Books and Documents

World Press (13 Sep 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Time to Restrict the President’s Power to Wage Nuclear War – New Age Islam’s selection, 13 September 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau




Aung San Suu Kyi is choosing politics over human dignity

By Azeem Ibrahim

ISIS strategy of ‘death by a thousand cuts’

By Christian Chesnot

How segregated America made Trump inevitable

By Donald Earl Collins

What that airstrike in Hama means (and what it does not)

By Osama Al-Sharif

Refugee protection, Rohingyas and Modi-fied India

By C R Abrar

Israel tries to win Syrian hearts and minds to keep Hezbollah away

By Loveday Morris

Wake up and smell the coffee

By Tariq A. Al-Maeena

Hurricane Irma has devastated British territories – so why such little aid?

By Rupert Jones

US and Europe mull ways to bring Turkey into line

By Murat Yetkin

Compiled by New Age Islam Edit Bureau

URL: http://newageislam.com/world-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/time-to-restrict-the-president’s-power-to-wage-nuclear-war-–-new-age-islam’s-selection,-13-september-2017/d/112505



Time to Restrict the President’s Power to Wage Nuclear War


SEPT. 12, 2017

For the first time in a generation, there is widespread anxiety about the possibility of nuclear war, stimulated by the extreme tensions between North Korea and the United States. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has advised Americans that they can sleep safely at night, a reassurance that most people probably wish they did not need to hear.

Mr. Tillerson offered his soothing counsel to deflate media hype about recent threats and counterthreats exchanged between Pyongyang and Washington. His words also reflect profound unease about the temperament and judgment of the two leaders who could trigger inadvertent war: President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim appear to believe that bombast serves their domestic needs. Both seem to think that they can dominate and intimidate through the direst of threats. However, words can easily have consequences that neither leader seems to grasp.

Should we be living in a world where two leaders can stumble into a nuclear holocaust? North Korea’s accelerated pursuit of nuclear weapons clearly requires a much-enhanced containment and deterrence policy by the United States and its allies to prevent Mr. Kim from undertaking ever-riskier options. But what can be done to constrain the actions of an American president whose stability is now openly questioned, even by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee?

To limit the possibilities of an almost unimaginable conflict, there is a need to pursue a long overdue legislative remedy.

Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Yet during America’s numerous wars since World War II, presidents have never sought such authorization. The major reason? Nuclear weapons. There was widespread agreement that the president needed maximum flexibility to respond to a Soviet attack and that involving Congress would cause undue delays in a moment of crisis. As a result, the president has had essentially unchecked power to wage war, including launching a nuclear strike.

However, strategic planners understood the risks of enabling a single officer in a silo in North Dakota, perhaps under the most stressful conditions imaginable, to initiate a nuclear strike. The nuclear command-and-control system therefore entailed a “two key” system requiring simultaneous actions by two officers to activate a launch.

The time is long overdue to introduce comparable checks at the highest levels of the executive branch. The strategic circumstances faced by the United States today are altogether different from those during the Cold War. Despite heightened tensions triggered by Russian revanchism in Ukraine and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, the real risk of nuclear war emanates from a rogue actor, and North Korea heads the list. Almost casual presidential invocations of fire and fury have rendered circumstances far more dangerous.

The United States should in no way diminish its ability to respond to a nuclear or conventional attack by North Korea against United States territory or the territory of an ally. However, we should put in place a system of constraints to ensure that a preventive or pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States must be evaluated through a careful, deliberative process.

Congress should therefore amend the War Powers Act to cover the possibility of preventive or pre-emptive nuclear strikes. This would ensure that the president could not simply provide the codes to his military aide carrying the nuclear “football” and launch such an attack on his own authority.

Legislation should provide for a small group of officials, possibly including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four leaders of the House and Senate, to give unanimous consent to any such nuclear strike. It would ensure that multiple sets of eyes, equipped with stable emotions and sound brains, would be able to prevent such a nuclear strike undertaken without appropriate deliberation.

This proposal would raise difficult constitutional questions. All presidential administrations have deemed the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional. Giving officers appointed by the president and subject to his direction formal veto power over military decisions could be problematic and precedent setting. If so, confining the veto power to the congressional leadership might be a preferable alternative.

Even during the Cold War, there was great risk in ceding to one person the ability to kill millions in a flash. There is no good reason to enable an American president to retain absolute authority in circumstances completely unlike those faced during the Cold War.

Assurances that nuclear weapons remain an option of absolute last resort, to be considered only after the concurrence of leaders from the executive branch and from the Congress, would also calm the nerves of United States allies deeply troubled by loose talk about the resort to nuclear weapons.

This is not to suggest that President Trump nurses some secret desire to launch a nuclear attack. However, the United States needs to act very prudently in dealing with an isolated and uniquely adversarial state. For its part, Congress has the power to prevent hair-trigger responses or impulsive actions that could lead to nuclear war.

Jeffrey Bader was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on Asia from 2009 to 2011. Jonathan D. Pollack is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, specializing in Korea and China, and was a professor at the United States Naval War College.



