Diplomacy & Crisis News

Très virulent à l'égard de l'Arabie saoudite durant la campagne électorale de 2016, le président américain entend désormais faire profiter son pays de la richesse du royaume. Une démarche intéressée qui ne tient pas compte des difficultés structurelles d'un pays engagé dans d'incertaines réformes (...) / Arabie saoudite, États-Unis, Commerce des armes, Économie, Géopolitique, Médias, Commerce, Diplomatie, Relations bilatérales - 2017/12

Civil rights, and some news about Best Defense

Gen. “Jack” Cushman, former commandant of the U.S. army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) from 1973-1976, died earlier this month at 96.

 

This week, Tehran announced it would continue a missile development program that defense analysts say could allow Iran to launch nuclear weapons. It was a public threat that has understandably stirred strong response from the US and the west: the risk of nuclear proliferation by a fanatical regime is indeed a threat to millions across the region. But there is another, potentially greater threat from within Iran, one made more insidious by the fact that no one outside of Iran seems to care but which nonetheless imperils the values and moral conscience of the civilized world. I am speaking of the massacre of some 30,000 Iranians—including my uncle— at the hands of the state in 1988. And the arbitrary killings and executions continue.

 

In 1981, during the early years of Iran’s so-called “Islamic Revolution” my uncle Mahmood ‘Masoud’ Hassani was 21 years old and in his second year studying Economics at Tehran University. On June 30, my uncle never returned home from school.

 

Nearly two traumatic months passed before Masoud called my family to say he had been in jail since his disappearance and had been sentenced to serve ten years in the notorious Evin Prison. Even in absence of any evidence, he was convicted of ‘acting against national security’ and ‘spreading corruption on Earth’ all because he had distributed pro-democratic pamphlets near his campus.

  

When my uncle was in the seventh year of his sentence, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a notorious fatwa, calling for the immediate execution of Iran’s political prisoners. Death panels were commissioned to demand that blindfolded prisoners repent for their actions and those of their cellmates. Those who complied were granted amnesty. Those, like my uncle, who offered no such apology, were taken through a set of doors from which they would never return.

 

Without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom or being allowed to contact his loved ones, my uncle was hanged at the age of 27 sometime between July 28th and August 1st 1988. 

 

Unfortunately, his story is not unique. In less than five months, 30,000 of Iran’s brightest students, professors and devoted activists–many of them members of the pro-democratic PMOI-MEK–suffered the same fate. Expectant mothers and children as young as 13 were among the victims of these systematic killings, which effectively decimated an entire generation of Iranians who had devoted themselves to the struggle for democracy.

 

But 29 years later, the mullahs’ regime has still not succeeded in silencing the people’s calls for freedom and justice. Last year, the son of Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, the intended successor to Supreme Leader Khomeini, released an audio recording that detailed the grave extent of the purges. In it, Iranian jurists themselves described an obvious crime against humanity. For leaking this tape, Ahmad Montazeri was swiftly arrested, but not before unprecedented public discussion began of the 1988 massacres.

 

Thus, 60 million Iranians who were born after the revolution came to confront an issue that had been long swept under the rug, both by Iranian authorities who fear a public uprising and by thousands upon thousands of victims’ families who, with the most noble of intentions, have silently endured their grief and sadness, for fear of reliving the horrors they know this government to be capable of. Their fears are well-founded: many members of the judiciary who oversaw the execution of Khomeini’s fatwa in 1988 occupy the same posts today.

 

Despite the ongoing threats of violence, torture and execution, brave Iranian youth have recently risen up to put this issue at center stage, as when presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls, in large part, due to his role in the 1988 massacre.

 

The newfound scrutiny has forced a number of Iran’s high-ranking governmental officials to speak to the issue head-on and acknowledge the historical record. But they have not done so with contrition. On August 28th 2016, the Iranian prosecutor and politician Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi said of the mass executions, “We are proud to have carried out God’s commandment and to have stood with strength and fought against the enemies of God and the people.”

 

As dissatisfaction, disillusionment and dissent continue to grow among Iran’s young and vibrant population, authorities have begun to feel the pressure and initiate new plans to conceal their history. There are plans to build commercial centers over the unmarked mass burial sites often frequented by families of the fallen.  Doing so would destroy crucial forensic evidence that would allow for perpetrators of the 1988 massacre to be brought to justice.

