Australia Urged to Embrace Islamic Banking

Australia Urged to Embrace Islamic Banking

Australia has tried to implement the Shariah compliant methods of financing into the country and are encouraged to embrace Islamic banking. Islamic banking could help the Australian Government overcome infrastructure funding shortfalls, an Australian finance head says. The head of Australia's first Islamic finance company, Talal Yassine, met with government ministers in Australia's capital, Canberra, this week. "We are not bringing Sharia law in any way to Australia," he said."Islamic investment principles are all about value and conservatism and about investing in worthwhile things that are ultra-ethical - and I think I should be extraordinarily clear about that, there is nothing to fear here". Mr Yassine said Islamic investments avoid debt."It does not use the concept of interest and money making money," he said."It is more of a joint venture kind of approach and it avoids moral hazard investments - tobacco, alcohol, the gambling, armaments. "And basically it is a really conservative way of investing for value without using any sexy financial engineering that we've seen so much of and which has caused so much damage in the current world economic environment". But Mr Yassine said some changes could be made by the Australian Government to encourage Islamic investment in Australia.Mr Yassine said a simple example would be that in Australia a financial organisation needs to quote an interest rate to lend money, but Islamic financiers don't charge interest. Mr Yassine said making some changes to allow for the differences in Islamic banking would benefit Australia."The Islamic finance industry is worth at least $US1 trillion and growing at a very significant rate per annum," he said."And if we had a tiny slice of that, a one per cent, we are talking about multi billions of dollars".

Egypt lifts emergency law after 30 years

Egypt’s emergency law — which was in place for more than 30 years — has been lifted, a spokesman for the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces said Thursday. The unpopular and wide-ranging law became a focal point for demonstrations demanding the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak more than a year ago.
The emergency law gave authorities broad leeway to arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges, according to Human Rights Watch. It was first enacted in 1958.
Although it was suspended during the rule of President Anwar Sadat, it had been in place since Mubarak took power in 1981, according to the group.
Abolishing the emergency law was on top of the lists of demands announced by pro-democracy protesters during the 2011 uprising.
The law was partially suspended by the country’s military rulers early this year, but critics said that move didn’t go far enough.
Human Rights Watch urged Egypt’s new parliament to act Wednesday, saying it had “an opportunity to close an abusive chapter in Egypt’s history” by ending all measures related to the law when its current extension expired Thursday.
“The Egyptian parliament should make sure that this state of emergency, a hallmark of Hosni Mubarak’s abusive police state, has no future,” Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in an online statement.
“Parliament should also initiate a comprehensive investigation into human rights violations that flourished under the emergency law, and the public prosecutor should make sure that the key people responsible for systematic torture and enforced disappearance are prosecuted.”
The rights group quotes the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate, Mohamed Morsi, as saying Tuesday: “There is no going back to the state of emergency, we do not need the state of emergency … the existing laws are sufficient.”
Morsi is one of two candidates who made it through a first round of voting this month. He will face former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik in a June 16-17 runoff vote.
The head of Egypt’s ruling military council, Hussein Tantawi, announced the partial suspension of the emergency law in January. But opposition figures said the suspension was simply a sop to appease protesters.
The suspension did not include crimes by “thugs” who commit acts of violence against citizens or use weapons to destroy public and government property, officials said.
(CNN)

Sudan pulls out of disputed region – U.N.

Juba, South Sudan — Sudan has withdrawn its soldiers from Abyei, a disputed border region also claimed by South Sudan, but has left police officers, the United Nations peacekeeping mission said Wednesday.
“The mission has confirmed the full withdrawal of the SAF from Abyei area yesterday,” said Josephine Guerrero, a spokeswoman for the U.N.’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York, referring to the Sudan Armed Forces. “Armed police forces are still in the area.”
South Sudan’s army spokesman, Philip Aguer, said he is “skeptical” that Sudan has truly pulled troops out.
He said he had received reports that the Sudan Armed Forces left two platoons of soldiers dressed in police uniforms in Abyei town, and that two battalions remain about 40 miles away in Diffra, which is the only oil field inside the disputed territory.
“We have our reservations about Sudan’s claims that it withdrew from Abyei,” he said, adding that his government is investigating reports that Sudanese soldiers remain in the area.
The conflicting claims come on the second day of renewed peace talks between Sudan and South Sudan, which are being hosted by the African Union in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa.
Talks have been ongoing since the South declared independence on July 9 of last year, but Sudan pulled out of negotiations last month as border clashes brought the countries to the brink of war.
A U.N. Security Council resolution adopted this month threatened sanctions if the countries refused to cease hostilities and return to talks.
South Sudan complied with the Security Council’s demand that it withdraw forces from the contested, oil-rich area of Heglig, as well as police it had stationed in Abyei. The resolution also required Sudan to withdraw its forces from Abyei.
The United Nations and the African Union have made repeated requests that Sudan withdraw troops after it invaded Abyei a year ago. More than 100,000 people remain displaced, according to the World Food Program, which is supporting the displaced community in the South Sudanese town of Agok.
Under a 2005 peace agreement that ended Sudan’s two-decade civil war, Abyei residents were to take part in a referendum on whether to join the South or remain a special administrative region within Sudan. The vote was to take place in January 2011, at the same time as the referendum that led to South Sudan’s secession. But disputes over who was eligible to vote prevented the referendum from going forward in Abyei.
In a 2009 ruling, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague placed Abyei’s boundaries around the traditional homeland of the Ngok Dinka tribe. Those borders excluded most of the oil fields in the area as well as the members of the Misseriya tribe, who often receive support from Khartoum, Sudan’s capital. The nomads spend part of the year grazing their cattle in Abyei and said they should also be able to vote.
The U.N. Security Council and the African Union have given Sudan and South Sudan three months to resolve post-secession issues, including the fate of Abyei. Other points of contention are citizenship for people from both countries who now find themselves living in either country, border demarcation and oil revenue sharing.
With independence, South Sudan acquired three-quarters of the formerly united country’s oil reserves. But the new nation depends on pipelines and processing facilities that remain in Sudan.
Negotiators have failed to agree on how much the landlocked South should pay to use those facilities. South Sudan halted oil production in late January after accusing Sudan of stealing $815 million worth of its crude. Sudan said it had confiscated the oil to make up for unpaid fees.
(CNN)

Published On: Thu, May 31st, 2012

Somalia forces capture key al-Shabab town of Afmadow

African Union and Somali government forces have captured the town of Afmadow, a strategic militant base in the south of the country.

