Children Carry the Weight of War in Yemen By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim: New Age Islam's Selection, 21 October 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
21 October 2017
• Children Carry the Weight of War in Yemen
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
• Governance Systems in the Gulf and Democracy
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
• Three Issues That Could Derail the Fatah-Hamas Deal
By Adnan Abu Amer
• The Dangers of Refusing to Link Nuclear Agreement to Iran’s Behaviour
By Eyad Abu Shakra
• Rejecting Secession and Marginalizing Kurds
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Will Withdrawing Egyptian Nationality Eliminate Terrorism?
By Mohammed Nosseir
• It's Time for the World to Stop Ignoring Yemen
By Radhya Almutawakel
• Mideast Oil Prices: The Party Is Not Over Yet
By Talal Al-Gashgari
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Children Carry the Weight of War in Yemen
By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim
20 October 2017
Yemen is still one of the worst humanitarian disasters currently ongoing in the world. The conflict, which began when Houthi militias refusal to accept the political transition of power, is not ‘sexy’ enough to hold the attention of the international press for sustained periods of time, but it rages on, causing ever mounting human suffering on a mass scale. So far, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, three million have been displaced from their home, and due to the destruction of infrastructure, as many as 17 million are at risk of famine: in a country with a population of around 28 million.
But the worst affected, as often is the case in these kinds of conflicts, are the most vulnerable. In particular, the children. As many as 80 percent of children in the country are affected by the famine and in desperate need of aid.
Not only are they disproportionally affected by the food shortages, but they have also been systematically targeted by the Houthis in the conflict. Over 2016 alone, over 500 children were killed and a further 800 plus were maimed. The UN verified 38 deliberate attacks on schools and hospitals over the year.
Drafted Into Fight
But an even bigger tragedy is befalling the young in Yemen. Beyond the numbers killed in attacks on schools and hospitals, increasingly large numbers are being drafted into the fighting itself. The Houthi militias in particular, but also Islamist militias, tribal militias and Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) are already known for deploying boys as young as 14-16. There are reports of recruits as young as 12. The recruitment and use of children under 15 in an armed conflict is a war crime under international law.
The Human Rights Watch also reports that the young “volunteers” for the Houthis for example, receive ideological and Zaidi Shia Islamic training for at least a month, followed by military training at one of their bases across the country. After which they can be deployed in active fighting, usually as support and operations for fighters on the front line, or as first aid respondents to the wounded. Though that still means they often find themselves in the line of fire. The children “volunteers” do not get paid for their services. Instead, they receive food and qat – a mild drug widely chewed in Yemen.
To their credit, the Saudis have initiated a programme to rehabilitate children affected by the war through their King Salman Centre for Medical Relief and Humanitarian Aid. Yet the majority of the children actively participating in the war are on the Houthi side. How many of them would be permitted in a Saudi rehabilitation centres is an entirely different matter.
Psychological and Emotional Healing
And yet there is an urgent need to get these young people out of the fighting and get them the psychological and emotional healing and nourishment they require. This need is finally being recognised by the international community, and NGOs have already begun to take the initiative.
The Global Needs Foundation (GNF), for example, has just conducted the first independent medical mission to the country, and has started laying the foundations for the infrastructure needed to address the needs of the children sucked into the war on all sides – not just the Saudi side.
Dr John Kahler, a US paediatrician and Board Member of MedGlobal, a Chicago based medical relief organisation founded by Dr Zaher Sahloul, who formerly headed the Syrian American Medical Society, was one of four doctors in the first Global Needs Foundation mission to Yemen. Dr Kahler and the team visited hospitals and clinics deep inside hostile territory with security provided by the Global Needs Foundation. They witnessed not just the signature mine injuries common in war zones but also the psychological trauma suffered by former child soldiers and the extra effort being undertaken by the King Salman Center to ensure their rehabilitation. “Each school catered for the psychological needs of the children not just the physical”, said Dr Kahler. “Most were between the ages of ten and fourteen with approx 30 to each class in three different schools which seem to have been started specially for this purpose. They were doing a wonderful job, absolutely wonderful.”