 

Civil society organizations continue to receive unsettling news about persecution and arrests of surviving family members who have sought information about the location of their loved ones’ remains. Maryam Akbari Monfared, for instance, is currently serving a 15-year sentence at Evin Prison, without family visits or medical care. Three of Mayram’s brothers and her sister were executed in the course of the purges, and her own ‘crime’ consists of having published a letter asking for an explanation of these executions and the subsequent secret burials.  

 

As grassroots efforts surrounding this issue gain momentum, two things should give global audiences pause. First is the ongoing impunity of the Iranian judicial system, with at least 3,100 executions being carried out since Hassan Rouhani took office in 2013. The second is the silence of international governmental bodies tasked with documenting these very sorts of human rights abuses.

 

For families of victims, like my own, it has become painfully clear that the maintenance of economic ties with an oil-rich country has repeatedly trumped earnest efforts to speak out on Iran’s human rights record. With an abundance of contemporary and archival evidence supplied to the appropriate intergovernmental agencies, how else might we explain their silence if not as an instance of quid pro quo? Judging from the lack of outrage or historical record in the west, do atrocities that do not directly affect others simply not happen? Are these truths inconvenient?

 

 

Sara Hassani is a PhD. Student and Fellow in Politics at the New School for Social Research and works as an Adjunct Lecturer in Political Science at Brooklyn College – CUNY. 

The post Time for Reckoning a Long Hidden Massacre appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A look at the North's new ICBM, Russia's Lavrov says Trump the same as Obama

I signed the letter, but didn’t think I deserved to be called a “survivor.” Until I started remembering the trail of abuse.

When China complained about a plan for the Navy to make port calls in Taiwan, Congress listened.

The Russia stories everyone wants aren’t the ones people in Russia can provide.

The President’s assaults on the truth aren’t a hobby – they’re an obsession.

Du Qatar au Liban, l'Arabie saoudite enchaîne les fiascos lorsqu'elle se mêle de politique régionale au Proche-Orient, où elle est accusée d'avoir armé idéologiquement, voire militairement, certains djihadistes. Le discrédit est à son comble avec la guerre sans issue, et sans merci pour les civils, que (...) / Arabie saoudite, Armée, Conflit, Géopolitique, Islam, Mouvement de contestation, Religion, Yémen - 2017/12

French soldiers on patrol in Paris during Euro 2016 tournament

Since 2006 and peaking after 2008, several employee suicides took place after the privatization of France Telecom. Now part of international telecommunications giant Orange, sixty France Telecom employees committed suicide over a three year period as cut backs destabilized that company and developed into what could be described as a toxic work environment. In 2016 the incidences at France Telecom, now Orange, lead prosecutors to attempt to put the onus on management as it was claimed that cuts were tied in with attempts to purposely create a work environment that would negatively encourage employees to leave for their jobs.

Creating a difficult work environment married with drastic cutbacks might have violated a French law that establishes that anyone who harasses another with repeated actions with the aim or the effect of degrading working conditions is liable to a year in jail and a fine of €15,000. Directors of France Telecom at the time may eventually end up being fined or spending time in prison, but it is unlikely a violation of labour law would result in a severe punishment, and proof in a criminal law context may be too difficult to establish in the case of France Telecom. A national discussion, tribunal or even a trial may help French society understand why so many employees took their own life while working at France Telecom. While France still tries to deal with the tragedy, 2017 brought more mass employee suicides, this time within France’s police services.

Securing France after several attacks on French civilians have placed the burden of protecting the public on France’s police officers and Gendarmerie Nationale. With a drastic change in the security environment in France over the last few years, France’s protectors have been stretched to their limits trying to prevent attacks on innocent civilians and directly on themselves. Despite new policy approaches in 2015 to help prevent further suicides, eight officers took their own lives in a one week period alone. The numbers are truly shocking year after year as 45 French police officers and 16 members of the Gendarmerie have committed suicide this year alone. In 2015, the new policy came about after 55 police officers and 30 gendarmes took their lives. Unfortunately the added stress combined with already poor working conditions and a general negative sentiment towards officers has produced a difficult and dangerous situation for many officers according to France’s police union Alliance.

