A Dove In Davos? Calling Zarif’s Bluffs: New Age Islam's Seletion, 19 January, 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
19 January, 2017
• A Dove In Davos? Calling Zarif’s Bluffs
By Faisl J. Abbas
• ‘There Is Hope’ For Turkey-US Relations Under Trump
By Murat Yetkin
• Evaluating Obama’s Foreign Policy
By Jonathan Power
• Saudis Are Not Racists
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
• Russia’s Imperial Instinct
By Carl Bidt
• Turkey’s Worst Year Was A Success Story For The AKP
By Barcin Yinanc
• Connectivity And The Modern Refugee
By Filippo Grandi
• Two Celebrations Could Make Or Break A Fractured EU
By Paul Wallace
• The Brits Start The Fire And Then Bail Out
By Tariq A. Al-Maeena
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
A Dove In Davos? Calling Zarif’s Bluffs
By Faisl J. Abbas
19 January 2017
One has to give it to Jawad Zarif. Not only can Iran’s chief diplomat bluff, but — as attendees at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting found out — he can do it while keeping a straight face. Speaking at a special panel in Davos, Iran’s foreign minister said he cannot see a reason why his country cannot work closer with arch-rival Saudi Arabia to ensure regional stability.
“I do not see any reason Iran and Saudi Arabia should have hostile policies toward each other,” Zarif said. “We can in fact cooperate for the future stability of our region. We can in fact work together in order to put an end to the miserable condition of the people in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere in the region.”
As heart-warming and positive as the words of Tehran’s leading spin-doctor may seem on the surface, the subliminal messages are quite disturbing and inaccurate, as they seek to equate the villain (Iran) with the victim (Arab countries that have suffered from Tehran’s meddling).
Zarif can pretend to be as dovish as he wants, but the reality is that there is nothing he could say that will sugar-coat the “big bad wolf” behavior his government is engaging in; behavior that is not harmful only to Saudi Arabia, but to the whole of the Middle East.
If Iran truly seeks regional peace and stability, what is stopping it from ceasing to support the Houthi militias that have overthrown the UN-backed legitimate government in Yemen, or ceasing its backing of Shiite militias in Lebanon and Iraq? What is stopping Tehran from ending its support for the murderous Syrian regime, which has so far overseen the killing of over 400,000 people and the displacement of millions since 2011?
If Iran is serious, why does it not unilaterally announce that it will no longer meddle in the affairs of neighboring Arab countries, and that it will no longer incite sectarian rift in the region?
All these questions could have been raised during the session in Davos, but there is only so much a WEF-appointed moderator can do, particularly if the interviewee refuses to take questions (the forum, as a Switzerland-based entity, opts not to take sides). The situation would have been quite different if Zarif’s Saudi counterpart, or at least a representative of the Kingdom, was on the panel to hit back with the facts.
The bottom line is Saudi Arabia needs to do more to call Tehran’s bluffs at international events such as Davos. As for Iran, it needs to put its money where its mouth is and ensure its actions match its rhetoric, otherwise Zarif’s comments will resemble nothing more than hot air that will quickly evaporate in the cold Davosian climate.
Faisal J. Abbas is the editor in chief of Arab News.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041071/columns
----
‘There Is Hope’ For Turkey-US Relations Under Trump
By Murat Yetkin
January/19/2017
Despite being “tested” by problems and “misperceptions,” Turkey-U.S. relations are “not irretrievable” and could be fixed under the presidency of Donald Trump, according to Stephen Hadley, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, speaking after top-level talks in Ankara on Jan. 17.
Hadley, an advisor to former U.S. President George W. Bush and currently the executive vice-chair of the Atlantic Council, said improving bilateral relations with Turkey was in the interests of the U.S. in order to “reassert and reengage” in the Middle East.
Hadley also said he believed that if the Trump administration takes the opportunity to address Turkish concerns, Turkey would give a “real response.”
There were impressive names in the Atlantic Council delegation that carried out quiet but high-level talks in Ankara on the eve of Trump assuming office on Jan. 20. Along with Hadley were outgoing President Barack Obama’s former National Security Advisor James Jones and former NATO commander Frederic Hof, who has served in top diplomatic missions in the Middle East under both Bush and Obama.
