UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has signaled he is against Israel’s entry ban on prominent Palestine solidarity groups.
“Jeremy is concerned by reports that activists campaigning for justice for Palestinians, against illegal settlements and the ongoing occupation have been barred from Israel,” Corbyn’s spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Electronic Intifada.
The comments from the UK’s main opposition party were made after Israel
finally published an already-existing“blacklist” of Palestine solidarity groups on Sunday.
All 20 of the human rights groups are now banned from both present-day Israel and the illegally occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, for their support of BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Gilad Erdan, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, announced the publication of the blacklist.
The publication comes some months after human rights activists and lawyers used Israeli freedom of information rules to press for the release of the list and the methods used to compile it.
But Israel is still refusing to reveal the full list of people it has banned.
Globally condemned list
The blacklist has been condemned around the world, including by members of the ruling party in South Africa. The African National Congress’s Western Cape branch called it “an attack on South Africans and the ANC.”
BDS South Africa, which includes many ANC activists, is one of the groups on the blacklist.
In a 2015 interview with The Electronic Intifada, Corbyn spoke in support of key elements of the BDS movement – including some forms of academic boycott.
But last month his spokesperson seemed to shy away from this, saying that Corbyn “doesn’t support BDS” but “targeted action aimed at illegal settlements and occupied territories.”
Gilad Erdan, whose ministry leads Israel’s semi-covert war against BDS, had earlier in December claimed that, “there are anti-Semitic views in many of the leadership of the current Labour Party” in the UK. That appeared to be an attack on Corbyn.
Despite Corbyn’s long-standing connections to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Israel this week appeared to hint he may be exempted from the entry ban.
Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretzreported that the ministry’s newly published criteria states that exceptions may be considered for “cases in which the extent of damage by denying entry to an individual is greater than the usefulness of denying entry,” one example being “holders of official positions.”
A ministry spokesperson told anti-Palestinian newspaper The Jewish Chronicle this week that each case would be “judged on its own merits.”
Kate Osamor, a member of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and a key ally, last month tweeted her support for BDS.
Writing in left-wing paper the Morning Star, Ian Sinclair argued this week that Thornberry’s disturbing comments are part of a behind the scenes battle over Labour’s foreign policy.
Sinclair is the author of a book on British protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In this week’s column, he wrote “it is important that all those who want to see an anti-imperialist,
humane and sane British foreign policy raise their voices against Thornberry when she glosses over Israel’s abysmal human rights record and tacks too closely to the establishment line.”
KHARTOUM - Tension between Egypt and Sudan has increased this week amid military build-ups on their borders and fears that the crisis in the Gulf has now spread to eastern Africa.
Turkish media reported on 4 January that Egyptian forces have arrived in Eritrea, which borders eastern Sudan, with backing from the UAE and opposition groups from the region.
That same day, Sudan recalled its ambassador from Cairo, then two days later declared a state of emergency in Kassala state, which neighbours Eritrea, and shut the border without explanation. Eyewitnesses in Kassala have since said that large numbers of troops have passed through, heading towards the border area.
During the past year Sudan and Egypt, which have a long-standing emnity, have increasingly allied themselves with opposing Middle Eastern power blocs
Ahmed Abu Zeid, Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman, said Cairo was "comprehensively assessing the situation with a view to making the appropriate response".
The increase in tension comes just weeks after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Khartoum, the first visit by a Turkish leader since the Ottoman Empire withdrew from Sudan in 1885. Sudan and Turkey signed 13 agreements during the December visit, including military accords.
Cairo didn't officially comment on Erdogan’s visit, but pro-government media have accused it as being a conspiracy against Egyptian national security. Khartoum in turn has denied the Egyptian accusations and says that Cairo has no right to interfere in Sudanese issues.
During the past year Sudan and Egypt, which have a long-standing emnity, have increasingly allied themselves with opposing Middle Eastern power blocs. Egypt has the backing of Saudi Arabia and UAE, the key advocates of a months-long blockade against Qatar. Sudan meanwhile has allied itself with Qatar and Turkey, which has a military base in the Gulf kingdom.
This is not the first time the two countries have fallen out.
Reason 1: Disputed borders
Aside from Eritrea, two other territorial disputes have strained Sudanese-Egyptian relations during the past half century.
The province of Darfur, in western Sudan, has been riddled by war for the past two decades, with up to 300,000 dead and at least 2.7 million displaced.
In May last year, President Omar al-Bashir said: "The Sudanese army has captured several Egyptian armoured vehicles in recent fighting in Darfur.” He has also previously accusedEgyptian intelligence services of supporting opposition figures fighting his troops in the conflict zones of Blue Nile and South Kordofan.
Member of the Sudan Liberation Army (Abdul Wahid faction) in North Darfur in May 2012 (UNAMID)
However, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi dismissed the accusations and said Cairo was not playing a role in Darfur. Rebel leaders have also rejected Bashir's comments.
Then there is the Halaib Triangle to the north of Sudan, run in effect by Egypt for the past two decades and which Cairo says is Egyptian territory. The region, rich in minerals and oil, has been disputed by Egypt and Sudan since the latter became independent in 1956.
Cairo has increased its military presence in the area since 1996, despite Khartoum's repeated complaints to the UN Security Council and calls that the dispute be solved through arbitration.
