There are over one million juvenile gang members in the U.S., more than three times the number estimated by law enforcement, according to a recent study.

“Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the United States,” which was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, challenges many popular demographic stereotypes about gangs.

The study found that an average of 2 percent of youth in the U.S. are gang members, with involvement highest at age 14, when about 5 percent of youth are in gangs. Youth in gangs also come from all types of backgrounds.

“The public has been led to believe that gang members are black and Latino males and that once someone joins a gang they cannot leave a gang, both of which are patently false,” said David Pyrooz, assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University.

Pyrooz, along with his coauthor Gary Sweeten, associate professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, said that these stereotypes are portrayed by Hollywood and law enforcement.

The study also found that gangs have high turnover rates of 36 percent, with about 400,000 youth joining gangs and another 400,000 youth leaving gangs every year. This means that gangs have to constantly recruit new talent to their groups, not unlike service-industry or other occupations where employees frequently quit after a short period.

“Being a gang member is not all that it is cracked up to be, which is something kids realize once they get involved and find out that the money, cars, girls, and protection is more myth than reality,” said Pyrooz.

Law enforcement severely undercounts juvenile gang members, with national estimates at 300,000, less than one-third of what was found in the study. The reason, Pyrooz said, is because “law enforcement uses a top-down strategy, recording older and more criminally-involved youth as gang members, which ignores younger and more peripherally gang-involved youth, all of whom are captured in the bottom-up strategy we use in this study.”

Because gang membership has so many negative health and life outcomes, even after someone leaves a gang, relying on law enforcement gang data alone would under-diagnose problems youth violence and ways to respond to it, the study found.

These youth represent an important group to be targeted for prevention and intervention programs. The findings from this study are important for kids, parents, and healthcare professionals to better understand and respond to gangs in our schools, neighborhoods, and care facilities based on facts and not popular perceptions.

“Rich and poor, black and white, male and female, and one and two-parent households — what matters is that law enforcement and healthcare clinicians avoid the stereotypes of these kids when working with this population.” said Sweeten.

The authors of the study looked at the number of gang members, the characteristics of youth in gangs, and how many youth join and leave gangs each year in the U.S. They analyzed questions about gang membership that were included in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, nationally representative data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The post US Juvenile Gang Members Top 1 Million appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader has sent a letter to Barack Obama, adding that Ayatollah Khamenei used his secret contacts to forward the letter to the U.S. president.

The Wall Street Journal quotes an unidentified Iranian diplomat saying the letter was written in recent weeks and is a response to the letter Obama sent to the Iranian leader last October.

The letter, according to the report, contains statements regarding the possibility of cooperation between Iran and the U.S. in the fight against Daesh (ISIS) after an agreement is reached in the nuclear negotiations.

The report indicates that the letter is “respectful” but contains no commitments or promises.

Receipt of the letter has not been confirmed by the White House, according to The Wall Street Journal; however, Iranian officials have said in recent months that some of Barack Obama’s letters have gotten a response, although it was not indicated precisely who responded.

The post Newspaper Reports Iran’s Khamenei Sent Letter To Obama appeared first on Eurasia Review.

New trumped-up charges carrying a possible 12-year jail sentence were brought this week against leading independent journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who has been in pre-trial detention for more than two months, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Arrested on December 5 for supposedly inciting a colleague to attempt suicide, Khadija Ismayilova is now charged with large-scale embezzlement, illegal trading, tax evasion and abuse of authority under articles 179.3.2, 192.2.2, 213.1 and 308.2 of the criminal code.

“We reiterate our call for Ismayilova’s immediate release and the withdrawal of all the charges against her,” said Johann Bihr, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “This journalist’s only crime was investigating corruption at the highest government level and helping the political prisoners that fill Azerbaijan’s jails.”

The new charges follow a December 26 raid on the Baku bureau of Radio Azadlig (the Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), which Ismayilova ran until just over four years ago. Radio Azadlig was closed and placed under seal after being searched.

Ismayilova’s lawyer, Fariz Namazly, said the authorities were just trying to compensate for the flimsiness of the initial charges brought against her. The new charges are boilerplate in nature, inasmuch as human rights defenders such as Intigam Aliyev, Rassoul Djafarov and Anar Mamedli are being held on similar ones.

Azerbaijan is ranked 162nd in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index after registering one of the biggest falls in score of any of the 180 countries in the index because of an unprecedented crackdown of the few remaining critics and independent voices.

The post Azerbaijan: New Charges Brought Against Well-Known Detained Journalist appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Increasing life expectancy, an aging population, more chronic diseases and constant clinical and technological advances add up to skyrocketing health care costs. At the same time, resources are limited and budgets are stretched.

An urgent rethinking of the health care systems in advanced economies is required. In this rethinking, a key question emerges: Are the available resources being used in the best possible way?

That is the question addressed by Núria Mas, IESE professor and holder of the Jaime Grego Chair of Healthcare Management, and Wendy Wisbaum, consultant on health policy and public health, in “The ‘Triple Aim’ for the Future of Healthcare.”

Better Health, Better Care and Lower Cost

According to Mas and Wisbaum, the solution to the challenges facing health systems boils down to achieving what is known as the “triple aim”: better health, better care and lower cost.

Is the “triple aim” possible? The authors believe the answer is yes. And they defend their belief with evidence from Europe and the United States that there is room for improvement at current spending levels. For example, recent research from the U.S. finds that approximately 30 percent of health care spending does not improve patients’ health. If that 30 percent could be redirected to make patients healthier, real progress could be made.

The Remedy, in Seven Steps

Living up to the “triple aim” is tough, but not impossible. The authors propose seven steps toward this three-pronged goal:

1. Measure, measure and measure. What gets measured can be improved. We should promote transparency and the exchange of information in order to establish metrics to compare different clinical procedures, hospitals and geographic areas.

2. Compare. As a starting point, look to the experiences of other countries, regions and hospitals in order to detect possible flaws and locate opportunities for improved clinical procedures and resource management.

3. Understand what works and why. Identifying success stories is the first step. But in order for the results to be replicated, it is essential to understand the mechanisms underlying each success. They are not always obvious, and they may be conditioned by the peculiarities of different health systems.

4. Promote a value-based approach. When making decisions, we must look beyond the costs. It is not just about spending less, but spending better. Resources must be allocated according to the value they bring in terms of improved health, while taking into account the costs and benefits of alternative treatments.

5. Utilize technology. Technology’s growing impact on the delivery of health services is a proven and accepted fact. Yet we are still far from tapping its full potential. The application of information technologies promises to reap rewards both in terms of better health and cost savings. Technology can help us customize treatments, promote the self-management of chronic illnesses and enable real-time access to important information.

6. Redesign payment systems. The “triple aim” requires a more integrated vision of health care, with greater emphasis placed on prevention and disease management. And this new focus requires rethinking payment systems and incentives so that they are aligned with longer term and broader societal goals.

7. Change the culture of health. We must continue efforts to educate and raise awareness in our society to promote healthier habits (prevention, control and adherence to prescribed treatments) and innovations to improve health systems.

What Do the Experts Say?

The article by Núria Mas and Wendy Wisbaum is the opening chapter in the book also called The Triple Aim for the Future of Healthcare, published by FUNCAS in January 2015. Coordinated by Mas and Wisbaum, this book also includes chapters by economists and health experts reflecting on best-practices for implementing the “triple aim” and rethinking health systems.

The experts tackle the topic from various angles, including the importance of leadership in health systems, the search for efficiency, the critical role of integrated care, planning and incentives, the increasing relevance of patient-centered systems, collaboration among health professionals and trends in the health care workforce.

The final section includes an article about wages and job stability in the long-term care (LTC) sector in which the authors — including IESE professors Marta Elvira and Carlos Rodríguez-Lluesma — warn of the potential danger of workforce shortages for providing long-term care in Europe.

The post Seven Steps Toward A Better And More Affordable Health System appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Matt Wood and Candace Clement*

One of the greatest public policy victories in decades is just around the corner.

The issue? Net Neutrality — the principle that keeps Internet users in charge of their online experience.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has confirmed that he’ll base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, which will give the agency the strong authority it needs to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with online content. Wheeler described those rules as “the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC.”

The Federal Communications Commission will vote on Wheeler’s proposal on February 26. In the meantime, companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are lobbying hard to weaken it.

If the FCC ignores the industry pressure and approves Wheeler’s rules, activists who have fought for a decade to keep the Internet open will have plenty to celebrate.

Title II, which governs other communications networks like cellphones and land lines, ensures that carriers can’t discriminate against users. It protects our rights to transmit the information of our choosing between points of our choosing. It helps ensure that ordinary people get the same service big corporations do.

That means your telephone carrier can’t divert your call to Domino’s when you’re trying to dial your local pizzeria. And it means that your Internet service provider can’t make Wal-Mart’s website load faster than your local hardware store’s.

Wheeler’s embrace of Title II marks a huge leap forward after a series of stumbles. In fact, over the last decade, the FCC has made blunder after blunder in its attempts to protect the Internet’s level playing field.

The trouble began when industry lobbyists pushed the agency to declare that broadband providers no longer offered “telecommunications services” but “information services” — erasing the line between the Internet itself and the speech it conveys.

For a long time the FCC tried to have it both ways, preserving some protections for broadband users even though it had given away its authority to protect them. That’s why the FCC twice lost in court on its previous rules — not because the rules were bad, but because the FCC offered the wrong justification for them.

As the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. When a federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s previous open Internet rules last January, Net Neutrality supporters grabbed the opportunity to advocate for strong rules that could survive legal challenges.

Within two weeks of the decision, over a million people (the first of several million to take action) urged the FCC to fix the problem. The message: Just do Title II.

Title II doesn’t just restore principles of nondiscrimination. It also enables the FCC to preserve universal and affordable access, competition, and consumer protections for broadband users.

Lawmakers stuck in the industry’s pocket will try to tear this victory down. In turn, Internet service providers will search for ways to skirt the law — and they’ll sue to overturn it. But Internet users now stand on the strongest legal footing possible to win this fight in Congress and in the courts.

As more details about the FCC’s proposal emerge, the push from providers will become even more aggressive. And there’s plenty to watch out for as those details come to light.

