Wake Up World, Afghanistan Could Be The Next ISIS Hotbed: New Age Islam’s Selection From World Press, 05 October 2015
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
05 October 2015
• Wake up world, Afghanistan could be the next ISIS hotbed
By Camelia Entekhabi-Fard
• Restraining abusive sponsors
By Mahmoud Ahmad
• Saudi Arabia’s labor sponsorship system must go
By Khaled Almaeena
• Avoiding a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
• Russian airstrikes and selective outrage over Syria
By Sharif Nashashibi
• Farewell, Oslo?
By Khaled Diab
• Hopes for a new dawn in Balochistan
By Abbas Nasir
• Bush’s legacy in the Middle East
By ŞAHİN ALPAY
• Erdoğan’s ‘Nation’ And Its Discontents
By Mustafa Akyol
-------
Wake up world, Afghanistan could be the next ISIS hotbed
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard
5 October 2015
Dealing with disasters in Afghanistan is one of those challenges which from time to time makes headlines and makes us think about whether this state has been lost for good?
Billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been lost since 2001 in Afghanistan with the aim of routing out terrorism and bringing stability and prosperity to this part of world, which has been identified by officials and experts as a safe haven for terrorism.
What we refer to today as terrorism was initially born in Pakistan and has stretched to neighbor Afghanistan.
Without any strong central government, and amid the competition between different ethnic backgrounds, this country became a source of international terrorism when the Taliban and al-Qaeda were born.
Yes, the Taliban government was overthrown by the U.S.-led coalition forces in 2001 and yes, al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden was hunted down by the U.S. years later, but their ideology hasn’t dried out. This is coupled with the fact that the Taliban is now claiming stronghold bases in areas between the north and south of Afghanistan.
The international community has cause to worry, knowing that Afghan militants are being influenced by ISIS and other extremists in the Middle East.
The fall of Kunduz
Still, it came as a surprise when more than a week ago Taliban fighters captured the northern Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz, as Afghan forces retreated. This was the first time the militant group succeeded in seizing a major city since 2001.
Coincidently or intentionally, the date of the capture marked the first anniversary of the National Unity Government of Afghanistan as well as the opening day of the 70th U.N. General Assembly in New York.
While the whole world is focusing on the crises in Syria and the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan has again called for backup support from NATO forces to take the city back and confront the Taliban.
The National Unity Government, which has been presented by Ashraf Ghani as the president and Abdullah Abdullah as the Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan, has still not succeeded in having a defense minister, let alone a security strategy.
So much chaos in the government over power sharing and corruption not only reflects a failure in governing, but also security matters.
The number of the attacks against civilians have largely increased in the past year. In the absence of coalition forces fighting against the insurgency, the number of the suicide attacks has increased and the debility of the Afghan forces shows a need for international troops on the ground again.
Less than year ago, American troops handed over full security responsibility to the Afghans and 10,000 American forces remained, mainly engaged in training and supporting the Afghan army.
But the fall of Kunduz mainly showed the NUG’s inability to govern the country and the difficulties the two leaders have working together as a major problem for this nation.
After five days of intense battles in Kunduz, the city is not yet entirely under the control of the central government, and a catastrophic airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital there on Saturday that killed 22 people, including 12 staff members.
Among the challenges facing the international community is now the collapse of the National Unity Government which turns not being capable working together.
Some former Mujahidin commanders from different parts of Afghanistan have threatened to act individually against the Taliban if the government cannot do the job itself.
Some elder former Mujahidins are not only worried about Taliban and al-Qaeda, but also whether these groups may merge with ISIS.
A report recently published by the United Nations has revealed that ISIS is gaining ground in Afghanistan and their members are active in 24 of the country's 34 provinces and recruiting fighters.
The Afghan government rejects the reports and claims it has a strategy to counter ISIS with special trained forces.
Hearing such a claim while a city like Kunduz falls to the Taliban is a joke. Perhaps soon, more attention will be drawn to Afghanistan when security becomes shakier and the current government breaks up.
Afghanistan could be the next ISIS hotbed if the world doesn’t take the fall of Kunduz and the incapacity of the NUG seriously.
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard is a journalist, news commentator and writer who grew up during the Iranian Revolution and wrote for leading reformist newspapers. She is also the author of Camelia: Save Yourself by Telling the Truth - A Memoir of Iran. She lives in New York City and Dubai. She can be found on Twitter: @CameliaFard
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/10/05/Wake-up-world-Afghanistan-could-be-the-next-ISIS-hotbed.html
-------
Restraining abusive sponsors
Mahmoud Ahmad
05 October 2015
The recent announcement by the UAE Labor Minister Saqr Ghobash that the Gulf State is set to introduce labor reforms that will take effect on Jan. 1 is music to my ears. These reforms are aimed at improving the condition of labor workers while ensuring flexibility for expatriate workers in changing jobs. The reforms call for the migrant workers being provided job terms and employment contracts that will be governed by the new regulations, which will also specify how the contracts can be broken or rescinded.