In January 2016, Sudan put its forces on standby on the border with Egypt, the first time it has done so in 60 years, saying that Egypt's military was "provoking" the Sudanese army in the disputed area.
Reason 2: Deals with Turkey
Khartoum has been diplomatically and economically impoverished during the past decade. The country is still subject to international sanctions as a result of the conflict in Darfur, while Bashir is still wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes of genocide. South Sudan took three-quarters of the country's oil revenue when it became independent in 2011.
Small wonder then that Sudan has sought international alliances where it can. During his visit, Erdogan said that the two countries aimed to boost two-way trade from $500mn a year to $1bn in an initial stage and then to $10bn.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) is embraced by President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir during an official welcoming ceremony at Khartoum international airport on 24 December (AFP)
Turkey, meanwhile, wants to boost its influence in the region, not least near international trade routes that pass through the Suez Canal to the north and the Gulf to the east.
Ankara has been active militarily in neighbouring Somalia since 2009, when it joined the multinational counter-piracy task force off the Somali coast.
In September 2017, Turkey opened its largest overseas military base in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. It reportedly cost $50mn and will train 10,000 Somali troops, according to Turkish and Somali officials.
Ahmet Kavas, a former Turkish ambassador to the republic of Chad and an adviser to the prime minister on African affairs, told Middle East Eye that Turkey's presence in Africa made more sense than that of any other country.
"If you were to think of any one country that should be present in Africa, that country would be Turkey," said Kavas. "The anomaly was the 20th century, when we were largely absent from the continent and the western Europeans stepped in."
Two of the deals signed during the Erdogan drew particular drew sharp attention from Cairo.
The first leases Sudan's Red Sea island of Suakin to Turkey for 99 years. Over the centuries the island has been a commercial crossroads between Africa, Europe and the Gulf, as well as a gateway heading to the Arabian peninsula for Hajj. Historically, it is home to several ancient sites, dating back to when the Ottoman Empire colonised Sudan in the 18th century.
Turkey has said that parts of the island will be restored by the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency and the ministry of culture and tourism.
But Asma Al-Hussieni, editor in chief of the Egyptian daily state newspaper Al-Ahram Egyptian, said in early January that Khartoum and Turkey have secretly agreed to establish a military base on the island, threatening the shipping lanes of the Red Sea.
The second deal allows Turkey to have an enhanced presence in in Sudan's territorial waters across police, security, military and defence ministries, ostensibly to protect Sudanese naval ships as well as fight terrorism.
Sudanese security expert and retired general Alabas Alamin said that Turkey's increased presence in the Red Sea is a "breakthrough for Turkish ambitions, which worries the Arab countries aligned with Saudi Arabia, especially Egypt".
There have been complaints about the deals from within Sudan. Abdallah Musa is a leading member of the Beja congress party, which represented a former rebel movement in eastern Sudan that signed a peace deal with the government in 2006.
Reports suggest Khartoum and Turkey have secretly agreed to establish a military base on the island of Suakin (Bertramz wiki commons)
He said the move is "a violation of the Sudanese sovereignty that will put Sudan in a critical situation amid regional conflicts" and that Egypt and Gulf states could be blackmailed if the waters were closed, disrupting oil routes to international markets.
However, the Turkish ambassador to Sudan, Irfan Neziroglu, denied Turkey would become involved in international affairs on Sudanese territories. "Turkey and Sudan have nothing to hide over the Red Sea or Suakin island," he told MEE. "What we announced openly is what will going to happen in the Red Sea."
Reason 3: Gulf alliances
The Gulf crisis which began in summer 2016 saw the Middle East divided between a power bloc opposed to Qatar which included Saudi, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt, and supporters of Doha, which include Turkey and Iran.
Emad Hussien, editor in chief of Sudan's Alshorooq newspaper, said: "Khartoum is clearly pragmatic and opportunistic as it jumps from one camp to another without any strategic goals other than to break the isolation of the regime."
Alhaj Warag, a political analyst and editor-in-chief of Turkey's Hurriyat online, said on Egyptian TV that Turkish ambitions have pushed Khartoum to build its current partnership with Ankara - but that this could put Sudan in a difficult position.
Sudan, Warag observed, had shifted from alliances with Iran to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen to Turkey and Qatar. "Playing the regional axis to draw some benefits will end up having a serious effect on Sudan."
Musa warned that Sudan risked becoming the next Yemen. There, three years of war between sides backed by rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran have ripped the country asunder.
"To solve its economic crisis, Khartoum is putting the entire country in the middle of the regional polarisation," Musa said, "but that will lead to serious consequences."
Reason 4: Africa's biggest dam
Egypt is deeply worried about the impact on its water supply of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, now being built near the border between Ethiopia and Sudan and set to be the largest on the continent.
Addis Ababa hopes the $5bn project will lift a large segment of its more than 80 million people out of poverty as well as allow it to sell on the energy produced and boost the economy.
Workers build the Grand Renaissance Dam near the Sudanese-Ethiopian border in March 2015 (AFP)
But in Egypt, where around 90 percent of the population live on or near the banks of the Nile, there are fears that there will be less water for irrigating crops. Cairo is also concerned that Sudan, through which the Nile flows, will side with Ethiopia in talks over the dam.
In December, Ethiopian media reported that Egypt wanted to exclude Sudan from the talks and invite the World Bank to arbitrate.