Commanders say the Islamist al-Shabab group abandoned the town without a fight as their troops approached.
Afmadow is the second largest town in the south and only 115km (71 miles) from Kismayo, al-Shabab’s headquarters.
Despite facing pressure on a number of military fronts, the al-Qaeda group still controls much of the country.
“Hopefully the next target will be Kismayo and then we will proceed to other towns and cities,” interim Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohamed Ali told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme.
“Surely but slowly we’re getting our country back from al-Shabab,” he said.
‘No military muscle’
Afmadow has been a key target for the Kenya troops, who make up the African Union contingent in the south of the country, since they entered Somalia last October.
Somalia analyst Mohammed Abdulahi Hassan told the BBC its importance lies in that fact that a network of roads from the town leads all over the country.
He said the militants were unlikely to have the “military muscle to retake the town from the Kenya defence forces”.
A spokesman for the Kenya army, Col Cyrus Oguna, told the BBC he hoped the African Union troops would be able to take the port of Kismayo, on the main road south of Afmadow, before 20 August.
This is the date agreed by disparate Somali factions to elect a new president, ending a transitional period and the mandate of the UN-backed interim government.
Mr Hassan says if Kismayo does fall, al-Shabab will be in “a desperate position both politically and financially”.
The interim prime minister was speaking to the BBC from Istanbul where world leaders and Somali politicians have gathered for talks hosted by the Turkish government.
It is the second major international conference this year about how to end Somalia’s two decades of anarchy.
The Horn of Africa country has had no effective central government since 1991, and has been racked by fighting ever since – a situation that has allowed piracy and lawlessness to flourish.
“The London conference focused more on unity, piracy and terrorism; Istanbul is more about development and ending the transition,” Prime Minster Ali said.
Earlier this year the UN agreed to boost the AU force from 12,000 troops to nearly 18,000 to incorporate Kenyan troops which entered Somalia last October in pursuit of al-Shabab militants.
They accuse the fighters of being behind various kidnappings on Kenyan soil and of destabilising the border region.
(BBC News)

Published On: Thu, May 31st, 2012

Canada

Budget cuts threaten access to information, watchdog says

Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault reported today that the federal government’s budget cuts could jeopardize a “fragile” access to information system that has been improving.
Legault’s report, the third in a series on delays in responding to information requests, showed that a majority of government departments she investigated have improved since her first report in 2008-09, but there are still many concerns.
“While the overall results are initially positive and encouraging, I remain concerned that the system as a whole is fragile. The cuts announced in the latest budget challenged all departments and institutions to scrutinize every corner of their operations to save money,” said Legault at a news conference.
The departments she studied expressed concerns about the potential impact of the cuts, and Legault said she shares those concerns. She said she will be watching closely to see if the concerns translate into more complaints to her office.
The report, titled “Measuring Up – improvements and ongoing concerns in access to information,” was tabled in Parliament Thursday morning. Departments are supposed to respond to requesters within 30 days but every year, she receives hundreds of complaints about the timeliness and completeness of access to information requests.
The latest investigation revisited 18 at-risk and below-average performers from her first report and it finds that in most cases they implemented Legault’s recommendations and improved their letter grades on her report cards. But the Canada Revenue Agency and RCMP stayed at the same level – a D and a C respectively – and three departments got worse.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada went from C to F, and Transport Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency dropped from D to F.
They cited staff turnover, workload, and lack of resources as reasons for non-compliance with the access to information legislation.

Delays could resurface

Legault said the access to information areas within government departments tend to be vulnerable when there are cuts and she has already heard from some requestors that they’ve been told their files are being delayed because of cuts.
She named the Departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs and International Trade as ones that have improved, and said progress could be reversed due to cuts.
“If resources are being cut in these institutions, there is a risk that delays will creep up again and that will impede and have a negative impact on requestors’ rights,” she said.
She noted, however, that some heads of agencies have assured her that staff dedicated to access to information won’t be reduced. She didn’t specify which ones.
Legault announced that her office is suspending the report cards until at least 2014 in order to focus more resources on the complaint caseload, which is at more than 1,800 files. She said she wants to use her office’s “limited resources” to reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to complaints and close the files.

‘We are significantly taxed’

In March, the federal budget cut her office’s $10-million budget by five per cent and it was already stretched thin before losing that money, she said.
“The impact of the cuts is I have to really target where I put my efforts,” she said. “We are significantly taxed with these budget cuts, that’s for sure.”
She intends to continue to monitor departments’ compliance with the access to information act through other tools, including the annual reports that they are required to table in Parliament. Legault said the recent improvements in various departments has reduced the urgency for her report cards, but she will do them again if she feels progress is slipping.
Legault’s report contains details about each of the 18 departments, including how many new requests they have received since her first report, number of completed requests and complaints, and to what degree they implemented her previous recommendations.
She said in the report that her investigations uncovered a number of practices contrary to the spirit of the access to information law. There were instances, for example, when staff didn’t bother to retrieve the records requested because in their view, they believed the information in them would be exempt from the law. That’s not allowed, according to Legault, and the records must be retrieved and reviewed.
She has also seen files closed too early, and the commissioner said the practices appear to be designed to expedite the processing of requests so they don’t exceed the deadline. That’s being done at the expense of the rights of the requesters, she said.