Aung San Suu Kyi is choosing politics over human dignity

By Azeem Ibrahim


Myanmar is once again making headlines for all the wrong reasons. After the Rohingya crisis of 2012-2013 and after the South East Asian migration crisis of 2015, people were hopeful that the situation in the country would start to turn a corner.

The first proper democratic elections in decades in the country took place in November 2015 and these elections propelled to power Nobel Peace Prize icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her pro-democracy movement. For a while, international observers and the oppressed peoples of Myanmar alike have allowed themselves to hope that the worst had already passed, and that the future could be a better place.

In the past few weeks, however, all those hopes have been dashed.

Late last year, a group of insurgents who call themselves the Arakan Rohingya Solidarity Army (ARSA) started attacking security outposts belonging to the Myanmar army in Rakhine state, the native...



ISIS strategy of ‘death by a thousand cuts’

By Christian Chesnot

ISIS seems to have revamped its strategy of terror, as evidenced by its latest attacks in Spain, Finland, Russia and Belgium. Unable to hold on to its territories in Iraq and Syria in the wake of relentless strikes by the international coalition, ISIS has now adopted the strategy of delivering “death by a thousand cuts,” to show that it has not capitulated.

This strategy aims to increase the number of terrorist attacks outside the Middle East, ranging from small-scale and rudimentary assaults (for example knife attacks or ram raiding) to more sophisticated operations (such as car bombings and suicide blasts).

The important thing here is the emphasis on striking at random and indiscriminately, anywhere and at anytime in order to create a sense of heightened anxiety and desperation among security forces and the general public.

ISIS hopes to bleed its adversaries by delivering so many cuts that it hopes them to eventually give up the fight out of sheer exasperation. This is the goal of the terrorists, but will they be successful in achieving it?

It is now abundantly clear that the present spate of terrorist attacks is here to stay. This is not a temporary wave as the breeding grounds for terrorists in the Arab-Muslim world seem inexhaustible, be they in the West, in Africa or in Asia.

The return of terrorists from the Iraqi-Syrian war theatre to their countries of origin and the increase in the number of local radicals does not exactly portend a bright future.

Self-defeating strategy

However, overplaying the strategy of conducting as many terrorist strikes as possible may eventually prove counterproductive for the purveyors of terror. First, the shock and surprise factor would start to wear off. Security services around the world would be better prepared and equipped to pre-empt or tackle any terror threat.

There can never be foolproof security but the noose around the terror networks has already begun to tighten. Cooperation between countries, in particular within Europe, is already improving and investigations into these incidents are being conducted much quicker these days.

Only a few hours after the Barcelona attack on the Las Ramblas, the news was out that terrorists had been on whirlwind trips to France before the attacks. But the challenge to neutralize the terrorists and their morbid strategy is not just a security concern, it is a fundamentally societal issue.

Public opinion has now incorporated the risk posed by terrorism into their lives. A form of resilience or fatalism is gradually building. After the attacks on the Las Ramblas of Barcelona, tourists did not run out of fright. People continued to frequent the beaches, bars and major tourist sites, even the Church of Sagrada Familia which had been targeted by terrorists earlier.

The more the terrorists strike, the more civil societies come together and show solidarity, like the common refrain heard in Catalonia: ‘No tinc por!’ (“I am not afraid!”). In short, contrary to their expectations, terrorists are facilitating a new-found solidarity in the population, wherever they hit.

Clash of civilizations

The other objective behind carrying out the recent string of terrorist attacks is to trigger a clash of civilization between Christians and Muslims in Europe and elsewhere. Despite the firebrand rhetoric of extreme right-wing populist parties in the continent, the vast majority of citizens have not fallen prey to confusing Islam with terrorism.

After every attack, many Muslims of Europe participate in demonstrations showing solidarity with the victims and shout out loud and clear: “Not in our name!”

It is becoming increasingly clear that terrorists have hijacked a religion, which only serves as a cover for them. Research shows that many of the terrorists suffer from psychological disorders while many others follow a nihilist mindset and express their unhappiness through their suicidal tendencies and acts of violence.

Also read: Saudi Arabia foils ISIS attempt to attack defense ministry

There are also problems related to socioeconomic integration of some of these elements in Western societies. In short, there are more important factors than religion that create terrorists.

A former French anti-terrorist judge Marc Trévidic once narrated an interesting anecdote, which speaks volumes about the mindset of these terror recruits. He once asked a radicalized youth if he had read the Qur’an. In his response, the accused admitted with confusing frankness: “The Quran? I do not care about the Quran! What I’m interested in is jihad!”


Christian Chesnot is grand reporter at Radio France in Paris in charge of the Middle East affairs. He has been based as correspondent in Cairo and Amman. He has written several books on Palestine, Iraq, Syria and the Gulf. Chesnot tweets @cchesnot.



How segregated America made Trump inevitable

By Donald Earl Collins

Let there be no doubt. US President Donald Trump is a mercurial, inept, me-first racist. In recent weeks, Trump has thrown in with Charlottesville's white supremacists and pardoned known anti-immigrant xenophobe Joe Arpaio. Trump has pursued an agenda of rescinding more and more of President Barack Obama's executive orders, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), potentially leading to the deportation of undocumented immigrants who were children when they came to the US.