Where the Global Needs Foundation and King Salman Centre has led, the rest of the international community must follow. For the sake of those children, and for the sake of peace in the future. There is no end in sight for the Yemen conflict yet, but the more time we allow the wounds of war to be inflicted upon young minds, into the leaders of tomorrow, the more likely we make it that Yemen may never again get to know peace. We must not allow this to happen.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/20/Children-carry-the-weight-of-war-in-Yemen.html
-----
Governance Systems in the Gulf and Democracy
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
20 October 2017
The concept of democracy has often been viewed in misleading revolutionary terms as so-called plans for the society’s redemption have been glorified by catchy, illusory and populist slogans. The ideals of democracy have at times been presented with the intent of igniting sentiments for radical change.
This revolutionary agenda behind promoting the democratic ideal tries to promote the false argument that political institutions in the Gulf are somehow unrelated to democratic sensibilities. It seems that the democratic ideal is being limited to the mechanism of parliamentary or presidential elections. However, the purpose of this system of governance is that there should be a level of responsiveness between the ruler and those he rules. In this respect, the mechanism is firmly established through the pledge of allegiance formulations and the ‘Shura’ system adopted in Gulf countries.
The aim of democracy is to maintain justice and this can be achieved without engaging in superficial procedural trappings of so-called democracies. Monarchies in Gulf countries do seek justice and this is enshrined in their constitutional and governance regulations. Institutions which strengthen justice and fair governance work towards this end as these are based on royal decrees that stipulate that law is supreme without exception.
There have been several instances when common citizens have won cases records even show an incident when King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia had lost a case in 1927.
The revolutionary element has had an adverse impact on the political and philosophical ideals and has robbed them of their relevance.
Gulf countries have their own model which seeks to establish justice within a well-founded outlook and promotes the needs of the modern man who avails all his rights, respects his duties, enjoys his life and plans it according to all the pertinent laws. It is not a precondition to have prescribed means for achieving this state of fulfilment, but what’s important is to develop liberal political theories that aspire to build a better and more favourable reality.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/20/Governance-systems-in-the-Gulf-and-democracy.html
-----
Three Issues That Could Derail the Fatah-Hamas Deal
By Adnan Abu Amer
20 October 2017
Last week's talks between Fatah and Hamas for a unity government have encouraged mild optimism among Palestinians that this time negotiations could succeed.
In spite of the positive tone of the statement released after the meeting in Cairo on October 10, there are still a number of difficult issues to negotiate which could impede the success of the reconciliation efforts. The two parties still have to resolve who will control Gaza in the future, what will become of Hamas' military wing, and what will happen with Gaza's government employees.
Control over Gaza
Hamas took over Gaza in 2007 after clashing with and expelling Fatah, which refused to recognise its victory in the 2006 elections. Subsequently, Hamas had to set up its own mechanisms and bodies to administer the Gaza Strip.
Currently, Hamas dominates every aspect of life in Gaza. It controls education (and has set up a different curriculum for Gaza children from that in the West Bank), administers healthcare provision and hospitals, collects taxes from businesses and households, provides security and manages the border crossings with Egypt and Israel.
In other words, over the past 10 years, Hamas has set up a full-blown state apparatus, separate from the Palestinian Authority (PA). So what will happen to all its institutions? Will they disappear overnight, to be replaced by authorities reporting to the head of the PA in Ramallah? Will the disbanding be dealt with on one front at a time or will there be a wholesale handover of control over Gaza? What will happen to Hamas loyalists within these institutions?
It is clear that the lack of a detailed vision of how to proceed with the unification will create chaos and piecemeal attempts to deal with individual issues. Without a structure agreed upon by the heads of both sides, unification attempts can easily fail.
Will Hamas Disarm?
PA President Mahmoud Abbas has said more than once that the end goal of reconciliation is to establish the PA's full administrative control over Gaza. In early October he declared that in the Palestinian lands there needs to be "one power, one law, and one security".
In addition, the fact that the US, Israel and regional powers have removed their objections to this reconciliation - each for their own reasons - should not be taken to mean that they will be silent indefinitely about the arms stockpiles in Gaza. The weapons belong to various arms of the resistance, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Popular Resistance Committees.
Hamas for its part has announced, and continues to affirm, that the future of its armed wing is not subject to the reconciliation negotiations and that it will not accept sacrificing it in order to consolidate the reconciliation government in Gaza. This was among a number of other statements Hamas made aiming to reassure its cadres, who have sacrificed a great deal to stockpile these weapons.
