Search This Blog

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Immediate need to strengthen central Med’s search and rescue capacity – UNHCR







Given recent tragedies involving the deaths of migrants at sea, not the least of which were those of 3 and 11 October in the vicinity of Lampedusa, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has called for an immediate strengthening of the central Mediterranean’s search and rescue at sea capabilities.

In its recently-published Proposal for a Central Mediterranean Sea Initiative: EU solidarity for rescue-at-sea, protection and comprehensive responses, the UNHCR notes that while the international law of the sea establishes clear obligations for shipmasters to rescue those in distress at sea, “in practice, however, gaps remain regarding responsibilities for disembarkation which are particularly evident in rescue operations involving refugees and undocumented migrants.

“The serious challenges around maritime movements, rescue, and comprehensive responses arise in numerous locations along the EU’s sea borders,” the UNHCR notes, adding that its “proposals for actions could be taken by the EU and member states, as well as other European countries, to address the situation in Italy, Malta and their southern neighbours in particular”.

Without pointing fingers specifically at any nation, the UNHCR says: “Differing views on disembarkation are directly linked to the question of which state or states would carry longer-term responsibility for the provision of asylum or other outcomes for those not in need of international protection.”

First and foremost, the UNHCR has called for reinforcing and maintaining SAR patrols along Mediterranean routes towards Italy and Malta, with the support of other countries in the region.

“SAR activities need to be initiated wherever there are indications that a vessel, or the conditions of the people on board, do not allow for safe travel, creating a risk that people may perish at sea. Relevant factors include: severe overcrowding, the poor condition of vessels, a lack of necessary equipment and the absence of professional personnel. In addition, weather conditions may also need to be considered.

“SAR operations are required to identify distress situations, including for boats with migrants and refugees, and undertake and/or coordinate SAR operations when necessary, as well as facilitate the identification of a place of safety for disembarkation.”

The proposals also observe that national maritime patrol activities, as well as Frontex’s work in coordinating joint patrols, could be reinforced, as has been proposed in recent EU discussions, notably with regard to rescue capacity and disembarkation arrangements. Along such lines, the UNHCR says: “Practical cooperation between EU member states and support from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) would be useful.”

Shipmasters of commercial vessels must, according to the report, also be encouraged to undertake SAR operations, “including by ensuring the facilitation of disembarkation of rescued persons without delay or diversion, without the risk of prosecution following their lifesaving actions. To the extent possible, such rescue must ensure minimal financial impact on commercial ships.”

The UNHCR also considers it “essential” that, building on the work of the IMO, further guidance for shipmasters on the definition of what constitutes a distress situation is developed. Others involved, such as Frontex, could also include appropriate guidance in their operational plans, the UNHCR suggests.

In line with the recent Djibouti Conclusions, the UNHCR also calls for the creation of Mobile Protection Response Teams, composed of experts and including states, international organisations and NGOs, to provide multi-disciplinary support to, and capacity-building for, states undertaking disembarkation and/or processing in addressing the needs of irregular mixed groups. Such teams, according to the UNHCR, could also have a role in reception arrangements, profiling and referral and, where appropriate, asylum or other status determination procedures.

In terms of disembarkation, the UNHCR observes that in order to ensure effective SAR operations: “It is important to develop effective and predictable mechanisms for identifying without delay places of safety for the rapid disembarkation in Europe of rescued refugees and migrants. This must take into account the availability of capacity to address immediate post-disembarkation needs”.

Arrangements for the immediate post-disembarkation phase must also be strengthened, for initial reception, potentially involving qualified state and other organisations that can offer specific services and expertise.

“These should be expandable to respond in flexible and effective ways to changing arrival patterns. Additional facilities could supplement the existing capacity in Lampedusa. Strict limits and safeguards should regulate the use of detention, combined with the application of alternatives to detention and any measures improving the conditions for asylum-seekers who are awaiting processing for asylum.

“Speedy responses will be needed to address the immediate humanitarian needs for those rescued, through the provision of basic information packages in several languages, and assistance (food, medical assistance, clothing, trauma relief, effective interpretation support) in humane and dignified conditions. Based on the existing Italian Red Cross model, a centralised hotline to respond to inquiries from relatives could also assist member states, inter alia with initial family tracing, potentially drawing on the services of non-governmental bodies with experience in providing such services.”

The UNHCR drives home the grim reality that, “The movement of refugees and migrants by dangerous means across the Mediterranean Sea towards Europe continues to exact a devastating toll on human life. UNHCR estimates that, in 2011 alone, over 1,500 people died, many crossing from North Africa to Italy or Malta to escape the conflict in Libya.