Retail Banking Sector in Canada Shows Disconnection of Muslims

Retail Banking Sector in Canada Shows Disconnection of Muslims

A growing pool of would-be borrowers and investors, many sitting on piles of surplus cash, others simply in dire need of a mortgage, remain untapped by most of Canada’s biggest banks. The demand for Islamic financial instruments certainly exists. But beyond holding basic accounts, observant Muslims in Canada find themselves disconnected from retail banking. Despite signs a few years ago that shariah-compliant products were ready to enter the Canadian market, the niche segment has not advanced beyond infancy. “We have immigrants who come to us and sit in our offices and tell us they have a million dollars sitting in one of the Big Five banks, in cash,” says Omar Kalair, president of UM Financial, one of the few providers of Muslim mortgages in Canada. “We have people who have been renting for the last 30 years, even if they have $100,000 salaries, because they can’t buy a house,” he adds. Interest -- an essential component of Western finance -- prevents many of Canada’s one million Muslims from properly managing their assets. Shariah, or Islamic canonical law, forbids the payment or collection of interest. While property ownership and profits are permissible, making money from money alone is not. Investments and loans in compliance with shariah are instead backed by assets. In one kind of Islamic mortgage transaction, the bank buys the property and sells it back to the new homeowner, who is required to make a down payment. The mortgagee then agrees to an instalment payment plan, which includes a profit for the bank. The transaction, called a murabaha, resembles a rent-to-own agreement. The payment schedule may be identical to a conventional mortgage, but there is a difference in the fundamentals, says Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank in Ann Arbor, Mich., which operates the first wholly Islamic banking subsidiary in the United States. Mr. Ranzini likened the distinction to halal meat versus regular meat. “They look the same, they taste the same, but they’re made in a very different way. It’s the process,” he said, speaking at the inaugural conference of the Usury-Free Association of North America held in Toronto this past week. But creating financial instruments that comply with ancient rules is an inexact undertaking that requires the expertise of religious scholars. At least in the West, that means more time and effort involved in creating and selling such financial instruments, and higher costs than conventional bank offerings. That price difference is coined the “shariah premium.” Economies of scale have been slow to appear, Mr. Ranzini says. He founded his bank’s specialty subsidiary in 2002 to cater to the United States’ largest concentration of Arab Americans, and only recently reached profitability. “It takes tremendous capital, patience and perseverance,” he says. That’s one key reason why Canada’s major banks haven’t waded in. Over time, however, Mr. Ranzini’s University Bank eliminated the premium and now offers shariah-compliant home financing comparable to conventional mortgages. That’s positive news for Canadian bankers, and the opportunities presented by the Muslim market should also grab their attention. The potential market is huge, with the Canadian Muslim population expected to reach 1.5 million by 2017. And a recent poll indicated that around half of Muslims would prefer shariah-compliant retail banking options. Guidance Residential LLC, the biggest player in the United States, has provided more than US$1-billion in Islamic mortgages. There is currently US$2.75-billion invested in mutual funds that comply with shariah. And globally, Thomson Reuters recently pegged the value of the Islamic finance industry at US$1-trillion. In addition, Islamic investments offer a certain enhanced level of security, Mr. Ranzini says: “If you are financing a physical thing, which is always required in Islamic finance, that’s inherently a lot safer activity than if you’re financing a leveraged buyout of a company.” That aversion to excessive risk, also a guiding Islamic principle, applies to capital markets as well, says Hooman Sabeti, senior counsel at Allen & Overy LLP in Singapore. With fewer triggers for default, Islamic financing tends to be more lenient, less risky and generally more friendly to borrowers, Mr. Sabeti says. On the other side of the coin, transaction costs may be higher due to the individualized nature of each deal and the intricacies of getting shariah approval. The absence of Canada’s big banks from alternative financing deals reflects an institutional inertia, Mr. Sabeti says. “Conventional finance has been around for several millenia. Everyone knows what it is. Islamic finance, which is just a couple of decades old, is trying to compete or offer another option to people, but it has to do it against a backdrop of a wholly worked out system of finance,” he says. “Where there are deals, there are bankers. And right now, it’s not clear to bankers that there are deals.” It is becoming clear, however, to many in the United States. Last year, General Electric Capital Corp. became the first Western multinational to issue an Islamic bond, completing a US$500-million sukuk issuance. It was a strategic move designed to diversify the company’s investor base, Mr. Sabeti says. “For them, it was important politically to show there is a commitment to that region. It’s an important market for them as a multinational.” Brian Koscak, a partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, expects to see a Canadian corporation make a sukuk issuance in the next year or so. “We’re at the crossroads. We’re beyond that this is new, an idle curiosity.” Sukuk bonds have the potential to be a new asset class in Canada, Mr. Koscak says, adding that the instrument is not as mysterious as it might seem. “I would suggest that an income-trust structure is far more complicated than an Islamic-bond structure,” he says. Canadian credit unions have showed some initiative, filling the gap created by the absence of the large banks. Central 1 Credit Union provided UM Financial with a funding line to offer shariah-approved home financing to customers in Toronto. “The credit union system is unique, we’ve always been interested in niche players,” says Linda Jeffery, directory of treasury services at Central 1. Since 2005, UM Financial has provided 500 homebuyers in Canada with $120-million in murabaha financing. And the company recently partnered with MasterCard to introduce the first “credit” card in North America aimed at Muslim consumers. Cardholders must first load up their cards with cash, spending only money they actually own and avoiding interest payments or credit-card debt. Mr. Kalair says it is now only a matter of time before UM teams up with a major bank to expand and extend its line of products. “Even though there are limited products and the pricing is high ... in the Muslim community, if they were provided an opportunity, they would be ready to switch over.” Financial Post

1-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

2-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

3-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

4-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

5-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

6-6, Mubasshir Luqman with Dr Israr Ahmad

Maulana Tariq Jameel 27-Feb-2012 Jamia Ahsan-ul-Uloom bayan

It is time for the outside world to start setting up buffer zones in Syria

Syria under Assad 

Horror in Houla 

It is time for the outside world to start setting up buffer zones in Syria

THE slaughter of at least 100 civilians, most of them women and children, in Houla on May 25th has changed the dynamic of the Syrian saga. The world, including Arabs and Turks, is outraged. Even Russia and China thought it wise to endorse a declaration in the UN Security Council expressing horror, though Russia still managed to pretend that no one knew who the culprits were. Cries of “Something must be done” have become louder. But what?
One option—preferred by such as Russia and China—is to leave the place to stew in its own juice. President Bashar Assad, whose soldiers and associated militias plainly perpetrated the Houla atrocity, would presumably increase the level of brutality against his disaffected compatriots. The uprising might simmer down or boil up until it ousted Mr Assad; either way, many thousands of people would probably be killed before the outcome was clear. That course of action has nothing to recommend it, except to governments which, lacking democratic legitimacy themselves, are unwilling to undermine others in the same position.
A second course is to give more time to a plan presented by Kofi Annan, a former secretary-general of the UN, backed by the Arab League and the UN. Under this, Mr Assad and the armed rebels are supposed to cease fire. Government troops and their heavy armour should withdraw from towns to let 300 UN monitors oversee the peace. And negotiations are meant to set Syria on a path to multi-party democracy. Mainly thanks to Mr Assad’s intransigence, none of these conditions is being properly met. Even so, Mr Annan’s three-month mandate is likely to be extended when it ends in July. If the monitors, of whom there are nearly 300, could be boosted to, say, 5,000, they might do some good. If the Russians could be persuaded that it is in their long-term interest to dump Mr Assad, as indeed it is, perhaps they could nudge him into abiding by Mr Annan’s plan. But as things stand, the diplomacy is futile.
The third way, and the one most people think realistic, is to tighten the noose on the regime with sanctions, by boosting and co-ordinating the opposition both within and outside Syria, by giving non-lethal help to the rebels, and by turning a blind eye to the flow of arms and cash from the Gulf and elsewhere. Mr Assad’s regime may run out of cash, or even grain. His armed forces, especially those who are not members of his dominant Alawite minority, may gradually turn against him, as may the merchants. The balance of power will shift and Mr Assad will go. The snag with this is that it could take a very long time. Sectarian mayhem may deepen and persist bloodily, as it did next door in Lebanon for 15 ghastly years between 1975 and 1990, before a new order was established.
Time to take a risk?
The fourth option is to impose buffer zones and humanitarian corridors on Syria’s borders, starting with the Turkish one. This would both provide sanctuary to Syrian civilians fleeing attacks from Mr Assad’s forces and give the Free Syrian Army a place to retreat to in order to regroup.
Such a plan would be fraught with danger. Mr Assad would almost certainly attack such zones unless he were convinced that his own air defences and armour would be bombed. NATO governments would therefore have to be prepared to go into action to protect them, and Turkey and the Arab League would have to support them. None of those governments is yet prepared to up the ante to that degree.
They should. Buffer zones would require more of the West and of Syria’s neighbours than the other options. But they may be necessary to avert a long civil war.