Recognising how problematic this issue is for Hamas, the PA and the Egyptians - the sponsors of the reconciliation - have hinted that they will leave the discussion of this matter to a later stage of the negotiations for fear of creating an unnecessary stalemate.
But what will happen if and when the Palestinian minister of interior arrives in Gaza to put in place the same security coordination with Israel that is currently in place in the West Bank? Will Hamas allow that to happen?
The security coordination that the PA would like to transfer to Gaza to establish its government there may mean that Israeli military vehicles would enter the Strip, even if only on the periphery. And it would mean that Palestinian security would have to inform its Israeli counterparts of any breaches of border security. Israeli security would inform its Palestinian counterpart of any workshops manufacturing weapons in Gaza, which would have to be broken up and their members arrested.
All these foreseen and unforeseen events are nightmare scenarios for Hamas. Is the movement prepared for them or is it hoping to postpone them indefinitely?
If indeed the PA takes over security provision in Gaza, it will also take accountability from Hamas for Israeli incursions on Gaza's border, Israeli air attacks, and the harassment of Gaza fishermen by the Israeli navy. For a long time these issues were an embarrassment to Hamas because it wasn't able to deal with them, which was causing growing dissatisfaction among Gaza's residents with their leadership.
Who Will Pay Salaries?
The final issue that could potentially derail the unity deal is the fate of almost 50,000 employees within the Hamas-dominated institutions in Gaza. These people support an estimated quarter of a million family members in Gaza. They are the ones who shouldered the burden of administering Gaza's affairs over the past 10 years and will be hostile to any tampering with their employee rights or reduction of their financial and administrative entitlements.
Hamas has been adamant during previous negotiations that job security be guaranteed for these employees, and that they be treated as equals to PA employees. It is well known that a number of previous reconciliation and negotiation efforts have come up against the PA refusing to recognise these employees.
There have been rumours that there are committees being formed to look into the matter of these employees and to set the government's priorities vis-a-vis its need for them. It is unclear, however, whether job security is indeed something it is considering.
So who will be the guarantor for the employees of Gaza, and who will pay their salaries if a settlement of their status is agreed upon?
The reality on the ground requires that compromises be presented and that both sides are serious enough to forego party interests and organisational considerations in order to achieve a Palestinian national project that will not succeed as long as the spectre of division haunts it.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/issues-derail-fatah-hamas-deal-171017185321599.html
-----
The Dangers of Refusing to Link Nuclear Agreement to Iran’s Behaviour
By Eyad Abu Shakra
21 October 2017
The wait for US President Donald Trump to announce his position on Iran’s nuclear agreement was a nail-biting moment for many. Trump, as several leaks had indicated he would, chose to decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the agreement Iran signed with the US, the EU, Russia and China. And while many were expecting him to do so, his decision drew immediate responses from around the globe.
In the Middle East — the region most concerned about Iran’s nuclear plans — contrast in reactions could not have been greater. While Iranian President Hassan Rouhani angrily condemned Trump’s position, widespread applause came from Arab countries disadvantaged not only by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also its political exploitation of the international community’s silence toward it.
It is that same silence that has allowed Iran to expand in the region, thanks to its militias and conventional weapon strength.
Indeed, in the Middle East, and specifically in the Gulf, there are two serious threats posed by Iran’s ambitions of hegemony. The first is political, the second is nuclear.
The political threat is clear for all to see in the armed sectarian agitation, aided and sponsored by Tehran, of geographically dominant militias such as the Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) in Iraq; the Fatemiyyoun, Zaynabiyyoun and Hezbollah militias in Syria and Lebanon; and the Houthis in Yemen. But there are also the more subtle threats of clandestine activities and terror groups in Bahrain, other Gulf states, and North African countries.
Sure enough, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which plays a vital role in Iran’s political and economic life, continuously highlights its interventions and has openly boasted of its “control of four Arab capitals.”
Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, never misses an opportunity to appear in front of the media inspecting the front lines in Iraq and Syria, despite the fact he is sanctioned by several governments and listed as a known terrorist by the US.