Like France Telecom, many employees and officers seem to feel trapped in impossible situations from their employer or in their role in society. Employment in France and Spain for younger employees is hard to come by with unemployment in some European countries for adults under 35 reaching as high as 25%. Simply switching jobs may feel like losing a career and a life spent establishing stability and the ability to provide for one’s self and their family. While there are many factors that can be difficult to understand for those not working in those environments, the fact that French employees commit suicide in certain organisations at such a high rate over a few short years is clearly a national crisis. These issues are not limited to France, as incidences at Foxconn and other international companies demonstrate that toxic work environments and tactics to constructively dismiss employees can lead to abusive practices on individuals and groups of employees. Solutions need to be developed starting with understanding the problem, requiring perhaps documented, recorded and directly experienced officials in work environments where it is difficult to have a voice, and to have independent reviews not linked to already established power structures in their organisation. Most importantly, solutions and legal actions need to have teeth so that policy solutions are not solely produced and documents without an effective change in policy. These solutions need to be applied evenly and fairly on large companies as they are on smaller ones. Threats that fall into the realm of criminal law should be treated as criminal as well as labour law violations. A national emergency that leads to terror incidences may require a more specialized and coordinated approach as well that gives assistance, training and more officers for support. Those solutions are only the first steps in addressing these types of issues in the workplace.

The post French Employee Suicides after the France Telecom Tragedy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Après un nouveau tir de missile balistique nord-coréen, les États-Unis, la Corée du Sud et le Japon ont demandé une réunion d’urgence du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

Dans ce contexte, nous vous proposons de lire en avant-première l’article d’Antoine Bondaz, « Corée du Nord/États-Unis : jusqu’où ira la confrontation ? », à paraître dans le numéro d’hiver 2017-2018 de Politique étrangère (en librairie le 6 décembre).

Le 30 juin 2017, le président Trump tweetait : « L’ère de la patience stratégique avec le régime de la Corée du Nord a échoué. Cette patience est terminée. » Il critiquait ainsi la stratégie de son prédécesseur. Les stratégies visant un « démantèlement complet, vérifiable et irréversible » du programme nucléaire nord-coréen, qu’elles soient basées sur les incitations ou les sanctions, qu’elles soient unilatérales ou multilatérales – comme les pourparlers à six qui ont été menés de 2003 à 2009 – ont toutes échoué. La nucléarisation de la République populaire et démocratique de Corée (RPDC) représente un sérieux échec pour la communauté internationale, et notamment pour les États-Unis, dont l’ancien président Clinton affirmait, dès 1993, que Pyongyang «ne [pouvait] pas être autorisé à développer une arme atomique ».

Depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir de Donald Trump, le régime nord-coréen a testé pour la première fois des missiles balistiques à portée intermédiaire (Hwasong-12) et intercontinentale (Hwasong-14) pouvant théoriquement frapper l’île de Guam et le continent américain. Il a fait exploser une bombe nucléaire d’au moins 100 kilotonnes en septembre 2017, et a menacé de réaliser un essai nucléaire dans le Pacifique depuis un missile balistique, ce qui constituerait le premier essai nucléaire atmosphérique depuis 1980. De nombreuses questions se posent également sur les conséquences de la possession de telles armes nucléaires et des vecteurs associés, notamment en termes de posture vis-à-vis de la Corée du Sud.

Devant ces essais et les déclarations nord-coréennes, le président Trump a multiplié les sorties médiatiques conduisant à une escalade verbale avec le régime nord-coréen. Certaines déclarations ont été maladroites et peu diplomatiques. Elles rappellent néanmoins l’importance de la dissuasion américaine. Lors du discours controversé devant l’Assemblée générale de l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU), Donald Trump a par exemple affirmé : « Si nous sommes obligés de nous défendre ou de défendre nos alliés, nous n’aurons d’autre choix que de détruire totalement la Corée du Nord. » D’autres formules laissent sous-entendre une possible intervention militaire américaine, à l’instar du « feu et de la fureur » auxquels s’exposerait la RPDC si elle continuait à « proférer davantage de menaces envers les États-Unis », ou semblent établir une ligne rouge comme ce tweet du 3 janvier 2017 affirmant que « la Corée du Nord a déclaré qu’elle était dans les dernières étapes du développement d’une arme nucléaire capable d’atteindre une partie des États-Unis. Cela n’arrivera pas ! ».

