By Nick Cunningham

Many oil companies had trimmed their budgets heading into 2015 to deal with lower oil prices. But the rebound in April and May to $60 per barrel from the mid-$40s suggested that the severe drop was merely temporary.

But the collapse of prices in July – owing to the Iran nuclear deal, an ongoing production surplus, and economic and financial concerns in Greece and China – have darkened the mood. Now a prevailing sense that oil prices may stay lower for longer has hit the markets.

Oil futures for delivery in December 2020 are currently trading $8 lower than they were at the beginning of this year even while immediate spot prices are $4 higher today. In other words, oil traders are now feeling much gloomier about oil prices several years out than they were at the beginning of 2015.

The growing acceptance that oil prices could stay lower for longer will kick off a fresh round of cuts in spending and workforces for the oil industry.

“It’s a monumental challenge to offset the impact of a 50% drop in oil price,” Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., told the WSJ. “The priorities have shifted completely. The priority now is to discontinue budget spending. The priority is to live within your means. Forget about growth. They are now in survival mode.”

And many companies are also recalculating the oil price needed for new drilling projects to make financial sense. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, BP is assuming an oil price of $60 per barrel moving forward. Royal Dutch Shell is a little more pessimistic, using $50 per barrel as their projection. For now, projects that need $100+ per barrel will be put on ice indefinitely. The oil majors have cancelled or delayed a combined $200 billion in new projects as they seek to rein in costs, according to Wood Mackenzie.

But the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world’s production profile towards the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that could lead to much lower supplies in the future.

That is a problem because the oil majors were struggling to boost oil production even when oil prices were high. 2014 was one of the worst in over six decades for major new oil discoveries, even though oil prices were high for most of the year. Despite high levels of spending, exploration companies are simply finding fewer and fewer reserves of oil.

Shale production has surged in recent years, but it could be a fleeting phenomenon. Precipitous decline rates from shale wells mean that much of a well’s lifetime production occurs within the first year or two. Moreover, after the best spots are drilled, the shale revolution could start to come to a close. The IEA predicts that U.S. shale will plateau and begin to decline in the 2020s. That means it would not be able to keep up with rising demand. Add in the fact that oil wells around the world suffer from natural decline rates on the order of 5 percent per year (with very wide variation), and it becomes clear that major new sources of oil will need to come online.

One other factor that could tighten oil markets over the long-term is the fact that Saudi Arabia has churned through much of its spare capacity. As one of the only countries that can ramp up latent oil capacity within just a few weeks, Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity is crucial to world oil market stability.

Many energy analysts like to compare the current oil bust to the one that occurred in the 1980s. But one of the major differences between the two events is that, in addition to the glut of oil supplies in the 1980s, was the fact that Saudi Arabia dramatically reduced its output from 10 million barrels per day (mb/d) down to less than 4 mb/d in response. As a result, on top of the fact that the world was awash in oil throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were also several million barrels per day of spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, meaning there was virtually no chance of a price spike for more than a decade.

That is no longer the case. Today OPEC has only 1.6 mb/d of spare capacity, the lowest level since before the 2008 financial crisis. So while Saudi Arabia is currently flooding the market with crude, it has exhausted its spare capacity, leaving few tools to come to the rescue in a pinch.

That brings us back to the large spending cuts the oil majors are undertaking. With spare capacity shot and major new sources of oil not coming online in a few years, the world may end up struggling to meet rising oil demand. That could cause oil prices to spike.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Global-Oil-Supply-More-Fragile-Than-You-Think.html

Senator Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senate
332 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Sanders,

You’ve come a long way without my advice, but now that you are running for president, you may be interested in these suggestions:

1. You’ve taken progressive positions on “decent paying job programs” such as investing in repairing our country’s public works, raising the minimum wage, strengthening labor laws, opposing the good-job-exporting, corporate-managed trade treaties such as NAFTA and WTO, and creating a Youth Job Corps. Now you need to make major addresses in greater detail on each topic before large audiences. The media coverage of these events will be very helpful during primary season.
2. You need to identify with local and regional issues as you travel around the country and appear with the citizen or labor groups championing these pathways to justice. Just about all major presidential candidates assiduously avoid such identification for fear of some taint or gaffe when dealing with less common topics. You shouldn’t have this worry.
3. As your polls rise and your audiences get larger, your opponents will challenge you for being a self-identified “socialist.” It is best to pre-empt them. Your socialist beliefs seem in-line with social democratic parties in Western European nations. So, while there are many examples of widely bipartisan support for socialist institutions – municipally owned utilities, regionally owned utilities like the giant Tennessee Valley Authority, and more – you are not interested in nationalizing industry and the banks. You are interested in breaking up giant “too big to fail” banks and reforming the governance of giant multinationals. Over eighty percent of the American people favor the breakup of large banks, want the Wall Street crooks prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, and oppose bailing out powerful big businesses. This is a Left-Right convergence issue – of Main Street against Wall Street.
4. You need to expand your efforts to reach out to racial and ethnic minorities. Campaign in the low-income neighborhoods. Get to know the dynamic community groups and listen to the issues that they have been struggling with for decades. This is when your support of credit unions and well-equipped schools, call to end food deserts, focus on community policing, emphasis on tenant rights/remedies with building code enforcement, and concentration on good day care and accessible community health clinics through full Medicare for all, will resonate with their community interests.
5. Emphasizing that you are campaigning with the people, not on stage before the people is what helps build the movement that will continue after the election– win or lose.
6. In addition to your smaller-denomination fundraisers, why not have timeraisers – people pledging to support your campaign with hours of volunteer time. This creates opportunities for wider voter involvement.
7. Since you are a U.S. Senator, why not develop a unified contract for Look how far New Gingrich got in 1994 with a contract that was against America, which he deceptively packaged as a focal point against his listless Democratic opponents in a landslide, Republican takeover of the House of Representatives.
8. Look for advice and return more calls from your imaginative supporters. Being a successful lone ranger worked in Vermont, but campaigning across 50 states – and you must be the only one to go to every state as a presidential candidate – requires more congeniality and openness to the problems of many different constituencies.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

By Edwin Espejo

Close aides and political advisers of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte are digging themselves in. They have a few weeks to go before Duterte makes a final decision on whether he will run for president.

The maverick Davao mayor has been relegated to the background following the endorsement by President Benigno Aquino of longtime ally and close family friend Mar Roxas last week.

Former Duterte chief of staff and current Maribojoc Mayor Leoncio ‘Jun’ Evasco of Bohol says Dutere has chosen to keep a low profile, knowing the media will feast on the Aquino endorsement of Roxas. But he added that they will be in for a big surprise if and when Duterte decides to run for president.

Evasco however declined to categorically say Duterte is running and would prefer that the Davao City mayor announces the final decision himself.

Duterte has repeatedly he is running.  But at the same time, he has been moving around the country and laying out an apparent agenda as if a presidential run is a real possibility.

Flipside

Evasco believes Duterte successfully showed his true self when he appeared on the prime time Sunday show of Vice Ganda last month.

“The funny guy that millions saw on TV is the real Duterte.  I have known him personally and up close.  He is not only funny and comical,  Duterte has an unbridled sense of humor when he is his real self,” Evasco explained.

The national media and their coverage will never be the same under a Duterte presidency, Evasco assured.

A political observer who requested to remain anonymous because of proximity to the people behind Duterte’s media campaign said that image of the 70-year-old politician from Mindanao that appeared on Vice Ganda’s prime time show has resonated with the ‘masa’.

“It balanced his personality and image.  What he is offering and the kind of leadership he is exuding is resonating,” the observer said.

The same observer however said Duterte should make himself more visible and appear on prime time nationwide TV programs  to improve his name and face recall.

“He is coming strong in Mindanao and to some extent in Visayas,” the observer said.

The same source observed that the ‘May Tapang and Malasakit’ TV ads of Duterte in June captured the imagination of people who were not familiar with his brand of politics.

“Here is a guy pictured as a human rights violator but gamely dances budot with kids and nae-nae with Vice Ganda on nationwide television. How can you say he is evil?” said Evasco, hitting back at Duterte’s critics.

Duterte, Evasco and fellow ex-political detainee Etta Rosales are founding members of an institute named after the late Davao City Councilor Erasto Librado, a militant labor leader in Mindanao.

Rosales, former chair of the Commission on Human Rights, is now a staunch Dutertre critic.

Duterte showed his vulnerable side when he shed tears and spoke with a cracking voice upon arrival in Davao City in 2013 after a visit to Tacloban, which was reeeling from the devastation of Typhoon Yolanda.

Largely unpublicized, he has been giving support and visiting young cancer patients in Davao City – far from the tough hombre image he loves to portray in public.

Duterte has so far maintained the political high ground. He refuses to throw mud at Poe, Binay and Roxas as the three go at one another.

Duterte said all three are good, but the better man is from Mindanao, he would add, in a loaded repartee.

So is Duterte running or not?

Christopher Go, the current chief of staff of Duterte, is certain the Davao City mayor is running for higher office next year, without saying it is for president.

Others say Duterte should make a decision very soon if he is to be a factor in the presidential race and in the crucial scramble for funding sources.

Evasco however said it is not in the character of Duterte to go out of his way seek funds from supporters.

Observers believe a presidential candidate needs to raise PH10-15 billion (US$219-330 million) to give the presidency a shot – but that’s not necessarily a sure win.

“We are very much in the (political) super highway.  Those who are weak in their belief in Digong [Duterte’s popular name other than the more formal Rody], will give up on his style.  We will start with who are left because they will be our diehard supporters,” said Evasco.

But it is almost now certain he is running.

Didn’t Duterte say he will run for president if Roxas picks Justice Secretary in the administration senatorial line-up?  And didn’t de Lima also say she is 80 percent almost certain to run for senator?

Whatever decision Duterte will make, Evasco said his team has already built the necessary support throughout Visayas and in Mindanao where the Duterte’s appeal is at its strongest.

Religious harmony built on scant knowledge and a non-inclusive attitude of the “Religious Other” will not endure the severe tests on interreligious relations in a world replete with religious-linked conflicts. A non-zero sum mind-set can develop sustainable religious peace.

By Mohammad Alami Musa*

There may be very few countries, perhaps none, that have enjoyed religious harmony for such a long period as Singapore. Fifty years had passed since its independence and Singapore is still an oasis of harmony in a world of violent conflicts perpetuated by actors who use religious narratives to justify their actions.

