Putin and Russian foreign policy goals

 

 

Putin and Russian foreign policy goals

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

 

With his electoral win as President for the fourth term in modern Russia in a highly dramatic manner unheard in democratic poll history, President Putin would feel in total control of the country’s system and opposition.

At the very outset it needs to be stressed that Putn does not believe in western ideas of democracy of ruing a nation for maximum of two terms and stand down from entertaining further political ambitions.

Unless the previous Presidency polls in Russia, the election this time around was fairly predictable as people longed to see Putin making Russian presidency stronger. Unlike the self-boast claims of highly inflammable and erratic US President Donald Trump about “USA first” – as if USA had never pursed that policy before him and advanced interests of the world, Putin never made such foolish statements but strictly pursued “Russia first” policy vehemently. One achievement is the recovering the Crimea region from Ukraine by ignoring all objections of USA and allies. Now Russia dictates terms to USA in Syria.

Putin could claim that he is fulfilling the demands of the people wanting    a strong presidency that only he can provide. Like in Saudi Arabia the rulers just  do not entrain  extreme  experiments to make a sea change in the system for the  anti-royal  fringes to remove the  kingdom and establish their own dictatorship with US-Israeli backing in the name of so-called democracy, Russia also is keen  their system is not dismantled as per the designs of anti-Islamic forces. Moreover, the West suspects President Putin might revert Russia back to Soviet era system that would upset entire agenda of the West that after having succeeded in a big way, into eventual jeopardy. They keep calculating the post-Putin Russia but Putin still remains in full control.

A lively debate is on in the West and elsewhere about Putin’s’ new foreign policy if any. Obviously, President Putin would choose his course very carefully and he is quite capable of that.

Russia, like any other big nation, has its own fancies about its place in the world but the world turned out to be more unpredictable and complicated than many Russians thought.

True, Russian economy received a jolt in the form of economic terrorism from USA and EU known as “sanctions” on account of Crimea annexation.

Apparently, Russian leadership did not expect the West to introduce strong sanctions after Crimea and to stick with them for years though Russian action is final. However, China compensated the Kremlin for the huge economic loss in Western investments and trade deficits.

President Putin may have expected Hillary Clinton to win the US elections and become a tough anti-Russian president but the election of Donald Trump gave some hope so improvement in bilateral ties. Russia expected fanatic Donald Trump to become a soft Russia-friendly president. Russia did not expect the EU to sudden collapse under the weight of its own in internal contradictions at the wake of Brexit.

Arguably Trump has an unshakeable belief that he is uniquely positioned to defuse a dangerous standoff with Moscow by courting Putin.

Trump congratulated Putin on his election victory, and spoke in an upbeat manner about talks he hoped to hold with him soon, billing their meeting rather like a Reagan-Gorbachev summit from the 1980s. This is the latest example of his unusual deference to Putin, following the 2016 election in which US intelligence agencies assessed the Russians intervened on his behalf. But the White House says that Russia assaulted American democracy, used a nerve agent in an attack on the soil of its closest ally, Britain, and just held an election that cannot be judged free and fair. Yet the President did not bring up any of those issues during a telephone chat with Putin, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

An innocent looking Barack Obama did it in 2012 by greeting Putin, as he tried to keep his Russia “reset” strategy alive. But any interactions between Trump and Putin are closely watched given the special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling.

Putin meanwhile is one of the groups of autocrats and global strongmen that Trump seems to admire — an odd quirk in an American President who often appears tougher on allies than US foes, except that he promotes aggressively the Zionist expansionist agenda in Palestine against the UN demand to promote Palestine and International Law condemning all Zionist crimes against humanity. . .

Russia expects Ukraine to collapse under the weight of its unreformed economy, corruption and unruly political passions because US support for East European nation with communist background is not genuine.

Putin expects the settlement in Syria, where Russian military plays important role to help Assad stay alive and kicking while Syrians keep dying for him, to be a lot easier now.

Russian foreign policy predictions have occasioned a lively foreign policy debate in Moscow as well – on the meaning of Donald Trump, on the fate of the European Union, on what to expect from China, from Near Abroad, on what next in Syria and Donbas.

There has been a constant demand from liberals – both foreign policy thinkers and economic technocrats – to improve the relations with the West for purposefully advancing its national interest, starting possibly from stabilizing the situation in Donbas. They fail to recognize the fact the USA opposes any better ties with Russia and China. The processes of dismantling of mighty Soviet Union and Socialist system in the entire east Europe, braking down of Berlin Wall, etc were enacted by Michael Gorbachev in order to improve relationship with USA and Europe but alas only USA won the Cold war and Eastern Europe and made Russia feel for the loss of great nation status.

Yet, former finance minister Alexei Kudrin succinctly argues, “if we want our economy to grow, and grow smartly, we need to improve the relations with the West.” The West remains the best source for modernisation. The need for technocratic modernisation – the need to master the world of artificial intelligence, blockchains and other 21st century wonders – seems to be understood also by President Putin, at least intellectually, if not passionately.

 

Stabilization in Donbas, according to this camp, is the best place to start. Progress there would help to restart the relations with the European Union, and that might be of help at a time when the relations with the US are deadlocked because Russia has become a domestic issue in the US.

 

However, most of Russians see though the American-Israeli straggles to belittle Russia and simply oppose and even hate USA ad Western civilization. Then this dovetails with a foreign policy argument that holds that Russian foreign policy is overstretched and would benefit from ending a few conflicts.

 

The other camp in Moscow, thus, remains skeptical. They fear the West will view ‘concessions’ from Russia as a sign of weakness; or that rapprochement with the West would make Russia’s non-Western allies – from Iran to China – fear Russian ‘betrayal’.

 

Iran has already experienced such treatment in its relations with Russia in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Moscow used Tehran as a mere bargaining chip in its relationship with the USA. The same way USA used Pakistan a tool to improve relations with China after its success in misusing Islamabad to gain access to petrodollars n Arab world.

.

However, the sceptical camp is being advised by the West to agree on one crucial point: foreign policy indeed needs to change. Saudi Arabia is also following their footsteps without having any idea about the long term outcomes

 

Anti-Russia rhetoric and tactics continue to work in the west. They also work in the Middle East, where Russia now effectively owns the conflict in Syria and, to stay on top of the diplomatic process, it needs effective relations with all regional powers. They do not work in the West, because there, Donald Trump is now the disruptor-in-chief; and an unpredictable one at that. But USA is keen to see that the primitively anti-Western rhetoric and tactics that centre on disruption do not work anymore in Moscow. This requires predictable behavior. Surprise invasions have done their job, done it well in Moscow’s eyes – but their time seems to be far from over.

 

Such was the state of the debate when, in the afternoon of March 4, a former GRU employee and British double agent Sergei Skripal was found unconscious on the bench in Salisbury, poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok, the only known earlier producer of which was USSR/Russia. But now any country could produce and sell. Israel is known for such mischievous endeavors and USA diplomatically supports all secret Zionist operations.

 

UK quickly blames on Russia and personally on Putin as their usual strategy. This crime remains puzzling. Murders of exchanged spies – as Skripal was – have not been part of Moscow’s behavior so far. Was the only aim to kill a traitor? In that case, most other means would have been simpler than nerve agent.

 

UK might have expected a poor show by Puitn in the presidency poll. The domestic political incentives are likely. Could it have been indeed ordered by President Putin – with full knowledge of international implications? Or was it the job of some powerful Russian agencies without Putin’s knowledge, or maybe sanctioned only in very broad terms? In that case, will the Kremlin manage to distance itself from them, and do so with the level of publicity that would satisfy the West?

 

Such questions are raised in the West. No one knows for sure who does what.

 

Of course the issue is just starting point for Putn to just ignore and move on further with prudent foreign policy goals to remobilize entire anti-West and anti-West world to fight colonialism capitalism, imperialism, fascism and US brand Zionism.

The inconsistency in the Trump regime’s approach to Russia adds to uncertainty about how the West will respond to Putin’s growing willingness to exercise power beyond his borders.

Western policy toward Russia is not going to change dramatically for years. .

By shuffling the team members, Trump looks for opportunities to p advance the unilateral America to impose its military prowess on the world stage.

Russian voters are right: only President Putn can do that and assure peace prosperity for entire world. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India RSS-BJP fascist duo challenges judiciary over Babri Mosque judgment!

India  RSS-BJP fascist duo challenges judiciary over Babri Mosque judgment!

 – Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

 

 

 

The poisonous RSS-BJP fascist forces continue to dictate terms to India, its media lords and voters. They say everything in India must be done according their fanatic tastes. They have already begun attacking and killing Muslims over issues that are merely fictitious. The attacks and lynching are being committed against Muslims in order to terrorize both Muslims and Hindu voters.  That makes the Hindu voters vulnerable to choose only the BJP type arrogant parties as Hindus, interestingly, become scared of powerless Muslims.

 

That is the victory of the RSS-BJP fanatics.  For their existence, blooming and controlling the nation the Hindutva guys should be grateful to the Congress party and Indian state. Even many Congress and communist people sport the “Sanyasi kaavi “ dress to let the Hindu voters identify them also as  Hindutva supporters. Muslims have no maturity to decode the  symbolic Hindu actions of the politics .

 

Thanks to the continuous support from Congress and other fanatic parties pretending to be secular, the BJP and RSS have become very strong in India.

 

The poisonous and racist RSS and BJP contuse to destroy the benefits of freedom India got from Britishers.

 

These fascist forces think that India belongs exclusively to them only and Muslims and others including the real and normal positively thinking Hindus have no right n the country and these fanatic Zionist Hindutva nuts are eager to push India into darkness once again.

 

The  Hindu communal duo RSS-BJP has mobilized the extremist Hindus- that were used by them to dismantle the historic Babri Mosque in 1992,  to object to the judiciary to ant genuine judgment on the ghastly destruction of national historic monument called Babri Mosque in favor of truth by being on the side of Babri Mosque and against Hindutva which considers returning the historic Babri mosque back to its owners the Muslims, would amount to insulting the Hindutva fascist forces led by RSS-BJP duo.

 

BJP-RSS calculates that if they could mobilize Hindu mobs against Babri mosque belonging to the minority Muslims, the Apex Court which has reserved its judgment, would change the verdict to promote Hindutva as Indian judicial ideology. The Modi regime must be busy in   arm-twisting the judges to write a pro-Hindutva judgment because, they argue, as once Hindu criminals are punished that would be extremely bad for RSS-BJP Hindutva political trade in the country.

 

The ultra fanatic RSS-BJP-VHP trio has been provoking the nation and judiciary with all Indian Hindutva agitations called ”Rath yatra” central to anti-Islam politics for Hindu votes.

 

The Modi government is exploiting the weak AIADMK government in  Tamil Nadu to push through its BJP agenda which, after flourishing  on  profitable alliance with both DMK and AIADMK in poll politics, got back to zero  sum as both the  Dravidian parties have decided not to promote Hindutva forces in the state to  poison the Tamil minds. However,  the ruling AIADMK government granted permission to the RSS-BJP “Rath yatra” to pass through gaining support for Hindutva ideology as the extra “patriotic” terror.

 

Tamil Nadu government should have denied permission to RSS-BJP for the “Rath yatra” which is essentially anti-national, anti-constitutional and anti-secular nation. Promotion of Hindutva moorings in the state would make the ruling AIADMK stable or strong, but rather it would be weakened sooner or later.

 

Opposition DMK acting president and opposition leader in the Assembly MK Stalin, who had urged the state government to not allow the yatra inside Tamil Nadu to ensure peace, staged a walkout in the state Assembly over the issue. Stalin had released a statement saying the rath yatra, if allowed in Tamil Nadu, will disturb communal harmony and peace in the state. He had also said that allowing the yatra would be contempt of court as the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case is pending before a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court. He added that the move by the VHP can also been seen as a pressure tactic.

 

Hitting out at Chief Minister Palaniswami, Stalin had said that the AIADMK leader had given the nod to the yatra to protect his government and chief ministership.  Following their call for protest, section 144 was enforced in Tirunelveli. area with immediate effect, and would remain imposed till March 23.

 

The 39-day Ram Rajya Rath Yatra was flagged off from Ayodhya in February and is slated to end in Rameswaram on March 25. While initially Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was expected to flag it off, but he skipped.

 

The yatra wherein the assassins of Babri Mosque and Muslims are participating is being carried on a special wooden carved Rath (chariot), depicting design and replica of the proposed Lord Ram temple in Ayodhya.

 

BJP is keen to use the Babri Mosque issue for the next general poll in 2019.

 

Senior actors like Kamal Hasan and Rajinikanth who claims to be politicians in Tamil Nadu have not made any remarks about Hindutva criminalization of Indian politics and its efforts to stage a comeback in Tamil Nadu.

 

Obviously, these actors have no interest in the future of the state and people but only want to make political wealth out of pathetic existence of Tamils. Rajnikanth is eager to be accepted by Tamils as their god at par with fake fixer in sports, cricketer Sachin Tendulkar.

 

The BJP is interested in Hindu vote banks in Karnataka where the next general poll is due and BJP is eager to take back the government from the Congress party. That is reason why the Modi government continues to ignore the orders of Supreme Court to institute Kaveri board to regulate Cauvery water flow from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.

 

The national outfits BJP and Congress continue to maintaining their secret links and make many thinkers and critics of RSS disappear.

 

However r, people see through the Hindutva game plans and put the Congress on life saving medication for its arrogance and harms done to the nation and BJP is being already rejected by the people of India.

 

Certainly, the BJP without any genuine concern for the people would fall into the dust bin in due course.  The way the Congress party has been shifted to waste bin clearly shows the ultra fanatic BJP would also be in a worse position in due course.

 

Indians would reject all brands of fanaticism in due course

 

Very recently  the ruling BJP has shockingly lost  the bypolls in a few states where  the third front parties have won the seats, making it clear that BJP would be out for its pure gimmicks, while Congress party lost deposit amounts. India hates Congress as well as BJP. That is the Indian verdict.

 

The Congress and its so-called secular allies with tacit RSS links have made the RSS-BJP powerful. While RSS used to support the Congress party, giving an edge in the polls, now they directly promote the Hindutva parties like the lynching BJP.

 

Both Congress party and BJP advanced India’s sovereign interest that includes containing Indian Muslims, harming the genuine interest of Muslim  in jobs where they face maximum troubles from Hindu bosses  and eventually quit jobs and seek voluntary retirement but Indian regime pursue the policy further to deny even pensions to Muslims.

 

Leaders of Congress and other parties are annoyed now with the Modi government not for misgovernance or not fulfilling the premises offered to the people but for not allowing them also to take away parts of profits as their own due share. The Congress regime let other parties also to loot and share the profits of the Indian government but the BJP government is choosy about whom to allow taking away resources.

 

The Congress is being attacked by BJP government for being dependent on one dynasty. This assault has to be parried and that is why it is being showcased that Congress had a range of leaders and it is not run by only one dynasty.

 

The BJP exploited ht split in the erstwhile Janata Party experiment and formed the BJP by taking away big chuck of Janata party workers and leaders, offering them posts. Now the BJP offers huge money and posts to anyone seeking to enter the BJP outfit. But the Congress party did not have to do even that it  took advantage of  the then Congress freedom struggle launched by Mahatma Gondi who had rightly advised Nehru to disband the freedom moment known as Congress and launch a new party for  the independent India but Nehru and friends wanitng to rule andejnoy life  rejected the Gandhian advice and wanted to use the popularity of Gandhi and the freedom movement for the elections.

 

But people have turned the Congress party that has grown the worst corrupt outfit and national shame. .

 

The poisonously dangerous agenda of RSS-BJP that destabilizes secular democracy as the base principle of India should be dealt with as a priority issue. Of course people would deal with it but only in due course and meanwhile the judiciary should put an end to poisonous fanaticism and hate politics of Hindutva forces and save India from the anti-National forces pretending to be “patriotic”.

 

Today the pseudo patriotic and criminal elements of RSS-BJP targets Indians in India in the name of patriotism.

 

Indian judiciary needs to take note of this trend and end the national criminal fanaticism.

Egypt- a trembling democracy- to reelect President Sisi

 

Egypt- a trembling democracy- to reelect President Sisi

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

As Egyptians were hoping to see a new Egypt with all democratic rights restored to citizens and their economic position improved, the successful 2013 coup by the military removing and arresting the present Mohammad Morsi came as a rude shock to them.

The military shut the mouths of the people, crippled all democratic expectations. In the televised announcement, Sisi listed Egypt’s achievements during his first term, including a nascent financial recovery after years of political turmoil and economic instability.

People felt betrayed by the revolutionaries and military establishment. They also see a secret deal between them. But most of Arab Muslim nations and their western allies rejoiced the military take over from the democratic dispensation.

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former general who came to power in a coup against his democratically elected predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, is now all but certain to win the March election in a landslide. After removing, with the backing of USA and Saudi Arabia, among others, the first ever elected President Mohammed Mursi, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi became President of Egypt.

In January Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said he will run for a second term in office in an election in March, which the former military commander is widely expected to win. The vote will be held on March 26-28, with a run-off vote on April 24-26 if no candidate wins more than 50 percent in the first round. Candidates will register from Jan. 20 to 29.

Repression

Ahead of its March 26-28 presidential election, the Sisi regime is intensifying its crackdown on a free press. President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi is running essentially unopposed for reelection; the regime has been relentless against even the hint of credible opposition.

 

A coalition of Egyptian opposition groups have called for an election boycott, calling the vote”absurdity bordering on madness” after all serious candidates were either arrested or subjected to a campaign of intimidation. In a joint statement, eight Egyptian opposition parties and 150 pro-democracy public figures urged Egyptians to stay away from the March polls in protest, accusing the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of preventing “any fair competition”.

Several potential candidates have either been arrested or faced threats, intimidation and physical violence, forcing them to drop out. Sami Anan, a former general, had planned to run against Sisi but was arrested at gunpoint by Egyptian security services. His vice-presidential candidate, Hisham Genena, was attacked and seriously injured in a busy Cairo street. In December 2017, Ahmed Konsowa, an army colonel, was sentenced to six years in prison after announcing his candidacy, while human rights lawyer Khaled Ali withdrew after receiving a three-month prison sentence. The New York Times quoted one of Shafik’s lawyers as saying that the Egyptian government had forced him to withdraw by threatening to investigate previous charges of corruption against him.

Earlier, Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik, seen as the most serious potential challenger to date, said he was no longer considering a bid following a firestorm of criticism from state-aligned media and speculation that he was being held by authorities in a Cairo hotel. His most high-profile challengers are former army chief of staff Sami Anan and human rights lawyer Khaled Ali, but neither is expected to garner enough votes to oust him.

Sisi’s only challenger is Mousa Mostafa Mousa, a government supporter who entered the race at the 11th hour, amid fears that a widespread boycott could lead to embarrassingly few votes being cast. Mousa, who formally submitted his candidacy 15 minutes before the deadline despite not publicly declaring his intention to run until the day before, denied allegations he was cooperating with the government, saying, “We are not puppets in this race.”

However the 66-year-old has repeatedly endorsed Sisi, and last year formed a campaign called “Supporters of President el-Sisi’s nomination for a second term”.  Egyptians took to social media and used the hashtag Al-Kombares, which loosely translates to someone playing the role of an “extra”, to mock Mousa’s candidacy and the upcoming poll.

The supporters of Sisi claim that Sisi’s rule has brought some stability to the country, but critics say his popularity has been eroded by tough economic reforms that have hit people’s livelihood’s hard and by a crackdown on dissidents. Some argue that measures are needed to keep the country stable as it faces security challenges including attacks by Islamic State militants in the North Sinai region.

Egyptian presidents have often “used false organic displays of popularity as part of their political propaganda toolkit. Sisi came to prominence when he led the army’s ouster of President Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 – Egypt’s first freely elected leader – two years after the downfall of longtime ruler President Hosni Mubarak in the “Arab Spring” uprisings that swept the Middle East. The former general became president himself in 2014, winning 96.91 percent of the vote, although turnout was only about 47 percent of the 54 million voters, after voting was extended for a day. Sisi’s critics say his popularity has been hurt by austerity reforms, security problems, a crackdown on dissidents and his decision to hand two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia, which showered Egypt with billions of dollars of aid, touching a nationalistic nerve.