Hello, Delhi

It is up to India to try to stop Sheikh Hasina ruining Bangladesh

THE Punch-and-Judy show of Bangladeshi politics, in which the ruling party—run by the daughter of a former president—bashes the opposition—run by the widow of a former president—before swapping places with it, has been running for decades. The outside world rarely pays attention because nothing seems to change.
Recently, though, the squabbling has turned into a crisis (see article) which threatens to make life still worse for the 170m poor Muslims who suffer under one of the world’s worst governments. Since Bangladesh’s political leaders show no interest in their fate, outsiders need to do so.

When Sheikh Hasina, leader of the Awami League and current prime minister, and Khaleda Zia, leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), alternated in power in the 1990s, things were pretty bad, but in the past decade they have got worse. The administration Mrs Zia headed from 2001 to 2006 was a brutal kleptocracy. It was followed by army-backed unelected technocrats. Then in 2008 the Awami League swept to power in a landslide victory. The League has 229 of 300 parliamentary seats compared with 31 for Mrs Zia’s BNP. Sheikh Hasina has used this mandate to consolidate power and hound her enemies, real and imagined.

There has been a spate of mysterious disappearances. This month 33 senior members of the opposition were arrested on charges of vandalism and arson. A war-crimes tribunal to investigate the atrocities in Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971—some of the bloodiest in modern history—now looks like an attempt to discredit the BNP and its Islamist allies. And the hounding of Mohammad Yunus, a pioneer of microfinance, creator of the Grameen Bank and a Nobel laureate, is seen as payback for his temerity in 2007 in trying to launch a “third force” in politics. Meanwhile, journalists and activists face intimidation and worse, and the vibrant NGOs that keep the spirit of democracy alive worry that proposed legislation would leave them at the mercy of government whims.
Last year the League did away with the provision that caretaker administrations should oversee elections. The arrangement was not ideal. In January 2007 protests led by the League, convinced that the BNP would rig an election, led to a coup. But without some assurance of fair play the BNP will boycott the next election, due in 2014. So there is the prospect of yet more protests, which in Bangladesh often take the form of crippling strikes. There is also the real prospect of utter political paralysis, risking even worse turmoil on the streets.
The only voice in Dhaka
The outside world is trying to do its bit. The World Bank has scrapped a deal to pay for a big bridge because of its suspicions of corruption. EU ambassadors have denounced the treatment of Mr Yunus and the harassment of activists. Hillary Clinton flew to Dhaka this month to stand by Mr Yunus.
But the government seems unmoved. In a snub to Mrs Clinton, it announced a review into ownership of Grameen, a move to take over (and probably destroy) the bank. The only country to have much influence in Dhaka is India. Until recently the regional superpower tolerated Sheikh Hasina’s excesses, in part because Bangladesh has cracked down on Islamists. India now seems to be hedging its bets between the two parties. But if it still wants to have a functioning democracy next door, it needs to speak out far louder in favour of it.

World Economic Forum: Live Streaming

Watch live streaming video from worldeconomicforum at livestream.com

Read Online The Holy Bible or Free Download

Bible In English Complete
Bible In Urdu: Old Testament
Bible In Urdu: New Testament
Bible In All Languages

Zavia - Ashfaq Ahmed Part 1

TimesCast Politics: Recall in Wisconsin

Monica Davey is on the campaign trail ahead of Tuesday’s Wisconsin recall election.

Russian Church Is a Strong Voice Opposing Intervention in Syria

Pool photo by Alexander Nemenov

Russian Orthodox Church priests at a gathering in Moscow.

Vladimir V. Putin visiting a church in Smolensk last year. He has sought the support of religious leaders to shore up his leadership.

Opening an exhibition devoted to Syrian Christianity in a cathedral near the Kremlin, they commiserated with Russian priests and theologians about their shared anxiety: What would happen if Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, was forced from power?

It is clear by now that Russia’s government has dug in against outside intervention in Syria, its longtime partner and last firm foothold in the Middle East. Less well known is the position taken by the Russian Orthodox Church, which fears that Christian minorities, many of them Orthodox, will be swept away by a wave of Islamic fundamentalism unleashed by the Arab Spring.

In his warnings, Patriarch Kirill I invokes Bolshevik persecution still fresh in the Russian imagination, writing of “the carcasses of defiled churches still remaining in our country.”

This argument for supporting sitting leaders has reached a peak around Syria, whose minority population of Christians, about 10 percent, has been reluctant to join the Sunni Muslim opposition against Mr. Assad, fearing persecution at those same hands if he were to fall. If the church’s advocacy cannot be said to guide Russia’s policy, it is one of the factors that make compromise with the West so elusive, especially at a time of domestic political uncertainty for the Kremlin.

“Someone once said George Soros was the only American citizen who has his own foreign policy,” said Andrei Zolotov Jr., a leading religion writer and chief editor of Russia Profile. “Well, the Moscow patriarchate is the only Russian entity with its own foreign policy.”

Three and a half months ago, intent on achieving a commanding win in presidential elections, Vladimir V. Putin sought support from Russia’s religious leaders, pledging tens of millions of dollars to reconstruct places of worship and state financing for religious schools.

But Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the patriarchate’s department of external church relations, did not ask for money. The issue of “Christianophobia” shot to the top of the church’s agenda a year ago, with a statement warning that “they are killing our brothers and sisters, driving them from their homes, separating them from their near and dear, stripping them of the right to confess their religious beliefs.” The metropolitan asked Mr. Putin to promise to protect Christian minorities in the Middle East.

“So it will be,” Mr. Putin said. “There is no doubt at all.”

The request was one that plunged deep into geopolitics, since Christian minorities are aligned with several of the governments that have faced popular uprisings. The statements on “Christianophobia” amount to a denunciation of Western intervention, especially in Egypt and Iraq, which lost two-thirds of its 1.5 million Christians after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Western analysts acknowledge the dangers faced by Christians in Syria, but say the church would be wise to distance itself from the Assad government and prepare for a political transition.

