Dynamics
|
|
Generational Dynamics |
| Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's | |
| HOME WEB LOG COMMENT FORUM | |
| DOWNLOADS FOURTH TURNING ARCHIVE ABOUT | |
France struggles with hundreds of migrants returning to Calais campground
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
In October of last year, France finally demolished the refugee camp known as "The Jungle." It was populated by about 7,000 migrants, who came there hoping to reach Britain, where they could apply for asylum. When the camp was demolished, they were given the choice of either being deported back to their home countries, or of staying in some 300 temporary refugee centers across France, where they can apply for asylum.
However, many of them left Calais on their own, and went to the Grande-Synthe refugee camp in Dunkirk, which became known as "the New Jungle." The camp had been built by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), and included hundreds of wooden huts. The camp opened in March 2016 as the first camp in France to meet international humanitarian standards, where migrant families could live in relatively dignified conditions in heated wooden cabins.
The Dunkirk camp had a capacity of 700, and was severely overcrowded, eventually housing 1,600. Furthermore, many of the new arrivals from The Jungle, who were mostly Afghans, didn't get along with the original migrants, who were mostly Iraqi and Kurdish. There were multiple fights between groups of migrants of different nationalities, with some 600 migrants taking part in the fighting. In March of this year, the Grande-Synthe refugee camp, including all the wooden huts, burnt to the ground, leaving nothing but ashes. According to French officials, multiple fires must have been set on purpose.
So now, three months later, it's June, the weather is great, and hundreds of migrants are flooding back into Calais. Officials are refusing to build a proposed reception center for asylum-seekers to Calais, saying that it would only encourage more people to come.
According to France's Interior Minister Gerard Collomb, part of the government of the new president Emmanuel Macron:
"We've seen this before, it starts with a few hundred people and ends with several thousand people who we can't manage. That's why we don't want a center here."
Humanitarian non-government organizations (NGOs) are trying to feed the 400-600 migrants currently "living rough" in Calais, but complain that they are being harassed by Calais police. So 11 NGOs sued the local authorities, saying that they have "prevented" the distribution of food to hundreds of migrants.
The court rejected the request to set up a new emergency center to shelter migrants in Calais, but also ruled that the migrants should be allowed to receive humanitarian add. Furthermore, judges ordered officials, within 10 days, to establish several drinking fountains, toilets and showers for migrants who are "exposed to inhuman and degrading conditions” in the area. The judge said, "It is not possible to leave these people, who are in a state of complete destitution without any aid." AFP (23-June) and France 24 and The Local (France)
b>Related Articles
Italy has threatened to close all of its ports to ships of foreign NGOs carrying migrants and refugees, after being overwhelmed by the arrival of 12,000 migrants in four days on 22 ships. The UN Migration Agency said 8,863 migrants were rescued trying to reach Italy from Libya, and the EU’s border agency Frontex said its boats had recovered an additional 2,700 people.
About 76,000 migrants have arrived since January, and some estimates say that 220,000 people could land in Italy by the end of 2017.
The ships cross the Mediterranean Sea from Libya and mostly contain African refugees. In one Italian port in Reggio Calabria alone, 1,066 people disembarked from the Save the Children rescue ship Vos Hestia on Thursday. Among them were 241 unaccompanied minors.
According to a European Council official:
"In recent years people smugglers have launched massive numbers at the same time. But this year we are witnessing levels never registered before in such short periods of time.Loss of life and continuing migratory flows of primarily economic migrants on the central Mediterranean route is a structural challenge and remains an issue of urgent and serious concern.
The EU and its member states must restore control to avoid a worsening humanitarian crisis."
Italy agrees that the EU must restore control. Italy says that it is unable to cope with this year's expected flood of refugees, and is demanding help from the European Union, or else it will close all its ports to ships carrying migrants. Since the rescue operations do not take place in Italian waters, Italy is under no obligation under international law to take the refugees in, according to some experts. Analysts say that this would be a humanitarian catastrophe because the ships would have to be diverted to other countries, for which they have inadequate provisions.
One of the NGOs operating rescue boats said that it understood the pressure that Italy was under, but:
"However, we also believe that closing the ports of safety to people seeking refuge from war, violence and poverty cannot be the solution. We would like to stress again that NGOs are not the cause, nor the solution to this humanitarian crisis. Without our presence at sea, even more people would die."
The kind of help that Italy would like is that refugees arriving in Italy should be distributed to other European countries, but there isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that will happen. In 2015, the EU agreed that 160,000 asylum seekers should be relocated from Greece and Italy to other member states, in the name of burden-sharing. To date, only about 22,500 of the 160,000 have actually been transferred. Several central and eastern European EU members - including large countries like Hungary and Poland - have absolutely refused to take in any asylum-seekers.
However, some EU officials are offering Italy financial aid.
Italy's threat may be based in politics, in the wake of of a Sunday local election rout for the ruling center-left Democratic Party, which several commentators blamed on public discontent with rising immigration and government proposals to grant citizenship to children of foreign residents. The opposition Forza Italia party of former premier Silvio Berlusconi - seen as one of the winners of the local elections - said the government had responded to its urgings for a tougher line on migration. Deutsche-Presse Agentur (dpa) and VOA and Guardian (London)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 30-Jun-17 World View -- Italy begs for help after 12,000 migrants arrive in four days thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(30-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Concerns grow over communal violence between Hindus and Muslims
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Thousands of Indians demonstrated in cities across India on Wednesday against lynchings and attacks on men and boys by cow vigilantes. Cows are held sacred in the Hindu religion. The protests took place in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, Lucknow, and other cities.
The slogan for the protests was "Not in my name," because some people justified the lynchings in the name of the Hindu religion. Other banners read "Stop Cow Terrorism," "stand up to Hindu terrorism" and "say no to Brahminism." Some protesters referred to India as "Lynchistan."
Last Friday, in a train on the outskirts of New Delhi, a mob of 20 people fatally stabbed 16-year-old Muslim Junaid Khan after an argument over seats that turned into a lynching when the mob accused him and three others of being "beef-eaters." Khan was thrown off the train, where he bled to death.
Although the train was packed with commuters, witnesses have refused to come forward. However, four people, including two employees of the government of Delhi, have been identified and arrested as perpetrators.
There have been five cow vigilante killings in the last three months, almost all of them in broad daylight.
On April 1, Pehlu Khan, a Muslim cattle trader, was lynched by a mob in the western state of Rajasthan as he transported cattle he had bought at an animal fair back to his home state of Haryana. Khan and his family were small dairy farmers.
In May, two Muslim men were beaten to death over allegations of cattle theft in India's northeast.
However, Muslims are not the only ones being targeted by cow vigilantes. There have also been lynchings of people in the "untouchable" caste Dalit, many of whom have jobs related to cows, such as disposing of dead cows. Four Dalits in Gujarat were brutally beaten by cow vigilantes in August of last year for allegedly killing a cow, which later investigation revealed to have been killed by a lion.
Many Indians are pointing the finger at president Narendra Modi and his ruling BJP party (Bharatiya Janata Party), which are strongly supportive of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). They point out that BJP politicians are silent when a Muslim is lynched by cow vigilantes, but they were outraged over the recent public slaughter of a calf by Youth Congress activists in Kerala. They say that the silence of Modi and the BJP are, in effect, inciting violence against Muslims and Dalits by cow vigilantes. New Delhi TV and Daily Sabah (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Doha) and Free Press Journal (India)
According to a study by the IndiaSpend organization, cow vigilante attacks began in 2010, but have gotten much worse since Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP party came to power in 2014.
According to the IndiaSpend report, since 2010 cow vigilantes targeted Muslims 51% of the time. 86% of the Indians killed in 63 incidents were Muslims. As many as 124 people were also injured in these attacks. More than half (52%) of these attacks were based on unsubstantiated rumors.
2017 has been the worst year so far over slaughtering of cattle or possessing cattle meat, with 20 cow-terror attacks reported.
The targets were Muslim in 51% of the cases, Hindus of Dalit caste in 8% of the cases, 15% Hindu of undetermined caste, 5% Sikh, and 1.6% Christian.
Hindu veneration of cows is an extremely emotional issue in India, and has played an important part in India's last two generational crisis wars. The bloody 1857 rebellion against British colonists was triggered when Indian soldiers serving under the command of the British army were ordered to use a new kind of gun cartridge greased with tallow, which was allegedly made of beef and pork fat. Rumors spread rapidly that the British defiling the bodies of the soldiers by breaking their castes, which was the punishment for eating beef.
The next generational crisis war was the Partition war of 1947, which followed the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan. The debate over whether to create one or two countries was settled by the argument that Hindus and Muslims can't live together because Muslims can't stand pigs and Hindus can't eat cows.
The rise of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) and cow veneration in the last few years, combined with the rapidly growing violence in Kashmir, signals that the fault line between Hindus and Muslims in India is growing again, and that the old passions that led to the bloody 1857 Rebellion and the even more bloody 1947 Partition war are reviving again. DNA India and IndiaSpend and India Times and Washington Post
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 29-Jun-17 World View -- Thousands in cities across India protest lynchings of Muslims and Dalits by cow vigilantes thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(29-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Trump, meeting Modi in Washington, approves sale of 22 drones to India
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Decades of disputes on the Himalayan border between China's Sikkim state and China's Tibet province were renewed this month in more than ten days of confrontations between Chinese and Indian troops.
The confrontation began early in June. China accuses India of sending border guards to cross into what China calls its "sovereign territory" in Sikkim, and said that the guards had "obstructed normal activities" by Chinese forces building roads connecting coal mines.
An article titled "Indian troops’ provocation brings disgrace to themselves" in China's state media Global Times makes a number of vitriolic accusations and threats directed at India:
"Chinese and Indian soldiers are locked in a face-off at the Sikkim section of the China-India border after Indian troops crossed the boundary and entered Chinese territory. ...It remains unclear whether this flare-up is the fault of low-level Indian troops or a tentative strategic move made by the Indian government. Whatever the motive, China must stick to its bottom line. It must force the Indian troops to retreat to the Indian side by all means necessary, and China's road construction mustn't be stopped.
India's national confidence has been greatly boosted with its GDP rising to fifth in the world. The fact that the US and West are willing to woo India to counterbalance China has particularly added to Indians' sense of strategic superiority.
Some Indians believe the US and Japan are building a circle to contain China, and India has an advantage over China by choosing whether to join this circle. Therefore, they can indulge themselves on issues including border disputes, while China has no choice but to make concessions. ...
China avoids making an issue of border disputes, which has indulged India's unruly provocations. This time the Indian side needs to be taught the rules.
India cannot afford a showdown with China on border issues. It lags far behind China in terms of national strength and the so-called strategic support for it from the US is superficial. China has no desire to confront India. Maintaining friendly ties with New Delhi is Beijing's basic policy. But this must be based on mutual respect. It's not time for India to display arrogance toward China. India's GDP is only one-quarter of China's and its annual defense budget is just one-third. Having a friendly relationship and cautiously handling border issues with China is its best choice."
In retaliation, China has blocked the entry of 400 Indians making an annual pilgrimage to a holy site in Tibet.
Following a policy of downplaying border conflicts, India has been relatively silent about this month's confrontation. An Indian media story entitled "India pushes back Chinese Army in Sikkim" says:
"A standoff running into more than 10 days now between Indian and Chinese troops has led to tension on the eastern frontier. There was also a scuffle as Indian troops pushed back their Chinese counterparts who made attempts to enter Indian territory at Doka La general area in Sikkim.Sources said the confrontation began about two weeks ago but a flag meeting was called on June 20 after two earlier attempts failed.
"The situation is still tense," said a government official.
There are reports of two Indian bunkers also being damaged.
Indian soldiers formed a human chain to stop the Chinese troops, sources said."
There is an ill-defined border some 4,000 km (2,500 miles) between China and India, of which 220 km fall in Sikkim. There was a major border war in 1962, and there have numerous minor clashes and incursions since then, although nothing has been settled.
The destruction of two Indian bunkers is a Chinese military response to India's continuing buildup of its military infrastructure in the Himalayas, and the apparent planning of an effective counter-thrust in the event of a conflict.
Analysts say that China has exhibited greater aggressiveness along the border since April of this year, when the Dalai Lama visited a region of northeast India claimed by China. Global Times (Beijing) and DNA India (New Delhi)
Related Articles
Some analysts believe that China provoked the military confrontation in Sikkim because of the planned Tuesday meeting of India's prime minister Narendra Modi with president Donald Trump in Washington, and because news stories had signaled greater military cooperation between India and the US, as well as seeing China as a common challenge.
The major military outcome of the meeting was the Trump administration's approval of the sale of 22 Guardian maritime drones to India, worth about $2 billion. India had requested to buy the drones late last year, but president Barack Obama left the decision to the new administration. The drones will be unarmed, and will be used for gathering intelligence over the India Ocean.
It's against American policy to sell an armed drone to a non-Nato country, India has indicated that it may purchase armed drones from Israel.
The joint statement following the meeting between Modi and Trump did not mention China by name, but set out principles that are "central to peace and stability" in the Indo-Pacific region. These principles were clearly directed at China, with additional text specifically directed at North Korea:
"In accordance with the tenets outlined in the U.N. Charter, they committed to a set of common principles for the region, according to which sovereignty and international law are respected and every country can prosper. To this end, the leaders:
- reiterate the importance of respecting freedom of navigation, overflight, and commerce throughout the region;
- call upon all nations to resolve territorial and maritime disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law;
- support bolstering regional economic connectivity through the transparent development of infrastructure and the use of responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the environment; and
- call on other nations in the region to adhere to these principles. ...
The leaders strongly condemned continued provocations by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), emphasizing that its destabilizing pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programs poses a grave threat to regional security and global peace. The leaders called on DPRK to strictly abide by its international obligations and commitments. The leaders pledged to work together to counter the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction programs, including by holding accountable all parties that support these programs."
The items listed above allude to China's invasion and annexation of the South China, which is a violation of international law, and calls for freedom of navigation throughout the region.
The third item in the list alludes to China's "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) project. India has rejected the OBOR project, saying that the massive infrastructure projects violate India's sovereignty in Kashmir. The appearance of this item in the joint statement indicates that the Trump administration agrees with India's objections to the OBOR project.
Needless to say, these statements have infuriated China. According to China state media, if the US "cozies up" to India, it could lead to "catastrophic results," which presumably means a war between India and China:
"Washington's pursuit of closer ties with New Delhi is mainly driven by its strategic need to utilize India as a tool to counterbalance China. ...Washington and New Delhi share anxieties about China's rise. In recent years, to ratchet up geopolitical pressure on China, the US has cozied up to India. But India is not a US ally like Japan or Australia. To assume a role as an outpost country in the US' strategy to contain China is not in line with India's interests. It could even lead to catastrophic results. If India regresses from its non-alignment stance and becomes a pawn for the US in countering China, it will be caught up in a strategic dilemma and new geopolitical frictions will be triggered in South Asia.
In an era when emerging countries have been playing an increasingly important role in global affairs, if India, an important participant in two non-Western organizations - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS - can firmly stand together with China in striving for more discourse power, it will be helpful for New Delhi to realize its big power ambitions.
From the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s, both the Soviet Union and the US wanted to play the India card to check China. Then the Kennedy government supported India's Forward Policy. But the result wasn't what was expected. India isn't able to balance China, which has been proved by history. New Delhi should avoid being roped into a geopolitical trap. Despite its anxieties over China's rise, maintaining a stable relationship with China is of more importance to its security and development."
The sale of drones to India, and the apparent China "containment" policy of India and the US, are going on at the same time as a flare-up of border clashes in Sikkim. This is a good time to recall that there's another border dispute that's becoming critical: The increasing violence between separatist insurgents and Indian security forces in Kashmir. These are , are all signs of significantly worsening tensions between India and China. Defense News and Live Mint (India) and Sputnik News (Moscow) and Global Times (Beijing)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 28-Jun-17 World View -- As Narendra Modi visits Washington, China threatens India after border clash thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(28-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
US troops in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO)
not affected by island handover
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Egypt's president Abdel al-Fattah al-Sisi on Saturday ratified an extremely controversial deal that hands over the two strategically important Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The islands are at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, where they oversee the passage of ships carrying goods between the Red Sea and four countries -- Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The plans to hand over the islands were part of an April 2016 announcement that the two countries would build a land bridge connected Saudi Arabia and Egypt, 10-20 miles (16-32 km) long, right at the location where the prophet Moses is said to have parted the Red Sea, in order to bring his people out of slavery into the Promised Land. It would be called the King Salman Bridge, named after Saudi Arabia's leader, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.
That announcement triggered massive protests in Egypt, with opponents claiming that Egypt was forfeiting the country's territory and sovereignty in exchange for bribery and extortion by Saudi Arabia -- a threat to cut off fuel subsidies, and the promise of $22 billion in development projects in Egypt to help its ailing economy.
Opponents of the handover claim that the Tiran and Sanafir islands were granted to Egypt in 1906 in an agreement to draw up formal boundaries between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. Supporters of the deal claim that they've always belonged to Saudi Arabia, but they were placed under the administration of Egypt in 1949 in the wake of Arab-Israeli tensions, following the creation of the state of Israel.
The main emotional attachment that Egyptians have to the islands follows from the fact that many Egyptians died defending the islands during two wars with Israel, one in 1957 and one in 1967. Israel captured the two islands in the 1967 Six-Day war, but they were returned to Egypt under the 1979 Camp David accords.
The validity of the handover has been extremely contentious in Egypt's court system. In January 2017, Egypt’s High Administrative Court voided the deal handing over the islands. Then, in April, the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters OKed the deal, after ruling that the High Administrative Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. On June 14, Egypt's parliament approved the deal. Egypt's Constitutional Court has yet to rule on the matter, and may still nullify the deal.
A major deal such as this one would normally call for lavish ceremonies, but a decision has been made to have no ceremonies whatsoever, for fear of triggering further protests. Al-Ahram (Cairo) and France 24 and Egypt Independent
Related Articles
 |
The Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) is a little-known international peacekeeping force from 11 different countries including the United States, Fiji, Colombia, Uruguay, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, France, Italy, and others. The MFO is located in Egypt's Sinai desert, in two camps. The South Camp is located on the southern tip of the Sinai directly on the Red Sea, where it oversees the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, and guarantees unimpeded freedom of navigation and overflight through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba.
The MFO was originally conceived at the United Nations following the Camp David Accords. The MFO was proposed in the Security Council, where it was vetoed by China and Russia. As a result, the US, Egypt and Israel agreed to set up the MFO as an independent deal outside the UN framework.