Critics of Singapore’s political system are quick to attribute this success to their perception that Singapore is a quasi-authoritarian state characterised by the draconian use of a strict legislative framework, socially intrusive policies and uncompromising enforcement to “nip in the bud” any tendencies causing disruptions to religious harmony.

Eradicating feeling of superiority and arrogance

Singapore offers no apology for adopting a very tough approach in spite of the emergence of the “new normal” – one that expects the state to be gentler in governing society, especially in the realm of religion. The maintenance of religious harmony is too critical an agenda to be left to chance and because of this, the state will continue to play its custodial role in ensuring that religious peace is sustained in the coming years.

Nevertheless, one factor critics always miss is the strong selfless commitment of religious leaders in Singapore to protect religious harmony arising from their sense of self-discipline and self-responsibility. This is the uniquely Singapore factor that does not exist in many countries.

Their influence on creating a positive inter-religious milieu is far greater than the available powerful instruments of the state and their significant contributions to social peace began even before the birth of the new Singaporean state. For example leaders of the Inter Religious Organisation (IRO) were pro-active in mobilising faith leaders to put forth the peaceful nature of religion and played a major role in the reconciliation process within the population in the aftermath of the 1950 Maria Hertogh and the 1964 communal riots.

Religious leaders continue to play a crucial role in building religious harmony today. The harmony now enjoyed by Singapore is largely dependent on goodwill as well as tolerance and has been able to hold Singapore’s religiously plural society together even though it is built on less than adequate knowledge of each other’s religious tradition and an attitude that lacks inclusivity of the religious Other.

These shortcomings are a source of concern as Singapore enters the next 50 years of its existence in a world that is fraught with volatilities, uncertainties, complexities and ambiguities in the realm of religious life due to rising fundamentalism, unprecedented religious diversity and heightened intolerance towards the religious Other. These external threats may have spill-over effects and severely test inter-religious relations in Singapore.

Non-zero sum mindset

The ties that bind religious communities and the harmony that exists amongst them in future need to be stronger, resilient and sustainable. The harmony has to be well-founded on interreligious literacy, a strong attitude of inclusivity of the religious other and a feeling of mutual dependence on each other. A global scholar on religion, Paul Knitter, suggested that to achieve this state of relations, religious communities should embrace a “non-zero sum” mindset in religious life when encountering those from other communities.

A non-zero sum mindset discourages a religious community to feel superior over the other communities and to compete with, dominate or even replace them. Rather, it promotes the virtue of humility as well as collaboration so that all religious communities will prosper and none will feel disadvantaged in their interreligious encounters. This means that the non-zero mindset calls for celebration of the joy of having others (neighbours, friends and colleagues) as belonging to different religions and acceptance that these other religions are valuable.

To genuinely feel as part of the big Singapore family and collectively work towards stronger as well as resilient religious harmony that is sustainable in future years, each religious community must put aside feeling of arrogance and claims of superiority. These feelings may be difficult to eradicate but is necessary. Humility is the hallmark of a gracious religious community seeking a genuine harmonious relationship with the other communities.

Prosper together or suffer together

It is with this feeling of humility that one can find “gems” in religions other than one’s own. These “gems” are for keeps by those who find them. This is the same for the learning spirit wherever knowledge is found; it is waiting for the learner to acquire it. By the same token, there can be a lot of “cross-learning” amongst people of religion because goodness can be found in all religions.

Wherever they are found, they belong to all, regardless of the religion that they belong to. In embracing such an ethos, one will discover how beautiful and inspirational other religions are. There is however a fear that the discovery of goodness and truths in other religions will weaken one’s commitment to one’s own religion. In fact, it is to the contrary. The inter-religious learning can be so enriching that it should strengthen one’s love of one’s own religion.

The consequential benefit of such cross learning is the consciousness that one does not need to hate all other religions, or denigrate, insult or demonise other religions to prove one’s love for one’s own religion and have deep faith in it. “Those who know one religion knows none” according to a renowned scholar on religion, William Cantwell Smith.

Another global scholar of religion, Hans Kung, wisely said that “There will be no peace amongst nations without peace amongst religions”. Rephrasing Kung’s dictum for the Singapore context, one could say: “There will be no harmony amongst communities without harmony amongst religions and there will be no harmony amongst religions without mutuality amongst religions.”

Mutuality means reciprocal relations between inter-dependent entities and this can be achieved when religious communities move away from “zero-sum-ness” where some prosper at the expense of others to “non-zero sum-ness” where all may flourish and none will feel disadvantaged. Either all religious communities go forward with a non-zero sum mentality or all do not go forward because of the tight inter-dependent context that they are in.

This feeling of inter-dependence will be stronger when people mutually benefit from an inter-religious symbiotic relationship. They realise how mutually nourishing and enriching the different religions can be on all communities, thus deepening the respect that they have for each other’s religion and strengthening mutual trust. This religious harmony will then be resilient in the face of the severe tests on inter-religious relations due to events within and outside Singapore.

*Mohammad Alami Musa is Head of Studies on Interreligious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This also appeared in The Straits Times.

By David W. Murray*

Amongst the various global initiatives debated to counter the violent extremist ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), one example from Southeast Asia – the Global Movement of Moderates – is worth closer scrutiny. Moderation, however, is not just for Muslims.

By Kumar Ramakrishna*

International concernt at the rapidly metastasising global threat of the brutal Al Qaeda “mutation” known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has generated concerted discussions on effective strategies to counter its highly virulent ideology that has been widely disseminated through the Internet.

High-level summits on countering violent extremism (CVE) were held in Washington and in Sydney in the first half of this year, while more recently British Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled the United Kingdom’s new multi-faceted CVE strategy as well. In Southeast Asia, one potentially powerful idea – moderation – has been promoted as a means of neutralising the extremist appeal of ISIS.

The Global Movement of Moderates

First mentioned by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak at the UN General Assembly in September 2010, the concept of moderation gained traction at the 18th ASEAN Summit in Jakarta in 2011 when ASEAN leaders endorsed the initiative to establish the Global Movement of Moderates to help shape global developments, peace and security. Subsequently the ASEAN Concept Paper on the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) was adopted at the 20th ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in 2012.

Most recently, at the 26th ASEAN Summit in Langkawi, Malaysia on 27 April 2015, ASEAN leaders reiterated in the so-called Langkawi Declaration that the GMM initiative promotes a culture of peace and complements other initiatives, including the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations. The GMM Concept Paper recommended establishing dedicated ASEAN units to coordinate and evaluate all GMM-related activities within ASEAN and globally.

The Langkawi Declaration Programme

The Langkawi Declaration identifies several clusters of functional activities to promote the moderation norm, via collaboration between the GMM, the ASEAN Foundation and the ASEAN Institute of Peace and Reconciliation. The first cluster of activities includes organising outreach programmes, interfaith and cross-cultural dialogues at the national, regional and international levels. The second cluster involves the convening of forums to share best practices in understanding and countering violent extremist ideologies. An example is the East Asia Summit Symposium on Religious Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration held in Singapore in April 2015.

A third cluster encourages enhanced information-sharing on best practices in promoting moderation among ASEAN member states. A fourth cluster involves creating mechanisms to cultivate emerging leadership especially amongst women and youth that can help invigorate ASEAN’s drive and innovation in effectively addressing CVE issues as well as other global challenges. Importantly, a fifth cluster recognises education as an effective means of socialising the moderation norm and associated values such as respect for life, diversity and mutual understanding; this is a means of preventing the spread of violent extremism whilst addressing its root causes.

Another cluster seeks to foster formal scholarly exchanges to amplify the collective voices of moderate intellectuals, while a seventh recognises the need for exchanging ideas with extra-regional dialogue partners, international organisations and other relevant stakeholders on successful case studies of engagement and integration policies that support moderation.

“God is in the Details”: Operationalising moderation

While this multifaceted plan of action by the GMM to promote the norm of moderation as a means of countering the violent extremism is commendable, as an ancient saying goes, “God is in the details”. A roundtable held in Singapore on 29 July 2015 identified several issues that need to be addressed for moderation to be effectively operationalised at the grassroots level, where the “immunisation” of vulnerable Southeast Asian Muslim constituencies against the digitised, apocalyptic-tinged Salafi Jihadism of ISIS is most needed.

But first, what exactly is “moderation” anyway?

Within Islam – from whose intellectual and theological resources a sustained counter-narrative campaign against ISIS must be fashioned – the idea of wasatiyah or the “Middle Way” of a “just and balanced community” seems to be one possible elucidation of the moderation norm. In this sense a true Muslim embodying wasatiyah effectively preserves his religious integrity whilst embracing tolerance toward both co-religionists of differing convictions on certain matters, as well as members of other – or even no – faiths.

Importantly, operationalising moderation must also involve developing clearer legal principles for regulating the ISIS penchant for takfir or excommunication of other groups – a habit that has all too frequently religiously legitimised their subsequent acts of extermination in grisly fashion.

Operationalising moderation further implies that Southeast Asian Muslims should be wary of uncritical acceptance of certain puritanical strains of the faith emanating from the Middle East. It has been suggested that Southeast Asian Islam – famously, Islam with a “smiling face” – is “lived Islam” which possesses ample religious authenticity vis-a-vis the imagined, virulently re-interpreted “desert Islam” of ISIS.

It is hence timely that in early August 2015 the two largest Islamic groups in Indonesia, Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama – boasting 90 million members between them – affirmed their desire to promote a “progressive” Islam and more tellingly, an “Islam Nusantara” or “Islam of the archipelago” and that these ideas will be promoted in cyberspace as well.

Moderation is not for Muslims only

Finally, it should be recognised that the norm of moderation is not just an issue for the Muslim community alone. ISIS aside, Southeast Asia and the world has witnessed violent extremism of other religious and ethnic stripes as well. Hence within Southeast Asia at least, encouraging broader participation in further “ASEANising” the moderation concept so that is applies beyond regional Muslim constituencies would also help ensure it gets embedded in the socio-cultural and political DNA of the nascent ASEAN Community.

Ultimately, how would we know if the GMM initiative has succeeded? One clue would be when a Southeast Asian – although it is his right of “free expression” – voluntarily decides not to say or publish anything that might hurt the religious sentiments of a fellow Southeast Asian of another faith. Ancient religious texts summarise this as the principle of “not stumbling my brother”. Hence, rather than cynical self-censorship, what really lies at the heart of genuine moderation is quite simply, charity. Once Southeast Asians and others imbibe this idea, the days of ISIS and its ilk would surely be numbered.