The Egyptian foreign ministry has denied the suggestion, stressing that Sudan is part of the talks that can't be excluded.
But a Sudanese diplomat asked for anonymous because he is not authorised to the talk to the media told MEE the report was correct, adding: "The Egyptian stance regarding the dam is regrettable. Such moves from Egypt are unacceptable as they will only lead to more complications during the talks over the dam rather than solving the disputes."
Reason 5: The Muslim Brotherhood
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power after he drove his predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, from office in July 2013. Morsi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now banned in Egypt and whose members have been subject to unfair trials and torture, according to human rights groups.
Mohamed Morsi, former Egyptian president and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is currently in prison (AFP)
In contrast, Sudan's Bashir rose to power in 1989 amid a military coup backed by the brotherhood and its leader, Hassan Alturabi, whom the current president later ousted when the organisation split in 1999.
Egyptian pro-government media have repeatedly accused Sudan of harbouring Egyptian members of the brotherhood, an accusation which has been denied by the Sudanese authorities.
Turkey has been supportive of the brotherhood: in February 2017, Erdogan said he did not consider it "an armed group, but is in actual fact an ideological organisation" and that if they had been associated with terrorism then they would have been driven from Turkey.
Hassan Ali, a political science professor at Alazhari University, believes the tension over the brotherhood is a sign of the ideological divide between Khartoum's Islamist government and the leadership in Egypt, which is increasingly having to deal with attacks in Sinai since the ousting of Morsi.
"These ideological differences are the main cause of tension between the two sides. The remaining issues including Halaib, the Ethiopian dam, and others are pending issues that been used as cards by the two sides to put pressure on each other."
So will there be war?
Yet despite the disagreements over dams and brotherhoods, islands and power blocs, experts believe it is in neither country's interest to engage in war.
Abdul Moniem Abu Idriss, a Sudanese political analyst, believes that the current tension is unlikely to descend from diplomatic and media spats into open military conflict.
Both countries, he said, are suffering deep economic crises, which will curtail their ability to fight or engage in escalation.
"Since 2011, these two neighbours have been suffering economic deterioration. Sudan has lost has the majority of its oil revenues since the separation of South Sudan in that year.
The two dictatorships in these two countries actually want to draw the attention of the people away from their domestic crises
- Alhaj Hamad, Sudanese Centre for Social and Human Development
"Meanwhile Egypt's tourism, which is a vital sector for the Egyptian economy, has been hit by the continuous terror attacks."
Egypt also goes to the polls in March – and a wave of nationalist fervour, sparked by relations with Sudan, might strengthen the hand of Sisi with his previous background as defence minister, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and director of military intelligence.
Idriss also believes that each side is "attempting to create an imaginary enemy to draw the attention of the two nations from their realistic and daily life needs that they failed to provide".
"Even the Egyptian military presence in Sudan, especially in Halaib, is old and dates back to 1996, so I don't think that there is something new in this regard," he added.
And despite Turkey's pledges to back Khartoum in any Egyptian attack on the Red Sea coast, both sides are too fatigued for war.
Alhaj Hamad, director of the Sudanese Centre for Social and Human Development, said: "The two dictatorships in these two countries actually want to draw the attention of the people away from their domestic crises."
He said that neither side could afford even the pretence of engaging in open war. "I don't think that they will go further. This current situation is best called the balance of weaknesses."
The hype around bitcoin, and its underpinning blockchain technology, is real. But we are still a ways off from blockchain reaching full maturity.
Blockchain, which is best explained as a decentralized ledger, is best known for being the technology behind red-hot bitcoin. But its potential use-cases do not just reside in the world for digital currencies or financial services, according to a wide-ranging report by Credit Suisse, the Switzerland-based bank.
According to the bank, a survey conducted by the World Economic Forum found 58% of executives anticipate 10% of global GDP to "be stored on the blockchain before 2025."
That's the year Credit Suisse expects the technology to reach full maturity. At the moment, the technology is in the middle of the prototype and pilot stage.
Market watchers can expect 2018 to be a year in which "certain products go viral" and "new providers/models emerge," according to the bank.
Here's a chart illustrating blockchain's development timeline:
Credit Suisse
2017 saw a lot of blockchain partnerships come to fruition. In financial services for instance, a number of banks launched collaborative ventures to test out the blockchain.
In December, UBS announced a pilot with a number of other banks, which will help prepare them for Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) II, a sweeping regulatory overhaul in Europe that went live this year.
Instead of trusting a third party to review data and then provide feedback about the accuracy of each party's data, the banks will rely on the blockchain.
Financial services is not the only industry that'll benefit from blockchain, according to the bank.
"In fields where there is perhaps more room to experiment with real-world applications, such as consumer products and manufacturing, we have seen companies begin to deploy blockchain solutions in 2017," Credit Suisse said.
As for 2018, the bank said it will be a critical year.
"Blockchain solutions will come into production as the “low-hanging fruit” of the industry is addressed – i.e. where blockchain’s use is immediately obvious, such as payments and trade finance," the bank said.
It is no secret that the United States, still smarting over a series of setbacks the 1979 Iranian revolution has delivered, has a state-funded programme to destabilize Iran. It is also no secret that the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and other pro-US Arab nations are part of this covert programme.