The most beautiful thing in this new scenario is that it frees the expat worker from being under the rigid thumb of an abusive sponsor. I quote what was mentioned in the new regulation from a UAE newspaper, which stated, "According to the first decree, employers have to present a ministry-approved standard employment contract to workers. The terms of this contract cannot be altered unless approved by the ministry. The second decree lays down specific conditions for when the term and non-term contracts can be terminated. As per the third resolution, workers can change jobs after completing at least six months of employment. The six-month rule is also waived if the worker holds a university degree or high-school diploma." However, the best statement by the minister was when he said they want to shut the door on the faces of those who are deceiving the simple expatriate worker.
For many years, the word ‘Kafeel’, or ‘Kafala’, has been a scary word for many expat workers. It has been synonymous with abuse, torture and virtual slavery in the minds of the workers until they land here to find out for themselves what the luck of the draw has provided them — a good or abusive sponsor. An expatriate working under an abusive sponsor is sentenced to a lifetime of misery as long as this worker is in the Kingdom and under the same sponsorship.
Although, expat workers working in companies are usually governed by the laws set up by the Labor Ministry and there is little room for abuse, many of them, however, who work under a sponsor, suffer differently. These expatriate workers generally work directly under the sponsors and are left with no recourse to counter the abuse, sometimes physical, or switch jobs. They will have to quit and hope to re-enter the Kingdom after getting a company or another sponsor to give them a job with visa to escape the clutches of the abusive sponsor.
It is a real gamble for an expat worker coming to the Kingdom, whether he will land in the hands of a good or a bad sponsor or even a good or a bad company. It is sad that the fate of those who leave their country for better monetary prospects in order to support their family back home and enduring great pain of living far away from their home country fall prey to an individual or company that only cares about either milking the expat worker for money or squeezing them to the maximum level with little pay, leaving them exhausted and destitute with little chance of fulfilling their hopes and aspirations.
While talking to some expatriate workers, I have noticed that the majority of them, following some years’ stay in the Kingdom, generally are in a defeated mode. Meaning that they do not see any use in complaining against an abusive sponsor and they, most of the time, decide to endure the pain and leave the situation as is because, they are in the know following past examples, that there is no way of winning their freedom from or a labor case against an abusive sponsor.
This should not be the case and those defeated mentality should be able to challenge the sponsors with help from all related departments. The law is there, and there is a contract but the sponsors have developed an art of circumventing the law or making it so difficult that even those who dare to challenge them find themselves in more difficulties such that the expat workers prefers to surrender rather than fight it out. There are abusive sponsors who choose to become abusive when it comes to treatment and pay. They put the scare in the hearts of workers to a level that they either except the new reality, or force them to escape from their condition without any liability to the sponsors.
On our part, a more lenient rules that ease the grip of the sponsor of the expat worker is needed. We should monitor closely the implementation of the new regulations in UAE, since both countries share many similarities and problems when it comes to expat workers working in the respective countries. If the reforms work, then why not take from their experience and apply it here. We have a long list of bad sponsors who are abusing workers and thousands of stories that have been and are being shared and published by newspapers and other media.
More effort is needed by the missions working in the Kingdom and organized community groups and their leaders to educate their workers about their rights and the do's and don'ts. They should guide them each time there is a problem between an expat worker and his company or sponsor. The expats should do away with their defeated mentality and they should know that they have rights. The ‘Kafala’ system should be reviewed, evaluated and based on the result it should be modified to suit and benefit both parties.
We should remember this is not a war between sponsors and expat workers. It should not be the case of one side winning against the other. Both sides, through a newly modified regulation, should arrive at a middle ground that is mutually beneficial and satisfactory to both sides.
The writer can be reached at mahmad@saudigazette.com.sa; Twitter: @anajeddawi_eng
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20151005258687
-----
Saudi Arabia’s labor sponsorship system must go
Khaled Almaeena
5 October 2015
Over the past few years there have been growing criticism over the treatment of foreign workers in the Gulf States. Accusations were hurled by International Labor Organization (ILO) and human rights activists, which for years were ignored.
