Sewage tanker bomb kills at least 80, wounds hundreds in Afghan capital

By Mirwais Harooni and Josh Smith | KABUL- Wed May 31, 2017

A powerful bomb hidden in a sewage tanker exploded in the morning rush hour in the centre of Kabul on Wednesday, killing at least 80 people, wounding hundreds and damaging embassy buildings in the Afghan capital's unofficial "Green Zone".

The victims of the explosion at a busy intersection appeared mainly to have been Afghan civilians on their way to work or school, as well as office workers whose nearby buildings did not have the protection of the blast walls that fortify the zone.

The bomb, one of the deadliest in Kabul and coming at the start of the holy month of Ramadan, exploded close to the entrance to the German embassy, wounding some staff, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said.

A huge hole was ripped into the ground at the site of the explosion, which tore off the front of the embassy building and shattered windows and blew doors off their hinges in houses hundreds of metres away.

One Afghan security guard was killed and others were likely among the dead, Gabriel said. A spokeswoman for the German foreign ministry said the bomber's target was unknown.

"Such attacks do not change our resolve in continuing to support the Afghan government in the stabilization of the country," Gabriel said.

Basir Mujahid, a spokesman for the city police, said the explosives were hidden in a sewage truck. He also suggested that the German embassy might not have been the target of the blast, which sent towering clouds of black smoke into the sky near the presidential palace.

"There are several other important compounds and offices near there too," he told Reuters.

No group had claimed responsibility by Wednesday evening.

The Taliban, seeking to reimpose Islamic rule after their 2001 ouster by U.S.-led forces, denied responsibility and said they condemned attacks that have no legitimate target and killed civilians.

Islamic State, a smaller militant group in Afghanistan seeking to project its claim to a global Islamic caliphate beyond its Middle East base, has previously claimed responsibility for high-profile attacks in Kabul, including one on a military hospital in March that killed more than 50 people.

Relatives of Afghan victims mourn outside a hospital after a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan May 31, 2017.REUTERS/Omar Sobhani--Afghan policemen inspect at the site of a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan May 31, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail

Afghan officials inspect outside the German embassy after a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan May 31, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail--Afghan women mourn outside a hospital after a blast in Kabul, Afghanistan May 31, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail

The NATO-led Resolute Support (RS) mission in Kabul said Afghan security forces prevented the vehicle carrying the bomb from entering the Green Zone, which houses many foreign embassies as well as its own headquarters, also suggesting it may not have reached its intended target.

A public health official said at least 80 people had been killed and more than 350 wounded.

The United Nations Special Representative in Afghanistan, Tadamichi Yamamoto, called the attack in a heavily civilian area "morally reprehensible and an outrage".

"Today's attack is an act of terrorism and is a serious violation of humanitarian law," he said in a statement.

Germany will cease flights deporting rejected asylum seekers to Afghanistan in the next few days, a German official confirmed. Germany began carrying out group deportations of Afghans in December, seeking to show it is tackling an influx of migrants by getting rid of those who do not qualify as refugees.

As well as the German embassy, the French, Turkish and Chinese embassies were among those damaged, the three countries said, adding there were no immediate signs of injuries among their diplomats. The BBC said one of its drivers, an Afghan, was killed driving journalists to work. Four journalists were wounded and treated in hospital.

In the immediate aftermath of the blast, the scene was littered with burning debris, crumbled walls and buildings, and destroyed cars, many with dead or injured people inside. Blood streamed down the faces of walking wounded.

"FELT LIKE AN EARTHQUAKE"

At the Wazir Akbar Khan hospital a few blocks away from the blast, there were scenes of chaos as ambulances brought in wounded. Frantic relatives scanned casualty lists and questioned hospital staff for news.

"It felt like an earthquake," said 21-year-old Mohammad Hassan, describing the moment the blast struck the bank where he was working. His head wound had been bandaged but blood still soaked his white dress shirt.

Another lightly wounded victim, Nabib Ahmad, 27, said there was widespread destruction and confusion.

"I couldn't think clearly, there was a mess everywhere," he said.

Frenzy erupted outside the hospital as ambulances and police trucks began bringing in the bodies of those killed. Some were burned or mutilated beyond recognition.

Wednesday's attack underscored that Ramadan, which began at the weekend, would provide little respite from the violence across Afghanistan.

President Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack, which will add to pressure on his fragile government, already facing mounting discontent over its inability to control the insurgency and provide security for Afghan citizens.

