I will continue my struggle

Organizing is hard work, but it’s the only thing that is guaranteed to make change in this world. (Lorie Shaull)

Rasmea Odeh-5 April 2017

I was an infant during the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe in Palestine. Growing up I heard many stories of pain and bitterness from my family, who were forced, along with 750,000 other Palestinians, to leave the homes, lands, lives and memories they had built for generations.

Now I face a similar Nakba, forced to leave the country and the life that I built for myself over 23 years in the US – the relationships, the memories and all the people I know and love, especially the women of Chicago’s Arab community.

But I will continue my struggle for justice for my people wherever I land. I will continue the struggle for the right of return, for self-determination and for the establishment of a democratic state on the entirety of the historic land of Palestine.

When I immigrated to this country and found myself in Chicago, after many years of working on women’s rights and other legal advocacy issues in the Arab world, I found psychological tranquility and stability amongst family and new friends, far away from any kind of fear or threats. I determined that this would be my second home, where I would build a life amongst a Palestinian community that I love and respect so dearly.

Community and struggle

I have been a community organizer for the past 13 years with the Arab Women’s Committee, a project of the Arab American Action Network. I have spent the best years of my life with these Arab immigrant and refugee women. We protect each other, and struggle for justice together through our organizing work. They are all helping me to live a generous and simple life, and forget a lot of my personal pain.

We created this committee from scratch; it now has over 700 members. The committee promotes leadership by and for Arab women, to build their capacity to fight for social change, and to challenge systems of oppression like racial profiling, sexism and patriarchy. We built a formation of immigrant and refugee women who fight for their own rights and the rights of all oppressed peoples.

We all have a role to play in our own cities, our own neighborhoods. Organizing is difficult. It’s hard work, but it’s the only thing that is guaranteed to make change in this world.

White people didn’t just decide to give up their power and allow people their civil rights. It was fought for in a Black-led movement that inspired the whole world, and it is still being fought for. Mubarak in Egypt didn’t just walk away quietly from his presidency. It took 10 million workers on strike to push him out, and that revolution is still not complete.

The Arab American Action Network was one of the leaders of the shutdown of O’Hare International Airport in Chicago the day after Trump’s Muslim Ban was announced. We helped get 5,000 people to that airport over two days, and thousands more shut down a number of other airports in the US.

Later that same weekend, a federal court froze that executive order, but it wouldn’t have happened without the mass movement in the streets. Trump lost Muslim Ban 2.0 as well, and the Republican bill to take healthcare away from millions, and he will lose many times more. Even though he said he was going to win more than any other president, he keeps losing because people in the US are in the streets resisting every single day.

Our role in Palestine’s liberation

Of course, Zionists aren’t going to stop their land grab in Palestine either. The Palestinians there — and the Palestinians and our supporters here — have to stop them with our resistance and our organizing. With boycott, divestment and sanctions – including the cultural and academic boycott of Israel. With challenging the Jewish United Fund in Chicago, and with shutting down Zionists when they try to defend their war crimes. With defending our students and our community-based institutions and our organizers and our allies when they get attacked.

Many hundreds of Palestinians and our supporters in the US have had to face government repression because of our organizing for peace and justice, and it is important that all of you continue your activism despite the attacks, because we are doing effective work in this country that is having an impact. Our community organizations, our student organizers, our academics, our solidarity activists — all exposing Israel for the criminal, apartheid state that it is.

There is a long history of repression against oppressed communities in this country. Law enforcement goes after those, like the Black liberation movement and so many others, who are fighting for social justice, those who want to make a difference in the world.

We are those people, and we will be targeted, but we should understand that we have the support of millions of others around the world who share our vision of historical Palestine liberated from Zionism, where all Palestinian refugees can return to their original homes, and where everyone there can live together with dignity and equal rights.

I am going to have to leave the life I have built for more than a decade at some point in the next few months. I am going to have to leave Chicago and all the beautiful people who have welcomed me so warmly to this country and this city. But I will still be organizing wherever I end up.

And I’ll be watching developments in the US very closely, because besides Palestine, this is the main front of the battle for the liberation of my homeland. And liberation we will win.

This essay is adapted from speeches delivered by Rasmea Odeh at the Crossroads Fund Seeds of Change event on 31 March 2017 and at the Jewish Voice for Peace national conference on 2 April 2017.

Rasmea Odeh is Associate Director of the Arab American Action Network.

U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government

Washington Post reporter Dan Lamothe explains why President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian military airfield on April 6 and what this means for the fight against the Islamic State. (Sarah Parnass, Julio Negron/The Washington Post)

By Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan and Thomas Gibbons-Neff April 7 at 6:20 AM

The U.S. military launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

Syria and Russia swiftly denounced the attack.

