ANALYSIS: Why Iran is angered by Israel alliance with Azerbaijan

The relationship between a Muslim nation and Israel has evolved through Azerbaijan's geo-strategic position

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan (handout)

Yossi Melman-Thursday 15 December 2016

Baku, Azerbaijan - When El Al’s Boeing 767, carrying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his entourage, touched down on Tuesday at Heydar Aliyev international airport in Baku, one of the key players in the relationship between Israel and Azerbaijan was not to be seen: Yossi Cohen, the head of Mossad, Israel’s powerful foreign espionage agency.

Usually, heads of Mossad don’t participate in highly visible visits by the Israeli prime minister. But even without his personal presence, Cohen and his agency are playing a major role behind the scenes, cementing the strategic alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan.

With a few exceptions, Muslim nations neither have diplomatic relations nor any other official encounters with Israel

Netanyahu’s short visit lasted six hours and included a meeting with President Ilham Aliyev. The talks commemorated the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two nations and were also intended to upgrade it still further.

It is an unlikely alliance between a Muslim nation and the Jewish state. With a few exceptions - Egypt, Jordan and central Asia republics - Muslim nations neither have diplomatic relations nor any other official encounters with Israel.

How Israel and Azerbaijan made sweet

Azerbaijan is located on the shores of the Caspian Sea, bordered in the south by Iran. Like Iran, it is predominantly Shiite but its regime is secular and pro-western.

Yet over the years, Azerbaijan – which declared its independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union – has gradually become a very close ally of Israel, thanks to the importance of its geo-strategic position.

In August 2014 Iran claimed it shot down an Israeli drone operating from Azerbaijan (AFP)

The alliance is based on the old dictum that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Iran is considered by Israel as its most dangerous enemy. There are also historic diplomatic and territorial disputes between Azerbaijan and Iran, whose largest minority population is Azeri.

'We have very good security cooperation with Israel and we’re very satisfied with the level of this cooperation'

- President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan

For almost a decade, Israel secretly sold arms to Azerbaijan. The full scope of the transactions was never made public. Israeli censors have systematically forbidden Israeli media from publishing any details. The only stories came from international reports, which were partial, incomplete and even biased.

So it was a huge surprise even to Netanyahu when Aliyev announced during their joint press conference on Tuesday that his country has signed $5bn worth of long-term contracts over the years to buy weapons and security equipment from Israel. A close confidant of Netanyahu told me: “We were taken by surprise when we heard the president.”

READ: The Israeli spies left out in the cold

Aliyev, who has ruled in Azerbaijan since the death of his father in 2003, went on to say that “we have very good security cooperation with Israel and we’re very satisfied with the level of this cooperation”.

His comments provide some insight into the comfort level that he has in his country’s strategic ties with Israel. They come against the backdrop of hostile relations between Azerbaijan and Iran, whose leaders have repeatedly condemned Azerbaijani-Israeli ties, including Tuesday’s visit.

Why Tehran is worried

Tehran sees this relationship as a threat to its security and claims that Azerbaijan serves as a forward base for Israel intelligence-gathering, as well as offering the potential to prepare for a military strike.

In 2012, when tensions were high over Iran’s nuclear programme, Tehran accused Azerbaijan of allowing Israeli fighter planes to use its air space and airfields for bombing practice.

In August 2014, a year before it signed the nuclear deal with the six world powers (the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany), Iran claimed it shot down an Israeli drone operating from Azerbaijan on a spy mission over one of its nuclear facilities.

Armenian servicemen fire an artillery shell towards Azeri forces in Nagorno-Karabakh (AFP)

Though never officially confirmed, some reliable media publications such as Intelligence Online claimed a few weeks ago that Mossad and Israeli military intelligence have listening stations on Azeri soil which monitor Iran.

Aliyev did not elaborate on the kind of weapons his country is purchasing from Israel. But I learnt from reliable sources that they include patrol boats to defend Azeri fishing rights in the Caspian Sea, drones, missiles, technology to upgrade the Azeri air force, sophisticated intelligence equipment and C3 (command and control communication) equipment.