The delegation spoke to business circles in Istanbul on Jan. 17, including the Turkish Business and Industrial Association (TÜSIAD), the Foreign Economic Relations Council (DEIK) and the American-Turkish Business Council. In Ankara they met President Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu and Energy Minister Berat Albayrak.
I had the opportunity to speak to Hadley after the completion of all the Atlantic Council’s contacts in Turkey. His remarks actually tell it all:
* “We are in a testing time for the Turkey-U.S. relationship and I think that is attributable to a number of factors. One is the July 2016 coup attempt. I think the U.S. administration and the American people failed to really understand the gravity of that challenge to Turkish democracy and were slow to respond with unequivocal support for Turkish democracy. That was a mistake.”
* “There is also the issue of the fact that Fethullah Gülen is living in the United States and is continuing to interfere in Turkish affairs from here. Then we have the whole issue of the [Democratic Union Party] PYD in northern Syria and the fact it is affiliated with the [outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK. The United States has been giving support to the PYD and that is an understandable problem for Turkey.”
* “There are a lot of misperceptions on both sides. On the American side, I think there is a lot of ignorance and failure to appreciate the Turkish perspective. I think we failed to appreciate how serious the July coup attempt was and how much it understandably shocked the Turkish nation. I also think we don’t fully understand the complexity of Turkey’s position in Syria and what its concerns are with American policy.”
* “On the Turkish side, there is a lot of anti-Americanism and there is a lot of blaming America for various things that are happening in Turkey. The problem is that those two phenomenon feed on each other. Americans do not understand Turkey’s position and when they read about Turkey accusing America of various things, it only adds to the confusion.”
* “We need to address the perception problems on both sides. That is what the two governments need to do and that is also what I think the Atlantic Council can help with from the outside.”
* “I think many people in the U.S. and in Turkey are hopeful that the coming of a new administration on Jan. 20 will be an opportunity to look again at some of the issues that have divided the United States and Turkey recently. Our group will obviously go back to Washington and share what it has learned in Turkey with various folks, including the new administration.”
* “During the talks we have gotten a deeper appreciation of the nature and depth of the concerns on the Turkish side. We are at a serious point in the relationship, but my impression is that it is not irretrievable. It can be fixed if the parties work together. There is some hope that the new administration will make an effort in this direction, and I think if the new administration does make an effort, there will be real receptivity on the Turkish side.”
* “Like many people in the United States and many people in Turkey, I hope the new administration will take advantage of this opportunity not only to address issues in the U.S.-Turkey bilateral relationship but also to reengage and reassert American presence in the Middle East both diplomatically, militarily and economically. If we do that I think it will be in the American interest and in the Turkish interest.”
Source: hurriyetdailynews.com/there-is-hope-for-turkey-us-relations-under-trump.aspx?pageID=449&nID=108706&NewsCatID=409
----
Evaluating Obama’s Foreign Policy
By Jonathan Power
19 January 2017
With President Barack Obama about to leave office, will the world be better or worse than eight years ago? Taking the big picture, so often obscured by the wars and uprisings that dominate the front page, more often than not he has resisted the foreign-policy establishment, most importantly in Syria, which makes a fetish of “credibility.” He has argued that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you are willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”
In an interview last April with Jeffrey Goldberg in Atlantic magazine, Obama said: “Where am I controversial? When it comes to the use of military power. There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow that comes out of the foreign policy establishment. The playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. In the midst of an international challenge like Syria, you get judged harshly if you don’t follow the playbook, even if there are good reasons why it does not apply.”
Nevertheless, despite his good principles Obama leaves behind a Middle East in more of a mess than it was. The war in Afghanistan continues, with the Taliban gaining the upper hand. The US invasion of Libya, along with France and the UK, liberated not a country but a hornets’ nest.
The relationship with China is better in some aspects but worse in others. Obama has not made much effort to deal with nuclear-armed North Korea, constrained by Republicans in Congress who have sabotaged every previous government-to-government agreement. He leaves behind a dangerous state of affairs that might tempt his nuclear-minded successor Donald Trump to take pre-emptive action when it becomes clear in three or so years that North Korea has a nuclear-tipped missile than could reach Los Angeles.