A statement by Syria’s military said the U.S. “aggression” had killed at least six people and indirectly aided militant factions such as the Islamic State by weakening Syrian forces. Separately, Syria’s state news agency SANA reported that at least nine civilians, including four children, were killed near the air base. Neither report could be independently verified.

In Moscow, Russia announced it was pulling out of a pact with Washington to share information about warplane missions over Syria, where a U.S.-led coalition is also waging airstrikes on Islamic State targets.

Russian President Vladi­mir Putin called for an immediate meeting of the U.N. Security Council and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, called the U.S. missile strikes “violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext.”

But President Trump said the strike was in the “vital national security interest” of the United States and called on “all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria. And also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.”

“We ask for God’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world,” he continued. “We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America stands for justice then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.”

[U.S. strike against Syria: How did we get here?]

The missiles were launched from two Navy destroyers — the USS Ross and USS Porter — in the eastern Mediterranean. They struck an air base called Shayrat in Homs province, which is the site from which the planes that conducted the chemical attack in Idlib are believed to have originated. The targets included air defenses, aircraft, hangars and fuel.

The U.S. military said initial indications were that the strike had “severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure.”

Syrian state TV said a U.S. missile attack hit a number of military targets inside the country, calling the attack an “aggression,” according to the Associated Press.

President Trump made a statement on April 6 after U.S. forces launched more than 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late Thursday. The Trump administration authorized the attack in retaliation after a chemical attack against civilians. (The Washington Post)

U.S. officials said the Russians, who maintain significant forces in Syria, were given advance warning of the strike. There is a Russian military area at the base that was hit, but the U.S. took precautions not to strike that area, according to Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

In comparison, the start of the Iraq war in 2003 saw the use of roughly 500 cruise missiles and 47 were fired at the opening of the anti-Islamic State campaign in Syria in 2014.

[These are the missiles the U.S. used in the strike against Syria]

The attack may put hundreds of American troops now stationed in Syria in greater danger. They are advising local forces in advance of a major assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital.

The decision to strike follows 48 hours of intense deliberations by U.S. officials, and represents a significant break with the previous administration’s reluctance to wade militarily into the Syrian civil war and shift any focus from the campaign against the Islamic State.

Senior White House officials met on the issue of Syria Wednesday evening in a session that lasted into early Thursday, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, have communicated repeatedly since Tuesday’s chemical attack, the officials said.

The U.S. Central Command has had plans for striking the Syrian government for years and currently has significant assets in the region, enabling a quick response once a decision was made.

While the Obama White House began operations against the Islamic State in 2014, it backed away from a planned assault on Syrian government sites a year earlier after a similar chemical attack on Syrian civilians.

Tuesday’s apparent nerve gas attack in northern Idlib, with its widely circulated images of lifeless children, appears to have galvanized Trump and some of his top advisers to harden their position against the Syrian leader.

The assault adds new complexity to Syria’s prolonged conflict, which includes fighters battling the Syrian government and others focused on combating the Islamic State, which despite over two years of American and allied attacks remains a potent force.

[Deadly nerve agent sarin used in Syria attack, Turkish Health Ministry says]

Within the administration, some officials urged immediate action against Assad, warning against what one described as “paralysis through analysis.” But others were concerned about second- and third-order effects, including the response of Russia, which also has installed sophisticated air-defense systems in Syria, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The Trump administration’s position on the strongman appears to have quickly shifted in the wake of the chemical attack, as senior officials voiced new criticism of the Syrian leader.

On Thursday night, McMaster predicted the strikes would result in a “big shift on Assad’s calculus. It’s the first time United States has taken direct military action.”

McMaster described a deliberative process inside the White House and National Security Council, where three options were examined at the request of the president. Trump made the final decision and the strike “clearly indicate the president is willing to take decisive action when called for.” He emphasized, however, that the move did not otherwise alter the U.S. military’s posture in Syria.

Earlier Thursday, Tillerson suggested that the United States and other nations would consider somehow removing Assad from power, but he did not say how. Just a few days ago, the White House had said that removing Assad was not realistic with press secretary Sean Spicer saying it was necessary to accept the “political reality” in Syria.

“We are considering an appropriate response for this chemical weapons attack,” Tillerson said in Palm Beach, Fla., where Trump was meeting Thursday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. “It is a serious matter. It requires a serious response,” he said.

Speaking later Thursday, Tillerson recalled a 2013 agreement with Syria to hand over its chemical stockpile and for Russia to monitor that Assad not renege on that deal: “Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility on that commitment. Either Russia has been complicit or has been incompetent on its ability to deliver,” he said.