En dépit de la rhétorique du président américain, la stratégie mise en œuvre par l’administration Trump vise à imposer une pression maximale sur le régime nord-coréen afin de le ramener à la table des négociations, tout en évitant pour l’heure une solution militaire dont le coût politique, humain et économique serait considérable. Le risque principal est cependant celui d’une erreur d’appréciation, d’un côté comme de l’autre, notamment lors d’exercices militaires, ou d’un incident militaire, susceptible de conduire à un conflit qui n’est manifestement dans l’intérêt d’aucune des deux parties.

La radicalisation de la position nord-coréenne sur les armes nucléaires

La RPDC, malgré la nature opaque de son régime, est prévisible. Depuis plus de 20 ans, le pays a défié les efforts de la communauté internationale. Il est resté intransigeant dans son objectif de développement d’armes nucléaires et des vecteurs associés. Il s’est retiré du Traité de non-prolifération nucléaire (TNP) en 2003, a déclaré en février 2005 avoir fabriqué des armes nucléaires, a révélé la construction d’une installation d’enrichissement d’uranium en 2010, a redémarré le réacteur de Yongbyon en 2015 et, surtout, a conduit six essais nucléaires entre 2006 et 2017. Ces essais nucléaires sont les seuls à avoir été menés à bien depuis le début du XXIe siècle.

[…]

Lisez la suite de l’article ici.

Découvrez le sommaire complet du numéro 4/2017 ici.

Abonnez-vous à Politique étrangère ici.

À 5 jours de la sortie en librairie, découvrez la vidéo de présentation du prochain numéro de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2017) !

Au sommaire

DOSSIER : « L’Irak après Daech »

CONTRECHAMPS : « Trump : une rupture de l’ordre mondial ? »

Et de nombreux articles d’actualité : Corée du Nord, Yémen, Iran…

> > Découvrez le sommaire complet du numéro ici < <

Dans l’émission de Christine Ockrent du 25 novembre dernier sur France Culture, l’article écrit par Hans Stark, « Élections allemandes : le jour d’après », et publié dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n° 3/2017) a été mentionné.

« Angela Merkel qui a dominé la scène internationale, ces dernières années,  n’est pas prête à lâcher la barre, malgré les difficultés. Pourquoi ? Est-ce qu’on enterre trop vite la chancelière ?  Quel calendrier politique en Allemagne et pour l’Union Européenne alors que les négociations pour le Brexit sont en jeu ? »

Stéphan Martens, Enseignant à l’université de Cergy Pontoise et chercheur associé au Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (IFRI).  Il a publié avec Philippe Gustin, _France-Allemagne : relancer le moteur de l’Europe,aux éditions Lemieux, en 2016 et vous avez co-dirigé avec Barbara Kunz et Hans Stark, L’Allemagne sur la scène internationale : en quête de stabilité dans un monde qui change_ publié cette année aux éditions Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Hans Stark, Secrétaire général du Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes de l’Ifri (Institut Français des Relations Internationales) et professeur à l’université de Paris IV. Outre l’Allemagne sur la scène internationale, précédemment cité, il a co-dirigé avec Nele Katharina Wissmann, L’Allemagne change ! : risques et défis d’une mutation,  aux Presses universitaires du Septentrion en 2015. Signalons aussi, dans la revue Politique étrangère, « Élections allemandes : le jour d’après » (n° 3, automne 2017).

Pour réécouter l’émission, cliquez ici.

Pour lire intégralement l’article de Hans Stark, cliquez ici.