However, in the past few years Gulf States have been taking steps to alleviate the miserable conditions of the workers. There have been some steps taken but by and large the problem persisted because the foreign worker, whether labors or white-collared office workers, remained under the total mercy of the sponsors or “Kafeels”.
I had written several articles over the past few years outlining the situation and even writing to concerned officials but to no avail.
Only my last letter to the new Saudi minister of labor evoked a quick response and action and I must thank the minister and his staff who viewed the humanitarian case of a doctor who could not travel for 19 months due to a bureaucratic error.
The problem lies not in the laws but in implementation. Also workers, who mainly are non-Arabic speakers, are rarely given a sympathetic hearing and in most cases victimized as the sponsors go and report them as runaways — registering “huroob” cases against them.
Qatar and the UAE
Apart from the Kingdom streamlining and reforming its labor laws, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also in the process of reforming their sponsorship laws.
The UAE is introducing labor reforms that aim to tighten oversight of employment agreements for the millions of migrant workers and they will take effect on Jan. 1. 2016.
They focus on improving transparency of job terms and employment contracts, spell out how contracts can be broken and could make it easier for workers to switch employers.
The UAE Minister of Labor Saqr Ghobash has taken the GCC lead by initiating reforms that will better protect foreign workers. Now workers can change employers and also be saved from substitution “contract”, which forces them to sign another document on arrival.
“These rules will take the labor market to a new stage based on a strong and balanced relationship between all parties and on agreement and transparency in contracting to guarantee the rights of all parties,” Ghobash was reported as saying while announcing the date of implementation.
Green light
Long-awaited changes to Qatar’s kafala sponsorship system have been green-lighted by the Cabinet, bringing reforms one step closer to becoming enshrined in the law.
However, the new rules still require final approval from the Qatari Emir and are unlikely to come into force until late 2016 at the earliest.
The large influx of workers to the GCC States, especially Saudi Arabia, created a big “visa market” and many nationals and recruitment agencies abroad made millions of riyals.
Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia too, the Ministry of Labor has clamped down on heartless “visa traders” and has pushed for reforms. A media campaign should be conducted and people, both the workers and the employees, should be made aware of their rights and obligations.
Contracts should be lodged with the Ministry of Labor rather than with employers. And the Kafala system must go.
This article was first published in the Saudi Gazette on Sept 8, 2015.
Khaled Almaeena is a veteran Saudi journalist, commentator, businessman and the editor-at-large of the Saudi Gazette. Almaeena has held a broad range of positions in Saudi media for over thirty years, including CEO of a PR firm, Saudi Television news anchor, talk show host, radio announcer, lecturer and journalist. As a journalist, Almaeena has represented Saudi media at Arab summits in Baghdad, Morocco and elsewhere. In 1990, he was one of four journalists to cover the historic resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Russia. He also traveled to China as part of this diplomatic mission. Almaeena's political and social columns appear regularly in Gulf News, Asharq al-Aswat, al-Eqtisadiah, Arab News, Times of Oman, Asian Age and The China Post. He can be reached at kalmaeena@saudigazette.com.sa and followed on Twitter: @KhaledAlmaeena
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/10/05/Saudi-Arabia-s-labor-sponsorship-system-must-go.html
--------
Avoiding a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran
Abdulrahman al-Rashed
4 October 2015
This is the highest level of tension that the two neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have reached since the end of the Iraqi-Iranian war 27 years ago. For those acquainted with the situation, it's not difficult to understand the reasons of Saudi concerns over Iran. Iran has expanded to the extent where it is now militarily present in Saudi surroundings. It has a presence north of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and south of it, in Yemen while its affiliates are active as opposition groups in Bahrain in the east. Iran is also present in Syria where it is directly managing battles. Iran is investing plenty of its men and funds in a project which seemingly aims to be besiege Gulf countries.
Hajj
If it hadn't been for this tension, the Iranian command, including its most high-ranking officials such as the Supreme Guide and President Hassan Rowhani, would not have politicized the deadly Mina stampede knowing that such incidents are possible during Hajj, considering the presence of 2.5 million pilgrims. Iran's aim of politicizing this case is to incite Iranians against the kingdom and justify its government's foreign escapades.
Yemen
Iran's other protest against Saudi Arabia is what it calls "the Saudi military war in Yemen." Iran objects to this intervention in Yemen although all U.N. Security Council members approved it and dozens of Islamic countries supported it. Iran has realized that its investment in supporting the Houthi rebels - who are a small group - is evaporating after they were close to seizing power in Yemen following their coup and capture of the legitimate Yemeni president. “Saudi intervention” blocked the path of Iranian military supplies - destined for the Houthi rebels - by sea and by air as it shut down Hodeida port, shelled the runway of Sanaa Airport and sought the help of the American navy to impose naval inspections on supplies from Iran.