The summit with the Chinese leader will continue Friday, and some U.S. officials believe the strike will also serve as a warning of U.S. willingness to strike North Korea, if China does not act to curtail the nuclear ambitions of the government there.

[Trump condemns Syria chemical attack and suggests he will act]

It was not immediately clear whether Thursday’s assault marked the beginning of a broader campaign against the Assad government. While Thursday’s operation was the first intentional attack on Syrian government targets, the United States accidentally struck a group of Syrian soldiers in eastern Syria last year in what officials concluded was the result of human error.

The Obama administration had insisted that Assad could never remain in any postwar Syria, and it supported rebel groups that have tried unsuccessfully to oust him.

The United States has a broad arsenal already in the region, including dozens of strike aircraft on the USS George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier that is deployed to the Middle East and accompanied by guided-missile destroyers and cruisers that can also launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Additionally, an amphibious naval force in the region includes the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit with Harrier jets and Cobra gunships. The Pentagon also has scores of aircraft in the region flying operations every day against the Islamic State group, including from Incirlik air base to the north in Turkey.

[‘The hospitals were slaughterhouses’: A journey into Syria’s secret torture wards]

The attack appears to have involved only missiles. U.S. fighter planes, if used, would have had to contend with a modest web of Syrian air defenses and potentially more advanced types of surface-to-air missiles provided by Russia.

One of Assad’s more prevalent systems, the S-200, was used to target Israeli jets last month, but missiles were intercepted by Israeli defense systems. The S-200 has a range of roughly 186 miles, according to U.S. military documents, and can hit targets flying at altitudes of around 130,000 feet.

Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles, located primarily around Khmeimim air base in western Syria, have a shorter range than the S-200, but have more-advanced radar systems and fly considerably faster than their older counterparts used by Syrian forces. The S-300 has a range of roughly 90 miles and could also be used to target incoming U.S. cruise missiles.

In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the operation “sent an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, aided and abetted by Putin’s Russia, slaughters innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.”

They also called on the administration to take Assad’s air force out of the fight and follow “through with a new, comprehensive strategy in coordination with our allies and partners to end the conflict in Syria.”

David Nakamura in Palm Beach, Fla., and Abby Phillip, Anne Gearan, Carol Morello, David Weigel and Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.

The Idlib chemical attack: Assad buys time for the battle in eastern Syria

The regime may have the upper hand in western Syria, but as Turkey and the US push against IS in the east, Assad sends a warning

Maysam Behravesh-Thursday 6 April 2017

The chemical attack on Tuesday in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Syria’s Idlib province, which is still being controlled by the rebels opposed to the Assad regime, took many inside and outside of the country by surprise.  

Even Assad’s staunchest allies, namely Russians and Iranians, seem to have been surprised and even dismayed by this week's attack

Given the physical symptoms of the victims and survivors, including suffocation, most medics and chemical weapons experts believe that the incident was an “air-launched” chemical attack in which a nerve agent such as sarin gas was deployed from the sky. So far, at least 70 people have been killed and many more wounded.

While no party has claimed responsibility for the attack, the extant evidence suggests that the Assad regime is behind the carnage though the apparent strategic irrationality of the action has left many wondering why.

How allies reacted

The Khan Sheikhoun incident represents the deadliest chemical attack in the course of the Syrian civil war since August 2013. That's when an aerial bombardment using sarin in the Ghouta region near Damascus killed hundreds of people. The attack violated former US president Barack Obama’s “red line” but finally led, with Russian mediation, to the disarmament of Syria’s chemical arsenal.

Chemical attack victims are buried in a grave in Khan Sheikhun, Idlib, Syria (AFP)

Even Assad’s staunchest allies, namely Russians and Iranians, seem to have been surprised and even dismayed by this week's attack.

Iran, which has consistently offered the Syrian regime unwavering military and political support throughout the civil war, refused to heap the blame on any conflicting party and instead only condemned the act “regardless of its perpetrators and victims”.

The Russian defence ministry, on the other hand, confirmed that the Syrian air force had conducted aerial attacks in the Khan Sheikhoun area, but claimed that the air strikes targeted a “terrorist warehouse” where an arsenal of “toxic substances” had been stored.

Read more ►

The chemical realities of Russia's Idlib attack claims

Yet the Russian narrative, which points the finger of blame at an alleged Syrian opposition chemical warehouse, has been scientifically dismissed. According to Hamish de Bretton Gordon, director of Doctors Under Fire and former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, “I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful...Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.”

So if we accept that the Syrian government has committed yet another deadly chemical attack against its own people, its motives are still not easy to ascertain. What could the Assad regime gain from such a morally abominable and politically counterproductive action after all?  