Trump's behaviour isn't unprecedented. His racist, incompetent, and callously narcissistic performance as president shares similarities with that of Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon. And although he continues to follow the lead of some of America's most racist and inept presidents, he continues to retain many of his supporters.

Millions of supposedly non-racist Americans - people who say they wouldn't align themselves with Neo-Nazis - continue to support Trump. Why?

Subconscious hatred or fear alone cannot fully explain why they tacitly support the Trump administration's racist and xenophobic policies, and Trump's racist and xenophobic words and deeds along with them.

The answer to this question lies in understanding the power of racial advantage and narcissistic self-gratification, the combination of which has made the Trump presidency possible. All that power is embodied in the reality of segregation in the US. Its diffusion in all aspects of American culture and life reinforces the idea of white superiority over Americans of colour and of America as a perpetually great and righteous nation, even as it isolates whole social and racial groups of Americans.

Racial and social segregation and the dominant white narrative

Residential segregation is the root cause of all other forms of segregation in the United States. Its immediate effect is that white children tend to go to school isolated from interaction with children of colour. As education expert Diane Ravitch wrote in her 2013 bestseller Reign of Error, "Today, racial segregation remains a pervasive fact of life for millions of black [and equally impoverished Hispanic] children, primarily as a result of residential segregation." Working-class and poor whites are residentially segregated not only from all social classes of Americans of colour, but also from affluent whites.

At the same time, white children tend to be almost exclusively taught by white teachers. Currently, nearly five out of six teachers in the US (82 percent) are white, and the majority of teachers of colour teach in school districts where students of colour are predominant.

But segregation goes even deeper than residential neighbourhoods and school district demographics. Knowledge and cultural segregation are equally damaging. It means most teachers consistently teach from a "hidden curriculum", one that accentuates the ideas, actions, and perspectives of whites over those of any other group. The "worldviews of those with privileged positions are taken as the only reality," educator Lisa Delpit wrote in Other People's Children (1995).

For students of colour, this means public education serves more as a prison and less as a level playing field. For white students, this cultural segregation and knowledge exclusion makes for an appalling ignorance of the full American experience - with its cultural richness and racial diversity - reinforces racial stereotypes and strengthens the inability to critically interrogate the surrounding world.

And despite the overwhelming privilege the white narrative enjoys in American schools, there are still attempts to extend its domination and subvert initiatives to teach diverse points of view. One such example is the state of Arizona's ban on ethnic studies which led to a school district dismantling a Mexican American studies programme. US federal district court judge A Wallace Tashima ruled the Arizona ban was unconstitutional, stating that both "enactment and enforcement were motivated by racial animus".

Receiving homogenised education favouring a single narrative, many white Americans unsurprisingly are primed to agree with a president who consistently says they need to "take their country back" from Muslim "terrorists" and Mexican "rapists". It is much easier for them to enthusiastically endorse an anti-Mexican Islamophobe when their life experiences limit them to a whites-first, whites-only, and whites-everywhere world.

Political exclusion

America's political parties have promoted of political segregation and exclusion. A favourite approach has been gerrymandering: the purposeful redrawing of voting district borders in order to ensure the domination of certain votes and the exclusion of others. The more popular method these days, though, is voter suppression: implementing policies which discourage or prevent people from voting.

This strategy, of course, aims at excluding mostly younger voters and voters of colour from political participation altogether. Voter suppression is a clear signal to the country that white and affluent voters are the ones who matter the most. It is no accident that the Republican Party has been the prime mover in these efforts in recent decades.

It is also not surprising that segregation and exclusion are something Trump knows well. After all, he grew up in affluent, lily-white Jamaica Estates in Queens, New York in the 1950s, and he worked for his father in the 1970s. The US Justice Department sued the Trumps in 1973 for housing segregation and exclusion against black and Puerto Rican applicants, a case the department successfully settled in 1975.

The perceived benefits of racial segregation and exclusion may be mostly symbolic and psychological, but for so many poor and working-class whites, the idea that the US is their country and the belief that the US is a great nation are very much linked. For they think that without them, the US would simply fall apart.

The irony is that Trump's presidential actions have shown that he is quite eager to exclude most of his white supporters from the benefits of social class mobility: by dismantling pathways to affordable housing, defunding public schools and defanging student loan borrower protections, and refusing to support green jobs.

There's no guarantee that less segregation and exclusion will prevent another Trump from becoming president in the future. But maybe it would keep millions of Americans from being so naive as to believe that a racial segregationist and social-class exclusionist like Trump would look out for their best interest.

Donald Earl Collins is an associate professor of history at University of Maryland University College. He is also the author of Fear of a "Black" America: Multiculturalism and the African American Experience (2004).



What that airstrike in Hama means (and what it does not)

By Osama Al-Sharif

13 September 2017

An Israeli airstrike last Thursday near Hama in western Syria was the biggest since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. The Assad regime says the target was a scientific research facility. Israel says it was a missile production plant used by Iran to develop chemical weapons for Hezbollah.