But no one should underestimate the significance of a victory on Title II. Everything else will grow from this win.

*Candace Clement is the Internet campaign director for Free Press, where Matt Wood serves as policy director. FreePress.net

The post Net Neutrality’s Biggest Deal Ever – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

South Africa President Jacob Zuma says he will undertake a fact-finding mission to understand why power stations in the country, some of which have collapsed in recent times, have gone for long periods without being maintained properly.

Addressing a New Age Business Briefing on Friday morning, after delivering his State of the Nation Address in Parliament, the President said South Africa’s consumption demand had skyrocketed after 1994 because government had to connect millions of citizens to the electricity grid who had previously been excluded.

This, he said, meant the maintenance of the grid must be a priority.

“The demand has rocketed after 1994 and therefore undermined the capacity that we have and that is what we are dealing with.

“I can’t understand, as the President, why we should have power stations that are not serviced. You can’t have one power station failing after the other, and that is what I am going to look into as President,” he said.

When he took to the podium to deliver his speech on Thursday, the President revealed short, medium and long-term plans to deal with the energy challenges.

As part of the short-term measures, R23 billion has been allocated to the power utility to stabilise its finances.

While calling on citizens to use electricity sparingly, and also encouraging individuals and households to switch to gas, the President announced that government would pursue alternative energy sources, and detailed a comprehensive energy procurement plan.

Speaking on Friday, he reassured the nation that South Africa was not in an electricity crisis.

“We have got a plan. We have a challenge and we have got a solution. If you have a solution to deal with the problem, then you don’t have a crisis.”

SA not intolerant

Responding to questions from guests and television viewers, the President said the recent attacks on foreign-owned shops in Soweto was regrettable, and that while South Africa was generally not an intolerant country, more needed to be done to unite Africans across borders.

“We can’t have a situation where people have an attitude towards other Africans. I think we need to do more to educate people that we are one people, as people in the continent. We are just divided by borders. It is a matter that needs political understanding, tolerance,” he said.

Asked if the religious sector could play a role in social cohesion and dealing with violent public protests like in Malamulele, in Limpopo, the President said proposals to deal with the challenges were in the pipeline.

Regarding the burning down of state property during protests, President Zuma suggested that people might not have dealt with the trauma of apartheid.

“We had unlike many other countries a system in the country which was very racist and became very violent. That provoked a counter violence. That is when you had a problem with the authority, destroy and burn.

“We need to find a way to say authority is no longer an enemy. We have agreed with the religious leaders that we will meet and come up with proposals to deal with these issues. People have not dealt with the psychological trauma of [apartheid],” he said.

Disruptions to the SONA

Meanwhile, President Zuma said Parliament needed to take a stand against the onslaught on the rules of the House, referring to the disruptions that took place when members of the EFF had to be ejected from the National Assembly Chamber during the SONA due to unruly behaviour, and the DA staged a walk out.

“Political parties do have that understanding that the democracy allows heckling, but the Presiding Officer has the last word. I hope this country first and foremost understands that it takes a few people to make chaos.

“I was sitting there and thinking – this Parliament has a problem, and it is time for Parliament to stand up and deal with this matter. I think that the country must realise that in that party we have got a problem,” he said.

The post South Africa: Zuma To Look Into Maintenance Of Power Plants appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By G. Balachandran

Seemingly, the highlight of President Obama’s visit was the announcement that India and the United States had come to an understanding on the two major issues that stood in the way of the successful full implementation of the Indo-US nuclear deal. While the first issue related to some of the provisions of the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), the second concerned a successful negotiation of the administrative arrangements for the implementation of the India-US 123 nuclear agreement. The issues in respect of CLNDA related to: (i) the conformity of CLNDA with the provisions of the Convention on Supplementary Convention (CSC), signed – but not yet ratified – by India; (ii) Sec. 17(b) of CLNDA, which allowed for Right of Recourse against the supplier; and (iii) Sec. 46, which allowed for legal cases against the operator under Acts other than the CLNDA. The administrative arrangements under discussion were with respect to the accounting and tracking of US-supplied nuclear materials and materials produced with the use of US-supplied equipment.

Neither side initially chose to share any further information on the subject. The Indian Foreign secretary merely stated the following:

“Based on three rounds of discussions in the Contact Group, we have reached an understanding on two outstanding issues namely civil nuclear liability and the administrative arrangements for implementing our 123 agreement. Let me underline, we have reached an understanding. The deal is done. Both these understandings are squarely within our law, our international legal obligations, and our practice. Insofar as liability is concerned, during the Contact Group meetings the Indian side presented our position concerning the compatibility of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which we have signed, and responded to questions from the US Members concerning this position.”

In a sort of official statement, US Ambassador to India Richard Verma was reported in the media to have said – although the US Embassy refused to either clarify or deny his having ever made such a statement – that the liability issue was to be resolved through a “memorandum of law within the Indian system” that would not require a change of the Indian law. Later on, the spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External affairs clarified the situation by the mere statement that “We will indeed be providing you that information and that will be copious in nature, it will answer all your questions.” This was done a few days back in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) format, although this still leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, it does not answer how the understanding between the two sides will be formalised. On the contrary, the FAQ answers raise further questions that need to be answered. Obviously, a FAQ will not carry much weight in business decisions that have to be made in respect of nuclear transfers.

This silence of officials from both sides as well as the alleged ambiguous statement of the US Ambassador left the field open for much speculation by commentators. These speculations ranged from: “the “memorandum of law — designed for, and enforceable in, the Indian system — that is at the heart of the new accord is aimed at stemming the right of recourse against suppliers and permitting tort claims to be pursued only in India, thus blocking victims from filing claims in the supplier’s home country” to “it seems the Modi government has committed itself to providing a written legal assurance to the US that Indian victims will not be allowed to sue American suppliers under Section 46 of the CLNDA.”

While the exact nature of the understanding between the two countries is yet to be announced and in fact may never be officially released, it is possible to offer an outline of the possible “memorandum” with possible understandings on all the three liability issues as well as the administrative arrangements.

This commentary will deal only with the issues surrounding Sec. 46 of CLNDA. It will be followed by three commentaries dealing with (i) the compatibility of CLNDA with CSC provisions; (ii) Sec. 17(b) of the CLNDA dealing with the “Right of Recourse”; and (iii) the administrative arrangements to operationalise the 123 agreement.

Section 46 of CLNDA

Sec. 46 merely states that:

“The provisions of this Act shall be In addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator from any proceedings which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator.”

Before proceeding further, some words of explanation outlining the environment under which the “memorandum” will operate need to be offered:

1.  It is extremely unlikely, given the current and near future distribution of membership in the two Houses of Parliament that the CLNDA can/will be amended in any manner to address the various concerns;
2.  It is not possible either for any government or any current or future statute to prohibit any citizen from instituting proceedings against a supplier;
3. It is not possible for any government or government lawyer or for that matter anybody else to guarantee that a judge will not allow such a case to be proceeded with;
4.  It is not possible for any government or for that matter anybody, lawyer or otherwise, to guarantee the outcome of such a proceeding, before the proceeding starts, except, of course, the  judge;
5. No government can give a special preferential assurance to any one country, i.e., no government can give a special preference in respect of Sec. 46 to only the United States. It is very likely that such an action may be in violation of one or more of India’s international commitments or obligations.

So what can be expected from any understanding or “memorandum” exchanged between the two governments on the issue of Sec. 46 of CLNDA?

The suppliers’ concern about Sec. 46 arose from the possibility of their facing an unspecified, and potentially unlimited, liability on account of an action brought against them under the provisions of Sec. 46. Under the environment described above, what assurances can be given to suppliers about the non-possibility or near impossibility – a 100 per cent certain assurance is impossible – of any such liability ever arising as a result of an action under Sec. 46?

Such an assurance will rest on one of the cardinal principles of a modern functioning democracy – the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature. Under this doctrine, while it is the prerogative of the legislature to pass laws, it is the judicial interpretation of the meaning of the statute that is meaningful and authoritative in a case before the court.

In Shanker Raju Vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that:

“In a court of law or equity, what the legislature intended to be done or not to  be done can only be legitimately ascertained from what it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication – Where the Legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme of a language of Statute, it is the duty of the Court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy and without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such express intent of legislature.”

Elaborating further, the judges held that:

“In a court of law or equity, what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from what it has chosen to enact either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication. Where the Legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme of a language of Statute, it is the duty of the Court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy and without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such express intent of legislature. Hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the meaning employed by the Legislature if such meaning is clear on the face of the Statute. If the Statutory provisions do not go far enough to relieve the hardship of the member, the remedy lies with the Legislature and not in the hands of the Court.”

With this as background, how would a case against a supplier be interpreted in a court? Fortunately in the case of the CLNDA, irrespective of whether one belongs to the “textualist” (the law is embodied in the language of the statute, as expressed in its plain meaning) or the “intentionalist” (the law is to be interpreted relying on the legislative history of the statute) schools, it is reasonably certain that a case under Sec. 46 cannot stand judicial scrutiny.

Sec. 46 is very clear from the language of that section that an action under it can be brought only against the operator (“be instituted against such operator.”). Therefore, a textual interpretation of the statute would not support action against the supplier.

What about the “intentionalist” interpretation of the statute? Fortunately due to the untiring and ceaseless efforts of the Left parties, especially the CPI and CPM, in Parliament this too was made abundantly clear during the passage of the CLNDA.

Considering the very high level of emotionalism against foreign, especially US, suppliers, during the debate on the bill – in view of the just then announced “Bhopal Gas” verdict – the Left parties pressed for inclusion of “suppliers” in Sec. 46, not once, but three times during the progress of the bill in parliament.

First, when the bill was being examined before the Parliamentary Standing Committee (SC) on Science and Technology, an amendment to Sec. 46 was put forward by CPM member Mr. Saman Pathak. Stating that “Further, as the Section stands, it may be limited to only operators and not suppliers,” Mr. Pathak proposed an amendment as follows:

“Clause 46: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Nothing contained herein shall exempt the Operator and/or the Supplier of any material, design or services, from any proceeding which may, apart from this Act, be instituted against such person, either in any Indian or any external court.”