Assad’s strategic motives 

Strategically speaking, the timing of the attack may provide some clues. The Khan Sheikhoun carnage occurred exactly one day after the terrorist bombing of the St Petersburg metro and shortly after the Trump administration declared that removing Assad from power in Syria was no longer Washington’s foreign policy priority.

In this sense, Assad may have been motivated to test the US government’s policy shift towards the Syrian civil war while resting assured that the atmosphere of resentment prevailing in the Kremlin after the St Petersburg attack meant Russians were psychologically, if not politically, ready to take such a shock.   

Relatives of the victims of the metro blast in St Petersburg on 3 April attend a memorial service at the city's Trinity Cathedral on this week (AFP)

Yet to better understand the strategic “logic” of the Khan Sheikhoun assault - which otherwise seems quite ill-advised and counterproductive - one needs to consider the wider picture of the civil war including the international campaign against the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and in Iraq.

Regime eyes the east?

Some might naturally tend to think that, given the recent course of developments in favour of Assad and his consequential upper hand in the war, there was no reason for the regime to take such unconventional action. Accordingly, the rebels might have hatched a trap and lured the government into attacking Idlib, or so the argument goes. This is basically what the Russian narrative suggests as well.    

The unconventional Khan Sheikhoun assault can also serve as an act of 'costly signalling', alerting its opponents that the Syrian regime is ready to go to great lengths to secure its territorial sovereignty

The fact of the matter, however, is that while the Syrian regime generally enjoys the upper hand in the western half of the country - which was basically achieved after the recapture of Aleppo and later consolidated with the rebel evacuation of Homs - its control over the eastern half is arguably slim. This applies in particular to the oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor near the Iraqi border and the strategically significant city of Raqqa, or the current Islamic State group capital.

With this in mind, the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack, however risky it may appear, might be intended to divert international attention to the Idlib province with the ultimate purpose of paving the ground for the regime's concentration of resources on the east and northeast.

It is a vast chunk of territory where all the Syrian government’s nemeses from the Turks to Americans are much better positioned to gain ground after the defeat of IS in Iraq. It is no wonder that, in an unprecedented move, the US military recently airlifted around 500 Kurdish and Arab fighters from the “Syrian Democratic Forces” to the outskirts of Raqqa. The international scramble for the eastern part of Syria has long since begun.

Given the rumours in some Western circles about the potential formation of an autonomous zone for Sunni Arabs and Kurds in eastern Syria, the unconventional Khan Sheikhoun assault can also serve as an act of “costly signalling”, alerting its opponents that the Syrian regime is ready to go to great lengths to secure its territorial sovereignty including even war crimes and the mass murder of civilians. 

- Maysam Behravesh is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science and a Research Fellow in the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES), Lund University. He was a senior editor of the Wiley-published journal Asian Politics & Policy and editorial assistant of the Sage-published quarterly Cooperation and Conflict. Maysam is also a regular contributor to Persian-language media outlets including BBC Persian.           

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaking during an interview with Denmark's TV2 channel in October 2016 (AFP)

Nunes, Facing Ethics Inquiry, Steps Down From House Russia Probe

BY ELIAS GROLL-APRIL 6, 2017

Facing a firestorm of criticism that he is running political interference on behalf of the Trump administration, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.) said Thursday he is temporarily stepping back from leading the panel’s investigation of the Russian campaign to meddle in the U.S. election.

In a statement Thursday, Nunes said that he will hand over leadership of the probe to Rep. Mike Conaway (R.-Texas), with the aid of Reps. Trey Gowdy (R.-S.C.) and Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), while the chairman is investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Activist groups have filed complaints against Nunes for allegedly improperly disclosing classified information. Nunes called the charges “entirely false and politically motivated” and said they come “just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power.”

Nunes has claimed that American intelligence agencies improperly revealed the identities of Trump aides mentioned in foreign intelligence reports and that Trump lieutenants may have been improperly surveilled.

That information was reportedly supplied to Nunes by White House aides, raising questions about whether the California Republican has sufficient independence from the Trump administration — for which he served as a transition official — to run a credible investigation. The scope of that investigation includes an examination of whether Trump aides coordinated with the Kremlin in its campaign to boost the GOP real estate mogul’s electoral chances.

Those hoping to see a more independent investigation by the House panel may not be much assuaged by the elevation of Conway and Gowdy. During last month’s high-profile open hearing with FBI director James Comey, in which he revealed the agency had been investigating the Trump camp’s ties to Russia since last summer, Conway pressed Comey to explain why he thought the Kremlin was trying to boost Trump. He has also claimed that Hispanic artists who played at Hillary Clinton rallies during the campaign are the equivalent of Russia’s foreign interference in the election.