India and Pakistan condemned the blast.

"India stands with Afghanistan in fighting all types of terrorism. Forces supporting terrorism need to be defeated," Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a tweet.

Amnesty International demanded an immediate and impartial investigation.

"Today's tragedy shows that the conflict in Afghanistan is not winding down but dangerously widening, in a way that should alarm the international community," it said in a statement.

The Taliban have been stepping up their push to defeat the U.S.-backed government. Since most international troops withdrew at the end of 2014, the Taliban have gained ground and now control or contest about 40 percent of the country, according to U.S. estimates, though Ghani's government holds all provincial centres.

U.S. President Donald Trump is due to decide soon on a recommendation to send 3,000 to 5,000 more troops to bolster the small NATO training force and U.S. counter-terrorism mission now totalling just over 10,000.

The commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, told a Congressional hearing this year that he needed several thousand more troops to help Afghan forces break a "stalemate" with the Taliban.

(Additional reporting by Josh Smith in Kabul, Kay Johnson in Islamabad, Sudip Kar-Gupta and Emmanuel Jarry in Paris, Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Madeline Chambers and Michelle Martin in Berlin, Tulay Karadeniz in Ankara and Doug Busvine in New Delhi; Writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by Nick Macfie, Sonya Hepinstall and Alex Richardson)

Israel main cause of Palestinian suffering, UN says

Palestinian children play on the rubble of their family home demolished by Israel occupation forces in the East Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood, on the pretext it lacked a virtually impossible to obtain permit, 26 October 2016. As Israel’s occupation passes 50 years, demolitions are hitting new records.

Mahfouz Abu TurkAPA images

Charlotte Silver-

 31 May 2017

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which will exceed the 50-year mark in June, is “the main cause” of Palestinian humanitarian needs, the United Nations has affirmed.

“The occupation denies Palestinians control over basic aspects of daily life, whether they live in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” according to a report released Wednesday by the UN humanitarian coordination agency OCHA.

“At its heart, the crisis in the [occupied Palestinian territories] is one of a lack of protection for Palestinian civilians – from violence, from displacement, from restrictions on access to services and livelihoods, and from other rights violations – with a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable, children in particular,” OCHA head David Carden said.

That crisis is particularly acute right now in the Gaza Strip, where a lack of electricity, on top of a 10-year Israeli blockade and successive military assaults, has brought the territory to the brink of collapse.

Demolition surge

Palestinians saw in 2016 the highest number of Israeli demolitions of homes and other structures since the UN began keeping records in 2009.

The number of donor-funded structures demolished was also unprecedented, nearly tripling from the previous year.

A total of 1,601 people were displaced due to all demolitions, about half of them children.

The majority lost their homes on the pretext that they were constructed without building permits from Israeli occupation authorities that are next to impossible for Palestinians to obtain.

But 156 people were made homeless by punitive demolitions or sealing.

In 2014, Israel resumed the practice of collectively punishing the entire family of a person accused of an attack against Israelis, a policy it has accelerated since then.

Israel’s policy of revenge against family members of accused persons is reserved exclusively for Palestinians and is never used against Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

Israel’s demolitions create “a coercive environment” leading to forced displacement and “forcible transfer,” the UN states.

Thousands of families still displaced

Meanwhile, reconstruction in Gaza continues to face major impediments.

By the end of 2016, only 22 percent of homes destroyed during Israel’s 2014 military assault that left more than 2,200 Palestinians dead had been rebuilt.

Nine thousand families – more than 47,000 people – remain displaced.

The UN says the quantity of cement allowed into Gaza is far short of the need, resulting in the ongoing suffering of these families.

Palestinians and international law experts have previously accused UN agencies of complicity in Israel’s illegal blockade, by participating in the so-called Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, through which Israel severely restricts the import of construction supplies.

Israel is also increasingly denying Palestinian employees with the UN and other aid organizations permission to enter Gaza. Almost a third of applicants were denied in 2016, up from just 4 percent the year before.

Impunity

Palestinian fatalities in Gaza and the West Bank did decline in 2016. In the West Bank, 99 Palestinians were killed, the UN says, a third of them children. Thirty-six Palestinians were killed in the Hebron area and 26 in Jerusalem.

But the UN does not attribute this drop to any positive change in behavior by Israel, noting “concerns” that Israeli forces are still responsible for extrajudicial executions when Palestinians posed no threat.