The amendment was rejected by the Standing Committee. Mr. Pathak then submitted a Dissenting Note stating:

“Since these changes have not been accepted, 1 am constrained to draw the conclusion that the provisions of the Bill will unduly favour the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipments. This is being done to make the provisions compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). I am not convinced why India should join the CSC.
I am of the form opinion that any legislation on civil nuclear liability should keep the interests of the Indian people, who may be affected in a nuclear accident, as its core concern. The provisions suggested in the Bill and those proposed by the Committee fail to ensure that. Hence my dissent on the Report.”

The second opportunity to include suppliers in Sec. 46 was during the debate of the bill in the Lok Sabha. On this occasion, another CPM member, Shri Basu Deb Acharia, moved an amendment that proposed substituting the phrase “shall exempt the operator and/or the supplier of any material, design or services, from any proceeding which may, apart from this Act, be instituted against such person either in any court located in India or abroad” for “shall exempt the operator from any proceeding which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator.” This proposed amendment, too, was rejected. As the report of the Lok Sabha stated, “The amendment was put and negatived.”

The third opportunity arose during the debate on the bill in the Rajya Sabha. During the debate, two left party members, Mr. D. Raja of the CPI and Mr. Sitaram Yechury of the CPM moved two separate amendments to Sec. 46 of the bill. As reported in the Rajya Sabha proceedings:

“Mr. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are you pressing?
SHRI D. RAJA (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I move:
(No. 16) That at page 13, for lines 33 to 35, the following be substituted, namely:-
“46. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator or supplier of the material, equipment or services from any proceeding which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator or supplier”.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is one more amendment (No. 4) by Shri Sitaram Yechury. Are you pressing, Mr Yechury?
SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (WEST BENGAL): Sir, I move:
(No. 4) That at page 13, for lines 33 to 35, the following be substituted, namely:-
“46. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator or the supplier of any material, design or services, from any proceeding which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such person either in any Indian or any external court.”
The questions were put and the motions were negatived.
Clause 46 was added to the Bill.”

The above possible explanation of the resolution of the Sec. 46 dilemma should go a long way towards allaying the fears of suppliers both Indian and foreign, even though they are not iron clad assurances either at the bilateral or legal levels, which is not possible. There are still a few things that can upset the above reasoning. A future parliament may decide to amend the CLNDA either way – explicitly including the supplier or excluding the supplier. A future Supreme Court may decide to override or reinterpret the Doctrine of binding precedent and hold that the present CLNDA does admit the possibility of a case against a supplier. Or, who knows, the Supreme Court may even hold the CLNDA to be unconstitutional! After all, it has already admitted a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of CLNDA, which is yet to be decided upon.

The above discussion does not, by any means, preclude any business/commercial transaction between the suppliers and the operator. It only points to the obvious fact that such decisions, as in any other business decision, will carry some risks. It is up to the various players to judge the costs and benefits of entering into business contracts and make sound financial decisions from their own vantage points.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/issuesinIndiansnuclearliabilitylaw_gbalachandran_100215.html

The post Some Issues In Respect Of India’s Nuclear Liability Law – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As the American cable news entertainment channels focus on the artificial American Sniper controversy, the Obama administration’s issuance of its second and final national security strategy (the last one was done in 2010) was buried deep in the back pages of the newspapers. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t choose to know much about U.S. foreign policy or American history, and therefore even the small minority that watches cable news or movies about such topics thinks they represent reality. For example, Clint Eastwood, a Republican, uses his movie to helpfully rewrite history to confirm George W. Bush’s fantasy conflating pursuit of the 9/11 attackers with his unrelated and disastrous invasion of Iraq. No matter that the heroically portrayed Chris Kyle, the sniper, is part of a U.S. force that invaded the country in violation of international law for no good reason and is killing an Iraqi insurgency —which is trying to fight off the foreign occupiers and their oppressive Shi’i government—that didn’t exist before the invasion. And Eastwood’s alternative reality, like leftist Oliver Stone’s similar blockbuster film fantasy a few years ago about that liberal icon’s assassination, has a good chance of hardening in the public mind.

That’s because most Americans (unlike say Europeans), including U.S. policymakers, are ignorant of their own history, even recent history— and especially where foreign policy is concerned. And because they are foggy on this history or choose to ignore it, American policymakers have difficulty developing a coherent strategy for the United States. Obama’s strategy fails this test too, but it at least recognizes the limitations of U.S. military power in remodeling countries around the world to American liking. In an introduction to the strategy, Obama writes,

… America leads from a position of strength. But this does not mean we can or should attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world. As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite. And in a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes.

Given the recent dumping of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives (American and local) in losing wars (OK, I said it) in Afghanistan and Iraq and the current U.S.-induced or -aggravated chaos in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, this statement should be obvious on its face. It is apparently not to administration critics, such as the ubiquitous Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and his sidekick Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), however, who berate Obama for running a weak foreign policy that is too reluctant to use American power.

When Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, defended the new strategy by saying, “There is a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War. We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle.” Again, this conclusion is seemingly obvious—reminiscent of the more restrained foreign policy of President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1950s. Eisenhower would deftly deflect foreign policy “crises” and sent U.S. forces into battle on only one curious occasion during his eight years in office—Lebanon in 1958. Ike was proud of the fact that no American service member lost a life during combat while he was president. During his tenure, Eisenhower faced similar criticism that he was a “do-nothing” president, yet historians now correctly see that he was secretly on top of things and that he merely regarded doing nothing as doing something. Obama is less confident in his ability to resist pressure from the military and other vested interests for an interventionist American foreign policy, because he didn’t serve in the military and he didn’t defeat the Nazis, as did Ike.

So despite his laudably cautious nature (relatively speaking), Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, was slow to get out of Iraq, got back into Iraq and now Syria, was goaded by the French into overthrowing Libya’s leader, and has escalated Bush’s drone wars in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen— all in Islamic countries, thus continuing Bush’s documented fueling of resultant Islamist radicalism the world over.

Obama is now being pushed into providing arms for the Ukrainian government to battle Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists and putting more forces on the ground to fight the ISIS in the Middle East. He should avoid both of these options, because Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence, and ISIS is more of threat to the Middle East region that it is to the United States.

If Obama wants a lasting legacy in foreign policy, he should be the first president in the post-Cold War era (the elder George Bush and after) to create a coherent and sustainable national security strategy that deals with the current limited real threats to U.S. security and hedges against the future rising of China. After the disastrous and costly wars, the great recession, and consequent accumulation of monstrous levels of national debt, the United States needs to work toward real economic renewal through cutting defense spending (which Obama and the Congress are currently toying with increasing) and slashing massive entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. In the long-term, all indices of national power—including military expenditure—rest on a strong economy.

Thus, to reduce defense spending, the United States, in all regions of the world, should let regional powers take the lead unless a potentially catastrophic security crisis erupts—the crises in Ukraine and involving ISIS do not reach that level. This “balancer-of-last-resort” strategy would save trillions of dollars, allow the renewal of American power well into the future, save American and foreign lives, and reduce Islamist radicalism worldwide and consequent blowback terrorism, thus making America more secure and less prone to curtail unique civil liberties.

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

The post America Needs More Focused And Restrained National Security Strategy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

An emergency meeting of foreign ministers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) here on Saturday expressed deep concerns over the worsening political and security situation in Yemen and asked the United Nations to intervene immediately.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khaled Al-Attiyah, who chaired the extraordinary meeting, called on the international community, particularly the UN Security Council (UNSC), to solve the crisis in Yemen.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Al-Attiyah said: “The will of the Yemeni people should be honored in line with the GCC-sponsored initiative for peace and its executive mechanism, as well as the recommendations of the national dialogue.”

The GCC ministers mulled a proposal to formulate a common strategy to respond to the crisis.

Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah, deputy foreign minister, led the Saudi delegation to the meeting.

The GCC foreign ministers, who asked the warring parties in Yemen to fully abide by the relevant UN resolutions and to comply with the provisions of the GCC initiative, hoped that the people of Yemen will find a consensus-based solution to the current political impasse.

The GCC said that the Gulf bloc remains committed to a stable, peaceful and democratic Yemen, which is in the interest of global peace and security.

The extraordinary meeting, chaired by Qatar’s Foreign Minister Al-Attiyah, discussed “the latest developments in Yemen,” said a SPA report.

Speaking to Arab News, a senior GCC official said that coordination among the six member states was under way to formulate a firm stance toward the situation in Yemen.

The source said that a GCC action plan may be announced soon, which will go beyond just taking some measures or closing the diplomatic missions in that country.

“This Houthi coup is a dangerous escalation, which we reject and is unacceptable,” said the official before the meeting started in Riyadh.

The GCC foreign ministers also urged the UN to take measures against the Houthi power grab and restore legitimacy to Hadi’s outgoing government.

Saudi Arabia has joined several Western states in evacuating staff from Yemen after a power grab by the rebels.

The official said the GCC is aware of Iran’s role in the current turmoil in Yemen, reiterating what has become a common belief over a strong link between the Houthis and Tehran.

Yemen shares a 1,770-km border with GCC states mainly Saudi Arabia to the north and with Oman to the east.

A 2012 Gulf-sponsored initiative facilitated a smooth transition of power in Yemen following a public uprising that demanded the departure of former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The meeting was attended by Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa, foreign minister of Bahrain; Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah; Omani minister responsible for foreign affairs; Anwar bin Mohammed Gargash, UAE’s foreign minister; Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, first deputy premier and foreign minister of Kuwait; and Abdullatif Al-Zayani, GCC secretary general.

The post Yemen: GCC Calls For UN Action appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jeff Smisek, CEO
United Airlines, Inc.
PO Box 06649
Chicago, IL 60606-0649

Dear Mr. Smisek,

Two stories have come to public attention about your airline, which invites some serious introspection by you and your fellow executives who make millions of dollars a year.

The first appeared in the January 23, 2015 edition of the Wall Street Journal titled, “Suddenly Flush Airlines Debate How to Use Cash.” The article posed the choices: for increased services for consumers and reduced fares; for investors to cut debt and buy back stock. There was no indication of a cash dividend increase. Then this paragraph: “United returned $320 million to shareholders last year through share repurchases, and it said Thursday it could accelerate its buybacks with extra cash flow.” Stock buybacks – really a poor use of productive capital – are favored by executive suites as a way to elevate executive compensation compared to cash dividends.