During his visit, Netanyahu held talks with his hosts about potential sales of Iron Dome

Netanyahu, for his part, refused to comment - but during his visit he held talks with his hosts about potential sales of Iron Dome, the Israeli-made anti-missile defence system.

Azeri officials told me that they need the weapons to defend their country in the clashes with Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to deter Iran.

No less surprising was the admission by Aliyev that his country sells Israel crude oil. He also added that he is interested in “diversifying” commerce between the two states.

READ: Why Israel is on pins and needles about Obama's last days

Netanyahu followed up by confirming that nearly half of Israel’s oil imports originate from Azerbaijan. That's an annual purchase of around 40 million barrels or 5.5 million tons of crude oil worth $1.5bn.

Netanyahu praised the cooperation and friendship between Israel, a Jewish state, and Azerbaijan, a Muslim country.

He said that with the great “darkness” present in some part of the world, not least the Middle East, the relationship was an example of cooperation and friendship between Israel and the Muslim and Arab world.

China should plan to take Taiwan by force after Trump call, state media says

Global Times says Beijing should ‘punish militarily’ any moves to undermine One China policy – which US president-elect has said he might not uphold

 Armoured vehicles parade in front of Taiwan’s presidential palace in downtown Taipei, marking 105 years of the founding of the Republic of China. Photograph: Alberto Buzzola/LightRocket via Getty Images

Benjamin Haas in Hong Kong-Thursday 15 December 2016


China should plan to take Taiwan by force and make swift preparations for a military incursion, a Communist party-controlled newspaper has said, after US president-elect Donald Trump broke decades of diplomatic protocol in the region.

Before he even assumes the presidency, Trump has called into question the longstanding US foreign policy of maintaining formal relations with Beijing instead of Taiwan, which China considers a breakaway province. He also spoke directly with Taiwan’s president, the first such contact since 1979. Both moves have infuriated China.

In response, the Global Times, a state-run tabloid that sometimes reflects views from within the Communist party, said on Thursday that China should rebalance its stance towards Taiwan to “make the use of force as a main option and carefully prepare for it”.

“The Chinese mainland should display its resolution to recover Taiwan by force,” the paper wrote in an editorial. If Taiwan were to declare formal independence, it went on, “the Chinese mainland can in no time punish them militarily”.

China has worked in recent years to deepen trade ties with the democratic, self-governing island with an eye toward an eventual unification. But the ruling Communist party has taken a tougher stance on Taiwan since the election earlier this year of President Tsai Ing-wen, whose party is seen as less keen on cosying up to mainland China.

“The military status quo across the Taiwan Straits needs to be reshaped as a response and punishment to the current administration of [Tsai],” the Global Times said.

Chinese officials have already used less drastic “punishments”, such as limiting the number of mainland tourists to Taiwan and hinting at curtailing investments.

But while Taiwan is already feeling the brunt of China’s rage, the US could be next after Trump moves into the White House.

The president-elect has said he may use the One China policy, under which the US formally recognises Beijing over Taiwan, as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

“I fully understand the One China policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News.

China swiftly responded to the comments, describing the One China principle as the “political bedrock” of ties between the two countries.

“We urge the incoming US administration and its leaders to fully recognise the sensitivity of the Taiwan question … [and] to properly deal with Taiwan-related matters in a prudent manner so as not to disrupt or damage the overall interests of the bilateral relationship,” China’s foreign ministry said.

The Global Times suggested pointing more missiles at Taiwan as leverage in negotiations with the island.

“If the Chinese mainland won’t pile on more pressure over realising reunification by using force, the chance of peaceful unification will only slip away,” it said. “Peace does not belong to cowards.”

The threat of military action has loomed over Taiwan’s population since the 1950s. In the most dramatic confrontation, China fired missiles into the waters separating it from Taiwan in the run-up to the first free elections in 1996. In response, the US sailed an aircraft carrier through the strait in a show of solidarity.

China warns Trump of damage to bilateral relations

On Wednesday, China’s ambassador to the United States said Beijing would never bargain with Washington over issues involving its national sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Cui Tiankai, speaking to executives of top US companies, said China and the United States needed to work to strengthen their relationship.

“Basic norms of international relations should be observed, not ignored, certainly not be seen as something you can trade off,” he said.