Democracy is causality

Democracy and a free press are again facing an existential threat in Egypt. The regime of President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi is intensifying its long-running crackdown on journalists in the lead-up to the country’s March 26-28 presidential election.

Egypt ranks 161 out of 180 countries in press freedoms according to watchdog Reporters Without Borders’ 2017 Press Freedoms Index. The government’s warnings to media are not new.  in recent months, authorities have blocked about 500 websites, including media outlets like Al-Jazeera and the local Mada Masr, while journalists have been arrested.

Media in Egypt faces increased scrutiny and restrictions by authorities ahead of a presidential election this month incumbent Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will dominate. The disturbed president, addressing media, warned on Thursday against “defamation” of security forces.

A reporter for the Huffington Post’s Arabic website was detained last month after publishing an interview with prominent dissident Hisham Geneina who mentioned the existence of documents that are damaging to senior state officials.  At least 29 journalists are in detention, according to Reporters Without Borders, including some accused of working for media affiliated with the banned Muslim Brotherhood group. Some of the restrictions are unprecedented.

The government has not confirmed or denied its role in the blackout, but Taher said internet providers do not block websites without a request from authorities. For some outlets, the measure has impacted their operations. One site, Masr Al-Arabia, had to reduce staff by 60 per cent.

The government’s State Information Service called for an official boycott of the BBC last week after a report on abuses in which a woman claimed her daughter had been forcibly disappeared by security. The daughter later appeared in an interview on a local television station, saying she had run away, married and had a child. The BBC said it stood by the “integrity” of its reporters. The report appears to have prompted the prosecution statement saying its lawyers would take action against outlets that publish “false news” and “news and rumours that harm public safety.” Much of the domestic media is seen as generally pliant, and criticism of Sisi is rare.

The government has increased criticism of foreign media, which had been a frequent target of attacks by politicians over the years. It often accuses foreign journalists of biased coverage of the country, especially when it comes to human rights abuses.

Rights groups say he has led an unprecedented crackdown on political opponents, activists and critical media. Those challenging Sisi describe a sweeping effort to kill off their campaigns before they have begun, with media attacks on candidates, intimidation of supporters, and a nomination process stacked in favour of the former general.

Foreign relations

Egypt’s relations with Saudi Arabia have improved, while its relations with the USA have worsened—lately over issues of North Korean arms deals. The reelection of another Egyptian ‘strongman’ will be a significant step backward for the country, made harder to rectify after the fact if the constitution is amended.

After a brief dip in relations over disagreements regarding the Syrian war, Egypt and Saudi Arabia appear to have become closer. Both countries have exceedingly powerful one-man rule systems, with both leaders claiming the mantle of ‘reformer’ against a reform-resistant culture—though both are strengthening their grasp in terms of near-dictatorial powers.

The March 4-7 visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to Egypt is a clear sign of the improved relations. Egypt is supportive of Saudi Arabia’s 9-month long bitter dispute with fellow GCC member, Qatar, which has devolved into a stalemate with no winner.

Saudi Arabia has always been a crucial financial supporter of Egypt—and of Sisi in particular—after the coup that toppled the Muslim Brotherhood government of President al-Morsi and put Sisi in power. Riyadh’s deep opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood matches Sisi’s, and the two are determined to prevent the group from gaining influence in either country.

 

Saudi financial support for Egypt is more important now given the relative downturn in relations between Egypt and the USA. The issue between the two countries is not over human rights or freedom of the press. President Trump has expressed support for Sisi as a ‘strong leader’ and met with him at the White House in April 2017 and in Riyadh in May 2017.

Rather, the issue is Egypt’s illicit purchases of North Korean military hardware that runs afoul of international sanctions. In August 2017, the U.S. suspended $291 million in military aid to Egypt because of allegations by the USA and the United Nations that Egypt was allowing the North Korean embassy in Cairo to serve as a hub for illicit arms deals.

In 2016, a North Korean freighter was intercepted before it made port in Egypt and was found to be carrying 30,000 rocket-propelled grenades. As the U.S. increases pressure on North Korea over its nuclear weapons programs, it will look very negatively upon any actions that provide Pyongyang with monetary resources.

Egypt has had a long history of arms deals with North Korea, to which numerous US governments have routinely objected. The intense focus by the Trump government on the issue is a rare but important point of contention between Cairo and Washington.

Dictatorship

Dictator Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has removed all signs of democracy from the scene of Egypt. After enjoying power of President for a full term, now he is eager to resume power, “democratically” by elections, though for him the poll result would be a cake walk as no one thinks he would be defeated.

Yet, Sisi is keen to create an impression that Egypt is peaceful and people are happy with his misrule.

The expected push to remove term limits—combined with the regime’s absolute control over the national political dialogue and the military’s oversized role in the economy—would have provided the briefest of moments for opponents to organize and promote a future for Egypt that isn’t a return to its past. But that is not possible in Egypt.

There is, of course, opposition to Sisi and the return-of-the-pharaoh rule but it is scattered; the regime has been relentless against even the hint of credible opposition. The absence of unified and organized opposition makes it very unlikely that the expected constitutional changes will be thwarted.

That the regime is still so intent on squashing any reporting that might raise questions as to the country’s current and future paths, even in an election where there is no credible opposing candidate, indicates the goals of the regime are looking beyond the counting of the upcoming ballots.

As the Washington Post noted in a March 8 article, the election is not really about reelecting Sisi; it is about a ‘procedural hurdle to clear before the much more consequential effort of constitutional change.’

Rights activists say the authorities have become more restrictive in general, showing little tolerance for dissent.

 

Since the election of president Sisi is a foregone conclusion there is no need for speculative exercises here.

The fate if Egyptians cannot be any better after the poll.

Egypt- a trembling democracy- to reelect President Sisi

 

Egypt- a trembling democracy- to reelect President Sisi

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

As Egyptians were hoping to see a new Egypt with all democratic rights restored to citizens and their economic position improved, the successful 2013 coup by the military removing and arresting the present Mohammad Morsi came as a rude shock to them.

The military shut the mouths of the people, crippled all democratic expectations. In the televised announcement, Sisi listed Egypt’s achievements during his first term, including a nascent financial recovery after years of political turmoil and economic instability.

People felt betrayed by the revolutionaries and military establishment. They also see a secret deal between them. But most of Arab Muslim nations and their western allies rejoiced the military take over from the democratic dispensation.

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a former general who came to power in a coup against his democratically elected predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, is now all but certain to win the March election in a landslide. After removing, with the backing of USA and Saudi Arabia, among others, the first ever elected President Mohammed Mursi, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi became President of Egypt.

In January Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said he will run for a second term in office in an election in March, which the former military commander is widely expected to win. The vote will be held on March 26-28, with a run-off vote on April 24-26 if no candidate wins more than 50 percent in the first round. Candidates will register from Jan. 20 to 29.

Repression

Ahead of its March 26-28 presidential election, the Sisi regime is intensifying its crackdown on a free press. President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi is running essentially unopposed for reelection; the regime has been relentless against even the hint of credible opposition.

 

A coalition of Egyptian opposition groups have called for an election boycott, calling the vote”absurdity bordering on madness” after all serious candidates were either arrested or subjected to a campaign of intimidation. In a joint statement, eight Egyptian opposition parties and 150 pro-democracy public figures urged Egyptians to stay away from the March polls in protest, accusing the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of preventing “any fair competition”.

Several potential candidates have either been arrested or faced threats, intimidation and physical violence, forcing them to drop out. Sami Anan, a former general, had planned to run against Sisi but was arrested at gunpoint by Egyptian security services. His vice-presidential candidate, Hisham Genena, was attacked and seriously injured in a busy Cairo street. In December 2017, Ahmed Konsowa, an army colonel, was sentenced to six years in prison after announcing his candidacy, while human rights lawyer Khaled Ali withdrew after receiving a three-month prison sentence. The New York Times quoted one of Shafik’s lawyers as saying that the Egyptian government had forced him to withdraw by threatening to investigate previous charges of corruption against him.

Earlier, Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik, seen as the most serious potential challenger to date, said he was no longer considering a bid following a firestorm of criticism from state-aligned media and speculation that he was being held by authorities in a Cairo hotel. His most high-profile challengers are former army chief of staff Sami Anan and human rights lawyer Khaled Ali, but neither is expected to garner enough votes to oust him.

Sisi’s only challenger is Mousa Mostafa Mousa, a government supporter who entered the race at the 11th hour, amid fears that a widespread boycott could lead to embarrassingly few votes being cast. Mousa, who formally submitted his candidacy 15 minutes before the deadline despite not publicly declaring his intention to run until the day before, denied allegations he was cooperating with the government, saying, “We are not puppets in this race.”

However the 66-year-old has repeatedly endorsed Sisi, and last year formed a campaign called “Supporters of President el-Sisi’s nomination for a second term”.  Egyptians took to social media and used the hashtag Al-Kombares, which loosely translates to someone playing the role of an “extra”, to mock Mousa’s candidacy and the upcoming poll.

The supporters of Sisi claim that Sisi’s rule has brought some stability to the country, but critics say his popularity has been eroded by tough economic reforms that have hit people’s livelihood’s hard and by a crackdown on dissidents. Some argue that measures are needed to keep the country stable as it faces security challenges including attacks by Islamic State militants in the North Sinai region.

Egyptian presidents have often “used false organic displays of popularity as part of their political propaganda toolkit. Sisi came to prominence when he led the army’s ouster of President Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 – Egypt’s first freely elected leader – two years after the downfall of longtime ruler President Hosni Mubarak in the “Arab Spring” uprisings that swept the Middle East. The former general became president himself in 2014, winning 96.91 percent of the vote, although turnout was only about 47 percent of the 54 million voters, after voting was extended for a day. Sisi’s critics say his popularity has been hurt by austerity reforms, security problems, a crackdown on dissidents and his decision to hand two Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia, which showered Egypt with billions of dollars of aid, touching a nationalistic nerve.

Democracy is causality

Democracy and a free press are again facing an existential threat in Egypt. The regime of President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi is intensifying its long-running crackdown on journalists in the lead-up to the country’s March 26-28 presidential election.

Egypt ranks 161 out of 180 countries in press freedoms according to watchdog Reporters Without Borders’ 2017 Press Freedoms Index. The government’s warnings to media are not new.  in recent months, authorities have blocked about 500 websites, including media outlets like Al-Jazeera and the local Mada Masr, while journalists have been arrested.

Media in Egypt faces increased scrutiny and restrictions by authorities ahead of a presidential election this month incumbent Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will dominate. The disturbed president, addressing media, warned on Thursday against “defamation” of security forces.

A reporter for the Huffington Post’s Arabic website was detained last month after publishing an interview with prominent dissident Hisham Geneina who mentioned the existence of documents that are damaging to senior state officials.  At least 29 journalists are in detention, according to Reporters Without Borders, including some accused of working for media affiliated with the banned Muslim Brotherhood group. Some of the restrictions are unprecedented.

The government has not confirmed or denied its role in the blackout, but Taher said internet providers do not block websites without a request from authorities. For some outlets, the measure has impacted their operations. One site, Masr Al-Arabia, had to reduce staff by 60 per cent.

The government’s State Information Service called for an official boycott of the BBC last week after a report on abuses in which a woman claimed her daughter had been forcibly disappeared by security. The daughter later appeared in an interview on a local television station, saying she had run away, married and had a child. The BBC said it stood by the “integrity” of its reporters. The report appears to have prompted the prosecution statement saying its lawyers would take action against outlets that publish “false news” and “news and rumours that harm public safety.” Much of the domestic media is seen as generally pliant, and criticism of Sisi is rare.

The government has increased criticism of foreign media, which had been a frequent target of attacks by politicians over the years. It often accuses foreign journalists of biased coverage of the country, especially when it comes to human rights abuses.

Rights groups say he has led an unprecedented crackdown on political opponents, activists and critical media. Those challenging Sisi describe a sweeping effort to kill off their campaigns before they have begun, with media attacks on candidates, intimidation of supporters, and a nomination process stacked in favour of the former general.

Foreign relations

Egypt’s relations with Saudi Arabia have improved, while its relations with the USA have worsened—lately over issues of North Korean arms deals. The reelection of another Egyptian ‘strongman’ will be a significant step backward for the country, made harder to rectify after the fact if the constitution is amended.

After a brief dip in relations over disagreements regarding the Syrian war, Egypt and Saudi Arabia appear to have become closer. Both countries have exceedingly powerful one-man rule systems, with both leaders claiming the mantle of ‘reformer’ against a reform-resistant culture—though both are strengthening their grasp in terms of near-dictatorial powers.

The March 4-7 visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to Egypt is a clear sign of the improved relations. Egypt is supportive of Saudi Arabia’s 9-month long bitter dispute with fellow GCC member, Qatar, which has devolved into a stalemate with no winner.

Saudi Arabia has always been a crucial financial supporter of Egypt—and of Sisi in particular—after the coup that toppled the Muslim Brotherhood government of President al-Morsi and put Sisi in power. Riyadh’s deep opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood matches Sisi’s, and the two are determined to prevent the group from gaining influence in either country.

 

Saudi financial support for Egypt is more important now given the relative downturn in relations between Egypt and the USA. The issue between the two countries is not over human rights or freedom of the press. President Trump has expressed support for Sisi as a ‘strong leader’ and met with him at the White House in April 2017 and in Riyadh in May 2017.

Rather, the issue is Egypt’s illicit purchases of North Korean military hardware that runs afoul of international sanctions. In August 2017, the U.S. suspended $291 million in military aid to Egypt because of allegations by the USA and the United Nations that Egypt was allowing the North Korean embassy in Cairo to serve as a hub for illicit arms deals.

In 2016, a North Korean freighter was intercepted before it made port in Egypt and was found to be carrying 30,000 rocket-propelled grenades. As the U.S. increases pressure on North Korea over its nuclear weapons programs, it will look very negatively upon any actions that provide Pyongyang with monetary resources.

Egypt has had a long history of arms deals with North Korea, to which numerous US governments have routinely objected. The intense focus by the Trump government on the issue is a rare but important point of contention between Cairo and Washington.

Dictatorship

Dictator Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has removed all signs of democracy from the scene of Egypt. After enjoying power of President for a full term, now he is eager to resume power, “democratically” by elections, though for him the poll result would be a cake walk as no one thinks he would be defeated.

Yet, Sisi is keen to create an impression that Egypt is peaceful and people are happy with his misrule.

The expected push to remove term limits—combined with the regime’s absolute control over the national political dialogue and the military’s oversized role in the economy—would have provided the briefest of moments for opponents to organize and promote a future for Egypt that isn’t a return to its past. But that is not possible in Egypt.

There is, of course, opposition to Sisi and the return-of-the-pharaoh rule but it is scattered; the regime has been relentless against even the hint of credible opposition. The absence of unified and organized opposition makes it very unlikely that the expected constitutional changes will be thwarted.

That the regime is still so intent on squashing any reporting that might raise questions as to the country’s current and future paths, even in an election where there is no credible opposing candidate, indicates the goals of the regime are looking beyond the counting of the upcoming ballots.

As the Washington Post noted in a March 8 article, the election is not really about reelecting Sisi; it is about a ‘procedural hurdle to clear before the much more consequential effort of constitutional change.’

Rights activists say the authorities have become more restrictive in general, showing little tolerance for dissent.

 

Since the election of president Sisi is a foregone conclusion there is no need for speculative exercises here.

The fate if Egyptians cannot be any better after the poll.

Why does America not want to end occupation of Afghanistan, its state terror operations?

Why does America not want to end occupation of Afghanistan, its state terror operations? 

-DR. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_______

 

At the outset it should be clear to the keen observers on intentional politics that ending terror war in Afghanistan would automatically lead to a chain flow of similar actions in other occupied Muslim nations. That would create essential background for peace in the world.

In simple language the answer is that America does not want to quit Afghanistan for “strategic reasons”.

It is a fact that USA determines, decides and guides policies for entire globe directly, including its foes Russia, China, Iran and others indirectly. Regional tensions owe their continuation entirely to the efforts of USA. Washington controls both Indi and Pakistan in South Asia as much as it manipulates the policy of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Iran is also pursuing exactly what USA wants.

The launch, prolongation and end of terror wars depend entirely on USA. War on Afghanistan, launched by Bush Jr. and prolonged by Obama is still going on under Trump who also does not want to end the NATO state terrorism in Afghanistan. Before Bush Jr, his daddy Bush Sr. launched his war on Iraq in order to continue to controlling the energy resources and Bush Jr. just continued his father’s war in Iraq and extended it to other Muslim nations to drink Islamic blood.

So the question if USA would end its longest war in Afghanistan as a reply to Russian demand for dismantling of NATO appears to be an irresolvable puzzle.

True, Afghanistan, like Pakistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria, is destabilized and USA decides what the Pakistani regime and military must or must not do. . Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market. These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.

Much before he assumed power at the White House, Trump began ringing terror bell. Americans just got rid of  Democrats led by ultra hawkish Hillary Clinton who sought  to make Israel an abnormal super power in West Asia to terror-gaze on Arab and Persian lands. She ha sno sympathy for the Palestinian children whom the fascist Zionist military keeps killing but also calls them terrorists while Israel that occupies and terrorizes Palestinians is called the “victim” who face extinction.

Clinton, true to her imperialist mindset, has no sympathy for Palestine women and children and she only promotes the ongoing criminality by Israel.

 

US war not on terror but on Islam

 

Certainly USA and its strategic allies fight against Islam and Muslims.

Today the terror wars going on are a purely permanent anti-Islamic war. No one needs to doubt that.

When Bush Jr. launched war on terror he indeed meant a permanent war on Islam but since he sought the support of many Muslim nations like Saudi led Gulf nations, Pakistan and Turkey, in his war on Islam, he very tactfully concealed the truth under “war on terror”.  That approach was successful as the Muslim nations continued to support US terror war on Islam and energy rich Islamic world and global Muslim populations have been slashed to a level of US liking to make anti-Islamic media lords enjoy with their success.

As the leading traders in terror or fascist goods, USA and Israel feel safe  and why should then they go for international peace when they launched the attacks on Islamic world to create insecurity and tensions in the Islamic world?

US Presidents take notes from the Neocon experts who ask them to proceed with terror wars for energy and route resources, slashing of Muslim populations, among many other reasons, including saving NATO from getting dismantled.

The decision of the Trump regime to extend the terror warn Afghanistan further by adding more troops, like the very act of Sept-11 hoax and invasion of the nation of  brave Afghans,  has got two major reasons:  economics and politics.

It should be self-evident that the war against Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, like every war that the US has engaged in since the end of World War II, is as much a war about race and white supremacy as was the Civil War.

The fact that the terror war of NATO was presided over for eight years by the first African American president, who in his last year in office dropped 26,171 bombs exclusively over populations of people of color) does not alter the fact that it is a racist war but anti-Islamic one.

The terrorism operations have dismissed the  crimes taking place in the USA a a regular basis dominated by the US culture silence  guns. The violence that is seen in American streets is a direct and inevitable result of the violence of the county’s wars outside.

The Obama regime’s determinations that any male 14 years or older found dead in a drone strike zone is a “combatant” makes crimes insignificant in the society. Media blast the terror news in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. The consequence of these naughty policies is the summary killings of innocent young men without identity as to who they are and where they live, in American cities as well as in places far way.

The racial profiling that results in the killings of unarmed black citizens by American police, even under black Obama,  is the domestic expression of surveillance by drones of the “patterns of behavior” that trigger the “signature strike” executions of countless people of color in NATO wars abroad..

A nation which continues year after year to spend more and more tax money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

There is no serious discussion of racism in the United States today, or of providing healthcare and education and basic human services that does not address the ever expanding cost of the present war.