“Since that time, refugees and migrants, including an increasing number of Syrian refugees, have continued to take to the sea, resulting in casualties on a deplorable scale.”

The UNHCR notes that “several shocking incidents” had taken place in October 2013, in the stretch of sea between Libya, Malta and Italy, in which hundreds of lives had been lost in tragic circumstances.

“Despite the best efforts of the Italian Coast Guard and the Armed Forces of Malta to aid the vessels in distress, only a limited number of survivors could be rescued and brought to safety in Italy and Malta. These tragedies illustrate that existing mechanisms and arrangements need to be strengthened further to respond more effectively and prevent deaths at sea.”

In all, the UNHCR says that since 2007 over 175,000 individuals have arrived by sea in Italy, peaking in 2011 with over 60,000 arrivals.

“Malta has seen arrivals of over 18,000 individuals since 2002. The majority of these new arrivals come originally from Eritrea and Somalia, and more recently, an increasing number are from Syria (Syrian nationals and Palestinians) and Egypt.

“Many, though not all, of the recent arrivals are in need of international protection. The reasons for undertaking these journeys include a lack of protection in first countries of asylum as well as a desire to reunite with family members. The absence of security, economic opportunities and education are also important elements. Very often a combination of these factors prompts movements.”

The UNHCR also notes that several countries in North Africa are also increasingly affected by the displacement caused by the Syria crisis, which places additional demands on their infrastructure and resources.

“Given the ongoing and dramatic needs of Syrian refugees, which are likely to continue and grow in the immediate future, reinforcement of capacity to receive them in North African countries is increasingly urgent.

“States located at the southern sea borders of Europe, such as Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain, are confronted with frequent arrivals by sea of refugees and asylum-seekers within mixed migratory movements.

“Irrespective of their need for international protection, the people arriving by boat through the Mediterranean Sea are often traumatised and have dire humanitarian needs not least because of their exhausting and dangerous journeys.

“As recognised by EU member states and the EU itself, the UNHCR points out: “This dramatic situation at the EU’s sea borders demands urgent and concerted European action in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement [the protection of refugees from being returned to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened]. Comprehensive measures need to be explored with the countries involved on both sides of the Mediterranean to offer credible alternatives to perilous journeys by boat.”

