New Complexities in Myanmar's Peace Process

Angshuman Choudhury

On 15 April, 2017, seven Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) - all non-signatories to the Nationwide Ceasefire Accord (NCA) - met in Pangkham, the de facto capital of the autonomous ‘Wa State’ within Shan State (northeast Myanmar). Convened by the United Wa State Army (UWSA) – the most powerful of all ethnic militias in Myanmar – the meeting lasted for five days, at the end of which the EAOs decided to create a new channel for political dialogue: the ‘Union Political Negotiation Dialogue Committee (UPNDC)’.

That this came nine days before the government announced the date for the second 21st Century Panglong Conference (21CPC) – 24 May – is a significant development in Myanmar’s complex ethnic peace process. It represents a potentially new approach towards reconciliation and brings to question the credibility of Nay Pyi Taw’s agenda for peace, spearheaded by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.

The February Summit

The foundations for a new dialogue structure were laid in February 2017 when the UWSA hosted a summit in Pangkham with members of the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) - an influential group of nine EAOs that have not signed the NCA. During this meeting, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and the Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP) endorsed a new agreement.

This had two consequences. One, it spurred Nay Pyi Taw into a conciliatory position with respect to the demands of the non-signatory EAOs. On 3 March, the Delegation for Political Negotiations (DPN) – the official political dialogue committee of the UNFC – announced, after a meeting with the union government’s Peace Commission, that Nay Pyi Taw had agreed to their long-pending 9-points demand charter ‘in principle’, which had been on standby for long.

Two, it triggered a split within the camp of non-signatory EAOs: one cluster favoured signing the NCA while the other continued to reject it. Intriguingly, on 30 March, the government announced that five UNFC members are ready to sign the NCA. But, almost a month has passed, and this has not taken place. In fact, as of now, only two members - the New Mon State Party (NMSP) and the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) - appear postured to sign the NCA.

Why a New Dialogue Committee?

One could argue that the creation of a new approach to political dialogue by the non-signatory EAOs, away from the government-sponsored NCA process, was inevitable. There is more than one factor behind this.

First, despite much talk about a full transition to democracy, the current administration in Nay Pyi Taw is steered by two distinct centres of power: the civilian and the military (Tatmadaw). While the agenda for political dialogue with the EAOs is set and run by the former, the latter has been dealing with non-signatory EAOs on its own accord: case-in-point the multiple unilateral offensives against northern groups over the past six months and the continued militarisation of the northern frontiers in Kachin and Shan states.

The net outcome of this dual decision-making structure has been two-fold: a critical communication gap between Nay Pyi Taw and the non-signatory EAOs; and a sharp uptick in violence along the Myanmar-China border. The violence has only distanced the non-signatories from the dialogue process, and the lack of communication has suppressed effective opportunities for peace.

Some non-signatories have stated on record that they constantly receive ‘mixed signals’ from the union government, leading to confusion and inconsistency in action. This is further compounded by their belief that Suu Kyi, unlike former Myanmarese President Thein Sein, has little control over the military. The double communication within the complex civilian-Tatmadaw-EAO triad has eventually eroded trust between the key stakeholders for peace.

Second, the government has failed to provide effective negotiators to facilitate dialogue with non-signatory EAOs. This has deepened the communication gap, resulting in the entry of third-party mediators like China and the UWSA. The non-signatories now see both the latter parties as trustworthy alternatives to Nay Pyi Taw. Moreover, non-signatories such as the KIA, Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), and the Arakan Army (AA), who have come under repeated attacks by the Tatmadaw, view the UWSA as a credible security provider in the current situation of insecurity.

Third, the government has fallen short of providing sufficient incentives to non-signatory EAOs to join the NCA-led process. This is largely due to the way the process is structured: signing the NCA is a prerequisite for political dialogue. Unlike the NCA signatories, the non-signatories are barred from holding local-level political dialogues with their respective ethnic constituencies, leading to obfuscation of local aspirations along the dialogue chain. Certain influential EAOs like the KIA clearly do not wish to sign the NCA without consulting their own people, lest they lose their core support bases.

Looking Ahead

While the Tatmadaw has asserted its non-acceptance of any alternative peace agenda, the Suu Kyi-led civilian cluster struggles to fulfill all its obligations mandated by the NCA.

The dialogue process has been visibly rift with delays and complaints from both signatories and non-signatories. On the upside, the DPN – including those who chose to form a new committee – continues to talk to the government’s Peace Commission in its entirety. Thus, the NCA still retains considerable support from the EAOs. Yet, without prudent management, Myanmar’s peace bureaucracy risks damaging available connectors (like UNFC/DPN), and instead empowering third-party entities with vested interests (like China/UWSA).