And Gowdy was the driving force behind the two-and-a-half-year inquisition into the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 that sought to pillory the former secretary of state. After burning through millions of dollars of taxpayer money, the panel could find no evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton’s part.

In a statement, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif), the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he looked forward to working with Conaway to get the investigation “fully back on track.”

“The important work of investigating the Russian involvement in our election never subsided, but we have a fresh opportunity to move forward in the unified and nonpartisan way that an investigation of this seriousness demands,” Schiff said.

The House Intelligence Committee is running one of the two marquee congressional investigations of the Russian campaign — the other led by the Senate Intelligence Committee — but its efforts have become mired in partisan political differences. Republicans on the committee have tried to refocus the probe on leaks of classified information, and in recent days have pushed the probe toward examining what Nunes has described as the improper unmasking of the identities of Trump aides named in U.S. surveillance reports.

Republicans now appear to be focusing their investigation on the actions of former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who reportedly requested the unmasking of U.S. persons mentioned in intelligence reports about the Russian meddling campaign.

In a Wednesday interview with the New York Times, President Trump claimed with no evidence that Rice had committed an unspecified crime by requesting the unmasking, a routine procedure intelligence officials use when the identity of a person is needed to evaluate the intelligence value of a report.

Russia in Waziristan; Kabul Needs Support, Not Competition

by Alexander Murray-Apr 6, 2017

( April 6, 2017, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) As the recent explosions on the St Petersburg metro are assessed, a continuing theme across the world is the question of whether or not a militant terror network was involved and if so, is it of a transnational design. Due to recurring attacks claimed and attributed to Daesh, this is a common global concern.

Understanding that the presence of transnational terror networks occurs most frequently in governing vacuums partnered with areas of relative ease of economic activity is essential to combatting this concern. For these reasons, eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan must be secured by their national governments in both a military and civil capacity. As US support in the region wavers, Russia continues to amplify its presence and rightfully so. It is the manner in which these supporting actors augment their presence which must be questioned.

On 30 March, a Russian military delegation accompanied its Pakistani counterpart through areas of North and South Waziristan to assess the Pakistani XI Corps’ progress against extremist militants in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. As Washington struggles to develop a new counterinsurgency strategy for assisting Afghanistan’s National Unity Government (NUG) and the Pakistani government of Nawaz Sharif, Moscow has recognized a looming threat. Just as the United States left the region in shambles during the aftermath of the anti-Soviet struggle and subsequent Afghan Civil War, the region threatens to descend into a similar political vacuum.

During the 1990’s, militant political extremism in the greater Afghan area was primarily directed at western democracies and India. Afghanistan found itself a hub of militancy centered on these targets. As a result of the complacency and covert support of the Pakistani state, the backwater that was Afghanistan of the 1990s was able to efficiently receive militants, funding, and sanctuary with relative ease. It was not the Taliban that partook in a global militancy; it was Lashkar-e-Taiba and Al-Qaeda who were allowed sanctuary by the Taliban and its membership allowed transit by the ISI.

Similarly, there exists a global concern that growing Afghan instability will allow a similar situation as it pertains to the previously mentioned groups among many. However, Daesh now stands as the terror network of primary concern given its notoriety for activities around the world. This is primarily why Russia has newly involved itself in the Afghan quagmire and why actors around the world should be conspiring to resolve the Afghan security conundrum.

There is no need to mince words when saying that Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, and the United States have a multitude of differing interests in the region. However, the one cause around which they must unite is that of combatting Daesh in Afghanistan.

From Boko Haram in central Africa to separatist groups in the Philippines, the black flag of Daesh continues to be utilized as a means to further domestic insurgencies of a Sunni Islamic nature. The case of Afghanistan is no different. Daesh waxes as the Taliban wanes and vice versa. What must be changed is a removal of the space required for domestic insurgents to utilize the Daesh brand to accomplish this in Afghanistan.

Currently, the Afghan Taliban stands by its 2015 declaration of war on Daesh in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s greatest concern with Daesh is its ability to sap recruits from Taliban ranks, and a proclaimed war on defectors ensures loyalty.

Though there is validity in disputing Russian claims that its continued engagement with the Taliban is intended to combat Daesh, this should not continue to stand in the way of Kabul and Washington dealing with Moscow concerning the deteriorating Afghan security situation.

On 22-24 March, Washington hosted a conference of sixty-eight nations intent on combating Daesh. In the concluding declaration, the enormous group directed most of their recommendations toward means of fighting Daesh in Syria and Iraq but provided little comment on its presence beyond there specifically. In one sentence, the NUG was praised for its efforts in combating Daesh in Afghanistan.