Syria continues to be torn apart by civil war, with the US helpless on the sidelines. Despite the large amount of time attempting to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Obama has failed. He has attempted to be neutral, but how that can be when he has just given Israel a massive new arms deal is to be wondered at.
The relationship with Russia has been nothing short of a debacle, culminating — in partnership with the EU — in making a total hash of the Ukraine crisis. He allowed the pace to be set by neo-fascist movements that wanted to provoke the government to confront Russia. Even worse, breaking a solemn American promise made to then-President Mikhail Gorbachev, he has expanded NATO right up to Russia’s border.
On the plus side, US recognition of Cuba has ended a too-long era of hostility. He has given strong support to the increase in UN peacekeeping. He has taken the lead with China in fighting climate change. He has pushed for policies that have brought down fast the number of child and maternal deaths in poor countries.
The deal with Iran, made with EU and Russian negotiating support to put firm limits on its nuclear program, was a masterpiece of diplomacy. The US killing of the head of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, put an end to a mass murderer but helped catalyze into action its replacement movement Daesh, which has set out to achieve the building of a region-wide caliphate in its own image.
Nevertheless, as Obama has pointed out, it extends over mostly semi-desert territory. He has refrained from being intimidated by it. He has said it is not the reincarnation of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. He has understood that the threat to the US and Europe is not large and is containable.
Compared with his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has been a model of constraint, prudence and openness. However, in foreign policy he has fallen badly short, although he has the good and valid excuse that he was badly hampered by inheriting the total mess created by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard wrote recently in Foreign Policy: “A genuine ‘realist’ foreign policy would have left Afghanistan promptly in 2009 (rather than surging the number of troops there by 60,000, albeit, Obama says, the Pentagon ‘jammed’ him on this); converted our ‘special relationships’ in the Middle East to normal ones, explicitly rejected further expansion of NATO; and eschewed ‘regime change’ and other forms of social engineering in foreign countries such as Libya or Syria.”
I agree. I give Obama six out of 10 for foreign policy, and eight out of 10 for domestic. Now over to Trump.
-----
Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041061/columns
---
Saudis Are Not Racists
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
Jan 18, 2017
The title of this article is taken from a video posted by the well-known media figure Kamal Abdulqadir on his Twitter account. The video talks about the ferocious racist campaign launched against non-Saudis. In the video, Abdulqadir said that it does not befit us Saudis to launch such campaigns. He wonders why someone would launch a campaign called “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is for Saudis only”. It is a strange title, because, of course, the Kingdom is for Saudis not for any other nationality.
Some Saudis are angry because expatriate workers transfer billions of riyals out of the Kingdom every year and say that it is not fair that this money goes abroad instead of being spent inside the country. Abdulqadir asks: “Why do these Saudis want expatriate workers to spend their money locally?” After all, this is their money; they have earned it legally and have worked hard for it. We should thank them for helping us build our country and should always remember that they have the full right to transfer their money to their families back home.
I do not understand why some Saudis want expatriate workers to spend their money in the country. How can these Saudis say that? We have to remember that expatriate workers are the ones who have built our country. They have not invaded our country; they entered it legally and we asked them to come here. They have worked hard and have made this money to support their families back home.
There are expatriate workers who have been living in the Kingdom for decades and some were born and raised here. Abdulqadir says that these people deserve to be naturalized and be given Saudi citizenship because the Kingdom has become their homeland.
In the video, he states that some people will not like the things that he says and some will even describe him as a naturalized citizen who does not have original Saudi roots while some will use racist words against him although Islam is against racism. At the end of the video, he calls upon Saudis to rise up to the occasion and treat all expatriate workers with respect because they are here to help us and provide services for us.
The video became widely popular shortly after it was posted on Twitter and many people responded to it: some supported Abdulqadir while others opposed his views. Jameel Farsi, who is considered to be an authority on jewels and who is a social media activist, said that over 165,429 people have watched Abdulqadir’s video, over 1,163 have commented on it and over 3,500 have retweeted it. Farsi said that only five percent of the comments smacked of racism and that these comments were made by people who use fake names and have no respect for religion, ethics or other human beings.