“While the trends vary from one year to the next, the pervasive lack of protection and accountability for violations of international law remains,” OCHA’s Carden said.

The report also notes that Israeli authorities have failed to take any steps towards accountability for civilian deaths in Gaza three years on from the 2014 offensive: “Impunity denies victims and survivors the justice and redress they deserve, and prevents the deterrence of future violations.”

Earlier this year a report from another UN agency found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Israel has imposed a system on the entire Palestinian people that meets the legal definition of apartheid – one of the major crimes listed in the founding statute of the International Criminal Court.

That report called for effective measures to compel Israel to respect Palestinian rights, including support for boycott, divestment and sanctions. Instead, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres quickly withdrew the report under pressure from the United States.

As the occupation enters its 51st year, there’s little sign that any governments – or the UN itself – take seriously their own obligations to end their complicity in Israel’s violations and begin to hold it accountable.

Trump to delay US embassy move to Jerusalem: Sources

US officials and diplomatic sources told Reuters that the president will not fulfil his campaign pledge just yet

US President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after delivering press statements prior to an official dinner in Jerusalem on May 22, 2017.

Thursday 1 June 2017

President Donald Trump is expected this week to delay relocating the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, U.S. officials and a diplomatic source said on Wednesday, despite his campaign pledge to go ahead with the controversial move.

With a deadline for a decision looming, Trump is likely to continue his predecessors' policy of signing a six-month waiver overriding a 1995 law requiring that the embassy be transferred to Jerusalem, an action that would have complicated his efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the sources said.

Trump has yet to make his decision official but is required by law to act by Friday, according to one U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Barring a last-minute surprise, Trump is expected to renew the waiver. His administration intends to make clear, however, that Trump remains committed to the promise he made during the 2016 presidential campaign, though it will not set a specific timetable for doing so, officials said.

Asked whether Trump would sign the waiver, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters on Wednesday:

"Once we have a decision, we'll put it out," adding there would be "something very soon on that."

While there have been divisions among Trump's aides on the issue, the view that appears to have prevailed is that the United States should keep the embassy in Tel Aviv for now to avoid angering the Palestinians, Arab governments and Western allies while the president seeks to nurture peace efforts.

Trump avoided any public mention of a potential embassy move during his visit to Israel and the West Bank in May. Despite that, most experts are skeptical of Trump’s chances for achieving a peace deal that eluded other U.S. presidents.

The status of Jerusalem is one of the major stumbling blocks. Israel captured Arab East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it, a move not recognized internationally. Israel considers all of the city its indivisible capital.

Pro-Israel rhetoric

The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Jerusalem is home to holy sites of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions.

Shifting the U.S. Embassy would be widely seen as Washington's recognition of the Israeli position on Jerusalem's status, which successive U.S. administrations have said must be decided in negotiations between the two sides.

Former President Barack Obama renewed the waiver in December, setting off a six-month clock for Trump. CNN was first to report that Trump was expected to sign the waiver.

On the campaign trail, Trump's pro-Israel rhetoric raised expectations that he would act quickly to move the embassy. But after he took office in January, the issue lost momentum as he met Arab leaders who warned it would be hard to rejuvenate long-stalled peace efforts unless he acted as a fair mediator.

Some of Trump's top aides have pushed for him to keep his campaign promise, not only because it would be welcomed by most Israelis but to satisfy the pro-Israel, right-wing base that helped him win the presidency. The State Department, however recommended against an embassy move, one U.S. official said.

"The president is still committed to moving the embassy," one U.S. official said. "It's not a question of whether but when it will be done."

The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by Congress in 1995 mandating relocation of embassy to Jerusalem allows the president to waive the requirement in accordance with U.S. national security interests

Trump is likely to pull out of the Paris climate deal. The rationale is based on lies.

 The Paris Agreement is an international agreement to lower worldwide greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change. Here's what you need to know. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

By Greg Sargent May 31 at 10:54 AM

THE MORNING PLUM:

Multiple news organizations are reporting that President Trump is expected to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. Whether this ultimately comes to pass or not — some outlets are cautioning that a final decision has not been made — we do have a rough approximation of the reasons why he has entertained doing this up until this moment.

And these reasons are largely based on one sort of lie or another — some of them small, garden-variety, political hack-style lies, and others very profound lies with far-reaching significance.