*Kumar Ramakrishna is Associate Professor and Head, Policy Studies in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

US Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced legislation this week that would block the sale or transfer of certain arms to Bahrain until the State Department certifies that Bahrain has fully implemented all of the recommendations by an independent oversight commission.

“This legislation sends the clear message U.S. arms should not aid and abet the Bahraini government’s continued repression of its own people. It is deeply troubling that the State Department has decided to lift its ban on certain arms sales to Bahrain while it continues to torture and imprison peaceful political protesters,” Wyden said. “Senator Rubio and I plan to push hard to pass this bill and reverse this distressing decision.”

“The Bahraini government’s ongoing repression of its citizens is unacceptable, and the U.S. should not be providing weapons which could be used to suppress peaceful dissent until the government adopts meaningful political reforms,” Rubio said. “The State Department has made a grave error in looking the other way on human rights in Bahrain, and Congress should reverse this decision.”

The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry was established in 2011 to examine the government of Bahrain’s violent crackdown on peaceful protestors. The BICI report contained 26 recommendations and the State Department has only identified five of the 26 that Bahrain has fully implemented. Despite this lack of progress on human rights, the State Department recently decided to lift restrictions on certain arms sales to Bahrain. Wyden and Rubio have repeatedly registered serious concerns about Bahrain’s human rights record and the U.S. government’s response.

Representative James McGovern, D-Mass,co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, intends to introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives when Congress reconvenes later in the year.

“As a world leader, America has a responsibility to strengthen human rights at home and abroad. The recent renewal of U.S. military aid to Bahrain – a country that continues to repress its own people – is extremely concerning,” McGovern said. “If the US is truly committed to regional stability, we must push allies like Bahrain to embrace policies that will strengthen free societies, not silence entire segments of their population. This is the only way to combat extremism. That is why I plan to introduce this important legislation to block the sale of certain arms to Bahrain until they take the strong steps needed to improve human rights in their country. I am proud to partner with Senators Wyden and Rubio on this important effort and urge my colleagues to support this bill when Congress returns.”

The rulers of the two most powerful authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are launching major wars to reconfigure the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has declared war by proxy on Iran, announcing full-scale military mobilization within Israel (July 27 -29) and organizing the biggest political campaign of ultra Zionist Jews in Washington.

The purpose of this two-pronged propaganda blitz is to defeat the recently signed US-Iranian agreement and start another major Middle East war. Ultimately, Netanyahu intends to take care of his ‘Palestinian Problem’ for good: complete the conquest and occupation of Palestine and expelling the Palestinian people from their homeland – the single most important foreign policy and domestic goal of the Jewish state. In order to do this, Israeli leaders have had to systematically campaign for the destruction of the Palestinians regional supporters and sympathizers – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

Erodogan’ s Multiple Wars

At the same time, Turkish Prime Minister Erodogan has launched a major war against the Kurdish people and their aspirations for a Kurdish state. This has followed closely on several recent incidents beginning with the bombing (with cooperation from Turkish intelligence ) of a Kurdish youth camp, killing and wounding scores of young secular activists. Within days of the massacre of Turkish-Kurdish youth, Erodogan ordered his air force to bomb and strafe Kurdish bases within the sovereign territories of Iraq and Syria and Turkish security police have assaulted and arrested thousands of Kurdish nationalists and Turkish leftist sympathizers throughout the country. This has all occurred with the support of the US and NATO who provide cover for Erodogan’s plans to seize Syrian territory, displace Kurdish civilians and fighters and colonize the northern border of Syria – under the pretext of needing a ‘buffer zone’ to protect Turkish sovereignty. Such a massive land grab of hundreds of square kilometers will end the long standing support and interaction among Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurdish populations who have been among the most effective opponents of radical Islamist groups.

Erdogan’s newly declared war on the Kurds has complex domestic and regional components (Financial Times 7/28/15, p 9): Within Turkey, the repression is directed against the emerging electoral-political power of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party. Erodogan plans to discredit or outright ban this political party, which had won a surprising number of seats in the recent parliamentary election, call for new elections, secure a ‘majority’ in Parliament and assume dictatorial ‘executive powers’.

Regionally, Erodogan’s invasion of Syria is part of his strategy to expand Turkey’s borders southward and westward and to provide a platform from which Turkey’s favorite jihadi clients can launch assaults on the secular government in Damascus and Aleppo. The bombing of Kurdish villages and camps in Iraq and Syria are designed to reverse the Kurd’s military victories against ISIS and will justify greater repression of Kurdish activists backing autonomy in southeastern Turkey.

Erodogan is counting on Turkey’s agreements with the US and NATO for overt and covert collaboration against the Kurds and against Syrian national sovereignty.

Netanyahu’s Proxy Wars

Netanyahu’s multifaceted political offensive is designed to drag the US into a war with Iran. His strategy operates at many levels and in complex complimentary ways. The immediate target is the nuclear agreement recently signed between the White House and Iran. Part of longer-term strategy to destroy Iran includes the formation of a coalition of Middle East states, especially Gulf monarchies, to encircle, confront and provoke war with Iran. This political-military strategy is being pushed by leading Zionists within the highest circles of the US Government.

All the major Israeli political parties, and most Israeli voters support this dangerous policy against Iran. The Presidents of the 52 Major American Jewish Organizations in the US have been mobilized to bully, bribe and bludgeon the majority of Congress into following Netanyahu’s dictates. Every US Congressperson is being ‘visited’ and presented with propaganda sheets by leaders, activists and full time functionaries of AIPAC, the Jewish Confederations and their billionaire political donors. All the major US press and TV media parrot Netanyahu’s call for ‘war on the peace accord’ despite massive US public opinion against any escalation of the conflict.

At the highest levels of US Executive decision-making top Zionist officials avoid association with AIPAC’s public polemics and thuggish bluster, all the while promoting their own political-military ‘final solution’ …for eliminating Iran as an adversary to Israeli-Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. In the State Department and Departments of Commerce, Defense and Treasury, US-Israeli agents acting as special Middle East advisers, ambassadors and insiders push Netanyahu’s policies to undermine any normalization of relations between the US and Iran.

A recent proposal written by Professor Phillip Zelikow in the Financial Times (7/23/15, p. 9 ) entitled “To Balance (sic) the Nuclear Deal, Defeat ISIS and Confront Iran” is chilling.

The former ‘Executive Director of the ‘9/11 Commission Investigation Report’, uber-insider Zelikow promotes the formation of an ingenious coalition, in the name of fighting ISIS, but whose real purpose is to “confront Iranian ambitions”. Zelikow’s “coalition” includes Turkey, which will be assigned to attack Iran’s regional allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah) – all in the name of “fighting ISIS”.

The bland, bespectacled and most respectable Professor Zelikow lays out Netanyahu’s own bloody hit list down to the most minute detail – but tidied up with a thin veneer of ‘confronting ISIS’ to obscure his real agenda. This is no blustering AIPAC thug or open Neo-Con war monger beating the drums…

Zelikow’s ‘anti-ISIS coalition’ will ultimately go after the Iraqi Shia militia and their main supporters among Iran’s Revolutionary Guard – hewing closely to Netanyahu’s strategy!

Zelikow was a major inside advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Twelve years after the US invaded, occupied and destroyed Iraq, Zelikow pops up again to promote a policy of sending US combat troops to serve Israel’s regional interest. He writes, “The military side [of the ‘coalition’] will need more Americans on the ground to offer meaningful combat support among the coalition”. (FT ibid).

Zelikow is clearly aware of US public opinion in favor of diplomacy with Iran and against the US engaging in more ground wars in the Middle East, when he writes that a ‘military effort is not an alternative to diplomacy.” Zelikow and his bosses in the Israeli Foreign Office know any US military intervention with such a “coalition” would lead to the destruction of the US-Iran Agreement and another major ground war with US troops fighting for Israel once again!

Considering his position as a highly connected insider, Zelikow’s attempts to sabotage the Iran-US agreement presents a far greater danger to world peace than all the noisy lobbying by the 52 Zionist organizations active in Congress.

Zelikow has been a highly influential security adviser to the US Executive and State Department since the early 1980’s under Reagan. He was appointed ‘special adviser to the State Department’ in 2007, a position held earlier by Neo-Con operative Wendy Sherman and followed by war-monger, Victoria Nuland. In 2011 President Obama appointed him to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

He came to national prominence when President Bush appointed him Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission where he directed the highly controversial (and highly censored) 9/11 Commission Report against much public opposition. The appointment was made after Bush first choice of Henry Kissinger had created a media storm – Kissinger was never a serious choice with an insider-gatekeeper like Zelikow waiting in the wings. He was a controversial choice because of his role as intimate advisor to Condaleeza Rice and his authorship of the notorious Bush national security strategy promoting pre-emptive war, published in September 2002.

Phillip Zelikow suppressed any discussion of Israel’s role as a major catalyst for US involvements in the Afghan and Iraq wars. As executive-director of the 9/11 Commission Report, Zelikow assumed the role of editor and censor. He ignored the history of Israeli Mossad operations in the US, especially in the run-up to the attack on September 11, 2001. The report made no mention the fake ‘moving’ van filled with Israeli spies arrested on September 11, 2001 while celebrating and photographing the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. Nor did he discuss the quiet ‘deportation’ of the Israeli agents. The report contains no discussion of the scores of phony Israel “art students” who operated in South Florida around US military installations and in the vicinity of the apartment of the alleged 9-11 hijackers. They too were quietly arrested and deported.

He also suppressed discussion of the Defense Department’s ‘Able Danger Project’, which showed US intelligence awareness of the hijackers presence and activities much earlier dating back to 1997.

In October 2001, the first ‘anthrax attack’ occurred – first sickening and killing a photojournalist at a scandal sheet in Florida. National news programs featured an interview with… the re-packaged ‘al Qaeda’ and ‘bioterrorism’ expert Professor Zelikow (his lack of Arabic and scientific credentials notwithstanding…) who declared the anthrax to be ‘weapons grade’ and ‘definitely from a state sponsored military lab’, implying Iraq. (He was correct in the ‘military lab’ part of his declaration – only the facility was the US Weapons Lab at Fort Detrick. Zelikow’s role in accusing the embargoed and beleaguered regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of the anthrax hysteria was crucial in the public build-up for the case to invade Iraq, echoed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s call for the destruction of Iraq. Master-performance complete, ‘scientist’ Zelikow’s interview (among others) has disappeared from the ‘web’.