 

From destruction to nation-building in Afghanistan

Afghanistan has natural resources. The implication of Trump’s resolve is to plunder and steal Afghanistan’s mineral riches to finance the “reconstruction” of a country destroyed by the USA and its allies after 16 years of war, i.e.  “War reparations” paid to the aggressor nation?  An internal 2007 Pentagon memo, suggests that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.”  What this 2007 report does not mention is that this resource base has been known to both Russia Soviet Union and China going back to the 1970s. While the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani has called upon President Donald Trump to promote US investments in mining, including lithium, China is in the forefront in developing projects in mining and energy as well as pipeline projects and transport corridors.

Right-wing strategists were not the only ones praising Trump’s Afghanistan surge. Their neoconservative counterparts in Congress were similarly enthused. Hard-line hawk John McCain—to whom Democratic lawmakers just gave a standing ovation—likewise “commended President Trump for taking a big step in the right direction with the new strategy for Afghanistan,” and called for Trump to “conduct himself as a wartime commander-in-chief.”

In coverage that was more balanced in cosmetics, albeit not political substance, CNN portrayed the speech as a largely welcome development, framing it as a matter of the collective good: “Trump to Ask Americans to Trust Him on Afghanistan.”

Just weeks before, the Trump administration had been openly acknowledging the US war in Afghanistan was at least partly motivated by access to the large South Asian nation’s “vast mineral wealth,” nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits “The speech will test the President’s capacity to convince Americans that he has settled on the right course of action on a major national security issue, and to unify the nation around it,” wrote CNN‘s Stephen Collinson.

The Afghanistan address, Collinson added, “Represents a chance for Trump to leverage the symbolism of his office to stabilize a presidency that has threatened to spin out of control over the last two weeks.” Escalating war could help Trump “stake out a more conventional presidential posture.”

A handful of journalists, joked that Trump is being complimented as “presidential” simply for reading from a teleprompter:

Importantly, some media outlets highlighted Trump’s hypocrisy, drawing attention to the fact that he had campaigned—albeit inconsistently—on a pledge to withdraw from foreign wars, not to ramp them up

Yet the contrasts between the punditry’s response to Trump’s Afghanistan’s speech and its outrage in July, when the president ended a CIA program that had for years strengthened ISIS, Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria are extremely stark.

One cannot help but observe that, when Trump is unpopular, he can miraculously reverse his fortunes by supporting a war. Trump no doubt understands that after, say, refusing to condemn neo-Nazis and drawing a ludicrous false equivalence between racist fascism and the antiracist resistance to fascism, he need only wrap himself in US military might and pundits—even ones who excoriated him mere days before—will suddenly praise him as a “presidential” imperial leader.

A very few journalists deserve credit for using the term “presidential” in its literal sense, not as a euphemistic stand-in. “If Donald Trump sounded presidential on Afghanistan, it is because he is repeating his predecessors’ mistakes.” “TBH, pledging thousands of troops to Afghanistan *is* the most presidential thing Trump has done. And I mean that in the worst way possible.”

After all, waging war in Afghanistan is a tried-and-true American tradition, going back to President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Oval Office meeting with the mujahideen and the lionization of “anti-Soviet warrior” Osama bin Laden

Trump is indeed continuing a trajectory established by numerous presidents before him. Corporate media could do a far better job of interrogating whether or not that’s a good thing.

TBH, pledging thousands of troops to Afghanistan *is* the most presidential thing Trump has done. And I mean that in the worst way possible.

 

Enter Trump

While ratcheting up another US war somewhere, the far-right US president Donald Trump in a speech on August 21 did an about-face, announcing that the war in Afghanistan, which for years he has harshly condemned, will be seeing another surge in its 16th year.

Trump did not reveal many specifics, but reports suggest his administration will deploy 4,000 more soldiers to the country in addition to the roughly 8,400 US troops and 5,000 other NATO forces already there. Like clockwork, experts responded to the news by rushing to praise Trump for his “presidential” decision. There is nothing quite as presidential as expanding an unending war that has left many thousands of Muslim civilians dead.

The response from the commentariat echoes similar proclamations just four months ago, immediately lionizing Trump for launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base in April (in an attack that effectively helped ISIS).

At the time, of 47 major US newspaper editorials on the strike, just one opposed it. Trump’s rocket attack was even sexualized by MSNBC‘s Brian Williams. This time, in response to another military escalation, pundits were more aware, even self-critical, of the cartoonishness of reflexively praising presidential violence. But they did it anyway.

Terror policy was common for both Bush and Obama and it may not be different under Trump. Trump’s Presidential Afghanistan Speech.

Miller, who directed Afghanistan and Pakistan policy on the National Security Council for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, declared that Trump’s address “was one of Donald Trump’s finest moments as president.” “Trump’s nationalism, which I otherwise find objectionable, has led him to a keener and better appreciation of how to speak about war than Obama,” Miller added (a palpable demonstration of the intersection of the far right and establishment center that has been dubbed with tongue in cheek the fish hook theory).

Washington think tanks, replete with revolving doors between the US government and so-called civil society, were likewise enthused.

Retired Gen. John Allen oversaw the war in Afghanistan from 2011 until 2013 before moving to Brookings, praising Trump’s reversal. “Our new leader made the presidential call,” “Donald Trump Making Afghanistan and America Safer” and “Donald Trump Makes Right Moves in Afghanistan.”  “We would especially commend Trump for making a difficult and very presidential decision about future American policy,” crooned O’Hanlon and Allen.

Trump’s Afghanistan speech “was quite good.” it “seems a pretty conventionally hawkish policy,” and wrote of “the unifying potential of Trump’s nationalism.”  “It’s hard not to seem presidential when giving a speech like this,” Lowry continued. “If Trump had done nothing but give teleprompter speeches since his inauguration, he’d be about 10 points higher in the polls.”

Some of the most fanatic neoconservatives are warming to Trump. Proud self-declared “American imperialist” Max Boot, who excoriated Trump during his presidential campaign, came out swinging in his defense in the pages of the US newspaper of record. “

Very cool and cunning cruelty! Indeed! Only a super power can do that. Only the anti-Islamic media lords can propagate anti-Islamism, Islamophobia to encourage the NATO and allied militaries to keep killing Muslims mercilessly, without any sympathy for humanity.

Credit must be given to the power minds of Americans and Israelis. America has succeeded in its objectives:  slashing of Islamic populations, terrorizing Muslims, weakening and destabilizing Muslims ad their nations, looting the wealth of energy rich Arab nations whose leaders keep their wealth in western capitals, and present Muslims as terrorists and Islam as a terrorist religion.

Very cool indeed!

Afghanistan and Trump phenomenon

 

Now it is the domestic-foreign war of US presidents personally and collectively with the backup of global anti-Islamic media lords. Obama fought the war for Bush Jr. as well. In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted: “If the nations of Asia, Latin America and Africa are strong and free, the black man in America will be safe and secure and free to live in dignity and self-respect.”. But black Obama after becoming free began attacking African nations.

Trump calls for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? Is it part of the Western war on Islam, or “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys, or is it something else?

Trump is on a racist rant. His speech on August 21 calling for more war is hate speech, pure and simple.

President Trump announced that the 17 year old war in Afghanistan will go on pretty much as it has- a permanent NATO war. And the establishment fearing Trump would call for ending the terror wars breathed a sigh of relief.

Trump’s tolerance of the use and celebration of overt symbols and slogans associated with hatred, slavery, anti-Semitism and genocide offended all but his most fanatical base. Members of his own party, many who had stood by Trump through other scandals, took steps to distance themselves from his statements, if not from Trump himself.

When that war began in October of 2001, Vice-President Richard Cheney suggested that the US would eventually take it to forty to fifty other nations, an expanding war that he predicted “may never end” but would “become a permanent part of the way we live.” Like Cheney, Trump also urges Americans to set aside the issues that divide us and unite behind an ‘endless war of aggression’ against a people (Muslims) who never meant us harm.

Trump said to general applause, the healing balm that should bring Americans together, will be a continuing “commitment” to prolong a seventeen year old war. His primetime address on the war maybe meant for the national unity that he had seemed in the days before and after to disdain: “Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another.” Obviously Trump has borrowed the hated-idea from fanatic nations like Israel and India.

Today few seem to pose that question—the reason being perhaps less that people don’t see this war as a mistake, than because they can’t imagine that there will ever be a last soldier to die in it.

In the name of terrorism, anti-terrorism, counter insurgency etc, USA and it anti-Islamic allies kill only Muslims and use Muslim rulers, leaders and agents also to kill Muslims.

 

War for business 

 

 

The US military bases are there to assert US control over Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. According to Foreign Affairs, “there are more U.S. military forces deployed there Afghanistan than to any other active combat zone”, the official mandate of which is “to go after” the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS as part of the “Global war on Terrorism”.

 

Why so many military bases? Why the additional forces sent in by Trump?

George W. Bush, not only started this seemingly endless war as a response to an act of terrorism, but also another one in Iraq that, if anything, was an even greater travesty than this one. Barack Obama then not only kept Mullen on—along with Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates—but increased American troop levels in Afghanistan at a point when (if he is half as smart as his supporters think he is) he had to know he was sending them on a fool’s errand.

Nor is the current willingness to risk the lives of American military personnel in pursuit of quixotic policy goals confined to the Trump Mad House. Strategists have noted the similarities between Trump’s plans and the proposals of former Vice President Joe Biden, currently said to be contemplating another presidential run in 2020. Likewise, Obama Administration assistant secretary of defense Derek Chollet has allowed that, “To be honest,” the Trump plan is “probably pretty close to what a Hillary Clinton would do.” And let’s face it, while Bernie Sanders has occasionally indicated a desire to alter the direction of U.S. foreign policy, he too has offered few specifics about breaking with the course of the last decade and a half.

The unspoken objective of US military presence in Afghanistan is to keep the Chinese out, i.e hinder China from establishing trade and investments relations with Afghanistan.  More generally, the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan on China’s Western border is part of a broader process of military encirclement of the People’s Republic of China i.e naval deployments in the South China Sea, military facilities in Guam, South Korea, Okinawa, Jeju Island, etc.

 

 

_______________

 

 

US arms and global terrorism

-DR. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_______

 

The USA is top dealer in terror goods and sells them to both developed and developing nations. It sells advanced and high precision terror gds to the western powers and gifts them to Israel to fuel crisis in West Asia, while it sells ordinary, unused and outdated terror gods to third world countries with conditions.  The US economy thrives on the sale of terror goods to the “needy” and it wants perpetual crises everywhere so that its terror goods are needed by most countries, including arms thirsty and favors seeking India.

When the USA – world’s only superpower as well as top veto member – deals in terror goods all other military powers also follow its footsteps, making huge profits for financing terrorism operations globally.

As the super power controlling entire universe almost single handedly with support from its allies and terror partners, American ruling class does not want to end the terror war in Afghanistan that was started in 2001 on the fake charge of terrorist attack in USA by one strong ‘super man’ called Osama bin Laden, who worked as CIA operative, went to New York airport, took away not one but three aeroplanes and hit the targets of his choice.

Remember USA has the finest surveillance system in the world along with global CIA network, and a long bearded man could do all this is obviously a big, rather crude joke on educated America and world.  There is no real threat to USA and its allies like Israel but they pretend to be innocent powers and claim to be terror victims.

Very cool!

17 year old US led NATO terror war on Afghanistan is nowhere near the end and there is no hope the USA would soon conclude the terror wars.  After Obama’s escalation, trump is also making surges in US forces occupying Afghanistan.

Scheming and operation are the hallmark of US foreign policy while terrorism is the key tool it successfully employs along with its secret ally Israel to terrorize the world.

Sixteen years on into what the USA proudly launched the “War on Terror” – a civilizational war on Islam- a few things have become clear.

From a military point of view, Americans have established the fact that when their military invades other countries, even if they may not be able to win, they cannot be driven out militarily—seemingly they can stay endlessly.

And on the political side, Americans with huge man-military-missile terror  power, can’t lose—which is to say that no president can or will acknowledge the obvious fact that whatever merit sending troops to Afghanistan may or may not have once had, the interests of the nation are not well served by their continued deployment there.

And so the state terror forces must stay on, seemingly endlessly to accelerate the war and tensions.  When he was an anti-Vietnam War protestor, former Secretary of State John Kerry once famously asked, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Curiously enough, there has been a simmering conflict launched by anti-Islamic forces and nations that spread the word of hatred for Islam and Muslims. This global gang led by USA and Israel has involved all religions, including some Muslims who hate and fear Islam for its strict laws for human survival. NATO fascism along with its non-Nato allies jointly works to target Islam and also to terrorize, dehumanize and demoralize the humanity.

Even feeble attempts  by the public calling for the USA to cut American losses in what is already the longest war in American history has not reached the hard core strategists in Washington and their ruling masters. Unfortunately, however, the Pentagon experts and their media comrades in anti-Islam war want the war tog on endlessly as any end would reduced the self-importance of US power and therefore ask  Trump to send more troops to Afghanistan to “create political capital” and “better leverage” in the negotiations with the government, Pakistan and Taliban, among other stackers.

USA searches and invents more and more reasons to continue o terror wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In other words, these new troops—along with all of the old ones—are designed to be pawns in a geopolitical game seeking “good behavior” and “certain standards” from Pakistan and Afghanistan so that USA could openly admit: “we can’t kill our way to victory.” .

If Donald Trump has been good for one thing—and granted that’s a big “if”—it’s that he’s almost single-handedly revived political protest in this country. If all of those people absolutely fed up and appalled with his antics would turn their attention toward the disastrous military policy over which he now presides, we’d have the makings of a major antiwar movement. So, if you hate the Donald, please hate his war.

Was slashing of Islamic population and looting resources of Islamic world and destabilizing of Islamizing Afghanistan and energy rich Arab world globally alone the cause of the Sept-11 hoax in USA that was secretly engineered by the strategists of USA-Israel terror twins and meticulously executed by their pre-paid agents?

If Generals Lee and Jackson of the 19th century who served under Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the cause of slavery and white supremacy deserve the censure of history and the scorn of every person of good will, much more the NATO generals who serve the hateful and vile agenda of Trump and his predecessors.

To give Trump his due, one truth that he told in his celebrated speech is that those “who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and that’s right—losers.” That means the NATO forces forefeet their right for honors in this life or the next.

The makings of a major antiwar movement in USA are at infant stage as the regime in Washington uses its power to weaken that mass movement. Ending wars would invariably end regional conflicts. The US people are absolutely fed up and already appalled with President Trump’s antics so early but they are not encouraged to turn their attention toward the disastrous pro-Zionist US military policy over which he now presides.

Those thousands of good people who took to the streets to denounce the celebration of terror wars, racism and hate in its archaic and discredited forms need to seek the courage to demand an end to them in its present, most virulent form. Together Americans and other peoples of NATO countries need to demand a US withdrawal from Afghanistan and reparations for all the nations that have suffered US aggression in the so-called War on Terror.

End of occupation and genocides in Afghanistan would mean dawn of peaceful environment for development and prosperity. The discredited institutions of slavery, capitalism, fascism, Nazism, Zionism, racism and fanaticism need to be dismantled for creating a peaceful environment for development and prosperity. It is doubtful if they would die down on their own as a natural phenomenon in the near future. It is quite possible nuclearized Israel would be beggar state once again.

There are, however, manifestations of hatred and racism that continue to be tolerated and celebrated even in the most polite, progressive and politically correct venues and these need be called out as well.

Pakistan’s National Assembly has passed a resolution dismissing US President Donald Trump’s South Asia policy and condemned his accusations that Islamabad was prolonging the war in Afghanistan. The resolution was adopted unanimously after the Speaker presented it on the floor. The House denounces the complete disregard of Pakistan’s sacrifices by the USA.

Speaking before the Assembly, Asif urged the government to consider postponing any visits by US delegations to Pakistan or by Pakistani officials to the United States and closing off “ground and air lines of communication through Pakistan”.

On Sunday, Pakistan’s foreign office announced that it had postponed a visit by US acting Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells to discuss Washington’s new Afghan policy, but at the time did not provide a reason.

Trump accused Pakistan of harboring “agents of chaos” and providing safe havens to militant groups waging an insurgency against the US-backed government in Kabul.

Pakistani officials bristle at what they say is a lack of respect from Washington for the country’s sacrifices in the war against militancy and its successes against groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic State or the Pakistani Taliban.

Pakistan estimates there have been 70,000 Pakistani casualties in militant attacks since it joined the US war on terror after the 11 September, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Successive US administrations have struggled with how to deal with nuclear-armed Pakistan. Washington fumes about inaction against the Taliban, but Pakistan has been helpful on other counterterrorism efforts, including against Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

The United States also has no choice but to use Pakistani roads to resupply its troops in landlocked Afghanistan. US officials worry that if Pakistan becomes an active foe, it could further destabilize Afghanistan and endanger US soldiers.

“Afghanistan, the US and its allies should close their borders to leaders of terrorist, militant groups carrying out acts of terrorism against Pakistan,” Asif told the Assembly. He added that Pakistan was concerned about Islamic State flourishing in Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan.

Pakistani officials and media have also raged about Trump’s calls for India’s increased involvement in Afghanistan.

Asif termed an increased role for New Delhi in Kabul “highly detrimental to regional stability” and accused India of supporting terrorism and “destabilizing politics in the region”.

In response to warnings that Washington might cut aid to Pakistan, Asif rejected the importance of American dollars, saying that Pakistan has lost more than $123 billion to terrorism since the 11 September attacks.

Any effort to isolate Pakistan would face problems from China, which has deepened political and military ties with Islamabad and invested nearly $60 billion in infrastructure in Pakistan.

The relationship between Islamabad and Washington has endured periods of extreme strain during the past decade, especially after Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was found and killed by US Special Forces in Pakistan in a 2011 raid.

 

Zionist Israel: Fascist Netanyahu likely to be punished for serious fraudulence!

Zionist Israel: Fascist Netanyahu likely to be punished for serious fraudulence!

– Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

 

Zionism says Israel promotes and does not –and should not- punish Jews.

Ever since Israel was imposed on Palestine by USA and allies that had won the WW II, the Zionist system took every care of Jews being imported primarily from Europe and Russia. Possibly, the Isreali courts refused to punish the criminal Jews and punished only Arabs and others, while Israeli regime refused to accept the International Law as the basis for all international disputes. Israel considers only its own Zionist laws as genuine and rejects all other laws simply as “anti-Semitist”.

The Israeli leader is mired in two separate corruption investigations. The first, known as Case 1000, revolves around him allegedly accepting luxury gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars from an Israeli-American billionaire. The second, which is referred to as Case 2000, is focused on his rumored deal with the influential Yedioth newspaper for better coverage in return for a crackdown on its rival outlet. Netanyahu, who denies all the allegations, is likely to face charges in the first probe, Israeli media reported last week.

Whether or not Israel would punish its top criminal leaders and frauds remains a trillion dollar question and similarly the Israeli courts run by illegal settler judges might not put Zionist fascist Netanyahu whose palms are stained with Palestinians blood, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For years, while Israel takes away the taxes of Palestine, Israeli political outfits loot the resources of Israel and take huge bribes from abroad in return for favors even form USA. Israeli leaders and rulers have exploited the tensed situation around in their own financial favors by misusing economic deals from within and across the globe where corporate lords like Ratan Tata of India give plenty of money to rulers- now Netanyahu.

The Israeli police recommended that PM B Netanyahu be charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust, casting a pall over the future of a tenacious leader who has become almost synonymous with his country. The announcement instantly raised doubts about his ability to stay in office.

 

Graft investigation

The Israeli police accused Netanyahu of accepting nearly $300,000 in gifts over 10 years. Israeli police recommended that the state indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of bribery and corruption. Unlike his military crimes in Palestine and Arab world, his economic corruption may not have anything to do with violating international law and the human rights but fate of Palestinians affected badly because of his corrupt career as the powerful PM.