The New York Times has an in-depth report on the argument raging among Trump’s top advisers over whether to pull out. Those arguing for staying include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; business leaders; Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump; etc. They say pulling out would further destabilize relations with allies who have staked a great deal on the accord. That remaining would allow the U.S. to retain a seat at the table where critical aspects of the future of the global economy are hashed out. That clean energy development offers all sorts of domestic economic opportunities. That pulling out would send a signal that the U.S. does not view global warming as a serious threat that could bring untold human suffering and dislocation later.

On the other side are the “nationalists,” like Stephen K. Bannon and climate-skeptical E.P.A. chief Scott Pruitt, who are urging Trump to pull out. But the arguments for pulling out are based on utter nonsense.

Staying in the deal would not jeopardize Trump’s ability to unwind Obama’s climate policies. Various versions of the argument are floating around that remaining could create legal obstacles to unwinding Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which sets emission reduction targets for states. But this is just false. As David Roberts shows, every legal argument offered for why this might be so has been debunked by lawyers who have looked closely at them.

In reality, staying in the deal does not (unfortunately) require Trump to preserve the Clean Power Plan. The CPP’s fate is being decided in the courts, and if it survives, its success will depend on how states, energy stakeholders, and federal administrators implement it. Separately, our emission-reduction commitments to the Paris accord are voluntary. The idea is that if all participants commit to the general goal of cooperatively combating global warming, while creating a mechanism for countries to examine each other’s progress and report their own, that gives us the chance of creating a mutually-reinforcing cycle of positive change that gathers momentum over time, egged along by ongoing changes in technology and cultural attitudes. Merely remaining in the accord does not create any meaningful domestic policy constraints for the U.S. president. This is one reason some have criticized the deal as insufficient to the challenges we face.

Some of the advantages of staying in, as I have reported, exist independently of whether we actually meet our commitments: It would signal to the world that our long-term commitment to fighting global warming remains; retain a seat at the table for the next president to pick up those commitments; and foster international good will that could grease cooperation on other fronts. Trump’s own Secretary of State is reportedly making a partial version of this case.

Pulling out would not “betray” Trump’s core supporters on the economy.  The Times reports that Bannon and others are telling Trump that staying in the deal would “betray his core supporters” because it would “shackle the American economy.” This is truly pernicious dishonesty of the worst kind. Even if you believe that unwinding our efforts to reduce carbon emissions would save jobs, for the reasons above, merely staying in would not prevent Trump from doing that.

Who believes Trump’s core supporters really care about the Paris accord? Yes, when Trump boasts about this at his next rally, they will let out a lusty cheer, because Trump told them that he tore up something with Obama’s name on it, and sent them cues that they should cheer him for it. (This is how these things work, the political scientists tell us.) But if he did not pull out, how many would even care or notice? 

Trump has failed to honor many of his economically “populist” promises — he’s slashing the safety net and has yet do anything meaningfully pro-worker on trade or infrastructure — and we’re supposed to believe the “populists” in the White House care about staying true to the economic agenda Trump ran on? Yeah, right. In fact, pulling out helps prop up one of the biggest lies Trump has told core supporters — that he is going to bring the coal industry roaring back.

Pulling out would not put the country on a beneficial “nationalist” course. National security adviser H.R. McMaster and senior economic adviser Gary Cohn published a Wall Street Journal op ed today that is meant to clean up Trump’s trip abroad. This is a revealing nugget:

The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.

This gets at the biggest lie at the heart of the “nationalist” case for pulling out of Paris. It suggests international engagement is nothing more than a cause to believe national interests and sovereignty are being thrown to the lions in an “arena” where only the zero-sum struggle for advantage reigns. It does not allow space for recognition of what the Paris deal really is, which is constructive global engagement that serves America’s long term interests, as part of a system of mutually advantageous compromises. Ultimately, what’s really at grave risk here is a chance to reaffirm a reality-based view of the merits of international cooperation and diplomacy.

* GOP HEALTH BILL VIEWED UNFAVORABLY: A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that 55 percent of Americans view the GOP health bill unfavorably, versus 31 percent who view it favorably. And 45 percent say that under it, health care costs for them and their families would get worse.

By contrast, Americans view the Affordable Care Act favorably by 49-42. Maybe Americans don’t believe Trump’s vow to magically make health care better and more accessible for less money?

