too difficult to handle and that she was returning him to his home country.

The Russian leader adeptly seized upon this opportunity, railing against adoption of Russian children by foreigners – and most particularly adoptions by US citizens – riling up the populace enough to sufficiently ride out the storm that had been brewing just outside the doors of the Kremlin.

Serious threat, diffused.

And so, as the Olympics approached, Putin knew precisely what to do: implement a law that would surely raise the ire of many a Western commentator, and in doing so drown out any penetrating criticisms of the Russian government.

There is no doubt that the anti-homosexual law engendered a few friends for Putin in Russia’s vast interior. Bolstering domestic support for his regime is integral to any politician’s hold on power. But Putin knew that by implementing such a controversial law, he would create such a firestorm in the international media that all the focus would be on this law – thus protecting his regime and his abuses of power from any real criticism in the international press.

This is where Google et al. are misguided. The abuses of Putin’s power lie not solely in the ludicrous targeting of homosexuals, but also in the crackdown against legitimate opponents of the regime, journalists working to uncover the truth, and the many, smaller injustices suffered by the Russian citizenry – all of which have long persevered under Putin’s rule.

Putin recognized this. He understood in the trend of Western governments legalizing same sex unions that his particular law would become a flashpoint, instantly and effectively inflaming global opinion, and allowing gay-rights campaigns to handily supplant the calls for democratic governance that might have otherwise emerged.

So long as the focus remains on the law, and not anything beyond the law, Putin has won the public relations battle surrounding the Olympics.

This is why it’s so important not to limit protests to the anti-homosexuality law – which will either disappear or at the very least, cease to be as rigorously enforced after the Olympic flame is extinguished in Sochi – and to extend these criticisms to all aspects of Putin’s governmental system, from his crackdown on media to his imposed limitations on a viable opposition movement.

It may be too late; criticisms of the Olympics visiting Sochi hit a high point well before the Olympic flame was lit, and in true Olympic spirit, politics have taken a back burner to sporting competitions.

Jax Jacobsen is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com

The article Rage Over Sochi Anti-Gay Law Precisely What Putin Wants – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.