 

Concluding a yearlong graft investigation, the police recommended that  Netanyahu face prosecution in two corruption cases: a gifts-for-favors affair known as Case 1000, and a second scandal, called Case 2000, in which Mr. Netanyahu is suspected of back-room dealings with Arnon Mozes, publisher of the popular newspaper Yediot Aharonot, to ensure more favorable coverage. According to the police, expensive cigars, jewelry and pink champagne flowed into the prime minister’s official Jerusalem residence in quantities sufficient to stock a small cocktail lounge. The generous patrons included Arnon Milchan, the Israeli movie producer, and James Packer, an Australian billionaire.

Police also recommended that the state indict Mozes as well as billionaire Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer and former Israeli intelligence operative who allegedly gave Netanyahu gifts with the intention of bribing him. Haaretz published a graphic outlining the investigations. Case 1000 refers to claims that the prime minister accepted “lavish gifts,” and Case 2000 refers to the purported deal with the newspaper publisher.

The recommendation comes as part of ongoing probes into allegations that Netanyahu “improperly accepted expensive gifts from different businessmen” including from Indian corporate lord Ratan Tata who is among the top Indians seeking Bharatrna award- Indian nation’s top civilian honor – for  his ‘work’ and “negotiated with publisher Arnon ‘Noni’ Mozes for favorable coverage of himself in Yediot Aharonot in exchange for support of a bill to weaken Israel Hayom, the largest circulation Hebrew-language paper and Yediot’s biggest competitor

Governments can do anything illegal, immoral and improper in promoting their favorites.

Criminal cum fraud Netanyahu deserves merciless punishment for his crimes against humanity by killing the besieged Palestinians, including their little children and with his corruption records he should be hanged without any mercy shown to him.  But can that a happen when his associate Trump is still alive.

 

The gifts and allegations

Netanyahu, who has been prime minister for nine straight years, and his family have become embroiled in a series of scandals in recent months.

Recordings recently emerged of his wife, Sara, screaming at an aide, while separate recordings emerged of his eldest son, Yair, on a drunken night out at a series of Tel Aviv strip clubs while traveling around in a taxpayer-funded government car with a government-funded bodyguard.

It follows reports that the bribe investigations have entered their final stages. It also comes immediately after the meeting on the recommendations, chaired by the police chief, recommend indicting Netanyahu in at least one of the corruption probes.

Netanyahu is involved in two separate criminal investigations, known as Case 1000 and Case 2000. In Case 1000, Netanyahu is suspected of having received gifts from businessmen overseas totaling 1 million shekels (approximately $280,000), including cigars, champagne, jewelry and more, from 2007 through 2016. The case has focused primarily on Netanyahu’s relationship with Israeli billionaire and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan.

The case 2000 centres on an allegation that Netanyahu asked the publisher of an Israeli newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, for positive coverage in exchange for help in reining in a rival publication. The second allegation centres on a claim that Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister since 2009, received gifts worth at least a million shekels ($283,000; £204,000) from Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchan and other supporters.

In a statement, police said there was sufficient evidence to indict Netanyahu in the first case, known as File 1000, for accepting bribes, fraud and breach of trust. It said Netanyahu had accepted gifts valued at 750,000 shekels ($214,000) from Milchan, and 250,000 shekels (or $71,000) from Packer. The gifts from Milchan reportedly included expensive cigars and champagne. Netanyahu reportedly was recorded asking Arnon Mozes, the publisher of the Yediot Ahronot daily, for positive coverage in exchange for reining in a free pro-Netanyahu daily that had cut into Yediot’s business.

In exchange for the “gifts”, Netanyahu tried to advance a tax break that would have benefited Milchan. The Israeli PM worked to advance the extension of the tax waiver for returning citizens over 10 years, a benefit that has a considerable economic value for Milchan, the police statement said.

In exchange for more favorable coverage, Netanyahu promised to hamper the circulation of a rival newspaper, in recordings obtained by police. “In his framework, what was discussed was the assistance of Mozes to Netanyahu in establishing his stature as PM through positive coverage in Yedioth Ahronoth that, in return for the PM assisting Mozes in advancing economic interests of Yedioth Ahronoth by an initiative to block the strengthening of Israel Hayom,” the police statement said.

Police said that in return, Netanyahu had operated on Milchan’s behalf on US visa matters, legislating a tax break and connecting him with an Indian businessman. It said he also helped Milchan, an Israeli producer whose credits include “Pretty Woman,” ″12 Years a Slave” and “JFK,” in the Israeli media market.

The Jerusalem Post says the gifts included champagne and cigars, and were given in exchange for help getting Milchan a US visa. Milchan, the producer of films including Fight Club, Gone Girl and The Revenant, should face bribery charges, police said.

As the police investigation gained steam in recent months, Netanyahu has claimed to be a victim of an overaggressive police force and a media witchhunt.

Israeli police recommended that Benjamin Netanyahu be indicted on bribery and breach of trust charges in a pair of corruption cases, dealing an embarrassing blow to the embattled prime minister that is likely to fuel calls for him to step down. Police said there was sufficient evidence to charge both Milchan and Mozes with bribery. There was no immediate comment from either man.

The recommendations marked a dramatic ending to a months-long investigation into allegations that Netanyahu accepted gifts from Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer, and suspicions that Netanyahu offered to give preferential treatment to a newspaper publisher in exchange for favorable coverage.

Among those caught up in the shipping investigation are David Shimron,  Netanyahu’s personal lawyer and second cousin, and Yitzhak Molcho,  Netanyahu’s lifelong friend and close adviser, whom he has sent on his most delicate diplomatic missions since the 1990s.  Molcho and Shimron are partners in a law firm as well as brothers-in-law.

Another possible case may be brewing over suspicions of the exchange of benefits in return for favorable media coverage between Netanyahu and a close friend who owns Bezeq, Israel’s telecommunications giant.

Israeli police say that Netanyahu should be charged over alleged bribery cases. A police statement said there was enough evidence to indict Netanyahu for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in two separate cases.

 

Zionist denial

Netanyahu has not been anxious to resign run away to avoid further embarrassment because he is sure of US support through the President Trump and he is damn sure of staying in power.

While Netanyahu has vehemently denied the allegations and publicly attacked the credibility of Israeli Police Commissioner Inspector General Roni Alsheich, observers have praised the indictment recommendations while also noting that these alleged crimes are not the worst of which he’s been accused—pointing to Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as its treatment of Palestinians, which have elicited demands that the prime minister be tried for war crimes at the International Criminal Court.

Netanyahu’s relationship with US President Trump—who, last year, provoked international outrage by recognizing Jerusalem and the capital of Israel—and drew comparisons the US probe, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, into allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election and obstructed justice.

Police say they have enough evidence to indict Milchan on charges of bribery. MK Yair Lapid, a Netanyahu’s chief rival who served as finance minister during this period and was called to testify during the investigation, called on Netanyahu to step down. “Even if the law does not require the Prime Minister to resign, someone who has committed crimes and has such serious accusations against them, many of which he does not deny, cannot continue to serve as PM with responsibility for the security and well-being of Israel’s citizens,” Lapid said.

Milchan fired back at police, insisting he and Netanyahu have been friends since long before the period under investigation. “The recommendation disregards indisputable basic facts including — the ties between Milchan and Netanyahu started in the early years of 2000, when a military boss Netanyahu had no government role. This connection was characterized by friendship between the two and their families. In this framework, “gifts” were given from time to time by Mr. Milchan to the Netanyahu family with no business interest,” said Milchan’s lawyer.

Most Jews call bribes the Jewish leaders and rulers receive as gifts.

Both Netanyahu and Mozes have said these were not serious discussions; rather, they each claim they were trying to expose the other’s lack of trustworthiness. In a statement to Israeli media, the lawyer for Mozes said, “The cases against him will be closed.” As expected, Netanyahu has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence, insisting that investigators will find he did nothing wrong. Police say there is enough evidence to indict Mozes on charges of offering bribes.

The Israeli leader has long been fighting with the country’s law enforcement over Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh’s decision to proceed with the publication. Last week, after Alsheikh alleged that certain “powerful” elements are trying to compromise the investigation into Netanyahu by collecting information on the officers involved, the Israeli PM called the claims “delusional and false insinuations

 

Jewish stubbornness

Netanyahu is stubborn, bold and damn sure nothing would happen to him. “Over the years, I have been the subject of at least 15 enquiries and investigations,” he said in his TV address. “Some have ended with thunderous police recommendations like those of tonight. All of those attempts resulted in nothing, and this time again they will come to nothing.”

In his TV address, Netanyahu said that his entire three-decade political career, which included serving as Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., a stint at prime minister in the 1990s and a series of Cabinet posts, were meant only to serve the Israeli public. He acknowledged aiding Milchan with his visa issues, but said Milchan had done much for Israel and noted that the late Shimon Peres had also been close with Milchan. He also said that over the years he had taken decisions that hurt Milchan’s business interests in Israel. He said all the allegations over the years against him had one goal: “to topple me from government.” He said past scandals had all “ended with nothing” and “this time as well they will end with nothing.”

At the same time, the PM attempted to downplay the impact of the looming police report on the attorney general’s final decision, adding “we don’t attach any importance to the recommendations, the value of which everyone now understands.”

Netanyahu said the allegations were baseless and that he would continue as prime minister. The allegations, he said, “will end with nothing”. Netanyahu has said the scandals are all the work of media out to get him.

His coalition partners, so far, have backed him, saying they will not take down the government over a police conclusion. According to a police statement published, authorities found evidence of “accepting bribes, fraud, and breach of trust.”

Israeli media say Netanyahu has been questioned by investigators at least seven times. Israel’s Channel 10 reported in December that Packer told investigators he gave the prime minister and his wife Sara gifts. Police say Netanyahu is also suspected of fraud and breach of trust in a case involving Australian billionaire James Packer.

But while the petition was still being processed, Netanyahu appeared to distance himself from the move. Speaking on Israeli television, Netanyahu said he would continue to rule Israel in his assigned role.

Yossi Fuchs, right wing attorney who filed the appeal, did not hide the fact that the petition’s imminent aim was to shield the embattled Israeli leader from a public backlash that may result from the publication of the report. He argued that the attorney general will not be able to stay impartial amid such outcry and will be forced to take the side of the police.

Gradually some ministers have stopped endorsing his crimes.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a bitter rival of Netanyahu, called on him to suspend himself and for the coalition to appoint a replacement on Wednesday morning. “The depth of corruption is horrifying,” Barak said. “This does not look like nothing. This looks like bribery.”

Shrewd Zionist criminal

Basically criminal minded, Netanyahu has murdered several Palestinians to stay in power. .

The 68-year-old is in his second stint as prime minister, and has served in the role for a total of 12 years. He has faced a number of allegations in his time in office. After his first term as prime minister two decades ago, police recommended that he and Sara face criminal charges for keeping official gifts that should have been handed over to the state. The charges were later dropped. In July 2015, the couple was accused of charging the government for the services of a contractor who did private work for them. The charges were later dropped.

Netanyahu angrily rejected the accusations, which included accepting nearly $300,000 in gifts from a pair of billionaires. He accused police of being on a witch hunt, vowed to remain in office and even seek re-election. In an effort to deflect blame, Netanyahu has lashed out, attacking the police, the media, the opposition and the left in rallies and on social media. He has often called the investigations against him “fake news,” echoing the language of President Donald Trump.

Netanyahu, who has emerged as one of President Trump’s most ardent allies, is serving his third consecutive term since his election in 2009 and his fourth overall since the 1990s. If he were to remain in the post through July 2019, it would set a record for total time in office, surpassing that of the state’s founder, David Ben-Gurion.

Netanyahu has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and has vowed to fight on, saying that no police recommendation would prompt his resignation. His longevity attests to his political agility and to his perfection of a campaigning and governing style in which he casts his political foes and critics as enemies of the broader body politic.

Though he has formed previous governing coalitions with those to his left, his current government is often described as the most right-wing and religious in Israel’s history. And he has presided over an increasingly bitter relationship with the Palestinians in the territories Israel has occupied for more than a half-century, whose hopes of soon gaining a state of their own have dwindled as Israeli settlements expand.

Netanyahu has prepared the public for this moment for months, and made strenuous efforts to discredit those investigating him, but he has not prepared Israel or his government for the possibility that he may be unable to continue to lead. He has designated no successor, and no single member of his own coalition has emerged as ready to step into his shoes. Meanwhile, a centrist opposition, led by Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid party, has been gaining strength.

In a twist straight out of a political thriller, a key witness against Netanyahu, according to Israeli news reports, turned out to be Lapid himself, who had been Netanyahu’s finance minister in a previous coalition.

Netanyahu promoted the extension of a 10-year tax exemption to expatriate Israelis returning to the country, “a benefit that has great economic value for Milchan,” who has long worked in Hollywood. But the Finance Ministry blocked this legislation, saying it was against the national interest and fiscally unsound.

The Israeli law enforcement authorities have handled the cases with great caution, wary of the possibility of bringing down a prime minister who might then be proved not guilty in court, not least with Israel facing increasing security threats on its northern and southern frontiers.

Israel’s constant state of alert has led some critics to argue all the more that a prime minister so focused on fighting his own legal battles cannot be entrusted with fateful decisions of peace and war.

Opposition politicians pounced, demanding that Netanyahu step down, be ousted by his coalition or at least declare himself “incapacitated,” as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak urged on Twitter, calling the police findings “hair-raising.”  The left-leaning Zionist Union party should quit the government.  “If you have a drop of concern for the future, fulfill your obligation. Free Israel from this madness.”

The police recommendations must now be examined by state prosecutors and the attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, a former military prosecutor and onetime Netanyahu aide.

Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled in the past that government ministers or deputy ministers, once indicted, may not remain in their posts. Whether that principle should also apply to the elected prime minister is an open question.

Last week, Israeli Police Chief Roni Alsheich, in an interview with Israel’s Keshet news channel, said “powerful elements” were “sniffing” around investigators working on the Netanyahu cases.

 

Olmert has some dignity, Netanyahu has nothing!

Netanyahu would be something of a test case as Israel’s first sitting prime minister to be formally charged. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, announced his resignation in September 2008, a week after the police recommended that he be charged with bribery, breach of trust, money laundering and fraudulent receipt of goods. That case involved an American businessman and a travel-expense scandal from Mr. Olmert’s days as mayor of Jerusalem and minister of industry and trade.

Olmert was eventually convicted in various cases and served 19 months of a 27-month prison sentence. He was released last year.

Pre-empting the police recommendations, Netanyahu told the public to expect them and did his best to minimize their importance. “Any fair-minded person will ask themselves how people who say such delusional things about the prime minister can investigate him objectively and make recommendations in his case without bias” he wrote accusing the police commissioner, Roni Alsheich, of having an agenda. In December, Netanyahu told a gathering of his right-wing Likud Party supporters: “The vast majority of police recommendations end in nothing. Over 60 percent of the police recommendations are thrown in the trash. Over 60 percent of the police recommendations don’t get to an indictment.”

Experts have disputed those figures, however, and the prime minister’s opponents have begun quoting from an interview he gave in 2008, at the height of Olmert’s legal troubles, to turn the tables on Netanyahu.  Describing Olmert as “up to his neck in investigations,” Netanyahu said of his political rival at the time: “He does not have a public or moral mandate to determine such fateful matters for the state of Israel when there is the fear, and I have to say it is real and not without basis, that he will make decisions based on his personal interest in political survival and not based on the national interest.”

In some ways, though, Netanyahu has been here before. During his first term in office, in the late 1990s, the police recommended that he be charged with fraud and breach of trust in a complicated case in which Netanyahu was suspected of acting to appoint an attorney general who would be sympathetic to a minister under investigation for corruption, in return for that minister’s political support. Ultimately, the attorney general closed that case, citing a lack of evidence.

Again, in March 2000, once Netanyahu was out of office, the police recommended that he be charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust in a case involving his holding on to $100,000 in gifts that were state property and having the state pay for private work on his home. Months later, the attorney general also ordered that case closed.

This time around, the police recruited a state’s witness, Ari Harow, Netanyahu’s former chief of staff and once one of his closest confidants.

 

Netanyahu fixed

The police have also been making headway in other criminal investigations in which Netanyahu has not been named as a subject, but that involve associates from his most inner circle. His wife already faces criminal charges of sneaking $100,000 in catered meals into the prime minister’s residence.

But a potentially far more explosive scandal, called Case 3000, involves a $2 billion deal for the purchase of submarines and missile ships from a German supplier. Critics have described that episode as perhaps the biggest corruption case in Israeli history, touching on deep conflicts of interest and national security.

Projecting aplomb, Netanyahu announced that he would attend a conference of local authorities in Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu, addressing the nation live on television shortly before the police released their findings around 9 p.m., made clear that he would not step down. “I feel a deep obligation to continue to lead Israel in a way that will ensure our future,” he said, before embarking on a 12-minute defense of his conduct. “You know I do everything with only one thing in mind — the good of the country,” he said. “Not for cigars from a friend, not for media coverage, not for anything. Nothing has made me deviate, or will make me deviate, from this sacred mission.”

With a cloud hanging over his head, he could soon find himself facing calls to step aside. During similar circumstances a decade ago, Netanyahu, as opposition leader, urged then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign during a police investigation, saying a leader “sunk up to his neck in interrogations” could not govern properly.

And Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, whose center-right Kulanu party holds 10 seats in Parliament, giving it the power to sink Netanyahu’s government, signaled just before midnight that he was not prepared to leave the coalition, saying that he would wait for the attorney general’s decision on whether to indict Netanyahu.

A final decision on whether Netanyahu should face charges will come down to the attorney general’s office. A decision could take months to reach. Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said any prime minister who has been charged should not be obliged to resign.

The police statement said that Netanyahu, after receiving gifts, even from Jews coming to settle down  in Israel, pushed for the Milchan Law, which would have ensured that Israelis who return to live in Israel from abroad were exempt from paying taxes for 10 years. The proposal was eventually blocked by the finance ministry.

 

Observation: Netanyahu seeks escape route

Israel’s highest court has given police the go-ahead to publicize indictment recommendations in two long-running corruption investigations into the prime minister. Outrage over the probes led to months of large-scale protests.

The decision gives police the green light to submit their recommendations on the PM’s possible indictment to the attorney general. The highly anticipated release was halted on Sunday due to the petition pending a hearing in court.

Israeli police said there is “sufficient evidence” to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on criminal charges in two corruption cases.

The final decision about whether to file formal charges lies with Mandelblit and is subject to a hearing beforehand with Netanyahu’s lawyers. Reaching that threshold alone could easily take months.

Police will now pass the evidence to the attorney general, who will make a decision on whether or not to indict the Prime Minister. That decision is not expected imminently.

By Israeli law, he is only required to step down if he is convicted and that conviction is upheld through the appeals process to the High Court, a process that could take years.

However, he could face public and political pressure to step down much earlier.

Opinion says if Netanyahu needs to be indicted, the attorney general must make a decision to bring charges against him, but he needs to be able to make that decision without public pressure based on police recommendations

Since the probes were launched in December 2016, they have grown into a source of recurrent public outrage, with thousands of Israelis taking to streets to protest the “Crime Minister” every Saturday.

Late last year, the protest movement was given a boost by Israeli lawmakers, who passed a law aimed at scrapping the procedure of police recommendations to the attorney general. The bill, however, was watered down so that it would not apply to current investigations, including Netanyahu’s.

Netanyahu long ago earned the nickname “the Magician” for his uncanny knack for political endurance, and even his most ardent opponents have been hesitant to write him off.

At what point he might be legally required to step down, short of a final conviction, is likely to be a matter of increasingly heated debate, though public opinion and political pressure could in the end play a decisive role.

When asked whether the USA had any reaction to the police statement, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said, “The only thing I have to say about that is that the United States has a very strong relationship, not only with PM Netanyahu but also the Israeli government. We’re certainly aware of it, but we consider it to be an internal Israeli matter.”