* THE ‘GROWN-UPS’ TRY TO CLEAN UP TRUMP’S MESS: Note this important nugget from the Wall Street Journal op ed by “grown ups” H.R. McMaster and Cohn, which is designed to place a positive, sophisticated cast on Trump’s disastrous trip abroad:

America First does not mean America alone. It is a commitment to protecting and advancing our vital interests while also fostering cooperation and strengthening relationships with our allies and partners … While reconfirming America’s commitment to NATO and Article 5, the president challenged our allies to share equitably the responsibility for our mutual defense … By asking for more buy-in, we have deepened our relationships.

Yep, the new spin from the “grown-ups” will be that Trump is merely showing our allies “tough love.”

* NO, TRUMP’S SPEECH DIDN’T RECONFIRM COMMITMENT TO NATO: Responding to the above claim by the “grown ups,” NBC’s First Read crew points out:

The problem? His speech at NATO last week never explicitly reconfirmed his commitment to Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all.

Well, that’s almost the same thing as reaffirming our commitment, isn’t it?

* TRUMP KEEPS LYING ABOUT NATO: Trump keeps claiming our NATO allies rip us off. But as Glenn Kessler explains, direct NATO funding is proportional to each country’s gross national income. Trump is talking about disparities in each nation’s indirect funding via military spending:

Trump continues to misleadingly frame the failure to meet the guideline as money owed to the United States … But this is simply money that each country would spend on its own military — or on missions that do not include NATO, such as peacekeeping in Africa … even if all NATO members suddenly [boosted their own military spending], no additional money would end up in the U.S. Treasury.

Trump can call for other countries to spend more on defense, but the claim that the failure to do so rips us off is nonsense, designed to thrill his supporters and justify his “America First” posture.

* PREMIUMS WOULD SOAR UNDER GOP HEALTH BILL: The Huffington Post reports on a new study that breaks down how much premiums would soar for people, county-by-county:

In Alaska, where health insurance premiums already are among the highest in the nation, rates would increase by more than $2,200 a year in every county, according to the Century Foundation. Several counties in Arizona and Nebraska would be in line for hikes of more than $1,500. In northern and eastern Maine, premiums would rise by $1,254.

Over the long haul, average premiums on the individual markets might come down under the GOP bill, but this is because sicker people would be shunted out of them to face soaring costs or not having insurance at all.

* TRUMP’S CALLS WITH WORLD LEADERS STIR SECURITY CONCERNS: The Associated Press reports:

Trump has been handing out his cellphone number to world leaders and urging them to call him directly … Presidents generally place calls on one of several secure phone lines, including those in the White House Situation Room, the Oval Office or the presidential limousine. Even if Trump uses his government-issued cellphone, his calls are vulnerable to eavesdropping, particularly from foreign governments, national security experts say.

It would be interesting to hear from experts on how this careless handling of sensitive information compares with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server.

* AND PEOPLE APPEAR RELUCTANT TO WORK FOR TRUMP: The White House communications director just resigned, and the New York Times reports that the search for a replacement has hit a snag, even as other top advisers worry about their own fates:

Four possible successors contacted by the White House declined to be considered, according to an associate of Mr. Trump who like others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters … privately, aides described a White House where no one’s position, not even [Jared] Kushner’s, feels entirely secure.

Why anyone would be reluctant to go work in this hell, which requires you to lie daily for a madman while tossing your reputation into the shredder, is a real mystery.

Should Religion Dictate our Life?

The colonized world for generations was reduced to search for their identity because the soft power of the West, after the period of colonization was over, and even now many of the colonies have split personality.

by Kazi Anwarul Masud-May 29, 2017

( May 29, 2017, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) Often storm of debates take place, particularly when political leaders in positions of authority visit other countries, whether the country’s national interest has been upheld or sacrificed during the leader’s visit, in talks with the host political leaders and agreements signed with the host country. Such debates used to take place in developing countries with weak institutions where the government could be destabilized or overthrown by extra-constitutional forces.

But these days’ debates on safeguarding the national interest are also taking place in developed economies with old democracies in which a section of the people feel threatened that their identity is being lost by large scale immigration of people from other countries.

Analyzing the emergence of identity crisis in the nation states of Europe and North America John Rex (University of Warwick) observed “Faced with increasing immigration of culturally relatively alien minorities and with absorption into a larger European entity, French social scientists asked two questions: ‘Do the new identities presented by immigrants challenge French national identity?’ and ‘Will the new immigrants, through their trans-national organizations, seek to deal directly with supra-national organizations, undermining the sovereignty of the French state?”