In the past, when Israeli jets have targeted military convoys linked to Hezbollah, which is fighting alongside the regime, the Syrian government has warned of grave consequences and threatened to retaliate at the appropriate time. But both the regime and Hezbollah have been careful not to get dragged into a confrontation with Israel.

The timing of the Israeli attack is telling. It followed clear Israeli objections to a deal between the US and Russia, agreed in Amman in Jordan in July, to implement a cease-fire in southwest Syria. Full details of the agreement have not been disclosed, but it is thought to limit the presence of Iranian backed militias in that area that borders Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Amman requested, and apparently received, guarantees that non-Syrian government forces will respect a 30 to 40 km distance from its borders. The same should apply to Israel. But Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made his displeasure at the deal public on a number of occasions.

In August, he dispatched his Mossad chief to Washington to deliver Israeli concerns. It is not clear what Israel wants, but it is obvious that it is worried about a long-term Iranian presence in post-war Syria and Hezbollah’s access to advanced missile technology. Netanyahu himself flew to the Russian resort of Sochi on Aug. 23 to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin and present his case, but he returned empty handed.

As much as Netanyahu has tried to shake the Russian alliance with Tehran, and by extension the apparent support from Moscow for a Hezbollah presence in Syria, his efforts appear to have failed. The Israeli press disclosed that Moscow had put pressure on the UN Security Council to remove reference to Hezbollah and its military activities in southern Lebanon from the final draft resolution on the UNIFIL mandate last week.

Despite the official Israeli stance that it has no preference on the outcome of the Syrian conflict, it is naive to believe that it is not following military and strategic developments with keen interest. Its dubious ties to extreme rebel groups in southwestern Syria raise questions about its motives and objectives. Certainly, a weak and divided Syria that is engulfed in chaos for years would suit long-term Israeli interests.

For Tel Aviv, the Syrian regime remains technically at war with Israel, even though the Golan front has been quiet for over four decades. The two sides have fought indirectly through proxies a number of times, starting with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and most recently, in 2006, with Hezbollah.

A regime collapse in Syria would create a geopolitical upset for the region, including Israel, but its survival thus far has presented a more difficult set of challenges. The Russian military intervention in 2015 changed the dynamics of the conflict. The US recoil from the Syrian conflict, which was started by President Barack Obama and continues under his successor, has firmly established Moscow as the power that has the final say over the future of Syria.

Aside from this, Iran and its proxies were instrumental in paving the way for a regime comeback when the Syrian army was on the verge of defeat. It is not clear where Moscow stands on Iranian ambitions to create a land corridor between Tehran and Beirut, via Baghdad and Damascus; something that presents Israel with an existential challenge.

The recent Israeli airstrike was meant to send messages in various directions.

Despite absolute control of Syrian skies by Russia and its deployment of a sophisticated air defense system, Israeli jets were able to hit their target without hindrance. Some reports suggested that Israeli jets launched the strike from Lebanese airspace. The strike is meant to underline Israeli readiness to take pre-emptive action in Syria regardless of third party agreements that do not meet its security concerns.

But the strike does not change the new geopolitical reality in Syria. For now, Iran and Hezbollah, bitter enemies of Israel, are part of a new power structure that is taking shape there. This reality offers a number of scenarios for future confrontations. Certainly, recent Israeli military exercises designed to simulate a war with Hezbollah underline its apprehension over the group’s presence in Syria along with archenemy Iran.

• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.



Refugee protection, Rohingyas and Modi-fied India

By C R Abrar

During a visit to India in 2013 as UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres observed, “India's refugee policy is an example for the rest of the world to follow.” He rightly noted “India with its history, culture, traditions, is today an example of generosity in the way it has opened its borders to all people who have come looking for safety and sanctuary.”

Although not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, since independence, India embraced a diverse range of refugees fleeing persecution in their own lands. It provided shelter to 80,000 Tibetans who followed the Dalai Lama after the abortive uprising in 1959. Subsequently, more than 150,000 Tibetan refugees came and of them 120,000 remain in India today. The Indian government extended support to the Tibetan refugees to settle in the country pending their return to Tibet, which never happened. In 1971, in the wake of Bangladesh's Liberation War India again experienced influx of about ten million Bangladeshis. It opened the border, sheltered the refugees and appealed for international assistance. Within a year almost all returned home following the liberation of Bangladesh and defeat of the Pakistan occupation army, an event in which India played a seminal part for which we are grateful. Again, during the civil war in Sri Lanka in the 1980s and 1990s, tens of thousands of Tamils sought shelter in the southern Indian states. 64,000 have remained in India. The reputation of India as safe sanctuary attracted the Afghans during their troubled times. India still hosts about 10,000 Afghan refugees. Likewise, the policy of military solution to the Chittagong Hill Tracts problem led to the inflow of 55,000 hill people into Tripura. The peace accord in 1997 created conditions for the return of the hill refugees to Bangladesh.

Although India's treatment of various groups of refugees varied, the country earned international accolade for keeping its door open to the persecuted. Hosting refugees with different cultural backgrounds and faiths often in economically depressed regions was not an easy task. The astute liberal political leadership rose to the challenges; including those often posed by the hostile host population, and defended the refugees. At certain points when that was deficient the National Human Rights Commission and the higher judiciary stepped in to protect refugees. Recent developments centring the Rohingya, however, signal a departure from this elevated stand.