Unfortunately, the ferocious campaign against expatriate workers has not only been launched on social media but has also appeared in some newspapers. An Arabic daily published a cartoon offending all expatriate workers and then removed it from its website following a barrage of criticism from many. Although many people asked the cartoonist to apologize for the offensive cartoon, he refused to do so. I have called many times for the cartoonist to be put on trial for his racist comments if he continues to refuse to apologize. It seems that some people are encouraging the cartoonist to draw similar offensive cartoons. Apparently, some people have an ethics crisis and poor education, and by some I mean those who describe expatriate workers as invaders who enter the Kingdom to steal jobs from Saudis.
When I discuss this issue with people on social media websites or read the comments made by some readers on newspaper websites, I find that there are people who insist that Saudis have the right to fill the vacancies available in the market. Of course, I agree with them, but the problem that is we do not have enough Saudis to do certain jobs. We still need expatriate workers who can work as doctors, engineers, pharmacists, nurses, construction workers, street sweepers, etc.
I have noticed that when people do not have an argument to support their hostile opposition to expatriate workers, they bring up the issue of expatriate workers transferring money abroad. They keep saying that these transfers are a great loss to the national economy and that the country needs this money. When I explain to these people that this money belongs to expatriate workers and that they have worked hard to earn it and are free to spend it on their families and children who live thousands of kilometers away from them, they do not seem to be convinced. The money belongs to expatriate workers and we have no right whatsoever to tell them how to spend it.
We must remember that expatriate workers have entered the Kingdom legally to help us build and develop our country. They have contributed immensely to the development and progress of the nation. They deserve to be thanked and appreciated for the work that they have done. We wish them all the best. We, as Saudis, should rise up and speak up against racism and discrimination which conflict with the teachings of Shariah. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Leave it (i.e., racism), it is rotten.” He also said: “One who does not thank people does not give thanks to Allah.”
----
Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/saudis-not-racists/
----
Russia’s Imperial Instinct
By Carl Bidt
19 January 2017
Russia is once again at the center of policy debates in many Western capitals. And for the third time in a row, a new US president will start his administration with ambitions to improve bilateral relations. To understand why achieving this goal has been so difficult, it helps to take a longer historical view of the Russian state.
It is now a quarter-century since the Soviet Union disintegrated; and 2017 will mark the centennial of the Russian Revolution, which toppled the teetering, centuries-old czarist empire. As it happens, there are telling similarities between the periods that followed each of these imperial denouements.
Russia’s history has been characterized by continuous expansion over the Eurasian continent. The czars’ eastward push into Siberia mirrored America’s westward push during the 19th century, and Russia’s expansion into Central Asia coincided with the European powers’ colonization of Africa.
But as Imperial Russia expanded westward and southward, it always encountered opposition, and had to use force to keep newly acquired territories within its domain. After the 1917 revolution, many of these areas — from Tashkent to Tbilisi, and Kyiv to Helsinki — sought independence from Muscovy’s yoke.
At first, Vladimir Lenin seemed amenable to these demands; but he soon deployed the new Red Army to impose Soviet power across the former Russian Empire. It succeeded in Ukraine, the southern Caucasus, and Central Asia. But it failed in Finland and the Baltic states, and it suffered a crucial defeat outside Warsaw in 1920. This allowed a string of independent states to emerge from the former Russian Empire’s western flank.
But then Stalin came to power. Using terror and forced industrialization to try to make Russia great again, he sought to reassert imperial control over its former territories. Stalin found an opportunity in secret talks with Adolf Hitler, where he demanded the return of what had been lost after 1917, including the Baltic states, Finland and part of Poland.
He eventually got it. After Hitler’s Reich collapsed, not least owing to the sacrifices of the Red Army, Stalin had carte blanche to extend Soviet power deep into the heart of Europe. Only Finland preserved its independence — miraculously, and by force of arms. The Baltic countries were brutally brought back into the Soviet fold, and Poland and others were reduced to satellite states.