Source; independent.com.mt

Al-Qaeda Still A Potent Threat



By Manish Rai

As we begin 2014, it’s worth reflecting on where we stand in our fight against al-Qaida and global terrorism. Throughout 2012 and much of 2013, the Obama administration has toed the line that al-Qaida is on the path to defeat and with it, the terrorism is no longer the threat it once was. Nothing could be further from the truth. During his landmark counterterrorism speech in May 2013, President Barack Obama all but declared an end to the global war on terror. He said that al-Qaida was “on the path to defeat” the White House touted the death of Osama bin Laden as the death knell to al-Qaida. Pre-9/11, al-Qaida maintained large-scale operations in South Asia, complete with training camps and operational capabilities. Surely that capability of Al-Qaida is dented but it is far from over. Today, al-Qaida is a complex, adaptive, and resilient organization. The administration’s successes against high-value targets have fostered a false sense of security.
Right now, al-Qaida controls or operates in more territory around the globe that it did than at any point of time since its creation in 1988. Al-Qaida and its affiliates are resurgent in Iraq, a major player in Syria, a force in Yemen and Somalia, still active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, operational in the Caucasus, and in pockets throughout the Middle East and North Africa. This isn’t what I’d call success. Over the past several years, al-Qaida has developed a new strategy to foster affiliate groups that still maintain strong connections to the core. Take Syria for instance. A terrorist named Abu Khalid al Suri is fighting for a hardcore jihadist organization named Ahrar al-Sham. Ahrar al -Sham does not self-identify as al-Qaida. Yet Suri is a leading figure in the movement and serves as al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s main representative in the Levant, according to the Long War Journal. So although al-Qaida may not have its name plastered all over the Middle East or publicly announce its affiliations and locations, it is always lurking beneath the surface. This doesn’t mean al-Qaida is weakened or on the verge of defeat, it means it has altered the way it conducts its terror campaign and spreads its roots. Burying our heads into the sand and pretending it isn’t so only increases al-Qaida’s likelihood of controlling territory or launching successful attacks.
Moreover, specialized training for a jihadist is no longer limited to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Syria, legions of al-Qaida acolytes from all over the world, including Europe and the United States, are joining its cause on the battlefield. Eventually, they will return home and continue their fight against freedom. But as this year ends, the jihadist group’s regional affiliates have dramatically reasserted themselves in multiple countries, carrying out spectacular attacks and inflicting increasing levels of carnage. Though it’s hard to come by reliable estimates of the deaths they caused, the number is certainly in the thousands, and more than half a dozen countries now view these affiliates, or foreigners who have joined their ranks, as their top national security concern. The affiliates’ regeneration became so apparent over the course of this year that President Barack Obama was forced to clarify that his administration’s various claims of al Qaeda’s decimation were limited to the core leadership in Pakistan alone. Let’s take a look at the activities of al-Qaida in various countries:-
Mali-The year began with France spearheading a military intervention to push back jihadist groups that had seized territory in northern Mali, an impoverished country in the bone-dry Sahel region of Africa. France’s operation achieved some success, but a brigade led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar who has pledged his loyalty directly to al Qaeda’s senior leaders seized more than 800 hostages in a retaliatory operation at Algeria’s In Amenas gas complex. At least 39 foreign hostages were killed during the operation. France’s war in Mali also showed how deteriorating conditions in Libya.
Libya - Where the new government has never been able to assert its authority, help the jihadist cause. Some of the In Amenas attackers reportly trained in southern Libya (where camps prepare militants for suicide missions among other things, and used the country as a staging ground for the hostage-taking operation. And as France advanced on the battlefield in Mali many jihadist fighters fled to southwest Libya, where they evaded pursuit by “blending with local militant groups,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Iraq- Iraq’s death toll mounted throughout the year, driven by al Qaeda’s blossoming capabilities. By the end of 2013, more than 6,000 Iraqis had died in violence, the highest level of fatalities since 2007, the peak year of Iraq’s bloody civil war. As U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq two years ago, American and Iraqi officials expressed concerned that al Qaeda was “poised for a deadly resurgence.” Rather than proving alarmist, these warnings likely understated the speed and magnitude of the organization’s rebound in Iraq.
Somalia- Another al Qaeda franchise surged this year that is the Somali militant group al-Shabaab, which once controlled more territory in southern Somalia than did the country’s U.N.-recognized government, had lost its last major urban stronghold of Kismayo to advancing African Union forces in October 2012. But Shabaab remained lethal. OnSept. 21, terrorists associated with the group launched a spectacular assault on Nairobi’s Westgate Mall. The attack dragged on for four days, killing 67 and injuring at least 175. But even before that, there were signs that a complex operation like Westgate was possible, as Shabaab carried out increasingly sophisticated attacks throughout the year. These included an attack on a Mogadishu courthouse that killed 29, and a twin suicide bombing at Mogadishu’s U.N. compound that claimed 22 lives.
Syria- In Syria, jihadists built on the gains they had made in 2012. Extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) affiliates of al-Qaida have proven to be some of the country’s most effective rebel factions. As 2013 ends, jihadists have been able to gain full control over such cities and towns as Raqqa and Shadadi in the north. ISIS has become adept at the targeted use of violence against Raqqa’s citizens, for the purposes of dominating and intimidating them as it implements a harsh version of Islamic law. Further compounding concerns stemming from the Syria conflict, a recent study published by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization found that up to 11,000 foreign fighters have flocked to the battlefield to fight Bashar Assad’s government, of whom around 2,000 are from Western Europe. This has sparked fears in their countries of origin that the fighters could pose a security threat if they return both radicalized and battle-hardened.
The motivating factors for Al-Qaida’s aspirants and supporters are still very much in place which is ensuring steady supply of cadres. There is a pervasive belief among extremists that a caliphate an Islamic state governed strictly by Sharia, or Islamic, law is possible and should be fought for. There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist, jihadist community. And that is that the west is responsible for everything that goes wrong we can expect to see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists more determined to kill to get to where they want to get. Cruickshank points to the disappointment many young men felt over what they perceive as a failed arab spring. So, if we want global peace and stability to be safeguarded then we should take al-qaida and its affiliates more seriously than ever and dealt them with more determination.
(Author is freelance columnist based in New Delhi and Editor of www.viewsaround.com can be reached at manishraiva@gmail.com)

Barkhad Abdi's incredible journey


Muse (Barkhad Abdi) hijacks the cargo ship in "Captain Phillips," starring Tom Hanks.
 COLUMBIA PICTURES