As for Iran’s nuclear threat, it is no less dangerous. The fact that Iran straddles highly unstable seismic faults means Iran’s nuclear installations pose a serious risk to the safety of the Gulf region — only a short distance separates the port of Bushehr (home to one of Iran’s major installations) from the eastern shores of the Arabian Peninsula. We can all imagine the disaster that could befall the Gulf should a leak like that witnessed in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 occur.
Of course, the governments of Germany, France and the UK have every right to oppose Washington’s policies, but their insistence on defending the nuclear deal with Iran is based, in large part, on economic interests.
These governments, spurred by corporations and banks eager to enter Iran’s market of 90 million customers, refuse to acknowledge the link between the agreement and Iran’s harsh treatment of opposition at home, or its aggressive interventions in neighbouring Arab countries.
Those interventions have already been central causes of two major problems:
1. The refugee crisis afflicting the countries of Western and Central Europe.
2. Extremist terrorism under Sunni Muslim slogans, provoked by Iran’s Shi’ite Muslim slogans.
According to reliable statistics, Iran’s exports to EU countries have risen by 375 percent between 2016 and 2017. European companies have invested heavily in the virgin Iranian market, and there has been rapid progress in banking facilities, running parallel with these investments.
Thus, the three European governments’ positions look no different from that of Barack Obama’s administration, which sponsored Tehran’s rehabilitation, accorded it all kinds of excuses, and gambled on making it a regional ally.
Just like the previous Democratic administration, Obama’s intentionally drew a distinction between nuclear technology and political repercussions. The three governments have ignored the fact that Iran ranks second in the world (after China) in the number of executions (and first per capita), and that many of these are of a political nature, mostly targeting ethnic and sectarian minorities.
Furthermore, while claiming to defend human rights, these governments have done nothing in regard to Tehran’s maltreatment of figures that were part of its regime’s elite, including former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, former Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, and the Islamic Republic’s first President Abolhassan Banisadr, who is still living in exile in France.
Berlin, Paris and London are repeating Obama’s excuses; attributing Muslim terror only to Sunnis, and refusing to acknowledge Tehran’s active role in aiding and abetting even extremist Sunni Muslim groups worldwide, including Al-Qaeda.
They want us to accept the inverted logic of former US Secretary of State John Kerry, who stated time and time again during the US-Iran nuclear negotiations that they focused solely on the nuclear side and never included any other issues. In other words, they ignored Iran’s political, military, and intelligence interventions in Arab countries.
Kerry reiterated that logic this week as he criticized Trump’s refusal to certify the JCPOA while taking a tough line against the IRGC.
Germany, France and the UK, who have claimed the moral high ground in welcoming refugees from the Middle East, would do better if they adopted the maxim “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
The ounce of prevention, in this case, is simply ridding the world of the evils of extremism, destruction and hatred, all of which create and fuel terrorism.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1180846/columns
-----
Rejecting Secession and Marginalizing Kurds
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
20 October 2017
The president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Masoud Barzani, tried to realize his people’s long-held dream of an independent state, despite predictions of failure. So why did he do it?
Had he not tried, he may have been accused of failing his people, especially since he assumed the task of working with Iraq’s government militarily and politically in the past few years, and cooperating with the international community to fight terrorist organizations, during which Kurdish blood was spilled.
But Barzani’s referendum, which would guarantee a vote in favor of independence, was ill-conceived because no states in the region were prepared to support him due to their fears of separatism within their own borders. The same applies to secessionist plans in southern Yemen and elsewhere in the region. A majority vote is not enough to accomplish independence; international recognition of the referendum result is much more important.
That is why Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran, despite their differences, opposed Kurdish secession, or more diplomatically, announced their support for Iraq’s unity. These regional powers were supported by international ones.
There was an important message in opposing Kurdish secession: No local or regional power is allowed to change internal situations. This message was not only meant for the Kurds, but also for all Iranian-supported groups in Iraq, and any other group for that matter. It was also directed at all regional states that are trying to exploit the chaos of war in order to impose their own little republics.
Moreover, it seems that the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iraq was accelerated in order to make an important correction in the foreign policy toward these areas which need rapprochement rather than negligence.
Although we are against dividing Iraq for the benefit of any group, this does not mean staying silent about attempts to weaken the Kurdish component, which is very important for Iraqi and regional balances.