“What we see now in Syria is systemic failure — it’s brutal, it’s now an insurgency — but in the end it’s just systemic failure,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an expert on Syria. “If the Christian population and those that support it want a long-term future in the region, they’re going to have to accept that hitching their wagon to this brutal killing machine doesn’t have a long-term future.”

The Russian Orthodox Church regularly meets with the Russian Foreign Ministry to discuss its agenda outside Russia’s borders, and is seen by most experts as eager to render support to the Kremlin.

Still, there have been moments when the church’s foreign policy aims appeared distinct. In 2009, just as President Dmitri A. Medvedev publicly blasted his counterpart in Ukraine, Viktor F. Yanukovich, Patriarch Kirill published a note thanking Mr. Yanukovich for his hospitality on a visit, Mr. Zolotov said.

Tension was also apparent surrounding Patriarch Kirill’s visit to Damascus late last year, which was delayed repeatedly and planned under conditions of high secrecy, Mr. Zolotov said. By that point, the United Nations estimated that 3,500 people had been killed as government forces tried to put down the uprising, and the Arab League had suspended Syria’s membership in an attempt to increase diplomatic pressure.

Metropolitan Hilarion said that “some analysts tried to dissuade the patriarch from going, saying that there is disorder in Syria, that the Assad regime is in international isolation and under great pressure.” “But the patriarch never stops in the face of difficulties, and expressing solidarity to Ignatius, the Patriarch of Antioch, whom he has known for more than 40 years, was important right now,” the metropolitan said, in an interview posted on a church Web site. He also said that “any interpretation of the patriarch’s visit to Syria as support

Nevertheless, photos of the patriarch’s street procession alongside his Syrian counterpart showed the men flanked by people holding aloft Mr. Assad’s portrait. The patriarch made a sympathetic appearance with Mr. Assad, praising Syria’s treatment of Christians and making no mention of the mounting death toll.

Maksim Shevchenko, a journalist and television host who specializes in religious affairs, said the patriarch’s visit represented a turning point.

“It strengthened the Russian position on Syria,” Mr. Shevchenko said. “He’s such an influential figure. Imagine the influence of someone like Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham on the position of Ronald Reagan.”

The Rev. Nikolai Balashov, deputy chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department of external church relations, said the visit had succeeded in focusing Russia’s attention on Syria, overcoming what he called an “information blockade” of one-sided coverage of the conflict in the world’s top news media outlets.

He went on to say that recent turmoil in the Middle East had made it more important for the church to involve itself directly in foreign affairs.

“Only bloody chaos will result from shortsighted attempts to plant, in a biblical region, political models from a different civilizational matrix, without taking into account the worldview and values that have shaped peoples’ lives for centuries and millennia,” he said. “Forming foreign policy without accounting for the religious factor could lead to a catastrophe, to the deaths of thousands and millions.”

Usama Matar, an optometrist who has lived in Russia since 1983, said he did not harbor any illusions about Russia’s motives for defending Syrian Christians like himself, whom he called “small coins in a big game.” But he said there were few international players taking notice of Eastern Christians at all.

“The West is pursuing its own interests; they are indifferent to our fate,” he said. “I am not justifying the Assad regime — it is dictatorial, we know this, it is despotic, I understand. But these guys, they don’t even hide their intention to build an Islamic state and their methods of battle, where they just execute people on the streets. That’s the opposition, not just the authorities. And we are between two fires.”

31 May 2012 Last updated at 14:37 GMT

Israel returns the remains of Palestinian bodies

Israel has handed over to the Palestinian Authority the remains of 91 Palestinians who died carrying out attacks against Israel.

The remains include suicide bombers and militants who died in operations as far back as 1975.
The repatriation of the bodies forms part of a deal to end a mass hunger strike by hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
Israeli officials say the transfer is a confidence-building gesture.
However, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has given no indication that he is willing to return to talks.
Coffins containing the remains, which had been interred in numbered graves in an Israeli military cemetery for "enemy combatants", were handed over at dawn.
21-gun salute

Analysis

Jon Donnison BBC News, West Bank

Palestinians don't have a state but the ceremony today had some of the trappings of a state funeral. Proceedings were led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
There was a military feel. A lone bugler played the Last Post and Palestinian security forces offered a salute, firing into the air.
Relatives of the dead then carried the coffins draped in red, black, white and green Palestinian flags and loaded them on to trucks. The remains will now be reburied.
For most Palestinians, these men were martyrs who died fighting for the Palestinian cause. Some were suicide bombers. For Israelis, they were terrorists responsible for the deaths of scores of civilians.
This transfer was part of a deal earlier this month to end a mass hunger strike by hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Israel said it was a gesture aimed at building confidence.
Such confidence is in short supply. Direct peace talks between the two sides collapsed in 2010. Most Palestinians and Israelis would say only a fool would be optimistic about a significant breakthrough any time soon.

The head of the Palestinian general committee for civil affairs said 79 coffins were transferred to Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority (PA) has its headquarters.

The official said the other 12 were taken to Gaza, which is run by the militant Islamist Hamas movement.
President Abbas, the head of the PA, attended a ceremony at his compound, Muqataa, to receive the coffins, each of them draped in a Palestinian flag.
According to Israeli media, Hamas will hold a full military service for the remains in Gaza, with each coffin receiving a 21-gun salute. They will then be shuttled to various towns for burial.
The repatriation has long been a sensitive issue often subject to prolonged negotiations, the BBC's Jon Donnison in Ramallah says.
The dead are considered martyrs by Palestinians, but terrorists by Israelis, and their remains are used as bargaining chips, he says.
Earlier this month, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails agreed to end a mass hunger strike, which had been going on for more than two months.
More than 1,500 Palestinians had been refusing food to demand an improvement in conditions.
There were fears of a violent Palestinian backlash, had any of the inmates died.

 

Israel has been digging up remains near the border with Jordan for several days

The mother of one of the dead, Um Ramez Obeid, said the transfer made her "very happy".
"We have waited for this moment for 16 years. The more they talked about the deal to hand over the bodies, the more we hoped his body will be among them.
"God willing they will hand over his body to us, to be buried next to his father at the cemetery. We will visit him, even if he is dead and is in the grave, I feel that he is returned to me."
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said he hoped the "humanitarian gesture" would help get the peace process back on track.
"Israel is ready for the immediate resumption of peace talks without any preconditions whatsoever," he said.
Direct talks collapsed in December 2010 over Israel's refusal to stop building settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Syria says regime not to blame for massacre; Rice says 'another blatant lie'

By the CNN Wire Staff

June 1, 2012 -- Updated 0350 GMT (1150 HKT)

(CNN) -- A U.S. official ridiculed as "another blatant lie" a Syrian government report Thursday asserting that terrorists -- not security forces -- massacred civilians in Houla.