Syria
There's also an indirect clash in Syria as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' forces are directly leading militias from Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan to fight in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime. This has led to the worst tragedy in the history of the region, as more than a quarter of a million have been killed and 12 million have been displaced.
Iraq
Meanwhile, Iraq is about to turn into a third touchline, which is extremely dangerous considering that Iranian domination over governance in Baghdad has become clear and that Iranian forces are fighting in many governorates in Iraq.
The Iranian government's increased appetite to spread its activities in the Middle East contradicts U.S. statements that the nuclear deal will turn Iran into a country that will be preoccupied with its domestic affairs and will therefore give up its foreign adventures and seek to cooperate for the sake of economic openness and eventually improving the quality of services it provides to its citizens. What is happening is the complete opposite of that!
Escalating tensions in Saudi Arabia's relations with Iran are a warning that the situation will get out of control unless both countries work to put these relations in a context stipulated by standard diplomatic protocol.
The nuclear agreement has led to an increase in concern from Arab countries, as it has ended economic and military sanctions that were imposed against Tehran. This has increased disputes with Iran and also worsens bickering in the media and in diplomat circles.
However, the surge in tension also calls for improving means of communication, not the opposite. The reasons and motives behind this tension must be understood. We expect regional disputes in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria and other countries to continue. It will also be accompanied by sectarian tensions, but it will not be easy to banish away religious strife after the political disputes end. Still, both sides should not let this tension get out of control.
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the former General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/10/04/Avoiding-a-clash-between-Saudi-Arabia-and-Iran-.html
-----
Russian airstrikes and selective outrage over Syria
Sharif Nashashibi
5 October 2015
Many people who are against the U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria have also condemned those carried out by Russia since last week. Putting aside arguments for or against foreign intervention, this indicates a stance that is based on a specific principle and applied universally.
For example, the Stop the War Coalition said in a statement last week that just as it “has criticized U.S. bombing, and the possibility of British intervention, in Syria, so too we cannot support Russian military action. It remains our view, supported by long history and experience, that external interference has no part to play in resolving the problems in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East.”
However, reaction on social media since the start of Russia's bombing campaign shows that far too many people who have condemned U.S.-led airstrikes are perfectly happy to cheer on Moscow. In the process, they are contradicting many of the reasons they cited for opposing the U.S.-led coalition. It seems, then, that the issue these people have is not that Syria and its people are being bombed, but who is doing the bombing.
Civilians
One of the objections raised over the U.S.-led campaign was that there would be civilian casualties. Sure enough, from the start civilians have been killed and injured, and civilian infrastructure destroyed and damaged.
However, the same is true of Russia’s air campaign. Since it began just a few days ago, dozens of civilians, including children, have reportedly been killed, and many more injured. In addition, civilian targets so far have included homes, a field hospital and a mosque. Activists on the ground say most of the targets hit have been civilian.
The response from the Syrian regime’s apologists is to claim that these are all lies, that the sources are suspect, that photographic or video evidence is fake, and that media is bias - basically a big conspiracy.
People who will readily (and often rightly) accuse the Americans of disregard for civilian life are now suspending belief when it comes to the Russians, as if they could not possibly behave in such a way.
The Chechens would beg to differ. So too would the Afghans, who - like the Syrians now - have the dubious distinction of having American and Russian bombs dropped on them.
Propaganda
The willing suspension of belief extends beyond civilian casualties to the very fundamentals of military and propaganda warfare. It is as if deception during conflict is a uniquely Western phenomenon.
For example, when I posted a BBC article on Facebook about Russian airstrikes killing civilians and hitting Syrian rebels opposed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), people responded that U.S. officials - who were among the sources, which included Syrians on the ground - could not be trusted.
However, this was not simply a healthy skepticism of officialdom, whose job it is to deceive during conflict. The problem seems to be not that they were officials, but that they were American, because the doubters are all too willing to trust the denials and claims of Russian officials. They would not possibly be dishonest, particularly while their employer wages war!
“Do you believe this Western article?” someone asked me. “I just don’t believe what the Americans say.” Because only they are worthy of suspicion, apparently. The next day, Moscow admitted that its targets extended beyond ISIS, even though it had initially billed its campaign as being against the jihadist group. It turns out that so far, most of its airstrikes have focused on rebels opposed to both ISIS and the regime.