India: Missing the Bus on Sustainable Development Goals?

Garima Maheshwari


In April 2017, the Government of India released a draft set of India’s indicators for mapping the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the country for public consultation. Spanning a set of 17 SDGs and their 169 targets mandated through intergovernmental consensus at the UN, the indicators are supposed to evolve a country-specific framework of metrics for SDG implementation. 

A closer gap analysis of the draft indicator framework reveals certain indicators to be more of the nature of collated governmental data metrics or a transposition of the original targets as they are, instead of being a reflection of the context-specific demands of sustainability in the country. This calls for sustainability to be made a policy-implementable mainstay rather than a burden of technocratic formality. 

Lackadaisical Approach towards Sustainability Implementation 
Adopted by the global community in 2015, SDGs were supposed to centralise sustainability, not no-holds-barred development. It is thus ironic that when the Indian government experts finally got around to mapping India-specific indicators for the SDGs, the focus was on everything but sustainability. While it is rather easy to see a compendium of environment-specific indicators for areas directly impacting ecology (such as water management, clean energy, waste management, forest ecosystem and climate change), the same reflections are not visible in non-environmental areas (poverty, health, agriculture and gender), for which the indicators will yield mostly a compilation of governmental data. 

Indicators for critical sectors like agriculture, gender, climate change and peace and security do not reveal anything about how sustainability is mapped – which, in fact, was to be the envisaged value addition that the SDG mapping was supposed to provide. 

For instance, for the first goal - poverty reduction - the emergent indicators do not match the mandated targets at all. While Targets 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 talk about access to basic services and securing land rights, the indicators mapped by the government for these are entirely unrelated, focusing instead on financial inclusion. Although this government is proceeding commendably with financial inclusion, what that has to do with basic needs fulfilment – such that it includes community management for livelihood generation and the politicised issue of access to land rights – is anybody’s guess. 

In fact, land rights, even within the context of the goal of gender equality, are also, inexplicably, limited to mapping wages and financial services – this despite the fact that women, particularly those from lower caste backgrounds and employed as agricultural labourers, have been the focus of access to land rights for quite some time now. 

Similarly, for the second goal - food security and sustainable agriculture - simply mapping R&D in agriculture, or use of modern equipment (which does not make a distinction between sustainable and unsustainable agricultural inputs) or total cropped area does not offer an explanation about how farmer incomes will be mapped (which is the mandate of the SDG target). 

The clear implication is that critical SDG indicators need to be more in sync with the socio-economic and political context that they are addressing, and failure to do will lead to a failure of SDG implementation. 

This is particularly so in the case of socio-economically sensitive and vulnerable social groups like farmers, women and backward classes, where public policy cannot afford to be too sweeping or general. Taking the case of women as an example  – addressed through the SDGs' fifth goal – indicators for Target 5.5 talks about the number of women holding seats in parliament, state assemblies and local government – an indicator transposed directly from the target itself. This is insufficient from the point of view of long-term sustainability in the Indian context. To gauge the empowerment of women, it is important to see whether their political empowerment is also leading to their economic empowerment since the reality is that India is losing out economically due to low numbers of women in the workforce. Perhaps a better indicator would have been: proportion of women inducted in the formal workforce to the proportion of women elected to legislative and local government bodies, year-wise.

From these basic gaps and numerous more along similar lines, it is clear that an ideal form of indicator-mapping for such issues should have sought to map the lacunae in the legal system and how to monitor them in their delivery of these basic rights and needs. Its absence shows that India is still proceeding within a very conventional, dichotomised understanding of sustainability. This divorces the domain of law and politics from that of environment and development, making the latter the mainstay of technocracy. The dangerous and mounting trend of making policy increasingly data-driven instead of factoring in non-quantitative issues of human security will only further accelerate the relegation of environment to technocratic policy-making. 

Breaking Silos
If, indeed, policy-making continues to relegate sustainability to the domain of technocracy, it will miss out on the transformations occurring in the socio-political system, where the next major war will most likely be over resources. Recent developments within India – land rights agitation, water wars, public health crises, mounting farmer suicides and recurrent drought in relatively well-off and greener states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu as also in the most backward regions like Bundelkhand - are indicative of this trend.

Unless policy-making can factor in these realities that are increasingly becoming key domestic political issues, India will miss the bus on SDG implementation.