The recent Presidential elections held in France ultra-right candidate Marine le Penn asked for a ban on immigration from basically Muslim countries who, she argued, was diluting French identity though Muslims over 18 years old represent 6% of the population and voting population would be far less. Luckily for the French, Europe and the world Marine le Pen lost the elections to Emmanuel Macron who is pro-Europe and believes that immigration is good for France.

In the United Kingdom Brexit has become a fact of life though pending the negotiations with EU the actual results of the divorce from the European Union remain to be seen. Though Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted to remain with the EU England largely voted to opt out because they felt that the English are losing their jobs to the immigrants and culturally, the Muslims in particular, were vastly different from the mainstream Britons.

In Holland anti-immigration party lost out to Prime Minister Mark Rutte who is pro-Europe and Centre-Right in his policies while in Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to win the coming elections. Yet only a few years back Angela Merkel like Giscard D’Estaing of France and Berlusconi of Italy had lost hope in multiculturalism because of the refusal of the immigrants to be totally assimilated with the mainstream population of the host country.

Little attention was given to the legitimate grievances of the immigrants of discrimination faced by them in every sphere of life. The majority population had forgotten that the immigrants were invited by the host country to help rebuild the war ravaged economies of Europe and that the second and third generation immigrants had rarely visited the country their forefathers had come from. These generations of immigrants were born and brought up in their “host” countries which legally and effectively were their own country. This sense of deprivation has been used by the recruiters of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. One, however, must be clear in his mind that no argument of deprivation can justify the brutalities perpetrated by the terrorists the most recent being the massacre at Manchester where 22 people, mostly teenagers and children were killed by the suicide bomber who allegedly was a recruit of ISIS.

The question that arises is whether sense of deprivation alone can lead a suicide bomber to kill so many innocent people who have nothing to do with the “deprivation”? Or can one look for another reason, for example, the perceived threat to the terrorists’ religion by the dominant religion and consequent loss of identity. But then this fear of losing identity and to try to take a people to the sixth century is a denial of modernism and progress that defines the improvement of living conditions through scientific innovations coupled with establishment of law and order in the society.

The developed West not only beat the East in developing science and technology but also in establishing law and order that ensured freedom for all people in a particular defined area. One, however, should not gloss over the period of colonization by the West through force of arms and consequent transfer of riches from the colonies to the metropolis. History of colonization has been brutal exploitation by the West of the colonies defies description. Slave trade from Africa to North America has been one of the facets of colonialism.

The colonized world for generations was reduced to search for their identity because the soft power of the West, after the period of colonization was over, and even now many of the colonies have split personality. Some in the developing world still try to ape the Western way of life leaving their own culture and tradition ignorant of centuries old wisdom handed down to them. It is not being suggested that everything western is to be avoided. Far from it the developing world has benefitted immensely by the innovations and technological progress of the developed economies. These days to the western academic institutions droves of students go every year for higher education.

China, for example, is reported to have the largest number of Chinese students nearly a quarter million in the American universities. There is the constant argument of brain drain from developing to the developed world. But this appears to be a tenuous argument for preventing bright boys and girls from going to the western institutions of learning.

So we are faced with a disconnect between those who would like to go to the western schools and colleges for higher studies and a small group of people who in the name of maintaining “purity of religion” would become terrorists and commit unspeakable atrocities. The downside of brutality practiced by ISIS and al-Qaeda variety of terrorists has produced influential intellectuals like Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, Christopher Caldwell, to name a few, who have injected in the minds of powerful people and ordinary westerners the vitriolic propaganda that “danger is Islam, the villains are Muslim immigrants, the terrain is the West, and the outcome is certain defeat for European culture—unless the tide of Muslim immigration, which threatens to become a tsunami, can be stemmed” as Bruce Lawrence of Duke University has written in his critique of Caldwell’s book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West.

It has now dawned to people including President Donald Trump that military solution cannot solve the great divide between the developed and developing countries as the divide will not disappear within different social strata in the same country. Very recently Donald Trump speaking to the assembly of Muslim leaders on his first visit to Saudi Arabia as President urged them to destroy “violent extremism” from their midst and indeed from the face of the earth. Eric Trager in an opinion column in Daily News on 21 May pointed out that President Trump did not link violent extremism to “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims,” or to the “Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies,” or to “modernity and globalization” that “led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam,” as Obama did in his 2009 Cairo address. Nor did Trump link terrorism to the absence of democracy or freedom within the Muslim world, as former President George W. Bush did repeatedly in the years that followed 9/11.