Intervention
Remember all the condemnation of U.S-led airstrikes as foreign meddling? Are the Russians any less foreign? Or Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, whose fighters have been propping up the Syrian regime since at least 2012? Or Iran, which has reportedly sent hundreds of troops to take part in a major upcoming ground campaign with Russian air support?
Regime apologists respond that these parties’ involvement is legitimate because it is at the Syrian government’s request. Those who make such an argument - many of whom I know personally - will rightfully condemn U.S. military assistance to Israeli governments, or Western assistance to various autocracies. The irony is lost on them.
One also wonders how people square their support for Moscow’s intervention with their rejection of the U.S.-led campaign on the grounds that it would further militarize the conflict. What do they think is being dropped from Russian warplanes, flowers and chocolate?
Similarly, many supporters of Moscow’s air campaign were quick to point out the lack of a U.N. mandate for the U.S.-led campaign. They are, however, silent about the fact that Moscow does not have a U.N. mandate either.
There is also silence over the powerful Russian Orthodox Church’s deeply irresponsible description of the campaign as a “holy war.” That silence is particularly deafening considering the justified outcry over former U.S. President George W Bush’s reference to a “crusade” against terrorism.
While some have opposed both air campaigns as a matter of principle, others have been exposed for their selective outrage in supporting Moscow’s aerial bombardments by contradicting their reasons for opposing the U.S.-led campaign. In the current climate in Syria and the wider region, the damage being caused by selective outrage cannot be overestimated, because the resulting hypocrisy provides cover for justifying the unjustifiable.
Sharif Nashashibi, a regular contributor to Al Arabiya News, The Middle East magazine and the Guardian, is an award-winning journalist and frequent interviewee on Arab affairs. He is co-founder of Arab Media Watch, an independent, non-profit watchdog set up in 2000 to strive for objective coverage of Arab issues in the British media. With an MA in International Journalism from London's City University, Nashashibi has worked and trained at Dow Jones Newswires, Reuters, the U.N. Development Programme in Palestine, the Middle East Broadcasting Centre, the Middle East Economic Survey in Cyprus, and the Middle East Times, among others. In 2008, he received the International Media Council's "Breakaway Award," given to promising new journalists, "for both facilitating and producing consistently balanced reporting on the highly emotive and polarized arena that is the Middle East." He can be found on Twitter: @sharifnash
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/10/05/Russian-airstrikes-and-selective-outrage-over-Syria.html
------
Farewell, Oslo?
By Khaled Diab
04 Oct 2015
It was meant to be the handshake to end all hostilities. When Yasser Arafat shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin on the back lawn of the White House on September 13, 1993, it seemed that the world had finally taken heed of Arafat's call, two decades earlier at the United Nations, not to let the "olive branch fall from my hand".
"The peace of the brave is within our reach," then-US President Bill Clinton said on the momentous occasion of the signing of the so-called Oslo Accords, reflecting the relatively more optimistic mood of the time.
Yet, two decades later, this hoped-for "peace of the brave" has morphed into the peace of the grave. Even the life-support system to which the United States had hooked up the Oslo process gave up the ghost when Secretary of State John Kerry's 13th-hour shuttle diplomacy came to nothing.
"As long as Israel refuses to commit to the agreements signed with us, which render us an authority without real powers," a crestfallen and defeated Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at the UN last week. "We, therefore, declare that we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements."
So what went wrong over the past 22 years?
Flawed nature
One major problem was the flawed nature of the Oslo Accords themselves, which set out clear and present demands of the Palestinians, but left Israel with vague future commitments. And as the adage informs us, tomorrow has a tendency never to come.
However, these flaws were possibly surmountable with the right leadership, and this shaky framework agreement could have been shored up and redesigned with sufficient supplies of goodwill and vision.
But just as the two former warriors and adversaries, Rabin and Arafat, were warming to their themes, tragedy struck. Rabin, who had started the first Intifada with a "break their bones" attitude, became more committed to peace when he realised it was in Israel's own economic and social interest.
Sadly, Rabin's life was cut tragically short, 20 years ago next month by an Israeli extremist, before he could fulfil his new-found potential as a peacemaker. Poignantly, this occurred at one of the largest peace rallies in Israeli history.
Palestinian extremists, including the Islamic Jihad and Hamas, also played their part in derailing the tentative process through a concerted, high-profile wave of suicide bombings. This pincer movement helped propel Benjamin Netanyahu to the premier's office in 1996.
It was around this time that Hamas and Netanyahu began their long-standing anti-peace "partnership", for want of a better word. Though they rejected compromise and had a maximalist view of the conflict - which was the main aim of their violence - both Netanyahu and Hamas' Sheikh Yassin couched their bloody and vengeful sabotage in terms of retaliation for past grievances.