Make 60% profit on your investment within 21 days with other bonuses

Premiumwealth.org

How It Works

Premium wealth organisation is an establishment set up by a team of experienced individuals with the sole aim of distributing wealth across members through peer to peer donations  Premium wealth offers you 60% of your initial donation in 21 days plus additional registration bonus on start up.

After making a pledge, you are expected to wait for 48hours for 30% of your donation to be matched out as commitment while the 70% balance will be matched In a duration of 10-15 days. You only wait for the completion of 14- 21days before you will be able to withdraw supported with a recommitment. 

MBA Scholarships for International Students at Essex Business School UK 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st May 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

About Scholarship: To support students who are funding their own studies, Essex Business School is offering scholarships worth £5,000 to students seeking to join its MBA course in October 2017. Awards will be made on the basis of grades obtained in your first degree, so all MBA course applications, received by the given deadline, will automatically be considered for this scholarship.

Type: MBA

Eligibility and Selection Criteria: You will be interviewed by the MBA Director as part of the School’s selection process. The MBA Director will assess you against the scholarship criteria and recommend you for an appropriate award.

The MBA Director will be particularly looking for evidence of:

• academic ability
• professional experience and career progression
• ideas on sustainable and entrepreneurial business
• ability to communicate experience and ideas
• plan for utilising the Essex MBA experience after the course

This scholarship is available to all MBA applicants, including those for the MBA Museum Management, provided you are funding your own studies. It is not available if you’re fully or partly sponsored.

Number of Awards: Limited. Usually up to 20 scholarships available.

Value of Award: £5,000 fee waiver

How to Apply: 

• You don’t need to complete a separate application form for this scholarship. If you meet the eligibility criteria above you will be assessed during your interview.
• There are a limited number of scholarships available, so we advise you apply for the course before 31 May 2017.
• Please read the full terms and conditions (link below) before applying for or accepting the scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: University of Essex UK

UNHCR/King’s College London Summer Program Scholarship for Refugees 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 29th May 2017

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The Undergraduate Summer School is an academically intensive, exciting programme and there are a wide range of modules available. The modules take place during the day each weekday

Type: Short courses and training, Undergraduate

Eligibility: King’s College London is looking for excellent candidates who are passionate about thinking, learning and communicating, and keen on taking a first step back into education. Eligible students must:

• Fulfil our standard Undergraduate Summer School admissions criteria with qualifications allowing them to study at university and offer English at level B2 of the CEFR. Full details of our entry requirements can be found in the link below. If you are unable to provide the relevant documents please contact summer@kcl.ac.uk for advice.
• Be a recognised refugee who has been granted leave to remain in the UK

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: The scholarship covers the tuition fee of £1,500

Duration of Program:  26 June–14 July and 17 July – 4 August 2017

How to Apply: Complete your application for the Undergraduate Summer School via the King’s Apply portal.

In addition you must also do the following:

1. Include the statement “I am applying for a Summer@King’s Scholarship with UNHCR” at the top of the Personal Statement section of the application.
2. Write and upload an extended personal statement (700 words) in the Personal Statement section. The statement should outline the reasons why you would like to attend the Undergraduate King’s Summer School and how this will fit in with your wider plans for education and/or your career.
3. Upload your current Curriculum Vitae (in English).
4. Upload a scanned copy of your refugee status in the United Kingdom.

Successful applicants will be notified by 2 June 2017. Unsuccessful applicants will NOT be contacted.

Due to the high volume of applications feedback on individual applications cannot be provided.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: King’s College London, UNHCR

Important Note: Scholarship recipients may be asked to contribute to the wider publicity of this opportunity in future years. We will on request obscure your identity.

University of Gibraltar PhD Scholarship for Students from Commonwealth Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 15th June 2017 at 12:00 (GMT+1)

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth Countries

To be taken at (University): University of Gibraltar

About the Award: The purpose of the scholarship is to enhance individual teaching and research capacity leading to increased institutional capacity in academic and other sectors in Commonwealth countries and to contribute to Gibraltar’s higher education and research by attracting international candidates and encouraging links and collaboration.

The scholarship is intended for high-quality graduates who have the potential to become influential leaders, teachers, or researchers in their home countries, and whose proposed research topic has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the selection committee to have a developmental and leadership focus.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: To apply for this scholarship, applicants must:

• Be a citizen of a Commonwealth country other than the host country (The UK and/or Gibraltar) or  British protected person;
• Be permanently resident in a Commonwealth country (http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries)
• Be available to start your academic studies in Gibraltar by the start of the academic year in October 2017;
• By October 2017, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree).