Now comes the second story that was not so widely publicized. Your subordinates have been instructed to outsource 2,000 union jobs under a vendor bidding process that you will throw against your loyal skilled workers to match, or else. Twenty-eight stations at airports are affected in this round. You hope to save $2.7 million out of the pay of long-time United Airlines workers (many who make $15 per hour and benefits) on the tarmac at dawn or dusk, and rain, snow or shine.

Do these two stories prod you to wonder what’s going on in your monetized mind that excludes common decency and elemental labor management relations? Do you think that vendors’ lower paid, inexperienced labor pool is not going to cause you problems down the road?

And does a merged airline (with Continental) planning more unproductive stock buybacks to pile on the $320 million in 2014 have any qualms squeezing 2,000 already hard-pressed workers with families out of $2.7 million (not to mention other similar plans, past and future), astonishingly at a time of record profits? Squeezing appears to be your corporate policy tool for your passengers as well – for example squeezing their leg room, squeezing them by innumerable fees and penalties and squeezing their time by delays on the phone in responding to their questions.

Why is it that a far tighter oligopoly of domestic airlines than before deregulation mimics each other’s race to the bottom in labor and consumer relations, instead of mimicking better practices by Southwest Airlines with a far more consistent record of profits and no layoffs? Does this perverse behavior also make you wonder?

Mr. Smisek, you’re pushing the envelopes in ways that reflect a power trip – that is if you can get away with it, you will. At this point I am reminded of the courteous UAL of the Sixties, Seventies and early Eighties with services and attentiveness, with a fine record of domestic maintenance standards. That history should provide you with some contemplation about the role of top management over the years.

Consider this advice: drop the risky outsourcing; treat your employees as Southwest does; and stop ratcheting up the fees for baggage, changes of reservations, etc. Unless, that is, you believe that customer backlash, investigations by media and lawmakers and lower job gratification are not anywhere on your horizon.

Your response is welcomed.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

PO Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
Cc: Interested Parties

The post Ralph Nader: Letter To Jeff Smisek, CEO Of United Airlines appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Local legend has it that it was in the Syrian Desert near present day Aleppo, some Egyptians claim otherwise, that a bird of unsurpassed beauty without equal lived for centuries and then suddenly suffered ferocious immolation. Miraculously to emerge from its still smoldering ashes with restored and even enhanced majesty.

Currently visiting a representative sampling of four years of war damaged archeological sites in Syria one witnesses some fairly massive destruction some of which has been reported in the international media. But the visitor also comes upon stunning yet still relatively modest progress that many local communities are making in protecting and restoring mankind’s shared global cultural heritage. Voluntary work and dedication in the midst of war and frequent mayhem.

To date these measures are mainly local initiatives relying on limited community resources, with government encouragement, toughened looting laws and enforcement and facilitating local communities with repair and reconstruction permits. While simultaneously the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), of the Ministry of Culture cooperates and encourages these patriotic efforts and works with INTERPOL among others to retrieve stolen treasures. So far the local initiatives don’t receive much central government cash given the many current urgent societal needs. And a paucity of foreign material assistance is arriving. But the dearth of the latter is partially offset by the expanding international interest and concern for what has been happening to archeological sites in Syria and what needs to be done urgently by way of protection and restoration.

This observer has visited a number of very impressive repair and reconstruction projects now being worked on at archeological sites around Syria. Local community achievements here in Syria bring to mind the resurrection of the Phoenix with hope for salvaging and restoring our shared global heritage.

Two examples are return visits by this observer the past week to archeological sites first toured nine months ago, shortly after armed gangs and looters were expelled and the sites were returned to the local community’s protection.

Saint Mary Church of the Holy Belt (Um al-Zennar, Homs

Before the current crisis there were an estimated 100,000 Christians living in the Old City. Most fled in February 2012 and as of May, 2014 approximately100 remained. One neighbor of St. Mary’s informed this observer during his visit two days after rebels vacated the area on May 9, 2014 that all “Symbols related to Christianity were removed. Even from inside houses. If you had a picture of the Virgin Mary, they removed it.” In neighborhoods near the old city, churches were damaged to varying degrees. The Greek Orthodox Church of Saint George was completely destroyed. Others, including the Greek Catholic Church of Our Lady of Peace, the Church of the Holy Spirit, and the Protestant church, were severely damaged.

St Mary’s of the Holy Belt is built over an underground church dating back to the mid first century and tradition has it that this seat of the Syriac Orthodox archbishopric contains a venerated relic which the local Bishop explain as he shoved rubble from around the altar. That relic is claimed to be a section of the waist belt of Mary, mother of Jesus. This observer was inspired by the number of parishioners and others form the neighborhood, including many Muslims one church official told me, as I watched several from the community who were covered in dust and soot cleaning out the war rubble. Syrians, almost without exception from my experience are deeply connected with their cultural heritage and do not distinguish all that much among its origins. Rather it appears that they are proud to help others protect and rebuild their damaged religious and cultural sites and focus more on the task of restoration of their heritage than fixing blame.

Nine months ago his observer surveyed the damage to the compound with church clergy and examined the still smoldering ‘bible pit” where just before their departure, armed groups built a fire of Bibles, church documents, religious icons, art works and sacramental liturgical vestments worn by Priests during Holy Communion and the performance of their religious duties. Shifting through the ashes one found the remains of stoles, manipules, dhasubles, daimatics, surplices, and choir cassocks as well as several burned crosses. Returning this week I saw that the community volunteers had recently created an excellent garden on top of the jihadists burn-pit and that locally financed major restoration work was underway. St. Mary’s nave and sanctuary has been cleansed of the thick soot and the heavy smell of burned furnishings and timbers. Locals have literally retrieved pieces of priceless art from the detritus, pieced them together and re-hung them. The Parish house is being rebuilt.

Crac des Chavlier, Homs

Less than an hour’s drive to the west toward Lebanon, a trip facilitated at half a dozen checkpoints once ID was verified, and the frequently raise eyebrows and question, “What’s an American doing around here?” this observer returned after nine months to the 11th century crusader castle and later Muslim fortress, Crac des Chevalier. Along with T. E. Lawrence, whose judgment I share this hilltop redoubt is the most majestic in the Middle East.

During my earlier May 2014 visit I saw the destruction of the staircase and halls in front of the internal building of the fort, partial damage in the façade of the Hall of the Knights, including some damage to the decorations and arches inside the Hall, and several places on the massive exterior and courtyard walls where explosives had caused moderate to several damage to Crac. The Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) staff, craftsmen and local volunteers have been working at Crac since May of 2014 and have made remarkable progress in repairing and where necessary, reconstructing parts of the castle. Their work continues today and local leaders mention resuming its world famous annual festival including the preeminent regional handicrafts exhibition. Seeing the repairs underway at the fortress is a testament to the local community whose lives have been shaped by this incomparable world heritage site.

Other sites that I have most visited that are being worked on largely by local communities residents include, but are not limited to the following:

Homs Museum, Homs
Cleaning of exterior walls and removal of mortar debris, replacing damaged windows and entrances

Mufid al Amin House, Homs
Securing the premises, surveying damage and organizing the required repairs with local officials and the community

Zahrawi Palace, Homs
Preparing the needed restoration projects and securing the premises, surveying damage and organizing the required repairs with local officials and the community

Aleppo Museum, Aleppo
Protecting the museum’s inventory and warehouse, internal wooden and stone sculptures in the museum’s garden and entrance area. Larges sculptures secured with sand bags and wooden encasements. Securing the museum warehouse, wooden structures and, statues in the museum’s garden. Replacement of the damaged windows caused by mortars striking the premises and museum front gardens

Deir ezZour Museum, Deir ezZour
Survey of structural weaknesses and reinforcing or replacing where necessary doors and windows.

Hama Museum, Hama
Museum contents have been secured on and off site. Protecting the Mosaics and replacing damage windows.

Taybet al Imam Museum, Hama
The museum contents have been secured. Protecting Mosaics from vandalism.

Idlib Museum, Idlib
Contents have been secured in protected museum warehouses. Replacement of damages windows.

Shaqa Tower, Sweida
Restoration and repair work to the tower. Secured the premises.

Shahba pool walls, Sweida
Secured the premises and made temporary repairs and restoration to the structure.

National Museum, Damascus
The museums contents and grounds have been secured and are patrolled. Protective roof insulation installed. Alarm system expanded.

Al Azem Palace, Old city of Damascus
Repair and restoration of the damaged limestone façade, installation of protective roof insulation, enhanced museum security.

Damascene Heritage House, Damascus
Restoration work and installation of roof protection and insulation.

Khan Asaad Pasha, Damascus
Enhanced security for the complex including rehabilitation of the premises and the installation of security measures. Rehabilitation work as required.

National Museum of Science and Medicine, Damascus
Security measures taken including, but not limited to the installation of exhibit protection devices and increased guarding of the premises.

In nearly every community across Syria that is not under the control of armed militia, there are several reports of local community defense of archeological sites initiatives. In Khan Attena an historic building was robbed by armed men more than once and as a result citizens got involved and secured and guarded the building deploying rotating guard teams during the night. In the village of An Nabek on strategic highway 5 leading from Damascus to northern Syria, which was returned to government control on 12/9/13, this observer was shown the building which armed gangs attempted to occupy and turn it into the headquarters of a claimed Sharia court.  But the local community blocked them from entering the premises and built a guarded wall around the building entrance. In Brhlia village in the countryside of Damascus, the local community worked with DGAM to retrieve one of Syria’s most important mosaics and brought its hundreds if not thousands of pieces to the Damascus citadel for restoration by craftsmen and students of restoration. Citizens in the same area have also recently recovered from thieves approximately 95 pieces of pottery and glass dating back to the second and third centuries AD.

What local communities are doing today in Syria to protect and preserve our shared cultural heritage is not going to solve their and our archeological crisis. But rarely, one imagines in the midst of war have citizens undertaken such Phoenix like preservation and restoration work for the benefit of mankind.