“And indeed, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not bargaining chips. Absolutely not. I hope everybody would understand that.”

He did not specifically mention Taiwan or Trump’s comments.

Reuters contributed to this report.

On the day Trump said he’d clarify his business dealings, his conflicts of interest look thornier than ever

 The Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman explores the details behind the announcement that President-elect Donald Trump sold all his shares in companies in June. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

By Drew Harwell December 15 at 11:08 AM

On the day President-elect Donald Trump had pledged to clarify how his companies would run during his term in the White House, his strategy to avoid conflicts of interest looks more confusing than ever.

On Tuesday, Trump said his sons would run his company, building what he says is a clear wall between his private business and public power. On Wednesday, his children had seats at the table of one of his biggest policy meetings yet, attended by the country’s top tech-industry elites and Trump Cabinet nominees. Also around the table: bottles of Trump Natural Spring Water, the president-elect’s water brand.

The episode bolstered a growing confusion over how Trump would separate his complex web of business interests from his job in the Oval Office, a central focus for many who have worried that Trump’s entanglements could steer his policy and presidency.

Top Democrats say they intend to target this vulnerability for Trump in the march to his inauguration and beyond.

[What happens to the working class when millionaires and billionaires are in charge]

Democratic senators including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) said Thursday morning that they would introduce a bill next month requiring the president to “disclose and divest” financial holdings that post conflicts of interest, mimicking a law that already binds most public officials.

“This is bigger than our president-elect. This is bigger than this moment,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, during a forum at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon. “This is about our democracy and the laws that go with it.”

Trump tweeted two weeks ago that he would hold a “major news conference” in New York on Dec. 15 to give more details on his plans. But this week, his representatives said that conference, and any ensuing clarity, would have to wait until an undetermined date next month. Trump has offered no other details in the days since, save for a few vague tweets.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told reporters Thursday morning that the president-elect “obviously has a great number of businesses, a great number of properties and developments that he has put together, and quite frankly that takes time as he transitions away from being the leader of this very successful company.”

“The priority here is to make sure we get it right,” Miller added. “If that takes a little more time, I think the American people understand that.”

Trump, meanwhile, said the transition wouldn’t be that difficult. He tweeted Thursday morning, “The media tries so hard to make my move to the White House, as it pertains to my business, so complex — when actually it isn’t!”

[Update: Feds say it’s ‘premature’ to judge lease for Trump’s D.C. hotel]

Government officials and Trump’s antagonists have offered sometimes conflicting views on whether Trump has overstepped the boundaries allowed for a president-elect who also holds a lucrative financial stake in a luxury hotel owned by the federal government.

Congressional Democrats said Wednesday that officials with the General Services Administration had determined Trump must surrender his stake in Washington’s Trump International Hotel before entering office. But that agency said later that it would wait “until the full circumstances surrounding the President-elect’s business arrangements have been finalized” before making a determination.

In the vacuum of solid details from Trump, many have scrambled to divine exactly how the president-elect intends to separate from his private fortune, if at all. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Trump said he would turn down “billions of dollars of deals” during his presidency to dodge potential conflicts.

Trump added that he had already turned down “seven deals with one big player.” He said he turned down those lucrative arrangements out of personal desire, not because of legal requirements. “I’m not going to be doing deals at all,” he said. “I have the right to do it. I just don’t want to do it.”

There are no conflict-of-interest laws that would force the president to sell off his business interests. But the president must still abide by laws against bribery, fraud and corruption, as well as a constitutional ban against accepting payments from a foreign power, upheld by threat of impeachment.

[There’s already a big problem with Trump’s ‘no new deals’ pledge]

Trump tweeted late last month that it was “visually important” that the president show no business conflicts. In a series of late-night tweets Monday, Trump said he would leave his businesses before the Jan. 20 inauguration to be managed by executives and his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. “No new deals,” he added, would be done during his time in office.

But those stipulations may not solve the core problem. If Trump gives his children corporate management responsibilities but still partially owns the businesses, he will have a financial stake that could influence his presidential decision-making, former White House ethics advisers said.

Business experts also wonder how Trump could promise “no new deals” for a business that has depended on routine dealmaking — both in large measure, such as signing new real estate partnerships or sealing branding agreements, as well as everyday deals, including hiring employees and refinancing debts.