The MFO has 1,667 military personnel supplied by twelve countries and 17 civilian officials. The US contributes nearly 700 personnel to the MFO, and also pays nearly a third of the organization’s $86 million annual budget.
The original purpose of the MFO was to guarantee peaceful relations between Egypt and Israel. It would seem to have outlived its usefulness, since relations between Egypt and Israel have never been better. However, when President George Bush wanted to scale back the MFO in 2003 in order to save money, both Egypt and Israel joined together to urge the US to reconsider. As a result, there is little or no desire on anyone's part to eliminate or scale back the MFO, and the Tiran and Sanafir island handover should have no effect.
It's considered to be the most successful peacekeeping operations in recent history, and it's expected to continue. The Multinational Force & Observers (MFO) web site and Global Security and Politico (1-Nov-2015)
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 27-Jun-17 World View -- Egypt's president al-Sisi hands contested Red Sea islands over to Saudi Arabia thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(27-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
How to do a generational analysis of the Mideast
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran's puppet terror organization, the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, said in a televised speech on Friday:
"The Israeli enemy should know that if it launches an attack on Syria or Lebanon, it’s unknown whether the fighting will stay just between Lebanon and Israel, or Syria and Israel.I’m not saying countries would intervene directly — but it would open the door for hundreds of thousands of fighters from all around the Arab and Islamic world to participate in this fight — from Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan."
Although Nasrallah's speech was nominally about liberating Jerusalem from Israel, it was clear from many of his remarks that it was really about Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries. He accused the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of funding the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), and he accused Turkey of facilitating its operations.
Nasrallah was also harshly critical of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and the fight against Iran-backed Shia Houthis:
"Despite all challenges of airstrikes, blockade, cholera, poverty and destruction, tens of thousands took to streets to voice solidarity with Palestine and Al-Quds [Jerusalem].Yemen proved that it will never be part of a scheme to sell Palestine, neither for a throne, nor for Trump and it is still fighting."
Nasrallah further made clear that he was talking about Shia fighters from Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, when he referred to Saudi Arabia and said "Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is too sacred to be liberated by traitors and hypocrites."
Nasrallah also referred to Imam Moussa al-Sadr, a highly revered Shia cleric, the leader of Lebanon's Shia Muslims, who said, "The honor of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] refuses to accept any liberation unless it is at the hands of true believers." Al-Sadr vanished in 1978 during a visit to Libya, and his disappearance has been a continuing mystery.
So analysts are interpreting Nasrallah's remarks as saying that an alliance of tens or hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, will spontaneously come to Lebanon to join Hezbollah in a war against Israel. This is about as delusional as you can get.
Supposedly, Nasrallah is thinking for example of the Shia Hazara ethnic group in Pakistan, some of whose fighters came to Syria to defend Syria's president Bashar al-Assad from the Sunni militias he was fighting. However, those were mercenaries, paid by Iran, with no personal interest in fighting either for or against al-Assad. In a general Mideast war, the Hazaras would have their hands full fighting the Taliban, and would not be rushing off the Lebanon to fight Israel.
So Nasrallah's speech, which seemed to be threatening Israel with hundreds of thousands of fighters from Islamic countries near and far, was actually an extremely bitter and vitriolic sectarian speech on the Sunni - Shia fault line, and the Saudi Arabia - Iran fault line.
This is not to suggest that there isn't a war coming between Hezbollah and Israel. There certainly is a war coming, and it will probably kill millions of Israelis and Palestinians, and leave the region soaked in blood. What I'm focusing on here is Nasrallah's boast about hundreds of thousands of Islamic fighters.
The last war between the two occurred in 2006, and was a disaster for both sides, killing a lot of people, destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, but accomplishing absolutely nothing for either side.
Nasrallah's remarks about hundreds of thousands of Islamic fighters was an allusion to the 2006 war, sending Israel a threat that the next war will be a lot worse for Israel than the last one.
Major Gen. Amir Eshel, the head of Israel's air force, specifically referred to the 2006 war last week when he said that Israel would have "unimaginable" military power in hand in any future conflict with Hezbollah:
"What the air force was able to do quantitatively in the [2006] Lebanon war over the course of 34 days we can do today in 48-60 hours.This is potential power unimaginable in its scope, much different to what we have seen in the past and far greater than people estimate."
Al Manar (Lebanon-Hezbollah) and Reuters and TeleSur TV (Caracas) and Times of Israel
Related Articles
The second of the 13 demands that Saudi Arabia is making of Qatar is to "Sever all ties to “terrorist organizations,” specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, al-Qaida, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Formally declare those entities as terrorist groups."
Hezbollah is a puppet organization of Iran, which is a bitter enemy of Saudi Arabia. The two countries no longer have diplomatic relations, after protesters in Tehran burned down the Saudi embassy in January of last year. So Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly quite serious in demanding that Qatar end its relations with Hezbollah as a condition for ending the land, sea and air blockade that Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Bahrain imposed on Qatar earlier this month.
A Saudi analysis claims that Qatar and Hezbollah have had very close relations with Hezbollah at least since 2008, when there was an agreement that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would become a regional axis with Qatar's participation. When Syria's civil war began in 2011, and Bashar al-Assad began massacring peaceful anti-government Sunni protestors, including hundreds of innocent women and children in Palestinian refugee camps, there was a rift between Qatar and Hezbollah, according to the report. But that rift was healed, and by November 2013, Hezbollah and Qatar met, and Qatar promised generous funding for Bashar al-Assad, who was facing huge financial difficulties.
Now there are new reports that Hezbollah fighters are joining Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Turkish forces in Qatar to protect Qatar's royal family. According to one Saudi analyst, "Qatar is playing with fire. It’s acting as an organization and not as a state." Al Arabiya (Riyadh) and Breitbart Jerusalem
Related Articles
As regular readers know, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US, India, Russia and Iran.
With the large number of ethnic groups and religious splinter groups in the Mideast, it's not easy to predict exactly who will be fighting whom in the approaching Mideast regional war. This question can be answered with appropriate generational research and analysis. As I've previously said, I certainly don't have anything like the resources to perform such an analysis by myself, but any college student interested in this kind of analysis could make an invaluable contribution to understanding what's going on in the world today by taking on, as a thesis topic, a generational analysis of the tribes and ethnic groups in the Mideast.
A couple of people have asked me how such an analysis would be done, and have asked me to provide additional information.
Generational analyses of historical events -- wars, political upheavals, coups, etc. -- all work pretty much the same way.
I always recommend finding 15-20 sources describing the event from different points of view. These days, the wealth of historical information on the internet has made this much easier.
Some of the 15-20 sources should be written around the time that the event took place, so that the analysis will be less influenced by ideological filters of historians who describe it later. Google Books has turned out to be a really valuable resource, because many of the historical texts you're looking for are available, and are out of copyright, so you can read them without paying for them.
Just to take a couple of examples, I was doing an analysis of the American civil war, and I found several books that were written in the early 1860s, just as the war was beginning. These kinds of sources are extremely valuable in understanding what was going on at the time. In fact, for doing a generational analysis, these kinds of sources are actually more valuable than histories written much later, since the best generational analyses convey the precise thoughts and behaviors of the people of the time -- their nationalism, their xenophobia, their statements, their actions.
As another example, last year I decided that I might write a book on the history Islam in India, from the 600s in the Mideast through the middle ages in India, to the present. I spent a couple of months collecting, reading, and summarizing a lot of stuff, including about a few dozen full length books and documents in English dating back to the 1800s, all the way back to the 600s. Alas, other things came up, and I had to drop the book-writing project. But the more I got into it, the more fascinating it became, and perhaps someday I'll get back to it, if I live long enough.
So when you're doing a generational analysis, it's necessary to collect as many sources as possible, with older sources closer to the event being more valuable than recent sources.
Once you read all the sources related to the event, then you have to figure out what was going on. Was the event a crisis war with a genocidal climax? Or was it an Awakening era confrontation, around 20 years after the climax of the last crisis war, characterized by a "generation gap" and large student riots and demonstrations? Or was it a "velvet coup," an Awakening era climax?
Once you've done that analysis for one event, you have do the same thing for other events for the same society, tribe or nation, in order to develop a generational timeline lasting for as many generations as possible.
Any event has to be analyzed from the point of view of each participant. It's not unusual to read two accounts of the same war by opposing sides, and get the impression that they're talking about two different wars. The same principle is true of major political events, such as bloody riots or coups.
Now, in the case of the Mideast, this job would have to be done for each of the tribes in the Mideast. This would be a lot of work anyway, but the problem is compounded by the fact that a lot of the historical information is only available in such languages are Arabic, Farsi or Urdu. That's why I said that I don't have the resources to do this job, and that it would require having something like a college department back them up.
The current situation between Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar is an example. About half an hour ago I saw a "Mideast expert" on television, and he was asked how the Qatar blockade was going to end. He answered that "Saudi Arabia is going to have egg on its face." This is what we get from these "experts." These Washington experts are complete idiots, as I've been seeing for many years now.
Still, I don't have an answer to the question of what the core issues are in the Saudi-Qatar split. Every analysis I've read is extremely shallow, usually no deeper than the "egg on its face" explanation, or something fatuous about Trump. I like to joke that, for these people, history always begins this morning.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, it's clear that it's going to be necessary to analyze generational timelines for all the ethnic and religious groups in the region going back at least two centuries, and possibly farther. Perhaps some college department can take this on as a thesis topic, because I don't have the resources to answer this question. I'll be happy to help if anyone is interested.
I've done a little work in analyzing Mideast generational timelines, but I've barely scratched the surface. Below is a list of articles that I've written in the past that contain brief generational analyses of the Sunni-Shia issue.
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 26-Jun-17 World View -- Hezbollah's Nasrallah makes delusional speech about 'foreign fighters' attacking Israel thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(26-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
UAE threatens 'parting of the ways' unless Qatar meets 13 demands
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
On June 5, four Arab countries -- Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Egypt -- imposed a land, sea and air blockade on Qatar. Other Arab countries followed suit. Many international politicians have said they were "mystified" by what the Arab countries were demanding of Qatar to end the crisis. The US asked Saudi Arabia to produce a list of demands that were "reasonable and actionable."
It's known that Saudi Arabia and UAE had heavily criticized Qatar for its strong support of the Muslim Brotherhood, considered a terrorist organization by America and some European nations, for its continuing trade and diplomatic relations with Iran, with whom Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries have broken diplomatic relations entirely, and for its use of al-Jazeera to propagate a message of support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and criticism of the leaders of other Arab states. However, the detailed demands were not known.
On Friday, a list of 13 demands appeared in the media. It's not clear where the list came from. The Saudis claim that the list was supposed to remain secret, so that negotiations would be effective. The Saudis claim that Qatar leaked the list in order to sabotage the negotiations. Other reports claim that the list came from Kuwait, which is acting as a mediator.
Here are the demands, as leaked to AP:
Many analysts have said that these demands are not "reasonable and actionable," and that in fact the demands are so drastic that the list appears to have been designed to be rejected. AP and Atlantic
According to reports from Qatar, the land, sea and air blockade has little effect on the daily lives of the citizens. Although Qatar imports 90% of its food, and formerly imported most of it from Saudi Arabia and UAE, the grocery store shelves are fully stocked, with supplies coming in from Iran and Turkey. According to one reporter, the main difference is that there are more Turkish dairy products, "which have proven to be higher quality and less expensive" than previous products. To all appearances, the blockade has been a failure.
UAE's foreign affairs minister Anwar Gargash spoke out on Saturday to say that the purpose of the blockade was not to punish Qatar, but to change its behavior:
"The alternative is not escalation, the alternative is parting of ways, because it is very difficult for us to maintain a collective grouping. This is not about regime change, this about behavioral change."The mediators’ ability to shuttle between the parties and try and reach a common ground has been compromised by this leak [the leak of the 13 demands]. Their success is very dependent on their ability to move but not in the public space."
Gargash says that unless Qatar meets the demands, it will be expelled from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Beyond that, it's not clear what is being threatened by "parting of ways." Doha News and The National (UAE)
Related Articles
Although all 13 of the demands in the list are serious, especially Qatar's relationship with Iran, it's hard to escape the feeling that the heart of the dispute is over al-Jazeera.
I've watched al-Jazeera English (AJE) for years, and there's no question that it has an editorial point of view. I've written on several occasions that AJE hates Israel, which is what one would expect and is not surprising. But what is surprising is that AJE seems to hate Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority even more than it hates Israel. I can't recall ever hearing an editorial criticism of Hamas, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and I certainly can't recall AJE referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization. So those who claim that al-Jazeera is "pro-Palestinian" are being misleading in my opinion. What they are is pro-Hamas.
Al-Jazeera was launched in 1996, and since then its two major affiliates, AJE and al-Jazeera Arabic (AJA) have become the most widely heard news sources in the Mideast. It is owned and funded by Qatar's government. It has always been encouraged to have an editorial policy of criticizing other Arab governments, although Qatar's government never received much criticism. Attempts by other countries to compete, such as Saudi Arabia's al-Arabiya, have succeeded only moderately.
On AJA, one of the most popular shows for years has been "Sharia and Life," a call-in show hosted by a leading Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Viewers could call in and received advice on food, family, clothing, politics, or anything else. Much of this advice contradicted the policy of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
The biggest differences began to emerge after the July 2013 coup that ousted Egypt's democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government. Al-Jazeera came down firmly on the side of Morsi, and against the coup leader, General Abdel al-Fattah al-Sisi, who later became Egypt's president. Several al-Jazeera reporters were arrested in Egypt, and remained in jail for several years. Gulf Times and Atlantic
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 25-Jun-17 World View -- Al-Jazeera may be at the center of the Gulf crisis with Qatar thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(25-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Multiple terrorist attacks across Pakistan kill nearly 50
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Tit-for-tat violence between Kashmir separatist insurgents and Indian security forces is escalating again. It was just last month that India launched a massive house-to-house sweep in Kashmir, using 3,000 security forces to root out terrorists. Insurgents have responded with new attacks, including the beating to death of an Indian police officer.
Now, Indian security forces are signaling that their patience has run its course, and a new "Operation All-Out" is being launched. According to media reports in India:
"The country's top security establishment has prepared a blueprint to deliver a lethal blow to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir with a long-term plan for a lasting peace in the trouble-torn Valley. ... As many as 258 militants from a clutch of outfits have been shortlisted for Operation All-Out that has been launched strategically in parts of the region. ...Sources also said intelligence inputs reveal that a new consignment of arms arrived in the Valley from across the border. "These are Chinese-made arms with better precision and more lethal effects," the sources said, pointing out that Chinese hand grenades were used in an attack on a CRPF Battalion this week."
These statements are significant not only because they signal escalated fighting in Kashmir, but also because they suggest Chinese intervention on the side of Pakistan.
According to the reports, the 258 militants who are being targeted are mostly from three terrorist groups:
India Legal Live and AP and India Today
Related Articles
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics and generational theory, Kashmir is rapidly heading for all-out war, possibly by the end of this summer.
Very long-time readers, may recall that in January, 2008, I wrote an article titled "Sri Lanka government declares all-out war against Tamil Tiger rebels." In that article, I wrote about the Sri Lankan civil war between the governing ethnic majority (Buddhist) Sinhalese and the ethnic minority (Hindu) Tamils. A separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or "Tamil Tigers" had been fighting an insurgency since the 1970s, although a peace agreement had been signed in 2003.
In that article, I quoted a military chief as saying that he was "confident" of defeating the Tamil by the end of the year. He said that the Tamils had violated the peace agreement repeatedly, so that it was meaningless, and:
"We can bring the war against the LTTE to a turning point once we are able to destroy the LTTE capabilities to operate in bunkers and forward defense lines."
The government had indeed run out of patience, and launched all-out war against the Tamil separatists, even killing them with artillery when they were hiding behind innocent civilians used as human shields. The civil war climaxed in May 2009, following reports of genocide on both sides, when the separatist Tamil Tigers surrendered and renounced further violence, ending the Sri Lanka crisis civil war.
If we apply the Sri Lanka situation to the current situation in Kashmir, there are some similarities and differences. In both cases, there was an ethnic/religious fault line (Buddhist Sinhalese versus Hindu Tamils, and Muslim Kashmiris versus Hindu Indians).
In both cases, the insurgency had gone on for years, with periods of low-level violence alternating with periods of mediated peace. In both cases, each new round of violence was worse than the previous one.
When the Sinhalese army "lost patience" in January 2008, it was a turning point in the war. In terms of Generational Dynamics, this was the point of "regeneracy," a term that's used in generational theory to describe the regeneracy of civic unity for the first time since the climactic end of the previous generational crisis war. The regeneracy is characterized by increased xenophobia and nationalism on all sides, and an attitude of "lost patience," meaning that "I'm going to end this war, once and for all, no matter what the cost." Compromise is no longer an option. The war continues and becomes increasingly genocidal, until there's an explosive genocidal climax that's so horrible that it brings the war to an end.
So in the case of Sri Lanka, the war did come to an end. Only now, nine years later, are we beginning to see the first signs of new decades of on again off again conflict, this time between the Sinhalese Buddhists and the Muslim Bodu Bala Sena (BBS).
So what does this tell us about Kashmir? In Sri Lanka, there was "lost patience," a regeneracy, another 17 months of increasingly genocidal fighting, an explosive climax, and then the war was over.
So with "Operation All-Out," we might imagine another 17 months of increasingly genocidal conflict between the Kashmiris and the Indian security forces, after which there will be an explosive climax and the war will be over.
But one can quickly see that won't happen in Kashmir. Sri Lanka is a relatively small island, and the fighting was contained to that island. India might have intervened, but did not intervene, so the war ended.
Kashmir is a small region, but it's surrounded by Pakistan and India. The war in Kashmir would not be contained. All-out war in Kashmir would spread to all-out war between Pakistan and India, with China supporting Pakistan and Russia supporting India. All-out war in Kashmir would be the start of the Clash of Civilizations World War.
Related Articles
There were multiple terror attacks in cities across Pakistan on Friday, killing 47 people and injuring hundreds of others.
At least 25 people were killed in two explosions at a market in the north-western town of Parachinar. The two explosions went off almost simultaneously near a bus terminal. The second explosion happened as rescuers rushed to help the injured from the first explosion. Four more people died later when security forces confronted an angry crowd protesting about the poor security situation.
At least 13 people died in a suicide bombing in Quetta. In Karachi, at least four policemen were reported to have been shot and killed on Friday evening.
The Pakistan army's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) agency said that the terrorists who conducted the attacks had crossed the border from "sanctuaries" in Afghanistan.
