China’s naval base in #Djibouti sparks neocolonialist fears
China has sent troops to Djibouti to open up Beijing’s first overseas naval base in the Horn of Africa.
Ships carrying Chinese military personnel left for Djibouti on Tuesday.
China says the base will be used for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid in Africa and West Asia but critics see the deployment as a way for Beijing to bolster its military presence in the region.
Dans le titre de la carte : « Carte figurative et approximative représentant... » : Comment mieux le dire ? :)
What We Can Learn From a Vintage Visualization of Global Migration - CityLab
►http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/11/international-migration-patterns-from-1858/382524
Earlier this year, CityLab’s John Metcalfe wrote about Austrian researchers who created a beautiful visualization of global migration patterns:
By extrapolating from United Nations data, they discovered that the percentage of the world’s population that’s moved over 5-year periods hasn’t changed much since 1995. They also found there are hot spots where massive migrations are taking place, chiefly from Latin to North America, between South and West Asia, and all around inside Africa.
But what if we went back another 150 years, to 1858? A French archival map, courtesy the Library of Congress, traces where people were coming from and where they were headed at that time. The map reveals some striking similarities, as well as some notable differences from global migration patterns today.
Le plus intrigant est que cette carte ressemble furieusement à des oeuvres de jeunesses d’Otto Neurath (qu’il faut que je retrouve dans mes archives).
Je viens de retrouver la référence. Ce n’est pas Neurath mais Charles Joseph Minard (1781-1870) qui st l’auteur de cette carte
The forgotten maps of Minard | Sandra Rendgen
▻https://sandrarendgen.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/the-forgotten-maps-of-minard
For clarity in Syria’s muddy politics - VIJAY PRASHAD The Hindu
▻http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/for-clarity-in-syrias-muddy-politics/article6517020.ece?homepage=true
With the West showing that when the politics is inconvenient, it will not make noises about the responsibility to protect citizens, other ideas are needed to stop the bleeding of West Asia
The United States and its allies continue to bomb northern Iraq and Syria. The purported target is the Islamic State (IS), whose territory stretches across the borders of the two countries. The Syrian Kurdish city of Kobane, a few 100 metres from the Turkish border, remains a key battleground of the current war. Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG), supported by fighters from the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), have been courageously holding the city against the superior firepower of IS fighters. U.S. aircraft have struck near Kobane, halting the advance of IS fighters temporarily. The U.S. Pentagon’s Rear Admiral James Kirby said air power is very limited and the air strikes “ are not going to save ” Kobane.
Turkish tanks remain on the Turkish side of the border. They refuse to allow YPG and PKK reinforcements to cross into Kobane. A town with little strategic value has nonetheless come to represent the fortitude of the Kurdish resistance against the IS on the one hand, and of Kurdish aspirations for autonomy on the other. ‘Diren Kobane’ (Save Kobane) is the slogan of Kurdish people across the region. Protests of Kurdish groups and the Turkish Left across Turkey were met with police force, whose actions killed over 30 people. Rather than come to the aid of the Kurdish fighters, the fighter jets of the Turkish air force bombed PKK positions in southeastern Turkey. In a flippant tone, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdog˘an said, “ Hey world, when a terrorist organisation like IS emerges, you all speak out. But why do you not condemn PKK as a terrorist organisation ? ” The otherwise fruitful “ Imrali Process ” to end the insurgency by the PKK inside Turkey has now ended with these air strikes and Turkish intransigence on Kobane.
No clear political agenda
When U.S. President Barack Obama said that there is no strategy for the U.S. fight against IS in Syria, he was correct. The U.S. has no clear political agenda. Nor does the United Nations. The appointment of Staffan de Mistura to replace the highly accomplished Lakhdar Brahimi was an indicator that the U.N. had lost faith in the political process for Syria. As one former U.N. official told me, “ de Mistura has a reputation for glad-handling, not for results.”
Even Mr. De Mistura broke the wall of diplomacy, comparing the situation in Kobane to the Bosnian city of Srebrenica, home of the 1995 killings. Mr. De Mistura called upon Turkey to open its borders to reinforce the fighters. With no easy political direction, the U.S. turned to a military solution - aerial bombing. But military solutions do not necessarily clarify the political complexity. Indeed, they seem to have made the politics unresolvable.
Three immediate political nudges might help move the confusion to clarity. It is unlikely that these would be adopted. Nonetheless, they could seed the germination of a short-term political process.