Notably absent from the conference was Russia. Moscow, due to host its own conference on combating Daesh in south central Asia, has however extended an invitation to Washington. Though topically relevant to the US-led coalition in Afghanistan, representatives of the US government have categorically declined the invitation citing uncertainty of the meeting’s agenda.

Regarding Daesh in Afghanistan, both of these major international meetings are missing key components required to solve the security dilemma. NUG and coalition forces tasked with building the capabilities and legitimacy of the Afghan state, thus negating the rise of the Taliban and subsequent elements of Daesh, continue to be denied the capacity to accomplish their goals.

Initially coalition led capacity building initiatives did much to empower local governors lending itself to the short term stability witnessed post-invasion. This however handicapped elements of the national government and its ability to regulate often fractured provincial governments. Since 2001, coalition forces and their supporting governments have continued to inadequately support elements of the national government towards its ability to secure the state and gain legitimacy in the eyes of residents beyond Kabul.

Though very different in its desired ends, the Pakistani government has simultaneously executed this policy with Afghan groups outside the Afghan government, most notably the mujahadeen of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s. Even throughout the post 9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, the Pakistani state has pursued provincial interests at the expense of the national government in Kabul by supporting political vacuums to accommodate militant groups aligned with Pakistani regional interests.

Limited in support from its inception, the Afghan national government continues to lose patronage from wealthy countries abroad whose backing is conditioned on repatriation of Afghan refugees. Rather than understanding the domestic ramifications of Afghan insecurity abroad via Daesh, EU countries primarily see an Afghan threat coming financially from a burdensome multitude of Afghan refugees. Before refugees can be successfully welcomed home, support must exist to secure their arrival.

As thoughtful as conferences regarding the rise of Daesh in Afghanistan maybe, excluding influential actors and abstaining for political manoeuvring does little to accomplish the intended goals. While Washington and Moscow have every reason to suspect one another of ulterior motives, Kabul is right to send delegations to both.

Everyone involved should be concerned about the rise of Daesh in Afghanistan, not because the threat to them is currently real, but rather because if Afghan security continues to crumble, the threat will be allowed to actualize itself. Good governance is the solution to this, and it must come from the internationally recognized government in Kabul.

If provincial autonomy is the correct answer to Afghanistan’s governing woes- that decision must be made by Kabul. It is that power which must be ceded by the national government, not provided by outside patrons. When many mouths are fed by many hands, there is no reason for unity. But potentially, when one hands feeds the many mouths, the many competing Afghan factions will see that they are all united in the same goal.

(The author is a political analyst from the University of Chicago. He can be reached at e-mail murray.analysis@gmail.com)

Friendship is a flowing river: Sheikh Hasina writes for The Hindu

If our commitments are honest, India and Bangladesh can achieve many things that are beneficial to our people

Sheikh Hasina  

Sheikh Hasina
-APRIL 07, 2017


Maintenance of good relations with the neighbours;
friendship to all, malice to none is the policy I pursue throughout my life. My only desire in my political thought is to build a society for common people where none will suffer from the curse of poverty while their basic needs will be met. In other words, they will get the opportunity to have the right to food, clothing, shelter, medicare, education, improved livelihood and a decent life.

I received the teaching of such sacrifice from my father. My father, Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, did his politics with a motto to change the lot of the people. Wherever there was an injustice, he would protest it. This was the policy of Bangabandhu and he was always vocal for establishing the rights of the people. And, for that reason, he had to embrace imprisonment time and again and endure persecution. But he remained firm on the question of principle. Bangladesh earned its independence under his leadership.

The support and cooperation of neighbouring and friendly countries had accelerated our goal to earn the independence of Bangladesh. Among those, India played the leading role.

India’s helping hand

The Pakistani military junta started a genocide launching armed attacks on the innocent Bangalees on March 25, 1971.

In the 1970 general elections, people of Bangladesh voted for Bangladesh Awami League and made it the majority party. This is for the first time that Bangalees had got the mandate to rule Pakistan. Although the population of East Bengal constituted the majority in Pakistan, the Bangalee nation was subjected to oppression and subjugation all the time, and deprived of its rights. The nation was about to lose its right to speak in the mother tongue. It was unthinkable to the military rulers that the Bangalee nation would ascend to state power and that was why they imposed the uneven war on Bangalees.

With the people’s mandate, the Father of the Nation declared the independence of Bangladesh and directed the people to carry on the war of liberation. Responding to his call, the people of Bangladesh took arms and the liberation war began. The Pakistani rulers and their local collaborators engaged in committing genocide, rape, looting, arson and attacked the innocent people of Bangladesh. The world woke up. People and the Government of India stood beside the oppressed humanity. They gave food and shelter to nearly 10 million refugees of Bangladesh. They extended all-out cooperation in our great liberation war and played an important role in creating global opinion in favour of Bangladesh. This helped us to earn victory and the country was freed from enemy occupation.