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan regularly blame sanctuaries in each other's country for terrorist attacks in their own country. There is actually some truth to this, as terrorists cross the border in either direction, blow up a marketplace or whatever, and then flee from local security forces back across the border where the security forces can't follow. BBC and Geo TV (Pakistan) and Dawn (Pakistan)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 24-Jun-17 World View -- India's 'Operation All-Out' brings Kashmir closer to all-out war thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(24-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Voting for statehood will not save Puerto Rico from financial crisis
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
On June 11, the citizens of Puerto Rico passed a non-binding referendum calling for Puerto Rico to be the 51st state of the United States. The vote was overwhelming -- 97% voted "yes" on the referendum.
Puerto Rico's governor Ricardo Rosselló said that he will create a commission to demand statehood from the U.S. Congress, which has to approve any changes to the island's political status. Standing in front of a cheering crowd of supporters carrying U.S. flags and dancing to a tropical jingle that promoted statehood, Rosselló yelled:
"The United States of America will have to obey the will of our people!"
Whether Rosselló actually believes that non-sequitur, or whether he actually believes his fantasy claim that Puerto Rico's financial crisis would now be solved by an influx of dollars from statehood, is not known. What is known with certainty is that Puerto Rico is not about to become a statement.
The referendum was about as phony as a Russian presidential election. Only 23% of the electorate voted, because the vote was almost 100% boycotted by all opposition groups, including the majority of Puerto Ricans who consider their identity and their culture to be uniquely theirs and do not want to be an American state for any reason. The pro-statehood party, on the other hand, spent millions of dollars on a campaign, telling people that if they did not vote for statehood they would be deprived of their U.S. citizenship and promising millions in federal money if it became the 51st state.
For Puerto Rico to achieve statehood, Congress would have to approve. The population are overwhelmingly Democrats, so a Republican congress will not be too interested. And statehood would mean that Puerto Rico would get five seats in the House of Representative, which means that five other states would lose one seat. It's just not going to happen. ABC News (12-Jun) and The Atlantic and The Hill and CNBC (9-June)
Puerto Rico owes $70 billion in bond debt and an additional $49 billion pension obligation to government employees. There's is absolutely no possibility that those debts will ever be repaid.
Puerto Rico's bonds have been tax exempt since 1917. Many people have invested in Puerto Rico bonds because they pay 10% interest (yields) and because under federal law they're "triple-tax free." This means that you could invest in Puerto Rico's bonds and earn 10% interest every year, and not have to pay federal, state or municipal tax on the interest you collect. There were other major tax benefits granted exclusively to those investing in Puerto Rico.
The money that investors paid for these bonds has been essentially "free money" to Puerto Rico, since nobody there apparently believed that it would ever have to be paid back. As a result, Puerto Rico has felt free to spend huge amounts of money on social programs, with bills that are only now coming due.
The unemployment rate is 13.7%. Only 700,000 of the 3.5 million people, or 20%, work in the private sector. The other 80% either are on welfare, or they receive unemployment or other aid, or they work for the government. Year after year, Puerto Rico sold more and more bonds, and investors ate them up because of the high tax-free yields.
Through various financial tricks, Puerto Rico has managed to avoid bankruptcy until now, but bankruptcy proceedings finally began in May of this year.
A Puerto Rican default is likely to affect millions of Americans. Here's an example of how mainland U.S. residents are affected: More than 40 percent of the Rochester Maryland Municipal Bond Fund and the Rochester Virginia Municipal Fund are invested in Puerto Rican bonds. Funds from Oppenheimer Funds and Franklin Templeton are heavily invested in Puerto Rico. If these funds collapse, public sector retirees and employees from states that invested in them will suffer.
The triple-tax free 10% interest deal has drawn massive amounts of money from 401k's and other ordinary investment funds. These funds will all lose significant principal in a Puerto Rico default, which means that a lot of ordinary Americans will lose part or all of their savings. Daily Caller and NBC News (5-June) and The Nation (24-May)
Related Articles
When Illinois' government missed an important deadline on June 1, rating agencies downgraded Illinois bonds to one step above junk status, and warned that unless the political impasse is resolved by July 1, it's likely that they'll be downgraded again, to junk status.
Illinois' debt has been exploding. In May 2016, the state had $5.03 billion in unpaid bills. That has almost tripled in one year with spending obligations exceeding receipts by about $600 million per month. As of June 1 of this year, it owes a record $14.5 billion in unpaid bills. On top of that, unfunded pension liability has been exploding as well. The state has more than 660 government pension funds. The unfunded pension liability for the state's five major plans is $251 billion, up 25% in the last year.
Pundits are claiming that Illinois' situation isn't as bad as Puerto Rico's, because Illinois is a wealthier state and can impose higher taxes. In one sense, the two are the same: There is no hope of ever paying off these debts.
Illinois hasn't passed a budget for the past two years. The Democrat-controlled legislature and Republican governor Bruce Rauner can't agree about anything. It's this political chaos that caused the June 1 deadline to be missed, and the same chaos makes it likely that a July 1 deadline will also be missed, which will trigger the bond downgrade to junk status.
The downgrade to junk status will not immediately force the state into default, but it will raise interest rates significantly, caused the debt death spiral (or, as S&P calls it, the "negative credit spiral") to accelerate. Anticipation of junk status is already affecting interest rates. Chicago public schools, which used to pay 4.64% interest on its bonds, are now paying an exorbitant 9%.
Other states are also facing serious debt spirals. According to a 2016 study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University:
The rankings were based on cash solvency, budget solvency, long-run solvency, service-level solvency and trust fund solvency. Investors.com and Zero Hedge and Bloomberg (1-June) and Barrons and Mercatus Center at George Mason University (2016)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 23-Jun-17 World View -- Financial crisis becomes critical in Illinois and Puerto Rico thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(23-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Iran's ballistic missile launch on Syria said to be a flop
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
We've seen rapid changes in the Mideast, especially since the "Arab spring" that began in 2011, bringing younger generations of Arabs into power to replace long-time dictators, and convulsing one country after another to the effect that it seems that the region becomes more and more unstable every day. There's no other way to cast the the latest change in the government of Saudi Arabia.
Previous royal successions have clearly focused on stability. Saudi Arabia's 90-year-old King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud died in January 2015, the Saudis followed tradition and appointed as a new king his "young" half-brother, the 79-year-old Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.
King Salman appointed his own successor, his nephew Mohammed bin Nayef, 57 years old, who became the "Crown Prince," meaning that he would become king if Salman died.
Wednesday's announcement breaks tradition. Salman has dumped his 57-year-old nephew Mohammed bin Nayef, and selected a new Crown Prince, his own 31 year old son, Mohammed bin Salman. In order to make this choice, Salman has arranged to amend the Basic Law of Government to say:
"Rule passes to the sons of the founding King, Abd al-Aziz Bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faysal Al Saud, and to their children's children. The most upright among them is to receive allegiance in accordance with the principles of the Holy Quran and the Tradition of the Venerable Prophet."
Traditionally, the line of succession in Saudi Arabia has passed from brother to brother. The phrase "children's children" is the change that permits Mohammed bin Salman to be selected, replacing brother to brother succession with father to son succession.
Mohammed bin Salman has already had a meteoric rise in Saudi politics, as the world's youngest defense minister. According to some reports, he has already been the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, as his father has been ailing.
Mohammed bin Salman is generally already very popular in Saudi Arabia, where the average age is 27, as he's promised to reform some of the strict Sharia laws that govern social life. Under his direction, Saudi Arabia has already set up a series of activities that are popular in the west, including comedy shows and monster truck competitions. He's unveiled a wide-ranging plan to bring social and economic change to the kingdom, and he's already travelled to Beijing, Moscow and Washington, where he met President Donald Trump in March. Al Arabiya and CNN and BBC
Saudi Arabia has for decades had a very conservative foreign policy, maintaining alliances with Americans, Europeans, Chinese and Russians, and serving as leader and mediator of the Gulf Cooperation Council of Arab states. That appears to be undergoing drastic change now.
As Saudi Minister of Defense, the young, energetic Mohammed bin Salman already has a record that indicates a far more belligerent and nationalistic foreign policy than the country has had in the past. This is what would be expected for a country in a generational Crisis era, after a succession to a younger generation.
Mohammed bin Salman is chief architect of the Saudi war against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, beginning in March 2015. This war has been a disaster for Saudi Arabia. Promises of a quick victory have dissolved into more and more bloody warfare. The war has not resulted in anything approaching victory, but has created a major humanitarian crisis, with 14.1 million people having little or no access to food.
Now that he's become Crown Prince, he's going to be under pressure to bring the war to a successful conclusion. In a generational Crisis era, a time of high nationalism, that is not going to be done by compromise, even if there were some inclination to do so. It's likely that under Mohammed bin Salman, there will be a sharp escalation in the Yemen war.
That brings us to the subject of Iran. Mohammed bin Salman is believed to be a leader of the air, sea and land blockade of Qatar, with Qatar's trade and diplomatic relations with Iran being one of the reasons given. According to Sanam Vakil analyst from Chatham House:
"Mohammed bin Salman already a few weeks back was the one who effectively shut the door to rapprochement between Saudi Arabia or the smaller GCC alliance and Iran.It seems that the crown prince has a very ambitious regional agenda, moving away from the longstanding Saudi policy of being much more quietist and working behind the scenes. This new prince has taken on a much more assertive regional role."
The implications are that Mohammed bin Salman has to win the war in Yemen, and that the split with Qatar will not be resolved for a very long time.
Mohammed bin Salman's rise also has implications for the war in Syria. He will not be likely to continue to tolerate Iran's aggressive actions in Syria. So far, the Saudis have avoided using ground troops in either the Yemen or the Syria war, but the new Crown Prince may feel obligation to counter Iran's influence by sending ground troops into one or both of these warring countries. RFI and Middle East Eye and Newsweek
Related Articles
As we reported Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that on Sunday it launched seven medium-range ballistic missiles (Zolfaghar ballistic missiles) from western Iran to at ISIS targets in Deir az-Zour in Syria, after flying over Iraq.
According to Israeli sources, the missile strike was a flop. According to Israeli media, three of the seven missiles fell to earth in Iraq, and three of the others missed their targets by hundreds of yards. Only one of the seven missiles reached its intended target.
According to an Israeli analyst:
"If the Iranians were trying to show their capabilities and to signal to Israel and to the Americans that these missiles are operational, the result was rather different. It was a flop, a failure. Still, it photographed well."
The IRGC said that all seven missiles reached their targets, and that 130 terrorists were killed. Times of Israel
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 22-Jun-17 World View -- Selection of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman portends further Mideast instability thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(22-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Brief generational history of DRC's Kasai region
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Earlier this month, the US and the European Union imposed sanctions on high-level officials in the government of president Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic (DRC), in reaction to numerous atrocities and war crimes committed by Kabila's government.
Besides war crimes, one of the reasons for the sanctions is that Kabila, who has been in power since 2001, is refusing to step down, despite the fact that his latest term in office expired in December of last year.
Kabila pulled a mind-boggling stunt. He claims that he can't step down because there haven't been any elections to select a president to replace him. There were supposed to be elections in November but they weren't held, because Kabila had done everything in his power to make it impossible to hold elections.
In December there was a threat of civil war in DRC, but the Catholic Church intervened and brokered an agreement: Elections would be held in December of 2017 to choose Kabila's successor, and this time Kabila would really step down. However, the agreement was a farce: It was signed by members of Kabila's government, but it wasn't even signed by Kabila himself.
It's now June 2017, and it's pretty clear that Kabila has no intention of stepping down this. In fact, he's denying that there's any agreement at all:
"I promised nothing at all, I want to organize elections as quickly as possible ... We want perfect elections, not just elections."
Of course he's right that he promised nothing at all: He never signed the farcical agreement brokered by the Catholic Church.
And no he's saying that it will cost $1.8 billion to hold the election this year, but that money can't be spared (presumably because he has to pay his army to massacre people in the opposition). So now he says that maybe there will be elections sometime in 2018.
Presumably he'd like the West to give him $1.8 billion to hold elections, but the norm in Africa is for leaders to take aid money and use it to build a mansion for themselves, put it into the leader's Swiss bank account, or, most likely in this case, use the money to kill more people in the ethnic tribes he hates. Despite untold billions of dollars given in aid to African countries for decades, the African people are still in the same level of poverty as they were decades ago, since these leaders make sure that the aid money is never actually used for aid.
Kofi Annan, the anti-American former Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a statement, signed by other former African national leaders, is warning that Kabila's actions are destabilizing the region, and possibly all of Africa:
"As African leaders committed to democracy, we are deeply concerned about the political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which represents a threat to the stability, prosperity and peace of the Great Lakes region, and indeed for Africa as a whole.We feel obliged to sound the alarm before it is too late.
The failure to organize elections in late 2016, in conformity with the constitution of the DRC, has created an acute political crisis.
The agreement between the Government and the Opposition reached on New Year’s Eve under the aegis of the Conference of Bishops (CENCO) averted a disaster, but its implementation faces increasing difficulties that jeopardize the process intended to lead to peaceful elections this year.
Both the spirit and the letter of the agreement are not being respected thereby endangering a non-violent political transition, which we believe is vital for the future stability and prosperity of the DRC.
Elections with integrity are the only peaceful strategy possible for resolving the crisis of legitimacy besetting the Congo’s institutions."
The statement concludes that "left unresolved the crisis will have continental implications." Human Rights Watch (1-June) and Africa News (4-June) and Newsweek (16-June) and Kofi Annan Foundation (6-June)
Based on a new report by the Catholic Church, the Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the chief of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR), accused authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) of mass atrocities against people in the Luba and Lulua ethnic tribes in Central Kasai province in DRC:
"The humanitarian and human rights situation has deteriorated dramatically [over the last three months] and various actors are fueling ethnic hatred, resulting in extremely grave, widespread and apparently planned attacks against the civilian population in the Kasais. ...I am appalled by the creation and arming of a militia, the Bana Mura, allegedly to support the authorities in fighting the Kamwina Nsapu (rebels), but which has carried out horrific attacks against civilians from the Luba and Lulua ethnic groups. ...
Refugees from multiple villages ... indicated that the Bana Mura have in the past two months shot dead, hacked or burned to death, and mutilated, hundreds of villagers, as well as destroying entire villages."
Unrest in the DRC capital Kinshasa turned violent on September 16 of last year, when DRC's electoral commission failed to launch the constitutionally-required presidential election process, making it evident that president Joseph Kabila had no intention of holding elections and stepping down.
By the time that Kabila's term in office ended on December 16, there was a growing civil war that was temporarily slowed by the agreement previously mentioned brokered by the Catholic Church that Kabila didn't even sign.
Kabila's greatest opposition stronghold is in the Central Kasai province, among the Luba and Lulua tribes. Tribal chieftain Kamwina Nsapu, was killed in August of last year, resulting in the formation of the Kamwina Nsapu anti-government insurgency. By January, 216,000 people had been displaced, and more than 400 killed, and the unrest and violence have been spreading to other regions.
The government created and armed its own militia, the Bana Mura militia. Apparently its actions were similar to those of the Janjaweed militias in Darfur. Sudan's government originally created the Janjaweed militias was to police the Darfur region, but in time the Janjaweed militias began committing mass atrocities, including killings, rape and torture.
So the DRC government created the Bana Mura militia to police the Luba and Lulua tribes in Kasai province, but they're now accused of committing mass atrocities, including killings, rape and torture.
UNHCR chief Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein is calling for a full scale investigation of the atrocities, and is asking the United Nations Security Council to authorize the investigation. However, DRC's government is refusing to cooperate with any investigation, and is forbidding any investigators from entering the region. The investigation is also being opposed by representatives from other African countries, who fear that such an investigation might lead to investigations of government atrocities in their own countries. United Nations and Crisis Group (13-Oct-2016) and TRT World (Turkey) and Crisis Group (21-Mar)
The Democratic Republic of Congo is an enormously large, almost the size of one-fourth of the United States. It's a country on multiple generational timelines. In particular, the violence in eastern DRC is on a different timeline, closely related to the Rwanda genocide, than southern DRC, containing the Kasai region.
United Nation officials are concerned that the unrest in Kasai is going to turn into a full scale civil war. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this is a growing possibility, but not the most likely outcome at this particular time.
After the decolonization of Belgian Congo, the Republic of Great Kasai declared its independence on June 14, 1960. On August 8, 1960, the autonomous Mining State of South Kasai was proclaimed with its capital at Bakwanga (present-day Mbuji-Mayi).
The Congo became independent on June 30, 1960. During a bloody four month military campaign in which thousands of civilians were massacred, troops of the Congolese central government re-conquered the Kasai region, and ended the South Kasai secession.
So South Kasai's last generational crisis war climaxed 57 years ago. In analysis of hundreds of previous generational crisis wars, it turns out that a new generational crisis war is most likely to start 58 years after the climax of the previous one, as that appears to be the critical time when most of the survivors of the previous war disappear (retire or die). South Kasai is thus on the cusp of a generational Unraveling era, transitioning into a generational Crisis era. So from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, it's quite possible that the current growing violence will spiral into full-scale civil war this year, but it's more likely that a full scale war will wait until next year. Africa Federation - Kasai History
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 21-Jun-17 World View -- Massive government atrocities in DR Congo's Kasai threaten regional stability thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(21-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Russia warns US that its jets in western Syria will be treated as targets
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
According to several reports, Iran has scored a major military victory in the last few days by taking control of villages on the Iraq-Syrian border in Deir az-Zour, and thus able to claim that they have control of an entire route, or land bridge, connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. The villages had been controlled by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), and they were recaptured by Syrian army forces in conjunction with the military operations to expel ISIS from Raqqa.
As we reported two weeks ago, the US and Iran were headed for a military confrontation in Deir az-Zour, as they competed to take control of the region in eastern Syria freed up by the expulsion of ISIS. But apparently the achievement caught the west by surprise. The Iraqi army's Iran-trained Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) raced from Mosul in Iraq to the Syrian border just as Syrian army divisions reached the same border crossing earlier this month, according to a pre-arranged plan between Iran and the Syrian regime. This gave Iran control of the border crossing before coalition forces could react.
This so-called land bridge is a lengthy, meandering 1,100 land route through Iraq and Syria, as can be seen from the map above, and there is a lot of skepticism that Iran controls the entire route in any certain sense. So far as is known, no attempt has yet been made to make use of the land route. Furthermore, even if Iran does control the entire route, any convoys would be vulnerable to US or Israeli airstrikes.
However, if the land bridge claim turns out to be true, it would be significant strategic victory for Iran, because it would permit Iran to supply its allies in Lebanon and Syria with weapons and rockets.
