Are Turkey and Iran warming up to each other? : New Age Islam's Selection, 11 March 2016
• Will Iran send forces to Yemen?By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
• EU-Turkey: Is refugee issue a new membership criterion?
By Cengiz Aktar
• India's take it or leave it choice in Afghanistan
By Rupakjyoti Borah
• Trudeau’s sunny ways do not include Palestinians
Saudi Gazette
Compiled by New Age Islam News Bureau
---------
Are Turkey and Iran warming up to each other?
By Camelia Entekhabi-Fard
Thursday, 10 March 2016
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told American lawmakers last month that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) “has actually pulled its troops back from Syria,” and that supreme leader Ali Khamenei “pulled a significant number of troops out.”
Tehran did not comment on this claim, but it was nonetheless welcomed by neighboring Turkey, which has been unhappy about Iranian-Russian cooperation in the Syrian conflict.
When Ankara shot down a Russian warplane over Turkish airspace, Tehran sided with Moscow, and President Hassan Rowhani accused Ankara of ties with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Common interests
However, Turkey and Iran rely on each other for vital resources. Ankara supported Tehran during the 10 years of nuclear talks, and was one of a few allies that defied the international embargo. Nonetheless, the Syrian conflict and Russia’s intervention have soured bilateral relations.
Few years ago, Iranian oil made up a significant component of Turkey’s energy imports. Because of sanctions that number has fallen since, but Ankara still sees Iran as an important trade partner.
Iranian involvement in Syria has been costly, so Russian intervention came at an opportune time for both Tehran and Damascus. Today, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has the upper hand against his opponents due to Moscow.
However, neither Tehran nor Ankara want a long-term, heavy Russian presence in Syria, providing grounds for bilateral cooperation during the next round of talks on the conflict.
Neither Tehran nor Ankara want a long-term, heavy Russian presence in Syria, providing grounds for bilateral cooperation during the next round of talks on the conflict
The recent visit by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davotuglu to Tehran shows an improvement in ties. Davutoglu acknowledged on Saturday that Iran and Turkey differ on Syria, but said cooperation was necessary to end the bloodshed there. He said Turkey and Iran hope to expand their trade to $30 billion, triple the current amount.
The issue of transferring the S-300 missile system to Iran is a prime example of Russian uncertainty. Tehran and Moscow signed an $800 million contract for the S-300s in Dec. 2007, and another contract last year.
The office of Russian President Vladimir Putin published a decree lifting the ban on the missile transfer when he visited Tehran in November. The transfer was supposed to have taken place at the end of 2015 or in early 2016, but this has not yet happened. The disappointed Iranians are perhaps waiting for the results of the next round of Syria talks before confronting Moscow.
The nuclear deal may have placed greater importance on the economy than on air-defense capability. As such, boosting trade and economic ties with Turkey suits the pragmatic government of Iranian President Hassan Rowhani more than military cooperation with Russia. Tehran and Ankara are moving closer.
english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/10/Are-Turkey-and-Iran-warming-up-to-each-other-.html
---------
Will Iran send forces to Yemen?
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
Thursday, 10 March 2016
The deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces has hinted that his country may send military advisers to Yemen, as it has in Syria. He said Tehran feels a duty to both countries. Iran has been present in Yemen since before the coup against President Abdrabbu Mansour Hadi’s government last year.
Its expanded presence is a major reason Saudi Arabia built a military alliance and launched a war there, when it confirmed suspicions that Iran was behind the Houthis’ seizure of the capital, and was sending “military consultants” and huge shipments of arms to support them.
After its proxy seized power with the help of forces loyal to Hadi’s predecessor Ali Abdullah Saleh, Tehran said there would be a daily flight to Sanaa, up from one per week. Iran’s only exports to Yemen are arms and fighters.
Even after the war erupted, Sanaa airport was closed and the United Nations began inspecting all ships heading to Yemen, Iran continued to send arms shipments. Australia on Tuesday said its navy found an arms cache on a ship heading from Iran to Yemen. Ten days ago, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress that another Iranian ship was intercepted. It costs Tehran a small amount of money to rent ships and repeat its attempts.
Playing spoiler
Iran does not lack courage to get more involved in Yemen, but this will backfire on it militarily and politically.
All this suggests that it wants to turn Yemen into another Syria, and into a battlefield for Iran-linked militias from Afghanistan to Lebanon. Tehran seems to be sending a message after positive developments regarding Yemen, such as negotiations, prisoner exchanges and delivery of aid for the first time. Iran either wants to destroy this progress or grant more leverage to its allies, who have lost more than half the territory they had seized.
Reconciliation in Yemen will increase pressure on Iran in other conflict zones such as Syria, so it is in Tehran’s interest to keep the fighting going. It hopes to achieve victory in Syria, where it has put its full weight behind the regime alongside Russia. There is much evidence that Iran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah is also involved in Yemen.