Exploited by extremists
This led to a situation in which, rather than shoring up the many failings of the Oslo process and sticking to its five-year deadline, extremists were able to exploit the faults to bury any prospects of a resolution.
The supposedly temporary Oslo Accords became an enduring reality which enabled Israel to wash its hands of responsibility for the Palestinians living under its occupation. The status quo also facilitated the unprecedented expansion of Israeli settlements, which housed about a quarter of a million settlers in the early 1990s to some three-quarters of a million today.
For the Palestinians, the Oslo charade entrenched the temporary Palestinian Authority (PA) as the de facto government that was unable to govern. Just as Arafat had wanted the trapping of statehood - even without a state - many in the PA elite had vested interests in maintaining the status quo, while Hamas preferred the status quo of perpetual conflict over compromise.
Whether unwittingly or not, the billions the international community has sunk into upholding the myth of the peace process has helped let Israel off the hook. One European diplomat I know described the situation as "a frozen conflict, and we pay for the freezer", reflecting on the widespread disillusionment in aid and diplomatic circles.
'Counterinsurgency tool'
Mandy Turner, the director of the Kenyon Institute in Jerusalem, has been researching how aid to the Palestinians functions as a "counterinsurgency" tool, seeking to prevent "the emergence of a Palestinian political movement with widespread support that is opposed to the Oslo process, and/or extreme poverty and political instability".
This might explain why Abbas demanded at the UN that "Israel must assume all of its responsibilities as an occupying power", bowing rhetorically to widespread Palestinian perceptions that Israel has outsourced chunks of the occupation to the PA, while Western donors pick up the tab.
"What is required is to mobilise international efforts to oversee an end to the occupation," Abbas urged, clinging helplessly onto the old paradigm.
Instead, what is required is for Abbas to abandon Oslo and persuade the public and the other factions to unleash the most powerful weapon in the Palestinian arsenal: its people.
The true "bombshell" would be to abandon the two-state illusion and replace it with a nonviolent, popular civil rights struggle for equality and equal rights.
Khaled Diab is an award-winning Egyptian-Belgian journalist, writer and blogger. He is the author of Intimate Enemies: Living with Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land. He blogs at www.chronikler.com.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/10/farewell-oslo-151004062601097.html
------
Hopes for a new dawn in Balochistan
Abbas Nasir
04 Oct 2015
As the three-day Eid holiday in Pakistan fades into distant memory, attention will shift from festivities towards signs of the formal start of a dialogue aimed at restoring peace to Balochistan.
The province has been in the grip of a bloody insurgency for nearly a decade. Balochistan's relations with Islamabad have been fraught with tension since the then-leader of Kalat, Ahmad Yar Khan, acceded to Pakistan some seven months after the country won independence from British India in 1947.
These troubled relations have exploded into uprisings against the state in 1948 and again in 1958. There was a third rebellion in the mid-1970s, as the Baloch, complaining of a denial of rights, took to the mountains.
The current insurgency was triggered by the alleged rape of a young female doctor working in the Sui gas fields, which fell within the tribal jurisdiction of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2005. The alleged rapist was an army captain, deployed as part of the contingent protecting the gas fields as the Bugti tribesman were locked in a dispute with the government over royalty payments and jobs for the locals.
Mountain insurgency
The chieftain was outraged at the rape of a woman in his jurisdiction and demanded justice. The military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, didn't wait for an inquiry report and pronounced the captain not guilty. An escalating war of words was followed by military action. The elderly Nawab took to the mountains and was eventually killed in August 2006 when the military stormed his hideout. With him was his grandson and named tribal heir, Brahmdagh Bugti, who narrowly escaped and remained underground, later resurfacing in exile in Afghanistan. He then moved to Switzerland.
In August, Brahmdagh Bugti, 37, who is seen as one of the key rebel leaders who has waged war against Pakistan since the killing of his grandfather, raised hopes of a negotiated settlement when he expressed readiness for talks. He also seemed willing to make concessions to his original demands for a separate homeland.
Critically, Bugti said it was his understanding that both the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and army chief General Raheel Shareef backed the peace process. Having welcomed the rebel leader's statement, more recently the chief minister of the province, Abdul Malik Baloch, went a step further when he said he hoped the talks would be initiated after Eid.
Sources confirmed a "jirga", or committee of senior tribal leaders, is being organised and will be holding talks, among others, with the current leader of Kalat, who lives in self-imposed exile in the UK ever since he renounced the legitimacy of Pakistan in a "jirga" he chaired the after the death of Bugti. He too has expressed willingness to negotiate.