In light of this strategy, Iran's launch of seven missiles into ISIS targets in Deir az-Zour, that we reported yesterday, can be seen as having the two purposes: First to support the capture of ISIS territory needed for the land bridge, and second to warn Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel not to interfere, as the next missiles could be launched in their direction.
This is not the end of the story. Americans, Russians, regime Syrians, free Syrians, Kurds, Hezbollah and Iranians have all been united in fight against ISIS in Raqqa and Mosul. Al Monitor and Al Araby (9-June) and New Yorker and News Deeply (8-June)
Related Articles
Russia is demanding a full accounting from the United States military on why it was necessary for the US military to shoot down a Syrian regime Su-22 bomber on Sunday. As we reported yesterday, the US issued a lengthy statement explaining that the Syrian warplane was targeting Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that are supported by the US in the military operation to recapture Raqqa from ISIS.
The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement that all coalition jets and drones flying west of the Euphrates River will be tracked as potential targets:
"Any aircraft, including planes and drones belonging to the international coalition operating west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by Russian anti-aircraft forces in the sky and on the ground and treated as targets."
The Pentagon statement that we quoted yesterday said that "the Coalition contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established ‘de-confliction line’ to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing," referring to a hotline set up months ago between the US and Russia to prevent accidental or unintended military clashes. On Monday, Russia threatened to discontinue the de-confliction line, although reports at the end of the day indicated that it was still working.
There's a possibility that Russia is making threats for the benefit of its Syrian and Iranian clients, but does not intend to follow through on them, though this is not known if true.
As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US, India, Russia and Iran. Military Times and The Hill and Debka
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 20-Jun-17 World View -- Iran scores strategic victory in Syria with land route from Tehran to Mediterranean thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(20-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Iran launches missiles at ISIS targets in Deir az-Zour in major escalation
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
The Pentagon has confirmed that the US coalition has shot down a Syrian regime warplane that was attacking Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) positions near Raqqa.
The SDF are a US-backed fighting force containing mostly Kurds and with some Arabs that the US considers to be the best fighting force to defeat the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) in Raqqa, their last major stronghold in Syria.
According to the Pentagon statement:
"At approximately 4:30 p.m. Syria time, June 18, Pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja’Din, south of Tabqa, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.Coalition aircraft conducted a show of force and stopped the initial pro-regime advance toward the SDF-controlled town. Following the Pro-Syrian forces attack, the Coalition contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established ‘de-confliction line’ to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing.
At 6:43 p.m., a Syrian regime SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters south of Tabqa and, in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of Coalition partnered forces, was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet. ...
The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat."
A statement by the Syrian military said that the Syrian pilot was killed in the attack:
"“This attack comes at a time when the Syrian Arab army and its allies are advancing in the fight against ISIS terrorists who are being defeated in the Syrian desert in more ways than one. ...The attack stresses coordination between the US and ISIS, and it reveals the evil intentions of the US in administrating terrorism and investing it to pass the US-Zionist project in the region."
According to a late "breaking news" report from the Syrian regime, Syrian Arab Army forces tried to cross SDF lines in order to recover the body of the pilot, resulting "a fierce confrontation that is currently ongoing between the two entities near the key town of Resafa in western Al-Raqqa."
Sunday's attack would be the second time recently that US warplanes have struct Syrian regime military targets. On May 18, American warplanes launched a series of airstrikes on Thursday against a military convoy of pro-regime militias fighting in Syria. That attack was on a pro-Syrian regime convoy headed in the direction of an American training camp at the border town al-Tanf in Syria, near the border with Iraq and close to the Jordan border. Washington Post and ARA News (Kurds) and Russia Today and Al Masdar News (Damascus)
Related Articles
In a major escalation of its participation in the war in Syria, Iran has launched "a number of mid-range ground-to-ground missiles were fired from the IRGC aerospace force’s bases in Iran’s western provinces of Kermanshah and Kurdistan," striking ISIS targets in Deir az-Zour.
The missile attacks were in revenge for two coordinated terror attacks on Tehran targets on June 7. In the first attack, four gunmen, some dressed as women, burst into Iran's parliament armed with grenades and explosive vests. 12 people were killed after two vests had been detonated. After a five hour standoff, the four attackers were killed by police. A second, almost simultaneous attack, occurred when a suicide bomber exploded his vest near the mausoleum of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic. One person was killed, another wounded.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) blamed the attack on Saudi Arabia and America, and promised revenge. Sunday's missile attack was the promised revenged.
Up until now, Iran has participated in the war mostly by funding Hezbollah fighters, and providing military advisors. The missile launch marks an escalation in Iran's participation, and is likely to trigger new terror attacks by ISIS on Iran.
Iran has repeatedly said that Saudi Arabia was behind the June 7 attack. If Iran becomes convinced that it has irrefutable truth that the Saudis were behind a terror attack in Iran, then the next missile strike from Iran is likely to be on Saudi Arabia.
The two major events on Sunday -- the US downing of a Syrian warplane, and the missile launch by Iran -- shows how the war in Syria continues to spread and grow, almost on a daily basis.
As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US, India, Russia and Iran. Tasnim News (Tehran) and Mehr News (Tehran)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 19-Jun-17 World View -- US shoots down Syrian warplane, as Iran launches missiles into Syria thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(19-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Three Palestinians shot dead after killing female Israeli officer
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Israeli security forces shot dead three Palestinian teenagers who carried out terrorist attacks on Israeli police officers in two different areas of Jerusalem on Friday evening.
At one location, two Palestinians were shot dead after opening fire at a group of Israeli police officers. One Israeli officer was injured.
At the second location, a Palestinian fatally stabbed Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Border Police officer. Malka is being called a hero because she fought back against the attacker as he was repeatedly stabbing her. She died during emergency surgery. The attacker was shot dead.
For several months during 2015, these knife attacks by Palestinian teenagers on Israelis were becoming fairly common. Israeli security officials were baffled about how to prevent the knife attacks because, unlike suicide bomber vests, a knife can easily and openly be carried from place to place and wielded at a moment's notice. It was feared that the number of attacks would grow. However, by the end of the year it appeared that that the teenage knife attacks had run their course, despite encouragement from Hamas that they be continued.
The teenagers are in what is being called the "Oslo generation," because they grew up after the 1993 Oslo accords that were supposed to bring peace to the Mideast. Instead, the Oslo accords are perceived as having accomplished nothing, and that perception is completely correct. The Oslo generation see the so-called "Mideast peace process" as nothing more than a failed series of humiliations for Palestinians.
The result is that the youngest generations of Palestinians are pretty much disgusted with all the Palestinian leadership, in both the West Bank and Gaza. Like the youngest generations in many countries today, the Oslo generation are looking forward to replacing their current incompetent leadership with new, young, energetic leadership that will take them to war against Israel, and lead to atrocities, mass killing, rape and torture of both Palestinians and Israelis, and a region soaked with blood. Times of Israel and Reuters and Times of Israel
Related Articles
In a series of bizarre twists, different terrorist groups are competing for the honor of taking credit for killing Hadas Malka.
First off, the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) took responsibility for the stabbing and shooting attacks on Friday evening. According to a statement from its Amaq PR agency:
"Let the Jews expect the demise of their entity at the hands of the Caliphate soldiers. [The attack is] revenge for God’s religion and for the violated sanctities of Muslims."
ISIS, which is close to being defeated in Raqqa in Syria and in Mosul in Iraq, is increasingly taking credit for terrorist acts it had nothing to do with in order to try to improve the value of its brand name in view of its approaching defeat.
Hamas, the government authority in Gaza, was quick to call say that ISIS are liars, and that Hamas should get the credit, because all of the teenage attackers were Hamas members. According to a Hamas official:
"The three hero martyrs who executed the Jerusalem operation have no connection to Daesh (ISIS), they are affiliated with the PFLP and Hamas."
The acronym PFLP stands for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a long-in-the-tooth terrorist organization formed after the 1967 war between Israel and Egypt, currently a branch of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
The PFLP posted an interesting statement on their web site:
"The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine praised the heroic operation in Jerusalem on Friday evening that led to the killing of one armed occupation Border Police officer and wounding of several more armed occupation forces, saying that this operation comes at a critical time to defend Palestinian resistance.The Front saluted the martyrs whose lives were taken in the operation as heroes of the Palestinian people who acted to defend the rights of the Palestinian people with unrivaled courage, penetrating Zionist control over Jerusalem to direct the fire of their anger at the occupation’s armed forces and soldiers. The Front emphasized that the resistance is continued, rooted in the homeland and in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Palestine.
The PFLP also noted that this operation sends a strong, direct message to the defeated leaders of the Palestinian Authority, its polices and approach, that makes clear that the resistance is continuing and is the only path to defeat the occupier. The operation was carried out only meters from the al-Buraq Wall, confirming the Arab identity of Jerusalem. A attempt to undermine Palestinian and Arab rights to their holy sites and to Jerusalem will face strong and firm rebuke."
What's most interesting about the PFLP statement is that it refers to "the defeated leaders of the Palestinian Authority," referring especially to Mahmoud Abbas.
All of these statements are pure public relations statements. The purpose of the ISIS statement is to improve its brand name before its defeat in Syria and Iraq. The Hamas and PFLP statements are both targeted at the young Oslo Generation who, polls show, are completely disgusted with all of the leaders of the traditional Palestinian groups -- the Palestinian Authority, the PFLP, and Hamas. Each group is hoping that they can feel the love from the generation of Palestinian kids, but that's not going to happen.
Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, put out a statement condemning Israel for killing three teenage Palestinians who killed Israeli police officer Hadas Malka and injured four others. Abbas called their deaths a "war crime." This is completely laughable, but like many politicians' laughable statements, it's just another public relations statement to appeal to the children in the Oslo generation who, as polls have shown, generally hate Mahmoud Abbas.
Israel's military, the IDF, said that two of the attackers known to be affiliated with a local cell and not working for either ISIS or Hamas. They were imprisoned in Israel in the past for rock and firebomb attacks. So it turns out that all these terrorist leaders were just ordinary politicians lying to their constituents.
As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US, India, Russia and Iran. Times of Israel and Yeshiva World News and YNet News and AP
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 18-Jun-17 World View -- Hamas, ISIS argue over who gets credit for killing female Israeli officer thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(18-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Tiny Djibouti tries to survive, surrounded by big neighbors
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
The dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the Arabian Gulf has had a ripple effect on the horn of Africa in the form of a potential border clash between Djibouti and Eritrea.
On Friday, Djibouti accused Eritrea of invading and occupying disputed territory along their border. Some Eritrea military officials have confirmed that the charges are true. The invasion occurred after Qatar withdrew hundreds of peacekeeping troops it had on the border, following a major border war between Djibouti and Eritrea in 2008.
As we've been reporting, Saudi Arabia led a bloc of Arab countries in imposing a land, air and sea blockade on Qatar, accusing Qatar of funding terrorist acts through the Muslim Brotherhood, and of having too friendly relations with Saudi Arabia's arch-enemy, Iran.
President Donald Trump's harsh condemnation of Iran during his May 22 visit to Saudi Arabia triggered a renewal of long-standing vitriolic hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and on June 6, the vitriolic words turned into vitriolic actions, when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) all imposed the land, air and sea blockade on Qatar.
In the next few days, other Arab countries, including Djibouti, joined the blockade, while Eritrea refused to cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, saying that it was "impossible to cut ties," because it had "strong ties with the brother people of Qatar."
That changed last weekend. Last Sunday, Qatari officials visited to Eritrea to firm up it support for the Qatari side. But on Monday, Eritrea announced that it was switching sides and siding with Saudi Arabia against Qatar, issuing a statement:
"The decision by Gulf nations is among many in the right direction that envisages full realizations of peace and stability ... For Eritrea, this is a timely issue that warrants its active support."
That was all that Qatar could take. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Qatar pulled its peacekeeping troops from the border, and on Thursday Eritrea began its invasion.
Ethiopia has still not taken sides between Djibouti and Eritrea, but has called for dialog to settle the differences. The UN Security Council will meet on Monday to discuss the situation. Al Arabiya (Riyadh) and Africa News and Reuters and Press TV (Tehran)
Djibouti is a tiny country, with less than one million population, with high rates of illiteracy, unemployment, and childhood malnutrition. Nonetheless, the country has huge strategic importance, guarding the entrance to the Red Sea.
Djibouti hosts Camp Lemonnier, with more than 4,000 personnel, the largest American permanent military base in Africa. France and Japan launch military operations from Djibouti's Ambouli International airport. China also has a military base in Djibouti, and is investing heavily in the entire region with infrastructure projects.
Historically, Djibouti's population consists of two ethnic groups, both nomadic herders. Arabian immigrants came to the country in 3 B.C. and became the Afar ethnic group, who are considered the country's native population. Shortly thereafter, the Issa ethnic group came from Somalia, and today they are 60% of the population. In the 800s, Islam was introduced to the country and it became the first country to adopt Islam in the African continent.
In 1843, French troops came to the country and made the country its colony, later calling it French Somaliland. Following World War II, there were two referendums on the question of independence, one in 1957 and one in 1967, and the referendum failed in both cases. The Afars mostly voted to remain a French colony, while the dominant Issas favored independence, and accused the French of vote-rigging. After the 1967 referendum, France changed the name of the colony to "the Territory of the Afars and the Issas," in order to give the minority Afars a greater prominence. Finally, on June 27, 1977, France gave up its last colony, and made Djibouti an independent country. In recent years, tensions have been growing between the Afar and Issa tribes. (Paragraph corrected, 20-Jun)
A border war broke out in June 2008 between Djibouti and Eritrea. In 2009, the UN Security Council approved tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying weapons to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve border dispute with Djibouti. A peacekeeping mission was set up, using troops from Qatar.
With the Qatar troops leaving, the border war is resuming. The UN Security Council will meet on Monday to decide how to proceed. BBC (16-June-2015) and Nations Encyclopedia and Afar Diaspora Network
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 17-Jun-17 World View -- Djibouti, Eritrea border clash looms after Qatar withdraws peacekeepers thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(17-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Brief generational history of the Darfur civil war in Sudan
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
The United Nations Security Council is expected to vote unanimously on Sunday to approve a resolution to make a substantial reduction in the Darfur Sudan peacekeeping mission known as UNAMID. Some 8,000 personnel will be withdrawn. According to the resolution:
"Resulting in the reduction of the strength of the military component by 44% and that of the police component by 30%, the closure of 11 team sites in the first phase and the withdrawal of the military component from another 7 team sites in the second phase, it being understood that the Mission shall retain adequate and mobile quick response capabilities to be able to respond to security challenges as they arise."
Darfur is a large western province of Sudan containing numerous dark-skinned ethnic groups usually referred to collectively as "Africans." While the "Africans" are mostly farmers, the attacks have been the Janjaweed Militias, recently renamed the Rapid Support Force (RSF) for political reasons, consisting of light-skinned "Arabs," from herder ethnic groups. The Janjaweed militias are controlled by Sudan's government in Khartoum and have been accused of massive atrocities and genocide. An international arrest warrant has been issued by the the International Criminal Court on in the Hague for Sudan's president Omar al Bashir, who has been indicted on war crimes for the Darfur civil war, and the actions of the Janjaweed militias. The UN estimates that some 300,000 have been killed in the Darfur conflict so far, with 2.7 million people displaced from their homes, living in refugee camps under the protection of UNAMID.
The reason being given for the decision to cut the UNAMID force is that the amount of violence has gone down, as a result of a successful and brutal military operation last year by the RSF (Janjaweed militias) in the region of Jebel Marra in central Darfur.
Actually, there are numerous reports that the violence is continuing as before. The Jebel Marra offensive was extremely bloody, as reported by Amnesty International after interviewing hundreds of witnesses. According to the report:
"In January 2016, Sudanese government forces launched a large-scale military campaign in Jebel Marra, Darfur. Coordinated ground and air attacks targeted locations throughout Jebel Marra until May, when the seasonal rains in Darfur intensified, making ground attacks impractical throughout most of the area; air operations continued through mid-September. ...Amnesty International interviewed over 200 witnesses of abuses carried out by government forces in Jebel Marra between January and September 2016. Through these interviews, Amnesty International has documented a large number of serious violations of international law committed by Sudanese government forces, including scores of instances where government forces deliberately targeted civilians.
The violations included the bombing of civilians and civilian property, the unlawful killing of men, women, and children, the abduction and rape of women, the forced displacement of civilians, and the looting and destruction of civilian property, including the destruction of entire villages.
An estimated 250,000 people have been displaced by violence in Jebel Marra. Many remain inaccessible to humanitarian actors and vulnerable to further attacks.
The instances of indiscriminate attacks and direct targeting of civilians documented in this report amount to war crimes and may constitute crimes against humanity."
Sudan Tribune and US State Dept. (18-Feb-2016) and Amnesty International (29-Sep-2016)
Related Articles
I have sympathy for the decision to cut back on the UNAMID peacekeeping mission, but not because it's already been successful. Rather, it's been so unsuccessful that it's been shown to be a waste of money and resources. The Jebel Marra operation by Sudan's RSF (Janjaweed militias) last year was a huge bloody disaster for UNAMID, because it's shown how useless UNAMID is. The same is true, as we've described elsewhere for the peacekeeping missions in Central African Republic and South Sudan.
Eric Reeves, a Sudan expert from Harvard University, was interviewed on RFI and provided the following analysis (my transcription):
"The security situation hasn't improved at all. The nature of insecurity has changed quite a bit with the military victory by the Khartoum regime, in Darfur with the Jebel Marra offensive of last year.But as several reports have recently indicated, what's happened is that Darfur has been turned into what is called a "malicious state." While there is no active rebellion by organized rebel forces, the militias that opposed them, as well as the regular army, the Sudan armed forces, continue to attack civilians, and are bent on emptying camps for internally displaced persons, which hold 2.7 million overwhelmingly African non-Arab Darfuris, and there are 300,000 Darfuri refugees, again overwhelmingly non-Arab African in Eastern Chad, too fearful to return to what were their homes."
A detailed report from the Sudan Liberation Movement, covering the period from Dec 15, 2016, to March 15, 2017, confirms this assessment:
"The absence of security and the increasing levels of violence against civilians in Darfur manifests in many ways. As the facts and figures contained in this report show, the rate and pattern of violence, such as killings; rapes; abductions; torture; looting; burning of villages, market places, and farms; and attacks on IDP camps, have increased such that they now occur on daily basis. This deteriorating situation was also quite aptly reflected statement made by the US Ambassador Nikki Haley during a UNSC briefing on Darfur (May 4, 2017) as well as in the press release issued by the U.N. Secretary General following that meeting."