Some government officials weighed in. Office of Government Ethics Director Walter Shaub, whose agency advises public officials on how to avoid conflicts, wrote in a letter Tuesday to Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) that “a President should conduct himself ‘as if’ he were bound by” financial conflict-of-interest laws. “Transferring operational control of a company to one’s children would not constitute the establishment of a qualified blind trust, nor would it eliminate conflicts of interest,” Shaub wrote.

As advisers debated possible ethical issues, a potential Trump conflict played out in real time this week 5,000 miles south of Washington. Trump Hotels said Tuesday that it would remove its brand name and stop operating a luxury hotel in Rio de Janeiro, where Brazilian prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into the property’s investments.

The Trump Hotel Rio de Janeiro is owned by a Brazilian development firm whose former chief executive is the grandson of the last president under the country’s 1964-1985 military dictatorship. The Trump company, which has no financial stake in the project, said it was not involved in the investigation. The firm said it was backing out because of construction delays and differences with the developers’ “vision.”

Trump’s company also terminated a licensing deal with the developers of a stalled hotel project in Azerbaijan, said Trump Organization executive vice president Alan Garten on Thursday. The project, he said, had missed “various development milestones,” though Garten would not elaborate. Trump invested no money in the project but has made millions of dollars through selling his name to the project in recent years.

Construction on the Trump International Hotel & Tower in the oil-rich nation’s capital of Baku froze last year following an economic crash. Trump’s partner in that project was a billionaire tied to a repressive regime accused of corruption, human-rights abuse and attacks on free speech, according to the State Department and human-rights groups.

When a Washington Post reporter earlier this year told Garten about criticism of Trump’s partner, Anar Mammadov, including how he made his fortune, Garten said then, “These are things that are going to have to be discussed.” Requests for comment from Mammadov were not immediately returned.

Garten said Thursday that the Baku deal was terminated as “part of a housecleaning” because “it seems like the right time.” What didn’t affect the termination, he added, was Trump’s upcoming presidency or growing calls for Trump to divest his business interests overseas. The company, Garten said, had also recently cancelled a third foreign licensing deal for a potential hotel complex in Rio de Janeiro.

The Trump Organization’s biggest decisions have historically been guided by Trump himself. But Garten said the president-elect did not weigh in on the deals.

“Mr. Trump is focused on building his Cabinet. He’s focusing on the affairs of the country and improving things for all Americans,” Garten said. “He’s not involved in these decisions. It was not his determination.”

[For a President Trump, global real estate deals present unprecedented gray areas]

Many of the entanglements are playing out much closer to home. On Wednesday, Trump invited some of the giants of American tech — Amazon chief executive and Washington Post owner Jeffrey P. Bezos, Apple’s Tim Cook, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg — to the 25th floor of Trump Tower, where he told them, “We’re going to be there for you.”

They listened a few chairs down from three of Trump’s children, Eric, Ivanka and Don Jr., the latter of whom tweeted afterward: “Honored to have sat in on this meeting. The most impressive group of minds I’ve seen assembled all looking to fight for America and US jobs.”

Shortly afterward, congressional Democrats said Thursday morning they would take up a presidential-conflicts bill when the Senate reconvenes next month. The bill would also force presidential appointees to avoid matters touched by the president’s financial conflicts that could come before their agencies.

Congressional Republicans have been far more muted on the issue, spelling potential doom for the bill in the Senate they control. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee who said last month that Trump “needs to instill the confidence that he’s more than arm’s length away,” has not yet responded to Democrats’ urging to investigate Trump’s potential conflicts.

“President-elect Trump’s financial entanglements are unprecedented in American history, and the American people are still waiting to hear what steps he will take before January 20th to guard against conflicts of interest and corruption in his Administration,” Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a statement Thursday.

“Just this week, the President-elect cancelled a scheduled announcement about severing his business ties, taking time instead to meet with Kanye West,” Durbin added. “The American people deserve to know that their President is putting the United States’ interests before his own, his family’s, or that of any foreign government.”