Last weekend's massacre, which left more than 100 people dead, sparked outrage across the globe and prompted calls for action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

But Syria attributed the latest violence to "armed terrorist groups," the vague entities that the regime has blamed all along for widespread violence against civilians during the nearly 15 months of unrest.

"The goal of the armed operation was to completely terminate the presence of the state in the area and to make it one that is out of the control of the state," Qasim Jamal Sleiman, head of the investigative panel, said in televised remarks.

"All of the martyrs are from peaceful families who refused to stand against the state and have never demonstrated or carried weapons against the state. They were in disagreement with the armed terrorist groups, which confirms that there was a goal and an interest to kill them."

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, called the Syrian account "another blatant lie" and said there's no "factual evidence" to "substantiate that rendition of events." She said the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, could soon embark on an effort to establish facts in the case and hold people accountable.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the international community needs to ensure al-Assad steps down.

"There is no question that we are very concerned about the atrocities that are taking place in Syria," he said. "Just makes clear how important it is to remove Assad from power and to try to implement the necessary political reforms that are necessary in that country."

The Syrian government investigation said 600 to 800 armed people gathered after Friday prayers at two primary locations and committed the crimes. Sleiman said firearms shot from a close distance and sharp objects were used, but there was no shelling.

"The place where the massacre was committed is an area where armed terrorist groups are present," Sleiman said. "The security forces did not enter the area before or after the massacre and the area is far from the checkpoints where the security forces are positioned."

But he said security forces "defended themselves against the armed terrorist groups."

Some of the attackers hailed from the Houla area, investigators said. "Also, some of the bodies that were shown as part of the massacre are bodies of armed individuals who were killed during their attack on the security forces and they are not from the town."

Politicians across the world, opposition leaders and Syrian citizens blame the regime, citing witness accounts that pro-government forces were responsible for the Houla bloodshed. They say government forces have been responsible for violence in Syria since March 2011.

The massacre spurred diplomatic action this week. The United States, Netherlands, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey and Canada announced that they are expelling Syrian diplomats.

Rice has said the massacre was carried out by Shabiha militias or local gangs acting on behalf of the regime.

Survivors told Human Rights Watch that the army shelled the area and "armed men, dressed in military clothes, attacked homes on the outskirts of town and executed entire families."

A network of Syrian opposition activists, the Local Coordination Committees of Syria, blamed "armed militias" of the Syrian government.

"This barbaric act was preceded by the regime's mortar shelling in the town," the LCC said in a statement. "The campaign ended when the armed militias slaughtered entire families in cold blood."

Sectarian tensions have been high in Houla, which is overwhelmingly Sunni and is surrounded by Alawite and Shiite villages. The regime is dominated by Alawites.

The government report came as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ramped up pressure Thursday on Russia, saying the Kremlin has been an obstacle to peace in Syria.

"I think they are, in effect, propping up the regime at a time when we should be working for transition," Clinton told reporters in Denmark.

The United States and Russia have been looking for solutions to the 15 months of persistent violence. Estimates of the number of dead range from 9,000 to more than 14,000.

The United States is focused on supporting U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's six-point peace plan. The administration is hoping Russia can persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adhere to the plan and keep the country from deteriorating into more warfare.

The Syrian regime said it supported the Annan plan, which includes a cease-fire. But so far, according to the secretary of state, the Syrian regime has failed to abide by the initiative.

"The Russians keep telling us they want to do everything they can to avoid a civil war because they believe the violence will be catastrophic" and they have likened the situation to the "equivalent of a very large Lebanese civil war," Clinton said.

"They're just vociferous in their claim that they are providing a stabilizing influence," she said. "I reject that."

Clinton urged leaders in Syrian society and the military to use their influence to avoid a full-blown civil war. She said countries like the United States and Denmark are "appalled" by the violence and want "to win over those who still support the regime inside and outside of Syria to see what options are available to us."

"We're also aware that there is still a fear among many elements of the Syrian society and the Syrian government, that as bad as the Assad regime is, it could get worse," she said. "And we therefore continue to call upon the business leadership, the religious leadership, the military leadership, those voices within the government that know what is going on is leading to the very outcome they fear most -- which is a sectarian civil war -- to stand up now and call a halt to further support for this regime."

Merchants in Aleppo shut their stores to register their disgust with Houla on Thursday, echoing the same angry gestures that were made last Monday in the historic Hamidiyeh Bazaar in downtown Damascus.

"We carry the responsibility for continuing to work while people are dying," said an Aleppo store-owner who asked to only be named Abu Karim, in a phone interview with CNN. "That is our shame," he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon referenced the Houla incident on Thursday in Istanbul, Turkey, saying "the massacre of civilians of the sort seen last weekend could plunge Syria into a catastrophic civil war -- a civil war from which the country would never recover."

"I demand that the government of Syria act on its commitments under the Annan peace plan," he said. "A united international community demands that the Syrian government act on its responsibilities to its people."

Britain's U.N. Ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, said Thursday that he was not prepared to pull the plug on the peace plan. "Clearly it is on life support but it isn't dead, yet," he told CNNI's Christiane Amanpour.

"We are directing all our efforts into trying to make it work," he said. "But I think to make it work we're going to need to increase the international pressure on the Syrian regime."

Grant praised the role U.N. observers played in bringing that incident to light: "To be honest, we would not know exactly what had happened in Houla had it not been for the observers able to go there, to demonstrate that there had been tank tracks, that there had been use of heavy artillery, that there had been a massacre by the Syrian regime," he said.

"Otherwise, people would give some credence to this report that the Syrian government has come out with today claiming that it was nothing to do with them. We know that's a tissue of lies partly because the U.N. observers are able to say so."

Russia and China have been more receptive to the Syrian government during the crisis, and have blocked tough action against the al-Assad regime in the U.N. Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week that "certain countries" were attempting to use the Houla massacre as a "pretext" for a military operation against al-Assad's forces, which have been partly armed by Russia, Russia's RIA Novosti reported.

Lavrov also accused the head of the opposition Syrian National Council of attempting to "incite a civil war." The government also said proposals by Western powers to arm rebels would "prolong the conflict."

Since the conflict began, the government has blamed the violence against civilians on armed terrorist groups. But opposition groups and citizens have blamed the government.

Violence continued in Syria Thursday, with at least 61 people killed in the country, the LCC said. Syrian forces shelled Houla again early in the day, and 29 people were killed in Homs alone, it said.

CNN cannot confirm death tolls or reports of violence from Syria because the government limits access to the country by foreign journalists.