The report goes on to document recent uses of chemical weapons, recent use of systematic rape as a weapon, and attacks on UNAMID by the Sudanese forces. Sudan Tribune and Nuba Reports
About ten years ago, during the mid-2000s decade when much of the development of generational theory was going on, the Darfur war was of intense interest, because it was one of only two generational crisis wars going on in the world at the time, the other one being the war in Sri Lanka that climaxed in 2009.
The big picture, that I've described many times in Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan, and even America in the 1800s, is that in country after country, there a classic and recurring battle between herders and farmers. The farmers accuse the herders of letting the cattle eat their crops, while the herders accuse the farmers of planting on land that's meant for grazing. If the farmers put up fences, then the herders knock them down.
Darfur's previous generational crisis war was World War II. During the Awakening era of the 1970s, conflicts between the farmers and herders began to appear, but at that time they could always be resolved by the tribal elders, who had vivid memories of the horrors of the previous war, and were dedicating their lives to making sure that it never happens again.
When a drought occurred in 1983-85, and there was a scramble for arable land, the incidents of conflicts increased, resulting in brief periods of violence.
By the 1990s, the government in Khartoum decided it needed a police force in Darfur, and that job was assigned to the Janjaweed militias. They were from herder tribes, but at that time they really were just performing police functions, and were not committing war crimes. In 2003, there were a couple of regeneracy events, and the low-level violence between dark-skinned farmer "Africans" and light-skinned herder "Arabs" turned into a full-scale generational crisis war.
The next few years were like a comic tragedy. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recalled the Rwanda genocide of ten years earlier (1994) and vowed "Never again," calling for the United Nations and the world to take steps to avoid a repeat in Darfur. I wrote that in the Darfur genocide, the UN is completely irrelevant, and that the war would not end until it had run its course.
Another highlight of the time were a statement by Democratic senator Joe Biden who announced that he wanted to move the American troops from Iraq to the Darfur civil war. That was during President George Bush's "surge" into Iraq, which turned out to be successful. If we had listened to Biden, then American troops would have been embroiled in a disastrous war in Darfur.
Yet one more laughable highlight was the statement by the new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who blamed the Darfur war on the United States because of global warming. His reasoning was that the war was caused by the weather, and the US was responsible for the weather.
Finally in August 2007, the United Nations voted to send peacekeepers to Darfur to stop the war.
Now I've explained generational theory many times in my articles, so I'm going to repeat some theory now. Generally speaking, wars never end except in one way: a generational crisis war ends with an crisis war climax, a series of genocidal acts so horrible that they traumatize both the perpetrators and the victims. Until that climax, there may be peace agreements that stop the war for a year or two, but it always resumes. When the climax occurs, the traumatized survivors then vow that nothing so horrible can ever happen again, and it doesn't -- until the survivors die off and a new generational crisis war can begin.
So there was never any chance that the United Nations was going to end the Darfur civil war, as I said repeatedly ten years ago, and it hasn't. As I've said, we've seen peacekeeping forces fail miserably in numerous countries, including Darfur, so it's not surprising that UNAMID is being cut almost in half. A smaller UNAMID will permit the government in Khartoum and the Janjaweed militias to complete their objective of massacres, systematic rapes, systematic torture, burning down villages, destroying crops, and so forth. Only when there's been enough mass bloodshed and horror will the Khartoum government and the Darfurians decide that the war has to stop.
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 16-Jun-17 World View -- United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur Sudan to be cut almost in half thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(16-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
The Manus refugees' future is still undecided - except for
those coming to the US
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
In a major victory for activists supporting refugees and asylum seekers, Australia's governed settled a case by agreeing to pay refugees detained on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island up to AUS$150,000 (US $113,248) each. The total bill will be AUS$13.7 billion (US$ ), including AUS$20 million (US$ million) for the activist law firm that brought the class action suit on behalf of 1905 refugees being detained on Manus Island.
In 2013, Australia's prime minister Kevin Rudd announced that any asylum seeker who arrives by boat without a visa will have "no chance" of being resettled there as a refugee. Instead, they will be sent directly to neighboring Papua New Guinea and its Manus Island detention center. According to Rudd in 2013:
"From now on, any asylum-seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees. ... If they are found to be genuine refugees they will be resettled in Papua New Guinea — an emerging economy with a strong future, a robust democracy which is also a signatory to the United Nations refugees convention."
There was a similar agreement with the island nation of Nauru. The United Nations and pro-refugee activists have condemned the refugee camps, saying that under international law, valid asylum seekers should be resettled on Australian soil. Australian leaders responded that this was the most effective way to save refugees' lives, by discouraging them from taking a dangerous trip to Australia by boat.
The policy has accomplished its objective. There had previously been tens of thousands of "boat people" per year arriving in Australia from Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and other southeast Asian nations. This number has been reduced significantly.
However, the policy has been extremely controversial, and opposed by pro-refugee activists. The government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) was paid by Australia for the costs of detaining the refugees, but there have been numerous stories of beatings, torture, and sexual abuse at the detention centers.
A major blow to the Manus Island policy came last year, when PNG's Supreme Court dropped a bombshell, ruling that Australia's refugee detention center on PNG's Manus Island is inhumane, and must be shut down. The result is that the Manus detention center is scheduled to be shut down in October.
Now, the Australian government has been forced to a large settlement with the Manus Island refugees. The settlement has roiled Australian politics.
The Refugee Council of Australia says:
"Today should be the final nail in the coffin of Australia’s abusive warehousing of people who came to us seeking safety. This class action settlement provides an opportunity for our government to put an end to the destruction of so many people’s lives, to the damage it does to Australia’s international reputation and to the blank check our government uses to fund offshore detention."
However, other activists are furious that the settlement wasn't a lot larger, or that the case was settled at all, without a court trial. The Refugee Action Coalition said:
"It’s not sufficient to compensate people for what they’ve been through. It would have been far better for the public to have heard the evidence from people on Manus Island, to see the thousands of pages of evidence of documents that reveal the scale of the mistreatment."
Australia's Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, who was responsible for reaching the settlement agreement, said that a six-month court trial would have cost tens of millions of dollars in legal bill, and that there was no admission of liability:
"Settlement is not an admission of liability in any regard.The commonwealth strongly refutes and denies the claims made in these proceedings.
Labor [the previous government] imposed this cost on Australians when it handed control of the nation’s borders to criminal people-smuggling syndicates."
Dutton blamed the mess on the previous Labor government, and on the "ambulance-chasing lawyers" in the Slater & Gordon law firm. Guardian (London) and Peter Dutton's statement and Special Broadcasting Service (Australia)
Related Articles
It seems pretty certain that the whole project of offshore detention centers is now dead for good. According to Amnesty International:
"While the compensation deal is important, it does not remedy the injustices visited upon the refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island or change their present circumstances. The Australian government must finally face up to the inescapable reality that their offshore detention policies are unsustainable and bring all of the people trapped by them to safety in Australia.This settlement is a long overdue but welcome recognition of the harm that refugees and people seeking asylum have endured on Manus Island. Now, the Australian government must dismantle its illegal offshore detention centre and safely resettle these people."
However, the question of how they will be resettled remains to be determined.
We do know where 1,205 of the refugees are going to be resettled -- they're coming to the United States. In November of last year, President Barack Obama and Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull signed an agreement to allow 1,250 refugees being held in the offshore detention centers to be resettled in the United States.
Early in February, President Donald Trump called it "the worst deal ever," but promised to honor the deal because he was bound by agreements made by the previous administration. He confirmed that the US will take in up to 1,250 of these refugees, after subjecting each of them to "extreme vetting." An interesting wrinkle to the agreement is that Turnbull and Obama also agreed that Australia would help the United States deal with its refugee problem by taking refugees from Costa Rica and resettling them in Australia.
With the forced closure of the detention centers, Australia must find a way to deal with the thousands of refugees still in the offshore detention centers. In addition, the collapse of the offshore detention center system will undoubtedly encourage a new flood of boat people from other countries. The plan is to pay the refugees, and deport them and send them back to their home countries, but this will certainly be fought in the courts by pro-refugee activists. Amnesty International and CNN
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 15-Jun-17 World View -- Australia will pay $100K each to asylum seekers in Manus Island immigration camp thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(15-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Taiwan's harsh response signals increasing tension with China
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
China scored a new diplomatic victory over Taiwan on Tuesday, when Panama broke diplomatic relations with Taiwan and began diplomatic relations with China. China will not have diplomatic relations with any country that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and China uses its immense economic pressure to get its way.
A joint statement from China and Panama said:
"The Government of the Republic of Panama recognizes that only one China exists in the world, the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government that represents all China, and Taiwan forms an inalienable part of Chinese territory."
This is a complete victory by China over Taiwan. Taiwanese officials were infuriated by what they saw as Panama's betrayal. Taiwan and Panama have had 105 years of diplomatic relations. In 2014, Taiwan's then-president Ma Ying-jeou visited Panama, and was assured by Panama's president Juan Carlos Varela that maintaining diplomatic relations with Taiwan is most beneficial to Panama, even though the trade volume between China and Panama was 22 times that between Taiwan and Panama.
In June of last year, Taiwan's new president Tsai Ing-wen visited Panama and Paraguay. Varela's wife, Panama's first lady Lorena Castillo de Varela, answering a question about whether Panama would break relations with Taiwan, said:
"Absolutely not. Our relationship with Taiwan has to be respected. First of all, when you have the trust and friendship, we value it very much. This is something that has been built for many, many years and you take care of that and you appreciate it and you keep it. Panama and Taiwan are like brothers and sisters."
Well, apparently Varela and his wife didn't appreciate it very much, in view of Tuesday's announcement. Shanghai Daily and China Post (Taiwan, 7-Oct-2014) and Latin American Herald Tribune and Formosa TV (22-May-2016)
Related Articles
Something that I've been reporting on for over a decade is that China is losing a battle with time over reuniting Taiwan with China. In 2005, it was already clear from polls on the question "Do you feel Taiwanese, Chinese or both" that over a period of years, the number of people answering "Taiwanese" was increasing. The polls also show that it's the older people who feel "Chinese," and the younger people who feel "Taiwanese." This is a typical generational situation, where older generations who survived the last generational crisis war (Mao's Communist Revolution, 1934-49) were willing to compromise to prevent a new war, while the younger generations, with no personal memory of the war, are not willing to compromise.
 |
A poll conducted in June of last year showed overwhelming support for independence from China. Unification was favored by only 18.4%, with 66.4% opposed. In the 20-29 age group, 72% supported independence.
The surge in support for independence resulted in an overwhelming and historic victory in the presidential election for Tsai Ing-wen, the leader of the Taiwan's pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in January 2016. Since Tsai has taken office, relations between China and Taiwan have been increasingly hostile.
So after Tuesday's announcement that Panama breaking relations with Taiwan, Tsai was defiant:
"Taiwan is committed to preserving Cross-Strait peace, but China's move has impacted the status quo. We will not sit idle when our national interests are threatened. ...Coercion and threats will not bring the two sides together. Instead they will drive our two peoples apart. On behalf of the 23 million people of Taiwan, I declare that we will never surrender to such intimidation. ...
Although we have lost a diplomatic ally, our refusal to engage in a diplomatic bidding war will not change. Our approach of not competing with Beijing’s ‘checkbook diplomacy’ will not change ...
We are a sovereign country. This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded. China has continued to manipulate the ‘one China' principle and pressure Taiwan's international space, threatening the rights of the Taiwanese people, but it remains undeniable that the Republic of China [Taiwan] is a sovereign country. This is a fact China will never be able to deny. ... We won't allow our sovereignty to be challenged or be exchanged for anything."
Now, this speech by Taiwan's current president brings us to China's "anti-secession law." This law, passed in 2005, requires China to invade Taiwan if Taiwan makes any move toward independence, whether by word or by deed.
So Tsai Ing-wen has refused to endorse the "One-China policy," also called the "1992 Consensus," which states that there is only one China, and leaves some ambiguity as to what that means. With Tsai rejecting the One-China Policy, and now stating that "We won't allow our sovereignty to be challenged or be exchanged for anything," it is arguably the case that Taiwan has already taken steps to trigger the anti-secession law.
Chinese officials must know that time is not on their side. They can also read the polls that say that as time goes on, more and more Taiwanese favor independence, and fewer and fewer Taiwanese favor unification. A war between China and Taiwan is 100% certain, and it will be at a time of China's choosing. Taipei Times and Washington Free Beacon and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
Related Articles
At some point, China will decide to take military action, as required by the anti-secession law. Until that time, China is expected to continue taking measures to isolate Taiwan diplomatically, even though such measures are counter-productive, in that they infuriate the Taiwanese people and increase the support for independence.
With the defection of Panama, there are only 20 countries left in the world that diplomatically recognize Taiwan:
Completely apart from the diplomatic issues, China's closer relations with Panama are an economic coup. China is the heaviest user of the Panama Canal, and China has invested heavily in Panama's largest port, Margarita Island, and is developing 1,200 hectares of land around the canal.
China is expected to target the 20 other countries, one by one. China has invested heavily in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and they may following Panama soon. Jorge Guajardo, Mexico's former ambassador to China, tweeted: “Big question is, will Vatican ditch Taiwan for Beijing?” South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Washington Post and Reuters and Foreign Policy
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 14-Jun-17 World View -- In a major victory for China, Panama switches allegiance from Taiwan to China thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(14-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Differences between Qatar and Saudi Arabia run deep and will worsen
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Three weeks ago, President Donald Trump's harsh condemnation of Iran triggered a renewal of the years of vitriolic anger between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A week ago, the anger turned into actions with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries cutting ties and imposing a harsh economic blockade on Qatar. Today, positions appear to be hardening, and it seems very unlikely that the situation will be resolved soon.
Numerous countries have called for an end to the economic blockade. Trade is being affected in a number of countries. Qatar Airways has been blocked from using Saudi and UAE airspace, throwing airline schedules in the region into confusion. Britain, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Kuwait, Oman and others have encouraged diplomatic talks or offered to mediate. The United States administration called for Saudi Arabia to soften the blockade on humanitarian grounds, at the same time it called for Qatar to end funding of terrorist organizations.
Qatar's foreign minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani was defiant, saying that Qatar is willing to negotiate an end to the impasse, but that no one can dictate its foreign policy, and that "no one has the right" to pressure Qatar to silence TV network al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar's capital city Doha.
Since the split, additional Arab countries have joined the blockade against Qatar. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have cut relations with Qatar on the first day. Yemen, Mauritania, the Maldives and the Comoros Islands followed. Chad, Djibouti, Jordan and Niger downgraded relations without joining the blockade. Many of these countries receive financial aid from Saudi Arabia, and it's believed that they cut relations under financial pressure.
On the other hand, Eritrea on Friday refused to cut diplomatic ties with Qatar. It issued a statement saying that it had "strong ties with the brother people of Qatar," and it was "impossible to cut ties."
Iran has sent five cargo planes to Qatar, each carrying 90 tonnes of cargo, mostly fruit and vegetables. Three ships containing 350 tonnes of food items are also being sent to Qatar. Bloomberg and Anadolu and Deutsche Welle
Related Articles
When al-Thani said, as quoted above, that Qatar was willing to negotiate, but that no one could dictate its foreign policy, and no one could pressure al-Jazeera, he was saying that Qatar would not negotiate on two major causes of the split.
Not dictating its foreign policy meant that Saudi Arabia could not tell Qatar how to handle its relations with Iran. While Saudi Arabia and Iran can never have been classified as friendly allies, at least they were able to tolerate each other for decades until recently.
However, in January 2016, the entire Shia world was shocked that Saudi Arabia executed well-known Shia cleric Mohammad Baqir Nimr al-Nimr on charges of terrorism, at the same time that they executed 46 alleged Sunni terrorists. They were furious that he was executed at all, and also that it implied that Shia terrorists were no different from Sunni terrorists.
In Tehran, protesters stormed the Saudi embassy, and burned it to the ground. There were violent Shia protests across the Mideast. As violent Shia protests spread, Saudi Arabia cuts diplomatic ties with Iran.
Relations between Saudi and Iran have gotten even more vitriolic since then, and the Saudis have adopted the attitude toward Qatar that "you're either with us or against us," meaning that the Saudis will not tolerate Qatar having friendly relations with Iran. So when al-Thani says that no one could dictate Qatar's foreign policy, he was rejecting any compromise on its relations with Iran.
Al-Jazeera is the powerful news network that supposedly presents an Arab view around the world. I've always watched al-Jazeera when I can, because it provides information and a point of view completely unavailable in the western media. People tell me that al-Jazeera is biased, and that's true, but they're no more biased than the NY Times or NBC News. Generational Dynamics analyses require that all points of view be incorporated, so al-Jazeera provides an important function a biased point of view from the Arab world.
As I've mentioned several times in the past, one form of al-Jazeera bias has always seemed surprising. Listening to al-Jazeera, it's clear that they hate Israel. But that's not surprising. One would expect al-Jazeera to hate Israel. But what I found surprising is that al-Jazeera also hates the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas. In fact, al-Jazeera seems to hate the Palestinian Authority more than it hates Israel. On the other hand, al-Jazeera loves Hamas, and has never referred to them as terrorists that I can recall.
So that bias toward Hamas tells a great deal about why Saudi Arabia hates al-Jazeera, which reflects the foreign policy of Qatar. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a conservative Sunni Muslim ideology which is in competition with Saudi Arabia's Salafist Wahhabi conservative Sunni Muslim ideology. Just as Saudi Arabia and Iran have tolerated each other for decades and gotten along until recently, the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi ideologies have tolerated each and gotten along until recently.
But now, Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is becoming intolerable to Saudi Arabia, just like Qatar's friendly relationship with Iran. This is the kind of thing that typically occurs in a generational Crisis era.
Last week, Germany foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel warned this new crisis could lead to war, and that "a deep dispute between neighbors is the last thing that is needed" in the Mideast.
Whether Gabriel likes it or not, a "deep dispute" is what it is, and it's going to get worse.
As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. With appropriate generational research and analysis, the split between the Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood can be used to determine which ethnic groups will be fighting each other. I certainly don't have anything like the resources to perform such an analysis by myself, but any college student interested in this kind of analysis could make an invaluable contribution to understanding what's going on in the world today by taking on, as a thesis topic, a generational analysis of the tribes and ethnic groups in the Mideast. AP and Deutsche Welle (7-June) and Gulf News (10-June) and AP
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 13-Jun-17 World View -- Qatar-Arab crisis is unlikely to be resolved soon thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(13-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Brief generational history of Sri Lanka and Bodu Bala Sena (BBS)
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Police in Colombo, the capital city of Sri Lanka, on Sunday arrested five people for instigating religious violence that has led to a series of violent attacks on Muslims since April. Four of the people were Buddhists instigating violence against Muslims, while the fifth was a Muslim accused of defaming Buddhism.