It should also not be assumed that we will accept weakening Barzani’s authority, as he is a prominent leader in Iraq and the region. Some Kurdish powers are trying to exploit the current crisis against Barzani and his authority. Ankara, Tehran and Baghdad are also trying to weaken him by imposing sanctions on Iraqi Kurdistan and making military threats.
The Kurds made a mistake by holding the referendum and using its result to legitimize secession. Nevertheless, the crisis should be tackled not by confrontation and escalation, but by reconciliation between Irbil and Baghdad. Attempts by some Iraqi powers to punish Kurdish leaders are not in Baghdad’s interests. Rather, they widen the gap between the two sides.
Let us remember that the Kurdish stance in Baghdad, which supported all other Iraqi parties, contributed to ending the rule of Nouri Al-Maliki when he refused to resign and tried to remain as prime minister with unlimited authority for life. The Kurds are vital for the balance of power in Iraq’s political system, which was built during the US occupation of the country.
Exploiting the crisis to weaken the Kurds and the KRG is an Iranian project that suits militias such as the Popular Mobilization Units which, despite raising the Iraqi flag, competes with the Iraqi Army — the country’s legitimate force — and threatens its unity.
In order to stop secessionist tendencies and threats to marginalize the authorities in Baghdad, the promises and commitments that formed modern Iraq and its constitution should be implemented. The Iraqi state is for all Iraqis, not just for the majority or the better-armed party, and its authority is stated in the constitution.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1180706
-----
Will Withdrawing Egyptian Nationality Eliminate Terrorism?
By Mohammed Nosseir
21 October 2017
Will the draft legislation concerning the withdrawal of Egyptian nationality from citizens accused of terrorism help the country strengthen its identity and wipe out terrorism? I strongly doubt it. I am not even certain if this legislation is constitutional.
The state is causing polarization by defining its supporters as true Egyptians and according lower statuses to all other citizens. It labels its opponents as evil, and is trying to withdraw Egyptian nationality from suspected terrorists. In parallel with these developments, terrorism is on the rise in Egypt.
“They are not Egyptians,” is how the state defines political Islamists, who a few years ago won almost three-quarters of seats in Parliament, as well as the presidency. Those who claim that political Islamists are no longer popular in Egypt are hiding their heads in the sand.
Furthermore, excessive aggression toward people who are mentally disturbed pushes them into a position where they have nothing to lose, and they target the state as their principal enemy. Political Islamists are a reprehensible part of Egyptian society that we must reform, not alienate. They constitute a complicated challenge that we are, sadly, not on the right track to tackle.
They draw strength from presenting themselves as victims, so the more the state represses them, the more united they become, and the more prone they are to exact revenge via terrorist attacks, while presenting their actions under the label of Islam (which they certainly misinterpret). Political Islamists work to radicalize Egypt, and the state is simply — and probably unintentionally — advancing their mission, giving rise to more extremism and terrorism.
The state often adopts impractical and short-sighted means to resolve its challenges, tending to cut out everyone who does not agree with its policies. We will not solve problems that originate in Egypt by trying to export our challenges to other nations or blame them for our faults.
We cannot only work on digesting the “good apples” and disposing of the “bad” ones, especially when we are planting unhealthy seeds that will certainly yield rotten crops, which could end up occupying most of the dining table.
Egypt is going through a fundamental dilemma of defending its identity, in the process backing into a corner all political forces that do not support the ruling regime. The prospect of losing their nationality does not threaten Egyptians who are committed to murdering innocent citizens, and who know full well that they will be prosecuted eventually.
Regrettably, political Islamists believe they owe allegiance not to Egypt, but to a “Muslim nation” that they are fighting to establish. So the threat of withdrawing Egyptian nationality is of absolutely no consequence to them. Nationality should not be subject to incentives or penalties. It is the only privilege that citizens are granted at birth, and it should not be used as a tool to strengthen national identity.
We need to expend more effort on highlighting the core values of Islam (peace, tolerance and forgiveness), and to be more tolerant in dealing with these misguided citizens in order to turn them into peaceful ones. Any citizen convicted of a crime must be penalized, but without being stripped of nationality.
Egypt needs to apply a clear policy of punishing all citizens who engage in illegal activities, from simple misdemeanours to terrorism (by far the most grievous crime that can be committed). Proportional punishment is therefore imperative.