However, so far, the Iranian government has somehow weathered the threats. When the popular revolution led by the Shiite clergy ousted the pro-American regime of the Shah in 1979, many in the West believed the change was only a passing cloud. But the Islamic republic has been surviving for 38 years, despite in the 1980s a devastating nine-year war against Iraq which was backed by the West and the Arab Gulf states, sabotage by terrorist groups such as Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEQ) and Jundallah, tough economic sanctions, cyber warfare, assassinations of its nuclear scientists, and intermittent uprising, the latest of which was only last week.
That Iran has seen during its post-revolution existence only two large-scale public protests, which lost steam no sooner they hit the streets, vouches for the relative stability of the country’s political system. Yet, Iran’s leaders cannot afford to dismiss last week’s protests, which began in Iran’s second largest city, Mashhad, on December 28, as part of a western conspiracy, though they could very well be. The protests were widespread, though, crowd wise, they were smaller, compared to the 2009 post-election protests in the capital, Teheran. They even spread to the religious city of Qom, a stronghold of the revolution. The protests are a reminder that Iran’s problems require sweeping socioeconomic and political reforms to meet the aspirations of Iran’s youth, who have not lived through the repressive rule of the Shah or seen the sacrifices their parents made for the revolution. The social media savvy generation clamors for well-paying jobs, high standard of life, and more political and economic freedom. Iran has been adopting reforms and relaxing some strict rules regarding social behavior such as the Islamic dress code, but the discontent appears to grow much faster than the speed at which reforms are introduced.
Trump, a fanatical Iran hater who wants to scrap the Iran nuclear deal, took to Twitter to back anti-government demonstrators
The protests were also a public outcry against the prolonged sluggishness of the economy which had not picked up much, despite some sanctions being lifted following Iran’s 2015 nuclear agreement with six world powers.
Yet Iran is not a basket case. Despite 38 years of economic sanctions in one form or another, the country has emerged as a regional power, strong enough to prop up the Syrian regime, help neighbouring Iraq to defeat the ISIS terrorists, fiancne the Hezbollah militias in Lebanon, develop nuclear technology, make its own medium range missiles, anti-tank missiles, drones, aircraft and motor vehicles and take strides in heavy industry.
Iran has in recent years improved ties with China, Russia, Turkey and Qatar and expressed willingness to join China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative to attract investments aimed at giving the much needed fillip to the economy. But the problem is that the economy which derives much of its revenue from oil and gas production is largely state controlled. The private sector remains largely marginalized. During President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s economic reforms in the early 1990s, the private sector thrived, but the momentum died out, with the conservatives or hardliners taking the upper hand, while reform-minded popular presidents such as Mohamed Khatami and Hassan Rouhani looked on powerless.
The protests were also a public outcry against the prolonged sluggishness of the economy which had not picked up much
Socioeconomic and political factors give only one side of the story. The government’s lenient approach to the protests at the initial stages indicated that it recognized the causes for the public protests. Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also acknowledged legitimate demonstrations against economic conditions. The government began to crack the whip only after it feared that the people could be misled and that the protests could be hijacked by a few subversives backed by foreign governments. With government supporters staging massive counter-demonstrations, the anti-government protests, where for the first time slogans were raised publicly against the spiritual leader, gradually withered away.
It is widely known that the MEQ -- listed as a terrorist group by the United States -- maintains close relationship with the CIA and Israel’s secret service Mossad. The Israeli intelligence outfit is also the handler of the Sunni Jundallah group in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province
The US has a long history of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. Last year, the CIA released documents confirming that it engineered the coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. Operation Merlin and Operation Olympic Games were some of the other failed CIA covert programmes aimed at destabilizing Iran after the 1979 revolution.
Undeterred, the axis comprising the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, among others, continues its efforts to subjugate Iran, which has a long history of resisting foreign invasions. Obsessive Iranophobia has pushed some Arab nations to embrace Israel and even US President Donald Trump’s outrageous plan to hand over the whole of Jerusalem to Israel, with no regard for the Palestinians’ insistence that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.
As the Iranian protests drew wide coverage in the Western media, Trump, a fanatical Iran hater who wants to scrap the Iran nuclear deal, took to Twitter to back anti-government demonstrators. “Big protests in Iran. The people are finally getting wise as to how their money and wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism. Looks like they will not take it any longer. The USA is watching very closely for human rights violations!” Trump’s said in his tweet.
In response, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei also took to Twitter, slamming Trump as unstable and having “extreme and psychotic episodes.”
The twitter war apart, the US backing for Iran protests exposes the double standards with which the US approaches world politics. Trump did not tweet when food riots erupted across Egypt in March last year. There were no Trump tweets to urge Saudi Arabia to lift the blockade on Yemen, so that humanitarian assistance could reach the starving Yemeni people. There were no tweets in support of protesters who demonstrate for democracy and human rights in Bahrain which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. He would definitely not tweet calling on Israel to release 16-year-old Ahed al-Tamimi who has become the symbol of Palestinian resistance.