The next legislative elections are scheduled for November 2019.  Netanyahu heads a fragile coalition, but on television, he appeared confident the allegations would not spur new elections.

it is the favors Netanyahu may have given his wealthy friends in return that could herald his downfall. A formal bribery charge would be by far the most serious outcome, and the most ominous for his political survival.

Hopefully, Israeli system would not provide an escape route for fascist Netanyahu from legal complications to remain unpunished.

US-Russia cooperation in Syria!

US-Russia cooperation in Syria!
-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
_____

All UN veto members have a common plan and they move accordingly. USA and Russia, the two very important super powers, have always cooperated in regional problems even during the Cold War era.
Cooperation and confrontation have been the hallmark of Russo-US relations. Russia has once again accused the USA of training terrorists in Syria, this time at a military base in the south of the war-torn country. Moscow has regularly charged that Washington provides cover, if not all-out support, for militant forces fighting against Syria’s regime and civilian population.
In Syria the USA and Russia seem to be working in tandem in Syria to destabilize those Arab nations by attacking select zones without any clash between them in the choice of zones for attack.
Apparently, US-Russian relations in Syria are warmer after Trump’s arrival at White House. Russia says it want sot end its role in Syria but USA is opposed to ending terror wars in West Asia and it has no plan to leave Syria either under Azad or anybody else. USA would not even consider leaving Syria or West Asia for good because there is nothing that could force it to leave the region alone.
More than 6 year-old conflict in Syria that’s killed at least 400,000 people and generated millions of refugees has entered a new phase; with diplomacy taking center stage as fighting subsides. Islamic State has been driven out of its main strongholds, and the two rival blocs that have been combating the jihadists — the Assad-Russia-Iran alliance, and a coalition headed by the USA– are now arguing over the shape of a postwar settlement.
Assad’s departure from power is supposed to be a stated US objective, even if the Trump government is more flexible than its Obama government predecessors in how its provisions are implemented. However, in fact, USA does not want either to kill or remove Assad form power but only wants to destabilize that Arab nation as part of their Arab Spring agenda.
Limiting or even reversing Russian influence in the Middle East continues to be the operative principles guiding the formation of US foreign policy.
Russia’s intervention in the Syrian war in 2015 on the side of Bashar al-Assad has been marred by accusations its Air Force deliberately targeted aid convoys and civilian infrastructure.
Donald Trump’s informal meetings with Vladimir Putin on November 11 on the sidelines of the recent APEC summit in Vietnam may have produced a warm attitude between the two leaders, but some fundamental policy differences between them are hard to overlook. Though the bilateral diplomatic effort has elicited optimism from officials, it does not represent any promising step forward to save tremendous numbers of lives in Syria which has been under siege from foreign forces.
In fact their statement does not provide a workable roadmap for effective American-Russian collaboration and coordination Putin’s spokesman characterized it that it “does not require comments” and is not open to multiple interpretations. The latest statement — another in a long list that have been hailed as groundbreaking efforts to end the fighting in Syria — is really not going to make a difference this time around.
On the one hand, one gets the impression that both super powers are trying stabilizing Syria but on the other, both are destabilizing the Arab nation as per their own plans without any conflicts. However, just as with the agreements reached over Syria during the last year of the Obama government, this latest statement is open to multiple interpretations.
Both sides continue to use vague language and terms deliberately left undefined to accommodate the still considerable divergences between Washington and Moscow over Syria’s future. While both sides agree on the necessity of fighting ISIS, Moscow has a much broader definition of who constitutes “associates” of ISIS — in order to encompass some of the groups that the United States views as legitimate opposition to the Assad regime. Both sides concur foreign fighters should leave, but are the Iranian Al-Quds units of the Revolutionary Guard or Hezbollah combatants permitted to remain at the invitation of the government in Damascus?
The statement heralds an imminent shift in the trajectory of US-Russia relations. The statement builds on previous modest steps that Russia and the USA have achieved: the use of de-escalation zones and limited cease-fires to tap down fighting; the continuation of deconfliction efforts to ensure that USA-Russian-backed forces don’t engage in direct clashes; the agreement to work with Jordan to stabilize southern Syria and maintain tenuous truces between pro- and anti-regime forces; and the ostensible support for the complete destruction of the Islamic State and getting a post-conflict political reconciliation process underway.
It’s only the Geneva talks that can lead to a sustainable settlement, the US officials said. A separate Russian-led process is pointless unless it contributes to that goal, and looks instead like a quick-fix arrangement to leave Assad in power and get someone else to foot the bill for reconstruction, they argued.
The flaw in that approach, the White House contends, is that Assad lacks the means to control the territory that’s nominally back under his control, while his main allies can’t afford to pick up a bill for reconstruction that may total several hundred billion dollars. Syria under Assad remains cut off from the world economy and subject to sanctions by the UN, USA and European Union. America and its EU allies are in agreement that there shouldn’t be any international funding for rebuilding in the Assad-controlled part of Syria, the officials said.
The question of Assad’s future has overshadowed all other sticking points in the Syrian talks, and has already caused a breakdown at the latest round in Geneva. The USA and its European and Arab partners have spent years insisting on his departure. Yet as Russian support swung the war in the Syrian president’s favor, the ‘Assad-must-go’ coalition was left without any obvious means of making that happen.
Moreover, while Russia keeps open the possibility that Assad could be re-elected as president of a post-war Syria, the United States finds it inconceivable that, in any free and fair election, Assad could win a majority of the ballots cast.
Also, the statement never mentions the “Syria National Dialogue Conference” that Moscow has now postponed until next month. The conference represents the Kremlin’s efforts, along with its partners in the Middle East, to define the “acceptable” members of the Syrian political constellation who could be brought into some sort of power-sharing agreement.
At the same time, some of those who will not be invited to or would not take part in the planned conference in Sochi are precisely the political forces that the United States hopes would play a leading role in a post-war Syria.
Meanwhile, although Trump may be prepared to accept a cooperative role for Russia in charting Syria’s future, he has almost no political support for this position in the USA — either within his own national security establishment or from Congress.
The USA will not passively “sign on” to decisions on Syria reached largely by the trilateral dialogue by Russia-Iran-Turkey— yet Russia, in turn, is not going to yield the gains that its air power has won for the Assad regime on the battlefield. The joint statement is important because it recognizes the crucial task of preventing any sort of clash between Moscow and Washington in Syria. It sends a clear message to the military establishments of both countries to take the steps necessary to avoid any accidents.

Last week, Israel carried out an air strike on a military base near Damascus. USA asks Israel to intervene and kill some Syrians on its behalf, ostensibly to help push back against Iranian influence. The US officials said it’s a priority to stop Iran and its proxies from entrenching in Syria and posing a threat to American allies, though they wouldn’t go into detail about how that can be achieved. Topping that list is Israel, which says it’s ready to take military action of its own to combat Iran’s growing clout in the neighboring country., according to Arab media.

NATO-Russia relations deteriorated in 2014 when the alliance decided to suspend cooperation with Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis that was triggered by the coup in Kiev.

Meanwhile, number of NATO troops near Russian borders tripled Since 2012: Russia
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on 22 December that NATO has doubled the number of its military drills since 2012 in the vicinity of Russia’s borders, adding that Moscow is scrutinizing the exercises. Sergei said that the US missile defense system in Europe has been brought to the level of “initial operational readiness.” The number of the bloc’s servicemen deployed near Russian borders has grown from 10 to 40 thousand in three years, he added. While the bloc conducted 282 military exercises near Russia’s borders in 2014, in 2017 the number of drills grew to 548. He also said that the NATO member-states have intensified their surveillance operations near Russia. “We resolutely suppress any attempts to violate the Russian air and sea borders,” the Minister of Defense added.

Shoigu has added that the Russian military is determined to keep the pace of modernizing hardware and acquiring new equipment next year. The armed forces will receive 10 S-400 missile systems and put in service 11 Yars missile systems. “The share of modern weapons in the Russian army should grow to 61 percent by the end of 2018, including 82 percent in the strategic nuclear forces, 46 percent in the land forces, 74 percent in the aerospace forces, 55 percent in the navy.”

Its latest effort backfired last month when Russia’s Defense Ministry attached video game footage as “irrefutable evidence” of its claims. “According to space and other types of surveillance data, there are militant units inside a US base in Tanf, Syria. They are, in fact, training there,” General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of Russia’s Armed Forces, said in an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda tabloid.
ISIS is a terrorist organization banned in Russia. Gerasimov cited a BBC report about a secret US-led coalition deal to let hundreds of Islamic State (ISIS) fighters escape their former stronghold of Raqqa in October. He estimated around 350 of these fighters were in the Tanf base in southern Syria and 750 more at another base in a Kurdish-held region in the northeast. “They are de-facto IS. But, after they are worked on, they change colors and rename themselves the ‘New Syrian Army,’ or otherwise,” Gerasimov said. The USA has not yet responded to Russia’s latest accusations.
Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Syria which will give the Russian military access to an airbase on the Mediterranean for another half a century. According to the document published on the official government website, Russia will continue to lease the Khmeimim Air Base, in the Latakia province, until at least 2066. The Syrian government conceded to lend the base in Latakia province free of charge.
Hosting the leaders of Iran and Turkey at the Black Sea resort of Sochi last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared there’s a “real chance” to end the war, saying “the militants in Syria have been dealt a decisive blow.” Russia’s intervention in the war two years ago turned the tide of the conflict in Assad’s favor.
Putin plans to invite all Syrian factions to a congress in Sochi early next year. Meanwhile, United Nations-brokered talks in Geneva — which have been underway since the civil war’s early years, though they’ve produced few results — resumed last week.
The Syrian conflict is likely to drag on and could reignite into full-scale civil war as long as President Bashar al-Assad remains in power, despite efforts by Russia to paint the conflict as winding down, according to White House officials. The Syrian faction including America’s Kurdish allies controls the largest amount of territory, besides Assad’s government.
The Syrian army is barely able to reimpose authority on territory it has recaptured, even with military support from Russia and Iran, while Assad’s allies can’t afford to rebuild the country. As the war against Islamic State winds down, some US troops are set to stay on to help the Kurds consolidate their gains.
Declarations of victory by Assad’s backers are premature, three White House officials said in a briefing for reporters. They spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal government assessments of the conflict.
UNSC that can reign in USA and other powers forcing them to mind their own business is silent and only promotes the military interests of veto member states.

Fascist Indian Hindutva, Babri Mosque and plight of secular democracy!

Fascist Indian Hindutva, Babri Mosque and plight of secular democracy!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

________

 

 

Fate of Babri Mosque whether the Mosque would be rebuilt as pledged by the regime when it was demolished by the criminal elements among Indian Hindus on 1992 December 06  now depends on the judiciary’s views and final judgment which in turn will determine the plight of Indian secular democracy.

 

Now the fateful demotion of historic Babri Mosque in 1992 by a large Hindutva criminal squad completes 25 years. So is the failed pledge of Indian regime to rebuild the Babri Mosque.

 

An insensitively arrogant state or government, however strong and sure it maybe, can ruin a nation, forcing the people to become passive cowards. Today, India is boastful of its newly found money, being sent, mostly by Muslim workers and skilled laborers from Arab nations, but the Gulf money follow may not last for too long. While Indian Muslims working  in Mideast make India strong by regular remittances, India targets Muslims and  one has no idea as to how many thousand Muslims are languishing in Indian jails for no valid reason and without trials. A Keralite Abdul Nasser Madani, a Islamic priest turned politician, languishing in Bangaluru jail,  is not the only Muslim being  targeted for years because he defended  Muslims in Kerala state from RSS Hindutva hate speeches and attacks when the government looked the other way.

 

The root cause of all this is basic hate-sick mindset of Indian state as well as extremist Hindus towards Islam and Muslims and this is reflected in every aspect of Indian life and system. The Indian conspiracy to demolish Babri mosque on false propaganda against Islam was deep rooted and it was executed, like the Sept-11 hoax, with perfection with state backing.

 

INDIAN BLACK DAY

 

Some fanatic Hindu and Hindutva outfits force some fake Muslims organizations to announce their support for Ram structure at Ayodhya where the Hindu criminals destroyed a historic Babri Mosque in 1992. Babri Mosque existed in UP where Muslims were worshiping God almighty until 1947 when government and RSS forces applied pressure on poor local Muslims to let Hindus come in and worship Hindu lords like Ram- the protagonist hero of epic novel Ramayana. Hindutva forces conspired with the government to destroy the Babri Mosque by a step by step operation. Indian government behaved like a Hindu boss and threatened the minority Muslims.

The 06 December, the sad anniversary of demolition of historic Babri Mosque belonging to Muslims, is one of the most important Black Days for India, its Constitution and its cherished democratic and secular values. Interestingly, Not only BJP and its Hindutva allies but even so-called secular parties like Congress party with its hidden nexus with Hindutva RSS also do not support the genuine interests of Muslims, support the rebuilding of Babri Mosque, stress the importance of secularism for the unity of Indian nation. They have common agenda- anti-Islamism. But in targeting Muslims and Mosques, the BJP has the Hindu vote bank agenda.

December 06, 1992 is a very important Black Day for India as well as Islam as Indian Hindutva forces with state backing launched a criminal war on Islam and Indian Muslims and destroyed their historic asset: Babri Mosque.  Indian government is counting the number of years that have elapsed since the ghastly demolition of Babri Mosque, review the situation in the country and abroad year after year and expects Indian Muslims to forget completely about the mosque and become busy with defending themselves against forces that target them. So much so, in fact, Muslims are so much on the run seeking to somehow live in Hindutva dominated India that they seem to sideline the fate of Babri Mosque, not knowing that the destruction of Babri Mosque also signals cumulative weakening of their faith.  .

 

Indian Muslims await the Supreme Court judgment because they are sure they would get justice. However, if Indian government, Indian political parties, media lords, intelligence – both state and corporate/private are under the cruel impression that the “Mosque” issue is done with and they could  trick Indian Muslims and world Islamic scholars/leaders about the “end of Babri Mosque”,  they are definitely mistaken. Muslims can never forget the cruel treatment meted out to their Mosque but they are powerless and mere pawns in the hands of politicians and government.

–

Terror attacks following the Sept-11 hoax in the USA has helped the Hindus and Indian state-government to hide themselves and their guilt behind terrorism plank. Today, those criminals who destroyed Babri Mosque and killed Muslims are top Hindu rulers and leaders operating in national parties.  They openly claim India is exclusively theirs and they can do anything they want – attack, terrorize, kill Muslims, destroy every mosque in Hindu India. That is not just Hindutva insanity but a deliberate conspiracy to target Muslims. When the state and judiciary endorse such fanaticism, Muslims lose faith in Indian system to protect them.

 

December 06, one of the most horrible symbols of Indian secularism and democracy, cannot be forgotten by any right thinking person in India and outside for the horrendous act of vandalism and destruction of the Grand Babri Mosque in Indian state of Uttar Pradesh by the anti-anti Islamic terrorists operating in India under the full security from Indian military and other security services. Memory of Babri’s destruction remains a milestone in the secular attitude of Indian government toward Muslims and will be remembered as long as the grand mosque once again is not rebuilt by the Government of India as it promised upon the tragic felling of the Mosque in 1992. On the eve of thee tragic December 06, Muslims across the nation are once again under the grip of tensions about a possible terror track by the government agencies across the nation so as to coerce them to shed their legitimate demand for the Mosque.

 

The destruction of Babri Mosque is being underplayed by the governments and their loyal media, obviously to block any move to the process of the construction activities of the mosque. India hopes that if years pass by like this, it could argue that thee was no Babri Mosque at Ayodhya at all and hence the construction of the said mosque does not arise at all. Judiciary, appointed and controlled by the State, also would shut its eyes on the fate of the Grand Mosque. It won’t be a surprise, if some of the official and political “Muslims” also join the choir of the official politicians and bureaucrats in denouncing the demands for the Mosque.

 

India has very cleverly made use of all available opportunities to create rifts in the society particularly between Hindus and Muslims, on the one hand and among the Muslims themselves, on the other. Group politics, vote bank politics and even cricket have been effectively bought into play to turn the attention of the Muslims from their demands for Babri Mosque reconstruction. The Muslim political parties and other minor outfits have also been bought under the arena of State control in many wooing manners. And those who still claim Babri Mosque, are ill-treated and put into jails as “potential or suspected terrorists”. With the US playing its terror card in Islamic world, India would also have more of opportunities to tack the Muslims and refuse to rebuild the Mosque.

 

 

Cash and share of power can create wonders, as the Muslim League (IUML) has understood it while sharing power at the Centre now. Muslim League (IUML), the only national party for Muslims and which has pretensions of protecting and fighting for the cause of Muslim interests has been co-opted in the Central government when Congress-led UPA regime assumed office, defeating the BJP led anti-Muslim parties. Not only that. A Muslim League MP has been accommodated in the foreign ministry. And that party which used to organize occasionally protests for the Babri Mosque has been thus totally silenced. In fact there have not even feeble protests in the country for the restoration of the Mosque. The League leaders think that it is enough fighting for cause of Muslims and Islam and what they have got is a rare opportunity and they should not spoil it by unnecessarily rubbing shoulders with the Hindutva and “secular” forces in New Delhi. But they continue to use Islamic symbols in party structure including flag.

 

A faulty and corrupt leadership has harmed the cause of Muslims in a great way. Also, the Muslim leadership is controlled by the ruling parties both at the center and states and the Congress and other major parties oblige the Muslim leaders by meeting their personal demands. As a result, the Muslims are betrayed by the very leaders who claim to be protecting their interests. Not less corrupt and tricky than other political parties in India, Muslim League and Hyderabad based Muslim Majlis party (MIM) pretending to be the defenders of Indian Muslims, quietly take dictates from the Congress party, responsible for the destruction of Babri Mosque.

 

If the position of Indian Muslims is bad, the situation in Kashmir, occupied by India after its independence, is still far worse, indeed! New Delhi still perceives and views Kashmiris as troublesome, bad guys, — only to be destroyed gradually. The overall scenario in the country explains why the Muslims in Kashmir are subjected to insults and harassment by those very personnel who are duty bound to protect them, apart from regular genocide and loss of properties inflicted upon them. Gulam Nabi Azad, the chief-minister of JK and the only Muslim chief-minister in “secular” India, like all other chief-ministers in the country do, pretends ignorance of what has been happening under his very nose.

 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

 

 

In the name of terrorism and suspicion, anybody could be put behind bars in the West and in countries like India today. The Muslims and others retained in jails without trial are too large and common to need illustrations. Usual contempt of law by Indian State could be seen by the way the Muslims are treated in the country after the destruction of the Mosque at Ayodhya. The Muslims, who are arrested before 6th Dec every year and tortured in jails across the country, are neither tried nor released because, according to the government, arrested persons are “terrorists” and so they deserve prolonged punishment in jails without trials, but quite scared of facing the legality of the matter involved. It is any one’s guess as to what makes the government both at the Centre and in states not to produce the so-called suspected terrorists before the courts of law and let judiciary deliver judgments.

 

 

Compulsorily arrests are made of Muslims on the eve of December 06. In Tamil Nadu alone, for instance, over 350 Muslims were reportedly arrested between 22nd Nov and 06 Dec 1998 as “suspected terrorists” and their fate was sealed in Coimbatore and other central jails in the state without any trial, before some of them were tired last month. The One of the detainees held in jails without any crime, Abdul Nasser Madani, a popular political leader in Kerala State who had lost his leg in a bomb blast in Kerala state way back by the anti-Islamic forces operating in the country and shielded by the State, and was later arrested by implicating him in a bomb blast case was in Coimbatore jail for over ten long years, before the governments decided to release this year. Now no proper compensation is granted to him and others for being tortured in jails for over a decade. Premier Man Mohan Singh has not yet revealed the date about the Muslim detainees in the country.

 

No point in talking about the plight of Muslims in government as well private jobs and institutions in India. According to the Sachar Committee report the most distressing fact about the state of Muslims in India is in sharp contrast to educational and job sectors, where their share is way below their share in the population, they have a disproportionately high representation when it comes to being in prison. In many states, including Maharashtra, Gujarat and Kerala, the Muslim detainees are twice or thrice as much as their share of the population. No educated and well-placed Hindu friend thinks this as a shameful fact in a “democracy”.