We must reconcile potential suspects and misguided citizens with the concept of true citizenship and the obligations attached to it. The withdrawal of nationality sends a message that anyone who commits, or is suspected of committing, a crime no longer belongs to our nation. This would simply serve to enhance terrorism.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1180876/columns
-----
It's Time for the World to Stop Ignoring Yemen
By Radhya Almutawakel
20 October 2017
Earlier this year, I left my home in Yemen to try to tell the world the story of a collapsing and suffering country, a story that largely has been ignored despite the United Nations calling it "the largest humanitarian crisis in the world". Ignored, despite grave violations committed by all parties to the conflict since 2014, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Ignored, despite the war having driven seven million civilians - more than the entire population of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area - to the brink of famine. Ignored, despite more than 750,000 cases of cholera, the world's worst outbreak of that disease.
Last month, the international community took the first step to no longer ignore the conflict in Yemen, when the UN Human Rights Council established a new international panel of experts to report on the violations that have been committed by all sides to this horrible conflict. In so doing, the international community finally has sent a clear message to all warring parties - to the Saudis and their partners, to the Ansar Allah armed group (also known as the Houthis) and their ally former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to current Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's forces and armed groups loyal to him - that the world finally is watching, that impunity will no longer reign in Yemen, and that violations of human rights and of the laws of war will meet consequences.
Having made this promise of accountability more than two years into the conflict, the international community owes it to the people of Yemen to ensure that the words of the Human Rights Council's resolution are translated into reality. The UN must select strong, impartial experts for this panel, women and men of character who will not be afraid to identify perpetrators of violations on all sides.
Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, which have stood by their Saudi and Emirati allies despite documented attacks on civilians - and indeed, have continued to sell Saudi Arabia and the UAE bombs and other weapons for use in their air strikes on Yemen - must give the UN panel proper backing, no matter its findings and conclusions. And the UN experts must realise that their mandate is to speak truth to power, and to identify those responsible for killing innocent men, women, and children in Yemen.
Too often, the causes of peace and justice are presented as irreconcilable in conflict, but in Yemen, the establishment of this new UN investigative mechanism can help advance the peaceful resolution of the conflict, by shining a light on violations by the parties and making clear that victories on the battlefield cannot lead to political gains. Coupled with diplomatic pressure, it could incentivise all parties to go back to the negotiating table. The international community should use this moment of heightened scrutiny to restart the UN-led peace process.
The US, the UK, and France - as permanent UN Security Council members who did not support a strong UN inquiry - have a special responsibility to seize this moment. If the international community misses this opportunity and continues to ignore Yemen, the consequences will be dire. Not only will Yemen's people continue to suffer starvation, bombardment, and disease on a scale unseen anywhere else in the?world, but?the threat to the West will increase from terrorists and extremists whom the US State Department has confirmed are using Yemen's instability to multiply their strength and numbers.
The story of Yemen that I have told on my travels to date has been one of tragedy, suffering, and neglect by the rest of the world. If the international community takes this opportunity to work to end the conflict, Yemen's next chapter could be one of hope, and we could begin rebuilding our broken country and saving millions of lives from being lost.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/time-world-stop-ignoring-yemen-171018061514610.html
-----
Iran, Europe and the Long List of US Conditions
By Mustafa Fahs
20 October 2017
Tehran’s gamble on a single, cohesive European stance that will help it withstand US pressure failed within 48 hours, following a shift in Europe’s position, which came a day after US President Donald Trump announced his country's new strategy in dealing with Iran.
Softening European Position
On Sunday, Europeans resorted to a language closer to the rationale of bargaining with Washington over the crisis regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran, agreeing on common points between them and deferring the controversy till the time the US Congress reaches a clear American position on the nuclear deal in two months. Iran should view these developments as a sign of weakening in the stance taken by Britain, Germany and even France over its earlier ambivalence regarding separation of the deal with Tehran’s behaviour in its region. This became evident in the joint British-German declaration that underlines that “they agreed on the need to continue the international community's response to Iran's destabilizing activities in the region, and discuss ways to address concerns about Iran's ballistic missile program.”