Additionally, applicants should usually:

• hold a Master’s degree awarded by a UK University, or an overseas Master’s degree of an equivalent standard, provided that the Master’s degree is in an appropriate cognate area and that the Master’s degree included training in research and the completion of a research project;
• have a good honours degree (or equivalent) in an appropriate discipline, and ideally have research and/or professional experience at postgraduate level as evidenced in published work, written reports or other appropriate evidence of accomplishment.

If English is not your first language you must demonstrate evidence of English language ability to the following (or equivalent) minimum level of proficiency:

• an IELTS score of 6.5; or
• a TOEFL score of 600; and
• have achieved a minimum of English Language competence equivalent to at least IELTS 5.5 across all four areas of competence – writing, reading, speaking and listening.

An IELTS test will be considered valid only if it is taken after 1 October 2016 and before 10th June 2017.

Value of Program: The Gibraltar Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme provides financial support to include all University fees, one annual return trip to and from the country of residence and a monthly stipend towards completion of a three-year full-time doctoral postgraduate qualification at the University of Gibraltar.

How to Apply: This is a joint application system whereby the application is for both the scholarship and for a place to read for a PhD at the University of Gibraltar.

Applications must be made directly to the University and must include:

• a completed application form, including your research proposal;
• all of the required documentation (i.e. copies of University/College transcripts, award certificates, and certificate of English proficiency where necessary – see below);
• the names and contact details of three personal referees;
• the names and contact details of up to three subject specialists whom you think the University might approach to review your PhD proposal and/or who might be able to offer expert supervision in your field of study.

Incomplete applications will not be processed and will be returned to the applicant.

The application must be received by us by Thursday 15th June, 12 noon Gibraltar time (GMT+1) and applications will be acknowledged by email receipt by 5 pm Gibraltar time (GMT+1) on the same day.

Full applications must be made through the dedicated email account: commonwealth@unigib.edu.gi

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Gibraltar

The Fall of Mosul and Raqqa Won’t Spell the End of ISIS

Patrick Cockburn

When Lionel Messi scored a last minute winning goal for Barcelona against Real Madrid on 23 April, football fans in the Syrian coastal city of Tartous who had been watching the game on television rushed into the street to celebrate.

This turned out to be a mistake from their point of view because many of the jubilant fans were men of military age, whom the Syrian security forces promptly detained in order to find out if they were liable for military service. It is unknown how many were conscripted but, once in the army, they will have difficulty getting out and there is a high chance they will be killed or injured.

Military service and ways of avoiding it are staples of conversation in Syria where government, Kurds and insurgents are all looking for soldiers after six years of relentless war. Casualties have been heavy with pro-government forces alone losing an estimated 112,000 dead since 2011 according to the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. In theory, men can escape conscription if they are the only son of a family or are studying at university, but even then they are not entirely safe from being arbitrarily drafted.

The conscripts eat bad food and are poorly paid, earning around $50 a month,which gives them little option but to live off bribes mostly earned by letting people pass through their checkpoints. Iraqi and Syrian security officials say this is one reason why Isis and al-Qaeda suicide bombers driving vehicles full of explosives are able to blow themselves up and cause horrific loss of life in the heart of supposedly well-protected cities.

“Women and children are vulnerable in this war but I feel more sorry for the young men who are in much greater danger,” said a UN aid worker, who did not want her name published, working at the sprawling Hammam al-Alil camp for displaced persons south of Mosul. She said that, whether or not they had ever belonged to an armed group, the young men were always suspected of it. She had just seen a dozen of them who had fled from Mosul being taken off for interrogation and vetting “and I have never seen more terrified people in my life”. She added that they had every reason to be frightened because a few days previously she had seen two men from Mosul, unconscious and covered in blood, being taken to hospital on stretchers after a couple of hours’ interrogation.

Paranoia runs deep in Syria and Iraq and people speak continually of “sleeper cells” established by Isis that are waiting to emerge suddenly and slaughter their enemies. Despite these fears, security is generally very poor because of the saturation levels of corruption. Checkpoints act as internal customs posts: the smaller ones mulct drivers of a packet of cigarettes or their small change, but the larger checkpoints are big business with a turnover of the equivalent of millions of pounds and dollars. Huge profits are kicked back to senior officers, politicians and parties who preside over the networks of rackets that strangle the Iraqi and Syrian economies.