 

Yet, no one can state exactly how many Muslims have been killed in jails of “democratic” India and elsewhere.  Emboldened by the on-going terror wars waged by the USA in the Arab world on the Muslims, India does not care for legality of the issue of state sponsored crime on the strength of the US support for killing or torturing the Muslims anywhere in the world. The Muslim League, a coalition partner in the present Central government has not bothered about the securing the fast Justice to the Muslim “terrorist” detainees either and are contented with the pleasures of power sharing with the Congress Party.

 

Neither the Human Rights activists nor such organizations have taken up the matter seriously enough to halt the inhuman treatment meted out to the Muslims. Hypocrisy knows no shame or limits and has percolated through every section of the society and effectively controls it. The Prime minister and the state chief ministers, if committed to welfare of all citizens of the country, should come out with detailed reports about the of Muslims without trials held in Indian lock-ups as well as the general position of the Muslim detainees in the country in general.

 

The mysterious death of a former Russian intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko abroad and the killing of a Russian journalist Politkovkaya in Russia have caught the attention of the Western media mainly because the victims were not Muslims and had not been pro-Putin government, but also pro-West persons. Muslims are also killed and tortured by the US led forces worldwide but the global media refuse to highlight the facts as they have done it in Russia’s case, for Russia is criticized for its lack of democratic traditions.  Human rights record of India is known to be very low and the media efficiently hide the facts of torture if the victims are Muslims.

 

MEDIA’S NEGATIVE ROLE

 

India media lords just obey the regime bosses especially in promoting anti-Muslims, anti-Islam ideas of Hindutva forces. They parade the extremist Hindutva and anti-Islamic commentators on TV channels to insult Islam and add injury the already disgraced and badly shaken Muslims. 

 

India wants Hindu boys to marry non-Hindu girls to convert them straight away into Hindutva as a part of ‘patriotic jihad’ and opposes if Muslim boy marries a Hindu girl and if that happens they are targeted badly calling it a “love jihad”. The recent incident of inter religious love marriage between a Muslim and Hindu has been criticized by the Hindutva media lords after the Supreme Court allowed their marriage.  Shafin Jahan and Hadiya (a Kerala woman) married but they are being harassed by the Hindutva forces. Hadiya said she loves her husband but her relatives behaved like criminals and did not her meet her husband for many months now. .Intelligence and media lords are ashamed of the defeat of their strenuous efforts to separate them, harass both of them.  Now they are trying brand her husband as a terrorist.  She was placed under her parents’ brutal custody since her marriage was annulled by the Kerala High Court. Jahan was questioned by National Investigation Agency which is busy with somehow ending the unrest there by the freedom groups and booking the freedom leaders on false cases, a week after the Apex Court gave its nod to carry on investigation into the conversion of Hadiya and her marriage with him. They are deadly busy trying make  Jehan an ISIS man, while Indian regime repeated says ISIS has not come to India .

 

Indian media lords dutifully promote the anti-Muslim agenda of the Indian government that advances the interests of Hindus in India and abroad. India newspapers and electronic  media actively accelerate Islamophobia and other anti-Muslim themes in order to consolidate Hindu votes for the Hindutva parties led by BJP.

 

India is hailed as a country where democracy flourishes on large scale. December 06, the date the Indian history would remember forever as on that date in 1992 democracy was finally assassinated in India with the destruction of Babri Mosque and follow-up torture of the Muslims all over the country, is fast approaching. Upon the destruction of the Mosque, the then ruling Congress government had pledged to reconstruct the mosque at the very site where it existed, but till date the construction has not even started. In order to suppress the Muslims who demand the reconstruction of the Mosque the Indian state has only terrorized them through various nefarious actions harmful to and undermining the Muslims.

 

Media, the fourth estate charged with the task of defending the genuine interests of minorities as well, plays in India enough mischief in the breakdown in the society and country. They consider the Muslims are no-entity and therefore to be ignored and subjugated. No one needs a special course to understand the fact that US-led terror strategy has been very aptly utilized by India to target the Muslims in and outside the country. And Media are never tired of branding the Muslims as suspected terrorists and useless burden-some, problematic people. Media have converted the Hindu masses into behaving like a shield to cultivate ill-feelings towards fellow Muslims.

 

The attitude that Indian is “our” country and we decide what to do with Muslims is not a good approach at all. Since the media play havoc in the perceptive domains of majority of Indian, a few lines would help these self proclaimed patriots” to understand the factual position. Muslims lead a pathetic and strained life as offered to them by the governments of India and states. The role of the Muslims in India’s independence, wherein many of them lost lives for the country’s sake as well as their positive contributions to country’s development are totally ignored by State as well as media. Instead, issues like Pakistan and terrorism are cleverly brought in to play a destructive role in the lives of Muslims. While focusing on Muslims in India, the media and politicians encouraged by the bureaucrats make it appear that Muslims are a burden and a lot of resources are spent on them unnecessarily. Wonderfully, even by keeping a Muslim as President, India keeps doing what the USA does to Muslims all over the world. Insulting and bashing the Muslims is routine event in the country, including New Delhi.

 

Media hide the fact that every year many Muslims are rounded up on the eve of December-6 anniversary and not many from the detainees return home quite safe. Till date no one knows how many Muslims are in Jails for what crime! Hatred is generated even from those wealthy Indians, particularly those settled down comfortably abroad, mainly in the West, and are both proud of and obsessed with the so-called Indian democratic values and feel happy to see the Muslims in India are painted in dirty colors and portrayed as bad guys deserving death and severely, but they are perhaps unaware of the fact that this country is contempt with legal aspects of the retaining detainees without trails. Of those who have detained and tortured in Indian jails for over a decade, only few are released and some others are tried to punish.

 

Media cannot afford to conveniently forget the fact Babri Mosque, pulled down during the Congress rule at the centre, and with its support, by the anti-Islamic terrorists and other state-sponsored forces led by the BJP and the UP state then ruled by the BJP, is a glaring example of how the Muslims and Islamic institutions are treated in India. With advent of US sponsored war on the so-called terrorism, India has been ably using the terrorism plank to deny what is legitimately due to Muslims. Like the USA and the West, India too describes and views the Muslims as suspected terrorists. All Muslims thus are potential terrorists, if not real or suspected ones.

 

All these years since Independence, the print media, English as well vernaculars, have faithfully portrayed Muslims as evils and unwanted elements that need to be eliminated at all costs, secretly or, if that is not possible, openly. The majorities Hindus are projected as the “tolerant ones” and “sufferers” and badly hit people by the “onslaught” of the Muslims, whereas the truth suggests to the contrast. Of late, however, Indian media, under the prevailing circumstances, seem to have been caught between its ‘duty’ to go all out for shielding the majority and advancing the so-called national interest and the need to project India as the largest democracy, at the same time. The media that are used to paint the Muslim in India in dirty colors of their choice, find it extremely difficult now to change their anti-Muslim format.

 

Media successfully fueled the anti-Muslim tragedy and promoted the anti-Islamic propaganda. The ugly depictions of Muslims, where the Muslims are shown as villains and ugly guys, have caused tensions in the society that led to the slow annihilation of the Muslims. The media that are so used to paint the Muslim in India in dirty colors of their choice, now would find it extremely difficult to change their anti-Muslim format for fear of angry reaction from the special sections that fomented friction in the society, apart from from the worry about a possible slash in daily circulation affecting the profits of the media magnets controlling politics in the country.

 

More Indian Muslims are employed outside India than in the country, as India refuses to ensure their involvement in jobs and education. Neither the media not the governments, both the central and the states, seems to be ashamed of the fact that Muslims have look outside India for a lively-hood, if they want to live somehow Muslims deprived of any dependable leadership and resources to face the challenge from the media. While criticizing the Muslims for what they may or may not be responsible, the media refuse to give due credit to the hard work the Indian Muslims do not just at home but in the Middle East and contribute immensely to the upsurge of Indian economy during the past 20 years with their regular bank remittances. But for the Gulf countries the plight of Muslims in “democratic” India would have been indescribable in a normal language. It is too difficult now, or at a later stage, to remold the mind of the people by giving real facts, even if the media want to set the record straight. More so,  the educated, skilled or otherwise, Hindus go abroad and enjoy a fine life and  become permanent foreign citizens, abroad.

 

The crux of the issue is how to reset the mind-set of the readers who were made to believe as facts the fiction presented to them, even if the media want undertake that. Indian newspaper readers and media viewers were earlier told that Muslims are bad lots, terrorists and suspected fellows and that they shouldn’t be entertained in societies at all. Muslims, deprived of any dependable leadership and resources to face the challenge from the media, are used as mere vote bank. The majority might question the veracity and reliability of the “new” material if supplied to them as new facts about Muslims. To accept the Muslims as fellow travelers, after targeting them thus far for no fault of them, is difficult and the readers would be required to treat the Muslims as humans, which would indeed be a difficult proposition. That would mean that democracy is farce.

 

The main worry of the media magnets and their political bosses seems to be economic advancement of Muslims which they don’t wish for them. By re-projecting Muslims as humans now, the media indirectly try to make room for advancement of Muslims in the society. Because the governments by taking cue from the media suggestions would be compelled to pass necessary laws to uplift the Muslims as well.  But the readers are well equipped to receive the supposedly change in mind of the journalistic justice. This is the real dilemma that media, like the bureaucracy and politicians, face today .Hence the reluctance on the part of the media to present facts as facts and turn away from fictional portrayal of Muslims as unwanted ones coming in the way of the majority sharing all resources by themselves, just as the war booty is being shared by the US-led forces in the Middle East.

 

BABRI MOSQUE AND RAM

 

It is an established fact that since its independence India has longed for disgracing Muslims and, therefore, supported furious anti-Islamic researchers with anti-Islamic bent who want to some how prove the existence of Ram and his domicile. Countrywide distortions went on as a serious business. There have been attempts by them also to some how prove that the world monument Taj Mahal, commissioned by Moguls as part of establishing Islamic cultural edifices in the country, was constructed by Hindus. And, recently, as part of US terror agenda Indian higher learning institutions in the country have spent billions of dollars on books and other trash on the so-called theme “ terrorism”. Insanity has not proper description of its own, indeed. With the destruction o Grand Babri Mosque, these researchers have gone ashtray in furnishing “evidence” about Ram having lived in Uttar Pradesh. Any one who questioned the existence of Ram is being targeted for concerted attacks. Not only Indian missions abroad harp on anti-Islamism and Hindutva moorings, they misuse he media for their personal advantages of making wealth. Claiming to be secular nation, India should have propagated a multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-language state, but unfortunately, it is bothered only abut its narrow interests everywhere.

 

The majority India is fond of creating controversies so as to deny the Muslims their legitimate due. With a view to appeasing the majority Hindu sentiment across the country that are the life line to both Congress and BJP parties, the government of India has taken yet another bold step in defending Ram’s existence. The government sponsored agencies have made latest discoveries about the existence of Lord Ram. Now a Chennai-based NGO, funded by the government, lavishly funded by the governments and engaged in research on India’s traditions and culture, has produced a report which states that Lord Ram did indeed exist, and even put a date on his birth: January 10, 5114 BCE (Before the Christian Era). The NGO says it arrived at the conclusion by using a relatively new method — archaeoastronomy, which combines astronomical with archaeological data.

 

Indian politicians supported by some anti-Islamic researchers are bent upon using religion for political purposes. Babri Mosque was unnecessarily linked to Ram, the national hero. TV serials on Ravana and Mahabharata were misused to generate pseudo-emotions across the nation and engineered hatred against Muslims. The NGO unveiled the research findings at a presentation in Mumbai very recently. “We can say with confidence and pride that Ram existed historically,” the researcher told the gathering. “The most authentic text on Rama is Valmiki’s Ramayana since it was written by Valmiki as a contemporary text. We have collaborated different aspects of Rama’s life as mentioned in the Ramayana with scientific methodologies.” It has been conducting research on traditional Indian knowledge for the past six years, talks about the authenticity of his report, the reliability of archaeoastronomy and other issues. The research shows that Ram was a mortal, but how would it go down in a culture that worships him as God? Ram was a human being and also a king. It is any body’s personal choice to attribute divinity to him. We worship our parents and teachers as God. So why not Ram? He was a noble soul. It has relied on several others to come to a conclusion through scientific eliminations.

 

Indian civilization is characterized by being embedded with night sky observations. Feeding the observations of the planetary configurations into the planetarium software gives us the English calendar dates for when these configurations could have occurred in the past. When these dates are logically arranged along with the events, it helps us to scientifically assign dates to events mentioned in Indian legends and historical texts and validate them.

 

(The researchers used Archaeoastronomy, a technique of charting the past or the future sky using a scientific tool. They think this tool helps to arrive at planetary positions given a date in the past or the future and vice verse — given a set of planetary configurations, arrive at the date either in the past or in the future. Such tools are collectively called planetarium software. There are probably over 50 such different software available. Each software can be use specifically for a particular application, like plotting the current night sky chart, predicting eclipses and the like)

 

Thus, the astronomical remains left behind in our literature can be analyzed scientifically to arrive at historic dates for various events. This approach is parallel to archeology where physical remains are analyzed to arrive at historic dates and hence, gives rise to a new branch of scientific dating which may be called archaeoastronomy. It deciphered the Ramayana using archaeoastronomy. They relied upon several reports and mainly the configurations available in the Ramayana. The dates mentioned in the earlier texts including the Ramayana were tallied, entered into the software as mentioned above and a conclusion was drawn. They state there was always this aspect that the issue was sensitive. They also claim the study being as accurate as possible.

 

The “findings” must be the toast of Hindu outfits. With the central government, like in films, defending the hero Ram and, conversely, justifying the destruction of Grand Babri Mosque, the anti-Muslim forces become violent. Hindutva outfits operating indoors and abroad would have an additional tooth to vehemently unleash anti-Islamic rhetoric and assault on Muslims and Islamic institutions in India. Only hope for Indian Muslims seems to be protecting each every Muslims living in the country at any cost. The fact, however, remains that human beings cannot prove the existence of God, no matter how so ever they attempt at that, but they might be able only to disprove the existence. That is level of people who try to prove one religious god against others in a multi-gods society. Hence no research on God could be infallible either as an academic or religious exercise.

 

The media has also taken a fascination to Ram. But nothing is wrong to find out truth about Ram. Ram, according to the media, is an international hero and every one ought to be proud of him as Indians. More one strives for proving the existence of God, the more confused they would become and more importantly more certain they would end up disproving God. One does not know if globalization has pushed the human being to search for existence—and not very God—of god/s.

 

The dichotomy of attributing variables of God and the divinity conferred on God dos not allow anybody to prove or disprove the existence of God in a practical way. The research seems to attach significant importance to the Ram Sethu, suggesting that it should be looked into deeper for evidence of Ram. But the Archaeological Survey of India has concluded that it is nothing but a natural formation. The ASI had not done any digging around the Ram Sethu. In fact they do not have any knowledge on this. This is not what I am saying. They themselves have said so. Even their affidavit before the Supreme Court said so.

 

The search story goes that as per the dates charted in the Ramayana, Ram was almost 39 years old when he killed Ravana, not such a young man. He must have then set out on vanvaas at the age of 25. Isn’t that too old for those times? Ram took over as king at the right age and at 25 he set out on vanvaas and at the age of 39 he defeated Ravana. This can be proved through scientific methods. No person should unnecessarily deny the findings in “our report” The researchers have not given any end date to Ram. The problem here is that there is no text available anywhere which could give us a configuration regarding the end of Ram. Hence, it is not possible to find out the exact dates unless the configurations are made available.

 

This report is supposed to create awareness among the majority people. Let people discuss, debate it, but truth should be hidden from the debating clubs. The NGO wants the media to side with the research outcomes as much as the government that is supposed uphold Hinduistic tenets in all possible ways while pursuing at the same time a so-called secular format.. The fascination for truth with proving the existence of Ram and other gods cannot be truthful, either.

 

Religious politics has been extended to judiciary too. ASI has earlier approached the Apex court stating that Ram Sethu has got nothing to do with Ram and Ram never lived any where in the country. And Sethu was only man-made and Sethu Samudram project should be allowed to be cast. Later, however, government changed its version saying it should a national monument. Recently, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court the Union government recently said the Ram Sethu was a natural formation, and in passing also questioned the existence of Lord Ram. The affidavit was retracted following widespread protests.

 

The fantastic dates attributed to pre-history make mockery of existence of God per se and they only essentially state that only human beings existed. But human beings are not God/s, the creator/s or of the universe. Falsehood cannot be justified as being the truth and fight politics accordingly to harm the legitimate interests of hapless Muslims.

 

SOME OBSERVATIONS

 

This year on December 06 the destruction of Indian secularism in the form of demolition of historic Babri Mosque would complete 25th long historic year.  One does not know  what exactly the Congress and BJP – the cause of the fate of Babri Mosque, have decided on the subject of rebuilding the Mosque at the  very site where it stood as a great  historic testimony of  cultural cohesion. After independence the Hindutva forces, backed by the regime, began plans to destroy historic mosques and even Taj Mahal the only India pride abroad, saying they were built by Hindu leaders.

 

One can understand if a few misguided Hindus feel  themselves small and inferior before the wonder known as Taj Mahal and want it to be destroyed but when the regime itself  has such hidden agenda, that is indeed cruel.

 

Of course, displaying cricket skills on thieve of anniversary of fall of Babri Mosque is not a bad strategic idea, but delaying the construction of Babri Mosque is not in the good interests of Indian Muslims. India has conveniently capitalized the fact that the Arabs, supporting the Indian government for trade gains, don’t seem to appreciate the problems of Indian Muslims and, therefore, don’t insist on the rebuilding the Babri Mosque for enhanced cooperation. Another December 06 is fast approaching the governments across India would begin yet another crackdown operation as before in line with its pet strategy of terrorizing the helpless Muslims, surrounded by their Hindus neighbors.

 

Of course, it is not very bad, if Indians living abroad and leading a comfortable life do often enjoy “patriotic” rhymes and rejoice at praising India by saying that their country is the best secular, democratic country in the world, but trumpeting around saying that the Muslims are appeased and “better” placed than Hindus in India and that the Muslims live quite comfortably in this “paradise” and that they are bad guys is indeed an international joke and fraud played on the world. They are in no way different from those in India who enjoy the fruits of development all by themselves, leaving almost nothing to Muslims. The global Hindus, in order to cover up their individual motives and strategy, they insult and commit crime against Muslims. Hypocrisy and shame know no limits, of course.

 

Of course, India has been successful in evading tow most important responsibilities: granting independence to Kashmir that has been demanding it since the time it was tactfully annexed by India and reconstruction of Babri Mosque, even though the government of India has pledged before the nation to do so immediately upon ht felling the grand Mosque and the present ruling UPA combine does not seem to be totally averse to fulfilling these vital commitments. India should show resolve to accomplishing these human feats and establish cordial relations with the Muslims in the country and Kashmiris. It is already late to shed hatred politics and concentrate on mutual relationships.

 

Of course, enough of the so-called terrorism, as this plan has harmed the Muslims more than any other section in the society in terms of living and advancement. A better future for the Muslims would be possible only if the media change their mind-set in favor of uplifting the Muslims. It is time, therefore, now after six decades of Indian independence, for the governments, both the central and the regional, to formulate afresh the media rules of portrayal of Indian reality in the context of the growing “popularity” of anti-Muslim journalistic format in the country and in keeping with the growing urgency for a new face of journalism which should be against anti-Muslim but reflect an all-people theme.