Zelikow’s ‘expertise’ (such as it is) and usefulness to Israel derives from his articles on the political usefulness of ‘false flags’ and catastrophes – events concocted or instigated by imperialist powers to push a traumatized public into unpopular wars and draconian domestic police state policies. His work has centered on the manipulation and exploitation of ‘events’ to push public policy – and include the Cuban Missile Crisis, the re-unification of Germany, policing Northern Ireland, (but not Middle East studies or bio-weaponry’). His expertise is in the historical use of the ‘public myth’- whether the Riechstag Fire or Pearl Harbor. In Foreign Affairs, November-December 1998, he co-authored an article with the current US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, entitled Catastrophe Terrorism where a ‘watershed event’ could result in ‘horror and chaos’ pushing the US public to accept the destruction of ‘their civil liberties, wide-spread surveillance, detention and use of deadly force…’

Zelikow continues to push the “false flag” script: In 2001 with the “anthrax hysteria” and now with the “Iran threat hysteria” . . . What is not surprising is that in both instances he hews closely to Israel’s strategic goal of utterly destroying countries, which have opposed Israel’s dispossession, occupation and expulsion of Palestinians – Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and now Iran.

Zelikow is a long-term, major asset for Israel, working quietly and effectively while the AIPAC bullies break down the doors of Congress. He never held a prominent position in the Cabinet or White House post like the brazen Zion-Cons Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Perle, Abrams and Levey who aggressively pushed the country into war with Iraq. Wolfowitz and company have scuttle back into obscurity under the cover of lucrative private positions while Zelikow continues to work inside pushing the Iran war agenda out of the limelight.

Zelikow’s role is far more discrete and important to Israel over the long haul than the loudmouths and thugs of AIPAC and other Zionist fronts. On the surface he pursues his academic and university administrative career (an excellent cover) while repeatedly inserting himself into crucial public discussions and quietly assuming strategic positions to advise on events or policies which have ‘turning point’ consequences and where his deep ties to Israel are never discussed.

Zelikow has one asset, which his bullying and blustering Zionist comrades lack and another which he shares with them. Zelikow is a great con-man – claiming knowledge about anthrax, Middle East relations, and military strategy. He spouts …. pure unadulterated rubbish with authoritative finesse!.. Claiming legal and investigative expertise he controlled the 9/11 Commission Report and denied the American people any open and relevant discussion of the event. He even likened the Commission Report skeptics to ‘an infection’ within American public opinion – apparently relying on his ‘expertise’ in biological warfare…

What Zelikow does have in common with the raging bulls of Zionism is his constant resort to vituperation against any country or movement identified as a target by Israel. He consistently refers to the secular government of Syria (under attack by jihadi terrorists) as a “terrorist regime”. He calls the Iraqi militia fighting ISIS “Shia torture squads”. This is part of a build-up to push the US into ground war for Israel against Iran and its allies.

Unlike Turkey’s Erodogan who uses his own armed forces to launch an all-out war to dispossess, terrorize and colonize ethnic Kurdish territories in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, Israel’s Netanyahu relys on his overseas (US) high level operatives to set in motion the wheels of war. Within days of attacks of September 11, 2001, Israel’s leading mouthpiece in the US Senate, Joseph Lieberman presented the roadmap for US wars for the next decade and a half – declaring that “the US must declare war on Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Iran”, despite the complete absence of these countries’ involvement in the event.

Is he a prophet or just a highly successful agent? Zelikow will push for a ‘coalition’ of Middle East dictators and monarchs to fulfill Israel’s dream as dictated by Joseph Lieberman in September 2001. This is a dream of waging devastating war against Iran leading to its partition, similar to the de facto partition of Iraq, Syria and Libya, resulting in a Middle East forever ravaged by sectarian strife, foreign occupations, balkanized and devoid of any possibility of regaining civilized life. Israel can then carry out its brutal final solution: the dispossession and expulsion of all Palestinians and establishment an expanded, purely Jewish state – surrounded by unspeakable destruction and destitution…

Conclusion

Erodogan expands ‘Turkoman frontier’ into Syria and Iraq – despite the fact that Turkey has never shown any interest in the Turkoman minorities. To that end, he allies with ISIS terrorists to uproot Kurds, everywhere extending into Turkey. Erodogan, like, Netanyahu, wants a ‘pure’ ethnic state – one Jewish, the other Turkish! Both brutal leaders have no regard for the sovereignty of neighboring states, let alone the security of their civilian populations. Both depend on the military support of the US. Both are in the process of igniting wider and more destructive wars in the Middle East. Netanyahu and Erodogan want to reconfigure the Middle East: Turkey seizes Kurdistan and Syria; Netanyahu expands military dominance in the Persian Gulf through the destruction of Iran.

These two leaders appear to hate each other because they are so similar in arrogance and action… But according to Professor Zelikow, the US will step in ‘god-like’ to ‘mediate’ the different power grabs among what he mindlessly refers to as the ‘partners of the coalition’.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has denounced as pure lies the new allegations stemming from a Washington-based think tank known as the scientific arm of the pro-Israel lobby — regarding the Parchin military complex in Tehran.  The Institute For Science and International Security (ISIS) has published a new report that relies on commercial satellite images of a particular area of Parchin that has been the focus of attention by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since late 2011.

Although the U.S. media has taken the new ISIS report rather seriously, a close scrutiny reveals that it is technically invalid and rather ridiculous, deliberately trying to misconstrue regular work at a military complex as something “suspicious.”  Case in point, the report cites the presence of two trucks in front of the building, that were ostensibly not there at the previous images, or “oil spill” from the trucks, as if that is the proof of anything.  It hypocritically states: “It is difficult to fathom Iran’s motives.” But then, it does not go on to say motives for what? How about regular road work or building upgrade? Is that too difficult to fathom?

Not bothering with the obvious, the report then engages in the hypothetical hyperbole by claiming that it is probably Iran’s last-ditch effort to “sanitize” the area suspected of high explosive testing some 15 years ago.  But, even the White House has reluctantly admitted that if there has been nuclear-related testing there it would not be possible to “sanitize” it, given the thousands of nuclear particles that would contaminate the area. So, in effect ,the respected scientists of the ISIS have made a mockery of their scientific pretensions by leveling these accusations — for the second time. In 2012, the ISIS made similar allegations, claiming Iran was “removing soil” from the area, that turned out to be false and was never echoed by the U.S. intelligence community.

In fact, a clue to the absurdity of these allegations can be found in the fact that the IAEA inspected Parchin twice in January and November 2005 without finding anything suspicious, much to the agency’s embarrassment.  As repeatedly stated  by Iran’s envoy to the IAEA at the time, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the inspectors were given full access to the whole complex and “IAEA chose the buildings.”  Clearly, if Iran had anything to hide at Parchin, and had conducted nuclear-related tests in 2000 as falsely claimed by ISIS and other pro-Israel sources, then it would not have given carte blanche to the IAEA.  Yet, this important point has consistently bypassed the ‘institute of slander’ ISIS scientists.

This recalls the reaction of IAEA inspector Robert Kelly in 2012 who questioned the IAEA’s judgment in adopting the questionable data about Parchin,  calling the claim that Iran had conducted hydrodynamic testing inside a cylinder a “crazy idea” particularly since the cylinder is too small for the huge 70-kg explosive attributed to it.  Iran has already furnished documents to the IAEA that support its claim that the tests with conventional explosives have been done for industrial purposes and have never involved any nuclear material.

In terms of the timing of ISIS’s new allegations, coinciding with last week’s report to the U.S. Congress by the head of IAEA, Mr. Yukiya Amano, who has entered a new modality for cooperation with Iran to resolve the outstanding issues by mid-December, 2015, it is perfectly possible that the real aim might be to save the agency from a new embarrassment.   Given the reports that under the new agreement, Iran has consented to new IAEA ‘managed access’ to Parchin, the distinct possibility that the IAEA would not find anything suspicious just as in its previous visits in 2005 would raise new questions about the IAEA’s credibility and over reliance on dubious intel on Iran.  Thus, by giving the impression that the IAEA cannot find clues because of Iran’s “sanitizing the evidence,” the ISIS has in effect tried to cover for the agency and its current head, who has shown an uncanny ability to sheepishly follow Washington’s marching orders.  This way, sufficient questions will also be cast on the new nuclear agreement, as fresh logs in the furnace of opposition to the landmark deal.   On the whole, the new ISIS report fits the description of deliberate misinformation thinly-disguised as objective scientific research, thus giving a bad name to science.

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act by underscoring the importance of one of the most fundamental rights of our democracy – that all of us are created equal and that each of us deserves a voice. The enactment of the Voting Rights Act wasn’t easy – it was the product of sacrifice from countless men and women who risked so much to protect every person’s right to vote. The President reminded us about their struggle and that while our country is a better place because of it, there is still work to be done. He promised to continue to push Congress for new legislation to protect everyone’s right to the polls, and asked that all Americans regardless of party use every opportunity possible to exercise the fundamental right to vote.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
August 8, 2015

Hi, everybody. The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of any democracy. Yet for too long, too many of our fellow citizens were denied that right, simply because of the color of their skin.

Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson signed a law to change that. The Voting Rights Act broke down legal barriers that stood between millions of African Americans and their constitutional right to cast ballot. It was, and still is, one of the greatest victories in our country’s struggle for civil rights.

But it didn’t happen overnight. Countless men and women marched and organized, sat in and stood up, for our most basic rights. For this they were called agitators and un-American, they were jailed and beaten. Some were even killed. But in the end, they reaffirmed the idea at the very heart of America: that people who love this country can change it.

Our country is a better place because of all those heroes did for us. But as one of those heroes, Congressman John Lewis, reminded us in Selma this past March, “There’s still work to be done.” Fifty years after the Voting Rights Act, there are still too many barriers to vote, and too many people trying to erect new ones. We’ve seen laws that roll back early voting, force people to jump through hoops to cast a ballot, or lead to legitimate voters being improperly purged from the rolls. Over the years, we have seen provisions specifically designed to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote. In a democracy like ours, with a history like ours, that’s a disgrace.