More than 20 hate crime attacks on Muslims have been recorded since April 17, including arson at Muslim-owned businesses and petrol-bomb attacks on mosques. The attacks are being blamed on a radical nationalist Buddhist organization, Bodu Bala Sena (BBS - Forces of Buddhist Power) that has been conducting violent attacks on Muslim targets since 2014.
However, only one of the five arrested men is connected to BBS, an unidentified 32-year-old man directly linked to at least four arson attacks in a Colombo suburb. The Colombo police are being heavily criticized because they've been unable or unwilling to arrest the BBS leader, the Buddhist monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara, and many people believe that the Buddhist Sinhalese government is protecting Gnanasara, despite his connection to violence against Muslims.
The violence by Buddhist against Muslims in Sri Lanka has not yet reached the level of mass slaughter, mass torture, and mass rapes being committed by Buddhists, led by Buddhist monk Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu, against Muslim Rohingyas in Myanmar (Burma). Perhaps the two Buddhist monks, Gnanasara and Wirathu, are in some kind of bloody contest with each other to see who can be responsible for the most atrocities. Reuters and AFP
Related Articles
For 30 years, Sri Lanka's entire society has been dominated by the Sri Lankan civil war between the ethnic majority (Buddhist) Sinhalese and the ethnic minority (Hindu) Tamils. This civil war climaxed in May 2009, following reports of genocide on both sides, when the separatist Tamil Tigers surrendered and renounced further violence, ending the Sri Lanka crisis civil war.
Every generational crisis civil war follows the same general pattern. The war climaxes and ends with genocidal acts on both sides that are so horrible that the traumatized survivors vow to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. And they succeed, and a new civil war only begins decades later when the survivors finally die off. But during those decades, younger generations, with no personal memories of the horrors of the war, come of age and begin protests that sometimes become violent.
The protests start to become widespread during the generational Awakening era, which begins about 15-18 years after the climax of the crisis war, and is characterized by protests, sometimes violent, by college students.
Although it's only been 8 years since the climax of the Sri Lanka civil war, we're beginning to see the first signs of the violence that will become widespread in a few years. However, in this case, there's a twist.
The Sri Lankan civil war was fought between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils. The small Muslim community wasn't really involved, and according to some reports, they thrived and prospered during the war, while the other two groups were out killing each other.
The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) or "Buddhist Power Force" group was formed in 2012 to purify Sri Lanka for the Buddhists by exterminating the Christians, Hindus and Muslims. However, they've been particularly focusing on Muslims.
The leader of BBS is the Buddhist monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara. In 2014, a video showed Gnanasara delivering an explosive hate speech to large crowds of Buddhists, full of vicious rhetoric. He pointed out that the Sri Lankan police and army are Sinhalese, and therefore are on the side of the Sinhalese, and he screams explicit threats to Muslims, including using derogatory language. To roars of approval from the crowd, he vows that if any Muslim, were to lay a hand on a Sinhalese, that would "be the end" of all of them.
Gnanasara's speech triggered a sectarian bloodbath in the town of Aluthgama. Shortly after the speech, Buddhist mobs marched through Muslim neighborhoods, ransacking dozens of homes and shops. Three Muslim men were killed, and sixteen seriously injured in the two nights of violence that followed.
Despite his incitement to riot, Gnanasara claims that he and the BBS had nothing to do with the Aluthgama bloodbath. Now there have been at least sixteen major incidents since April 17 of this year. Once again, Gnanasara claims that he and the BBS have nothing to do with them. Nonetheless, Gnanasara remains in hiding, and the police are either unable or unwilling to arrest him. Daily Mirror (Colombo) and CNN (17-July-2014) and LankaWeb and The Island (Sri Lanka)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 12-Jun-17 World View -- Sri Lanka targets radical nationalist Buddhists in Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(12-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
History of Abu Sayyaf and Maute Group in the Philippines
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
US special forces are providing assistance to Philippine troops fighting the radical Islamist Maute rebel group in the southern city of Marawi. The help comes after a growing crisis in Marawi, on the island of Mindanao, and one day after the bloodiest day of battle so far, when 30 Philippine soldiers were killed and 40 wounded on Friday in a 14-hour battle. Dozens more soldiers were killed on Saturday, as fighting continued.
The drama began on Tuesday May 23 with a botched operation in Marawi City by the Philippine armed forces to capture terrorist leader Isnilon Hapilon, the leader of the Islamist terror group Abu Sayyaf, which has recently pledged allegiance to the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh).
Instead of quickly capturing Hapilon, the soldiers were caught completely by surprise when they were met by dozens of terrorists in the Maute terror group, who were backed up by foreign fighters from Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. The army now believes that it unwittingly interrupted a plan by the Maute group to take over the city and sack it.
At first, president Rodrigo R. Duterte said that the operation would be concluded quickly, and that there was no ISIS involvement. On Wednesday, the next day, Duterte declared martial law, saying that the island of Mindanao was under attack by ISIS. The army sent in reinforcements, as thousands of residents of Marawi fled from the city. On Wednesday morning, the army said that no airstrikes would be required. However, airstrikes began on Wednesday afternoon.
As the days went by, Duterte declared one deadline after another to recapture Marawi, and so far none of those deadlines has been met.
In the attack, some 500 militants seized large parts of the city while burning buildings, cutting power and communications lines and taking hostages. The fighting has so far left dozens of security forces, 20 civilians and hundreds of militant fighters dead. The Maute militants still control parts of the central city and have as many as 2,000 hostages, according to the Philippine military.
There is currently house to house fighting going on. Air strikes have flattened the city. The former city of 200,000 has been virtually emptied, although many people are trapped with no food or water. Duterte's next deadline for recapture of the city is Monday, June 12.
American special forces troops are not taking part in the ground fighting. They are providing intelligence and logistics support to the Philippine army. Inquirer (Philippines) and Rappler (Philippines) and USA Today and ABS-CBN (Philippines, 25-May) and AFP
Related Articles
A year ago, Philippines president Rodrigo R. Duterte said he wanted nothing more to do with the United States, and that he would henceforth work with China. I wrote at the time that this vow would never last because the Philippine people would not let it. The United States has about a 90% favorability rating, while China has more like a 50% favorability rating. Duterte has had to back off from his vow time after time, and now with the growing Islamist insurgency, he's decided that he needs American troops after all, at least in an advisory capacity.
The radical Islamist Abu Sayyaf Group was founded in 1991 and named after a mujahideen commander in Afghanistan. It pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. US forces were deployed to the area in 2002 to help the Philippines military deal with Abu Sayyaf, although the terror group continued. It became known for a series of kidnappings of foreigners for ransom and for beheading their captives.
In 2014, the group split into rival factions over the decision of its leader Isnilon Hapilon to terminate its allegiance to al-Qaeda, and to swear allegiance to ISIS.
The Maute Group was formed in 2012 by Abdullah Maute (aka Abu Hasan) and his brother Omar Maute. They began terror acts in 2013, and began a relationship with Abu Sayyaf in 2015. Today, Abu Sayyaf and the Mautes have a geographic reach that jihadist groups never had before.
Today, Abu Sayyaf and the Maute group are able to recruit new fighters from the entire region -- not just the Philippines, but in the large Muslim populations in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Furthermore, hundreds of jihadists fighters from the region have gone to Syria to fight Syria's president Bashar al-Assad for his genocidal acts towards Syria's Sunni population. With ISIS seemingly near defeat in Syria's Raqqa and Iraq's Mosul, it's believed that many of these fighters will return to the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, and that terrorist actions are going to grow significantly.
The army has claimed that the Maute brothers were killed on Friday in an airstrike, but this has yet to be confirmed. Reuters and BBC (31-May) and Philippine Star (29-May)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 11-Jun-17 World View -- US forces join Philippines forces fighting Abu Sayyaf and Maute Islamist terrorists thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(11-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Execution of Chinese citizens blamed on Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ)
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
With thousands of workers and families from China pouring into Pakistan to work on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), security for the Chinese communities is becoming an increasing concern.
On May 24, gunmen dressed as police stopped a car containing two Chinese nationals, a man and a woman, who were teaching Mandarin at a private language school in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's restive Balochistan province. At the same time, they were studying the Urdu language at the school.
On Friday, a press release issued by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) stated that the two Chinese citizens had been executed. The group also released a video, which showed two bodies shot and bleeding on some grassy ground.
China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in Beijing, "Pakistan pays great attention to the protection of Chinese citizens in the institutions there and made great efforts for their security."
Hua insisted that the abduction and killings were unrelated to CPEC. Nonetheless, following the abduction, 11 Chinese nationals living in the town where the abduction occurred were flown to Karachi, and then back to China.
Pakistani media have been ordered not to report on the killings of the Chinese citizens, saying that such reports would be "disrespectful" to the Chinese. But some have evaded the rules by republishing stories from international news wires. Newsweek Pakistan / AFP and Express Tribune - Pakistan / Reuters and Dawn (Pakistan, 3-Jun) and Hindustan Times
The kidnapping and execution of the two Chinese nationals was claimed by ISIS, but as usual ISIS is taking credit for something it had nothing to do with. As ISIS gets closer and closer to defeat in Iraq and Syria, putting out press releases taking credit for attacks around the world seems to be the only thing left it can do.
There's little doubt that the perpetrators the Al Alami offshoot of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJA), which has sworn allegiance to ISIS. LeJ is a terror group that has vowed to exterminate all Shias in Pakistan, and has carried out numerous terrorist actions targeting Shias and Sufis. In November, LeJA attacked a police training facility in Quetta, killing 61 people, mostly fresh police recruits.
The bad news for China is that LeJ, through its offshoot LeJA, is now apparently turning its attention from slaughtering Shias and Sufis to the slaughter of thousands of Chinese workers and families who have come to Balochistan to work on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Since the May 24 abduction, Pakistani and Chinese authorities had been trying to rescue the hostages. On Thursday, Pakistan's military released details of an operation that took place from June 1-3 in a remote cave system in Mastung, a town north of Quetta. According to the army, the operation killed 12 "hardcore terrorists, including two suicide bombers." Pakistani authorities confirmed that the killed terrorists belonged to LeJA, and said "The operation, carried out from June 1 to 3, successfully denied the establishment of any direct or indirect IS-organized infrastructure in Pakistan."
The Pakistani security forces destroyed an explosives facility inside a cave and recovered a cache of arms and ammunition, including 50 kilograms of explosives, three suicide jackets, 18 grenades, six rocket launchers, four light machine guns,18 small machine guns, four sniper rifles, 38 communication sets and ammunition of various types.
During the Mastung operation, the vehicle used in the kidnapping of the Chinese citizens was found, but not the Chinese citizens themselves.
Several hours after the details of the Mastung operation were released, the ISIS announcement of the death of the two Chinese appeared. Dawn (Pakistan, 8-Jun) and CNN and Dawn (Pakistan)
Related Articles
Over 10-20 years, at a cost of $46 billion, CPEC will supposedly build a network of roads, railways and energy pipelines aiming to connect western Chinese cities, starting from China's easternmost city Kashgar in Xinjiang province, to the sea port in Gwadar on the Indian Ocean in Balochistan province in southern Pakistan. It will have both economic and military components. Power generation, transport, commerce, R&D and the defense of Pakistan all will be increasingly tied to Chinese investment, supplies and interests.
Balochistan is Pakistan's largest province, but it's claimed by its population, mostly from the Baloch ethnic group, is marginalized and economically disfavored. The Baloch ethnic group has been opposed to CPEC from the beginning. Balochs are opposed because the project will result in an inflow of more than 600,000 Chinese people -- Chinese workers and their families -- diluting that Baloch population. Baloch activists claim that whatever economic benefits the CPEC project will bring to Pakistan, most of the benefits will go to the favored Punjab province. The CPEC project will use up all of Balochistan's natural resources, and the Baloch people will get nothing from it.
It's not just Balochs who are opposing it. According to S. Akbar Zaidi, a leading Pakistani economist, is warning that "Another East India Company is in the offing." The East India Company was a British business organization that used economic power to effectively colonize the Indian subcontinent for centuries.
According to Zaidi, Pakistan is prostrating itself to China:
"From the influence of American imperialism for most of its existence, Pakistan gave way to Saudi intrusion in domestic, cultural and social affairs, and now has prostrated itself in front of Chinese imperial designs. ...Pakistan’s obsession with China and CPEC bodes ill for any sort of rapprochement between India and Pakistan unless, of course, only if the Chinese initiate such moves, and if it fits into their grand design in the region. With China taking over Pakistan, providing it with undisclosed amount of investments, any argument of increasing trade and economic cooperation between India and Pakistan lose all urgency. When you have China, who needs India?"
The execution of the two Chinese citizens is raising security concerns among the Chinese as well.
Navy vessels from the People’s Liberation Army have been providing security escorts to Chinese commercial vessels since November, when they began docking at Pakistan's Gwadar port, which is the southern end of the CPEC infrastructure. In the future, the port will house a detachment of PLA marines, making it China’s second overseas military base after Djibouti. Hindustan Times and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 10-Jun-17 World View -- Execution of two of China's citizens in Pakistan raises concerns about CPEC thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(10-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
US warplanes strike Iran-backed pro-Syrian forces twice on Thursday
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
US warplanes struck Iran-backed pro-Syrian forces twice on Thursday, making those the second and third such strikes in the last month. According to the military, all three of the strikes were for the protection of American and coalition forces stationed in the al-Tanf base, on Route 1 on the border between Iraq and Syria.
On Thursday, coalition warplanes destroyed two armed pro-regime vehicles that were traveling toward the al-Tanf base. They were inside a "de-confliction zone," as specified by an agreement between Russia and the US to keep potentially hostile forces separated in Syria.
Later on Thursday, a US aircraft shot down an armed pro-Syrian unmanned drone that had dropped munitions in a region occupied by American and coalition personnel. The munitions did not cause any casualties.
US Army spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon said in a statement on Thursday:
"The pro-regime UAV, similar in size to a U.S. MQ-1 Predator, was shot down by a U.S. aircraft after it dropped one of several weapons it was carrying near a position occupied by Coalition personnel who are training and advising partner ground forces in the fight against ISIS.The shoot down follows an earlier engagement in the day in which Coalition forces destroyed two pro-regime armed technical vehicles that advanced toward Coalition forces at At-Tanf inside the established de-confliction zone threatening Coalition and partner forces.
The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them. The demonstrated hostile intent and actions of pro-regime forces near Coalition and partner forces in southern Syria, however, continue to concern us and the Coalition will take appropriate measures to protect our forces."
There's already been one deadly confrontation, as we reported in May. A pro-Syrian regime convoy was headed in the direction of the al-Tanf camp. US warplanes were scrambled in a "show of force" to dissuade the convoy from proceeding further. That show of force was only partially successful, as five of the vehicles continued approaching the base. In response, American warplanes launched a series of airstrikes against the military convoy, destroying all the vehicles. CNN and Military.com and ARA News (Syria Kurds)
There are numerous different forces operating in Syria and Iraq -- Americans, Turks, Kurds, Syrians, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh). As we've been saying for months, all of these forces (except ISIS) have been united only in that they were all nominally fighting against ISIS, albeit with a variety of hidden and conflicting objectives. Now that that the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa in Syria and in Mosul in Iraq appears to be increasingly imminent, all of these different forces will have no one to shoot at except each other.
The main military objective of Iran and the Syrian regime is to have complete control of a route, such as Route 1, between Baghdad and Damascus, so that Iran can easily transfer fighters and weapons into Syria, where they can be used against Sunnis, or handed off to Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. The US is opposed to allowing this route to be open.
As ISIS is forced to cede territory, different forces compete to control that territory, and it appears that the next major confrontation will be over the oil-rich region surrounding Deir az-Zour, the largest urban center in eastern Syria. ISIS has moved fighters fleeing from Mosul and Raqqa into Deir az-Zour, making the battle for this city likely to be as bloody as the battles for Mosul and Raqqa. A US-backed coalition of rebel groups are moving in, as are Syrian and Iran-backed forces, from different directions.
[Note: If you read the media reports, you'll find the name of this city in English spelled in a large variety of ways: Deir az-Zour = Deir Ezzor = Deir al-Zour = Deir ez-Zor = Deir Azzour]
Some reports indicate that the US has set up a forward base at al-Zukf (or al-Zkuf), 70 km northeast of the al-Tanf base. The goal is to be in position to support its coalition of rebel groups in their battle against ISIS in Deir az-Zour. There are already been clashes between these groups and Iran-backed forces. Washington Post and Global Research and Debka
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 9-Jun-17 World View -- US and Iran headed for military confrontation in Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(9-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Iran says Tehran terror attack was by Iranian nationals in ISIS
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Iran is vowing quick revenge for a pair of terror attacks that struck Tehran on Wednesday morning.
First, four gunmen, some dressed as women, burst into Iran's parliament on Wednesday morning, armed with grenades and explosive vests. 12 people were killed after two vests had been detonated. After a five hour standoff, the four attackers were killed by police.
A second, almost simultaneous and highly symbolic attack occurred a few miles away, when a suicide bomber exploded his vest near the mausoleum of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic after leading the 1979 revolution. One person was killed, another wounded.
Five people believed to be planning a third attack were arrested.
The so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) claimed credit for the terror acts, and backed up their claim during the attack by posting video from inside the parliament building. Iran later confirmed the claim, by saying that all the attackers were Iranian nationals who had joined ISIS.
This attack will act as a huge shock to Iranians, who imagined that they were somehow immune from the jihadist attacks that affect other countries in the region. ISIS and al-Qaeda had not been very successful in Iran because it's a mostly Shia Muslim country, making it difficult for the Sunni jihadist groups to recruit suicide bombers. However, there is a small community of Sunni Muslims in Iran, and it appears that ISIS has been able to infiltrate that group.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) blamed the attack on Saudi Arabia and America:
"World public opinion, especially in Iran, sees the fact that this terrorist act was perpetrated soon after the meeting of the US president with the heads of one of the reactionary regional states that has always supported ... terrorists as to be very meaningful."
Iranian officials point out that hours before the attack, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir said that Iran must be punished for alleged interference in the region and support for terrorist organizations.
The Saudis are likely to be infuriated by the implication that they were involved, and the terror attack is likely to worsen the already high tensions in the Gulf region, as well as the vitriolic statements that Iran and Saudi Arabia make about each other.
A statement by US president Donald Trump carried a mixed message, expressing sympathy for the victims but suggesting that Iran itself was to blame:
"We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."