Lorry drivers on the 165-mile route between Kirkuk and Baghdad were on strike in March, complaining that the main checkpoint outside Baghdad had raised its illegal fees to $1,500 per truck which was three times the previous level. “This money does not come from individual drivers, but from the owner of the goods he carries who passes on the extra cost to the consumer in Baghdad,” said a broker called Ahmed who works as a freelance freight forwarder. He explained that the drivers were on strike not because of the bribery, but because the increased delays at checkpoints that meant the Kirkuk-Baghdad round-trip, which used to take three days, was now taking fifteen.

The criminalisation of society in Iraq and Syria during the long years of war is one reason why normal life does not return even when there is no fighting. On top of the corruption by local warlords and political bosses, the number of reliable combat soldiers on all sides is limited so military successes are never as decisive as claimed. The Syrian army can only stage one offensive at a time and this makes it vulnerable on other fronts. Just as it was capturing East Aleppo in December 2016 after a long siege, it lost Palmyra to Isis for a second time and has had to fight off an Isis attack on Deir Ezzor, the largest city in eastern Syria. In Damascus, a surprise insurgent assault, using tunnels from their stronghold in Eastern Ghouta, came close to storming the centre of the capital.

The capture of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria is often presented as the death knell for Isis, but its demise is by no means so certain. The loss of the two cities means that the self-declared Caliphate will be shrunken and lose much of its population. But prior to its explosive advances in 2014, when it captured much of western Iraq and eastern Syria, it was a skilled and experienced guerrilla movement. Unable to stand against the firepower of an enemy in total control of the air, there are signs that it is moving many of its fighters and officials out of Mosul and Raqqa to rural areas where they can hide more easily.

The round-up of football fans in Tartous underlines the shortage of soldiers facing the Syrian government. It has too few troops to occupy and hold territory seized from Isis and al-Qaeda. Iraq has a similar problem because, although many men theoretically belong to its security forces, the real number of combat troops is much smaller. Most of the soldiers one sees beside the road in Iraq and Syria belong to “checkpoint armies” who exploit the civilian population but are not planning to fight anybody.

Human Rights and the Arrogance of Power

Brian Cloughley

International policy statements sometimes attract attention because they deal with serious matters, such as human rights, concerning which an important speech was made to the UN Security Council on April 18 by US Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Ambassador Haley declared that “When a state begins to systematically violate human rights, it is a sign, it is a red flag, it’s a blaring siren – one of the clearest possible indicators that instability and violence may follow and spill across borders.” She singled out Burma, Cuba, Burundi, Iran, North Korea and Syria for censure and urged the nations of the world to adopt a policy of “standing for human rights before the absence of human rights forces us to react.”

So it seems that the United States wishes to lead the world in penalizing countries judged guilty of violating human rights, which is a principled and admirable stance.

It is appalling that so many countries have no “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” as laid down in the UN Charter and quoted poignantly by Ambassador Haley. And one most effective action that human rights-abiding governments could take to ensure that offending countries would cease their hideous abuses against their citizens would be to end all cooperation with them because, as she observed, “It’s past time that we dedicate ourselves to promoting peace, security, and human rights.”

We must agree with Ambassador Haley, because it is indeed “past time” that the United States dedicated itself to promoting peace. Perhaps it has been recognized that the United States failed to do that by invading Iraq, blitzing Libya, and engaging in its longest-ever war, still being waged in Afghanistan.  In addition to killing many thousands of innocent people these conflicts created millions of refugees, while radicalizing citizens of all strata and resulting in expansion of Islamic State terrorism.

Then Ambassador Haley rightly warned that “if this Council fails to take human rights violations and abuses seriously, they can escalate into real threats to international peace and security,” and we must hope that this message struck home around the world.

Many countries are guilty of human rights violations, as documented in the US State Department’s Human Rights Report of March 3, but it was intriguing that, contrary to long-established custom, the Secretary of State, Mr Rex Tillerson, did not present the report in person in spite of Ambassador Haley’s emphasis on the importance of “standing for human rights” and his declaration that “our values are our interests when it comes to human rights.”

But when the Report is examined in detail it is obvious why Secretary Tillerson was reluctant to enthuse about his Department’s findings, because some of them don’t fit in with public pronouncements concerning the essentiality of human rights in all countries.

One inconsistency concerns Turkey whose President Erdogan recently won a referendum granting him almost total power. The first head of state to congratulate him was President Trump “shortly after international monitors delivered a harsh verdict on the referendum on constitutional changes. They found that the opposition campaign had been restricted and media coverage was imbalanced, and that the electoral authority had unfairly changed the rules after polls had opened.”  Further, Mr Trump’s State Department reported that “multiple articles in the penal code directly restrict press freedom and free speech” while “the government continued to prosecute at least one judge and four prosecutors involved in pursuing charges in connection with a major corruption scandal in 2013 that involved then prime minister Erdogan, his children, and close political advisors and business associates.”