Putin turned Russia election hacks in Trump's favour - U.S. officials

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives at Yamaguchi Ube Airport in Ube, Japan, December 15, 2016. REUTERS/Koji Sasahara/Pool

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks at the USA Thank You Tour event at the Wisconsin State Fair Exposition Center in West Allis, Wisconsin, U.S., December 13, 2016. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Fri Dec 16, 2016

Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies' hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday.

U.S. intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia tried to influence the election by hacking people and institutions, including Democratic Party bodies, has angered President-elect Trump, who says he won the Nov. 8 vote fairly. Russian officials have denied accusations of interference in the U.S. election.

But in the most direct comments yet linking the Russian president to the hacking, a senior White House official said on Thursday that Putin was likely to have been aware of the cyber attacks.

"I don't think things happen in the Russian government of this consequence without Vladimir Putin knowing about it," Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security advisor, told MSNBC. "When you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're talking about the highest levels of government," Rhodes said.

U.S. officials said on the condition of anonymity that the hacking of U.S. political groups and figures had a more general focus at first.

"This began merely as an effort to show that American democracy is no more credible than Putin's version is," one of the officials said.

"It gradually evolved from that to publicizing (Hillary) Clinton's shortcomings and ignoring the products of hacking Republican institutions, which the Russians also did," the official said.

By the fall, the official said, it became an effort to help Trump's campaign because "Putin believed he would be much friendlier to Russia, especially on the matter of economic sanctions" than Democratic rival Clinton.

NBC reported earlier that U.S. intelligence officials have "a high level of confidence" Putin was personally involved in the Russian cyber campaign against the United States.

Hacked emails of Democratic operatives and Clinton aides were leaked during the presidential campaign, and at times dominated the news agenda. The U.S. officials said Russia also hacked Republicans but did little-to-nothing with the information they found.

PUTIN ROLE?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told state TV channel Rossiya-24 that he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report of Putin's alleged involvement.

"I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," he said.

Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, has brushed off reports of Russian hacking of U.S. political institutions.

"If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Trump wrote in a post on Twitter on Thursday.

In fact, the U.S. government did formally accuse Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against U.S. political organizations in October - one month ahead of the election.

Obama also said he warned Putin about the consequences for cyber attacks attributed to Moscow that were seen as trying to influence the U.S. election and last week ordered a review by the U.S. intelligence agencies.

Asked on Thursday about the hacks, Secretary of State John Kerry described how Obama had been considering the evidence ahead of the October announcement.

"The president made the decision based on the input that was carefully, carefully vetted by the intelligence community. . . that he did have an obligation to go out to the country and give a warning. And he did so," Kerry said at a briefing.

The three U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters said the fact Putin oversaw a hacking operation was not surprising and is standard operating procedure in Russia.

"If anything, given his background as a KGB officer, Putin has a much tighter grip on all Russian intelligence operations, civilian and military, foreign and domestic, than any democratic leader does," one official said.

The reports of Russian hacking have raised concerns among both political parties in Congress, with top Republicans breaking with Trump to call for closer scrutiny.

Some Republican lawmakers have also questioned Trump's pick for Secretary of State, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who has close business ties to the Russian government.

(Reporting by Washington newsroom and Vladimir Soldatkin in Moscow; Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Alistair Bell)

From Rwanda to Aleppo: a history of inaction

15 DEC 2016
Every few hours I check my WhatsApp feed from the doctors in East Aleppo. They post videos of injured children and a combination of eyewitness news and desperate messages: “Iran militia shot the convoy,” “The regime forces are still angry, I may die tens times now,” “Warplane with heavy machine gun attacking right now.”

It takes me back to April 1994, when I sat, terrified, in my house in Kigali listening to Rwandan friends who called to tell me about the slaughter in their neighbourhoods. Monica dictated to me her last words to pass onto her husband, Marcel, who was travelling. As it happened, she survived, but their five children, who were staying with their grandparents, were murdered. These are not easy memories.

A few years later, Samantha Power, then Professor of Human Rights Practice at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Governance, published a book called A Problem from Hell; America and the Age of Genocide. Her thesis, simply put, was that in the face of mass slaughter the USA has a moral and legal obligation to intervene. America did nothing when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in Halabja, nor during the genocide in Rwanda nor the massacre of 7,000 men and boys at Srebrenica in Bosnia the following year.