The country resembles Afghanistan in its rugged terrain, complicated tribalism and difficulty of movement. Tehran would be committing a mistake to send more arms and fighters to Yemen. Although this would complicate the situation for Saudi Arabia and its allies, Iran’s losses would be huge.
At the beginning, many people doubted that Iran was involved in Yemen, but today we rarely hear an expert deny the role it has played throughout the crisis. The same is true of its role in Syria, Bahrain and Iraq.
Iran does not lack courage to get more involved in Yemen, but this will backfire on it militarily and politically. Perhaps this is what Riyadh needs to prove that Iran’s threat has increased after the nuclear deal - to besiege the Iranians in the mountains and plains of a country that is resistant to invaders.
english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/03/10/Will-Iran-send-forces-to-Yemen-.html
---------
EU-Turkey: Is refugee issue a new membership criterion?
By Cengiz Aktar
10 Mar 2016
The sudden interest of both parties in each other is entirely due to the refugee crisis.
On March 7, the European Union held yet another summit with Turkey on the topic of refugees flooding Europe. The meeting was a follow-up to the first summit of November 29, 2015, as well as countless bilateral and multilateral meetings on the same topic between Turkish, European and EU officials.
Last autumn, Europeans reached the following hypothesis: Refugees and asylum-seekers of Syrian and other origin are entering the EU territory from Turkey. This large-scale human displacement - which proved to be unmanageable for EU countries - can only be prevented by Turkey. Everything should be done to make this goal happen.
To this extent, the EU came up with a consolidated package. The Europeans agreed to give $3.3bn to Turkey and in return asked the Turks to take back and resettle refugees coming from Turkey, and prevent more refugees from entering the EU via Turkey. Additionally they pretended to revitalise Turkey's EU membership bid, and promised Turkish citizens visa-free travel within the Schengen area in the unspecified future.
UN says EU-Turkey refugee deal would violate law
The strategy, which has been in place since last autumn, has had the following results.
Of $3.3bn promised, only $105m has been transferred to Turkey so far. According to UNHCR, only 7,500 Syrian refugees were resettled from Turkey to Western European countries in 2015. Now, Germany will try to magnify this operation together with a few other Western European states.
To make it harder for Syrians and others to seek asylum in Turkey, the EU has tried to force Turkey to impose visa requirements for certain countries. However, there have been no tangible results. It should be noted that refugees do not care about visas - visas only make it harder for them to enter a country, but they always manage to get in.
Turkey's EU accession
Of the 33 chapters of the EU acquis - the accumulated leglisation passed by the EU - which are negotiated for membership, a 15th chapter was opened following the November deal. Entitled Economic and Monetary Policy, this chapter concerns the euro system, in other words the common monetary system of which Turkey is not likely to be a part in the foreseeable future.
By turning a blind eye to increased human rights violations in Turkey, the EU not only supports the regime, but clearly indicates that it isn't taking Turkey's membership into consideration in the foreseeable future.
Regarding other chapters which are rumoured to be opened, there is fierce opposition, particularly from German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition partner Christian Social Union party. Yet, opening chapters is only part of the business. Turkey is sorely lagging behind in terms of harmonising its legislation with the EU acquis.
Visa exemption was also discussed within the context of the refugee deal. There are 72 conditions that require compliance by Turkey. A second monitoring report into how far these conditions have been implemented was announced on March 4 in Brussels (PDF).
Just like any text written in diplomatic language, the report welcomes the steps taken so far, but implies that there is a long road ahead before all the requirements are met. In other words, visa exemption is pie in the sky.
Even if Turkey fulfils all 72 requirements, the prospect of Turkish citizens feeling persecution, millions of unemployed Turks, and of Turkish members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), would be enough for the EU to keep visas in place.
At the end and despite all these "good intentions", 122,637 asylum seekers have crossed to Greece from Turkey in the first two months of 2016 with the ultimate aim of reaching Western Europe, according to UNHCR.
Futile attempts
So now, Europeans and Turks have gathered once again in Brussels to practically reaffirm the same issues on the basis of the same assumptions.
The sudden interest of both parties in each other is entirely due to the refugee crisis. Hence, one should temper hopes for a warming of relations.
By turning a blind eye to increased human rights violations in Turkey, the EU not only supports the regime, but clearly indicates that it isn't taking Turkey's membership into consideration in the foreseeable future.
For example when asked about recent domestic developments in Turkey, the German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said bluntly: "We should not be referee when it comes to human rights."
No negotiating country could overtly disregard the Copenhagen criteria - the set of guiding political and economic principles of the EU - but Ankara has been doing it for the past two years. To wit, there is no single mention of Turkey in the enlargement paragraph in the EU 18-month workplan for the period between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017 (PDF).