In 1976, a top US State Department adviser to Henry Kissinger controversially argued that Russia had failed to establish “organic” relationships with these countries. True enough, as the Soviet Union collapsed, the satellite states hastened its demise by reasserting their sovereignty; in short order, almost every non-Russian republic in the former USSR demanded, and secured, independence. With Ukraine and countries in the South Caucasus achieving statehood, Russia controlled even less territory than it did after the 1917 revolution.
Vladimir Putin, like Lenin a century ago, is intent on changing that. Since coming to power following Russia’s tumultuous attempts at liberal and democratic reform in the 1990s, it has become increasingly clear that Putin aspires to make Russia great again, both economically and geopolitically. Despite some obvious differences between the founding of the Soviet Union and now, the historical parallel is too obvious to ignore.
Under Putin, Russia has invaded and occupied parts of Georgia, annexed Crimea from Ukraine, and militarily propped up two sham “republics” in Eastern Ukraine. Russia has also tried — so far unsuccessfully — to establish a Novorossiya across Southern Ukraine.
Step by step, whenever opportunities present themselves, the Kremlin is ready to use all means at its disposal to regain what it considers its own. Putin may not have a firm or comprehensive plan for imperial restoration, but he undoubtedly has an abiding inclination to make imperial advances whenever the risk is bearable, as in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.
So, what lessons can we take from the past? For starters, Russian imperialism has thrived when Europe and the West have been divided. This was the case when Hitler and Stalin entered into their non-aggression pact in 1939, and when Napoleon and Tsar Alexander entered into theirs in 1807. And we certainly should not forget the Yalta Conference in 1945. Expanding both NATO and the EU to include the Central European and Baltic countries has been essential to European security. In any other scenario, we would probably already be locked in a profoundly dangerous power struggle with a revanchist Russia reclaiming what it had lost.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the Russian Revolution in 1917 reshaped regional and global politics. In the immediate aftermath of each event, Russia demonstrated its historic inability to build harmonious relations with the countries along its periphery; and in the intermediate periods, it acted on its imperial ambitions at these countries’ expense.
But Russia will come to terms with itself only if the West firmly supports these countries’ independence over a prolonged period of time. Eventually, Russia will realize that it is in its own long-term interest to break its historical pattern, concentrate on its domestic development, and build peaceful and respectful relations with its neighbors.
We are certainly not there yet, but that is no reason to throw in the towel — or throw out the lessons of history. We need a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Russia. And that can be achieved only with determined support for the independence and sovereignty of all of its neighbors.
----
Carl Bildt is a former prime minister and foreign minister of Sweden. ©Project Syndicate
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041006/columns
----
Turkey’s Worst Year Was A Success Story For The AKP
By Barcin Yinanc
January/19/2017
There is no doubt that terrorism is Turkey’s most important problem. It does not therefore come as a surprise when it tops the “most important problem” list in public opinion polls, like the recent one conducted by Istanbul’s Kadir Has University in which 35 percent of respondents said it was the key problem facing Turkey.
The “Fetullahist Terror Organization (FETÖ)” is second in the list (cited by 25 percent), while economic difficulties rank third, (unemployment was cited by 10.5 percent and the high cost of life was cited by 9.8 percent).
The survey is interesting in terms of the discrepancy between the public’s complaints about economic difficulties and the perception about who is responsible for these difficulties. According to the poll, made public yesterday, 55.7 percent said they had gotten worse off economically, while only 26 percent said they were not affected at all by economic developments.
Some 71 percent of those polled said there is an economic crisis in Turkey. They are not all made up of the AKP’s staunchest opponents, as 60 percent of those who said they voted for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) said there is an economic crisis in Turkey.
So even AKP supporters are aware of the deterioration in the economy. But respondents find the government’s economic policies more successful than unsuccessful, with 38.7 percent stating the former and 35.3 percent stating the latter. This is a clear reversal in the trend, as the same poll conducted over the last four years always had more people finding the government’s economic policies unsuccessful compared to those who found them successful.
The poll was conducted last December. It should probably be a surprise to see the increase in support for the government’s economic policies coming at a time when Turkey registered negative growth in the third quarter of 2016.
However, the results overlap with the findings of another recent survey conducted by the A&G polling company. That poll revealed that the public does not hold the government responsible for economic difficulties. For instance, for the majority of those polled by A&G, the foreign exchange rate volatility was due to “outside interference.”