The first is Turkey and NATO. On September 10, Mr. Obama said IS is a threat to the U.S. According to Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter of NATO, a threat to one of the NATO members activates the members of the alliance to defensive action. Turkey is a member of NATO.
At a NATO council meeting, Turkey needs to be formally asked to take action to defend Kobane - and to degrade IS. NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at a press conference on October 14 that NATO would come to the aid of Turkey if IS attacks across the border. But there was no mention of the declared threat to the U.S. by IS - the basis for the U.S. bombing raids in Iraq and Syria. At a NATO Council meeting, Turkey would be forced to clarify its position on IS. The U.S. would also have to clarify its bombings in Syria on behalf of the groups that Turkey is currently bombing in its southeast.
The second is Syria and the moderate opposition. The emir of Qatar went to Saudi Arabia to begin a process to resolve their differences over the next leader of the Syrian opposition. Both have candidates in the fray. Neither is willing to allow the Syrian opposition the freedom to build their political institutions. A former financier of the Syrian opposition, Mouataman al-Baba, told me that there is no chance for the creation of a fighting force for the moderate opposition in Syria. Other former leaders of the Syrian opposition say privately that they believe that the armed phase of their movement is substantially over.
The government of Bashar al-Assad is weakened. Syria, says one former leader, is “ in danger of being lost permanently.” Residues of Syrian patriotism remain, and these leaders are eager but afraid to make a public declaration to the following effect - the armed struggle to bring democracy to Syria has failed, the Damascus government is weak and prepared to make concessions, and a united front of Syrians is required to fight the threat from IS.
Such a manoeuvre would remove the illusion that persists in Washington, Paris and London for a moderate armed force to take on both Mr. Assad and IS. That illusion keeps the door open for Saudi and Qatari funds to jihadi groups that are replicas of IS, although they have shut off the cameras to document their own barbarity.
The third is the Arab League. Threatened states such as Jordan and Lebanon could call the Arab League for an emergency session. In 2011, the Gulf Arab states suborned the Arab League to push for a strong resolution against the Libyan government whose troops they said threatened the civilian population of Benghazi. No such enthusiasm has come from the Arab League about the civilian populations of Iraq and Syria, now more than threatened by IS. The ambiguity of the Saudis and the Qataris has not been called to question. It is the case that Jordan and Lebanon would find unlikely allies in the Arab League - such as the United Arab Emirates and Oman - as well as countries such as Egypt and Algeria, who would put pressure on the Gulf Arabs to clarify their intentions.
These three manoeuvres do not themselves indicate a transparent politics. They are simply initiatives that would force the currently muddy political environment to some clarity. Political mendacity threatens to continue this prolonged bleeding of West Asia. The cynicism of leading political figures in the West is breathtaking. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted, “Kobane is a tragedy ” but then said that “ it has nothing to do with American strategy in the region.” The integrity of the idea of humanitarian intervention by the West is threadbare. It has demonstrated that when the politics is inconvenient it will not make noises about the responsibility to protect citizens. Other means are needed. Other unconventional ideas are necessary. It is time to refine the politics that otherwise disable any hope for Syria.
Un lobby israélien en Inde ?
Missed opportunity on Gaza -
The Hindu
▻http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial
Updated: July 24, 2014 00:34 IST
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s statement on the ongoing Gaza crisis during a discussion in the Rajya Sabha is an exercise in political correctness. By stating that New Delhi’s stance on the Israel-Palestine issue has not shifted, and going ahead with a pro forma denunciation of violence, Ms. Swaraj has missed a golden opportunity to impress upon a domestic audience that the Modi administration is pursuing a fresh statesman-like approach on a complex global issue. Besides, she may have also let down a wider international audience, especially in West Asia and North Africa, which has been looking for a stronger and principled Indian voice to help resolve the spiralling crisis.
The new government seems to have missed the full import of the Gaza situation by choosing to espouse a minimalist position of equidistance between the Palestinians and Israel. It is important to recognise that the Israel-Palestinian issue is the core of instability in West Asia — a region that is the lifeline of India’s economy because of its huge oil and gas reserves. A long-term interest in energy security alone demands that New Delhi — a friend of both Israel and the Palestinians — should leverage its unique position to persuade both sides to revive peace talks. There is reason to believe that greater diplomatic activism by India on the Israel-Palestine issue would be welcomed by the emerging powers as well as the global south, which is looking for new leaders on the global stage. This is especially true at a time when the international system is mutating from the unipolarity of the 1990s to the emergence of a multipolar world in the second decade of the twenty-first century. However, in taking a forthright position, the government has to contend with a powerful pro-Israel constituency in India. Citing India’s close military relationship with Israel, Tel Aviv’s friends construe any position taken by India that is even mildly critical of Israel as a threat to national security. Nothing could be farther from the truth, for Indo-Israel military ties are premised on interdependence, with New Delhi providing a huge market for military products as well as joint ventures, which Israel would find hard to give up. In navigating a dense grey zone, Ms. Swaraj could have followed the lead provided by BRICS, which has at the Fortaleza fully appreciated that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamental to sustainable peace in West Asia. The new grouping has also unambiguously stressed that dialogue must be resumed, which would result in a two-state solution based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state.