Iran -- with 80 million people in a 1.64 million square kilometre land area – is no pushover. It is capable of countering attacks from the US, Israel or any other hostile power. Its people are united in the face of foreign aggression. This is why the US or Israel has not dared to attack Iran. Its enemies think their best bet is dividing the Iranians by pointing out that the country is spending its hard earned money to prop up Syria and the Hezbollah at the expense of the Iranians: Perhaps, a case of tweeting Trump bearing gifts! The Iranians might do well to keep in mind that the success of the US formula for invasion is the divisions within the target country. This has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Durante el primer año de su administración, el presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, ha endurecido la política exterior en contra del gobierno del presidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Washington ha intensificado las sanciones al gobierno venezolano e incluso sugerido una intervención militar para apartar al máximo mandatario venezolano de la presidencia. A doce meses del inicio del mandato de Trump, Maduro parece estar cada día más afianzado en el poder, y la oposición venezolana es más fracturada que nunca.
La política exterior estadounidense hacía Venezuela está basada en una serie de preconcepciones erróneas. Quizás la más extendida y grave es la idea de que Venezuela es una dictadura totalitaria. Si bien Maduro ciertamente ha hecho muchas cosas para socavar la democracia, Venezuela no es ninguna Corea del Norte.
Venezuela no es una tiranía autocrática; es una sociedad fuertemente dividida y polarizada. Las encuestas de opinión pública muestran un fuerte y profundo apoyo al chavismo — el movimiento creado por el líder populista Hugo Chávez — entre gran parte de la población. Muchos votantes continúan dándole crédito al chavismo por haber redistribuido la riqueza petrolera a través de sus programas sociales y haber dado una voz a los pobres en la política venezolana. Cerca del 25 por ciento de los venezolanos apoyan al sucesor de Chávez, Nicolás Maduro — un número notablemente alto dado el estado en que se encuentra la economía venezolana — y cerca del 50 por ciento creen que Chávez fue un buen presidente. Las recientes elecciones regionales han mostrado que la coalición del gobierno es capaz de movilizar cerca de 6 millones de votantes en apoyo a sus candidatos, lo que representa casi un tercio de la población adulta del país y es más que suficiente para ganar una elección con bajos niveles de participación.
[Read this article in English]
Además de interpretar mal el ambiente político del país, los gobernantes estadounidenses parecen también estar convencidos de que la única manera de que el líder autoritario venezolano deje el poder es por la fuerza. Las sanciones económicas están ostensiblemente dirigidas a aumentar los costos para los militares y se espera que de alguna manera promuevan una rebelión contra Maduro. Este enfoque equivocado proviene de una mala comprensión de la dinámica interna del gobierno y una fe excesiva en la efectividad de las sanciones como herramienta para lograr un cambio de régimen.
Múltiples investigaciones académicas han demostrado que las sanciones económicas rara vez son efectivas. Cuando funcionan, es porque ofrecen a los regímenes sancionados incentivos al mismo tiempo que ofrecen alternativas de salida si se altera la conducta que llevó a la imposición de las sanciones (tal como la reversión del programa nuclear de Irán a cambio del acceso al comercio internacional). Por el contrario, las sanciones contra Venezuela han arrinconado al régimen, incrementando los costos que el gobierno enfrentaría al dejar el poder y elevando así los incentivos para que Maduro no ceda.
Una idea aún más problemática detrás de las actuales políticas estadounidenses es la creencia de que las sanciones financieras pueden dañar al gobierno venezolano sin causar fuertes daños al venezolano común. Esto es imposible cuando el 95 por ciento de los ingresos por exportaciones provienen del petróleo vendido a través de la empresa estatal petrolera. Cortar el acceso del gobierno a los dólares dejará a la economía sin divisas para pagar las importaciones de alimentos y medicinas. Si se priva a la economía venezolana de sus ingresos en moneda extranjera, se corre el riesgo de convertir la actual crisis humanitaria del país en una verdadera catástrofe humanitaria.
Eso es lo que empezó a ocurrir en 2017. El año pasado, los ingresos por exportaciones aumentaron de $28 mil millones a $32 mil millones, impulsados por la recuperación de los precios internacionales de petróleo. En condiciones normales, un alza en las exportaciones del país habría dejado más recursos disponibles para pagar por importaciones. Sin embargo, en el caso venezolano las importaciones cayeron 31 por ciento en el mismo año. La razón es que el país perdió el acceso a los mercados internacionales. Incapaz de refinanciar su deuda, se vio forzado a acumular grandes excedentes externos para continuar pagando el servicio de esa deuda en un intento desesperado por evitar una cesación de pagos. Mientras tanto, los acreedores amenazaron con apoderarse de las fuentes de ingresos restantes del gobierno venezolano si el país entraba en cesación de pagos, incluidas refinerías fuera del país y pagos por embarques de petróleo.
Las sanciones económicas estadounidenses le han impedido a Venezuela emitir nueva deuda y han bloqueado cualquier intento de reestructurar sus obligaciones de deuda existentes. Asimismo, las sanciones han llevado a que las principales instituciones financieras hayan retrasado el procesamiento de todas las transferencias de las entidades financieras venezolanas, obstaculizando significativamente la capacidad de las empresas venezolanas de hacer negocios en los Estados Unidos. Incluso Citgo, una subsidiaria de propiedad venezolana que posee el 4 por ciento de la capacidad de refinación de los Estados Unidos, no ha podido lograr que las instituciones financieras estadounidenses le emitancréditos comerciales rutinarios desde que se impusieron las sanciones
A partir de la Guerra de Vietnam, la mayoría de los políticos estadounidenses han entendido que la política exterior no solo se trata de superar con la fuerza a su oponente sino también de ganarse “los corazones y las mentes” de la gente. Sin embargo, el 56 por ciento de los venezolanos se oponen a las sanciones financieras de los Estados Unidos y solo el 32 por ciento las apoyan. Cuando se trata de intervención militar extranjera en Venezuela, el 57 por ciento de los encuestados se oponen, mientras que el 58 por ciento apoyan el diálogo entre el gobierno y la oposición y el 71 por ciento creen que esas conversaciones deberían enfocarse en buscar soluciones a los problemas económicos del país.