BBC and CNN and Fars News (Tehran) and AP
Qatar continues to suffer economic isolation since Monday, when Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic relations with Qatar, closed Qatar's only land border, and closed Saudi airspace to planes from Qatar. Bahrain, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and other Arab countries followed Saudi Arabia's lead.
However, Turkey is strongly supporting Qatar, and criticizing the Saudi-led effort to isolate Qatar. Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkey will do everything in its power to help end the crisis.
On Wednesday, Turkey's parliament fast-tracked a bill to deploy up to 3,000 troops to Qatar. The troops will be stationed at a Turkish military base in Qatar that was originally set up in 2014, during the last period of time when Saudi Arabia had broken diplomatic relations with Qatar.
Although Turkey denies that the plans for a troop deployment are related to Qatar's split with Saudi Arabia, some analysts suggest that the purpose of the planned troop deployment was to help forestall a possible coup attempt in Qatar provoked by the Saudi government. Daily Sabah (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Qatar)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 8-Jun-17 World View -- Turkey approves troop deployment to Qatar after split with Saudi Arabia thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(8-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Qatar crisis triggered by $1 billion ransom payment to Iran and al-Qaeda
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
We've been reporting on the growing Mideast crisis, with numerous Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia, breaking diplomatic relations with Qatar, and imposing harsh commercial sanctions that threaten Qatar's economy. It's been widely reported that the crisis was triggered by President Donald Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, but new reports indicate that the reason was completely different.
It seems that in April, Qatar paid $700 million to Iran and Shia militias supported by the Syrian regime. Furthermore, up to $300 million more was paid to the al-Qaeda linked group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, Liberation of the Levant Organization). The ransom was paid to gain the freedom of 26 people in a hunting party that included members of the Qatari royal family, who had been kidnapped in southern Iraq in December 2015. The Saudis only learned of the ransom payment in the last couple of weeks.
HTS is the latest name change for what was originally called Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front) when it was officially the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. Then, in July 2016, Jabhat al-Nusra announced that it was splitting with al-Qaeda, and was changing its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS, Front for the Conquest of Syria). The reason given was that the group wanted to create an alliance with "moderate" militias fighting against Bashar al-Assad, but could not do so because none of them wanted to be linked to al-Qaeda. Then, in January of this year, JFS did merge with four other militias, and called itself Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS.
An unnamed official is quoted as saying:
"So, if you add that up [the $300 million paid to HTS] to the other $700 million they paid to Iran and its proxies, that means Qatar actually spent about a billion dollars on this crazy deal."
Well, this "crazy deal" was apparently the last straw for the Saudi authorities, because it confirmed all the claims that Qatar was funding al-Qaeda and Iranian extremism, although not in the way that it had been reported. The Saudis were so furious, they initiated the diplomatic break.
Many in the mainstream media have said that the Trump visit "caused" the split by "emboldening" the Saudis. That concept never made sense to me. I said that Trump's visit "triggered" the split, meaning that the forces were in place for the split to occur sooner or later, when the time was write.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this is an important distinction. Journalists like to take the easy road of saying that politicians, especially the US president, cause all the events that happen in the world. But the things that I write about are caused by generational pressures that build up over years and decades, and politicians have nothing to do with them, except perhaps to trigger an event that was going to happen anyway.
So now president Trump believes that he's going to bring an end to Islamist terrorism, and he's going to bring peace to the Israelis and the Palestinians. I'm going to respond in pretty much the same way that I responded to President Bush's "Mideast Roadmap to Peace" in May 2003. Just as Islamist terrorism is going to continue and grow, Jews and Arabs are going to refight the bloody war that occurred in 1948 with the partitioning of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel. The generational pressures have been building to this war for decades, as if a huge tsunami was launched in 1948 and is just about to reach shore. And the war cannot be stopped by a politician any more that you can stop the tsunami with a bucket. Times of Israel and Daily Mail (London)
Related Articles
Mr. Nazir Afzal was Chief Crown Prosecutor of the Crown Prosecution Service for North West England from 2011–15. A Muslim himself, his tenure was controversial because he vigorously prosecuted Muslim who had committed crimes, and he was critical of the Muslim community for not taking responsibility for stopping jihadist attacks.
He was interviewed on the BBC World Service on the question of what authorities should do to prevent lone wolf attacks, after the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester.
Afzal is highly critical of the political correctness that causes far too much tolerance of extremism in the United Kingdom (my transcription):
"People have been treading very carefully around issues. We've mentioned before, talked about honor killings, talked about grooming gangs, these are things I've prosecuted in my career over the last quarter century.And sadly they invariably involve the minority communities, predominately, and they also predominately involve the Muslim community.
On each occasion, much of the reason why things weren't being processed, or justice wasn't being delivered effectively, was because people were thinking it was too difficult, or there were perhaps understandable concerns about being seen as racist or religiously discriminatory in some way, shape or form."
The question being discussed is why young Muslims are being radicalized, or turned into extremists who may one day conduct terror attacks. Afzal said that his own Muslim beliefs are highly personal, and he contrasted his Muslim beliefs to those of the jihadists:
"Islamists believe that they should be able to impose their version [of Islam] on everybody else, and much of that sadly is either preachers who are from abroad, and who are able to carry on proselytizing this kind of thing. Or online."
Afzal's point is that if a young person is being exposed to this kind of jihadist proselytizing over the internet, then there's no way for authorities to get ahead of the problem and prevent radicalization, since there's no way to stop someone from absorbing these ideas over the internet from the privacy of his bedroom.
So then what should authorities do to prevent the radicalization of Muslim youth? Who in the community should the authorities be talking to? Afzal says that the authorities are talking to the wrong people.
"The lazy thing the government does - and by this I mean local government, national government, and anybody in authority - policing you name it - hospitals - anybody - they go to the usual suspects, and they are invariably what is commonly called 'the community leader.'Now I can assure you that we [Muslims] don't have community leaders. The majority of Muslims in the UK are under 25, they're female, and they're from relatively low income backgrounds. But these community leaders are invariably male, middle class, professionals, maybe over 40 or 50. And so when you talk to young people, and I've been doing a lot of that, they say, they don't have a voice. They say that nobody listens to them. They say that the people you -- you as in the state -- are listening to have no sense of what needs to happen."
According to Afzal, authorities should be supporting and talking to Muslim women's groups, because these groups live in the communities, they know the families, and they know which children are likely to become radicalized:
"To answer your second question, who should they be talking to, yes, they should be talking to those voices that don't have one. And the people who are doing the work. My experience is, and i've worked with dozens of women's groups around the country -- Muslim women's groups around the UK -- they're doing to phenomenal work. They already have access to families, they're already trusted in those communities. Once they identify somebody within a family, for example, who might be at risk of radicalization or extremism or any other vulnerability, they insure that they're given levels of support which protect not just that child, but protect the rest of us. And they are doing this on a shoestring. ...[The] signs are only indicators. You don't know until you've actually spoken to somebody whether they are being radicalized or not. You have to understand that so many people in this UK, and elsewhere I imagine, are having some kind of identity crisis. Many many others are suddenly falling into drugs. We have a significant problem in the UK with Muslim communities and drugs. You know, time and time again, I've tried to get major Muslim representative bodies to talk about issues like Muslims in prison, and women Muslims in prison. And they rarely ever do -- I can't think of any example actually where they've talked about it. There's a charity for example, Muslim women in Prison, and that charity is close to closing. and that tells me that we have our priorities wrong."
This story about lone wolf attacks in Britain is paired with the preceding story about the Qatar split because from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, they both make the same point: That people in authority, whether politicians or "community leaders," are not really controlling major events. Events are determined by masses of people, entire generations of people. In the Mideast, it's the rise in popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Britain, it's the rise of a new generation of young people, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Muslim countries.
Back in 2005, when the 7/7 London subway bombings occurred, I was always struck by the immense sadness of the parents of the kids who had perpetrated the bombings. They had no idea what their kids were planning. One Muslim man said that he was worried about the attitudes of his own children. "The bombers were just like us. And if they're just like us, then more of them could be anywhere, couldn't they?"
One of the bombers was 22-year-old Shehzad Tanweer. Months later, his father, Mohammed Mumtaz Tanweer, spoke out for the first time:
"All the bombings and killings were awful. Only the group of four [bombers] or God alone knows why they carried out this terrible act." He added: "As far as I can understand, my son was more British in his orientation than anything else. He has planned his career in sport. Even on the night before he died, he was playing cricket."
One can barely imagine the immense sadness of a parent whose child commits suicide carrying out one of these heinous acts. I don't know if Nazir Afzal's suggestion of working with Muslim women's groups would work, but it makes enough sense that it's worth a try. Daily Mail (London)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 7-Jun-17 World View -- How to stop lone wolf attacks in London and Manchester thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(7-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Arab nations' split caused by Qatar's relations with
Muslim Brotherhood and Iran
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
As I reported two weeks ago, years of bitter relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar came out in the open when Trump's Mideast visit triggered a sharp split between the two supposed allies.
On Monday, the split widened much further, with hostile words being replaced by hostile actions. Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic relations with Qatar, closed the land border between the two countries, and closed Saudi airspace to any airline flights to or from Qatar.
Other Arab nations immediately followed suit. Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also broke relations with Qatar and imposed similar economic sanctions. The countries all ordered their citizens out of Qatar and gave Qataris abroad 14 days to return home. The island nation of Maldives announced later Monday that it, too, would cut ties to Qatar.
If the diplomatic conflict continues, the economic impact on Qatar is expected to be enormous. Qatar has only one land border, the one with Saudi Arabia, and 99% of all Qatar's food, as well as other supplies, come through that border. The announcement immediately triggered a panic in Qatar, with people in supermarkets buying up all available food, in anticipation of food shortages and high inflation. It's estimated that Qatar has only three days' worth of food supply on hand in the country.
Some analysts are predicting that Qatar will have to give in to Saudi Arabia's demands to end the crisis. Other analysts believe that the split may destabilize Qatar's government, making a coup likely. However, other countries in the region, including Kuwait, Oman and Turkey, are calling for restraint, and are offering to mediate to resolve the dispute. AP and Al-Jazeera and Washington Post and Bloomberg
Related Articles
As I described in my lengthy analysis two weeks ago, the same countries recalled their ambassadors from Qatar in March of 2014, although diplomatic relations were restored later that year. At that time there was an extremely bitter split among the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which is an organization of Arab nations (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)) on the Arabian Gulf. The reasons for the split then are the same as the reasons for the split now: Qatar's relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Iran.
Although Qatar cannot be considered an ally of Iran, there are reasons why Qatar wants to have good relations with Iran. One reason is that there over a million Hindu migrants working in Qatar, and Hindus have historically had good relations with Shia Muslims. Another reason is that Qatar and Iran share the biggest natural gas field in the world, making Qatar the world's top liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter, and with Iran expanding its own LNG exports with the western sanctions removed.
These reasons do not make Qatar and Iran allies, but they do mean that Qatar has to get along with Iran, at a time when the relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are becoming increasingly vitriolic.
Qatar's relations with the Muslim Brotherhood have also contributed to split. There are two competing schools of conservative Sunni Muslim ideology. Extreme versions of either of these competing ideologies are used to justify Sunni terror acts.
One is the Salafist Wahhabi ideology, which has its roots in Saudi Arabia, and is the official Saudi religion. The other is the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which has its roots in Egypt, and is strongly supported by Qatar and Turkey. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, so Qatar supports Hamas as well.
Although the two ideologies have succeeded in coexisting for decades, they've been growing apart, and the differences are now coming to a head. The differences have been exacerbated by a number of events, including the 2013 Egypt government coup that removed the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, the 2014 Gaza war between Israel and Hamas, and civil war in Syria.
European and American governments have been pressuring the Saudi government to do something to stop terrorism by al-Qaeda linked groups or by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh). According to some analysts, the reason for the split between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is that the Saudis are using Qatar as a scapegoat in response to that pressure.
However, now that the split has occurred, it seems likely that the pressure will go in the opposite direction. Doha, Qatar's capital city, is a major airline hub, and the Saudi sanctions have thrown airline schedules in the entire region into chaos. There are 200,000 Egyptian workers in Qatar, and they will have to be withdrawn within two weeks, causing further chaos around the region. The economic sanctions on Qatar are going to affect the economies of the entire region. And the split is going to push Qatar closer to Iran.
As I've written many times, Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each other. With appropriate generational research and analysis, the split between the Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood can be used to determine which ethnic groups will be fighting each other. I certainly don't have anything like the resources to perform such an analysis by myself, but any college student interested in this kind of analysis could make an invaluable contribution to understanding what's going on in the world today by taking on, as a thesis topic, a generational analysis of the tribes and ethnic groups in the Mideast. Al Arabiya and AP and BBC and Israel National News (13-May-2014)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 6-Jun-17 World View -- Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations cut ties with Qatar in new Mideast crisis thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(6-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Iran-backed forces massing near the al-Tanf American base
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
The United States military is increasing its "combat power" in southern Syria around the American military training camp in al-Tanf, a Syrian town on the border with Iraq, on the Syrian side of Iraq's al-Waleed border crossing. The military buildup is in response to the approach of Iran-backed Shia forces from Iraq and the Syrian regime. Some unconfirmed reports indicate that the Shia forces are backed by Russian paratroopers.
Col. Ryan Dillon, a US military spokesman said:
"We have increased our presence and our footprint and prepared for any threat that is presented by the pro-regime forces."
Dillon said of the Iranian-backed forces being massed, "We see that as a threat." There are 150 US troops in the al-Tanf base.
There's already been one deadly confrontation, as we reported two weeks ago. A pro-Syrian regime convoy was headed in the direction of the al-Tanf camp. US warplanes were scrambled in a "show of force" to dissuade the convoy from proceeding further. That show of force was only partially successful, as five of the vehicles continued approaching the base. In response, American warplanes launched a series of airstrikes against the military convoy, destroying all the vehicles. It's not known whether there were any casualties.
It's believed that the militia forces in the convoy were not from the regular Syrian army, but were Shia militias coming either directly from Iraq or from Iran or from Iran's puppet Hezbollah militia in Lebanon.
This is the situation that the US military is confronting. Al-Tanf is on the strategically important Route 1 highway that connects Baghdad to Damascus. Iran's objective is for Shia forces from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and the Syrian regime to control the entire length of Route 1, so that Iran can easily supply weapons and transfer militias to the Syrian regime and to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US administration under President Trump is opposed to allowing Iran to expand its military presence in this way.
Al-Tanf is in a "deconfliction area," as specified by agreements reached among Russia, Iran and Turkey in peace talks held recently in Astana, Kazakhstan. The Iran-backed forces headed for al-Tanf are actually in violation of the of the Astana agreement that Iran signed. Reuters and Al Monitor and ARA News (Syria Kurds) and Ahlul Bayt (Iran)
Related Articles
The US Defense Department confirmed last week that hundreds of Iranian-backed Shia militiamen, including troops of Syrian regime president Bashar al-Assad, are massing near the American training base near al-Tanf.
In response, US planes over the weekend dropped 90,000 leaflets on the Iranian-backed militias:
 |
So far, these and other warnings have been ignored. The US military believes that Iran's Quds Force plans to take control of large regions of Syria now controlled by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), once ISIS is defeated in its two remaining strongholds, Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.
However, the US military consider the Iranian militias to be a threat to American forces. According to Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis:
"We continue to see massing [of forces] and we are concerned about that. These patrols are unacceptable and threaten coalition forces."
He added that American forces are not looking for a conflict, but that they would defend themselves. Kurdistan 24 and Asharq Al-Awsat (28-May) and Al-Alam (Iran)
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 5-Jun-17 World View -- US and Iran-backed troops head for confrontation at al-Tanf on Iraq-Syria border thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(5-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Afghanistan seethes with renewed anger over the attacks
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Six people were killed and 87 wounded in coordinated suicide bombing explosions at three sites in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Saturday, targeting a funeral for Mohammad Salim Izadyar. Other reports indicate that as many as 20 people were killed.
Izadyar was among six people killed and dozens injured on Friday by Afghan security forces during anti-government demonstrations.
The demonstrators were demanding the resignation of Afghanistan's president Ashraf Ghani for failure to protect the people, following a huge truck bombing on Wednesday that kill 100 people and injured hundreds more.
President Ashraf Ghani made a televised appeal for national unity:
"The country is under attack. We must stay strong and united. ...Terrorist groups plot to sow chaos. Their aim is to create poor governance and disorder in communities. We must not let ourselves fall into the trap that the enemies have brought to our country."
No one has claimed credit for either Wednesday's attack or Saturday's attack. Nonetheless, it's widely believed that the Taliban were responsible, particularly the Haqqani Network, but that neither wants to take credit because of the massive carnage of civilians, contrary to the Taliban's cultivated image of wonderful people merely fighting the infidels in the US and Nato. Khaama Press (Kabul) and Tolo News (Kabul) and CNN
Related Articles
Kabul, Afghanistan, has now had three deadly incidents in four days, killing hundreds of people and injuring many hundreds more. People are seething with anger at the Ashraf Ghani government.
Wednesday's and Saturday's attacks took place in what are supposed to be the most secure parts of Kabul. Friday's victims were killed by the government security forces. It's clear that no one is immune to the rising violence in the city. Kabul was once considered the most secure part of Afghanistan, but now it seems to be the most dangerous.
As we described yesterday, the attacks on Wednesday and Friday are bringing back memories of Afghanistan's bloody civil war of 1991-96. That war was fought between the Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in northern Afghanistan.
That same ethnic split divided the two sides in Afghanistan during the 2001 Afghan war, where the US attacked the Taliban, with the help and support of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance.
Saturday's funeral was for Salim Izadyar. He is the son of Mohammad Alan Izadyar, the deputy speaker of the Afghan senate and former Northern Alliance warlord who fought against the Taliban in 2001. Many of the people attending the funeral were honoring Salim, as well as his father. It seems likely that the Taliban were targeting the funeral guests for that reason.
Another person attending the funeral was Abdullah Abdullah, the Chief Executive of Afghanistan. In 2014, at US Secretary of State John Kerry's suggestion, Abdullah and Ghani became "co-presidents" of a sort.
The intention was to resolve a continuing governmental crisis at the time, but an analyst, Baker Atyani, says that the chaos caused by this co-presidency is leading to power struggles within the Afghan government, and that's leading to the violence. Ghani is a Pashtun while Abdullah is of mixed Pashtun-Tajik heritage, having supported the Northern Alliance.
As we wrote yesterday, Afghanistan is entering a generational Awakening era, and this ethnic violence will only increase. The two sides that respectively became the Taliban and the Northern Alliance ended their war in 1996. Those people are at peace, but their children are not.