That’s why, as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, I’m calling on Congress to pass new legislation to make sure every American has equal access to the polls. It’s why I support the organizers getting folks registered in their communities. And it’s why, no matter what party you support, my message to every American is simple: get out there and vote – not just every four years, but every chance you get. Because your elected officials will only heed your voice if you make your voice heard.

The promise that all of us are created equal is written into our founding documents – but it’s up to us to make that promise real. Together, let’s do what Americans have always done: let’s keep marching forward, keep perfecting our union, and keep building a better country for our kids.

Thanks everybody. Have a great weekend.

Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s ousted and imprisoned president, hinted on Saturday that he had been subject to a poisoning attempt by prison officials.

During court proceedings, Morsi — democratically elected in mid-2012 only to be ousted by the army one year later — cryptically said he had “refused to eat food [provided by prison officials], which, had I eaten it, a crime would have occurred”.

Morsi went on to cite five recent “incidents” he had experienced in prison, which, he asserted, “would have constituted a crime” had they succeeded.

He did not elaborate further.

Last month, Morsi was sentenced to death for “espionage” and escaping from prison during the 2011 popular uprising that led to former President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year stint in power.

A leading member of Egypt’s now-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood group, Morsi — who was ousted and imprisoned by Egypt’s military in mid-2013 — still faces several other criminal charges, which he and his supporters insist are politically motivated.

Original article

By Surya Valliappan Krishna*

Recently, the Gurdaspur terror attack raised questions regarding collusion between Islamist groups such as Laskar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Sikh militant groups pushing for the revival of the Khalistan movement. Although, the idea of two forces with very little in common uniting to fight a common enemy seems like a really engaging narrative of Bollywood’s next 100 crore blockbuster, it actually is seen in the real world.

This isn’t the first time we’re seeing collusion between terrorist groups. Often groups with different aims and agendas unite to fight a common enemy. Coordination and support takes the form of training, logistics, intelligence weapons supply and actual operation. Groups also show remarkable capacity to learn from each other, for instance the LTTE (Liberation Tamil of Tigers Eelam) popular use of suicide bombing was adopted by Al-Qaeda and now groups from around the world.

During the latter half of the 20th century, the LTTE was working closely with a number of terrorist groups. LTTE was associated with Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, Abu Sayyaf Group and pro-Palestinian groups; the relationship was critical to weapons supply and training. In addition the LTTE has extended a hand to the Naxalite and Khalistan movements in India and swore to support national liberation movements around the world. In 2007 it was found that the LTTE has sold hundreds of Norwegian passports to Al-Qaeda.

We see this trend with terrorist groups in other parts of the world too. In some cases we’ve seen extremely powerful collusions and mergers among groups. The Hezbollah was actually a merger of a number of Shia militias with members from a number of different factions. Strategic alliances too are seen very often with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in the region. With the Islamic State, we see that a number of groups around the world are joining its bandwagon and pledging allegiance, for instance Boko Haram and Jundullah. Given that these groups have some hold in their countries and Islamic State’s transnational network, financial and military might, attacks involving collusion between the Islamic State and its side-kicks are definitely on the cards.

Islamic State could potentially exploit home-grown terrorist groups in India; use groups such Indian Mujahideen (IM) and Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) as tools for its Indian challenge and South Asian agenda. These groups lack the kind of organization efficiency that the Islamic State can provide.

We also see that in certain cases, there is a sense of rivalry among terrorist groups. Although, turf wars are normally associated with intelligence agencies and bureaucratic frameworks, terrorist groups often emulate this. This is seen with Islamist groups, particular now with the Islamic State and Afghan Taliban. The Islamic State, which uses its propaganda magazine Dabiq, as a medium to denounce other Islamist groups, openly criticized the Afghan Taliban, its lack of activity and influence. Reports claims that the two groups had declared war on each other. In addition to this there is evidence to show that the Afghan Taliban has been discouraging its cadre from joining the Islamic State and warning the Islamic State against operating in Afghanistan. Turf wars among groups pose a problem in itself as civilian population is often a canvas for the expression of violent tendencies.

Collusion between groups does not always symbolize a collusion of ideologies; it is a merger of convenience and often nothing more. Co-operation among lethal forces is a threat to any government; a co-ordinated attack needs a co-ordinated response. Non-state groups exploit and escalate tensions between state forces. The only way to neutralize this hybrid threat is to de-politicise security issues and push for inter-governmental counter-terrorism cooperation.

India currently is working on what is calls as a ‘radicalisation blueprint’, keeping in line with the West. One can only hope that this has a ripple effect other countries in South Asia where the threat is equally imminent such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives. Any radicalisation or counter-extremism plan is unlikely to work if isolated from the international neighbourhood. While the state-wise radicalisation approach is commendable, what is needed is larger South Asian-level cooperation to counter Islamic State influence and the collusion between terror groups.

*Surya Valliappan Krishna is a postgraduate student at the Department of War Studies, Kings College London. He is a lead researcher on Mantraya’s ‘Islamic State in South Asia’ Project. He can be reached at suryavalliappan@gmail.com

The headlines of the leading Indian newspapers roared on August 4, 2015 about a historic peace accord signed between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN). The provisions upon which the accord has been finalized is kept secret and highly confidential as of now.

Although the media in general claimed that the Agreement has been signed between the Government of India and the NSCN, it requires mention that NSCN as a single entity exists no more. The former National Socialist Council of Nagaland got divided among two factions in 1988 to form NSCN (I-M) and NSCN (K); a brief about which has been mentioned towards the end of the article.

In addition to the two prominent factions, there have also been other factions coming up amongst the Naga leadership which vary from each other in terms of the territorial definition of the proposed “Naga Homeland” or the “Nagalim”. The recent peace accord has been signed by the Indian government with the NSCN (IM) faction which has been indulging in discussions with the Government of India as per a ceasefire agreement signed on July 25, 1997. Another point that requires mention is that, the June 4, 2015 attack on the 6 Dogra Regiment of the Indian Army in Manipur was considered to be an action of the NSCN (K) faction, which presently is the most violent and active insurgency group in the northeastern part of India and with which no peace accords have been signed so far.

Genesis of the Naga movement

The Naga Hills came under British administration in 1881. Prior to the coming of the region under colonial administration, Nagas were living independently as indigenous people. They had, and even today, to a great extent have their own distinct social life, laws, customs, cultures and modes of governance. The seeds of discontent against the foreign rule which were sowed long ago gradually kept growing and eventually took an organizational form with the formation of the Naga Club in 1918. The Naga Club stood up staunchly against the Simon Commission in 1929.

Standing by the fact that Naga Hills had remained mostly self-governed throughout good part of history, the Naga National Council (NNC) was formed under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo in 1946 to demand for an independent Nagaland. As India was almost on the eve of getting its independence from the British rule, the Naga National Council (NNC) on August 14, 1947 declared Nagaland an independent state. The NNC resolved to establish a sovereign Naga state and conducted a referendum in 1951 in which the majority (99%) called for an “independent” Nagaland.

As the dreams of breathing in a free Nagaland appeared to be a distant dream, given the indifference of the Indian Government towards the genuine Naga grievances, Phizo in 1956 formed the underground Naga Federal Government (NFG) and the Naga Federal Army (NFA) and kick started the new phase of armed struggle in the Naga Hills.

The 9-Point Agreement, 1947

Simultaneously with the resistance movement began New Delhi’s approaches to tackle it. The leadership in New Delhi, which at that time had just come out of the embryo and had been struggling with the difficult job of integrating the princely states, was reluctant to take harsh measures against the freedom loving Nagas.

As a result, on June 29, 1947, the then Assam Governor Sir Akbar Hyderi signed a 9-point agreement with the moderates in the NNC. The 9-point agreement recognized the predominance of the NNC in the Naga Hills and laid down nine areas where the NNC could exercise its authority. The NNC was left in control of the resources and land in the Naga Hills and a mechanism to impose, collect and spend land revenue was detailed in the agreement. The agreement thus, recognized “the right of the Nagas to develop themselves according to their freely expressed wishes.”

The ambiguity in the 9-point agreement accruing from the clever use of language, which New Delhi has been ever efficient in, was believed to be the cause for future discord between the Nagas and the Indian Government. In its last paragraph, the Agreement said: “The Governor of Assam as the Agent of the Government of the Indian Union will have a special responsibility for a period of 10 years to ensure the observance of the agreement, at the end of this period the Naga Council will be asked whether they require the above agreement to be extended for a further period or a new agreement regarding the future of Naga people arrived at.”

The NNC interpreted this clause as the right to withdraw from the Indian Union if it so desired after 10 years. While the leadership at New Delhi interpreted it as nothing more than a mere option to change the administrative structure in the Naga Hills. Thus, when around 1955 the Indian Government started consolidating its grip in the Naga Hills and ignored NNC’s demand to open political dialogue on the “future of the Nagas”, the armed struggle in the Naga Hills began. New Delhi’s disregard to the referendum of 1951 had insulted the hopes of peaceful settlement to such an extent that on March 22, 1956 Angami Phizo formed the underground Naga Federal Government (NFG) and the Naga Federal Army (NFA). The NNC was subsequently joined by the Burmese Nagas to form the Eastern Naga Revolutionary Council making the Naga Army the largest in South Asia.

The Indian government rather than attending to the genuine grievances of the Nagas, or trying to reduce misconceptions, initiated stringent counter insurgency measures including the imposition of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in 1958. Since then, the frontier region has never been back to peace again and has remained a confrontational bone of contention for India’s Look East policy.

The 16-Point Agreement, 1960

As the discontent in the Naga Hills turned into a fierce armed separatist movement, the Indian Government unleashed stringent counterinsurgency measures and at the same time initiated dialogue with the moderate factions with an aim to buy their loyalty. That culminated in the 16-point agreement with the Naga People’s Convention in 1960. From the perspective of the Nagas, the Agreement seems to be the most rewarding of all accords because it led to the formation of the separate state of Nagaland within Indian Union in 1963. “This marks the first real Indian effort to divide the Naga society between moderates and hardliners, and the concessions accruing from the agreement were intended to create a political space for the moderates to the exclusion of the believers in armed struggle.” i The post-colonial Indian State was thus successful in sustaining the colonial legacy of the “carrot and the stick”

The Shillong Accord, 1975

The Shillong Accord was signed on November 11, 1975 between the Government of India and the “representatives of the underground organizations”, a term used to denote those elements within the NNC that were willing to give up arms and accept the Indian constitution. The Accord instead of bringing an end to the Naga movement brought in further contentions by splitting up the NNC into pro-accord and anti-accord factions.