Last week, Power, now US Ambassador to the UN, made an impassioned and futile speech in the Security Council.

"Is there literally nothing that can shame you?" - @AmbassadorPower's extraordinary attack on Syria, Russia and Iran over deaths in #Aleppo pic.twitter.com/Ue87QfEGU7

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) December 13, 2016

 Follow

Channel 4 News 

✔@Channel4News

"Is there literally nothing that can shame you?" - @AmbassadorPower's extraordinary attack on Syria, Russia and Iran over deaths in #Aleppo

2:09 PM - 13 Dec 2016

 
•  20,87820,878 Retweets
 
•  19,60719,607 likes

“Aleppo will join the ranks of those events in world history that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later. Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and, now, Aleppo,” she said. She pointed the finger at Syria, Russia and Iran.  “When one day there is a full accounting of the horrors committed in this assault of Aleppo – and that day will come, sooner or later – you will not be able to say you did not know what was happening. You will not be able to say you were not involved. We all know what is happening. And we all know you are involved,” she said.

Generals say there is always a tendency to fight the last war – in other words, to base your strategy on what the enemy did last time. Politicians are the same. They didn’t intervene in Rwanda because they were still obsessed with the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia, where a US helicopter was shot down and the pilots killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Similarly, after the debacles in Iraq and Libya, President Obama had no appetite for intervention in Syria despite the entreaties of Power and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Yet non-intervention has consequences too, political as well as humanitarian. By not intervening in Syria, including refusing to punish President Bashar al Assad when he crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons against civilians, Obama signalled that he would cede influence in the Middle East. President Vladimir Putin was ready to fill the space. Many Americans (and Europeans) are against intervention these days, but it’s important to understand that if the US doesn’t, someone else will. Many object to the way the US wields power in the world, but the alternative is not no-one wielding power, it’s Russia, or maybe in the future, China, dictating terms.

At this point it’s very hard to see what, beyond pushing for safe corridors and ceasefires, the US and European governments can do. It’s too late for the kind of intervention that might have established a ‘no-fly zone’ to protect civilians, and far too late for robust support to the non-Islamist rebels who have dwindled in number. There’s no guarantee that either tactic would have worked. A Syrian journalist I know just emailed me: “All what we want now is just to get the besieged people out, then everything would be whatever.”

Two years after the genocide in Rwanda I stood in a court in Arusha, Tanzania, and testified to what I had seen in those terrible, unforgettable days. Journalists usually refuse to appear as witnesses, but I felt that I had been in a unique situation, the only foreign correspondent who had happened to be there when the genocide started, a helpless observer who had done nothing to save any lives. I was laying history to rest. Nearly all the organisers of the genocide in Rwanda were tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and most are still serving gaol sentences. That was something, but it was too late to save Marcel and Monica’s children and up to a million other Rwandans. And it is cold comfort to the people of Eastern Aleppo today.

Hasina-Modi Nexus

Conspiracy against the peace, prosperity and solidarity of a country in itself is a very heinous form of terrorism and Mr. Modi admitted that his country had been involved in this type of terrorism

by Ali Sukhanver-Dec 15, 2016

(December 15, Islamabad, Sri Lanka Guardian) Unfortunate are those who are always lonely and companionless but more unlucky are those whose companions are continuously like a pain in their neck. Standing along the Line of Control, looking across the border into the land belonging to India, we the Pakistanis wish that we were alone and companionless as the company of our closest neighbour India is simply like a pain in the neck. From the war imposed on us in 1965 to the tragic Fall of Dacca in 1971, and then to APS Peshawar massacre on16 December 2015, so many times this closest neighbour of us tried to make us believe with its brutal behaviour that one must be careful of one’s neighbours. To tell you the truth, it is India’s selfish attitude which has simply destroyed the peace and prosperity of the whole region. None of the countries in the Indian neighbourhood is safe at the hands of Indian hegemonic designs.

Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, Bhutan and even India’s bride Bangladesh, there is not even a single country which could say that it has no conflicting issues with India. What is the root cause of India’s enmity with its neighbouring countries, what are the factors which have made India hostile to its neighbours; no one knows. But one thing is very much obvious that the South-Asian region could have been a paradise of peace and prosperity on earth if India had not been so hostile and aggressive to its neighbouring countries.
Some people say that it is Mr. Modi who after coming into power has added fuel to the Indian fire of aggression and hostility to the neighbouring countries but the Indian desire of weakening the neighbouring countries cannot be entitled to Mr. Modi only; it had been the desire of all those who had been ruling India since 1947. Certainly in 1971, Modi was not the Prime Minister of India when Pakistan was divided into two separate portions after a very cunning game of conspiracies. Those were the days when militarily Pakistan was not in such a strong position as it is today but even then the politicians and armed forces of Pakistan did their best to counter Indian conspiracies with their unfathomable courage and passions. Though the Indian authorities have always been denying any of their involvement in separating the East Pakistan from the West Pakistan but credit goes to Mr. Modi that he very openly and boldly rejected this denial. Speaking at the ceremony to receive the award ‘Bangladesh Liberation War Honour’ from President Abdul Hamid in Dacca in June 2015, he said that he was one of the young volunteers who came to Delhi in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement launched by Jana Sangh to garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. He further admitted that there had been a conspiracy to divide Pakistan; the establishment of Bangladesh was a desire of every Indian and that’s why India’s forces fought along with the Mukti Bahini, thus creating a new country. In short Mr. Modi openly admitted his country’s involvement in creating disturbance in a neighbouring country Pakistan.

Conspiracy against the peace, prosperity and solidarity of a country in itself is a very heinous form of terrorism and Mr. Modi admitted that his country had been involved in this type of terrorism. While admitting this crime, Mr. Modi could not remember that he himself had ever been blaming Pakistan of promoting terrorism and sheltering terrorists. During the said hate speech he was so much over-excited that he forgot his own earlier statement in which he had described terrorism as an “enemy of humanity”. He said, “What have terrorists given to the world? Terrorists don’t respect boundaries; they have no ideology, no principles and no culture. They have only one intention – to be the enemy of humanity.” Mr. Modi was very true and honest in his statement because he himself had been a part of the terrorism against a neighbouring country.

But there is another side of the picture too; Modi-like volunteers who were involved in that conspiracy did not know that by dividing Pakistan into two portions, they are adding a new Muslim country Bangladesh to the world map. At present Bangladesh seems playing in the hands of Hasina Wajid but situation would be altogether otherwise when there is no Hasina sitting in India’s lap.

Apparently the brave people of Bangladesh are silently observing the atrocities committed by Hasina Wajid, they are witnessing the hanging of old and agile leaders of Jamat-i-Islami, they are passively on looking the cruel game being played by Hasina Wajid and her Indian benefactors; but soon the silently boiling volcano within them is going to explode. Sheikh Hasina will have to pay the price for the bloodshed she is enjoying.

Sectarian carnage in Cairo, ethnic reconciliation in Serbia

December 14, 2016, 12:00 pm 

Egyptian security forces inspect the scene of a bomb explosion at the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo on December 11, 2016 - AFP

Very specifically, the target in these religion-based terror attacks is secularism, because it is only in a vibrant secular state that one finds government efforts in the direction of religious equality, unity and peace. It ought to be clear that, given this premise, secularism is an essential core of democracy. This is because it is only in a truly democratic system of government that equality in all its dimensions is made manifest. Consequently, those seeking to end religious tolerance and unity are in fact seeking an end to democracy. This is the reason why religious fanaticism and intolerance need to be rooted out tooth-and-nail.

The bombing of a Coptic Christian church in Cairo by suspected Jihadists, which claimed well over 20 lives, is a dastardly act that would further divide religious communities in Egypt and outside it, while aggravating security concerns in particularly the West.

However, along with this major ‘minus’ in international developments comes an almost simultaneous huge ‘plus’ in the form of unprecedented moves towards what could be seen as ethnic reconciliation, in Serbia. Whereas the terror in Egypt should plunge ethnic and religious peace builders the world over into overwhelming sorrow, the events in Serbia should tend to give the same sections tremendous hope and courage to persist in their efforts towards social peace and wholeness. For, who would have imagined that conflict-ridden and ethnically segmented Serbia would seek to bring those responsible for the shocking Srebrenica massacre of 1995 to justice? This is delayed justice, but delayed justice is preferable to no justice.