The army chief's backing for the process would be crucial. The previous government of Asif Zardari attempted, but the country's powerful military, dominated by Punjabis, is said to have vetoed any negotiations with the Baloch separatists. The army seemed confident of rooting out the insurgency via the use of brutal force.
Economic prospects
Allegations by Baloch groups that tens of thousands of Baloch activists have become victims of state-sponsored killings are exaggerated, but international bodies, such as Human Rights Watch, have documented dozens of cases each year since 2006, where Baloch, mostly young men, were kidnapped, tortured, and executed in extra-judicial killings in the province. The bodies were usually dumped to warn others from following a separatist path. Hundreds of men remain missing.
The campaign has not only seen young Baloch separatists targeted, but also academics, lawyers, teachers and doctors, who have raised their voices against injustices to the Baloch. For their part, fighters have also targeted non-Baloch earning a living in Balochistan. Professors, labourers and miners have all been killed.
Bound by Afghanistan and Iran on its West and the Arabian Sea towards the south, with a total area of nearly 350,000sq km, Balochistan, makes up 43 percent of Pakistan. Grievances run deep; only 0.3 percent of its 13 million inhabitants have access to clean drinking water, compared with 21 percent in Punjab. Its literacy rate is 30 percent lower than in Punjab. Official statistics place Balochistan's population at the bottom of those living below the poverty line in all of Pakistan's four provinces.
This neglect has fuelled the Baloch sense of alienation, and Bugti's killing served as a catalyst for renewed separatism. Some of the main separatist leaders are Allah Nazar, Harbiyar Marri, and Javed Mengal. Apart from Nazar, a middle-class physician, all key separatist leaders, the scions of chieftains, direct their campaigns from abroad.
Challenges to peace are many: Nazar's Baloch Liberation Front (BLF) and Marri's Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) have already rejected Brahmdagh Bugti's statement. Equally, keen observers of the Balochistan scene point towards many in the opposite camp who have enhanced their power by hanging on to the military's coat-tails and would not want more representative leaders accommodated.
Any peace will arrive with enormous economic benefits due to trade with a sanction-free Iran. China's keen interest in the $45bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, connecting Gwadar Port on the Balochistan coast and the Chinese province of Xinjiang beyond the mountain ranges in Pakistan's far north, is another opportunity. Both those who hold power and ordinary Baloch will benefit.
Abbas Nasir is a former editor of Pakistan's English language newspaper Dawn and former executive editor at BBC Asia-Pacific region.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/10/hopes-dawn-balochistan-151004060638183.html
------
Bush’s legacy in the Middle East
By ŞAHİN ALPAY
October 04, 2015
It may be said that when, in response to the Islamist terror attacks of 9/11/2001 on the US, former US President George W. Bush ordered the invasions of Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003, his main aims were to export the American democratic model to the greater Middle East region, eradicate the environment that gives rise to Islamist radicalism and redraw the borders of the region in accordance with the geopolitical interests of the US and Israel.
This was the crux of the Greater Middle East Initiative.
When I look at the condition in which the region finds itself more than 12 years after the bombing of Iraq “to the stone age,” I cannot help but remember the great philosopher of science Karl Popper's refutation of conspiracy theories: What happens in history is not the result of the designs of powerful actors or the laws of history but of the unintended consequences of intended actions of a multitude of actors, and such constitute the subject matter of the social sciences.
During the years that have elapsed, none of what the Bush initiative aimed for has been achieved: The region is in sheer chaos. The uprisings of the Arab peoples against their autocrats in what has been called the “Arab Spring,” in 2011, has but added to the chaos. US President Barack Obama has had to meekly withdraw troops from Iraq and is withdrawing them from Afghanistan.
Nowhere in the region can one talk of freedom and democracy taking root, with the possible exception of Tunisia. New autocrats have taken the place of those overthrown. Islamist radicalism and violence has not ebbed, but grown. The Taliban seems to be gradually coming back in Afghanistan. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has taken a big part of both Iraq and Syria under control, performing previously unheard of atrocities.
There are many lessons to be learned from what has been experienced, mainly the following: The US may be the most powerful nation, but the notion that it can shape the world at will is a total myth. It is not at all possible to export democracy to a nation by use of military force. Impositions from the outside provoke reactions that lead to entirely unintended consequences. Take a look at the tragic consequences of the US intervention in Iraq. Sunni Arabs overthrown and excluded from power in Iraq have taken revenge in the form of ISIL, which is apparently being led by Saddam Hussein's generals and has established a cruel dictatorship over large parts of not only Iraq but also Syria.