It was on the aftermath of the Shillong Accord that, a group of the NNC cadres under the leadership of Thuingaleng Muivah decided to part away from the NNC to form a new group. The breakaway faction included three prominent names which in due course appeared to be nightmare to the Indian State, namely – Thuingaleng Muivah, Isak Chisi Swu and Shangwang Shangyung Khaplang. The faction named themselves the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) after its formal grouping in 1980. In a short span, the NSCN succeeded in completely pushing the NNC to oblivion. With the death of Angami Phizo in 1991, the might of the NNC further faded away and it made way for the NNC as the sole vanguard of the Naga movement.

NSCN and the recent agreement

The factionalism in the Naga leadership did not end with the formation of the NSCN in 1980. The NSCN was further divided into two factions on ground of dissimilarities in terms of the territorial calculations for the proposed Naga homeland, “Nagalim”. The two emerging factions were namely NSCN (K) to be led by the Burmese Hemi Naga (a Naga tribe across the international Indo-Myanmar border) leader, Shangwang Shangyung Khaplang and the NSCN (I-M) to be led by Tangkhul Naga ( a Naga tribe inhabiting mostly the Ukhrul district of Manipur) leaders Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu.

NSCN (K)’s idea of a greater Naga homeland or the “Nagalim” includes areas beyond the borders of the Indian nation state extending to the peripheral regions of Myanmar. While NSCN (I-M)’s idea of a greater Naga homeland includes areas with Naga habitations along and across the territorial borders of the Indian states Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.

Although the terms of the recent Accord has not been made public, following are some of the expected possibilities given the age old demands of the NSCN.
The NSCN (K)’s demand of including areas of Myanmar seems to be a distant dream as it involves altering of international borders. This is something next to impossible given the recent antagonism of India along Myanmar border and subsequent chest-thumping in New Delhi injuring the Burmese sovereignty. Hence, the NSCN (K) faction has duly stayed away from any further discussions with New Delhi as of now. Whatever be the provisions, the Khaplang faction is obvious to reject it and continue its armed struggle. Thus, the Accord would merely be the co-option of the Isak-Muivah faction while the disturbances in the region are expected to still continue.

Although the demand of NSCN (IM) to include areas forming part of present day Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh seems to be very much under the sovereign capacity of India, it too is surrounded with contentions. Article 3 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to alter the boundaries of its states and such alteration shall not call for amendment of the Constitution. The boundaries of its States can be altered by the Indian Parliament by a simple majority. Given the majority in the Parliament of the ruling NDA regime and also given the present ruling regime in Nagaland called Nagaland People’s Front’s alliance with NDA, it seems to be a cakewalk for New Delhi to come up with a territorial reorganization in the northeastern region as it did in 1972.

But the Modi government before resorting to any such measure must brush up the dust of memory to recall the violent protests in Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh that broke out every time New Delhi tried to enter into ceasefire agreements with the NSCN. It is not very old a story when the three states saw violent protests in 1997 when the peace process began with NSCN and also in 2001 when the central government had extend the cease fire agreement with NSCN. The Governments and the population at large of the three states will in no ways accept any alteration in boundaries injurious to their own interests. Yet another alarming factor is the statement from the other insurgent groups in the region who have been fighting for similar gains in their respective states warning New Delhi of uniting against any un-favorable decision.

Notes:
i. Bhaumik, S. (2005) ‘The Accord That Never Was: Shillong Accord, 1975′, in Das, S.K. (ed.) Peace Processes and Peace Accords, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

By R.S. Kalha*

In early July the decibel pitch in Sino-Myanmar relations rose considerably higher as a result of a Myanmar Civil Court located at Myitkyina awarding Chinese loggers harsh sentences for illegal logging. Of the 155 Chinese loggers, sentenced 150 were given sentences up to 20 years in jail. As could be expected there was considerable heartburning within the Chinese establishment on the severe sentences handed out. Not unnaturally, there were ‘demands’ that the jailed Chinese should be quickly released and brought back home to China.

However, the Chinese authorities also realized that although the Myanmar government professed friendship, public opinion in Myanmar was decidedly turning against the Chinese. This perceptible change in Myanmar public opinion turning adverse against the Chinese had its origins in September 2011 when work on the Chinese-funded Myitsone dam was suspended due to public pressure, since the locals felt this dam was being built entirely to benefit the Chinese and not for Myanmar. Similarly, protests led to the closing of the Letpadaung copper mine in December 2014 that was Chinese funded. The situation reached its lowest point when elements of the Myanmar air force accidently bombed Chinese territory in an attempt to flush out local insurgents fighting Myanmar government troops. The Chinese government protested vigorously, but did not exacerbate the situation further knowing full well that Myanmar plays a unique role in China’s peripheral diplomacy and in its geo-political ambitions. There is no doubt that the China-Myanmar border areas are witness to numerous clashes between ethnic armed forces and government troops for regional dominance, and China in the past has also not played a completely altruistic role in the border regions whatever they may claim now.

In recent times, the Myanmar authorities, aware of the dangers of relying too heavily on the sole support of the Chinese, have tried to broad base their options by making determined overtures to the US, Japan and India. All three countries have reciprocated with enthusiasm that has alarmed the Chinese to the extent that a feeling has been growing in China that its options in Myanmar were being constricted. Several articles have appeared in the Chinese press urging the Chinese authorities to cater to Myanmar public opinion. In fact, one article even suggested a modification of Chinese policy by suggesting that Chinese authorities ‘promote’ Myanmar agricultural activities, since the largest number of Myanmar residents are dependent on agriculture rather than to go in for industrial projects. Certainly, the Chinese authorities are conscious of the need to fine tune their cooperation with Myanmar since they are now conscious that the Myanmar economic space is subject to competition from the US, Japan and India.

With the Myanmar elections due in November this year the Chinese authorities are also aware that any ham-handed effort to obtain the release of the convicted 155 Chinese loggers could easily backfire and put China-Myanmar relations on an irretrievable downward spiral. On the other hand, the Chinese authorities also could not let Chinese loggers stay indefinitely in Myanmar prisons for that too would be seen as a slap in the face of the Xi Jinping government that prides itself as the second most powerful country in the world. Chinese diplomacy therefore had to be quick, effective and outside the public domain particularly the print and visual media.

Fortunately for the Chinese authorities, the Myanmar President U Thein Sein came to their rescue. The Myanmar president has in the past often issued pardons at frequent intervals, and presumably just prior to the Myanmar elections this was one such occasion again. In an act of clemency President U Thein Sein pardoned over 6,000 convicts, including the recently incarcerated 155 Chinese loggers.

It is the Chinese reaction to these events that is most instructive. The rather hawkish English language newspaper The Global Times that is the mouth piece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in a surprisingly mature reaction said in an editorial that the release of the Chinese loggers was not a ‘result’ of Chinese diplomacy; for to claim it as such would only amount to showing ‘disrespect’ to the Myanmar authorities. It also said that these Chinese loggers had ‘harmed’ the country’s reputation and that they should be investigated to see if they had violated any Chinese laws, and if they had they should be suitably dealt with in the context of the Chinese judicial system.

This is an instructive and a mature reaction of a government that is conscious of not hurting the sentiments of a smaller but a strategically located neighbor. The Chinese authorities achieved their objectives of obtaining the release of their incarcerated loggers, but at the same time did not give any offense to the Myanmar government. The key however remains as to how the Chinese authorities handle the still very sensitive situation that prevails all along the Sino-Myanmar border. Whether they show equal sensitivity and concern for the Myanmar government in that area remains moot.

*R.S. Kalha is a former Indian diplomat and author of book “India-China boundary issues; Quest for settlement”. He can be contacted at editor@spsindia.in

The terror attack on July 27 by a three-member cross-border fidayeen team on the Dinanagar police station in Gurdaspur district has again brought to the fore concerns about the revival of terrorism in the Punjab region. The terrorists, who were dressed in army uniforms, struck at Gurdaspur around 5.30 a.m., stormed the police station, before finally being killed after a 12-hour gun battle. It is suspected, that the same terrorists had planted five Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) on a railway track near Talwandi village between Dinanagar and Jhakoladi. Another terror attack took place at around 8 a.m. on August 5, when two terrorists also suspected to be originating from Pakistan, fired at a Border Security Force (BSF) convoy on the Jammu-Srinagar highway at Simroli. The attack left two BSF constables dead and, in a rarity, one of the two terrorists involved was captured alive.

These incidents have generated a fair share of political potshots, cries of intelligence failure and, as always, there are demands for modernisation of police forces of the states. As in the case of most such incidents, the twin terror strikes raise some fresh issues and have some lessons to offer.

Who Came Calling?

While there is reportedly “overwhelmingly conclusive” evidence that the terrorists involved in these strikes had infiltrated from Pakistan, there is no clarity on when, and how many had infiltrated. In the case of Dinanagar attack, as initial comments from Pakistan questioned more the nationality of the attackers rather than from where they had entered India, it led to speculation that these infiltrators might be of Indian origin, but trained in Pakistan. The timing of the Dinanagar attack also led to a rash of conspiracy theories as to its aim, even linking it to the hanging of Yakub Memon. The aim of the Udhampur attack appeared more simplistic- it was to kill ‘Hindus’ and there was little to speculate as to the nationality of the attackers.

Methodology

The attack at Dinanagar used the same general methodology of the attacks of the past few months in Kathua-Samba area. Ingress undetected across the International Border (IB) in a small group, then swiftly strike at one or two soft targets in police or army uniforms, cause as many causalities and confusion as possible, head for the highway, commandeer a vehicle to change the speed and direction of your attack on the next target, which is a hard target – a military or police establishment. This hard target once under control will provide protection against counter attacks, and even better, a source of additional weapons and ammunition. What is disturbing is the regularity with which the Pakistan-based militants have employed this methodology and none of our corrective actions have forced them to look for an alternative.

There was one strikingly peculiar commonality between the two attacks – the poor standard training of the terrorists. During the Dinanagar attack the battery connection to the IEDs placed on the railway tracks was faulty, and despite a 12-hour gunbattle the three terrorist never found an opportunity to use their light anti-tank rocket launcher. In the Udhampur attack, the ambush on the BSF bus was, fortunately, poorly executed. This led an analyst to conclude that terror groups in Pakistan were struggling to attract good recruits. What if this bumbling approach was a tactic in a larger plan?