Los venezolanos tienen buenas razones para temer que sea la gente común la que termine pagando el precio de las sanciones. Datos recientes muestran que en los dos meses después de que la administración de Trump impuso las sanciones financieras, las importaciones se desplomaron en un 24 por ciento adicional, profundizando la escasez de bienes básicos. Esto le dio credibilidad al argumento del gobierno de que las políticas estadounidenses están dañando directamente a los venezolanos.
En vez de debilitar a Maduro, las sanciones hacen cada vez más difícil que la oposición del país convenza a los votantes de que el bienestar de los venezolanos — en lugar de expulsar a Maduro del poder — es su verdadera prioridad. No es la primera vez que la oposición comete este error.
En 2002, los opositores al entonces presidente Chávez convocaron una huelga masiva en el sector petrolero del país. En un intento de lograr la renuncia de Chávez, la huelga paralizó la producción de petróleo y provocó una recesión de dos dígitos. Este evento por sí solo logró convencer a los venezolanos de que no podían confiar en un movimiento político que estaba dispuesto a destruir la economía para alcanzar el poder. En un referéndum revocatorio celebrado dos años después, los votantes respaldaron rotundamente a Chávez.
Los Estados Unidos y la oposición anti-madurista no ganarán los corazones y las mentes de los venezolanos ayudando a destruir la economía del país.
Si Washington quiere mostrar que se preocupa por los venezolanos, podría comenzar brindando ayuda a los más afectados por la crisis. Extender el estatus de inmigrante protegido para los venezolanos en los Estados Unidos y brindar apoyo a los países vecinos que lidian con el aumento de la inmigración venezolana sería un comienzo. Otra manera sería darle apoyo a organizaciones apolíticas (como el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo) que han logrado abrir canales de asistencia para el país. Los Estados Unidos también deberían apoyar las negociaciones destinadas a crear instituciones que posibiliten la coexistencia de las facciones políticas hostiles del país, en lugar de alentar el reemplazo total de una por la otra.
Yo, al igual que cualquier otra persona, quisiera ver a Maduro irse. El manejo atroz de la economía por parte de su gobierno es la principal (aunque no la única) causa de la crisis económica más profunda de la historia de América Latina. La anulación de la mayoría de dos tercios ganada por la oposición en la Asamblea Nacional mediante acusaciones falsas y no respaldadas de compra de votos fue un asalto a la constitución del país y el catalizador de las tensiones políticas que provocaron más de 100 muertes en las protestas del año pasado. Hay abundantes pruebas de graves abusos contra los derechos humanos durante esas protestas, que ameritan una investigación internacional para determinar la posible complicidad de los miembros de alto rango del gobierno.
Pero por las mismas razones por las que me opongo a Maduro, también estoy en desacuerdo vehemente con el pedido del presidente Trump, y de algunos comentaristas de la oposición venezolana, por una intervención militar extranjera en Venezuela. Nos guste o no, Maduro se desempeña como presidente de Venezuela porque ganó una elección reconocida por la comunidad internacional. Incluso si Maduro fuera destituido, sería reemplazado por su vicepresidente, que a su vez podría designar a otro vicepresidente para que ocupe su posición en caso de que él mismo fuera destituido. Incluso una mirada superficial a la constitución venezolana muestra que ésta no le da derecho a la Asamblea Nacional a nombrar un nuevo presidente. Llevar a cabo una intervención militar para reemplazar a un presidente electo constitucionalmente con uno nombrado inconstitucionalmente sería una violación aún peor de la ley venezolana que cualquier cosa de la que los regímenes de Chávez y Maduro alguna vez hayan sido acusados.
Maduro debe dejar el cargo de la misma manera que llegó: a través de los votos de los venezolanos. Venezuela tiene programado celebrar elecciones presidenciales este año. En lugar de alentar sueños fantasiosos de invasiones militares y golpes, la prioridad principal de la oposición venezolana debería ser convencer a los votantes de que cumpliría una mejor labor al frente del país que el gobierno actual. Trump y su administración no deben continuar haciendo esa tarea más difícil.
He is hard proof that master politicians are capable of making things run not just more efficiently, but nightmarishly as well.
by Anwar A. Khan-
“We recall the joy and excitement of a nation that had found itself, the collective relief that we had stepped out of our restrictive past, and the expectant air of walking into a brighter future.” – Nelson Mandela
( January 12, 2018, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid is the 20th and current Honourable President of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. For his dedicated struggles against the military dictator president Ayub Khan’s regime during our pre-independence time for the just cause of Bangladesh’s people, he was rusticated from all colleges or universities in the-then Pakistan. Pakistani police and its spy agencies carried out massive drives to put him into custody and inflict unlawful punishment. Most of the time of his college life, he had to remain on the run, but still then, he could not be stopped; rather, he was brave enough to carry out his political acts against the Pakistani establishment behind the screen. He had a huge supporters, loved him deeply who put through all actions instructed by him to carry on the on-going movement. He has been always a loud voiced public orator against the Pakistani oppression on our people.