The people of Syria are doing their part to secure our heritage for those who follow us. It’s up to us to join them.

The post Is The Phoenix Rising From The Ashes In Syria? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Gjergj Erebara

Albania’s main petroleum extraction company has announced further cuts to its investment program, blaming the fall in oil prices worldwide

Bankers Petroleum announced that it has revised its investment program for 2015 down to $153 million US (€127 million) due to the continued weakness of the oil price in the international market.

Last December, the company projected investments of up to $218 million US (€182 million).

“These adjustments have been made to ensure 2015 spending fits within funds generated from operations and cash resources in the latest oil price environment,” the company said.

The revised 2015 capital program utilizes a $50 per barrel average annual Brent oil price forecast in comparison to the budget announced on December 12, 2014, which was predicated on an annual Brent oil price forecast of $70 per barrel.

The international oil price fell from $110 US per barrel last July to less than $45 in January. It has recovered during the last few days to about $55 US per barrel.

Bankers Petroleum extracted some 20,700 barrels of oil per day during 2014 and generated revenue of more than $550 million. It is the largest company in Albania in revenue terms.

Lower prices are expected to cut the revenues of the company while lower investments will also cut production capacities.

Bankers was also hit during last days by the recent floods in south Albania. On February 1, Bankers was forced to shut 81 wells, the equivalent of about 3,500 barrels of oil per day, after rising water levels impeded access to facilities. The floods are over now and work has turned to normal.

The post Albania: Bankers Petroleum Cuts Investment Program On Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Saudi Arabia will host a high-powered meeting of the defense chiefs of the anti-Islamic State coalition on Wednesday. The meeting, to be attended by military chiefs, group commanders and chiefs of staff from the 22 countries in the US-led coalition, will discuss ways and means to combat the IS, possibly deploy troops and expand attacks on IS targets across the region.

“The meeting, to be coordinated by the Saudi Ministry of Defense, will discuss the overall situation regarding the IS terror group,” said an official source on condition of anonymity, here Monday. Major Western countries including the US, France, Britain and Germany will participate in the consultation that will go a long way in mapping out a new strategy to combat IS and its influence.

“Germany will be represented by Lt. Gen. Peter Schelzig, vice chief of defense,” said Michael Ohnmacht, deputy head of the German mission. “Britain and Turkey will also participate the Riyadh meeting,” confirmed local diplomats. Necdet Ozel, Turkish chief of staff, and the chief of New Zealand Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Tim Keating, will be traveling to Riyadh to attend the meeting.

There will also be substantial participation on the regional level. Lebanese Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi will take part in the meeting. “The meeting will be a good opportunity to receive updates on the situation and to make new plans,” said a Western diplomat, pointing to the fact that the coalition is gaining on one front and losing ground on another as far as fight against IS is concerned.

The ISIS, of late, has shown its real face by indulging in bloodbath in different countries where it has its presence. The killing of 21 Egyptian workers in Libya is its latest act of genocide. Egypt’s Air Force bombed ISIS targets in Libya at dawn on Monday, a day after the militant group released a video purporting to show the execution of the Egyptian workers.

It was the first time Egypt confirmed launching airstrikes against the group in neighboring Libya, showing President Abdel Fattah El-Sissi is ready to take the fight to IS. A Libyan Air Force commander said between 40 and 50 militants were killed in the attack.

“There are casualties among individuals, ammunition and (ISIS) communication centers,” Saqer Al-Joroushi told Egyptian state television. According to the Pentagon, coalition bombs have killed more than 6,000 ISIS fighters since the campaign began in late 2014.

The post Saudi Arabia To Host Anti-Islamic State Meeting appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruling in a suit seeking damages over Rachel Corrie’s death sends a dangerous message to Israeli armed forces that they can escape accountability for wrongful actions, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday. Israel’s Supreme Court on February 12, 2015, exempted the Israeli defense ministry from liability for actions by its forces that it deemed to be “wartime activity,” but wrongly refused to assess whether those actions violated applicable laws of armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said.

Corrie, 23, was killed on March 16, 2003, while attempting to prevent an armored Israeli bulldozer from demolishing the home of a Palestinian family near Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. She and other foreign nationals, wearing bright orange vests and using megaphones, shouted at and stood in front of bulldozers over the course of several hours to prevent them from destroying homes. Corrie climbed to the top of a mound of earth created by the front blade of a bulldozer, which continued forward, crushing her. The bulldozer operator claimed he didn’t see her.

“This ruling has disturbing implications beyond the Corrie family’s case, as it sends a message that Israeli forces have immunity even for deaths caused by alleged negligence,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. “The ruling is a stark reminder that in some areas Israeli jurisprudence has veered completely off the track of international law.”

The ruling came in a case brought by Corrie’s family. The court president, Miriam Naor, joined by Justices Esther Hayot and Zvi Zilbertal, explicitly refused to apply international humanitarian law – the laws of war – or international human rights law to Corrie’s case. Under Israeli jurisprudence, the ruling stated, “the rule is well known that an ‘explicit statutory provision of the Knesset overrides the provisions of international law’.” Because the provisions of Israeli law were “clear” that in this case the state had immunity from tort liability, the court ruled, “there is no place to require the state to provide compensation under international law.”

The court based its ruling on an Israeli law in force at the time of Corrie’s death that exempted Israel from liability for any act by its forces carried out during “wartime activity.” The Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law, as amended in 2002, defined wartime activity as “any action combating terror or insurrection,” or “intended to prevent terror and hostile acts and insurrection, committed in circumstances of danger to life or limb.”

The court accepted the military’s claims that its forces killed Corrie while conducting “clearing” operations to uncover tunnels used by Palestinian armed groups in the area, and had come under fire from armed groups repeatedly during similar operations. Because Corrie was killed at “the scene of ongoing fighting between the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and terrorist organizations,” Israel is immune to liability “even if we accept the argument that the forces were not in danger from Rachel and her organization,” the ruling said.

The ruling flies in the face of the laws of armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said. The ruling grants immunity in civil law to Israeli forces for harming civilians based merely on the determination that the forces were engaged in “wartime activity,” without assessing whether that activity violated the laws of armed conflict, which require parties to the conflict at all times to take all feasible precautions to spare civilian life. Under the laws of armed conflict a state is required to make full reparation for the loss or injury caused by its violations of such laws.

Moreover, the law that the Supreme Court ruling upheld fails to distinguish between conduct of hostilities and law enforcement actions during armed conflict and occupation. In the context of military occupation, actions by Israeli forces are judged according to both the laws of armed conflict and international human rights law standards.

Israeli forces testified at earlier hearings before a lower court in Haifa that Palestinian armed groups had fired at them “every day” during the course of their “clearing operations” in Rafah, but provided no evidence that any shots were fired at the time of Corrie’s death or during the two hours preceding it. The only relevant evidence the military submitted was a military log that recorded that a grenade had been thrown, without further information. The military argued in court that Palestinians threw a grenade at Israeli forces, but witnesses called by Corrie’s lawyer testified that the only grenade they observed that day was a smoke grenade thrown at them by Israeli forces.

The Supreme Court ruling, which upheld a 2012 ruling by the Haifa District Court, also dismissed the Corrie family’s petition for compensation for the harm caused to them by what they considered to be negligent investigations by the military into Corrie’s death. The Supreme Court said the Corries could not prove the damage caused to them by any possible faults in the investigation.

The Israeli military opened an “operational debriefing” and a criminal inquiry into Corrie’s death. Both concluded that the facts cleared Israeli forces of any wrongdoing.

Human Rights Watch documented that Israeli investigators failed to call any Palestinian witnesses, threatened to indict other foreign volunteers who witnessed Corrie’s death while questioning them about the incident, and failed even to ask witnesses to draw a map of the area at the time of the incident. The initial military inquiry into her death even concluded that “no signs substantiate [the] assertion that Ms. Corrie was run over by a bulldozer,” a conclusion that the military later reversed.

Human Rights Watch documented that from 2000 to 2004, Israeli forces in Rafah destroyed the homes of 16,000 Palestinians to clear a “buffer zone” along the Egyptian border. The military claimed its actions were intended to prevent the use of tunnels by Palestinian armed groups for military purposes, but the “pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law,” in most cases without military necessity, Human Rights Watch concluded. (Egypt has more recently carried out mass demolitions of homes on its side of the Rafah border, which Human Rights Watch is investigating. Egypt is blocking media access to the area.) Human Rights Watch’s findings raise the question, which the Supreme Court did not examine, of whether the operation that the bulldozer operator was participating in when it crushed Corrie can be considered a lawful military action.

Since Corrie’s death, Israel has broadened the immunity to tort liability for wrongs committed by its armed forces. A July 2013 amendment to the Civil Wrongs law redefined the definition of “wartime actions” for which the state was immune from damages to include any actions by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip – “whether or not,” according to the law’s explanatory notes, “they were carried out in circumstances of danger to life or limb.” Israel commonly refuses to grant witnesses and victims from Gaza permission to enter Israel to participate in court hearings, claiming they may present security threats, and courts have required each Palestinian plaintiff in damages cases to pay prohibitively expensive “court guarantees” of up to 20,000 shekels (US $5,140) before accepting the case.

Human Rights Watch observed two of the Haifa court hearings and the arguments in the case before the Supreme Court.

The Court judgment, while dismissing the claims against the Israeli Defense Ministry regarding Corrie’s death (case 6982/12), upheld a different appeal by Corrie’s family (case 6968/12) regarding what it called the Israeli forensic authorities’ “inappropriate” actions during Corrie’s autopsy and demanding the repatriation to the US of all her remains, some of which remain in Israel. The court rejected a decision by the Nazareth district court on that issue and ordered the Nazareth magistrate’s court to re-examine the family’s claims.

“Israel’s impunity laws slam the door on civilian victims in Gaza, and look like further evidence that Israel is not genuinely willing to hold its own forces accountable for serious violations,” Whitson said.