Two other issues would worry India besides the ease with which these militants are crossing the IB. First is their undetected duration of stay and freedom of movement in sensitive border areas. Staying undetected for over ten days allows them to strike further away from the IB at hitherto militancy free areas within the state and in neighbouring areas. Second, is the availability and extent of local support. The fact that local support extends beyond food, shelter and guidance to include arms and ammunition, not only facilitates infiltration it also feeds into the narrative by indicating the presence of local resistance and validity of external assistance.

Assessment

While there is lot of back-slapping and congratulations going around after the capture of Mohammed Naved Usman, but do not be surprised if there is an identical celebratory mood in Pakistan amongst Naved’s handlers. When his capture is viewed in the context of what might be the actual plan, Naved would have achieved much more by staying alive and getting captured than in his “Shahadat” or martyrdom would have.

A large part of the interested and connected world would have been treated to the images of this goofy barefoot smiling young man in his early 20s, very much our neighbourhood lad. He comes from a normal family with a decent background and has walked across miles through unfavourable terrain and hostile conditions to take revenge in the name of his faith for “several” Kashmiri killed by Indian security forces. Forsaking a normal comfortable life for what he perceived a higher and a more meaningful purpose. His statements would resonate amongst several young, albeit misguided, Muslims who are streaming across the various countries to Iraq, Syria, etc. It would also showcase to the world how ‘emotive’ an issue Kashmir is for a simple, common devout Pakistani – he is willing to kill and die for it.

Pakistani Narrative

The Pakistani narrative being put forth by various analysts is simple – it makes no tactical sense or serves no strategic purpose for Pakistan to send across these semi-trained half-baked terrorists in groups of two-and threes; so where is the rationale and the motive. These are self-motivated, self-radicalised, like-minded lone wolves who have come together to take revenge for the atrocities being wreaked on their fellow Muslims. Here, the Pakistani narrative, which had shifted from state-sponsored terror to rogue non-state actors’ post 26/11, is now devolving on self-radicalised individuals acting singly or collectively on their own accord. If such individuals could bomb the Boston Marathon in fortress USA, why not in India, J&K? Therefore India should stop them at the IB, if it can, and turn them over to the Pakistani state, which will take back these misguided youth.

Even better if India wants to put an end to the problem, solve the Kashmir issue, stop fomenting trouble in Baluchistan, and, the cherry-on-the- cake, stop ill-treating Indian Muslims. The larger aim of this narrative appears to be to strike a chord with the “global jihadist” sentiments over the Kashmir issue.

Therefore while in India post these attacks, analysts are discussing the innards of our Pakistan policy, the spirit of Ufa and whether the NSA-level talks will go through or not, Pakistan quite ‘helplessly’, by stealth, is putting Jammu and Kashmir on the global jihadi’s map.

*Monish Gulati is Associate Director (Strategic Affairs) with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com. This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

The world first observed the devastation of mass destruction during the last days of World War II in August 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Two Japanese cities) were hit by two different nuclear bombs. The nuclear bomb was never tested before and for the first time it was tested during World War II. Human beings and infrastructure at Ground Zero immediately vanished away. After these nuclear bombings, the word ‘nuclear’ stirred up with alarming fright.

On August 6, 1945, first nuclear bomb named as ‘Little Boy’ was dropped on Hiroshima by the US aircraft. President Harry S Truman announced next day that the bomb was more powerful than 20,000 tons of TNT. The nuclear bomb was dropped at an altitude of about 600 meters above the ground to assure maximum devastation. The city was having military centers and industries in abundance. The destruction was unthinkable; almost 80% of the city vanished away. Every house in the city was rather demolished or burned.  It was a uranium bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and at the time of blast, the temperature at the hub of fireball was 50,000 degrees. The temperature on the ground (below 600m from the fireball) was approximately 4000 degrees centigrade. It is estimated that about 350,000 were residing in Hiroshima and there were near about 76,000 buildings at that time. When the bomb was dropped 80,000 people instantly died while 140,000 subsequently died in next few months. Everything within the radius of 2,000 meters entirely wiped out while the damaged area reached to 13,250,000 square meters.

On August 9, 1945, the second bomb named ‘Fat Boy’ was dropped on Nagasaki. The Nagasaki was an industrialized city with some important ports. The bomb was dropped at an altitude of about 500 meters above the ground and it was more powerful than 22 kilotons of TNT. The bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki was plutonium bomb. In Nagasaki, about 270,000 people were living at the time of explosion. When the nuclear bomb was dropped, about 74,000 people died immediately.

The instant casualties in both cities were around 200 thousand while more people lost their lives due to wounds or various diseases, while many other lived with lifetime disabilities. As due to immediate and short term causes of radiations, 15–20 percent lost lives due to radiation sickness; 20–30 percent died because of fire burns and 50–60 percent was killed from other injuries. In total, about 300 thousand people were exposed to radiation. Moreover, other loss includes high damage to infrastructure and environment while long term sequels are still continued.

The subject of nuclear war has changed in recent years as compared to cold war because the technological and political environment has changed. The nuclear danger has shifted from the quantity to quality. During the recent times nuclear bombs are more powerful than those dropped on Japan in 1945.  The nuclear war or danger of dropping a nuclear weapon on other state is interrelated to the number of countries having nuclear arsenals, which are increasing in 21^st century. In addition to P5, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea became a nuclear weapon state. Iran is also likely to enter into the nuclear club in a decade or more. Moreover, it is opined that those having civil nuclear program posses a potential to produce nuclear bomb in the future. The increase in number of countries possessing nuclear technology reinforced debate about the dangers of nuclear war.

McGeorge Bundy, President John F. Kennedy’s national security advisor, said in 1969, “Any decision that results in even a single hydrogen bomb explosion on one city of one’s own country would be declared as a calamitous mistake; while explosion of ten bombs on ten cities will be resulted as a tragedy far beyond history, whereas a hundred bombs on a hundred cities are beyond imagination.” The interdependency of intentions and capability between nuclear states makes the nuclear crisis harder to handle than a conventional war and this is what happened in Cuban Missile Crisis.

In WW-I, about 20 million people were killed and the killings in WW-II doubled and tripled this number. After both world wars, the humanity restored but the horrors of wars still prevails. General Douglas MacArthur said in 1960s, “World war will wipe out both sides, if you lose you will be destroyed and if you win you stand to lose. In either case it is double suicide.” Similar views were expressed by a Former US Defense Secretary that “If deterrence fails and crisis emerge, the whole western civilization will be annihilated.” Many researches presumes that the deaths in WWIII are unthinkable, it is estimated that such a conflict can be resulted in 80 to 160 million deaths in US in first month and additional deaths of 20-30 million if the targeting strategy changes (hitting urbanized areas, nuclear power plant and military installations will cause more deaths). In addition to it, millions will die due to injuries, radiation effects and lack of medical assistance. Other than human killings, the ecological concerns are high in such a scenario, scientists believe that firestorm caused by the nuclear explosion can lead to nuclear winter which can erase ‘homo sapiens’ from earth forever.

The recent studies says that even a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be threatened for all mankind and will result in devastating ecological aftereffects due to ash and fire storms on urbanized cities.  Another study by few analysts on this scenario articulated that if Pakistan and India drop about fifty nuclear warheads on each other which is approximately 0.4% of the total warheads than the destruction would be unpredictable for us. At least 20 million people can die in first week moreover the environmental effects globally would be more calamitous because the firestorm would strike 5 million tones of dust in air which will be resulted in blockade of sunlight and substantial drop in temperature for many years to come. The sudden decline in temperature would highly effect the food production across South Asia. It will also wipe out the corn production in China and US. Hence in case of war the temperature around the world will drop by 10-20 degrees Celsius which means that food production will stop to starve the humans globally.

The history is full of wars but the aftermath of a nuclear war (accidental or escalating) or dropping nuclear bomb (advertent or inadvertent) would be unthinkably catastrophic. Thus, the states threatening each other with dropping nuclear weapon (especially Pakistan and India) and spending big junk of their budgets on nuclear arms race need to think the unthinkable on the 70^th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-Bombings.

*The writer is a member of an Islamabad based think-tank, Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) and can be reached at maimuna.svi@gmail.com

Putin must have one powerful brain. I’ve seen actual evidence that he gives off brainwaves that are apparently being picked up by a variety of mind-sensitive observers. These people are primarily politicians, commentators, and journalists. They in turn tell the rest of us what Putin is thinking. They spew out Putin’s secrets and reveal what he’s really after.

This all differs from ESP (extra sensory perception) wherein there’s someone intentionally trying to send a neuronal message, and another person who is trying hard to receive it. In the case of Putin, he’s proclaimed no desire to transmit any inner thoughts. Here the receivers are more like extra sensory voyeurs peering in unnoticed by Putin.

So what are they telling us about Putin’s agenda? I did a Google search on the term “Putin wants” in order to see what the man’s secret agenda actually is and what he dearly wants. The first thing I discovered is there are a lot of media outlets reporting on this:

–What Putin Wants (Time magazine, March 6, 2014)
–What Putin Wants (The Atlantic, May 21, 2014)

This was starting to get voluminous. Fortunately Foreign Policy magazine stepped in to simplify things with this:

–What Putin Wants, In a Nutshell (May 22, 2014)

But it was vague. Thankfully some other coverage got more specific. For instance:

–Putin Wants to Regain Finland for Russia (The Independent, March 30, 2014)
–Putin Intent on Taking All of Ukraine (New York Times, September 13, 2014)
–Putin Wants to Conquer Belarus, the Baltic States (Huffington Post, March 30, 2014)

By this time we should be concerned and wondering what Putin’s up to. What’s his endgame? Here are some enlightening answers:

–Putin Wants to Rewrite Europe Boundaries: Hillary Clinton (AFP, March 19, 2014)
–Putin Wants to Restore USSR Borders (Lithuania Tribune, March 19, 2014)
–McCain: Putin Wants to Restore Soviet Empire (Bloomberg, March 17, 2014)
–McCain: Putin Dreams of Days of Russian Empire (Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2013)

Back in 2008 Wonkette even claimed that “McCain Says Putin Wants Alaska Back.” McCain has been particularly active in channeling Putin’s wants. I did a Google search on the terms “McCain says” “Putin wants” and found 37,400 results. That’s one amazing piece of mind reading. McCain certainly qualifies as an extra sensory voyeur extraordinaire.