 

Of course, the Indian majority population as well as those well-settled abroad with the help of Indian government agencies, does have a right to appreciate reality correctly, view their Muslim brethren correctly and not to insult, thrash or kill them just for sadistic pleasures or for no reasons. Media have to play a constructive role in India already polluted by dirty religious and anti-Muslim politics. Will the Indian State and media magnets cooperate at least now to create a genuinely conducive media atmosphere promoting mutual respect across all sections of the people in India and thereby serve the national interest better? Or, is nurturing that kind of an idea of real secularism still a utopia? A particular section of population cannot be considered as anti-national, ill-treated badly and denied, on some pretexts, their due share in national development of the so-called largest democracy. It would be nothing but a national shame!

 

Of course, it is not to deny the fact that Indian Muslims are not conscious enough to understand the undercurrents going on behind the poetical theatre. Since they also, like their Hindu brethren do to them, cheat, insult and would not even hesitate to kill each other, if the network asks them to do. Mischief and distrust characterize the intra-relationship among the Muslims not only in Muslim dominated areas, but even in localities where there are hardly much Muslims living. Torture, physical as well as mental, inflicted by the state agencies upon the Muslims has driven them away from seeking any justice from the government agencies and seeking any share in the national development or resources. One does not know if that would be a victory for the State and the loyal media. Unhealthy attitude of the Muslims itself has to be blamed for what the government is doing to them.

 

Of course, Ramayana is one of the best epics with well-nit magic plots and moral tales, but calling the hero of the great epic, righteous Ram who retrieved his wife Sita after a long haul and suffering, only to be lost forever, does not make any sense. Refusal to admit farce might make the researchers to discover many more such gods. Unable to see comprehend God without proper form, people visualized God in their own creative manner depending on the stage of development of society and human mind. A formless, genderless, colorless, speechless, but omnipotent God was the final stage in the development of understanding and realization of God in modern times. Illegal and immoral destruction of Babri Mosque has reactivated the theme of Ram in India. Whether or not Ram existed at any point of time, lived like any other human being, or he was also a prophet, or the Ramayana was only the fruits of the best possible human imagination of the distant past, the researchers can continue to research if they have the energy for that, but search for facts abut existence of gods is vaguer than the very search for God. However, the Babri Mosque was a reality and it existed before the eyes of millions of human beings before it was pulled down in a terrorist method. Babri Mosque must be rebuilt.

 

India should not confuse Babri Mosque commitment with its anti-Pakistan policy or joint cricketism tricks.

 

The Central and state governments ought to exercise their obligation and responsibilities before the Muslim population in the country.

 

Supreme Court is expected to be secular and should not fall victim of maneuverings of state and Hindutva political lords. Genuine judgments demand that Judges are not be anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic by mindset or nature.

 

Indian Muslims are patiently waiting for the final judgment to worship in the grand Babri Mosque, again!

 

Muslims in India and abroad pray that Indian Apex Court does not disappoint genuine Indian Muslims who do not worship their political bosses who operate as vote bank agents.

 

Indian government should at least now, after 25 long years since the destruction of Islamic Babri Mosque, begin rebuilding the mosque at the site and thereby ensure inclusive governance in secular India. Indian judiciary and government should assure Muslim minority community that they also have the right to live as dignified citizens of India.  The terrorist tag fixed on Muslims won’t do any good for the nation. Indian core media should try to behave normal towards Muslim community and avoid generating hatred toward Islam and Muslims in order to promote Hindutva ideology. .

Coalition crisis: Germany’s uncertain future!

 

Coalition crisis: Germany’s uncertain future!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

______

 

 

Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Germany are facing an uncertain future after talks to form a coalition government – and secure her a fourth term – collapsed. Chancellor Merkel’s party, which lacks a majority in the Bundestag, had spent weeks trying to cobble together a ruling coalition with three other parties. But the plan fell apart when the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out of talks shortly before midnight on Sunday over disagreements on issues ranging from energy policy to migration.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party lacks a clear majority in the Bundestag (parliament). Merkel had hoped to build a coalition consisting of her conservative CDU, its sister party the Christian Social Union, the pro-business FDP, and the Green Party.

FDP negotiators walked out of what they described as “chaotic” talks, with party leader Christian Lindner said it was “better not to govern than govern badly”. All other parties attacked the liberals for deliberately collapsing the talks in a bid to boost its support in any snap election. FDP negotiators walked out of what they described as “chaotic” talks, with party leader Christian Lindner said it was “better not to govern than govern badly”.

The FDP’s walkout came after the four parties had already missed several self-imposed deadline to resolve their differences. But all other parties attacked the liberals for deliberately collapsing the talks in a bid to boost its support in any snap election.

 

The AfD hailed the collapse of coalition talks. “We are glad that Jamaica isn’t happening,” said AfD co-leader Alexander Gauland. “Merkel has failed.” His co-leader, Alice Weidel, welcomed the prospect of fresh elections and called on Merkel to resign. Others suggested the walk-out was a high-risk FDP attempt to weaken Dr Merkel and forced fresh elections in which the liberals would pull back protest voters from the AfD. FDP rivals expressed concern that Lindner’s high-risk tactic could result in a further boost in support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which polled almost 13 per cent in the September 24th election.

 

 

Fragile coalition 

 

Merkel’s position was widely seen as unassailable in the run-up to September’s elections, with many commentators suggesting the outcome was so predictable as to be boring.  Merkel had spent weeks trying to cobble together a ruling coalition with three other parties. But the plan fell apart when the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out of talks over disagreements on issues ranging from energy policy to migration. The political analysts suggested the FDP’s move could blow up in its face. There are politicians who are strong with their back to the wall, why should Merkel not be one of those?”

The Chancellor told state broadcaster ZDF that she has not considered resigning. “There was no question that I should face personal consequences,” she said.

Merkel had been forced to seek an alliance with an unlikely group of parties after the ballot left her without a majority.  Voicing regret for the FDP’s decision, Merkel vowed to steer Germany through the crisis. “As chancellor, I will do everything to ensure that this country comes out well through this difficult time,” she said. The Greens’ leaders also deplored the collapse of talks, saying they had believed a deal could be done despite the differences.

A poll by Welt online also found that 61.4 percent of people surveyed said a collapse of talks would mean an end to Merkel as chancellor. Only 31.5 percent thought otherwise.

Germany’s Sept. 24 election produced an awkward result that left Merkel’s two-party conservative bloc seeking a coalition with the pro-business Free Democrats and the traditionally left-leaning Greens. The combination of ideologically disparate parties hadn’t been tried before in a national government, and came to nothing when the Free Democrats walked out of talks. Unable to form a coalition with one other party (as is the norm in Germany), Merkel emerged from the election substantially weakened.

Merkel’s liberal refugee policy that let in more than a million asylum-seekers since 2015 had also pushed some voters to the far-right AfD, which in September campaigned on an anti-immigration platform.

The country’s two mainstream parties — Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) — suffered big losses.  Smaller parties, including the FDP and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — who won 12.6% of the vote and entered parliament for the first time — were the beneficiaries.

While the FDP blamed the CDU/CSU alliance for the breakdown, the Green Party thanked Merkel and the leader of the CSU, Horst Seehofer, for negotiating “hard” but “fair,” and accused the FDP of quitting the talks without good reason. The so-called “Jamaica coalition” — named after the parties’ colors — would have been unprecedented at federal level.

Christian Lindner, leader of the FDP said that the four discussion partners have no common vision for modernization of the country or common basis of trust. “It is better not to govern than to govern badly.” He expressed regret that the talks had failed but said that his party would have had to compromise on its core principles. His party returned to parliament in September four years after voters, unimpressed with its performance as the junior partner in Merkel’s 2009-2013 government, ejected it. “It is better not to govern than to govern wrong,” Lindner said.

 

For Dr Merkel there is only one other possible option of avoiding fresh elections: wooing back the SPD into office for a third grand coalition. But senior SPD figures signaled that eight years as Dr Merkel’s junior partner since 2005 was enough. “We are not Germany’s parliamentary majority reserve,” said Andrea Nahles, SPD Bundestag leader. Merkel could now try to convince the Social Democratic Party, which has been the junior coalition partner in her government since 2013, to return to the fold. But after suffering a humiliating loss at the polls, the party’s top brass has repeatedly said the SDP’s place was now in the opposition.

Merkel is set to consult the country’s president and the possibility of new elections looming.

 

Trust deficit

The country has been plunged into its worst political crisis in years after negotiations to form the next government collapsed overnight, dealing a serious blow to Merkel and raising questions about the future of the longtime Chancellor. Germany could likely be forced to hold new elections. But that is not without peril for Merkel, who would face questions from within her party on whether she is still the best candidate to lead them into a new electoral campaign.

Following more than a month of grueling negotiations, the leader of the pro-business FDP, Christian Lindner, walked out of talks, saying there was no “basis of trust” to forge a government with Merkel’s conservative alliance CDU-CSU and ecologist Greens, adding that the parties did not share “a common vision on modernizing” Germany.

The negotiations, which turned increasingly acrimonious, had stumbled on a series of issues including immigration policy. Key sticking points during the talks were the issues of migration and climate change, on which the Greens and the other parties diverged, but also Free Democrat demands on tax policy. The parties also differed on environmental issues, with the ecologists wanting to phase out dirty coal and combustion-engine cars, while the conservatives and FDP emphasized the need to protect industry and jobs.

Clearly, there is a serious trust deficit among the coalition partners that came to the fore in the negotiations. Party chiefs had initially set a deadline, but that passed without a breakthrough – after already missing a previous target on Thursday. But s the parties dug in their heels on key sticking points.

It’s likely to be a while before the situation is resolved. The only other politically plausible combination with a parliamentary majority is a repeat of Merkel’s outgoing coalition with the center-left Social Democrats — but they have insisted time and again that they will go into opposition after a disastrous election result.

If they stick to that insistence, that leaves a minority government — not previously tried in post-World War II Germany — or new elections as the only options. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier will ultimately have to make that decision, since the German constitution doesn’t allow parliament to dissolve itself.

Fresh poll

Two months on, however, that untested alliance has hit the wall meaning Germany and Europe face an extended period of insecurity. When the Bundestag meets for its second sitting, still without a government, acting chancellor Dr Merkel has no legal means to table a motion of no confidence to trigger fresh elections. The parties failed to make progress on a number of policy areas — including the right for family members of refugees in Germany to join them there — and tensions had risen.

Apparently, the end of Markel era is being talked about now as the collation of partners keep moving one by one, though she expressed the hope she would  be successful eventually and would  put in place a new government.

Fresh elections in Germany appeared increasingly likely after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she preferred a new vote over governing without a parliamentary majority. Merkel said her conservatives had left nothing untried to find a solution.  “I will contact the president and we will see how things develop,” said a clearly exhausted Dr Merkel, departing the talks. “It is a day to think long and hard about where things go now . . . and as acting chancellor I will do everything to ensure Germany is led well through these difficult days.”

Merkel, Germany’s leader since 2005 said she would consult President Steinmeier “and then “we will have to see how things develop.” She didn’t say more about her plans, or address whether she would run again if there are new elections.

To get to either destination, Steinmeier would first have to propose a chancellor to parliament, who must win a majority of all lawmakers to be elected. Assuming that fails, parliament has 14 days to elect a candidate of its own choosing by an absolute majority. And if that fails, Steinmeier would then propose a candidate who could be elected by a plurality of lawmakers.

Steinmeier would then have to decide whether to appoint a minority government or dissolve parliament, triggering an election within 60 days. Merkel’s Union bloc is easily the biggest group in parliament, but is 109 seats short of a majority.

To get to either destination, Steinmeier would first have to propose a chancellor to parliament, who must win a majority of all lawmakers to be elected. Assuming that fails, parliament has 14 days to elect a candidate of its own choosing by an absolute majority. And if that fails, Steinmeier would then propose a candidate who could be elected by a plurality of lawmakers.

Merkel said that the “path of minority government” should be considered “very very closely”. “I am very skeptical and I believe that new elections would be the better path,” she said. Merkel also confirmed that she would be ready to lead her party into any new vote. She did not rule out further talks with other parties, however, and acknowledged that the country’s next steps were in the hands of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “The four discussion partners have no common vision for modernization of the country or common basis of trust,” said Christian Lindner, leader of the FDP. “It is better not to govern than to govern badly.”

 

Germany

Germany is facing unprecedented situation of coalition crisis. Was Germany’s past also was filled with crises?

Germany is a great power with a strong economy; it has the world’s 4th largest economy by nominal GDP. As a global leader in several industrial and technological sectors, it is both the world’s third-largest exporter and importer of goods. It is a developed country with a very high standard of living sustained by a skilled and productive society. It upholds a social security and universal health care system, environmental protection, and a tuition-free university education.

 

The Federal Republic of Germany was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957 and the European Union in 1993. It is part of the Schengen Area, and became a co-founder of the Eurozone in 1999. Germany is a member of the United Nations, NATO, the G7 (formerly G8 along with Russia), and the OECD. The national military expenditure is the 9th highest in the world. Known for its rich cultural history, Germany has been continuously the home of influential and successful artists, philosophers, musicians, sportspeople, entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, and inventors.

 

Germany was declared a republic at the beginning of the German Revolution in November 1918. The worldwide Great Depression hit Germany in 1929. The Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler won the special federal election of 1932. After a series of unsuccessful cabinets, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933.[56] After the Reichstag fire, a decree abrogated basic civil rights and within weeks the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau opened. The Enabling Act of 1933 gave Hitler unrestricted legislative power; subsequently, his government established a centralized totalitarian state, withdrew from the League of Nations following a national referendum, and began military rearmament

In 1935, the regime withdrew from the Treaty of Versailles and introduced the Nuremberg Laws which targeted Jews and other minorities. Germany also reacquired control of the Saar in 1935,[64] remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 with the Munich Agreement and in direct violation of the agreement occupied Czechoslovakia with the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moraviain March 1939. In August 1939, Hitler’s government negotiated and signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact that divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Following the agreement, on 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.  In August 1939, Hitler’s government negotiated and signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact that divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Following the agreement, on 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.

Britain and France declared war on Germany.[68] In the spring of 1940, Germany conquered Denmark and Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France forcing the French government to sign an armistice after German troops occupied most of the country. The British repelled German air attacks in the Battle of Britain in the same year. In 1941, German troops invaded Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union.

By 1942, Germany and other Axis powers controlled most of continental Europe and North Africa, but following the Soviet Union’s victory at the Battle of Stalingrad, the allies’ reconquest of North Africa and invasion of Italy in 1943, German forces suffered repeated military defeats. In June 1944, the Western allies landed in France and the Soviets pushed into Eastern Europe. By late 1944, the Western allies had entered Germany despite one final German counter offensive in the Ardennes Forest. Following Hitler’s suicide during the Battle of Berlin, German armed forces surrendered on 8 May 1945, ending World War II in Europe. After World War II, former members of the Nazi regime were tried for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials.

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the German government persecuted minorities and used a network of concentration and death camps across Europe to conduct genocide of what they considered to be inferior peoples. In total, over 10 million civilians of all races were systematically murdered

Nazi policies in the German occupied countries resulted in the deaths of 2.7 million Poles, 1.3 million Ukrainians and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners. In addition, the Nazi regime abducted approximately 12 million people from across the German occupied Europe for use as slave labor in the German industry. German military war casualties have been estimated at 5.3 million, and around 900,000 German civilians died; 400,000 from Allied bombing, and 500,000 in the course of the Soviet invasion from the east. Around 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from across Eastern Europe. Germany lost roughly one-quarter of its pre-war territory. Strategic bombing and land warfare destroyed many cities and cultural heritage sites.

After Germany surrendered, the Allies partitioned Berlin and Germany’s remaining territory into four military occupation zones. The western sectors, controlled by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, were merged on 23 May 1949 to form the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland); on 7 October 1949, the Soviet Zone became the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik). They were informally known as West Germany and East Germany. East Germany selected East Berlin as its capital, while West Germany chose Bonn as a provisional capital, to emphasize its stance that the two-state solution was an artificial and temporary status quo.

East Germany was an Eastern Bloc state under political and military control by the USSR via occupation forces and the Warsaw Pact. Although East Germany claimed to be a democracy, political power was exercised solely by leading members (Politbüro) of the communist-controlled Socialist Unity Party of Germany, supported by the Stasi, an immense secret service controlling many aspects of the society. A Soviet-style command economy was set up and the GDR later became a Comecon state

West Germany was established as a federal parliamentary republic with a “social market economy”. Starting in 1948 West Germany became a major recipient of reconstruction aid under the Marshall Plan and used this to rebuild its industry.  The Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957.

The Berlin Wall, rapidly built on 13 August 1961 prevented East German citizens from escaping to West Germany, eventually becoming a symbol of the Cold War. Tensions between East and West Germany were reduced in the early 1970s by Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. In summer 1989, Hungary decided to dismantle the Iron Curtain and open the borders, causing the emigration of thousands of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary. This had devastating effects on the GDR, where regular mass demonstrations received increasing support. The East German authorities eased the border restrictions, allowing East German citizens to travel to the West, preparing ground for reunion of Germany. The fall of the Wall in 1989 became a symbol of the Fall of Communism, the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, German Reunification

The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic of Germany and not a successor state. As such, it retained all of West Germany’s memberships in international organisations. Based on the Berlin/Bonn Act, adopted in 1994, Berlin once again became the capital of the reunified Germany, while Bonn obtained the unique status of a Bundesstadt(federal city) retaining some federal ministries. The relocation of the government was completed in 1999.  Following the 1998 elections, SPD politician Gerhard Schröder became the first Chancellor of a red–green coalition with the Greens party. Among the major projects of the two Schröder legislatures was the Agenda 2010 to reform the labor market to become more flexible and reduce unemployment.

The modernisation and integration of the eastern German economy was a long-term process scheduled to last until the year 2019, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion

Since reunification, Germany has taken a more active role in the European Union. Together with its European partners Germany signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, established the Eurozone in 1999, and signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. Germany sent a peacekeeping force to secure stability in the Balkans and sent a force of German troops to Afghanistan as part of a NATO effort to provide security in that country after the ousting of the Taliban. These deployments were controversial since Germany is bound by domestic law only to deploy troops for defence roles

In the 2005 elections, Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany as the leader of a grand coalition.[43] In 2009 the German government approved a €50 billion economic stimulus plan to protect several sectors from a downturn.[94]

In 2009, a liberal-conservative coalition under Merkel assumed leadership of the country. In 2013, a grand coalition was established in a Third Merkel cabinet. Among the major German political projects of the early 21st century are the advancement of European integration, the energy transition (Energiewende) for a sustainable energy supply, the “Debt Brake” for balanced budgets, measures to increase the fertility rate significantly (pronatalism), and high-tech strategies for the future transition of the German economy, summarized as Industry 4.0.[95]

Germany was affected by the European migrant crisis in 2015 as it became the final destination of choice for many asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East entering the EU. The country took in over a million refugees and migrants and developed a quota system which redistributed migrants around its federal states based on their tax income and existing population density

 

Observation: Options and uncertainly

End of Markel era is being talked about now as the collation of partners keep moving one by one. Short of resolving the impasse with the FDP, Merkel’s options are limited. President Steinmeier would then have to decide whether to appoint a minority government or dissolve parliament, triggering an election within 60 days. Merkel’s Union bloc is easily the biggest group in parliament, but is 109 seats short of a majority.

The article 63 of the post-war Basic Law requires three attempts to elect a new chancellor – a humiliating process for Dr Merkel if, as they signaled, none of the other parties are prepared to back her. The FDP was “deeply traumatized” by its term in office with Dr Merkel which ended in its 2013 election expulsion from the Bundestag.

The euro fell following the news, although analysts said the longer-term implications for the currency were not yet clear.

Germany as the leader of European Union of Germany has been plunged into its worst political crisis in years after negotiations to form the next government collapsed overnight, dealing a serious blow to Merkel and raising questions about the future of the longtime Chancellor. Merkel, who has been in power for 12 years, could also lead a minority government but she had signaled that she was not in favor of such instability. German president warns politicians to solve political crisis.

Not only Germany, but for EU as well the collapse in Germany of ruling coalition would have serious repercussions. Europe’s biggest economy now faces weeks, if not months, of paralysis with a lame-duck government that is unlikely to take bold policy action. And with no other viable coalition in sight, Germany may be forced to hold new elections that risk being as inconclusive as September’s polls.