I recall when we were high school students in 1967 or 1968, a staunch pro-Pakistani S.H. Khanmajlish, an EPCS officer and SDO, Kishoreghanj, was given a farewell reception at our school premises before he would take his charge as ADC in Mymensingh. While delivering his speech, he un-necessarily cited Mr. Hamid’s name with a hateful tongue and used some very indecorous words against this very popular student leader, “I am telling Hamid to give up politics or otherwise, I shall put him upside down in the litchi tree in front of the Kishoreganj Sadar Police Station, beat him unmercifully and then allow the stray dogs to eat his flesh and blood.” Some of our friends then became very furious about such foul-mouthed words and a student could not resist himself from protesting this mendacious behaviouur which prompted him to say, “This mendacity is unpardonable” on front of him. We all applauded him in a louder clapping. A few minutes later on, this rat-bag left the scene.
James A. Garfield wrote, “A brave man is a man who dares to look the Devil in the face and tell him he is a Devil.” In early 1969, when the anti-Ayub regime movement rose to its peak, Mr. Hamid, the-then student leader suddenly emerged from his hide-out by a lucky stroke botching the hawkish eyes of police forces to join a public meeting, he roared many words like a lion against the Ayub regime and in an emotional outburst, he said, “In 1962, I passed my HSC Examination, but this is the year of 1969, I still could not complete my B.A. Degree……I don’t need my graduation degree unless and until we can oust the ignominious and autocratic Ayub regime.” All people present at that meeting including this writer welcomed his speech with loud spatting. He then vanished from the meeting spot hastily thwarting the attempt of arrest by police personnel. He is such a dauntless person.
Many myths centred round him during his student life in Gurudayal College (now Government Gurudayal College), Kishoreganj. When we were senior school students, he was the founder of Chhatra League in the-then Kishoreganj Sub-division (now District), its first President and very active in students’ politics. He was a perfect rebel against all political movements against the ignoble Pakistani rulers. He was put behind the bar in many times. Sometimes he went into hiding because the Pakistani government issued warrant arrests against him. Police Department always kept him in a flurry. Rothkhloar Math (Rothkhloar Ground) is still a historic place in Kishoreganj Town because it is the cradle of all political movements in the Kishoreganj District. In politics of Kishoreganj District, he has always been a legendary figure. He has learnt the morals, manners, and caring aptitude and has been using them while delivering his duties towards the common people.
He was was born 1st January 1944 and reached at his 74 years on the 1st January 2018. Previously he served as the Speaker of the National Parliament from January 2009 to April 2013. Before that, he was also the Deputy Speaker of the country’s National Parliament. He was the acting President after the death of former President Zillur Rahman in March 2013, and he was elected as President on 22 April 2013 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. He was also the Chairman of Working Committee, Standing Committee for Rules and Procedures, Standing Committee for Special Rights and Petition Committee of the Parliament.
After having passed B.A. from Gurudayal Government College in Kishoreganj, and obtained his Law Degree, Mr. Hamid became a practising lawyer in the Kishoreganj Judge Court. He was appointed the President of Kishoreganj Bar Association several times. He joined Chhatra League in 1959 whilst a student in Kishoreganj, as the Vice President of Gurudayal College (now Gurudayal Government College). He was also elected the Vice-President of Chhatra League of Mymensingh District Unit in 1966–67. At the end of 1969, he joined the Awami League. In the 1970 Pakistan general election, Hamid was elected as the Member of Parliament for Mymensingh-18 constituency; and he was then the youngest person elected. In the general elections of 1973, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2009 he was elected as Member of Parliament for Kishoregonj-5 constituency as a nominee of the Awami League. For his contribution to the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, he was awarded the Independence Day Award in 2013.
Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid is an ardent social worker and a patron of education and culture. He established a good number of schools, colleges in his constituency including MithamoinTomiza Khatun Girls’ High School, Mithamoin Hazi Tayeb Uddin Boys’ High School, Mithamoin College, Astogram College, Alongzuri High School, Itna Girls’ High School, Baribari High School, Abdullahpur High School, Abdul Wadud High School, Kishoregonj Girls’ High School, Dhonpur High School, Shohid Smrity High School, Mohantala High School and Ghagra Abdul Goni High School and many other junior level Schools.
As a member of Sustainable Development Committee of Inter- Parliamentary Union (IPU) from 1997 to 2000 and the member of the Executive Committee of IPU from 2011 to 2013, Mr. Hamid played his due role. He was also the member of the Executive Committee for Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) for two terms from 1999 to 2001 and from 2009 to 2012. He is the Life Member of Kishoregonj District Public Library, District Shilpakala Academy, Red Crescent Society and Kishoregonj Rifles Club respectively. He is also the honourary member of Kishoregonj Press Club and associated with many other philanthropic organisations.
Mr. Hamid was arrested by the then Gen. Zia’s autocratic military regime during 1976-78 and excruciated in the jails inhumanely to support Zia and join his political party. Every time, he flatly refused to accept such an offer with disdainfulness. He has always been a truehearted supporter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Teddy Roosevelt said, “We must dare to be great; and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage” and he has that much of powerboat in his inward soul.