Indeed, Trump’s speech did not include the words “freedom” or “democracy” anywhere. Such reticence was logical as the venue of his speech was in an autocratic kingdom where women still are denied many of their fundamental rights and rulers are not democratically chosen but are the sons of King Abdul Aziz, the founder of al-Saud dynasty. Besides there is democracy regression in many Muslim countries.

But of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation majority of the Muslims live under some kind of democratic rule. But the Muslims are put in the dock again and again for the terrorism committed by a handful of renegades who have declared war in the name of Islam on the rest of the world including the Islamic countries who they think have been weaned away from the “true spirit” of Islam. Consequently more Muslims have been killed by these terrorists than non-Muslims.

The point being made is not a comparative value of the life of a Muslim with that of a non-Muslim because any life lost to terrorism is far too many. And hence ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram or any terrorist have to be eliminated. But the war against terrorism will not be won even if the terrorist strongholds are eliminated. Because the suicide bomber who killed dozens of people in Manchester was British born of Libyan origin. It is quite possible that when ISIS and the others lose control of their territory their adherents may return to their countries with training and expertise to create havoc in their host countries which are mostly in the West. To deny them such opportunities they have to be denied entry into their countries of birth. Whether such denial of entry based on suspicion will be legal remains to be seen.

Donald Trump tried to ban entry of Muslims through executive orders but failed to convince the American courts of the legality of the executive orders. Intelligence and law enforcing agencies have to be more intrusive into the suspected circles of terrorists so that acts of terrorism can be unearthed before such acts are committed. One, however, has to be cautious that in the zeal to fight Islamist Extremism the Muslim Diaspora in the West do not feel further alienation and marginalized in their countries of birth.

Contrary to common belief fundamentalism does lie in Islam alone. Walter Russell Mead of the US Council of Foreign Relations (God’s country—Foreign Affairs—September/October 2006) has described the US, the only super power in the world today, as a nation where religion shapes its character, helps form America’s ideas about the world, and influences ways Americans respond to events beyond its shores. Russell Meade is not far off from the observation of Alexis de Tocqville who was struck by the religious aspect of the country on his arrival in the United States in the 19th century. Contrary to his experience in France Tocqville found in America spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching together in unison and not in conflict. He wrote in Democracy in America “Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it”.

The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibited the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

As Western societies developed and became more tolerant of the views of others the separation of the church and the state became more pronounced. German philosopher Jorgen Habbermas thinks that the current state of the world as passing to a post-secular state, a period in which modernity is perceived as failing and at times morally unsuccessful leading to a state of peaceful coexistence between spheres of faith and reason. In Europe and in the US to a lesser degree (before the election of Donald Trump) religion is now playing an important role in politics and immigration is now being used as a popular tool by the legislators.

In the Indian subcontinent religion is the raison d’être in Pakistan while in India Muslim community feel persecuted and discriminated against. For India where the Muslim population is estimated to be 170 million and Christian population is about 28 million (2011 figures) governmental rules disfavoring infraction of Hindu rites (accounting for 80% of the population) in the social life of followers of other religions may be politically sound for the Hindu belt but in the long run may give rise to feeling of subordination in the minds of followers of other religions.

Unfortunately it has become increasingly undeniable that religion now plays a significant role in the socio-economic and political life of the people of the world. Aberrant groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and inter-sectarian Shia and Sunni conflicts among Muslims have found breeding grounds due to inter-faith intolerance in many parts of the world. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the political leaders holding positions of power to encourage their followers and detractors alike to consider religion as a personal matter and not to let religion dictate peoples’ day to day life. At the same time global war against ISIS and terrorists of al-Qaeda variety should be fought on all fronts till they are totally eliminated.

The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh.

Will expat pensioners really cost the NHS £1 billion?

 By Martin Williams31 MAY 2017

The claim

“The NHS could face a bill of almost half a billion pounds if retired British people currently living in other EU countries decide to return to the UK in the event that their right to healthcare in those countries is withdrawn after Brexit.” – Nuffield Foundation, 31 May 2017.

The background

A new report by the Nuffield Trust warns of a massive bill for the NHS if the government fails to reach a good Brexit deal and expat pensioners return to the UK.

Under the EU’s reciprocal healthcare scheme – known as “S1” – British pensioners living in other EU countries are entitled to local healthcare rights, with the UK ultimately picking up the bill.