Overall, EU member states have never liked the idea of a "member Turkey". Since 1999 when Turkey became an official candidate EU member state, and in particular since 2005 when the membership negotiations started, the EU has openly or covertly shown its displeasure with Turkey.
Today, through the refugee deal, the EU has an opportunity to sever this prospect. This is why its members are so grateful to Recep Tayyip Erdogan's regime, which offers them the Turkish demise on a golden plate by disconnecting Turkey from all accepted norms, principles and standards the EU is built upon.
Today and for the foreseeable future, Turkey is no more than a third party for the EU to deal with on project by project basis - as we see in this dubious refugee deal. Alas, there will be no winner in this new design, only losers, and refugees will be the first.
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/eu-turkey-refugee-issue-membership-criterion-160310093315328.html
----------
India's take it or leave it choice in Afghanistan
By Rupakjyoti Borah
10 Mar 2016
New Delhi will have to stay the course in Afghanistan in the light of its long-term interests.
As the snow melts in Afghanistan, it is not only the temperatures that rise. So too does the number of attacks as terrorists sneak in through the rugged Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. The recent attack of March 2 on the Indian consulate in the Afghan city of Jalalabad bears all the hallmarks of similar attacks carried out earlier on Indian missions in Afghanistan.
New Delhi is one of the biggest international donors in Afghanistan and has committed development assistance to the tune of $2bn to Kabul. This, among other things, has raised the hackles of anti-India elements in Afghanistan and beyond, and led to repeated attacks on Indians and Indian interests in Afghanistan.
On the eve of the inauguration of the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May 2014, the Indian consulate in Herat was attacked. The Indian consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif was hit earlier this year in January. And the Indian Embassy in Kabul had been attacked in 2008 and 2009 with many casualties (including Indian Embassy staffers) - while its consulate in Jalalabad had been targeted earlier too, this being the fourth attack since 2007.
However, all these attacks have not prevented India from continuing to press forward in Afghanistan.
Critical conduit for India
Afghanistan is India's gateway to energy-rich Central Asia. For the continued growth of the Indian economy, a constant supply of energy is essential, and since Pakistan does not allow overland access to Indian goods destined for Central Asia, Afghanistan is a crucial conduit for India.
Moreover, last December, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan signed an agreement that will see natural gas being pumped from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India through the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, scheduled to go into operation by December 2019.
On one hand, India faces regular attacks on its interests, while on the other hand it cannot afford to pull out of Afghanistan.
India has deep economic interests in Afghanistan too. A consortium of Indian companies won the rights to three iron ore mines in the Hajigak region of Afghanistan back in 2011.
India's influence in Afghanistan has been on the wane, especially after the former president, the India-educated Hamid Karzai left office. It now faces a Hobson's choice in Afghanistan. On one hand, it can expect regular attacks on Indian interests, while on the other hand it cannot afford to pull out of that country. In such a quagmire, what can New Delhi do?
One thing that will not harm New Delhi's interests is to keep talking with Pakistan, as Islamabad retains a huge degree of influence in Afghanistan. Many of the terror outfits that operate in Afghanistan find shelter in Pakistan and in return, Pakistan gains a so-called strategic depth in Afghanistan.
New Delhi will have to step up security cooperation with the United States and other countries, which have also borne the brunt of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. In addition, intelligence gathering and sharing will be key if India is to take on the monster of terrorism in Afghanistan.
Opportunities and threats
In a sign of India's continuing commitment to Afghanistan, Modi paid a visit to Afghanistan on December 25 of the last year where he inaugurated the new Afghan parliament built by India.
In addition, New Delhi has constructed a 218km road in Afghanistan from Delaram to Zaranj on the Iranian border, which will help in transporting Afghan exports to various countries via the sea route. India has been involved in the development of the Chabahar port in Iran, and Indian goods can be transported to Afghanistan via Iran.
India would also do well to keep a channel of communication open with the Taliban. When other countries have shown a willingness to talk to the so-called "good Taliban", realpolitik dictates that India should also keep its mind - and options - open. Keeping a channel of communication open with the so-called "good Taliban" is a low-hanging fruit that India should immediately pluck.
New Delhi will also have to do some out-of-the-box thinking, and it may be worth sounding out Beijing for possible opportunities for cooperation in Afghanistan.
Beijing's outlying border province of Xinjiang and India's border province of Jammu and Kashmir could suffer in any further deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan because these provinces abut Afghanistan.
India will also need to beef up its security presence in Afghanistan and bolster the Afghan armed forces. For the first time in December last year, India gifted Mi-25 attack helicopters to the Afghan forces.