Poll findings show that the government has succeeded in convincing the public that foreign forces are behind Turkey’s economic and political problems.
This is also reflected in foreign policy perceptions. Only 11.3 percent of those polled said the U.S. was Turkey’s friend/ally, an all-time low for the six years that Kadir Has University has conducted the poll. While last year 40 percent thought the U.S. was a threat to Turkey, this year that number rose to 60 percent.
Ironically, few would disagree that 2016 was the worst year in the past decade, but poll findings show that the government enjoys a higher level of support compared to past years. As suggested by A&G head Adil Gür, much of the public perceives an outside threat following the failed July 2016 coup and thus is rallying behind the government.
But there is also the fact that the public might have been sensitive to certain changes made by the government. For example, the government is enjoying higher support for its foreign policy, with the number of people finding it successful outnumbering those who find it unsuccessful (a first in many years). This likely reflects satisfaction with Prime Minister Binali Yildirim’s announced policy based on the motto, “We’ll increase our friends and decrease our number of enemies,” as a result of which Turkey–Russia relations were normalized.
There is also higher public support for Ankara’s Syria policy following the cross-border Euphrates Shield Operation, despite the fact that Turkey has suffered casualties due to the operation.
Meanwhile, despite the increase in deadly outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror attacks, the government’s military measures and harsh crackdown on the Kurdish problem seems to be paying off, as there has been a rise in support for government policies on the issue. Some 61 percent of those polled said they believe the PKK can be crushed militarily, while 56 percent said they were in favor of the arrest of pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) officials.
Source: hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-worst-year-was-a-success-story-for-the-akp.aspx?pageID=449&nID=108696&NewsCatID=412
----
Connectivity And The Modern Refugee
By Filippo Grandi
19 January 2017
They were fresh off the boat, the group of refugees I met this time last year. They had fled their homes in Syria, traveled halfway across Turkey, and placed their lives in the hands of a gang of people smugglers promising to get them to Europe. Despite all that they had endured, one of them told me, upon landing on the Greek island of Lesbos, that they had panicked only once during that perilous voyage: When their mobile phone signal disappeared.
That signal, however weak, had been the refugees’ only link to the outside world. When it vanished — when they truly had no way to contact family, friends, or anyone who could help them — they were gripped by a sense of isolation and fear more intense than they had ever experienced. It is a feeling no one should have to endure ever again.
For most people in the industrialized world — and everyone at this year’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos — connectivity is a fact of life. We have mobile phones, tablets, and computers, all linked to superfast — and accelerating — broadband networks. Add to that an ever-increasing number of social-media platforms, and we are always in contact with one another. Information flows so freely and relentlessly, in fact, that we tend to worry more about overload than scarcity.
For refugees, life is very different. Globally, refugees are 50 percent less likely than the general population to have an Internet-enabled phone, and 29 percent of refugee households have no phone at all. Though 90 percent of refugees located in urban environments live in places with 2G or 3G coverage, about a fifth of those living in rural areas have no connectivity at all.
This is a big deal. For refugees, connectivity is not a luxury, but a lifeline — one that has become all the more important at a time when sentiment in many host countries is turning against them (even as plenty of grassroots movements and communities remain eager to help). In some cases, technology can do what hostile politicians and reluctant governments will not: Give refugees a chance to rebuild their lives.
Connectivity means, at the most fundamental level, being able to remain in contact with family members left behind, some of whom may still be at risk of violence or persecution. Connectivity also provides access to important and up-to-date information about new threats, such as disease outbreaks or the spread of conflict, or the availability of necessities like food and water, clothing, shelter and healthcare.
In the longer term, connectivity can support online education and training that equips refugees for the workforce. It can help them find employment, and link them with legal or other crucial services. And it can enable them to communicate more easily with organizations like the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), telling us what they need most, what we are getting right, and where we need to make changes.
In a world of unlimited data, there is little stopping us from providing refugees with this lifesaving connectivity. If we are smart about how we design digital aid systems, we will have the opportunity to broaden our partnerships to hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations worldwide that are willing to help refugees.