Over a period of time a number of persecuted Rohingya refugees found their way to India. They entered the country from western Arakan state, some after a stint of stay in Bangladesh. The series of atrocities committed by the Burmese security forces and the militant Buddhists in recent years led to the swelling of their ranks. Many have settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan. The Indian government claims the number to be 40,000, while the UNHCR puts the figure at around 16,500.

On September 4 the Additional Solicitor General, representing the central government, reportedly informed the Supreme Court that it will not give any assurance to Rohingya refugees that the government will not deport them back to Myanmar. This response came when the apex court probed the government's stand on a petition challenging its decision to deport Rohingyas in irregular status to Myanmar. Two refugees registered with the UNHCR, India, filed the plea.

A day later as Prime Minister Modi began his maiden visit to Myanmar, a junior minister of Home Affairs informed the local media “whether the Rohingyas are registered with the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees or not, they are illegal immigrants in India…as per the law they stand to be deported.” Media reports inform that in April senior government functionaries discussed plans for the “detection, arrest and deportation” of Rohingya.

Such developments heightened the insecurity of and occurrences of discrimination against the Rohingyas. The scope for securing any form of legal status for these hapless Rohingyas in India appears to be shrinking fast. Increasingly they are being branded as “illegal immigrants”.

Jurists have noted that the proposed deportation would be contrary to the constitutional protection of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India. The deportation order would also be in contravention of the Principle of Non-Refoulement, widely recognised as a standard of international customary law. The petitioners reminded the government that India ratified and is a signatory to various conventions that recognise the Principle of Non-Refoulement that proscribes deportation of people to a country where they may face threats to their lives. They sought that Rohingya people be provided “basic amenities to ensure that they can live in human conditions as required by international law.”

It appears that Rohingya refugees in India have become convenient scapegoats in a polity where reason and tolerance are increasingly losing ground to hatred and prejudice. It may also be the case as Ravi Nair notes, “Out manoeuvred on the influence imprint in Myanmar by China at every point of engagement India's only diplomatic ploy is security rabbit it pulls out of Islamophobic terrorist threat campaign (Indian Express, September 7).” Members of Rohingya community, both in Arakan and in India, have thus become dispensable pawns in such reckoning.

One wonders, sitting in his UN Plaza office in dreary wet evenings, what crosses the mind of the now UN Secretary General Gutteres as he learns India's turnaround in refugee protection, a country on which once he lavished his praise.

C R Abrar teaches International Relations at the University of Dhaka.



Israel tries to win Syrian hearts and minds to keep Hezbollah away

By Loveday Morris

September 12, 2017

Good Neighbours programme which began treating the injured has expanded into a complex operation that also sends supplies into Syria

It is 4.30am and pitch dark when the sick Syrian children and their mothers begin to cross into ­Israel.

There's a one-year-old girl with a squint, and a two-year-old with a birth defect that prevents him from walking. The family of a slight 12-year-old is concerned that she is not growing. One child has a rash, another a rattling cough.

They emerge from the darkness into the yellow glare of the security lights on the Israeli side of the fence in the occupied Golan Heights, where they are searched before being allowed through. There are 19 children in total, a smaller group than most that appear roughly every week.

The children are allowed in as part of Israel's "Good Neighbours" programme, which began treating injured Syrian fighters and civilians in the early days of their country's civil war but has expanded into a more complex operation that also sends fuel, food and supplies into Syria.

Israeli officials stress the humanitarian aspect of the programme, but it has another aim: to create a friendly zone just inside Syria to serve as a bulwark against Israel's archenemy, the Shia movement Hezbollah.

Israel has watched anxiously as President Bashar Al Assad has taken the upper hand in Syria's war with the aid of Hezbollah and Iran, its main backer, which are building their presence across the border.

But for the moment at least, Sunni rebel groups control most of the Syrian side of the 45-mile boundary between the two countries. Israel hopes to keep it that way.

Israeli military officers denied giving direct assistance to any of the Sunni groups along the border fence that oppose Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, or even coordinating humanitarian aid with them. But a former senior intelligence officer with the Israel Defence Forces said Israel has provided support to about a dozen groups, and may have given financial assistance "here and there."

Israel has transferred 360 tonnes of food, nearly 120,000 gallons of gasoline, 90 pallets of drugs, and 50 tons of clothing as well as generators, water piping and building materials, the IDF says.

"There was an understanding that if we weren't there, somebody else would influence them," Ben-Meir said. The humanitarian motivation was "huge," he added. "But the more it got bigger and expanded, the more it had to do with winning these hearts and minds."

Closer ties also mean richer intelligence. Officially, Israel has maintained a neutral position in Syria's war, but it has intervened to protect its interests. Throughout the conflict, assassinations and airstrikes in Syria have been attributed to Israel, though the government rarely publicly acknowledges them.

In the latest strike Syria accused Israel of bombing a military facility linked to rocket production for Hezbollah.