Other than Mr Trump, not many heads of state congratulated Erdogan, but one who did was King Salman of Saudi Arabia where violations of human rights include “citizens’ lack of the ability and legal means to choose their government; restrictions on universal rights, such as freedom of expression, including on the internet, and the freedoms of assembly, association, movement, and religion; and pervasive gender discrimination and lack of equal rights that affected most aspects of women’s lives.” This oppressive dictatorship is valued by Washington for “playing an important leadership role in working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the region,” while being “the United States’ largest foreign military sales customer, with nearly $100 billion in active cases.”

Saudi Arabia enjoys “close friendship and cooperation” with the United States although it is recorded by the State Department that “civil law does not protect human rights, including freedom of speech and the press,” while Ambassador Haley declares that “When a state begins to systematically violate human rights, it is a sign, it is a red flag, it’s a blaring siren . . . ”

Then there is another valued ally of the United States, Bahrain, whose king is also an autocrat with “the power to amend the constitution and to propose, ratify, and promulgate laws.” His penal code specifies penalties of “no less than one year and no more than seven years in prison, plus a fine, for anyone who ‘offends the monarch of the Kingdom of Bahrain’.”   His country “plays a key role in regional security architecture and is a vital US partner in defence initiatives” as the base for the US Navy’s nuclear-armed Fifth Fleet which demonstrates US military power in the Persian Gulf.

The State Department records reports of “torture, abuse, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” in Bahrain, while “societal discrimination continued against the Shia population, as did other forms of discrimination based on gender, religion, and nationality.”  These are exactly the sort of tyrannical human rights’ abuses denounced so vehemently by Ambassador Haley who described the United States as “the moral conscience of the world.”

There are complications, however, in ordering Bahrain’s ruler to cease torture and other inhuman punishment because, as Bloomberg reported, there were two related developments on March 29. First, the commander US Central Command, General Joseph Votel, told a Congressional Committee that “foreign arms sales to allies shouldn’t be burdened with preconditions tied to human rights because they could damage military-to-military ties” and singled out Bahrain as an example.  Then “the State Department told Congress it backs the sale of 19 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters to Bahrain [for $2.7 billion] without preconditions on improved human rights previously demanded by the Obama administration.”

And suddenly the country with “the moral conscience of the world” looks a trifle off-balance, because you (as an individual, a nation or an international organization) can’t have it both ways.  Either you condemn human rights abuses totally and unconditionally, or you accept them in like manner.  It is a moral travesty to accept a little bit of torture or a morsel of gender discrimination.  For example, how much torture is permissible?

Two shrieks or three?

It should be heart-warming to hear the ambassador of the United States to the United Nations  delivering ethical lectures in the Security Council about how other countries should behave in regard to human rights. But it isn’t much good preaching about human rights and then embracing a policy conveying the message that if a country has “strong military ties” with the United States then it is of no consequence if it persists in “torture, abuse, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” of its citizens. It is bizarre that that any such country can continue to enjoy “close friendship and cooperation” with the United States

This is an in-your-face example of the arrogance of power. And the likes of General Votel, who declares that “foreign arms sales to allies shouldn’t be burdened with preconditions tied to human rights because they could damage military-to-military ties,” personify that swaggering vanity.  He and his ilk will prosper, while the country with “the moral conscience of the world” makes money and extends its power by supporting dictators who exercise “discrimination based on gender, religion, and nationality.”  Spare us the humbug.

In Yemen, Shocked to His Bones

KATHY KELLY

The ruins carpeted the city market, rippling outwards in waves of destruction. Broken beams, collapsed roofs, exploded metal shutters and fossilized merchandise crumbled underfoot.

In one of the burnt-out shells of the shops where raisins, nuts, fabrics, incense and stone pots were traded for hundreds of years, all that was to be found was a box of coke bottles, a sofa and a child nailing wooden sticks together.

This is Sa’ada, ground zero of the 20-month Saudi campaign in Yemen, a largely forgotten conflict that has killed more than 10,000, uprooted 3 million and left more than half the country short of food, many on the brink of starvation.