The post Israel: Dangerous Ruling In Rachel Corrie Case, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nishtha Gautam*

This year’s Republic Parade was remarkable for the prominence it gave to our women warriors. The smartly turned out women officers from the Army, Air Force, Navy, para-military and police forces are said to have made a stunning impact on the state guests as well as millions of Indians watching the parade. The moot point, however, remains – is this symbolism all or do we have a plan in place for our women warriors?

Now that the Obamas are back to the White House, hopefully still cherishing our mehmannawazi, can we begin serious work on the area that we cherry-picked to impress the guests with?

Induction

Ever since their induction in the three Services in 1992, women officers have been fighting for equality in terms of promotions and permanent commission.

In June 2012, Brinda Karat, MP (Rajya Sabha) had asked the then Defence Minister A K Antony, “Is it not a loss to the national exchequer when highly trained and motivated officers are forced to leave service, because of their gender?”

This rhetorical question brought back the balance to the debates surrounding women in the Indian armed forces.

While some of the policy makers and implementers in MoD and the service HQs consider women officers a burden on the national exchequer, Karat showed the flip side of it.

In July 2014, the present government took forward the decisions taken by the UPA with respect to the grant of permanent commission to women officers.

It was reported women joining the armed forces from “next year” will be considered for permanent commission and command.

While the first month of 2015 has already gone by (along with the Nari Shakti themed Republic Day parade), we are yet to see any official notification with respect to the changed policy. The recruitment ads also do not carry any such information. In addition to that, the new policy will be beneficial only to the new entrants.

What about the current lot of women officers who have been serving the armed forces with equal dedication in an unequal environment?

The armed forces are reportedly not yet ready for women in a combat role. Rumours perpetuate the idea that women are naturally disadvantaged to do justice to military service. Maternity and other physiology related issues – rendered redundant in the present scenario of technological, cyber, bio-chemical and above all, psychological warfare – are used against women soldiers.

Furthermore, the discourse on women in combat roles begins with bringing worst-case scenarios to the table.

Standalone incidents of violence and abuse faced by Prisoners of War are used as aces to trump our ‘tradition’ laden sensibilities.

Ironically, such arguments disrespect the male soldier as it suggests that it is somehow acceptable to rape, kill and mutilate him but not the woman.

Myths can only be countered with hard facts. In the Air Force, a bias against the women pilots is based on the maternity leave availed by them.

Another line of argument is their supposed inability to cope with the ‘G’ forces. This myth, however, has been dispelled with PD Navathe, G Gomez and A Krishnamurthy publishing a paper “Relaxed acceleration tolerance in female pilot trainees” in ‘Aviat Space Environ Med’ in 2002.

Between 1995 and 1997, 17 female pilot trainees were tested at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Bangalore, India and the findings stated that “acceleration tolerances for the female pilot trainees were comparable to those for male pilots previously studied in the same laboratory.”

Regressive

The Navy’s reason to restrict women’s entry to the ships had been the most ridiculous one so far. Having women on a ship when it is afloat will spoil the ‘discipline’ and it is the mingling of sexes that is to be feared!

Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country (and therefore to be perceived ‘regressive’) however has no such reservations.

In 2010 during a multilateral exercise in the Andamans, Lieutenant Farah al Habshi aboard the new Malaysian warship KD Perak impressed many of her Indian counterparts.

Malaysia, like Pakistan (yes, even Pakistan!) boasts of having women fighter pilots.

Facilitation

What appeared unimaginable earlier can now be facilitated through policy fixes and some infrastructural developments.

If more women are inducted in the armed forces, it is only a matter of time that cultural taboos will give way to respect.

Countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka recruit women as personnel below officer rank and even our own BSF has opened its doors for women troops. Minor design changes in warships are going to take care of the privacy issues.

India needs a calibrated response to combat patriarchy in the armed forces.

Beginning with a uniform commission and promotion policy, attempts must be made for achieving a gender neutral environment.

Maj Gen Kirstin Lund, the first woman commander of UNPKF presently deployed in Cyprus, is positive about women’s increased participation in the armed forces as well as the UN. She has famously stated that being a woman gives one access to “one hundred percent of the population.”

It is time to think of the role of women in uniform beyond being merely the ‘sobering/civilising force’ on their male counterpart. With the same training and opportunities, it is time to imbue the phrase ‘femme fatale’ with a new meaning.

*The writer is associated with Observer Research Foundation

Courtesy: Mail Today, February 13, 2015

The post India: Time To Give Women The Right To Face Combat – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The celebrated revival of the Silk Road would seem to herald the return of China’s charm offensive, winning over neighbors and other countries in the region through increased trade incentives and transport connectivity. If developing a sound soft power strategy is the mark of a rising world power, does this mean China is on its way? Certainly, in the wake of recent episodes of differences and disputes, the initiative should be seen as a welcome development. Nonetheless, some countries along the envisioned route remain wary and skeptical of the real intentions behind this offering, as well as the possible unfavorable conditions that may be attached to it. In addition, while Beijing tends to highlight its economic credentials, the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (hereinafter, SREB/MSR) has strategic, political and security implications that participating countries would also be advised to consider.

China lives in a tough neighborhood, sharing a long contiguous land border with Russia and India (with which it has unresolved land boundary disputes) and a common sea boundary with Japan (with which it has unresolved territorial and maritime disputes). As such, SREB/MSR could possibly be seen as a strategy to circumvent any encirclement or containment that a hostile power in concert with other states may undertake to harm China’s interests.

The SREB/MSR project with its land and maritime path components promises to better connect China with the Middle East, Africa and Europe through its landlocked neighbors in Central Asia and the littoral states of Southeast and South Asia. It spreads the risk by multiplying access routes, thus reducing China’s vulnerabilities. The system of ports, railways and roads, which have variously been completed, or are under construction or being proposed, will enable China to diversify the routes by which it can secure the transport of oil and gas and other essential goods needed to sustain China’s economy. It enhances the country’s energy and economic security and mitigates the risks attendant to transporting fuel and goods through unstable, unsecured or unfriendly channels. For instance, the establishment or proposed establishment of transport corridors via Pakistan (through the Chinese-operated Gwadar Port, and then by proposed railway to link the Sino-Pakistani-built Karakoram Highway and ultimately western China), Myanmar (through the Kyaukphyu Port then through the railway and pipeline to Yunnan, which are under construction) and Thailand (through the proposed Chinese-funded Kra Isthmus project) will enable China to reduce its dependency on the Strait of Malacca chokepoint. Developing pipelines to get oil and gas directly from Russia and Central Asia  to power western China also reduces its reliance on the volatile Middle East.

Meanwhile, by linking the economies of Central Asia with western China, Beijing brings further development and stability to restive and relatively underdeveloped Xinjiang and Tibet and cuts off any potential support that Uygur dissident groups may seek from fellow Muslims in Central Asia. Hence, SREB/MSR goes far beyond simply sharing economic prosperity – it has obvious political and security underpinnings. And viewed from this vantage point, its China-centrism is very evident.

However, SREB/MSR also ushers in a lot of opportunities for countries along the way. Countries in need of financing to establish new ports or related transport infrastructure or to upgrade existing facilities would welcome news of a willing new sponsor or financier. China’s longstanding policy of no-strings attached would be popular with states that have limited access to capital and technology because of foreign-imposed sanctions or stringent governance requirements set by regional or international lending institutions. Increased regional connectivity would boost trade and commerce, allowing participating countries greater access to the huge China market, while attracting much-needed investments especially now that China had just become a net capital exporter. The emergence of China expands the roster of potential partners to which developing and underdeveloped states along the projected SREB/MSR route can turn. But for China to entice more countries to join, it has to address some important points.

For one, the increasing presence, role and interest of China in maritime Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia is becoming a source of discomfort for, respectively, the United States, India and Russia, which have long dominated these regions. SREB/MSR would draw these regions ever closer into China’s orbit and an observer may well wonder whether this will will eventually evolve into some sort of exclusive club led by China, intent on displacing other regional trade or economic arrangements founded and led by other regional powers. Countries in the region, in turn, which wish to diversify their partners and develop a balance or hedging strategy are now realizing that they can play one power against the other to exact maximum concessions from both. Indeed, some countries are beginning to make this a practice (Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Maldives in relation to China and India, the former Soviet Union republics in Central Asia in relation to China and Russia, and Southeast Asian states like Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in relation to China and United States). But this will only work so long as these regional arrangements are not mutually exclusive, meaning that membership in SREB/MSR does not necessarily require that they forego participation in new or existing regional organizations. SREB/MSR should be seen as a means to complement and not to compete with or dislodge existing regional cooperation frameworks.

Moreover, in the same way as countries in these regions do not want to be seen as taking part in any effort to contain China, thus compromising their burgeoning economic relations with Beijing, they also do not want to be perceived as facilitating Chinese efforts to check a rival. For example, Indian Ocean Region (IOR) states with warming relations with China would surely not welcome the thought of being seen by New Delhi as an appendage to Beijing’s “String of Pearls” strategy. China should reassure would-be participating countries that SREB/MSR will not be used as a geopolitical ploy to outmaneuver a rival power. Otherwise, countries will hesitate to participate, particularly if pressured by regional powers.

Similarly, there is the fear about the possible dual-use nature of MSR ports and facilities. For example, the recent visit of a Chinese submarine in Colombo, the rumored establishment of a Chinese naval base in Marao Atoll, Maldives, and Pakistan’s invitation for China to set up a naval base in Gwadar all raise fears that China’s presence in the IOR is not confined to just building and operating commercial seaports. If regional rivals see MSR as a strategy that would eventually lead to basing rights or easy access for PLA-N, they may take steps to discourage countries from participating in it, if not directly acting against it.

Second, China has to address the persistent notion that SREB/MSR is too China-centric and that other participating states will reap only marginal benefits. Will the ports and related transport infrastructure financed, built or operated by Chinese entities only service or handle China-bound cargo or those coming from China only? If host countries will be deprived of independent action in the management of said ports, it will only reinforce the image that SREB/MSR caters only to Chinese interests. Thus, it is important for Beijing to identify its stakes commensurate with its investments. While China may rightfully request for some preferential access in light of its investment, shutting off SREB/MSR ports to other countries may limit the revenues that host countries are able generate. It may also tie the host country too closely to Chinese trade volume and possible future exigencies. China will contribute in furthering economic regionalization by opening SREB/MSR ports to all participating states and even to non-participating states for that matter. For instance, China could offer access to Gwadar Port, the nearest seaport to Afghanistan and Central Asia, as one incentive to obtain Central Asian participation in SREB/MSR. The port could then be the conduit for these landlocked countries to export their products abroad, as well as obtain imports therefrom, thereby giving them a stake in securing the port and the terrestrial transport backbone that connects to it.  Thus, in defining the nature and terms of SREB/MSR investments, China has to take into serious account the interests of the host country. This would entail delicate compromise and negotiations since different countries would have different sets of  national priorities and valuations.