The programme is reminiscent of the early days of Israel's "Good Fence" programme in Lebanon as civil war broke out there in 1975. The defence minister at the time, Shimon Peres, stressed the purely humanitarian nature of the project to establish a "good neighbourhood" as Israel treated Lebanese refugees and sent assistance to the country's south with "no strings attached."

But then Israel was also trying to prevent encroachment by Palestinian guerrillas, and threw its support behind the South Lebanon Army.

"It's easy to assume that we are doing it because someone you give a favour to, you get one back," said Maj Sergey Kutikov, head of the Good Neighbours medical department, as he walked toward the border to meet the patients. The IDF members leave their military vehicles behind, so as not to attract attention. "But the reason in my mind is really to give humanitarian aid."

Unlike Syria's other neighbours, Israel does not take in refugees, though it recently agreed to accept 100 Syrian orphans. Israel has been in a state of war with its northern neighbour for nearly 70 years.

"They always look stressed when they cross," Kutikov said. "They don't know what to expect."

As the sky began to lighten, the families boarded a bus to make the nearly hour-long journey to a hospital on the edge of the Sea of Galilee. The Syrians are given priority over other patients, staff members said. The top specialists were summoned. A clown entertained the children.

"The regime left us nothing," said a Syrian doctor who crossed with the group. He said two rockets landed in his operating room a year ago. He began coming two months ago, despite being afraid of the consequences of people finding out. "I did it for the sake of the children," he said. "We've seen a lot, we've seen death."

While most of the area along the fence is controlled by Sunni rebel groups, a small section is held by the Assad regime, and another is controlled by Daesh.

Kutikov said there is no contact with rebel groups across the border. Ben-Meir said it isn't necessary.

"Usually, the guys involved in agriculture, in feeding the population, in taking care of the health situation, are the same guys that are responsible for defending them and fighting against the ­regime," Ben Meir said.

One rebel group, Fursan Al Golan, receives about $5,000 a month from Israel, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

A cease-fire in the area is largely holding. But both Israel and the communities on the border are concerned that it is probably only a matter of time before Assad tries to take back the territory.

A medic across the border, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for security reasons, said that Israel was creating "tyrants" by supporting certain groups but that most people would rather turn to Israel than to the regime.

"I was reluctant at the beginning to come to Israel," said the mother who was hoping Israeli doctors could fix her daughter's squint. "We can only get treatment in regime-controlled areas, but it's too dangerous. I have family who are martyrs and prisoners, and my brother and father are wanted."

One seven-year-old girl was on her third trip to Israel for problems stemming from an airstrike three years ago that killed her twin brother. Her mother said a local commander told them to go to Israel.

"At first I was afraid, but then I saw that the treatment was superb," the 36-year-old woman said. "We were told they are the enemy, but in reality, they are friends."

Heba Habib in Stockholm and  Sufian Taha in the Golan Heights contributed to this report



Wake up and smell the coffee

By Tariq A. Al-Maeena

THERE are many expatriates here who have lived for decades in Saudi Arabia and have successfully forged for themselves and their families a prosperous future. Having said that, it has not taken away the concern they have for their country’s welfare and state of being. In the case of Pakistanis here, there have been some misgivings expressed by long-term residents concerned about their country’s welfare.

One such individual is Mohammed H. Zakaria, CEO of Saudi Steel. He writes: I was sad and in a state of loss to listen to our defense minister statement who said that ‘it won’t be easy for the US to target or attack Pakistan’. It is really sad to see how stupid and immature our leadership and their mindset is, they are expecting and preparing for a combat with the Americans and Afghans.

‘The blind and stupid leadership is not seeing that the country is on a brink of an economic crash very soon. We are stupidly thinking or dreaming that China will fill the economic vacuum created by the Western block, which includes Japan and Korea etc. In fact, our economic policy has long gone into deep freezer ever since we formed alliance with the Americans to fight jihad against the Russians so the Afghans may remain FREE.

‘We are in a full state of war since 1965 with more than one country, which has hampered our economic growth, we haven’t learned from the history that what destroyed the once mighty nations was WAR. We are waiting or expecting miracles to happen to our country while we are doing nothing to fix our own problems or our lifestyle or our mindset.

‘There are a few basic things that we have to adopt before it’s too late for us to save ourselves from bankruptcy and slavery.

1. Stop lavish goods import immediately.

2. Stop capital flight at any cost, legal or illegal.

3. Diversify export products and countries both, by reducing reliance on any one country or one product or one currency.

4. Remind the nation every day that we are a poor nation and can›t afford to import and pay for luxury goods, including mobile/smart phones, electronic gadgets, luxury or large size vehicles and crude oil etc. to run excessive cars and air-conditioners.

Publish a list of import bill on a daily, weekly or monthly basis stating, where we are blowing our foreign currency earnings, how much on crude oil, vehicle imports, mobile phones and electronic gadgets, medical treatment, education, debt servicing, fast food (foreign) franchise fees, Coke, Pepsi, Unilever and P&G etc. goodwill/earnings/capital repatriation.