We are grateful to the friendly people of India. The Indian government had played an important role even in getting Bangabandhu released from the Pakistani prison. Shrimati Indira Gandhi had played the leading role in earning our independence, freedom of Bangabandhu and bringing him back to his beloved people. We got her government, political parties and above all the people of India beside us during our hard times.

The killers brutally assassinated the Father of the Nation on August 15, 1975. I lost 18 of my family members, including my mother, three brothers and sister-in-laws. I, along with my younger sister Rehana, survived as we were abroad. In our bad days, India again stood beside us. I could not come back home for six long years. The Bangladesh Awami League elected me its president in my absence. I returned home with the support of the people.

 

In Bangabandhu’s foosteps

On my return, I started a movement for the restoration of people’s basic rights and democracy. We formed the government in 1996 after 21 years. I got the opportunity to work for the people. I devoted myself to the task of welfare of my countrymen not as a ruler but as a servant. My father got the opportunity to build the war-ravaged country for only three and a half years. And I got the chance to serve the people after 21 years.

During that time, the people of Bangladesh realised that the objective of a government is to accomplish the task of people’s welfare. We signed the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Treaty ending the two-decade-long conflict. We brought back 62,000 refugees from India and rehabilitated them in the country. We signed the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with India. The country’s image brightened in the outside world.

Two steps back

A five-year period is too short for the development of any country. We couldn’t win the election of 2001. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party-Jamaat-e-Islami assumed state power and destroyed all our achievements. Again, the country’s progress suffered a setback. Militancy, terrorism, corruption and misrule made people’s life miserable. The country became champions in the corruption index five times. The minority community became victims of torture. The country’s socio-economic development had been stalled. The Awami League leaders and workers became targets of persecution. Bangladesh once again fell under emergency rule. We demanded restoration of democracy. We faced jail, torture and false cases. But finally, people triumphed.

The national election was held after seven years in 2008. Winning the election, we formed the government. We started implementation of a Five Year Plan and 10-year-long Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan. We have been working to turn Bangladesh into a middle-income country by 2021 and a developed one by 2041. The people of Bangladesh started getting the benefit of it.

Bangladesh is marching ahead. We earned over 7.1% GDP growth. Inflation is contained within 5.28% and the poverty rate has been reduced to 22%. At this moment, on many socio-economic indicators, Bangladesh’s standing is better than many other South Asian nations whereas a few years ago our position was at the bottom. But we still have a long way to go to ensure prosperity of the people. And we are working towards that end.

My objective is to fulfil the dream of Bangabandhu through building a hunger- and poverty-free Golden Bangladesh being imbued with the spirit of the War of Liberation.

Regional cooperation the key

I always refer to poverty as the main enemy of this region. A large number of people of Bangladesh and India suffer from malnutrition. They are deprived of their basic needs. Lack of nutrition is impeding the growth of a huge number of children. They don’t have proper medicare and schooling. We have to change this scenario. We have the ability. The only thing we need is to change our mentality. I think eradication of poverty should be the first and foremost priority of our political leaders. And, in today’s globalised world, it is difficult to do something in isolation. Rather, collaboration and cooperation can make many things easier. That is why I always put emphasis on regional cooperation and improved connectivity.

I believe in peace. Only peaceful co-existence can ensure peace. There are some issues between us. But I believe that any problem can be resolved in a peaceful manner. We have demonstrated our willpower through the implementation of the Land Boundary Agreement. There are some more issues like sharing of waters of the common rivers (the Teesta issue is currently under discussion) that need to be resolved. I’m an optimistic person. I would like to rest my trust on the goodwill of the great people and the leaders of our neighbour. I know resources are scarce, but we can share those for the benefit of the people of both countries. We share the same culture and heritage. There are a lot of commonalities (at least with West Bengal). We share our Lalon, Rabindranath, Kazi Nazrul, Jibanananda; there is similarity in our language, we are nourished by the waters of the Padma, Brahmaputra, Teesta; and so on. The Sundarbans is our common pride. We don’t have any strife over it. Then, why should there be any contention over the waters of common rivers?

Our foreign policy’s core dictum is: ‘Friendship to all, malice to none.’ The Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, defined the policy. We are also inspired from his words: “The very struggle of Bangladesh symbolised the universal struggle for peace and justice. It was, therefore, only natural that Bangladesh, from its very inception, should stand firmly by the side of the oppressed people of the world.” At international forums, we support all international efforts towards building a just and peaceful world.