The dilemma for the US and for that Nato coalition fighting in Afghanistan is how to extricate themselves. The US is still policeman of the world, and completely abandoning Afghanistan would be viewed as similar to the Chicago police force completely abandoning South Chicago because the fighting cannot be stopped. Unfortunately, the alternative is remaining in Afghanistan, even increasing the number of troops, even though there will never be peace between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. France 24 and BBC and Arab News and National Interest
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 4-Jun-17 World View -- Crisis in Afghanistan grows with three new suicide bombers in Kabul thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(4-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Five people killed in clashes with police in anti-government
rally in Kabul, Afghanistan
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
At least five people were killed and dozens injured on Friday in Kabul, Afghanistan, when security forces opened fire on protesters throwing stones at police.
The protesters were demanding that President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah both step down, for failing to protect citizens, following Wednesday's massive terror attack in Kabul that killed 100 people and injured hundreds more. The explosion was caused by a powerful truck bomb in a large truck designed to carry sewage. Over 50 vehicles were either destroyed or damaged in the attack. Buildings hundreds of meters away from the explosion were damaged or had windows blown out.
The terror attack is thought to be the worst in Afghanistan's recent history, and many people are furious that it was allowed to happen.
Over 1,000 protesters started marching towards the Presidential Palace early Friday. However, once at Zanbaq Circle, which was the scene of Wednesday’s deadly bombing, police started firing off tear gas canisters. According to some reports, the protesters threw stones at the police. Fire trucks also sprayed the demonstrators with water.
When this failed to disperse the crowd, police opened fire with live rounds on the protestors. The result was that at least five people were killed, with two of them shot in the mouth, and two more shot in the chest. At least 15 people were wounded, but reports indicate that they were mostlly shot in the legs and feet.
Chief executive Abdullah Abdullah addressed the nation on Friday afternoon and called for calm, and said that the shooting of peaceful protesters by security forces will be investigated. Tolo News (Afghanistan) and BBC
The Taliban are refusing to take credit for the massive Kabul bombing on Wednesday. That's not surprising, because of the massive slaughter of innocent civilians. The Taliban press releases like to portray them as nice guys fighting against a corrupt government and the infidels from the United States and Nato. Slaughtering and crippling hundreds of innocent civilians doesn't fit with their sweet PR image. Nonetheless, few people doubt that the Taliban, specifically the Haqqani Network, were responsible for Wednesday's bloody slaughter.
Americans and Europeans who try to understand what's going on in Afghanistan rarely dig any deeper than to refer to statements or policies of Barack Obama or Donald Trump or Angela Merkel, as if one of them could cause or prevent a truck bombing. Most people in Kabul probably don't even know who those leaders are. What they do know is that there was a bloody civil war from 1991 to 1996, with both sides regularly committing massacres, torture, rapes, beheadings, and any other atrocity that comes to mind, and the bitter memory of that bloody civil war guides much of what they do, including Friday's protests.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is the current leader of Hezb-e Islami (abbreviated HIG for Hezb-e Islami-ye Gulbuddin), a Sunni Muslim ethnic Pashtun group that fought on one side of Afghanistan's bloody civil war in 1991-96. Hekmatyar himself was a warlord known as the "Butcher of Kabul," because of his unparalleled record of atrocities, killing thousands of innocent people.
Hekmatyar last month was allowed to return to Kabul after 20 years in exile, mostly in the UK. Hekmatyar had signed a peace agreement that granted him immunity for acts committed during the war. In return, Hezb-e-Islami will renounce its ties with extremist groups.
Hekmatyar, now almost 70 years old, has had an epiphany, and is no longer committing atrocities, One of his followers, Safia Sediqi, a member of Hizb-e-Islami’s women’s committee, said:
"The country is tired, we were born in war Mr. president, we got old and our sons are getting old, you tell us when will peace come to Afghanistan."
This is always the cry of survivors of generational crisis wars. Traumatized by the war, all they want is peace.
But unfortunately Ms. Sediqi is going to learn that there will be no peace. As I've explained in the past, Afghanistan is at the beginning of a generational Awakening era, 21 years after the climax of the civil war. If it were up to the traumatized survivors, there would be peace, but it's not. It's up to the younger generations, growing up after the war, who have no personal memory of the war,
There will be no return to general civil war -- the traumatized survivors will see to that. But the young people will hold protests, demonstrations and riots that sometimes become violent. Afghanistan is also a special case because the Taliban are radicalized ethnic Pashtuns, and they are receiving support from the Pashtuns in Pakistan, which is in a generational Crisis era. So there will more terrorist acts and no peace.
Two things are certain: First, the demands that Ashraf Ghani step down are going to increase. And second, the war in Afghanistan is only going to get worse, no matter how many extra troops are sent by the US and Nato. Tolo News (Kabul) and Afghan Analysts (3-May) and NY Times
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 3-Jun-17 World View -- Kabul bombing brings back memories of bloody 1990s Afghan civil war thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(3-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Kenya launches new China-built railway from Mombasa port to Nairobi
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
Kenya on Wednesday launched a new railway line call he Madaraka (Freedom) Express, linking Kenya's Port of Mombasa on the India Ocean to the capital city Nairobi. The word "Madaraka" commemorates the day that Kenya became independent in 1963.
The new 380-mile Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) line is expected to be good for business. Cargo charges from the Port of Mombasa to Nairobi will cost about $500 per container and take 8 hours transit time. This is a significant saving over transit by road, which costs $900, and requires 24 hours. The train can carry 1,260 passengers.
The new railway replaces "The Lunatic Express," a rail link built in the late 1800s by British money and colonists. The Lunatic Express was increasingly shaky, with old tracks and locomotives that were increasingly difficult to service.
The new SGR was built with Chinese money and Chinese workers. China's state-owned Export-Import Bank loaned Kenya $3.6 billion for the project, which Kenya is expected to repay out of revenues. However, some analysts are raising concerns that the SGR will be a "white elephant," leaving Kenya with enormous unpayable debts, as has already happened in Sri Lanka.
Even worse, the cost to build the Kenya railroad has been extremely expensive even by regional standards. The cost of the railway was roughly twice as great as another China-built railway, the Djibouti-Ethiopia train, suggesting the possibility of corruption.
Perhaps Djibouti and Ethiopia were able to drive a harder bargain with the Chinese, because China is also building a naval and air base on the strategic Red Sea port in Djibouti, and the railway connects that port to Ethiopia's capital city, Addis Ababa. The site of the Chinese base is about 6 miles from an existing US base in Djibouti. China has defended the base construction, citing evacuations of Chinese nationals from nearby Yemen and Libya during recent conflicts.
In launching the new railway, Kenya's president Uhuru Kenyatta said:
"A history that was first started 122 years ago when the British, who had colonized this nation, kicked off the train to nowhere... it was then dubbed the 'Lunatic Express.' ...Today 122 years later, despite again a lot of criticism, we now celebrate, not the Lunatic Express but the Madaraka Express, that will begin to reshape the story of Kenya for the next 100 years. I am proud to be associated with this day. ...
The drop in cost of freight and fares will make Kenya a more attractive investment destination. More investors will lead to more jobs and growth in our economy."
Another issue related to the railway is that it crosses Kenya’s Nairobi National Park. Built by British settlers in 1946, this is a wild animal park on the fringes of Nairobi, and is a leading tourist attraction, and is responsible for a significant amount of Nairobi's income.
However, wild animals occasionally migrate out of the part into nearby homes and farms. With the SGR right through the middle of the park, these visits by wild animals have increased. Earlier this year, two lions escaped from the park and had to be shot, as they were threatening humans. This has raised an outcry from environmentalists, who are demanding a number of changes, including raising the railway above the park, so that animals can move freely. The Shanghaiist and Radio France Internationale and African Business Magazine (5-May) and UPI (18-April) and Huffington Post
There is no economic or financial case for the railway, according to a World Bank report. There's a very realistic fear that the SGR will generate far less income than is necessary to repay the China's $3.6 billion loan.
We've already seen exactly these problems in Sri Lanka. In 2009, China invested $1.2 billion in Sri Lanka's Hambantota seaport. Sri Lanka had expected to repay the debt through profits earned by the port, but the slowdown in trade throughout the entire region in the last few years has meant that Sri Lanka has been unable to repay the debt, and now China has essentially taken over the port in lieu of repayment of the debt, resulting in violent protests by Sri Lanka's Buddhist monks and anti-government protesters. China will own a significant piece of Sri Lankan real estate, and there will be a large Chinese community that will be in Sri Lanka forever.
Professor Samuel Nyandemo of the University of Nairobi's School of Economics refers to China's projects as "debt trap diplomacy"
“Extending loans for infrastructure projects is a good thing. But look at the projects being funded. Most of them are meant to open markets for Chinese goods in strategically-located countries and increase their access to natural resources.If there is one thing China is truly good at, it is using its economic assets to advance its geostrategic interests, which has left countries snared in a debt trap that makes them vulnerable to Chinese influence."
In fact, however much revenue the new SGR railway generates, it will have a significant negative economic impact on Kenya. That's because there's an existing Nairobi-Mombasa railway run by Rift Valley Railways (RVR). Amazingly, Kenyan authorities are now requiring that a minimum of 40% of the cargo travelling between Nairobi and Mombasa must be taken by the new SGR. This is presumably going to be a financial disaster for RVR, but it also means that Kenya will have little or no revenue gain from the new railway, since it will be taking much of its business from the old railway.
When Kenya's president Uhuru Kenyatta recently visited the One Belt One Road (OBOR) forum in Beijing, he signed a contract borrowing another $3.5 billion from China for an extension to the SGR that was just launched. Critics say that thanks to the president, Kenyans will have to labor for China for years to come. Kenya Standard Media (28-May) and Times of India and African Business Magazine (23-May)
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 2-Jun-17 World View -- China-built railway in Kenya raises questions about 'debt trap diplomacy' thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(2-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Afghans blame Pakistan and the Taliban-linked Haqqani network
by John J. Xenakis
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
 |
The biggest terrorist explosion in Afghanistan in years took place in the capital city Kabul during the morning rush hour on Wednesday, killing 90 people and injuring almost 400. The explosion was caused by a powerful truck bomb in a large truck designed to carry sewage. Over 50 vehicles were either destroyed or damaged in the attack. Buildings hundreds of meters away from the explosion were damaged or had windows blown out.
According to one witness, "I have been to many attacks, taken wounded people out of many blast sites, but I can say I have never seen such a horrible attack as I saw this morning."
The area that was attacked is supposed to be the safest in Kabul, with foreign embassies and government offices protected by dozens of 10ft-high blast walls guarded by police and national security forces. Every vehicle entering the area is supposed to be checked for explosives, leading some analysts to believe that the perpetrators had the cooperation of someone in the security forces.
However, a statement from the Nato forces says that Afghan security forces had prevented the vehicle from entering the heavily protected Green Zone that houses many foreign embassies, suggesting it may not have reached its intended target. Sky News (Australia) and Tolo News (Afghanistan)
Related Articles
The Taliban have conducted numerous terror attacks in Kabul, but they claim that they didn't perpetrate this one. According to a statement issued by the Taliban:
"[The Taliban] condemn every explosion and attack carried out against civilians, or in which civilians are harmed. ...[Whoever] carried out this attack and for what purpose, that will become clear at a later stage."
This statement from the Taliban is laughable. The Taliban regularly attack innocent civilians, including women and children, and they particularly target ethnic Hazaras and Shia Muslims in general. In fact, the vast major of people killed by the Taliban are innocent civilians. However, it's bad publicity for the Taliban to kill innocent civilians, so they're reluctant to take credit for it for PR reasons.
The so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) did claim credit for the attack, but ISIS has developed a public relations gimmick of taking credit for any terror attack, whether they've been involved or not.
The Afghan intelligence agency NDS blamed the Haqqani network for the attack. The Haqqani Network is linked to the Taliban, and is widely believed to be funded and supported by Pakistan security services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
According to an aide to Afghanistan's president Ashraf Ghani, "Today’s enormous explosion absolutely was a Haqqani Network type attack. ISIS [in Afghanistan] cannot carry out such a large and sophisticated attack." Sky News (Australia) and AFP and Daily Beast
Related Articles
Afghan security forces control only about 57 percent of the country's territory. Around 2.5 million people live in areas controlled by the Taliban and nine million more live in contested areas. According to analysts, the Taliban are now stronger than at any point since the 2001 Afghan war.
U.S. General John Nicholson described the current military situation in Afghanistan against the Taliban as a "stalemate," and he's requested several thousand additional US troops to enhance the 8,400 American and 5,000 coalition forces already present.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the security situation in Afghanistan will only get worse. As I've explained many times, Afghanistan's last generational crisis war was the extremely bloody civil war of 1991-96 was fought between the Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in northern Afghanistan. The Taliban are from the Pashtun ethnic group, which extends into Pakistan, and so the Taliban Pashtuns in Pakistan cooperate with the Taliban Pashtuns in Afghanistan to conduct terror attacks.
When America attacked Afghanistan in 2001, the Afghan Taliban collapsed quickly, because Afghanistan was in a generational Recovery era, with the traumatized survivors of the bloody 1991-96 civil war still recovering, with little will to fight. However, since the 2001 war, younger generations of Pashtuns have come of age, and they're more willing to conduct attacks against the government, and against their parents' former enemies in the Northern Alliance.
So it really doesn't matter at all how many troops the US or Nato send to Afghanistan. The security situation is going to continue to deteriorate, and the Taliban and ISIS will continue to control provinces of Afghanistan, at the expense of the government in Kabul. Deutsche Welle (25-May) and ABC News and Russia Today and Deutsche Welle
Related Articles
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 1-Jun-17 World View -- Massive terror explosion in Kabul, Afghanistan, as US considers sending more troops thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be
posted anonymously.)
(1-Jun-2017)
Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
Web Log Summary - 2017
Web Log Summary - 2016
Web Log Summary - 2015
Web Log Summary - 2014
Web Log Summary - 2013
Web Log Summary - 2012
Web Log Summary - 2011
Web Log Summary - 2010
Web Log Summary - 2009
Web Log Summary - 2008
Web Log Summary - 2007
Web Log Summary - 2006
Web Log Summary - 2005
Web Log Summary - 2004
Web Log - December, 2017
Web Log - November, 2017
Web Log - October, 2017
Web Log - September, 2017
Web Log - August, 2017
Web Log - July, 2017
Web Log - June, 2017
Web Log - May, 2017
Web Log - April, 2017
Web Log - March, 2017
Web Log - February, 2017
Web Log - January, 2017
Web Log - December, 2016
Web Log - November, 2016
Web Log - October, 2016
Web Log - September, 2016
Web Log - August, 2016
Web Log - July, 2016
Web Log - June, 2016
Web Log - May, 2016
Web Log - April, 2016
Web Log - March, 2016
Web Log - February, 2016
Web Log - January, 2016
Web Log - December, 2015
Web Log - November, 2015
Web Log - October, 2015
Web Log - September, 2015
Web Log - August, 2015
Web Log - July, 2015
Web Log - June, 2015
Web Log - May, 2015
Web Log - April, 2015
Web Log - March, 2015
Web Log - February, 2015
Web Log - January, 2015
Web Log - December, 2014
Web Log - November, 2014
Web Log - October, 2014
Web Log - September, 2014
Web Log - August, 2014
Web Log - July, 2014
Web Log - June, 2014
Web Log - May, 2014
Web Log - April, 2014
Web Log - March, 2014
Web Log - February, 2014
Web Log - January, 2014
Web Log - December, 2013
Web Log - November, 2013
Web Log - October, 2013
Web Log - September, 2013
Web Log - August, 2013
Web Log - July, 2013
Web Log - June, 2013
Web Log - May, 2013
Web Log - April, 2013
Web Log - March, 2013
Web Log - February, 2013
Web Log - January, 2013
Web Log - December, 2012
Web Log - November, 2012
Web Log - October, 2012
Web Log - September, 2012
Web Log - August, 2012
Web Log - July, 2012
Web Log - June, 2012
Web Log - May, 2012
Web Log - April, 2012
Web Log - March, 2012
Web Log - February, 2012
Web Log - January, 2012
Web Log - December, 2011
Web Log - November, 2011
Web Log - October, 2011
Web Log - September, 2011
Web Log - August, 2011
Web Log - July, 2011
Web Log - June, 2011
Web Log - May, 2011
Web Log - April, 2011
Web Log - March, 2011
Web Log - February, 2011
Web Log - January, 2011
Web Log - December, 2010
Web Log - November, 2010
Web Log - October, 2010
Web Log - September, 2010
Web Log - August, 2010
Web Log - July, 2010
Web Log - June, 2010
Web Log - May, 2010
Web Log - April, 2010
Web Log - March, 2010
Web Log - February, 2010
Web Log - January, 2010
Web Log - December, 2009
Web Log - November, 2009
Web Log - October, 2009
Web Log - September, 2009
Web Log - August, 2009
Web Log - July, 2009
Web Log - June, 2009
Web Log - May, 2009
Web Log - April, 2009
Web Log - March, 2009
Web Log - February, 2009
Web Log - January, 2009
Web Log - December, 2008
Web Log - November, 2008
Web Log - October, 2008
Web Log - September, 2008
Web Log - August, 2008
Web Log - July, 2008
Web Log - June, 2008
Web Log - May, 2008
Web Log - April, 2008
Web Log - March, 2008
Web Log - February, 2008
Web Log - January, 2008
Web Log - December, 2007
Web Log - November, 2007
Web Log - October, 2007
Web Log - September, 2007
Web Log - August, 2007
Web Log - July, 2007
Web Log - June, 2007
Web Log - May, 2007
Web Log - April, 2007
Web Log - March, 2007
Web Log - February, 2007
Web Log - January, 2007
Web Log - December, 2006
Web Log - November, 2006
Web Log - October, 2006
Web Log - September, 2006
Web Log - August, 2006
Web Log - July, 2006
Web Log - June, 2006
Web Log - May, 2006
Web Log - April, 2006
Web Log - March, 2006
Web Log - February, 2006
Web Log - January, 2006
Web Log - December, 2005
Web Log - November, 2005
Web Log - October, 2005
Web Log - September, 2005
Web Log - August, 2005
Web Log - July, 2005
Web Log - June, 2005
Web Log - May, 2005
Web Log - April, 2005
Web Log - March, 2005
Web Log - February, 2005
Web Log - January, 2005
Web Log - December, 2004
Web Log - November, 2004
Web Log - October, 2004
Web Log - September, 2004
Web Log - August, 2004
Web Log - July, 2004
Web Log - June, 2004