L’opinion de la gauche indienne sur l’accord nucléaire iranien
Lifting the Siege on Iran | Economic and Political Weekly
▻http://www.epw.in/commentary/lifting-siege-iran.html
n 2003, Bush assumed that the US military force would tilt the balance of forces in west Asia towards the US. Things unravelled very quickly. The Arab Spring, which has a much longer history of internal struggles in the various Arab countries, is nonetheless drawn from considerable popular anger against the undemocratic regimes that collaborated with the West. By the time Obama came to office in 2009, US power in the region had declined considerably – its inability to force the issue in Syria is not just a mark of the complexity of geopolitics but also of the weakened state of US influence. US allies in west Asia – Saudi Arabia and Israel – are of course more prone to create instability in the region than to bring peace. If anything it is Iran that will be able to manage some of the deep crises in the region. Out of weakness – political and economic – come the P5+1 to the table in Geneva. The bluster had worn off. The language of ultimatums and military force seemed anachronistic. The Iranians cleverly have Zarif, the former UN ambassador, as their foreign minister – and he brought his long-term memory of previous attempts to the table as well as his genial demeanour. It was hard to caricature Zarif as the scowling mullah, not with Zarif and his boss, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani conducting clever Twitter diplomacy for the world’s press. The advantage was always with Iran.
A brief wrinkle came on the scene when France scuttled the first meeting with last-minute demands for the closure of some of the Iranian reactors. These were not serious objections, because Iran had already suspended work at its Arak reactor and it had abandoned its project to build more centrifuges as part of a process to build confidence for the Geneva meeting. When it was pointed out that Iran had already conceded on these points, France nonetheless objected and the meeting had to be put off for a week. France’s President Francois Hollande went off on a tour of Israel where he pledged to hold the line against a deal and called for Palestinians to forgo their right to return to their land. But France’s effort on Israel’s behalf failed. The deal went through with the other European powers outflanking a tendency for France to revive its old colonial ambitions (bombing raids in Ivory Coast, Libya and Mali seem to whet this appetite).
Saudi Arabia’s sulk did not last long. Its Gulf Arab allies – Kuwait, Qatar and Oman (which had hosted the secret Iran-US talks) – came out for the agreement. The Kingdom had to follow saying, “If there is goodwill, this agreement could represent a preliminary step toward a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear program”. This is indeed an interim agreement. Six months from now the powers will meet again. But they will not be able to roll back Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. Even Israel recognises that. Netanyahu told his Likud Party members that this accord “must bring about one outcome: the dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear capability”. The addition of the word “military” is crucial. It means that Israel accepts Iran’s civilian nuclear programme – something that Tel Aviv had adamantly resisted.
L’Inde devient plus sensible au traitement de ses ressortissants émigrés en Occident et au Moyen Orient au moment
où plusieurs pétro-monarchies durcissent leur politique d’immigration.
Protecting India’s migrants - The Hindu
▻http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/protecting-indias-migrants/article4647773.ece
Human trafficking for labour exploitation is a global concern. In West Asia and the Gulf Cooperation Council region, it is a particular worry given the scale of labour migration and the prevalence of opaque and exploitative regulatory systems. A new report on forced labour and human trafficking in the Middle East, based on research sponsored by the International Labour Organisation, attempts to quantify the scale of the problem. Not surprisingly, it makes for some disturbing reading. The report puts the estimated number of victims of forced labour in the region at 6,00,000. These numbers have a huge resonance for India, which accounts for a significant chunk of the labour force there. What emerges is the close relationship between human trafficking and labour migration, and how failures in labour migration governance systems are allowing trafficking to persist. In the region’s capital-rich economies, the rapid development of infrastructure has relied on the use of short-term labour immigration. An estimated 14 million migrant workers, originating mostly in Asia and Africa, were in the GCC states between 1975 and 2010.