In recent years, especially after 2009, when my party assumed office, cooperation between Bangladesh and India has been bolstered manifold. Rail, road, and waterway connectivity boosted. Trade, commerce and investment maximised. People-to-people contact also got momentum. Such mutual cooperation is definitely benefitting our people. Relations, at a personal or national level, largely depend on give-and-take measures. Mexican Nobel Laureate Octavio said ‘Friendship is a river’. I think that the friendship between Bangladesh and India is like a flowing river and full with generosity. This is the spirit of the people of the two neighbours. I think if our commitments are honest, we would be able to achieve many things that are beneficial to our people. On the eve of my four-day visit to India, I myself, and on behalf of my countrymen, would like to convey the heartiest greetings to the people of India. I hope that the cooperative relations between Bangladesh and India would reach a new height through my visit.

(Sheikh Hasina is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh)

Indonesia taking ‘tough’ stance on corruption with huge graft probe

7th April 2017

A CORRUPTION investigation into dozens of politicians is a cause for concern in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy, but no other country has taken such a tough stance against graft over the past decade, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said.

The anti-graft agency, known by its Indonesian initials KPK, has put on trial two suspects and is looking into claims that at least 37 people benefited from the theft of US$170 million linked to a national electronic identity card.

The accusations in a KPK indictment letter say sums ranging from US$5,000 to US$5.5 million were openly divided up in a room in parliament. Those implicated include members of President Joko Widodo’s ruling party, a minister, the speaker of parliament and opposition party members.

The scale of the alleged theft has created sensational headlines, even in a country long used to epic corruption scandals. The fact that it involves parliament will be less of a surprise. In a survey by global watchdog Transparency International, Indonesians perceived the parliament as the country’s most corrupt institution.

“If you see…so many corruption cases and (think) that means there is so much corruption, fine. But on the other hand, you can see too how Indonesia is being very tough in combating corruption,” Kalla said in an interview when asked what the e-KPT (electronic Resident Identity Card) case.

SEE ALSO: Anti-corruption improving across SE Asia, despite graft at higher levels

Despite repeated efforts by politicians and police to undermine it, the KPK has remained one of Southeast Asia’s most effective and independent agencies. It investigated 91 people last year, a record in its 15-year history, data provided by the agency showed.

“No other country has within 10 years jailed nine ministers and 19 (provincial) governors, and other high-ranking officials and members of parliament,” Kalla told Reuters.

The World Economic Forum’s 2015-16 Global Competitiveness Report said its data suggested efforts to tackle corruption were paying off, with Indonesia “improving on almost all measures related to bribery and ethics”.

Even so, Indonesia ranked 90 out of 176 countries in Transparency’s annual Corruption Perceptions index last year, on par with countries such as Liberia and Colombia.

Perfect conviction record

The KPK, which claims a 100 percent conviction record, has 1,200 staff and can wiretap without a warrant. Once it begins an investigation, there is no legal mechanism to halt it.

But taking on vested interests can come with a cost. Four years ago, the KPK had to call in public support to barricade its headquarters after a squadron of police demanded the handover of an investigator who was probing graft among top police officers.

Then there was the jailing of former KPK chief, Antasari Azhar, who claims he was framed for murder to derail an investigation into voting fraud during the 2009 presidential election. He was granted clemency this year.

SEE ALSO: Indonesia nets $330b in tax amnesty scheme, to roll out reforms next

Indonesian media have splashed the graft scandal on front pages, though President Widodo has urged the public to presume innocence until proven guilty.

The probe also comes as religious and political tensions are running high, with a bitterly fought Jakarta election emerging as a proxy fight ahead of 2019 presidential vote.

However, the fact that those identified in the KPK indictment come from most of the main parties and that any probe is likely to be lengthy should limit political fallout.

“From the start, we understood that this will not be a short process. We say it is like running a marathon,” KPK Chairman Agus Rahardjo told a briefing, where he said the agency would eventually go after the big fish implicated.

Tensions with parliament

The case dates from 2009 and centres on the alleged mark-up of the procurement budget for the government’s programme for electronic ID cards.

SEE ALSO: Indonesia’s anti-corruption agency pushes plan to combat deforestation, fires

The suspects on trial, two home ministry officials, named parliament speaker Setya Novanto and members of the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), including Justice Minister Yasonna Laoly, according to the indictment.

Laoly and Novanto have not been indicted and deny any wrongdoing.

A PDIP official said the party was questioning members and would respect any legal process.

Tensions between the KPK and parliament have festered for years and some members suggested political motives behind the probe.

Lawmakers have previously proposed reining in the KPK’s surveillance powers and allowing a parliamentary body to end graft investigations when it chooses.

An expert parliamentary body is seeking public input on revisions that would require the KPK to get permission from a supervisory council for wiretapping and allow the agency to drop a case in limited circumstances. – Reuters