— Gaith Abdul-Ahad in The Guardian, 12/9/16

Yemen stands as the worst-threatened of four countries where impending famine conditions have been said to comprise the single-worst humanitarian crisis since the founding of the U.N.  On May 2^nd, 2017, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published a grim infographic detailing conditions in Yemen where 17 million Yemenis — or around 60 percent of the population — are unable to access food.  The U.S. and its allies continue to bomb Yemen.

Jan Egeland, who heads the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), says that seven million Yemeni people are on the brink of famine. “I am shocked to my bones,” said Egeland, following a five day visit to Yemen. “The world is letting some 7 million men, women and children slowly but surely be engulfed…” Egeland blames this catastrophe on “men with guns and power in regional and international capitals who undermine every effort to avert an entirely preventable famine, as well as the collapse of health and educational services for millions of children.” Egeland and the NRC call on all parties to the conflict, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, the U.S. and the U.K. to negotiate a cease fire.

This weekend, the situation stands poised to become dramatically worse with the apparently imminent bombing, by Saudi Arabia, one of the U.S.’ closest allies, of the aid lifeline which is the port of Hodeida.

Egeland stresses the vital importance of keeping humanitarian aid flowing through Hodeida, a port which stands mere days or hours from destruction. “The Saudi-led, Western-backed military coalition has threatened to attack the port,” said Egeland, “which would likely destroy it and cut supplies to millions of hungry civilians.”  U.S. congress people demanding a stay on destruction of the port have as yet won no concessions from the Saudi or U.S governments.

The U.S. Government has as yet sounded no note of particular urgency about ending or suspending the conflict, nor has its close ally in the Saudi dictatorship.  Saudi Arabia’s Defense Minister, Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently gave “a positive view of the war in Yemen.” (New York Times, May 2, 2017). He believes that Saudi forces could quickly uproot the Houthi rebels, but rather than endanger Saudi troops he says “the coalition is waiting for the rebels to tire out.”

“Time is in our favor,” he added.

Even if Hodeida is spared, reduced import levels of food and fuel from the Saudi-imposed naval blockade puts the price of desperately needed essentials beyond the reach of the poorest. Meanwhile prolonged conflict, dragged out by a regime that feels “time is on its side” and punctuated by deadly airstrikes, has displaced the needy to those areas where food insecurity is the highest.

Refugees from three North African countries where conflict is also threatening to impose terrible famine have Yemen on their route to escaping the continent, so they have fled conflict and famine only to be trapped in the worst of this dreadful year’s arriving tragedies.

The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, describes the present situation, two years since Saudi airstrikes escalated the conflict:

“The violent deaths of refugees fleeing yet another war, of fishermen, of families in marketplaces – this is what the conflict in Yemen looks like two years after it began…utterly terrible, with little apparent regard for civilian lives and infrastructure.

“The fighting in Hodeida has left thousands of civilians trapped – as was the case in Al Mokha in February – and has already compromised badly-needed deliveries of humanitarian assistance. Two years of wanton violence and bloodshed, thousands of deaths and millions of people desperate for their basic rights to food, water, health and security – enough is enough. I urge all parties to the conflict, and those with influence, to work urgently towards a full ceasefire to bring this disastrous conflict to an end, and to facilitate rather than block the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

Time is on no-one’s side as regards the crisis in Yemen. As nightmare visions of living skeletons with bloated bellies and pleading eyes once more appear on the planet’s TV screens, we in the U.S. will have missed a vital chance to avert a world in which untold millions are to be shocked to their bones.

The Pope and I

Andre Vltchek

In Cairo, Pope Francis, once again, did what he usually does best: he snapped at the state of immorality and selfishness, which is governing the world, particularly in the West. The message to Egypt’s priests could actually be directed at the population of the European and North American cities:

“The first temptation is to letting ourselves to be led, rather than to lead… The second temptation is complaining constantly… The third temptation is gossip and envy… The fourth temptation is comparing us with those better off… The fifth temptation is individualism, ‘me, and after me the flood’… the final temptation is ‘keep walking without direction or destination…”

Pope Francis gave speeches, and met the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah El Sisi. He appealed to Egypt to “Save the world from famine of love”. The Egyptian Gazette, an official English language newspaper, carried a headline with a photograph of Pope Francis and the President (and ex-general El Sisi), smiling at each other, as if this odd couple could truly become the entity capable of returning both love and passion to the world.

“Although the Pope’s speeches were good, I have a big problem with anyone meeting the murderer El Sisi,” one of my friends wrote to me from exile in Paris, one of the ‘revolutionary doctors’, a man who used to be imprisoned and tortured here in Egypt.

And El Sisi he did meet, and they grinned at each other for the camera lenses.