Le grand débat sur le « déclin des Etats-Unis », que les dirigeants politiques cherchent à exorciser en lançant la puissante démonstration militaire dans le Golfe, s'accompagne d'un véritable vent de millénarisme, d'une renaissance des cultes de Satan et d'une multiplication des crimes rituels... (...) / États-Unis (affaires intérieures), Mutation, Secte - 1991/02

Given that the last strongholds for ISIS (known as Daesh in the region) in Raqaa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq have fallen, it is likely the group in its current territory-based form will gone by the end of 2017.  Only weeks ago, Daesh was allowed to leave central Syria before the Syrian Army closed the 5-kilometer gap between Al-Raqqa and Homs. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syrian government forces, supported by the Russian Air Force, had liberated over 90 percent of the country’s territory.

Fortunately, there has been a plan for this moment.  The Americans and the Russians—the main power brokers in the conflict– have been in direct talks regarding the future of Syria since 2015; indeed, everything is on the table regarding a transitional phase, the presidency, and even the future governing body. According to leaks and news reports, the two sides have agreed on that the president and transitional governing body shall exercise executive authority on behalf of the people but in line with a constitutional declaration. As for the president, he or she may have one or more vice presidents and delegate some authorities to them. This draft will be proposed during the Geneva Conference at the end of November.

As for the transitional governing body, it reportedly will serve as the supreme authority in the country during the transitional phase. According to drafts we have seen, it is proposed to have 30 members: 10 appointed by the current government, 10 from independent individuals named by the UN Secretary General and 10 by the opposition. The chairman will be elected from among the independent members by simple majority. This representative structure—which includes representatives from Assad’s government—stems from the recent visits to Damascus by officials from the European Union, Russia and the United States.

According to American sources, an important provision of the new constitution would be Presidential term limits. The proposed article states that “The President of the Syrian Republic shall be elected for seven calendar years by Syrian citizens in general after free and integral elections. The president might be re-elected only for one other term.”

The involvement of the Assad government in these deliberations should surprise no one. Former American ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford stressed in a recent article published in Foreign Affairs that “The Syrian civil war has entered a new phase. President Bashar al-Assad’s government has consolidated its grip on the western half of the country, and in the east. By now, hopes of getting rid of Assad or securing a reformed government are far-fetched fantasies, and so support for anti-government factions should be off the table. The Syrian government is determined to take back the entire country and will probably succeed in doing so.”

 

After Daesh, Syria still matters, and not only because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis there. Major political trends in the Middle East tend to happen because big countries want spheres of influence in geostrategic locations.  Russia has an interest in Syria, for example, as a Middle Eastern forward operating base, for access to warm water ports, and more generally, to check U.S. influence. The U.S. (and its allies) see in Syria a country cleared of Daseh that must now be “held” to prevent the regrowth of the terrorist caliphate, as a bulwark to protect neighboring Israel, and to maintain the free flow of oil.

In other words, the big countries that represent such geostrategic players such as Syria aspire to influence and change the geopolitical situation within her borders to improve their own strategic position and enable them to gain cards in the Middle East region.

But Syria is not merely a proxy battlefield for the big powers. With the end of Daesh in sight, Syria has a chance to reclaim her sacred sovereignty, which as the basis of the international order gives it the ability to control what happens inside its own borders. The upcoming constitutional process is an opportunity to restart and reconnect the Syrian people to its institutions, which should in turn serve them and only them. It should not be lost.

 

Shehab al-Makahleh is an author and analyst of terrorism, military, and security affairs in the Middle East and co-founder of Geostrategic Media and is based in the UAE and Jordan.

 

Maria al-Makahleh is a political commentator, researcher, and expert on Middle Eastern affairs based in Russia, and serves as President of the International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub) in Moscow.

The post The End of ISIS is in Sight. What is Next? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization’s (UNIDO) was reappointed for a second term on Monday as the 17th UNIDO General Conference opened in Vienna, Austria.

Mosul’s Al Qasoor Water Treatment Plant is on the eastern bank of the Tigris River which bisects the city that was, until about six months ago, one of the last strongholds of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Level (ISIL).

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on Monday warned that more than 11 million Yemeni children – almost every single Yemeni boy and girl – are in acute need of humanitarian assistance, despite the successful delivery of 1.9 million doses of vaccines to Sana’a airport on Sunday.

Ahead of fresh intra-Syrian talks on Tuesday in Geneva, the United Nations mediator said Monday that the crisis now has the potential to move towards “a genuine political process.”