Stop thinking and believing and change our nation’s mindset that a nation’s prosperity is its affordability to consume Western fast food, soft drinks, use smart phone and drive a luxury car, never mind all on debt/borrowed money. Does anyone care how much these soft drinks, shampoos, toothpaste, burgers etc. are costing this poor nation and that we are borrowing in foreign currency to pay for these products and services.

We cannot start our day without an American toothpaste, an American shampoo, an American razor and an American burger and yet we are telling the nation to brace for an American attack, a nation that is totally unprepared and unwilling for such an economic blockade, we have no idea that such an economic blockade will double or triple the cost of these imported goods and services because we are totally unprepared and unwilling to live without them.

‘We can survive such a blockade or sanctions but we have to prepare the nation and tell them the truth, that we can›t afford all such imported luxuries, show them the real picture and start implementing it from today. Thank you. — Mohamed H. Zakaria.’

Mohammed’s message is a form of ‘wake up and smell the coffee.’ His words could well be a warning to many countries in the region as well as unrestrained and misdirected spending can eventually catch up and bite back.

— The author can be reached at talmaeena@aol.com. Follow him on Twitter @talmaeena



Hurricane Irma has devastated British territories – so why such little aid?

By Rupert Jones

12 September 2017

Hurricane Irma, now seemingly in its final throes, has shattered Caribbean islands for which the UK is ultimately responsible. The government now appears to be taking that responsibility more seriously: the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson said he will spend the coming days visiting the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and Anguilla, two of the British dependencies worst hit by Irma. This is beginning to look like an appropriate response.

Until last year, I served as attorney general for Anguilla and my thoughts are with friends and all those who have died or have lost homes and businesses. Media attention will soon move on but the aftermath for many will be grim for months to come: no home, no power, no schools. This will be compounded if the UK’s reconstruction effort is not quick and effective. Equally, we must be careful of colonial attitudes to “victims”. Many of the people who have suffered are resolute and resilient. They have strong spirits and are determined to rebuild quickly.

Many Caribbean islands rely upon tourism; if the airports and hotels are not in a fit state to accept tourists this winter then there will be another blow to their economies. Immediate demands for supplies are one thing, but medium-term infrastructure support is required – we need to know that the electricity and schools are up and running.

The UK government’s task is extremely demanding. Yet its commitment so far only to spend £32m in total across the three affected British overseas territories – Anguilla, BVI and Turks and Caicos Islands – is a drop in the Caribbean Sea. Johnson said on Monday that £28m of that has already spent. Are we to believe it will only release a further £4m? This would be derisory – it would not even pay to rebuild one school. I am sure they will do much better. The foreign secretary has also pledged to match taxpayers’ donations to the Red Cross. I just hope that we have not arrived at government by crowdfunding.

If this had happened to other UK territories – the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar, for instance – would the response have been the same? To put it in perspective, the government recently spent £285m on St Helena, its territory in the South Atlantic, for an airport that, sadly, is effectively unusable. The UK’s foreign aid budget is around £12bn. There has not yet been any suggestion of other forms of support, such as UK exchange programmes for affected students. Following the volcanic eruptions in the neighbouring territory of Montserrat in the 1990s, two thirds of the population relocated to the UK. Time will tell what is required.

Of course, the government will claim that it is doing all it can. It will say that troops are on the ground, needs will be met and more money released in due course. To those making unfavourable comparisons with France’s response to the crisis, the government may also say the UK does not have direct rule and control over the islands. This is in contrast to the French government’s sole responsibility for St Martin and St Barts. But they do accept that the territories are populated by UK citizens and we remain solely responsible for their security and governance. Their founding constitutions are British orders in council – we retain the power to legislate for the territories and in an extreme situations suspend their constitutions and provide for direct rule.

The government’s reluctance to commit immediately to deploying significant sums in aid may simply be their huge wheels cranking into gear as they assess the needs to be met. But there are several issues provoked by the relief effort, each of which should spark serious debate about the UK’s relationship with its Caribbean overseas territories.

First, does the UK see its partner Caribbean islands as tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions? Some are better known for offshore financial services than tourism. There have been longstanding reports that the islands are havens for corruption, tax avoidance and money laundering. Much of their offshore wealth emanates from the UK. The Panama Papers exposed the level of BVI ownership of London property. I would hope this publicity would not cause the UK government such embarrassment that it would seek to distance itself from the islands.

Transparency International has done much work highlighting the issues in these offshore jurisdictions. What is less well known is that it was the UK which supported the establishment of these financial outposts in the first place, to benefit and service the city of London.

Legislative attempts to end these secretive arrangements so far have been a fig leaf: last year’s compromise agreements fell short of requiring public registries of the beneficial ownership of companies registered in the islands. The economist Richard Murphy has recently called for the donation of any aid from the UK to be conditional on reform of the territories’ offshore tax haven status.

The UK may hold the local governments of these territories responsible for these failures. What it does not say is that the UK could legislate to require reform tomorrow if there was the political will. There is not, perhaps because of the fear that it would highlight the UK’s ultimate responsibility. Both UK and local politicians also recognise that the islands’ economies, heavily reliant on offshore financial services, might flounder with the major loss of jobs. Then the UK may have to provide alternative investment. It may also rightly believe that the offshore money would simply be moved to other global secrecy jurisdictions.