Realizing this potential requires overcoming two key challenges. First, we must figure out how to improve connectivity for refugees today. Second, we must position ourselves to use technology more effectively tomorrow.
Overcoming these challenges will require, first and foremost, that governments improve access, including by investing in the necessary digital infrastructure. It will also require contributions from the private sector, particularly telecommunications providers, which can lend their technological expertise, global reach, and spending power to help ensure access to affordable phones and computers, inexpensive data plans, and training in digital literacy.
Success on these fronts will require using microwave links, satellite dishes, unused television spectrum, drones, and balloons to improve wireless Internet access and capabilities in locations containing many refugees. Because the vast majority of today’s refugees are in developing countries, improved connectivity would carry far-reaching benefits for the host communities.
In 2014, my colleagues encountered a young Syrian man called Hany, who had fled the city of Homs with his family and found refuge in a camp in Lebanon’s Beka’a Valley. A poet, rapper, and photographer, Hany was such a force of nature that it took my colleagues a while to realize he had a serious eye condition and could see only a few inches in front of his face. His mobile phone was utterly essential. It enabled him to learn English, take his first photographs, and call for help when he needed it. That same phone rang one day with the news that the city of Regina, Canada, was to be his new home. As he put it, “My phone is my little world.”
For refugees like Hany, staying connected is not only a matter of survival; it also provides a route to self-reliance and independence, boosting their own wellbeing and enabling them to contribute to the communities that host them. Last year, the World Economic Forum launched a program called Internet For All. We must ensure that “All” includes refugees.
-----
Filippo Grandi is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. ©Project Syndicate
Source: arabnews.com/node/1041001/columns
----
Two Celebrations Could Make Or Break A Fractured EU
By Paul Wallace
Jan 19, 2017
When business leaders meet at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week, they will be looking ahead to some crunch days for Europe in 2017. Crucial elections will be held in the Netherlands, France and Germany. Italians may go to the polls too. Any one of these ballots could bring a populist upset and further destabilize an already crisis-stricken European Union. But in a year of great political risks, investors should also pay attention to two momentous anniversaries and their implications for the EU’s future.
The first will occur on March 25, when the EU will celebrate the 60th birthday of the Treaty of Rome, which founded the common market. Little could the six original signatories – France, West Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg – have foreseen the subsequent widening of membership to 28 states encompassing Eastern as well as Western Europe. Nor could they have envisaged the extraordinary deepening through the creation of a monetary union in 1999 that has since expanded from 11 to 19 member countries.
The anniversary will be politically charged because it coincides with the first reversal of post-war European integration. British Prime Minister Theresa May is due to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty by the end of March, formally triggering the UK’s departure from the EU two years later. That will make the EU all the more determined to pull out all the stops to turn the anniversary into a rallying-point for the remaining members.
The main messages will be the indispensable role of the EU in preventing a return to the catastrophic conflicts of the 20th century and the union’s continuing relevance in dealing with current problems. That bodes ill for May’s hopes for an amicable deal on Britain’s future relationship with the EU because the surest (though unwise) way to show the club’s value is to charge a high price for leaving it. That is already looming in an exit bill mooted at up to 60 billion euros – a demand bound to sour negotiations – and an unyielding stance over future trade arrangements.
Forming a common front against the UK is one way to paper over even deeper fissures in the EU, especially within the ill-designed and poorly performing euro area. That is one reason why the staging of the anniversary in Rome will matter. The EU may be able to cope with Brexit, but it would struggle to deal with a populist government in Italy. Yet that could be the outcome if, as seems increasingly likely, an election is held this year.
Italians’ rebuff of Matteo Renzi in the referendum on constitutional change reflected despair – especially among the young who have borne the brunt of Italy’s lamentable economic performance in the monetary union. The celebration of the anniversary in March will be an opportunity to counter the anti-euro parties that feed off such disaffection by reminding voters young and old of the continuing value to Italy of its long-standing participation in the European project.
The resurgence in nationalism within Europe should come as no surprise. Viewed in a longer perspective the drive towards integration was always likely to stumble on the stubborn divisions of European history.
The second big anniversary of 2017, stretching back five centuries to a provincial town in Germany, will be another telling reminder of the previous potency of Europe’s centrifugal forces.