Over the past 20 years and more, accountability over the Srebrenica mass carnage, that featured the brutal killing of some 8000 Muslim men and boys in Bosnia by Serbian security forces at the height of the convulsive Balkan wars, is an issue that has gone unresolved. Although some other major Balkan war atrocities had been inquired into by the international community with some consistency over the years, the Srebrenica massacre and the issues that grew out of it, did not seem to receive the attention they deserved either locally or internationally, although calls for justice never died down. But, it is a matter for rejoicing that an accountability process over the horror is now taking shape and that the initiative is being taken by none other than Serbia, which was viewed as the aggressor state, to bring the suspected perpetrators of the massacre to justice.

These momentous developments in Serbia notwithstanding, it is the bombing of the Coptic church in Egypt, that has ‘grabbed the headlines’. The incident is sufficient proof that the armed challenges to secularism are not merely alive but growing. It is public knowledge that minority religious communities in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions, in particular, have been the targets of terror attacks over the past decade and more. This wave of terror spiked after 9/11 and foreign and security policy makers of the West in particular have been agonizing over how this disturbing trend could be contained.

Very specifically, the target in these religion-based terror attacks is secularism, because it is only in a vibrant secular state that one finds government efforts in the direction of religious equality, unity and peace. It ought to be clear that, given this premise, secularism is an essential core of democracy. This is because it is only in a truly democratic system of government that equality in all its dimensions is made manifest. Consequently, those seeking to end religious tolerance and unity are in fact seeking an end to democracy. This is the reason why religious fanaticism and intolerance need to be rooted out tooth-and-nail.

How would a Donald Trump-run US administration react to these developments? This question is vital because, thus far, the Trump camp has been manifesting confused and superficial thinking on foreign and security policy issues. In fact, the camp is yet to come out with any coherent and constructive foreign policy formulations. Unfortunately, whereas the pro-Trump US public should have been questioning the Trump campaign very searchingly on these issues, all that they have done is endorse their candidate ‘with no questions asked’. How do they expect a Trump presidency to manage the widespread problem of extremist terror?

However, the Barack Obama administration has made it amply clear that a purely military response to extremism of any kind would not yield the best results. It has also emphatically endorsed secularism and religious tolerance. Needless to say, these values provide democracy with the nourishment it needs to grow.

Hopefully, the Trump camp has learned a few lessons from the George Bush Jnr. Tenure, when US efforts to fight terror militarily, in the main, only made the world a more dangerous place to live in. What is important to bear in mind is that while managing terror, governments cannot undermine the core values that sustain democracy.

The developments in Serbia in connection with the Srebrenica horror, however, indicate that all is not lost for humanity, ethnic reconciliation and democracy. What is of note is that the Serbian state is not baulking at the challenge of bringing suspect Serbian military personnel to justice over the incident. In other words, the Serbian state has successfully overcome Serbian ethnicity or majoritarian chauvinism. The state in this instance is operating entirely on the basis of democratic values and secularism, that oblige it to dispense justice impartially.

What is more, the Serbian state is seeing accountability by Serb military leaders for war crimes as central to ethnic reconciliation. ‘This is a very important case as Serbia needs to face its past...Without that there can be no catharsis, no reconciliation in the region’, Serbia’s former war crimes prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevik was quoted saying.

The international community could be said to have turned a corner with these initiatives by the Serbian government. A state may be multi-ethnic in composition but its government, if it is of a democratic orientation, is obliged to rise above narrow nationalistic sentiments and dispense justice impartially in disputes involving its communities. If it does not do so, it cannot be described as democratic. Rather, it bears a close affinity to the fascistic state brought into being by German dictator Adolf Hitler in the early thirties.

The international community, while backing Serbia in this context, would need to staunchly oppose and outlaw all political forces and actors that undermine secularism and kindred values that keep democracy alive. If a Trump presidency is seen as siding with the enemies of democracy, the UN, for instance, should be in a position to challenge it and point out the error of its ways. This ought to remind us that the UN system ought to be continually strengthened and reformed to meet these challenges.