Second, we should also consider the political situation in each territory. Some local politicians may underplay the help required because they do not want to be seen to cede control to the British government. Some may not want to highlight reliance as they are pushing towards full independence from Britain. Less understandably, they may not want the UK to provide any control or scrutiny of their activities. Some may not want to highlight the extent of the damage for fear of putting off tourists from coming this winter.

Third, we must ask whether it is a priority for the UK government to invest significantly in the territories. The Foreign Office may support a more detached relationship - that of “partners” rather than former colonial masters. Each territory has its own locally elected government, but is it realistic or fair for these governments to take primary responsibility for such an enormous reconstruction effort? The majority of their citizens still want to maintain a link with the UK, not least for when major assistance is required. If this disaster is not such an occasion, I don’t know what is.

Fourth, the government may also have a real concern about controlling who aid money will go to and how it will be spent. In 2009 the UK temporarily suspended the constitution of the Turks and Caicos, and imposed direct rule following the Auld Commission into alleged governmental corruption. The former premier is currently standing trial and denies all charges.A reported £400m has been spent in Montserrat since the first eruptions of its volcano in 1995, with reported concerns about local mismanagement of aid money.

Finally, the criteria that the Department for International Development uses for aid do not prioritise British overseas territories and their citizens. Eligibility is weighted towards relief for the poorest, regardless of nationality. The territories hit by Hurricane Irma are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be “middle-income countries” and their populations are not normally eligible for automatic aid. So when the foreign secretary arrives in the Caribbean, I hope he will maximise the UK’s response to the devastation wreaked by Irma, as well as using it as an opportunity to discuss our relationship with the overseas territories. It’s a conversation long overdue.



US and Europe mull ways to bring Turkey into line

By Murat Yetkin


German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Sept. 11 that his government has put all major arms exports to Turkey on hold due to the deteriorating human rights situation in the country and the escalating tension between the two NATO allies. Chancellor Angela Merkel later said this does not mean a total ban on exports.

German military cooperation with Turkey involves a number of important items, including main battle tanks, joint frigate and submarine production, and automatic rifles for the security forces.

Gabriel’s statement shows how far the tension has risen as Germany heads for elections on Sept. 24. The restriction on arms exports is seemingly part of German efforts to pressure Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to ease the tough measures of the state of emergency declared after the July 15, 2016 military coup attempt - including the release of German citizens arrested in Turkey on terrorism and espionage accusations.

On the other hand, Turkey has demanded the extradition of former Turkish military officers seeking political asylum from Germany after the failed coup attempt. Ankara alleges that these officers have links to the illegal network of Fethullah Gülen, the U.S.-based Islamist preacher accused of masterminding the coup attempt.

Amid these contrasting demands, both the German government and the Turkish government say they cannot intervene in the rulings of their independent courts.

There is no guarantee that military pressure will convince Erdogan and the Turkish government to change its attitude. What’s more, such restrictions may weaken the defense capacities of both Turkey and NATO, and their capacity to fight the terrorism of the outlawed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

A similar debate is going on in the U.S. During a session of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations on Sept. 6, Steven Cook of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations said “remonstrating with Turkish officials in private and publicly praising them” has little effect on Ankara’s policies. Citing the example of Russian sanctions on Turkey following the downing of a Russian plane in November 2015 after it crossed the border to Syria, saying “Turkey’s leader responded positively,” Cook suggested a number of economic, military and political pressure methods to bring Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) government into line.

The measures that Cook suggested to the Senate included a study of the costs and modalities of leaving Turkey’s strategic Incirlik air base, or shifting some of its operations to other facilities in the region; restricting “Turkey’s participation in big-ticket, high-tech weapons development and procurement” (like the F-35 jets and possibly the Patriot air defense system); and requiring the State Department to review its travel advise for Turkey.

Another participant at the same Senate session, Amanda Sloat of Harvard University, who served as deputy undersecretary of the State Department in the Barack Obama administration, suggested that “the only people who would benefit from the U.S. curbing ties significantly are those who don’t want Turkey to face West.” Pointing to the April 16 referendum - in which almost half of Turkish voters refused to endorse an enhancing of President Erdogan’s powers - as well as the hundreds and thousands of people who joined main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kiliçdaroglu’s “Justice March,” Sloat said such examples show that “Turkish civil society is not dead.” She also said that “if the EU [European Union] and the U.S. abandon Turkey, Ankara will seek partners elsewhere - as demonstrated by its recent interactions with Russia and Iran.”

Sloat concluded her suggestions to the U.S. Senate by saying that continued engagement “remains the only way forward … including honest discussion with the government and expanded outreach to business and civil society.”

Before his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the United Nations General Assembly meetings later this month, it would be helpful for Erdogan and his team to carefully examine the contours of ongoing debates in the West about policies on Turkey.


URL: http://newageislam.com/world-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/time-to-restrict-the-president’s-power-to-wage-nuclear-war-–-new-age-islam’s-selection,-13-september-2017/d/112505


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.