***

There is one point that is hardly made in the local and international media: the Christians in Egypt fully embraced the military coup of July 2013, during and after which allegedly thousands of people were massacred (some in the poorest slums of Cairo), tens of thousands tortured, and more than a million imprisoned.

In 2012 and 2013 I was filming in Egypt for Telesur, directing and producing a documentary film about the end of the Arab Spring and the crashing of all hopes for a better, socialist Egypt. After witnessing the horrors of El Sisi’s crackdown on Morsi’s supporters, as well as on the Egyptian left, I went to the famous ‘Hanging Church’ in Coptic Cairo and asked the believers about the coup. They refused to even use the word ‘coup’, and expressed their unconditional support for the military junta.

Today, almost 4 years later, I went back to the same church, and confronted two leading Orthodox Christian clerics of Egypt, Father Jacoub and Father Samuel (they claim that in their mind there is “no difference between the Catholics and Orthodox Christians).

“Now that Egypt is bleeding and people are pushed to the edge, do Christians still support the military government?” I asked point-blank.

First, Father Samuel replied:

“Yes, now it is the same unwavering support as before. The church was behind the President, El Sisi from the very beginning, and it is with him now.”

Then Father Jacoub joined the litany:

“El Sisi protected us; he saved our country.”

Then Father Samuel again:

“President Sisi came to power during the difficult time for Egypt. He’s doing well, changing the country.”

“Isn’t it all sectarian, religious?” I wanted to know. “ Aren’t you supporting El Sisi because he attacked the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Another honest answer followed:

“Yes it is religious… Yes, it is one of the reasons for our support.”

***

I spoke to people in slums and on the street. Almost all of them were desperate. Food prices were skyrocketing and periodically, there have been shortages, even of some basic food.

A person with whom I used to work before, during the ‘days of hope’, was subdued, frustrated, and angry:

“Now people are really furious. Everything is getting more and more expensive. But currently, people don’t even dare to protest: the police and the army closely monitor everything. You dare to go to the streets, and they disappear you; you get immediately arrested. There are some 2 million people in our prisons, now… Perhaps one or two more years and things will explode again. It really cannot continue like this, forever.”

Egyptian people are well informed, but frightened and fragmented. They clearly comprehend what is taking place, but they are waiting for the right moment to return to the streets. I personally know those who were imprisoned and tortured in Egypt, after the coup. Every trip back here reminds me of extremely close calls, when I could have been killed myself, be it in Port Said, in Alexandria, and in Cairo. But Egypt is ‘addictive’: once you begin writing about it, it is extremely difficult to leave, forever.

“The military is everywhere,” I’m told inside the monumental Citadel built by the great Sultan Saladin, who fought against the European crusaders, defending vast areas between Egypt, Syria and Iraq:

“The military and the police; they are paid by the West, particularly by the United States. For decades, they were corrupted; they control Egyptian businesses, from A to Z. It would be suicidal to criticize them openly. And they love the West. Many of our people also have no choice but to ‘love the West’, because the economy of this enormous country has already collapsed. You are either miserably poor, or you are part of the armed forces, or in the tourist industry, or the few other services which are all somehow intertwined with the West.”

The same pattern as in Afghanistan, I realize. Endemic corruption mostly injected from outside, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of treasonous families, the elites, who produce nothing tangible but live well from selling their own country to the imperialist Western rulers. And then there are of course the army, the police, and dozens of their branches with complicated and proud names.

And countries are going to the dogs, while the Western mass media is busy demonizing Syria, Venezuela, the Philippines and North Korea.

***

This is an S.O.S. written to me a few months ago by one of the left-wing “revolutionary doctors”, with whom I was working on my Egypt film:

“The counter revolution has triumphed… Sisi dictatorship strengthened… All opposition parties and organizations squashed… thousands of revolutionaries imprisoned… Hundreds executed by court orders or liquidated by the police… Media suppressed and directly controlled by the regime… The military economic investment in the country has soared… Neoliberalism is taking hold… People are suffering.”

Is the Pope blind? Or is there perhaps some other, more complex game, which is being played?

Pope Francis is, after all, from Argentina, and his own country is deeply divided about his role during the military dictatorship there.

“POPE OF PEACE, IN EGYPT OF PEACE” one reads from the thousands of posters hanging on the electric poles of Cairo.

Really? Egypt of peace…

“The famine of love!” He and the General (currently President), together, are now ready to tackle it, heroically, hand in hand, while millions are rotting in prisons, and the country is gradually collapsing.