After Brexit, the concern is that the UK may not be able to continue in this scheme. If this happens, the Nuffield Trust says pensioners could return to the UK for their healthcare, putting added pressure on the NHS.

It says 190,000 British pensioners live elsewhere in the EU and the Department of Health pays around £500m to other countries to cover their care costs. “If British pensioners lost their health care cover in EU states and had to return to the UK in get the care they need, the extra annual costs to the NHS could amount to as much as £1 billion every year.”

The analysis

The Trust’s claims are confusing. The press release says the bill could increase by £500m rising to £1bn. But the report itself repeatedly refers to “an extra £1 billion a year”.

So which is it? An extra £500m or £1bn?

A spokesperson told FactCheck that they actually meant what was written in the press release. They’re saying the bill could double from £500m to £1 billion. The report appears to have garbled this.

Statistics on the S1 scheme are extremely difficult to pin down. Incredibly, its administration is still done on paper with “big cardboard files of papers being posted backward and forward across Europe, which people then have to process”.

Nuffield’s statistics about the current scheme originate from oral evidence given in Parliament by Paul MacNaught, an executive from the Department of Health.

“The actual amounts we pay in any given year are greatly affected by the exchange rate, but, if we are talking in general terms, we spend about £650m a year on the reciprocal healthcare arrangements,” he said. “Of that, about £500m is on pensioners, so that is UK-insured pensioners, of which there are about 190,000 in other EEA countries.”

However, the Department of Health told FactCheck that MacNaught’s figures were merely “estimates intended to give a steer of the typical amounts”.

In reality, the UK paid out just £429m in 2015/16 to cover the costs of UK-insured pensioners under S1. That’s 14 per cent less than the the £500m figure used by the Nuffield Trust.

The figures are also shaky when it comes to the number of people we’re talking about. The Trust’s analysis says 190,000 pensioners are living abroad and using the S1 scheme. That statistic also comes from Paul MacNaught’s oral evidence, but again his testimony was vague, saying it was “about” this number.

The Department of Health has not yet clarified these statistics for FactCheck, so we can’t be sure for certain. But an FOI request by the BBC in January appeared to put the number at 145,000.

If the BBC’s FOI is correct and comparable, this marks a significant difference. If the number of British expat pensioners on the scheme is 145,000, rather than 190,000, it means the overall potential cost to the NHS would be less than is being claimed.

We’ll update this article if we receive clarification on this from the Department of Health.

Will expats really move back to use the NHS?

Beyond the raw statistics, the Nuffield Trust’s analysis rests on a huge assumption. The figures show what would happen if all expat pensioners moved back to the UK to use the NHS if the S1 deal falls through.

But we don’t know how many would return to these shores.

How about expats who decide to stay abroad using private healthcare? Or those who choose to apply for citizenship in the country they now live, after Brexit? Indeed, in Spain (which is home to the largest number of British expats in the EU), there has been a surge in the number of Brits applying to take the Spanish citizenship test.

The other assumption here is that none of these expats are currently using the NHS in Britain at the moment. After all, government guidancesays: “UK state pensioners who live elsewhere in the EEA will now have the same rights to NHS care as people who live in England.”

If a certain proportion of expats are already travelling to the UK to use the NHS, this again suggests Nuffied’s warning figures could be inflated.

Will the S1 scheme fall through?

The scheme is considered part of the EU’s freedom of labour system, which both main parties in the UK have said they will withdraw from.

But whoever wins the election will almost certainly try to negotiate to provide continued protection for British expats.

It seems unlikely that all healthcare rights of UK expats would be scrapped immediately because of Brexit. After all, there are many people from other EU countries living in Britain who depend on the NHS.

So although it’s possible that no agreement will be reached, it is in the interest of many member states to want a negotiated resolution on this.

The verdict

The Nuffield Trust raises legitimate concerns about Brexit’s impact on healthcare. If no agreement is reached, returning expats could put extra pressure on the NHS.

But the statistics they use may be shaky.

The latest figures show the UK’s healthcare bill for these pensioners was £429m, not £500m.

And, if the BBC’s research is correct, the number of people it applies to is more like 145,000, not 190,000.

Plus the analysis assumes an unlikely worst-case scenario where all expat pensions return to the UK.

What’s more, the overall billion pound figure that is reached has been rounded up from £979m.

While rounding up is standard practice, it nevertheless adds the extent to which the billion pounds – a figure repeated across the media today – is an inflated one.