When it comes time for "The Envelope, Please …" at the Oscars in March, the talk around Hollywood is that a young man from Minneapolis will be among the finalists for Best Supporting Actor. Our Mo Rocca has his story:

If you've seen "Captain Phillips," even if you've just seen a commercial for it, you know the moment when Somali pirates storm the bridge of the cargo ship Maersk Alabama, and the lead pirate, Muse, confronts the ship's captain.
"Look at me. Look at me. I am the captain now."
Rocca asked actor Barkhad Abdi, "Are people coming up to you all the time now and going, Look at me Look at me.'?"
"Yeah, yeah, that line is  -- it's getting out of hand," said Abdi. "That line, everybody's using it on me."
"It's a great line!"
"Yeah.  I didn't realize how good it was!" he laughed.
Good enough to steal a scene from the world's biggest movie star, Tom Hanks. Even more remarkable: Abdi ad-libbed the line. 
"Before that scene began, were you thinking, 'I'm gonna lay this line on him'?" asked Rocca.
"Oh, no, no, no, no. It just came out of nowhere," he replied.
Coming out of nowhere, like Abdi himself. He's already nabbed Best Supporting Actor nominations from the Screen Actors Guild and the Golden Globes, which makes him an odds-on favorite for an Oscar nomination.
Not bad for a first-time actor.
How Abdi came to star in a Hollywood movie began with an announcement on Minneapolis' local TV news, seeking actors, or non-actors, preferably someone born in Africa.
The audition took place at the Brian Coyle Center, a community center that is a focal point for Minneapolis' Somali population. Minneapolis has the largest number of Somalis in the U.S.
The open call drew hundreds of hopefuls. Among them: Abdi and his friend (and future co-star) Faysal Ahmed.
In the beginning Ahmed tried out for the role of the pirate's leader, Muse, then changed to the character to Najee, the most menacing of the pirates -- the farthest thing from "Minnesota Nice."

"It's the opposite," Ahmed said. But in real life, Abdi said he's really friendly.
Four months of training included learning to swim, handle guns, and maneuver a skiff in rough waters.
And director Paul Greengrass kept his "pirates" from meeting Hanks until the moment they filmed that scene.
"I was so nervous that day," Abdi said. "That was the first time I'd met Tom Hanks, so I met him in character, yeah.  And it was really nerve-wracking."
"So, do you remember the moment when they stopped tape, and you got to meet him as Tom Hanks?" Rocca asked. "Did you basically go from 'Look at me,' to 'Hey, I'm so happy to meet you!'?"
"Oh, yeah," Abdi laughed. "It literally went just like that.  Like, 'You guys live in Minnesota?'"
Abdi's own story could be a movie. Born in Mogadishu, he was six years old when Somalia's civil war broke out in 1991 and the country descended into chaos.
"I remember I had my uniform and everything, was like, 'Finally I get to start school tomorrow,'" he recalled. "And that afternoon I started hearing gun shots.  And I remember I wasn't allowed to play outside anymore.
"And the next morning it just was war, uh-huh."
Abdi, his mother, sister and two brothers stayed in Somalia for another year.
"We would hear gunshots as we sleep, the sounds of it," he said. "It was just normal. We'd go outside, and we'd find guns and we'd find dead people. It was really wild."
They managed to make their way to Yemen, where Abdi's father was teaching, before a teenaged Barkhad and his family emigrated to Minneapolis.
What were his first impressions? "It was beautiful. It was green everywhere, it was green," he said. "I remember just being shocked by, why it's so green?" he laughed.
"I'm assuming you did not arrive in the winter," Rocca said.
"No, I did not! I did not.  I was really excited about the winter.  Like, first, it was like, 'Yeah, can't wait to see the winter. It's gonna be snowing!'  Just the whole idea of it, it was just amazing to me. Until it came!"
Indeed, after 14 years, neither Abdi nor his brother Sayed have warmed to the weather. But living in the Midwest did afford Abdi an unexpected opportunity.
"My Somali got better here," he said. "And I learned to interact with Somalians more here!"
"So the ad should be, 'Come to Minnesota to learn Somali,'" Rocca said.
But this immigrant soon embraced his new homeland, and got a job at the Mall of America.
"When you worked here, did you use to think about what you would do with the rest of your life, what the future was going to be like?" asked Rocca.
"Then, I was just happy about high school, probably thinking about what I'm gonna do next weekend or my paycheck," Abdi replied. "That was mostly what my main focus was."
Now 28, Barkhad Abdi has got an agent and is leaving Minneapolis -- and its Somali tea shops -- to pursue a career in Hollywood.
So how would he sum up his life in America?
"Just livin' the American dream," Abdi laughed.
Or an extreme version of it -- like the American dream on steroids.