Syrian opposition fighters issued the government a Friday afternoon deadline to cease fire, pull out troops from residential areas and allow humanitarian aid.

The Free Syrian Army, mainly comprised of military defectors, said it would stop adhering to the Annan plan if the government doesn't begin to adhere to it by then.

"Our national, moral and humanitarian duty make it necessary for us to defend and protect our civilians and their cities, towns, blood and dignity," the group said in a statement.

The ultimatum lists a series of demands in a peace plan implemented last month and brokered by Annan.

"Immediately halting gunfire and all violence, pulling out all the troops, tanks and machinery from residential areas, allowing humanitarian aid to reach all stricken areas, releasing all prisoners and allowing media access," said Col. Qasim Saad Eddine, the group's spokesman.

Eddine also called for the freedom to demonstrate, an end to attacks on U.N. monitors and a dialogue on power handover.

Meanwhile, Syrian authorities freed 500 prisoners arrested for their alleged involvement in the uprising, state TV reported Thursday.

No hand in attack on Israeli diplomat: Iran

Sachin Parashar, TNN | Jun 1, 2012, 02.50AM IST

NEW DELHI: Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who is in India to invite PM Manmohan Singh to the upcoming NAM summit in Tehran, on Thursday launched a bitter diatribe against Israel, even suggesting that no Iranian may have been involved in the bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat's car here. He was also non-committal on whether Iran would allow an Indian police team to visit the country.

"We totally refute these allegations," he said in the presence of his Indian counterpart S M Krishna after a meeting. This is the first time Tehran has officially responded to charges about involvement of Iranians after these were authenticated by the findings of Indian investigating agencies. While taking care not to directly blame any Iranian agency for the attack, India had earlier requested Tehran through MEA to cooperate in the investigations against three named Iran nationals.

Government sources, however, said that immediately after Salehi's remarks, Krishna tried to save the situation by taking up the matter with his counterpart in another meeting over lunch and telling him that India would still like to send a police team to Iran "based on suggestions made earlier by Iran itself".

Iranian authorities had earlier indicated that they were not averse to India sending a team to the country. Krishna told Salehi that Indian agencies had some evidence which suggested involvement of people based in Iran. Salehi then responded by saying that Iran will "consider" allowing a police team to visit the country.

"What Iran foreign minister has said is not going to impinge on the investigations and we are hopeful that they will allow a probe team to visit Iran soon," an official said.

Drawing a parallel with an earlier case in which Iran was accused of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the US, Salehi said the international community actually needed to ask the Zionist regime as to who were the actual perpetrators as it was Israel which had legalized assassinations.

Salehi decided to let go after he was asked whether or not Iran was going to support the probe by Indian agencies. "They (Israel) said just a few days ago that they were introducing these computer viruses into our industry and seemed proud of it. When they assassinate our best scientists, our young scientists... they were just in the beginning of their careers... they expressed loudly they were the ones who assassinated these scientists. It is them the international community has to ask who were the perpetrators," he said.

"They have given assassinations a legality when it comes to killing Palestinians. So, we totally refute the allegations... the world conscious (sic) knows the Zionist regime and how they do their business," he added.

With New York’s Israel parade ready to go, not everyone is feeling the love

With 35,000 spectators expected, parade follows controversy over inclusion of New Israel Fund.

By JTA | Jun.01, 2012 | 2:57 AM

Young marchers in the Salute to Israel parade along the parade route on New York's Fifth Ave., Sunday, June 1, 2003. Photo by AP

It’s America’s biggest annual show of support for Israel, and if this year’s marchers have any luck, the sun will be shining on Sunday morning when tens of thousands assemble on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue for the 48th annual Israel day parade.
From Jewish day school contingents to the Chai Riders motorcycle club to non-Jewish marching bands to corporate sponsors riding on floats, some 35,000 marchers from 200 organizations will head up the avenue festooned with Israel’s blue and white.
“This is the biggest celebratory Israel-themed event anywhere in the world,” Michael Mittelman, the parade’s director, told JTA. “This year, we want to celebrate how Israel is contributing positively to the world.”
The theme of this year’s parade is “Israel Branches Out,” and Mittelman said participants will be dressing up as fruit, nature, agriculture and even technology.
A few are likely to be protesting. Every year, some counterdemonstrators -- usually a handful of anti-occupation protesters and the fringe, anti-Zionist Neturei Karta Chasidic group -- hold a small rally near the parade, which runs from 57th to 74th streets.
This year, hawkish critics of the New Israel Fund mounted a public relations campaign to try to get the NIF, which funds liberal Israeli groups and a few Israeli Arab organizations, excluded from the parade. The critics charge NIF with being anti-Israel and in favor of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. Neither charge is true, and the calls to exclude NIF were ignored.
Turnout for the parade, which began in 1964, usually is a function of what’s happening in Israel – and the weather. In years when Israel has been embattled, such as during the second intifada, participation swelled. In 2002, an estimated 750,000 spectators came to watch 100,000 marchers.
These days the parade, which last year changed its name to the Celebrate Israel Parade from the Salute to Israel Parade, draws much smaller numbers. It also has grown increasingly Orthodox over the years; most of the marchers are children from area day schools.
The parade is organized by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, and funding and sponsorship come from various sources, including the Israeli government and the UJA-Federation of New York.
“We are proud to be the major supporter of what is the largest annual pro-Israel event outside the Jewish state itself,” said John Ruskay, UJA-Federation’s executive vice president and CEO. “Whether marching in the parade or lining Fifth Avenue to show our support, this is one time of the year when we put aside our differences and demonstrate how we come together for Israel when it matters most.”
Security is typically tight, with hundreds of officers from the New York Police Department lining the route and cement-filled dump trucks blocking vehicular access to the parade route.
Among the marchers will be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, along with grand marshal Harvey Kaylie, president of Mini-Circuits. New York’s U.S. senators, a few U.S. Congress members and other local politicians usually show up, too.
The parade, which runs from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., will be preceded by a four-mile Celebrate Israel Run through Central Park featuring some 6,000 athletes dressed in blue and white and followed by a concert in Central Park organized by an Orthodox group.

Egypt's notorious emergency law expires

Egypt's notorious emergency law expires

 

Egypt's notorious emergency law expired Thursday, ending more than 30 years of broad powers to arrest and detain for a police force accused of widespread human rights abuses.

The military rulers who took charge from ousted President Hosni Mubarak indicated they have no intention to renew the law, saying they will continue to be in charge of the country's security after it expired and until an elected civilian authority was in charge.

The law was a defining and much-resented feature of ousted President Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian, 29-year regime. In place since the assassination of President Anwar Sadat in 1981, the law was almost automatically renewed every few years; the last time in May 2010.