Angela Merkel is now facing uncertainly as the clash of interests in the u ruling coalition questions reliability of her leadership. Merkel is left battling for political survival after high-stakes talks to form a new government collapsed, plunging the country into a crisis that could trigger fresh elections. She said that she “will do everything to ensure that this country is well-led through these difficult weeks.”  Merkel also vows to fight snap election to retain power. Germany: Angela Merkel runs out of options. That vote was viewed as a slap in the face for the outgoing coalition of Dr Merkel’s CDU/CSU and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD).

The SPD, Merkel’s junior governing partner for the last four years, ruled out a renewal of their so-called “Grand Coalition” on the night of the election and reiterated that position. The SPD is also reluctant to renew the coalition as it would leave the AfD as the largest opposition party, granting it a set of privileges including the right to respond first to the Chancellor and a boost in resources — an outcome none of the other parties want.

Fresh elections are the option after the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out just before midnight on Sunday following four weeks of exploratory talks with Dr Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), her Bavarian (CSU) allies and the Green Party.

Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance could still attempt to form a minority government with either the FDP or the Green Party separately, but this has happened rarely — and never successfully — at the federal level in Germany.  Recent polling puts all parties roughly where they were on election night, meaning a new election could result in similar deadlock.

If all other options fail, Steinmeier, the German President, has the power to set in motion a complex process that could lead to a new vote early next year.

 

Coalition crisis: Germany’s uncertain future!

 

Coalition crisis: Germany’s uncertain future!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

______

 

 

Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Germany are facing an uncertain future after talks to form a coalition government – and secure her a fourth term – collapsed. Chancellor Merkel’s party, which lacks a majority in the Bundestag, had spent weeks trying to cobble together a ruling coalition with three other parties. But the plan fell apart when the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out of talks shortly before midnight on Sunday over disagreements on issues ranging from energy policy to migration.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party lacks a clear majority in the Bundestag (parliament). Merkel had hoped to build a coalition consisting of her conservative CDU, its sister party the Christian Social Union, the pro-business FDP, and the Green Party.

FDP negotiators walked out of what they described as “chaotic” talks, with party leader Christian Lindner said it was “better not to govern than govern badly”. All other parties attacked the liberals for deliberately collapsing the talks in a bid to boost its support in any snap election. FDP negotiators walked out of what they described as “chaotic” talks, with party leader Christian Lindner said it was “better not to govern than govern badly”.

The FDP’s walkout came after the four parties had already missed several self-imposed deadline to resolve their differences. But all other parties attacked the liberals for deliberately collapsing the talks in a bid to boost its support in any snap election.

 

The AfD hailed the collapse of coalition talks. “We are glad that Jamaica isn’t happening,” said AfD co-leader Alexander Gauland. “Merkel has failed.” His co-leader, Alice Weidel, welcomed the prospect of fresh elections and called on Merkel to resign. Others suggested the walk-out was a high-risk FDP attempt to weaken Dr Merkel and forced fresh elections in which the liberals would pull back protest voters from the AfD. FDP rivals expressed concern that Lindner’s high-risk tactic could result in a further boost in support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which polled almost 13 per cent in the September 24th election.

 

 

Fragile coalition 

 

Merkel’s position was widely seen as unassailable in the run-up to September’s elections, with many commentators suggesting the outcome was so predictable as to be boring.  Merkel had spent weeks trying to cobble together a ruling coalition with three other parties. But the plan fell apart when the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out of talks over disagreements on issues ranging from energy policy to migration. The political analysts suggested the FDP’s move could blow up in its face. There are politicians who are strong with their back to the wall, why should Merkel not be one of those?”

The Chancellor told state broadcaster ZDF that she has not considered resigning. “There was no question that I should face personal consequences,” she said.

Merkel had been forced to seek an alliance with an unlikely group of parties after the ballot left her without a majority.  Voicing regret for the FDP’s decision, Merkel vowed to steer Germany through the crisis. “As chancellor, I will do everything to ensure that this country comes out well through this difficult time,” she said. The Greens’ leaders also deplored the collapse of talks, saying they had believed a deal could be done despite the differences.

A poll by Welt online also found that 61.4 percent of people surveyed said a collapse of talks would mean an end to Merkel as chancellor. Only 31.5 percent thought otherwise.

Germany’s Sept. 24 election produced an awkward result that left Merkel’s two-party conservative bloc seeking a coalition with the pro-business Free Democrats and the traditionally left-leaning Greens. The combination of ideologically disparate parties hadn’t been tried before in a national government, and came to nothing when the Free Democrats walked out of talks. Unable to form a coalition with one other party (as is the norm in Germany), Merkel emerged from the election substantially weakened.

Merkel’s liberal refugee policy that let in more than a million asylum-seekers since 2015 had also pushed some voters to the far-right AfD, which in September campaigned on an anti-immigration platform.

The country’s two mainstream parties — Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) — suffered big losses.  Smaller parties, including the FDP and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) — who won 12.6% of the vote and entered parliament for the first time — were the beneficiaries.

While the FDP blamed the CDU/CSU alliance for the breakdown, the Green Party thanked Merkel and the leader of the CSU, Horst Seehofer, for negotiating “hard” but “fair,” and accused the FDP of quitting the talks without good reason. The so-called “Jamaica coalition” — named after the parties’ colors — would have been unprecedented at federal level.

Christian Lindner, leader of the FDP said that the four discussion partners have no common vision for modernization of the country or common basis of trust. “It is better not to govern than to govern badly.” He expressed regret that the talks had failed but said that his party would have had to compromise on its core principles. His party returned to parliament in September four years after voters, unimpressed with its performance as the junior partner in Merkel’s 2009-2013 government, ejected it. “It is better not to govern than to govern wrong,” Lindner said.

 

For Dr Merkel there is only one other possible option of avoiding fresh elections: wooing back the SPD into office for a third grand coalition. But senior SPD figures signaled that eight years as Dr Merkel’s junior partner since 2005 was enough. “We are not Germany’s parliamentary majority reserve,” said Andrea Nahles, SPD Bundestag leader. Merkel could now try to convince the Social Democratic Party, which has been the junior coalition partner in her government since 2013, to return to the fold. But after suffering a humiliating loss at the polls, the party’s top brass has repeatedly said the SDP’s place was now in the opposition.

Merkel is set to consult the country’s president and the possibility of new elections looming.

 

Trust deficit

The country has been plunged into its worst political crisis in years after negotiations to form the next government collapsed overnight, dealing a serious blow to Merkel and raising questions about the future of the longtime Chancellor. Germany could likely be forced to hold new elections. But that is not without peril for Merkel, who would face questions from within her party on whether she is still the best candidate to lead them into a new electoral campaign.

Following more than a month of grueling negotiations, the leader of the pro-business FDP, Christian Lindner, walked out of talks, saying there was no “basis of trust” to forge a government with Merkel’s conservative alliance CDU-CSU and ecologist Greens, adding that the parties did not share “a common vision on modernizing” Germany.

The negotiations, which turned increasingly acrimonious, had stumbled on a series of issues including immigration policy. Key sticking points during the talks were the issues of migration and climate change, on which the Greens and the other parties diverged, but also Free Democrat demands on tax policy. The parties also differed on environmental issues, with the ecologists wanting to phase out dirty coal and combustion-engine cars, while the conservatives and FDP emphasized the need to protect industry and jobs.

Clearly, there is a serious trust deficit among the coalition partners that came to the fore in the negotiations. Party chiefs had initially set a deadline, but that passed without a breakthrough – after already missing a previous target on Thursday. But s the parties dug in their heels on key sticking points.

It’s likely to be a while before the situation is resolved. The only other politically plausible combination with a parliamentary majority is a repeat of Merkel’s outgoing coalition with the center-left Social Democrats — but they have insisted time and again that they will go into opposition after a disastrous election result.

If they stick to that insistence, that leaves a minority government — not previously tried in post-World War II Germany — or new elections as the only options. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier will ultimately have to make that decision, since the German constitution doesn’t allow parliament to dissolve itself.

Fresh poll

Two months on, however, that untested alliance has hit the wall meaning Germany and Europe face an extended period of insecurity. When the Bundestag meets for its second sitting, still without a government, acting chancellor Dr Merkel has no legal means to table a motion of no confidence to trigger fresh elections. The parties failed to make progress on a number of policy areas — including the right for family members of refugees in Germany to join them there — and tensions had risen.

Apparently, the end of Markel era is being talked about now as the collation of partners keep moving one by one, though she expressed the hope she would  be successful eventually and would  put in place a new government.

Fresh elections in Germany appeared increasingly likely after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she preferred a new vote over governing without a parliamentary majority. Merkel said her conservatives had left nothing untried to find a solution.  “I will contact the president and we will see how things develop,” said a clearly exhausted Dr Merkel, departing the talks. “It is a day to think long and hard about where things go now . . . and as acting chancellor I will do everything to ensure Germany is led well through these difficult days.”

Merkel, Germany’s leader since 2005 said she would consult President Steinmeier “and then “we will have to see how things develop.” She didn’t say more about her plans, or address whether she would run again if there are new elections.

To get to either destination, Steinmeier would first have to propose a chancellor to parliament, who must win a majority of all lawmakers to be elected. Assuming that fails, parliament has 14 days to elect a candidate of its own choosing by an absolute majority. And if that fails, Steinmeier would then propose a candidate who could be elected by a plurality of lawmakers.

Steinmeier would then have to decide whether to appoint a minority government or dissolve parliament, triggering an election within 60 days. Merkel’s Union bloc is easily the biggest group in parliament, but is 109 seats short of a majority.

To get to either destination, Steinmeier would first have to propose a chancellor to parliament, who must win a majority of all lawmakers to be elected. Assuming that fails, parliament has 14 days to elect a candidate of its own choosing by an absolute majority. And if that fails, Steinmeier would then propose a candidate who could be elected by a plurality of lawmakers.

Merkel said that the “path of minority government” should be considered “very very closely”. “I am very skeptical and I believe that new elections would be the better path,” she said. Merkel also confirmed that she would be ready to lead her party into any new vote. She did not rule out further talks with other parties, however, and acknowledged that the country’s next steps were in the hands of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “The four discussion partners have no common vision for modernization of the country or common basis of trust,” said Christian Lindner, leader of the FDP. “It is better not to govern than to govern badly.”

 

Germany

Germany is facing unprecedented situation of coalition crisis. Was Germany’s past also was filled with crises?

Germany is a great power with a strong economy; it has the world’s 4th largest economy by nominal GDP. As a global leader in several industrial and technological sectors, it is both the world’s third-largest exporter and importer of goods. It is a developed country with a very high standard of living sustained by a skilled and productive society. It upholds a social security and universal health care system, environmental protection, and a tuition-free university education.

 

The Federal Republic of Germany was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957 and the European Union in 1993. It is part of the Schengen Area, and became a co-founder of the Eurozone in 1999. Germany is a member of the United Nations, NATO, the G7 (formerly G8 along with Russia), and the OECD. The national military expenditure is the 9th highest in the world. Known for its rich cultural history, Germany has been continuously the home of influential and successful artists, philosophers, musicians, sportspeople, entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, and inventors.

 

Germany was declared a republic at the beginning of the German Revolution in November 1918. The worldwide Great Depression hit Germany in 1929. The Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler won the special federal election of 1932. After a series of unsuccessful cabinets, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933.[56] After the Reichstag fire, a decree abrogated basic civil rights and within weeks the first Nazi concentration camp at Dachau opened. The Enabling Act of 1933 gave Hitler unrestricted legislative power; subsequently, his government established a centralized totalitarian state, withdrew from the League of Nations following a national referendum, and began military rearmament

In 1935, the regime withdrew from the Treaty of Versailles and introduced the Nuremberg Laws which targeted Jews and other minorities. Germany also reacquired control of the Saar in 1935,[64] remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, annexed the Sudetenland in 1938 with the Munich Agreement and in direct violation of the agreement occupied Czechoslovakia with the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moraviain March 1939. In August 1939, Hitler’s government negotiated and signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact that divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Following the agreement, on 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.  In August 1939, Hitler’s government negotiated and signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact that divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Following the agreement, on 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of World War II.

Britain and France declared war on Germany.[68] In the spring of 1940, Germany conquered Denmark and Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France forcing the French government to sign an armistice after German troops occupied most of the country. The British repelled German air attacks in the Battle of Britain in the same year. In 1941, German troops invaded Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union.

By 1942, Germany and other Axis powers controlled most of continental Europe and North Africa, but following the Soviet Union’s victory at the Battle of Stalingrad, the allies’ reconquest of North Africa and invasion of Italy in 1943, German forces suffered repeated military defeats. In June 1944, the Western allies landed in France and the Soviets pushed into Eastern Europe. By late 1944, the Western allies had entered Germany despite one final German counter offensive in the Ardennes Forest. Following Hitler’s suicide during the Battle of Berlin, German armed forces surrendered on 8 May 1945, ending World War II in Europe. After World War II, former members of the Nazi regime were tried for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials.

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the German government persecuted minorities and used a network of concentration and death camps across Europe to conduct genocide of what they considered to be inferior peoples. In total, over 10 million civilians of all races were systematically murdered

Nazi policies in the German occupied countries resulted in the deaths of 2.7 million Poles, 1.3 million Ukrainians and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners. In addition, the Nazi regime abducted approximately 12 million people from across the German occupied Europe for use as slave labor in the German industry. German military war casualties have been estimated at 5.3 million, and around 900,000 German civilians died; 400,000 from Allied bombing, and 500,000 in the course of the Soviet invasion from the east. Around 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from across Eastern Europe. Germany lost roughly one-quarter of its pre-war territory. Strategic bombing and land warfare destroyed many cities and cultural heritage sites.

After Germany surrendered, the Allies partitioned Berlin and Germany’s remaining territory into four military occupation zones. The western sectors, controlled by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, were merged on 23 May 1949 to form the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland); on 7 October 1949, the Soviet Zone became the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik). They were informally known as West Germany and East Germany. East Germany selected East Berlin as its capital, while West Germany chose Bonn as a provisional capital, to emphasize its stance that the two-state solution was an artificial and temporary status quo.

East Germany was an Eastern Bloc state under political and military control by the USSR via occupation forces and the Warsaw Pact. Although East Germany claimed to be a democracy, political power was exercised solely by leading members (Politbüro) of the communist-controlled Socialist Unity Party of Germany, supported by the Stasi, an immense secret service controlling many aspects of the society. A Soviet-style command economy was set up and the GDR later became a Comecon state

West Germany was established as a federal parliamentary republic with a “social market economy”. Starting in 1948 West Germany became a major recipient of reconstruction aid under the Marshall Plan and used this to rebuild its industry.  The Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957.

The Berlin Wall, rapidly built on 13 August 1961 prevented East German citizens from escaping to West Germany, eventually becoming a symbol of the Cold War. Tensions between East and West Germany were reduced in the early 1970s by Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik. In summer 1989, Hungary decided to dismantle the Iron Curtain and open the borders, causing the emigration of thousands of East Germans to West Germany via Hungary. This had devastating effects on the GDR, where regular mass demonstrations received increasing support. The East German authorities eased the border restrictions, allowing East German citizens to travel to the West, preparing ground for reunion of Germany. The fall of the Wall in 1989 became a symbol of the Fall of Communism, the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, German Reunification

The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic of Germany and not a successor state. As such, it retained all of West Germany’s memberships in international organisations. Based on the Berlin/Bonn Act, adopted in 1994, Berlin once again became the capital of the reunified Germany, while Bonn obtained the unique status of a Bundesstadt(federal city) retaining some federal ministries. The relocation of the government was completed in 1999.  Following the 1998 elections, SPD politician Gerhard Schröder became the first Chancellor of a red–green coalition with the Greens party. Among the major projects of the two Schröder legislatures was the Agenda 2010 to reform the labor market to become more flexible and reduce unemployment.

The modernisation and integration of the eastern German economy was a long-term process scheduled to last until the year 2019, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion

Since reunification, Germany has taken a more active role in the European Union. Together with its European partners Germany signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, established the Eurozone in 1999, and signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. Germany sent a peacekeeping force to secure stability in the Balkans and sent a force of German troops to Afghanistan as part of a NATO effort to provide security in that country after the ousting of the Taliban. These deployments were controversial since Germany is bound by domestic law only to deploy troops for defence roles

In the 2005 elections, Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany as the leader of a grand coalition.[43] In 2009 the German government approved a €50 billion economic stimulus plan to protect several sectors from a downturn.[94]

In 2009, a liberal-conservative coalition under Merkel assumed leadership of the country. In 2013, a grand coalition was established in a Third Merkel cabinet. Among the major German political projects of the early 21st century are the advancement of European integration, the energy transition (Energiewende) for a sustainable energy supply, the “Debt Brake” for balanced budgets, measures to increase the fertility rate significantly (pronatalism), and high-tech strategies for the future transition of the German economy, summarized as Industry 4.0.[95]

Germany was affected by the European migrant crisis in 2015 as it became the final destination of choice for many asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East entering the EU. The country took in over a million refugees and migrants and developed a quota system which redistributed migrants around its federal states based on their tax income and existing population density

 

Observation: Options and uncertainly

End of Markel era is being talked about now as the collation of partners keep moving one by one. Short of resolving the impasse with the FDP, Merkel’s options are limited. President Steinmeier would then have to decide whether to appoint a minority government or dissolve parliament, triggering an election within 60 days. Merkel’s Union bloc is easily the biggest group in parliament, but is 109 seats short of a majority.

The article 63 of the post-war Basic Law requires three attempts to elect a new chancellor – a humiliating process for Dr Merkel if, as they signaled, none of the other parties are prepared to back her. The FDP was “deeply traumatized” by its term in office with Dr Merkel which ended in its 2013 election expulsion from the Bundestag.

The euro fell following the news, although analysts said the longer-term implications for the currency were not yet clear.

Germany as the leader of European Union of Germany has been plunged into its worst political crisis in years after negotiations to form the next government collapsed overnight, dealing a serious blow to Merkel and raising questions about the future of the longtime Chancellor. Merkel, who has been in power for 12 years, could also lead a minority government but she had signaled that she was not in favor of such instability. German president warns politicians to solve political crisis.

Not only Germany, but for EU as well the collapse in Germany of ruling coalition would have serious repercussions. Europe’s biggest economy now faces weeks, if not months, of paralysis with a lame-duck government that is unlikely to take bold policy action. And with no other viable coalition in sight, Germany may be forced to hold new elections that risk being as inconclusive as September’s polls.

Angela Merkel is now facing uncertainly as the clash of interests in the u ruling coalition questions reliability of her leadership. Merkel is left battling for political survival after high-stakes talks to form a new government collapsed, plunging the country into a crisis that could trigger fresh elections. She said that she “will do everything to ensure that this country is well-led through these difficult weeks.”  Merkel also vows to fight snap election to retain power. Germany: Angela Merkel runs out of options. That vote was viewed as a slap in the face for the outgoing coalition of Dr Merkel’s CDU/CSU and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD).

The SPD, Merkel’s junior governing partner for the last four years, ruled out a renewal of their so-called “Grand Coalition” on the night of the election and reiterated that position. The SPD is also reluctant to renew the coalition as it would leave the AfD as the largest opposition party, granting it a set of privileges including the right to respond first to the Chancellor and a boost in resources — an outcome none of the other parties want.

Fresh elections are the option after the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) walked out just before midnight on Sunday following four weeks of exploratory talks with Dr Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), her Bavarian (CSU) allies and the Green Party.

Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance could still attempt to form a minority government with either the FDP or the Green Party separately, but this has happened rarely — and never successfully — at the federal level in Germany.  Recent polling puts all parties roughly where they were on election night, meaning a new election could result in similar deadlock.

If all other options fail, Steinmeier, the German President, has the power to set in motion a complex process that could lead to a new vote early next year.