For more info:

Source: cbsnews.com

U.S. Defense Dept. cuts list of countries for imminent danger pay







WASHINGTON - The U.S. Defense Department has removed 15 countries from the list of those that qualify military service members for imminent danger pay.

The move announced Friday will save the military $108 million a year, Stars and Stripes reported. The changes will take effect June 1.

East Timor, Haiti, Liberia, Oman, Rwanda, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, 

Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan were removed from the list. Another six countries and their air space were also decertified: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro.

The Defense Department recertified 26 countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen, plus the city of Athens in Greece, the Mediterranean Sea and the Somalia Basin.

The United States does not necessarily have military personnel stationed in areas certified for imminent danger pay.

Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the department, said the military spent $500 million in imminent danger pay in 2012.

Chinese Foreign Minister to visit Ghana, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Senegal to strengthen ties





Wang Yi – China Foreign Minister

China has announced that its Foreign Minister Wang Yi will visit Ghana and three other African countries this month. 

The Chinese diplomat will travel to Ghana, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Senegal from January 6 to 11, 2014. 

Mr Yi is expected to meet his Ghanaian counterpart Ms Hannah Tetteh when he arrives in Accra but the exact date is not known. During his visit, China says Mr Wang Yi will have an in-depth exchange of views with leaders and foreign ministers of the host countries on bilateral relations as well as international and regional issues of common interest. His visit will also build up friendship, mutual trust and cooperation ahead with China’s bilateral relations with Ghana and the other three countries. 

By Ekow Quandzie - 

Source: ghanabusinessnews.com

WAR DEGDEG AH Somalia: Gunmen shot five soldiers in Bosaaso



BOSAASO, Somalia —News reports from Bosaaso suggest that At least 5 Puntland soldiers have been killed and more others wounded in Laad, 30 KM southern Bosaaso, the capital of Bari region, reports said.
Local residents confirm that unidentified men armed with K47s and machine guns attacked on Puntland forces in south of Basaaso, killing five soldiers, injuring others.
“In the aftermath of the attack, the wounded soldiers were rushed to the local hospital for treatment” said a local resident who asked to be unnamed.
The attackers have managed to escape immediately from battle zone.
So far, No group or individual claimed responsibility for the ambush attack on Military bases in Laad, with Puntland officials in the town did comment on the attack

HEES FANAAN ITOOBIYAAN AHI Somaliland KU AMAANAYO by Hawdian Institute

Published on Jan 2, 2014
Somaliland in its own rights with a mixture from the Hawdian Institute for Strategic Policy (HISP). Like us on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hawdia...

The Tigringya song (Tigray): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmifTa...









COMMUNIQUE OF THE 23 rd EXTRA-ORDINARY SESSION OF THE IGAD on South Sudan






The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) held an extraordinary session of heads of state and government in Nairobi on 27 December 2013 to discuss the crisis in South Sudan.  Among other things, the final communique announced that General Lazaro Sumbeiywo of Kenya and Ethiopia's former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Ambassador to China, Seyoum Mesfin, will serve as IGAD special envoys for South Sudan. 



Israel Lobby Takes Aim at Iran Deal




By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News | Op-Ed

Official Washington’s neocons are still trying to derail a negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program by imposing new sanctions and thus putting the U.S. on a course for war – as favored by Israel’s Likud. But this reality is hiding behind sophistry, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. 

Here’s a New Year’s resolution that participants in policy debate in Washington, and especially those in Congress, should make: be honest about your position on Iran. Say what you really want, and make your best arguments on behalf of what you really want, and don’t pretend to be working in favor of what you really are working against.

The main vehicle for debate about Iran once Congress reconvenes is a bill introduced by Senators Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, that would threaten still more sanctions on Iran and purchasers of its oil, would impose unrealistic conditions to be met to avoid actually imposing the sanctions, and would explicitly give a green light to Israel to launch a war against Iran and to drag the United States into that war.

As Colin Kahl has explained in detail, passage of this legislation would be very damaging to the process of negotiating a final agreement with Iran to keep its nuclear program peaceful. The promoters of the legislation contend that its effect would be just the opposite, and would increase U.S. bargaining power and make it more likely Iran would make concessions we want.

It is possible that some members of Congress who might be inclined to vote for this bill, and even some who have signed on as co-sponsors, actually believe that contention. They keep hearing, after all, the trope about how “sanctions brought Iran to the table” and that if some sanctions are a good thing than even more sanctions are an even better thing.