In Syria, where the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad chose to crush Sunni Arabs' peaceful uprising for freedom, which began in 2011, at least 250,000 people have been killed so far, while 4 million out of a total of 25 million Syrians have fled the country, and more than 7 million have had to become refugees in their own country. Syria has become a theater of armed rivalry between various domestic factions and foreign states.
The Obama administration, wary of bitter experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, has adopted a policy diametrically opposed to that of Bush, avoiding ethical obligations and doing next to nothing to counter the tragic direct or indirect consequences of American interventions in the region.
It is only when hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees risk their lives to knock on their doors that Western European powers feel a sense of urgency to do something about the Syrian catastrophe. Sensing something may be done about Syria, Vladimir Putin of Russia is taking an armed initiative in defense of his ally Assad, perhaps also attempting to secure a major role in post-Assad Syria. He says he is fighting ISIL, while in fact he is attacking anti-Assad groups.
With hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees seeking shelter in their lands, Western European powers' obligation to do something to end the tragedy in Syria is no longer only a humanitarian obligation. Can they and will they shoulder this obligation? Can one say there is more hope for Syria today than yesterday? No one knows. The only thing that can be said for sure is that if there is going to be a solution, it has to be mainly through dialogue and negotiation between parties involved, not by any armed imposition.
What is and what should be the role of Turkey in Syria is the topic of another column.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist/sahi-n-alpay/bushs-legacy-in-the-middle-east_400556.html
------
Erdoğan’s ‘Nation’ And Its Discontents
By Mustafa Akyol
October/03/2015
On Sept. 29, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan gave a speech – a furious one, as usual. One of the themes he touched upon were the real citizens of this country versus the bogus ones. “Those who attack the gains of this country do not belong to this homeland,” he said. Among these, he listed not only the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a terrorist organization by most definitions, but also “the owners of media, owners of companies” which supposedly support the PKK.
The next day, daily Star, one of the many quasi-official mouthpieces of the president, ran a huge headline on its front page which read, “You do not belong to this homeland.” The sub-headline also nicely explained who these unpatriotic people were: the PKK, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the “Parallel” (i.e., the Gülen Movement), and the Doğan Group (i.e., the media group that publishes this very newspaper you are holding in your hand – or this website that you see on your screen.)
One can perhaps understand the presence of the PKK on this list, even if the PKK is mostly made up of Turkish citizens, who may be criminals, but are still components of “this homeland.” The other three, however, are kind of mind-boggling: The HDP is a legitimate political party that won 13 percent of the votes less than four months ago. The Gülen Movement is an Islamic community with a few million members or sympathizers. The Doğan Group is the backbone of mainstream Turkish media, with millions of daily readers and viewers. None of them, however, “belong to this homeland,” according to a president who is supposed to be “impartial” according to our Constitution.
None of this is surprising, though. Because it perfectly fits into the political rhetoric that President Erdoğan, and his giant propaganda machine, has been using in the past two years. At the heart of this rhetoric, there lies the glorification of “the nation” and its “will.” Yet when you listen carefully, you see that this “nation” is not the sum total of the 77 million citizens of the Republic of Turkey. “The nation” is rather made up those citizens who support “the man of the nation” – as Erdogan was defined in his electoral campaigns in 2014.
Consequently, Erdogan’s political adversaries, even his critics, constitute a separate category as the “traitors” to this nation. For they serve not this homeland, but the nefarious powers that conspire against it – such as Zionists and other evil cabals in the West. They are like parasites in a healthy body. And the great leader, “the man of the nation,” is giving them the wrath that they deserve.
That is why after every election that gave his Justice and Development Party (AKP) a parliamentary majority, Erdoğan proudly declared: “The nation has won!” He did not say that, though, after the recent elections on June 7, because then the AKP lost its parliamentary majority, meaning “the nation” did not do well. No wonder Erdoğan argued last week that the electorate were “fooled” in the June 7 elections by the HDP. For an HDP victory, by definition, was the victory of not the nation, but its enemies.
For sure, this peculiar conceptualization of the nation by President Erdoğan raises many questions. For example, why do the “traitors” who “do not belong to this homeland” pay the same amount of taxes as other (i.e., patriotic) citizens? Isn’t it weird for them to finance the very state that declares them as sworn enemies? And isn’t it weird for the state to live off the taxes of the citizens that it demonizes, humiliates and threatens every single day?
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogans-nation-and-its-discontents.aspx?pageID=449&nID=89317&NewsCatID=411
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-west/wake-up-world,-afghanistan-be/d/104797