Finally, China has to address the question of which country will provide the security for NSR ports and related facilities. Will MSR membership by countries along the proposed route permit the deployment of PLA-N or Chinese coast guard vessels in IOR and maritime Southeast Asia? For IOR, this would create anxiety on the part of India, as well as the United States. For South China Sea (SCS) littoral states, on the other hand, the specter of Chinese naval and coast guard assets patrolling vital shipping sea lanes and waters adjacent to MSR ports may dissuade them from participating lest it be seen as jeopardizing their own territorial and maritime claims in the disputed sea. Territorial and maritime disputes generally cloud the judgment of many states, compelling them to disregard even obvious economic advantages. To address this, China may consider boosting maritime security cooperation with SCS states to jointly secure MSR infrastructure. This may include funding to support exercises and operations on search and rescue, combating maritime piracy and terrorism, responding to maritime pollution and marine environment degradation, and or even involving joint management of shared fisheries resources and joint development of offshore oil and gas and seabed minerals.

Most of the details of SREB/MSR remains sketchy and this may be to China’s disadvantage. The concept could easily be hijacked or maligned by other parties even before it takes off. Some may say that it is hollow rhetoric or a pledge without basis or enduring political and economic commitment. It will be difficult to entice countries to participate in an undertaking they know so little about. For these reasons, China will need to articulate the fundamental tenets of SREB/MSR to give more substance to all the grand policy talk. Of course, the fact that many details of SREB/MSR remains hazy could also have an upside –countries still have the opportunity to help shape its architecture in a way that is more agreeable and beneficial to all.

This article was published at The Diplomat and reprinted with permission.

The post China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ To Where? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) said it is alarmed by the increase anti-Muslim incidents across the country. The latest incident involving vandalism at the Islamic School of Rhode Island in city of West Warwick over the weekend.

According to media reports, photos of the school showed doors covered with the words, “Now this is a hate crime” and “pigs,” along with expletives referring to the prophet Muhammad and to Allah, the Arabic word for God.

In a statement, ISNA President Azhar Azeez said, “We are alarmed by the recent increase of anti-Muslim incidents across the country. The gradual mainstreaming of Islamophobia is an unacceptable trend that we as a multi-religious society must challenge.”

Azeez noted that “Religious intolerance and hate is not an American value. Among the things that we as Americans strongly cherish, is the right to freely practice whatever religion we choose without fear of persecution or violence. We hope that there will be no recurrences of such hateful acts of violence in other communities. We call on federal, state and local authorities to be vigilant in protecting the American Muslim community and to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.”

Last week, three American Muslim college students were murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, an Islamic school was burned to the ground in an act of arson in Houston,Texas and a Muslim family was attacked and harassed by two men in a Kroger grocery store in Dearborn, Michigan.

The post ISNA Alarmed By Increase In Anti-Muslim Incidents: Vandals Deface Islamic School Of Rhode Island appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The World Health Organization may not reach its goal to eliminate measles by 2020.

By Paula Kavathas*

The current US outbreak of measles underscores yet again that in a globalized world infectious diseases cannot be eliminated unless eradicated everywhere, as was the case with smallpox in 1977. The measles virus, like smallpox, is only found in humans, not animals. Therefore, with the highly effective inexpensive vaccine that exists, measles could be eradicated. Thanks to current global efforts, an estimated 15.6 million deaths were prevented from 2000 to 2013. The World Health Organization regions have goals to eliminate this preventable killer disease by 2020.

However, the world may not reach this goal.

While people do not shudder upon hearing the word “measles” as they do with “smallpox” or “Ebola,” this does little to lessen the heartache of the thousands of parents who lose their children to measles or see their children develop pneumonia, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) or even go blind as a result of the disease. WHO reported 145,700 measles deaths globally in 2013, about 400 deaths every day, mostly among children under the age of five. Worldwide, 20 million people were infected with measles that same year. Thanks to the measles vaccine, an estimated 15.6 million deaths were prevented from 2000 to 2013.

The current US outbreak highlights challenges to eliminating this preventable disease. The outbreak started in December at California’s Disneyland amusement park, which attracts visitors from around the world. It is suspected that a person had been infected in another country and visited the park. The highly contagious disease spread to individuals in 17 states with more than 120 people falling ill, reports the Centers for Disease Control.

This is not the first outbreak since measles was eliminated in the US in 2000; localized outbreaks still occur. For instance, 12 children in San Diego, California became ill in 2008 with measles after a 7-year-old boy contracted the disease during a vacation in Switzerland. Unvaccinated infants are most vulnerable. Of the affected children, three were too young to receive the first dose of the vaccine, normally given at 12 months of age. The other nine children were not vaccinated.

As long as measles is prevalent in the rest of the world, unvaccinated children in any country are at risk – even in those countries where the disease supposedly has been eliminated.

In countries with strong health infrastructures, parents’ decisions not to vaccinate hinder medicine’s goal of eradicating measles. The measles immunization coverage in 2013 by country collected by the WHO indicates that the variability in vaccination rates is not solely based on wealth of a nation. A 2014 article by Norimitsu Kuwabara and Michael DL Ching described contributing factors for lower than expected incidence rates of vaccine preventable diseases in Japan. Misconceptions about side effects and vaccine efficacy are another factor.

To eradicate measles, health officials must not only help make vaccines available to countries with weak health infrastructures, but also change the thinking of parents in the wealthy developed countries. Science and health education help counter unfounded fears.

Uneven coverage: Measles vaccination rates can vary widely among developed nations or developing nations (WHO data)

Humans and other vertebrates have an adaptive immune system in addition to other forms of immunity present in all organisms. This adaptive system, when it encounters the measles virus, produces proteins called antibodies that bind to the virus, blocking it from infecting cells. It also produces killer T-cells that eliminate infected cells. The killer cell can distinguish between healthy cells and cells harboring a virus inside. Unfortunately, it takes five to seven days to develop an active adaptive response against a virus. During this period, the measles virus multiplies and spreads. In a previously vaccinated individual, the antibodies to measles are already present when a person is infected with the virus. In addition, special cells called memory cells are present. These cells are primed to respond quickly and efficiently so that more antibodies are made and the killer cells are activated in about a day. Therefore if someone has had the vaccine their adaptive immune system can respond immediately and stop measles before it causes disease.

Arguments against vaccination include worries about toxicity and children developing “better immunity” with a natural infection.  While a measles infection leads to immunity, it also carries serious health risks, especially in infants. Contracting measles to develop immunity does not stand to reason when a vaccine is available. The vaccine consists of a weakened or attenuated form of the Edmonstron-Enders strain of the virus that is highly effective and not toxic.  The vaccine exposes people to a form of the virus that is immunogenic, but not pathogenic. That is, the vaccinated individual develops immunity but not the disease. Once immunity against the virus is formed, it’s lifelong. The virus is relatively stable genetically unlike the influenza virus.

Myths and fears regarding vaccination are not new. When Edward Jenner first published his finding in 1798 that the immunization of individuals with cowpox virus would produce mild disease and render full protection from smallpox, rumors emerged that people would develop horns like cows from the inoculation. People at the time did not know about viruses. Today, we know that the two viruses causing smallpox and cowpox are genetically similar so that immune cells against cowpox can also kill cells infected by smallpox and antibodies can block both viruses.

During the late 20th century another myth emerged – that the measles vaccine might cause a child to develop autism. The incidence of autism had increased in countries such as the United States, but the reason is unknown. In the 1960s, many blamed mothers, suggesting a distant attitude hampered their child’s development. A single paper was published by a leading journal in 1998, suggesting a link between autism and the vaccine. The paper was since discredited and retracted, with the lead author losing his license to practice medicine. Follow-up studies conclusively demonstrated no link. Anecdotal stories by some parents struggling to understand why their child had autism perpetuated the myth.

It is imperative that as many people as possible be vaccinated to protect vulnerable individuals such as infants or people with a weakened immune system who cannot be vaccinated. People with immune deficiencies or receiving chemotherapy for cancer are vulnerable. The vaccination of large numbers of people with the recommended two doses of the vaccine leads to the development of what has been termed “herd immunity.” With strong herd immunity, the vast majority of people are vaccinated so that vulnerable individuals are much less likely to be exposed. This dramatically reduces their risk of infection and harm from the disease.

We have the means to succeed.

In the mid-1970s, routine measles vaccination began in many countries. In 1980, only 16 percent of the children worldwide were vaccinated, and measles caused 2.5 million deaths. In contrast, 72 percent of children were vaccinated by the year2000 and the number of deaths dropped by over 70 percent since 1980 to 750,000 deaths. In addition, vitamin A supplements, known to contribute to maintaining a healthy immune system, reduced the severity of measles in children with vitamin A deficiency. Worldwide efforts are paying off.

Measles can be eradicated from the world if enough people are vaccinated worldwide through a global effort. Then, as happened with smallpox, no one will need the measles vaccine, and the world will be better off.

*Paula Kavathas is professor of laboratory medicine and of immunobiology at Yale University School of Medicine and chair of the Yale Women’s Faculty Forum.

The post To Eradicate Measles Destroy Myth About Harmful Effect Of Vaccine – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Can Brunei feed itself? Can Brunei’s Vision 2035 that was introduced in 2008 during the global food crisis stimulate its food and agricultural production?

By Jonatan A. Lassa*

One of the aims of Brunei’s Vision 2035 is to improve the Sultanate’s rice self-sufficiency rate to at least 60 per cent by 2015. Since the country needs no less than 35,000 tonnes of rice per year, it needs to secure domestic production of no less than 21,000 tonnes a year by 2015. Unfortunately, five years since the launch of Vision 2035, its total production in 2013 reached only 5.3% (1,850 tonnes). Therefore, it is very unlikely for the country to achieve its 2015 target. Can it achieve its goal of reaching 60% rice self-sufficiency in the long run?