He is hard proof that master politicians are capable of making things run not just more efficiently, but nightmarishly as well. This bears testimony to his skillful art of conducting business in the National Parliament, first as its Honourable Deputy Speaker and then as Honourable Speaker. He was highly successful in performing his jobs so meticulously with all integrity and power of delivering…..More importantly; the insightful and thorough Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid could bring people from different walks of life together. A widely travelled person, Mr. Hamid visited many countries of the world to uphold the causes of Bangladesh. He has a luminous political trajectory.
He is one the men for his times, with a dignity and bearing that personified what a President should be. President Abdul Hamid is fondly canonised as ‘Bhati Shardul (Tiger of Haor domains)” in greater Kishoreganj District. Like him or them, we are no angels, because it is simply easy to turn a blind eye to human suffering, whether you are a president or a citizen. It may sound like a false equivalence that lets them off the hook, because with great power should come from great responsibility. ….But this presidential paragon strives to wield that power as responsibly as possible within his milieu, and has created not just the ideals but also the logistical foundations for democratic governance standing beside his paisanos in the country. Expecting our finest presidents to be spotless idols is otiose. Nevertheless, we should demand they evolve, and strive like their forebears to wield their epochal power with reasonable sensitivity and sustainability.
The world changes every day. People are born and people die everything and yet, life goes on. But in this everyday normal thing of life, sometimes, people who have a different flair and ability to influence a whole lot of other people are born. These are some gems because of their sheer presence and charisma and whether or not these people use their talent for good things has always been a nature versus nurture debate. But the world has seen many great leaders in all the parts of the world but some of the leaders have had not only an influence on their own countries but on the world. President Md Abdul Hamid is one greatest leaders of all time of Bangladesh. He will always be a legend – remembered for his leadership, his kindness, and friendliness. His lifestyle speaks louder than many words.
He has walked that long road to freedom. He has tried not to falter. He has discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. He has taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds him, to look back on the distance he has come. But he can rest only for a moment, for with freedom comes responsibilities, and he dares not linger, for his long walk is not yet ended. Ronald Reagan said, “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave” and President Md. Abdul Hamid has always been a courageous and patriotic people’s politician in Bangladesh. He is widely admired for his calm and marked by tact in dealing with sensitive matters or people’s welfare skills. He leads a very simple life. Words can’t praise him enough. An absolute hero!
Despite her young age, Komal from India, has already faced a lifetime of discrimination. But she’s determined to use sport to show her strength, and is literally fighting for gender equality.
Did you know that at least one in three women (35 per cent) will experience some form of violence during their lifetime - more than one billion women worldwide?
Violence against women and girls is a hidden global crisis which knows no boundaries of geography or culture. But, marginalized women, such as poor women and girls, are most likely to experience it, most often at the hands of their husbands or partners.
Violence against women and girls takes many different forms, including domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, child, early and forced marriage, sex trafficking, so called ‘honor’ crimes and female genital mutilation. It is rooted in the gender inequality that women face throughout their lives from childhood through to old age.
Many perpetrators believe that violence toward women and girls is normal or appropriate behavior, supported by society. They feel that they can commit violence without disapproval.
It is one of the most widespread violations of human rights and has long-term devastating effects on the lives of women, their communities and wider society. It is time to say ‘enough is enough’. We want violence against women to end.
Violence on a massive scale: some key statistics
30 per cent of women will experience violence at the hands of their current or former partners in their lifetime, up to 70 per cent according to some national studies.
More than 700 million women alive today were married as children. Of those women, more than one in three got married before 15.
200 million women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation - the majority of girls are cut before the age of five.
Of all women who were murdered globally in 2012, almost half were killed by partners or family members, compared to less than six per cent of men killed in the same year.
In spite of the challenges and discrimination, Maria Morales Jorge, 52, from Guatemala, is determined to change what’s normal and encourages other indigenous women to join her.
Violence and poverty: a vicious cycle
We believe that violence against women and girls is one of the most significant barriers to our mission to end poverty.
Violence against women and girls not only devastates women’s lives and divides communities, it also undermines development efforts and the building of strong democracies and just, peaceful societies.
Violence locks women and girls into poverty. It limits women’s choices; their ability to access education, earn a living and participate in political and public life. Poverty exposes them to further violence and a lack of options when violence occurs.
Join in and say Enough
We can change the harmful beliefs at the core of this problem. What was learned can be unlearned. It is time for us all, women, men, girls, boys and key public actors to end violence against women and girls.
Read and share stories of how women and men across the world are standing up and saying ‘Enough’.
Asa Winstanley-12 January 2018
Member of the Sudan Liberation Army (Abdul Wahid faction) in North Darfur in May 2012 (UNAMID)
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) is embraced by President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir during an official welcoming ceremony at Khartoum international airport on 24 December (AFP)
Reports suggest Khartoum and Turkey have secretly agreed to establish a military base on the island of Suakin (Bertramz wiki commons)
Workers build the Grand Renaissance Dam near the Sudanese-Ethiopian border in March 2015 (AFP)
Mohamed Morsi, former Egyptian president and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is currently in prison (AFP)
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro speaks in Havana, Cuba, on Dec. 14, 2017. (Yamil Lage/AFP/Getty Images) 
In spite of the challenges and discrimination, Maria Morales Jorge, 52, from Guatemala, is determined to change what’s normal and encourages other indigenous women to join her.