But anyone who has thought seriously for more than a minute about this subject — as the chief promoters of the legislation surely have — realizes how fallacious that idea is. Whatever role sanctions may have had in getting Iran to the table, it is the prospect of getting sanctions removed, not having them forever increase, that will induce Iran, now that it is at the table, to complete an agreement placing severe restrictions on its nuclear program.

It goes against all logic and psychology to think that right after Iran has made most of the concessions necessary to conclude the preliminary Joint Plan of Action, “rewarding” it with more pressure and more punishment would put Iranians in the mood to make still more concessions.

The people doing the negotiating for the United States oppose the legislation because of the damage it would do to the negotiations. Their view is highly significant, no matter how much one might agree or disagree with whatever specific terms the administration is trying to get. If the legislation really would strengthen the U.S. negotiating position, any U.S. negotiator would welcome it.

And if that weren’t enough, counterparts to Kirk and Menendez in the Iranian legislature are providing further evidence of the destructive effect of what is transpiring on Capitol Hill, with the Iranian legislators’ bill calling for Iran to start enriching uranium to a level well beyond what it has ever done before if the United States imposes any new sanctions.

This is direct confirmation of how threats and hardline obstinacy, especially at this juncture, beget threats and hardline obstinacy from the other side. The Iranian bill also provides a real-life opportunity for some role reversal. Does this threat emanating from the Majlis make U.S. policy-makers more inclined to take a softer line and make more concessions? Of course not.

Kirk and Menendez are not dummies. They surely realize all this. Their legislation serves the purpose of those who want the negotiations with Iran to fail, not to succeed. Chief among those with this purpose is, of course, the right-wing Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made it abundantly clear that he opposes any agreement of any sort with Iran and will continue to do whatever he can to portray Iran as Satan incarnate and to keep it permanently ostracized.

The principal organization in Washington that serves the policy of Netanyahu’s government — i.e., AIPAC — also has its own reason to hammer away forever at the Iranian bogeyman: it’s “good for business,” as a former senior AIPAC executive explained. It is no accident that Mark Kirk is easily the biggest congressional recipient of AIPAC funds, and Robert Menendez is also among the top half dozen recipients.

Honesty would mean dispensing with the phony issue of whether more sanctions now would help negotiate a better agreement — since they clearly would not — and instead posing the real issue: whether it is in the interests of the United States for the negotiations with Iran to succeed or to fail. That issue can be debated according to several criteria.

One concerns the objective of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon: is that objective more obtainable through a negotiated agreement that imposes major new restrictions and intensified international monitoring on Iran’s nuclear program, or through continued confrontation that offers neither of those things?
A second set of criteria concerns which path is more likely to avoid the danger of a new war — supplemented by discussion of the impact of a new war on U.S. interests. Another criterion concerns whether broader U.S. policy in the Middle East is better served by the United States having the flexibility to conduct its own diplomacy with anyone in the region on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis, or by being locked into hostility insisted on by third parties.

All of this should be debated from the standpoint of U.S. interests. Those with a special concern for Israel can also ask parallel questions, such as whether Israeli interests are better served by an unending relationship of hostility with another major state in the region, with threats and hatred being perpetually flung by each side at the other, or by following a different path.

Let such an honest debate begin. But an honest debate will barely get off the ground unless we discard the nonsense about how something like the Kirk-Menendez bill supposedly aids negotiations.

US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll



US President Barack Obama. (AFP Photo / Nicholas Kamm)

The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68 different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.
A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote.
The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo.
Latin America expressed mixed feelings towards its northerly neighbor, with Peru, Brazil and Argentina all flagging the US as the most dangerous country.
After its numerous threats of a strike on Iran, many countries voted Israel was the biggest threat to prosperity. Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq all chose Israel as the number one danger to world peace.
In the survey participants were also asked: “If there were no barriers to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?” Despite being the perceived largest threat to world peace, the US still topped the tables by a narrow margin of 9 percent.
In general 2013 saw a drop in approval ratings for the Obama Administration. A poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 50 percent of those asked thought that the political system in the US needed a “complete overhaul.”
In addition, 70 percent of Americans believe the government lacks the ability to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”
The survey comes two months after the first government shutdown in 17 years in the US which cost the country an estimated $10 billion.
The American government’s credibility was dealt a blow earlier this year when President Obama made a call to strike Syria following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on civilians. The American public and the international community both opposed the action.
Source: rt.com