New Delhi is caught between a rock and a hard place in Afghanistan. Since, reducing its footprint in Afghanistan is not an option for New Delhi, India and Indians will have to be prepared for more such terror attacks and be ready to brazen them out - while strengthening security at its missions, and its intelligence gathering and sharing mechanism.
In this regard, New Delhi could learn from former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's maxim: "Hide your strengths, bide your time".
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/india-leave-choice-afghanistan-160309131045354.html
---------
Trudeau’s sunny ways do not include Palestinians
By Saudi Gazette
Mar 11, 2016
The Conservatives lost power in last October’s election. But they still seem to be running aspects of Canada’s Middle East policy.
The Tories moved to have the House of Commons “reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and de-legitimization” of Israel and said the government should condemn Canadians who promote the movement.
With Liberals’ support the motion passed by 229 votes to 51. The New Democratic Party opposes BDS but it also objects to stifling freedom of expression. Only the Bloc Quebecois said BDS constitutes legitimate criticism of Israeli policies.
Foreign Minister Stephen Dion conceded that several Canadians support BDS in the belief that it is nonviolent and will facilitate a just solution of the conflict. Instead of using “intimidation, name-calling and accusations,” he said it is better to explain to them why boycotting Israel is a “false solution.” He did not explain what Canada feels is a “true solution” and how it should be attained.
As Judy Haiven wrote in a Halifax newspaper: “Think back to the 1980s. What would progressive Canadians have thought if Parliament had passed a motion that Canadians reject the boycott of South African produce to protest Apartheid? Other than an armed insurrection, or a war, how else could Apartheid have been dismantled?
“Make no mistake, today boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel are no different. Over the last 50 years the United Nations has passed more than 77 resolutions which have condemned Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
“Typically, the nations that oppose the UN’s resolutions in support of Palestine include Canada, the US and its half dozen client states such as the Marshall islands and Micronesia. Canada has played a nasty role in its blanket and unwavering support of Israel – to the dismay of more than 150 other nations.”
She expressed anger as a Canadian Jew that the new “sunny ways” of the Liberal government have been held captive by the Tory motion.
Diana Ralph, president of the Independent Jewish Voices, Ottawa branch, sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders that said in part: “ … Do not believe the hasbara (Israeli propaganda) lies which conflate legitimate, nonviolent actions against unjust government policies with the so-called ‘New Anti-Semitism.’ Israel consistently has flouted international law and Canadian foreign policy by constructing the separation barrier, by its expanding settlement construction in the West Bank, by its house demolition policies, and by repeatedly committing war crimes against the people. It does this, in spite of near universal condemnation by UN states, because the US, Canada, and a few other countries continue to subsidize and politically support these injustices.
“I am an observant Jewish Canadian… I have concluded that BDS is congruent with Jewish values of justice, peace, and humanity through tikkun olam (repairing the world). I join many other Jews of conscience here in Canada and around the world in supporting BDS. We do this to support the three basic demands of the campaign: that Israel end its illegal occupation of the West Bank, grant equal rights to non-Jewish citizens of Israel, and recognize the right of the Palestinian refugees whom Israel had illegally ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1967 to either return or receive compensation…..
“Canada currently imposes sanctions on 22 countries whose policies it condemns. If your government is serious about Canada’s foreign policy in support of a two-state solution and against settlement construction, it will at least threaten to impose meaningful sanctions on Israel. Instead, criminalizing those who support BDS, sends the opposite signal; conveying that you actually support Israeli oppression and oppose those who have the courage to stand up against it.”
IJV is a minority among Canadian Jewish organizations. But other Canadians, such as Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, are also firm in favoring human rights for Israelis as well as Palestinians. The movement is gaining ground in Canada and the US, especially among youth, academics, churches and human rights group. Perhaps that is why the Israeli government and its supporters smear it by calling it anti-Semitic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to BDS in a speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee 18 times and told supporters to fight the movement.
A United Nations report said that in 2014 foreign direct investment in Israel dropped 46 percent in one year, partly because of BDS. In North America, trade unions, churches and universities are dropping investments in Israel. In Europe the movement is even more successful.
Thomas Woodley, president of CJPME, told his followers: “Join me in defiance! Sign up to be condemned by the Trudeau government. Consider it a badge of honor, like me, to be condemned for upholding human rights.
“Let’s challenge our spineless politicians to follow through on this absurd motion, and see how ridiculous they look as they condemn all Canadian ‘individuals’ for upholding human rights, and exercising their right to free expression.”
saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/trudeaus-sunny-ways-not-include-palestinians/
URL:
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Womens in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Womens In Arab, Islamphobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism, Moderate Islam, Moderate Muslims, Progressive Islam, Progressive Muslims, Liberal Islam, Liberal Muslims, Islamic World News