But all the foregoing reports missed the biggest snoop-scoop of all. The honors for that go to The Spectator with its story, “Vladimir Putin’s New Plan for World Domination” (February 22, 2014).

The question that now sticks out is how Putin is going to get what he wants. I found fewer mind reading stories on this angle. The Los Angeles Times sort of took a stab at it:

–What Putin Wants, and How He Plans to Get It (April 20, 2014)

But two other outlets got more specific:

–Putin Wants to Work with Dictators (Philadelphia Inquirer, February 21, 2014)

That doesn’t sound like much of a plan. But here’s the other:

–Putin wants to Rebuild Berlin Wall (Zee News, September 8, 2014)

Somehow I don’t see how that’s going to do it either. World domination will be no easy task.

But seriously, how credible do you think any of these claims about Putin’s agenda are? Those making the claims offer no substantiation for how they know what’s on Putin’s mind.

What do you think? Wouldn’t a sensible judgment depend upon how much credibility we want to ascribe to a bunch of people who seem to voyeuristically tune in to Putin’s brainwaves?

Frankly, I don’t believe they have that special gift. Maybe they are just delusional in their conviction that they can read Putin’s mind.

Or are we talking about a bunch of charlatans? Just coincidentally, based on their own writings, these people seem to really dislike Putin. Maybe to know him neuronally is to despise him? Or perhaps it is the charlatans that have some sort of hidden agenda.

I explore this in a serious vein in my book Ukraine in the Crosshairs. In short, what I find is that people making and believing proclamations about what Putin wants fit into two general categories. The first group is made up of people who have political or commercial agendas of their own that are well served by the sweeping denigration of Putin, and, indeed, of Russia itself.

Members of the second group more innocently fall into a trap called “confirmation bias.” These people have heard the specious stories put out by the first group and have been taken in by them. As a result, each successive fabrication that comes along is accepted unquestioningly. That’s because the story likely confirms a bias that has already infiltrated their thinking. This has been going on for years. Some of the people in this second group are even making proclamations of their own now based on the internalized biases.

None of what I’ve written here is intended to prove anything positive or negative about Putin’s agenda. I have no idea what it is. But what I’ve found is that the most vocal critics who claim to know Putin’s mind are indeed charlatans and liars. I give concrete examples in Ukraine in the Crosshairs.

International criticism of foreign leaders need not necessarily be a malicious activity. Done properly, it can provide useful information for the population at large, and it can constitute constructive feedback to the leaders themselves.

But when the criticism is based upon falsehoods and distortions, it serves no one except perhaps the liars and frauds at the source of the stories. When all the oxygen is being taken up by their fabricated allegations and stories intended to deceive, we lose the chance for constructive endeavor. What a shame that is.

What started off as a massive fabrication in 2006 just received a great boost from a complicit British government. The mysterious polonium death of reputed former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko is the focus.

An inexplicably long series of official UK hearings on this nearly 9 year old case has just concluded. That’s prompted a new flurry of sensational media reports.

A recent Daily Mail headline reads “Putin ‘personally ordered Litvinenko’s murder.'” The Irish Independent said, “Vladimir Putin should be held responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.” BBC reported, “Vladimir Putin ‘ordered killing’, Litvinenko [official UK] inquiry hears.”

They support a premise that’s been around since the beginning. It implicates Russian president Vladimir Putin in the yet-to-be explained death.

You might think that reliable evidence has been presented to back up all the accusations. But careful examination shows the reports are no more than unsubstantiated allegations. No reliable facts are reported. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of evidence that this has been a nefarious witch hunt all along.

The official UK hearing has been made out to be a kind of trial, one aimed at bringing justice in the mysterious death case. The widow Marina Litvinenko told BBC, “The truth has finally been uncovered.”

That’s actually quite the opposite of the truth. Here are some facts:

• The prosecutor in the case was unable to unearth any incriminating factual evidence, only “grave suspicions” about Russian culpability. He never had a sufficient case to bring to trial.
• The current official inquiry has no capability to mete out justice. It hasn’t been a real trial at all. There are accused individuals. But they have no right to question their accusers. The inquiry doesn’t have the ability to convict anybody.
• No coroner has ever ruled that Litvinenko’s death was even a homicide. That leaves open the possibility of accidental poisoning or suicide.
• The KGB spy moniker given Litvinenko in the media is fallacious; he never did espionage work. But it added spice to all the misleading headlines.
• Litvinenko himself is on record believing an Italian named Mario Scaramella poisoned him.
• The “Putin did it” scenario that went mainstream was a highly successful fraud of massive proportion. It was instigated by Putin arch enemy Boris Berezovsky, a Russian robber baron who was hiding out in London from criminal prosecution back home. Berezovsky was angling to see Putin overthrown in a violent revolution and replaced by a monarch. No kidding. I’m not just alleging that. He said so in his own words.
• A rogue coroner dodged his statutory duty to rule on the manner and cause of death, and instead conducted a Berezovskyesque witch hunt for Russian culpability.
• He subsequently was told by Home Secretary Theresa May to cut out the witch hunt and perform his duty to rule on the manner and cause of death. She also told him that any further official inquiry was unnecessary.
• That would have ended the folly for good. But instead Prime Minister David Cameron reversed the Home Secretary and reopened the witch hunt. This came amidst the sanctions frenzy against Putin over the Ukraine crisis. It was a highly politicized move, not a search for justice.
• The result has been the just-concluded hearings, part of Cameron’s official inquiry.

Cameron has charged forward despite the obvious speciousness of the case. It’s not hard to see that fraud has been afoot all along. For instance, there was a widely-reported deathbed statement dictated by Litvinenko. News of it didn’t come out until after Litvinenko’s death. The statement blames Putin for the poisoning.

But I’ve found that Litvinenko never dictated any such statement. The story was a hoax. The hoaxer has even confessed that the words were his own, and that he had no factual basis for his allegation.

Isn’t Cameron aware of these specious claims in the Litvinenko case? If there is a real evidentiary basis, why is the record founded on outright fabrications like the deathbed statement? The case is replete with nonsense like the deathbed hoax.

So the truth that needs to be known is that the Litvinenko case has been a fraud right from the start, and continues as such to this day. I don’t know whether or not Putin or any other Russian had complicity in the death. But I do know that principals behind the accusations have been lying.

The biggest news here is that Cameron has put the weight of the UK government behind the fraud. What an extravagant affront to justice. He should be ashamed of himself.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

The Muslim Brotherhood considers itself at war with the Egyptian regime. This week, they launched a huge campaign that accompanied the inauguration ceremony of the “second Suez Canal.” Their sarcastic comments underestimated the new canal and were mentioned in many news pieces and social media posts on Twitter and Facebook.

We know that the opposition is in conflict with the government of Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, but we did not realize how far the gap is between the two. The Brotherhood could not stand there being a new Suez Canal without their involvement, which is why the group launched a relentless campaign in Arab and foreign media, stating that this is not a canal, but rather merely a fruitless “branch” that was not worth the investment. It also claimed that President Sisi was not behind this achievement, and that the whole project was the idea of the ousted President Muhammad Mursi.

In the end, the canal was dug and Egyptians enjoyed the lavish ceremony that followed. For the first time in the history of the canal, there will be a faster two-way traffic. The project was done in record time: Less than a year from planning to execution.

We knew the Muslim Brotherhood to be the most experienced opposition party and group. They are known for their ability to manage their battles by promoting their ideas and distorting their opponents’ image. However, this time, they seem to have chosen a battle doomed to fail.

They usually choose widely important subjects such as financing flour and bread, the problems of public transport, power outages, unemployment, etc. In brief, they usually choose negative issues that can rally people around the group.

Nevertheless, there is no reason to complain about the new Suez Canal as it represents a different challenge. I believe that the majority of Egyptians consider it as a national project, not belonging to the president or his government, or even the political opposition! The unbiased citizen sees the new canal as more than a waterway; they are proud and optimistic about it. Due to the MB’s sarcasm and antagonist campaign, millions of Egyptians rallied around the government in the face of the Brotherhood.

Paradoxically, the canal during Mursi’s era reflected ambiguity, chaos and fear. People were afraid that ships might come under fire, this is why, many of them were forced to go through southern Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope; thus, insurance companies raised their prices.

Today, the canal reflects the political situation in Egypt. People are tired of political instability and conflicts. They want to see tangible results and not just promises from the government. The new canal has become a political symbol, not to mention that it will double the revenues of the country.

Amid the opposition’s antics, terrorism and domestic and regional circumstances, the Egyptian government could claim that it is not strong and that it needs to put MB leaders in prison to counter terrorist attacks in Sinai. But it has guaranteed the fact that it dug a new canal with the support of allies who chose to invest in the project.

Every leader wants to leave a strong mark during his term of office and President Sisi made an intelligent move when choosing this project. The Suez Canal does not serve as a political project which aims to raise spirits and enhance the government’s image. The new Suez Canal is a tangible project, critical for international routing and has economic perks. It is also essential for the promotion of Egypt’s role regionally and internationally.

Egypt needs to move on to a new word. Indeed, the last major Egyptian scheme during the past ten years was the “Toshka lake” project for agriculture that dried before even seeing the light, in addition to several planned touristic cities. Those who are developing plans for the canal are not only aiming to increase the number of ships crossing it, but their objective is also to transform its zone into a huge industrial worksite for ships that also offer important navigation services for both the Mediterranean sea and the Red sea.

The Suez Canal has always been the object of battles, but Egypt was always against the enemy. Trying to turn the Suez Canal into a lost Egyptian battle will make the Brotherhood worthless, if they still have any worth left, because it is a national project.

For the world, the canal is also a strategic waterway with an international importance that has increased since corridors and crossings now make dangerous political tools. It is also vital for the crossing of tankers, cargo vessels and warships since it saves as many as ten days at sea by using it instead of sailing around South Africa. The Suez Canal also represents the cohesion and resilience of the new Egyptian state, a year after Sisi came to power and made a promise to build the second Suez Canal.

Now, the “battle of the second Suez Canal” has ended with the conclusion of festivities and the navigation of ships in front of the people of Suez.