At the end of October 1517, theologian Martin Luther attached his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, which heralded the religious and political fracturing of Europe. The Reformation undermined the Holy Roman Empire, which some historians have characterized, unflatteringly, as an early version of the EU.
Religious rifts no longer divide Europeans, but the legacy of that earlier rupture remains salient. The divide within the euro area between the institutions and cultures of northern states such as the Netherlands and those of southern Europe largely mirrors the earlier religious fault line caused by the Reformation. For the monetary union to work it requires fiscal sharing which in turn requires a mutual trust – something the cultural schism has left in short supply.
After a year in which the unthinkable repeatedly occurred, investors need to reappraise the way they gauge political risks. Traditional methods relying on opinion polls have failed because the voting landscape is shifting so fundamentally on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe’s year of elections historians may be better guides than pollsters. The overall lesson of the two anniversaries is sobering. The tenacity of European integration is formidable, as the UK will painfully learn. Yet even if the populist insurgency is contained at the polls in 2017, the existing model of the EU needs to become more flexible if it is to survive.
-----
Paul Wallace, a former European economics editor of The Economist, is author of “The Euro Experiment.”
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/two-celebrations-make-break-fractured-eu/
---
The Brits Start The Fire And Then Bail Out
By Tariq A. Al-Maeena
Jan 18, 2017
On the second of November 1917, a letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour was delivered to Walter Rothschild, the 2nd Baron Rothschild and a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
It read: “His Majesty›s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
This became known as the Balfour Declaration and it gave birth to one of the greatest tragedies in the 20th century – the attempted extermination of the Palestinian people.
This Zionist-inspired plan led to the bizarre creation of the nation of Israel on Palestinian lands. The illegal occupation initially by Jewish refugees from Europe and later from other parts of the world has been going on for decades. It has been for the most part condoned by most of the Western world made to feel guilty for the crimes of Hitler against the Jews during World War II, notwithstanding the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs had anything to do with those atrocities.
The Israelis, too eager to establish their domain, began expropriating Palestinian land and encouraging Jewish settlers from all over the globe to take advantage of free land much to the dismay of the native population, many of whom were killed, tortured, maimed or imprisoned for protesting the usurpation of their rights or for fighting back. Israel soon became the pariah of nations in the region.
The conflict, well into its eighth decade, has pitched the mightily armed Israelis against the woefully unequipped Palestinians who have been subjected to a constant barrage of targeted killings, bombings, destruction of their homes and imprisonment without charge. Such is the apartheid state of Israel that was given credence by Britain.
So when a Peace Conference organized by the French government was recently planned to bring the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the fore and work toward a salvageable solution, what did those behind the creation of Israel do? They declined to participate in the conference, preferring instead to send observers to watch and take notes.
Here you have a conference trying to bring nations together to seek a solution to a long and potentially explosive conflict, and the UK government decides to take a pass! And the lame excuses offered are enough to make someone sick. They stated that they had reservations about the outcome of a Middle East peace conference in Paris, because it risked “hardening positions.” A British Foreign Office statement read: “We have particular reservations about an international conference intended to advance peace between the parties that do not involve them – indeed which is taking place against the wishes of the Israelis – and which is taking place just days before the transition to a new American President when the US will be the ultimate guarantor of any agreement. There are risks therefore that this conference hardens positions at a time when we need to be encouraging the conditions for peace.
Well, hello. Naturally the Israelis do not want the conference. They do not want to be disturbed in the midst of their illegal occupation and ongoing brutality in Palestinian lands. Indeed, who would be stupid enough to invite attention while they are up to no good? John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, was right when he declared the current Israeli government as “the most right-wing in Israeli history.” But guess what? He was scolded by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government!
Following on the heels of revelations last week by Al-Jazeera TV which demonstrated the entrenchment of Israeli moles in the UK government and how many UK lawmakers are on the payroll funded by Zionist sympathizers, all of this comes as no surprise.
What is tragic, however, is that the Brits are unwilling today to work to heal a wound they created a century ago that is still painfully infected.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/brits-start-fire-bail/
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/a-dove-davos-calling-zarif’s/d/109769