In spite of Europe’s apparent leaning towards Tehran, President Trump has continued to put pressure on all parties. On Monday, Trump said that “there could be a total cancellation of the agreement; it is a real possibility.” He added that the new phase after the cancellation can be “very positive”. In fact, he has thrown the ball in the Congress’ court, leaving American lawmakers with the burden of making the right decision about the future of the nuclear deal.
Signs of New Escalation
The US Congress is expected to continue to try and please all parties. Its members appear convinced that the United States must abide by international agreements so that they are not accused of not respecting signed agreements. However, it is no longer certain now that the US Congress will uphold the nuclear deal as it exists today and may even push for amending some of its problematic clauses with a new mechanism for monitoring Iran’s compliance. The US Congress may press for the implementation of additional protocol agreed by the Iranian negotiating team in the Geneva talks, which allows the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect all of Iran’s military and civilian installations without prior authorization. All these facilities will be under the control of UN inspectors, who will observe all of Iran's nuclear activities both directly and indirectly.
It is impossible for Tehran to agree to the US demands to grant the inspection teams of the IAEA freedom of movement on its territory and will not hesitate to take hard decisions in defense of its national sovereignty and shall obstruct Washington, which wishes a repeat of its Iraqi experience following Saddam's 1991 defeat. The Baathist regime was forced to open all its installations to international inspection teams, which eventually even inspected Saddam's palaces and his private chambers under the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Tehran could not accept these terms and that the Trump administration is likely to enforce them increases the likelihood of the crisis escalating.
Iran’s Options Narrowing
In such a scenario, Washington will have enough reasons to justify its annulment of the nuclear deal before the international community and to initiate further measures against Tehran. For its part, Tehran will try to embarrass Washington in front of the international community by rejecting the harsh conditions that undermine its national pride at a time when the regime is itself struggling to control the country internally and is going through its worst existential crisis since 1979. The United States has redefined its relationship with Tehran, by listing a book full of conditions against it, making it difficult to differentiate between what is possible at the nuclear level and what is acceptable at the regional level. These measures have been taken in order to stop Iran from turning into a new North Korea.
The room for Iran’s manoeuvres is narrowing while US terms and conditions are expanding, while Europe’s prospects for bringing about a settlement appear difficult, given the shift towards a direct confrontation in the conflict between Washington and Tehran for the first time since the establishment of the theocratic system. The nature of this conflict is described well by the Lebanese journalist Khairallah Khairallah, who says that the United States has rediscovered Iran and the most important thing in Trump’s speech is that it the US is now dealing with Iran as a whole and this has put the nuclear deal in its proper framework.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/20/Iran-Europe-and-the-long-list-of-US-conditions.html
-----
Mideast Oil Prices: The Party Is Not Over Yet
By Talal Al-Gashgari
20 October 2017
Previously, the West used to make fun of us every time the oil prices fell. Their media used to beam that the “party is over” for the Arabs.
With these rapturous outbursts, they hoped for the end of an era where we made money-selling petroleum and it was finally the time for us to taste poverty. However, thanks to God, each time this happens, oil prices rebounded or even rose higher after a slowdown for a limited period. As a result, the party did not end for us, whether the West liked it or not.
Under the current circumstances in the Kingdom, the West is going to sing the same refrain repeatedly along with some of their lackeys. Following the planned increase in the local prices of gasoline, diesel and cooking gas, they will now start talking about us struggling under heavy price increases and inflation.
I want to say to them, please hold on and be patient. The party is not over yet. That is because the actual reason for the price increase was to lay the foundation for a new era of national transformation wherein we fix the mistakes of the past and head for a better start. In addition, it is a fact that the government has created the Citizen’s Account to compensate low-income people whatever they lose because of the rise in fuel prices. So only the rich people who can actually adapt to the rise are the ones who are going to pay. Also, keep in mind that the prices of petrol in the Kingdom would still be less compared to the rest of the Gulf countries.
Who knows what a great impact this increase could have on society, even though many of us do not like it? Why not start limiting our high consumption of petrol, which in any away is harmful to the environment? Whenever we face some increase in prices, we seriously need to think not just of the immediate consequences but also of the positive impact this will have on our country and us in the long run.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/20/Arab-s-oil-goldmine-The-party-is-not-over-yet-.html
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/children-carry-weight-war-yemen/d/112960