"The significance of the expiration of the law is huge," said Heba Morayef, a researcher with Human Rights Watch. "It is the symbolism attached to it" as one of the main tools of oppression under Mubarak's rule, she said.

"This is an end of exceptional measures that provided cover to human rights abuses such as torture and enforced disappeared," she said.

After Mubarak's ouster in an uprising last year, the military rulers who took over amended the law to limit its use to cases of thuggery and the spreading of rumors.

Mubarak's regime justified the continued use of the law to crack down on terrorism, drug trafficking and to impose speedy justice on activities deemed threats to national security. But human rights groups and activists said it gave security agencies extensive powers to detain, try without defendant rights, and crack down on opponents.

The uprising was partially fueled because of the abuses of the police force and it vented anger against the symbols of the security agencies. The lifting of the law was a key demand by the pro-democracy youth groups that engineered the uprising 15 months ago.

Days into the uprising, the police force all but disappeared from the streets, leaving the country's security largely in the hands of the military rulers. Since, there have been calls to reform the police force but they have not really gotten off the ground.

On Thursday, the military rulers who took charge from Mubarak said they will continue to be in charge of the country's security after the expiration of the law and until they transfer power to an elected civilian authority.

The military had said it will hand over power to a democratically elected government by the end of June. A runoff between two top presidential candidates on June 16-17 is the final phase of the transition to democratic rule.

Playing Iran at its own game

The lack of any meaningful offer in Baghdad would indicate that the P5‏+1 is now confident of two things: that Iran is not currently building a bomb and that there is time to negotiate before a possible Israeli attack.

By David Patrikarakos Jun.01, 2012 | 4:26 AM

Iranian representatives participating in nuclear talks in Baghdad. Photo by Reuters

The result of last week's talks between Iran and the P5 +1 is clear: the promise of more talks in Russia later this month. What may seem depressingly slight counts as progress on the Iranian nuclear file these days. It was after all an agreement to meet again - the importance of which should not be discounted. Since the two sides met in Istanbul in April, we have witnessed the most sustained engagement between Iran and the P5 +1 (the United States, the UK, France, Russia and China, plus Germany ) in almost three years. From the end of 2009 to April 2012, Iran made great progress with its nuclear program and largely refused even to meet with the P5 +1 to discuss it. Its strategy was simple: stall diplomacy, move on with enrichment and increase its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium. During 2011, Iran even managed to smash through a technological barrier and enrich to 20 percent, from which it is only a small step to weapons-grade uranium. With things going so well, there was just no reason to negotiate.
But now it seems there is, and the talks began with a P5 +1 proposal. While no details were officially released, it reportedly involved allowing the Iranians to enrich to low levels. Clearly, neither side is ready yet to compromise on its respective red lines. For the P5 +1, this is the demand that Iran cease enriching uranium to 20-percent levels at its Fordo plant, and the need for Tehran to surrender its existing stockpile of the same. For Iran, it is an end to the sanctions on its oil and banking sectors that have been in place since the end of last year. The P5 +1 offered to lift only a few peripheral sanctions, on items like Iranian aircraft parts - something Iran greeted with derision, while continuing to argue for its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium under article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which allows states to pursue peaceful nuclear technologies "without discrimination" ).
And the Iranians, for once, had a point. The P5 +1 offered nothing of substance, refusing even to show reciprocity to news earlier in the week that in separate negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran was close to allowing inspectors greater access to some of its more controversial nuclear sites. While it was likely this was another case of Iranian stalling, even IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano described the possibly of an imminent deal as "an important development."
Asking Iran to enrich at lower levels than it is currently doing in exchange for a token lifting of peripheral sanctions was to proffer the stick with no attendant carrot. An offer to lift sanctions in exchange for a ceiling on enrichment would have been more logical (and made Iran look utterly unreasonable if it were rejected ). All of which begs the question of why such a palpably weak offer was presented in the first place.
The answer lies in the fact that there were talks at all. Iranian diplomats were in Baghdad for the simple reason that they needed to be there. The country is under serious economic and political pressure. Sanctions are hurting and will hurt even more when the EU oil sanctions (which will join unilateral U.S. oil sanctions ) come into force on July 1. The unified front necessary at home to withstand the combination of political and economic pressure has, since the 2009 elections, disappeared. Even the rallying cries of influential conservative newspapers like Kayhan, which urge the mullahs to forget negotiations and push on with enrichment, have been ignored.
Iran's ability to stall is legendary. I have spent countless hours listening to shell-shocked veterans of negotiations with Tehran recount tales (with, it must be said, a certain begrudging awe ) of Iran's ability to drag things out. If its flexibility is not lauded, its stamina certainly is. For a long time, the Iranians calculated (correctly ) that each day without diplomatic movement was one more day of uranium enrichment. Now, it seems, they need that movement, but unfortunately for them times may have changed.
The lack of any meaningful offer in Baghdad would indicate that the P5 +1 is now confident of two things: that Iran is not currently building a bomb and that there is time to negotiate before a possible Israeli attack. As each day passes, Iran's economy weakens; its people grow more restless: There are not enough jobs for the young, fewer subsidies for the old and little money for anyone except regime officials and their cronies.
For years, the word most often used to describe negotiations with Iran was "circular": endless rounds of talks raking over the same issues repeatedly, with no apparent end in sight. But now it is the P5 +1 that appears happy to let things drag on, to let sanctions ravage Iran's economy and to see just how high a price Iran is willing to pay for its continuing enrichment. The P5 +1 is now playing Iran at its own game and it seems that we may have come full circle after all.
David Patrikarakos is a journalist and the author of "Nuclear Iran: the Birth of an Atomic State," due to be published by I.B. Tauris this August.

US Still Runs Afghan Torture Prison

US Still Runs Afghan Torture Prison

Officials Retain Effective Control Over Detainees in 'Afghan Custody'

by Jason Ditz, May 30, 2012

The US has made much of its transfer of the detainees at Parwan Detention Facility to Afghan government control. This, as with so many other “transition” moves, has been hyped as enormously significant, but in reality is superficial.
For the detainees, nothing has really changed. They’re still stuck on a US military base, with their “administrative detention” nominally under Afghan control, but access to them is still strictly controlled and the Afghan general running the facility is hopeful for future influence, but still mostly a figurehead.
Even though the transition agreement puts him theoretically in total charge, the Afghan general himself is not much better off than the detainees on site, his cellphone is seized when he arrives at the facility (by US military officials), and even his access to interviewers is controlled from the Pentagon.
Such issues are likely to continue to grow, as US officials try to change the narrative of occupied Afghanistan to an “ended” war with a massive and coincidental military presence, while at the same time retaining all of the control in everything but name.