Vision 2035 was drafted and launched in the middle of the food crisis in 2007/2008 when some of the exporting countries shut down their exports which triggered a rush towards food self-sufficiency among some importing countries including the Brunei Sultanate. The objective is to reduce dependency on rice imports. Brunei still enjoys over 90% of export earnings from the oil and gas sector. However, the recent collapse of oil price – which reached its lowest point at the end of 2014 – may strongly justify the Sultanate’s statement in 2008: “The attitude of completely relying on dollars to fill stomachs is no longer relevant with the emergence of this crisis.”

Long term decline in rice yield

For those who have been observing the trend in food production in ASEAN and Brunei in particular, the Sultanate’s Vision 2035 can be seen as a very bold statement without a clear route. However, with a land area eight times that of Singapore’s and with a total population less than a tenth of Singapore’s, there is a possibility of achieving a certain degree of food self-sufficiency.

Rice yield in Brunei is the lowest in Southeast Asia. During 2000-2009, its rice yield average was 0.73 tonnes per hectare. In fact, in the first anniversary of the announcement of the vision statement, the country’s rice yield reached its lowest point in history (0.51 tonnes per ha in 2009). During the British colonial period, especially in the 1970s, rice yield reached its peak at 2.9 tonnes per ha in 1975.

During 1973-1975, Brunei’s rice yield was much higher than Thailand’s (2.16 tonnes per ha) and the rest of Indo-China including Vietnam (1.74 tonnes per ha). However, as the rice yield in Indo-China led by Vietnam gradually increased since the early 1990s to above two tonnes per ha, Brunei’s rice yield dropped to an average of 1.65 tonnes per ha during late 1970s till late 1990s, reaching its lowest yield at 0.53 in 1999.

There has been an indication lately of a marginal recovery of Brunei’s rice yield to slightly above one tonne per ha in 2013. The annual rice yields of Vietnam and Indonesia have reached subsequently above 5.5 and 6.2 tonnes per ha. By a modest account, Brunei still has the potential to increase its yield – learning from Central Kalimantan (Indonesia) where the rice yield can reach 2.8 to 3.2 tonnes per ha.

The agriculture and food sector’s share of GDP is still less than 1% and employs less than 14,000 people (about 3.3% of the total workforce in 2012). Of the total 5,600 ha agricultural land, the total area for rice is 1800 ha (as of 2013). It still has the potential to expand its rice area.

New agricultural initiatives

Under Vision 2035, the government has recently launched innovative agricultural initiatives. This means development of infrastructure, new land expansion, adoption of new rice hybrids, development hydroponics/aqua phonics technology, and improvement in post harvesting technology. By improving production infrastructure, adopting the best rice variety that can yield more than 3-4 tonnes per ha, Brunei’s policymakers seem to be content with the possibility that it can achieve 20% self-sufficiency rate very soon, at least on paper. In fact, the government has claimed that it has been implementing the plan to increase yield between 3.8-8.7 tonnes per ha.

The Vision 2035 strategic plan has been incorporated into the 10th Brunei National Development Plan (2012-2017). Pehin Dato Hj Yahya, the minister in charge of agriculture, recently announced the establishment of a modern rice-milling facility in August 2014 with annual production capacity of 5800 metric tonnes of rice. This is seen as progress, and in the right direction. In the event of a shortfall, the government will be supported by technology and expertise from Malaysia.

The extent to which this food self-sufficiency drive will be successful is, however, unclear. All remains to be seen in the next few years. The good news is that the optimism is still high as very recently the government proudly presented that its poultry industry has produced an output that is ‘near self-sufficiency’. In addition, some anecdotal data suggests that seafood products and tropical vegetables have reached 60-80% self-sufficiency. However, the pursuit of self-sufficiency in the livestock (e.g. beef and goats) and rice sectors may not be easy.

There seems to be no fiscal constraint to finance Brunei’s food and agriculture infrastructure. The challenge is how to make the rice-producing industry and livestock sector not only profitable to the local farmers but also sustainable by incentivising food production in Brunei in efficient and effective ways. Arguably, it would be more profitable and sustainable to have a modest self-sufficiency policy target between 25-50%. This can be pursued by introducing a high yielding rice variety, complemented by a strategy of diversifying the sources of food imports.

*Jonatan Anderias Lassa is a research fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Brunei’s Vision 2035: Can It Achieve Food Self-Sufficiency? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Indonesian fighters with the self-declared Islamic State (IS) recently posted a video threatening to bring the armed struggle home. Indonesia can learn a lot from past handling of former foreign fighters who returned from the Afghan and Mindanao battlefronts.

By Navhat Nuraniyah*

Last December, an Indonesian fighter with the self-declared Islamic State (IS), Salim Mubarok At-Tamimi, posted a video message stating that he and his IS comrades would soon return and target the Indonesian military, police and the paramilitary wing of Indonesia’s largest Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama that guard churches during Christmas.

As of January, Indonesia’s counter-terrorism unit Detachment 88 estimated that 123 Indonesian fighters have joined the war in Syria, though the actual number may be higher. Former Police Chief Sutarman further stated that six of them were killed in battle and at least ten returned. Who are these fighters? What would they do if they manage to return? What could be done to mitigate the threat?

Indonesian fighters: What could happen if they return?

Most Indonesian fighters in Syria were facilitated by existing groups including Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the Ring Banten faction of Darul Islam, and Mujahidin Indonesia Timur (MIT). Those who go through the JI channel join Al-Nusra Front and other jihadi groups that are affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Fighters linked to MIT, Ring Banten, and Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) generally fight for IS as their leaders have pledged allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakar Al-Baghdadi.

Other fighters made their own ways to Syria and Iraq through personal contacts, social media, and the alumni network of JI-linked schools currently residing in the Middle East. Four Indonesian students in Pakistan who left to fight in Syria were alumni of JI-linked schools. Some of these entrepreneurial fighters, however, were not known to have prior exposure to extremist milieu. One example is two Indonesian students in Turkey who made contact with IS foreign fighters through social media, among other channels. In July 2014, Southeast Asian fighters with IS contacted one another over Facebook and formed a military unit called Katibah Nusantara.

Although it is hard to pinpoint the threat posed by former fighters, it is possible to identify different types of post-conflict behaviour of returning fighters. Foreign fighters are not a new problem for Southeast Asian countries including Indonesia. Some 200 to 300 Indonesians had trained in Afghan militant camps between 1985 and 1995 and more were reportedly trained and fought in Mindanao from 1996 to 2001.

Reviewing the Afghan and Mindanao veterans in Indonesia, it was evident that not all of them sought to use violence as a political means in the domestic arena. Some hard-core extremists such as Imam Samudra continued to become terrorists; others helped with the cause though not directly involved in terrorist acts; while many totally disengaged from extremism. Some of the latter group have even been involved in counter-radicalisation activities.

Learning from the past, looking ahead

Whether or not returned fighters relapse to terrorism depend on a range of factors, including domestic political contexts and their personal circumstances. It was not until the breakout of Muslim-Christian conflicts in Poso and Ambon in late 1990s that many Afghan and Mindanao veterans decided to go back to the battlefield in what they considered a defensive jihad. Perceived victimisation of Muslims, coupled with turbulent political and economic situations that created instability and massive unemployment, provided fertile ground for JI and other groups to recruit new fighters and establish military squads in the conflict areas.

However even some Afghan veterans who fought in Poso and Ambon were eventually disillusioned by the Bali bombings which killed innocent civilians including Muslims. Disillusionment however did not necessarily turn them away from terrorism. The fact that JI networks were buttressed by inter-connected marriages, discipleship, and business relationships among its members made it very difficult for some to totally disengage from their old networks. The availability of alternative social networks and employment were therefore important in rehabilitating former fighters and terrorists.

The current stable political situation, combined with more experienced counterterrorism forces, will make it much more difficult for organised terror plots like the Bali bombings to occur. The capacity of existing terrorist groups have also been significantly weakened. In addition, Muslim-Christian conflicts in Poso and Maluku that served as an extremist battleground have largely been resolved. Now the problem is intra-Muslim conflict. In 2011, hundreds of Shiites in Madura Island, East Java were displaced as a result of a local communal conflict.

Further, the Syrian conflict has worsened existing anti-Shia sentiment because local jihadists and Salafists have framed the Syrian conflict as a Sunni-Shia war and propagated such framing on- and offline. At least three other violent clashes between Sunni and Shia groups broke out in East Java, Jakarta, and West Java recently. Law enforcement authorities and community leaders need to work hand-in-hand to tackle early symptoms of sectarian conflict that could become militant battlegrounds.

Failures and successes

Moreover, the Indonesian government is currently undertaking efforts to criminalise joining foreign terrorist groups. While such criminalisation is necessary, a rehabilitative approach is equally important. Previous deradicalisation programmes undertaken by the government and NGOs have seen both failure and success. One of the infamous failures is the case of employment projects for ex-terrorist inmates in Central Sulawesi in 2010.

After being released from prison, Santoso – who eventually founded MIT – was granted a gutter cleaning project in Palu, Central Sulawesi. He was allowed to employ his followers and other former inmates in the hope that employment would lead to disengagement from terrorism. However, the project not only brought the network together but also gave them financial means to start a new group.

There are also success stories such as a government-funded livestock farm run by former terrorists in Lamongan, East Java and an NGO-initiated cafe that employs former terrorists in Central Java. The more successful programmes share at least three characteristics:

The first is a dual programme of material assistance and religious rehabilitation. The second is the deliberate mixing of former terrorists and their families with other community members in a business venture to expose them to more plural networks. The third is accountability and a monitoring mechanism to make sure former terrorists do not regroup or use the funding for terrorist activities. All the lessons from previous measures, positive or otherwise, need to be taken into account when designing deradicalisation programmes for returning fighters.

*Navhat Nuraniyah is an Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Returning Indonesian Fighters From Syria And Iraq: Learning From The Past – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.