The “big five” – i.e., the most military powerful states on earth (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have just agreed that it would be about time to end the Syrian five-year long human tragedy.

Baher Kamal

Before reaching such a conclusion, they waited until 300,000 innocent civilians were killed; tons of bullets shot; 4.5 million humans lost as refugees or homeless at home; hundreds of field testing of state-of-the-art drones made, and daily US, British, French and Russian bombing carried out.

So, with these statistics in hand, they on 18 December 2015 adopted United Nations Resolution 2254 (2015) endorsing a “road map” for peace process in Syria, and even setting a timetable for UN-facilitated talks between the Bashar al Assad regime and “opposition” groups.

They also set the outlines of a “nationwide ceasefire to begin as soon as the parties concerned had taken initial steps towards a political transition.”

“The Syrian people will decide the future of Syria,” the Resolution states.

The UN Security Council also requested that the UN Secretary-General convenes representatives of the Syrian Government and opposition to engage in formal negotiations on a political transition process “on an urgent basis”, with a target of early January for the initiation of talks.

“Free and Fair Elections”

The “big five” then expressed support for a Syrian-led political process facilitated by the United Nations which would establish “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within six months and set a schedule and process for the drafting of a new constitution.

Furthermore, the Security Council expressed support for “free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under United Nations supervision,” to the “highest international standards” of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians — including members of the diaspora – eligible to participate.

And they requested that the UN Secretary-General report back on “options” for a ceasefire monitoring, verification and reporting mechanism that it could support within one month. They of course also demanded that “all parties immediately cease attacks against civilians.”

The road-map says that within six months, the process should establish a “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance,” with UN-supervised “free and fair elections” to be held within 18 months.

The whole thing moved so rapidly that the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan di Mestura, has already set the 25 January 2016 as the target date to begin talks between the parties.

All That Is Fine, But…

… But the resolution gives no specific answer to a number of key questions:

To start with, the Syrian National Coalition (SCN) has dismissed the whole idea as “unrealistic,” Deutsch Welle reported. The Coalition objects to a fact that the Security Council’s Resolution carefully “omits”: what future President Assad has.

According to Deutsch Welle, the SNC expressed annoyance that the UN language talked of ISIS terrorism but not of the “terrorism” of the Assad government. Russia has called for the transition to leave the question of governance up to the Syrians, while France and at times the US have demanded Assad’s immediate ousting as a condition of the deal.

If so, which “opposition” should sit to talk with the Syrian regime? While the US, UK and France support what they decided to consider as “rebel” or “opposition” groups, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would have different criteria.

In this regard, it was decided to work out a mechanism for establishing which rebel groups in Syria will be eligible to take part in the peace process. For this purpose, Jordan, which was tasked with listing terrorist organisations in Syria, has reportedly presented a document that includes up to 160 extremist groups.

Even though, would President Bashar al-Assad be able to run for office in new elections?

How will the UN monitor the requested ceasefires, and control so many different sides involved in the armed fighting, including the US, UK, France and Russia? And what if the ceasefires do not work? More Syrian civilians to die, flee, migrate? How to control DAESH and so many diverse terrorist groups operating there? What to do with those millions of Syrian refugees, scattered in the region, mainly in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey, while hundreds of thousands of them are being “trafficked” by organised crime bands, reportedly including DAESH itself?

And last but not least, which Syria will exist at the end of the 18 months which has been fixed as a target to hold free, fair elections?

Will it be the current Syria or a new, refurbished one after cutting part of it to establish a brand new “Sunni-stan” that US neo-con, neo-liberal, Republican “hawk” and former George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has recently recommended to create on the territories to be “liberated” from DAESH in Syria and Iraq?

Too many key questions without and clear answers. And too may gaps for this road-map to gain credibility. Unless the idea is to implement a Libyan-style solution, that’s for another Western-led military coalition, under NATO’s umbrella, to attack Syria, let Assad be murdered, and leave the people to their own fate. Exactly what happened in Libya in 2011.

(End)

Amid growing uncertainties over U.S. commitment to Asia, as multiple flashpoints in Eastern Europe and the Middle East continue to consume global attention, President Barack Obama took a long-awaited trip (Apr. 23-29) to Asia, where he visited leading allies in North- and Southeast Asia.

The highlight of Obama’s Asia trip was, however, the formalisation of a new basing agreement in the Philippines, which gave much-needed momentum to Washington’s so-called ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy. For the Philippine government, it marked an important step towards greater U.S.-Philippine defence cooperation amid growing security challenges in the region.Obama made it clear that Washington takes no position over the sovereignty of the disputed territories in the South China Sea.

Recent months have seen a significant increase in territorial tensions between China and its neighbours, especially the Philippines. The late-March decision of the Philippines to file an arbitration case before a United Nations (UN) Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague has infuriated China, which has threatened sanctions and vehemently opposed the “internationalisation” of what it considers an exclusively bilateral territorial dispute. As a result, the Philippines is confronting the real prospect of a direct military confrontation with China.

Without a minimum deterrence capability, the Philippines has opted for deeper defence cooperation with and military support from its principle ally, the U.S. No wonder, Manila has warmly welcomed the Obama administration’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, which many believe is a thinly-veiled attempt at constraining China’s territorial assertiveness in the Pacific theatre.

To counter the growing threat from China, which recently imposed a blockade on a Filipino maritime detachment in the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, the Philippines, in recent months, expedited the negotiation of a new security pact with the U.S., the so-called Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

Obama’s visit to Manila (Apr. 28-29) coincided with the formal signing of the EDCA, which grants the U.S. military rotational access to Philippine bases in Subic and Clark. In exchange, the Philippines is poised to benefit from expanded military assistance from and jointmilitary exercises with the U.S.

Filipino officials were quick to frame the latest defence agreement as a landmark deal, reflecting the long-standing alliance between the two countries. But critics claim that the new agreement disproportionately favours the U.S., lacks transparency, and may be in violation of the Philippines’ constitutional restrictions on the establishment of permanent foreign bases on Philippine soil.

“This agreement, concluded after intensive and comprehensive negotiations over the course of nearly two years, marks a milestone in our shared history as enduring treaty allies,” stated Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, a staunch advocate of deeper U.S.-Philippine military alliance. “With the EDCA, the Philippines and the United States as sovereign allies have written a new chapter for our modern and mature partnership, firmly grounded on deeply-held democratic values, common interests and shared aspirations.”

Influential political figures such as Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chairman of the Philippines Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, were, however, unconvinced. In an interview with Al Jazeera, she argued that the latest security pact only provides “marginal advantages” for the Philippines, while granting the U.S. inexpensive access to foreign military bases, which, in effect, would make “the Philippines sound as if [it were] a satellite ally of America.”

Others like former Senator Joker Arroyo deplored the lack of consultations with legislators and concerned citizens ahead of the signing of the EDCA. “[The government] rushed to sign the EDCA as a gift to President Obama…No one, but no one was consulted about its constitutionality or participated in its preparation,” lamented Arroyo, among the senators who voted for the abrogation of U.S. military bases in the Philippines back in 1991. “What did the Philippines get out of the Obama visit? Zero. Analyse it.”

Both Defensor-Santiago and Arroyo, among other legal experts, contend that the new security pact should have required the ratification of the Philippine Senate (the legislative upper-house) to ensure its compliance with the Philippine constitution and the country’s national interest. For many Filipinos, especially progressives and members of the intelligentsia, EDCA represents a significant regression in the Philippines’ age-old attempt to become a more independent, self-reliant country.

As an archipelagic country, the Philippines has a disproportionately small navy and coast guard force, which deprives it of credibly defending the country’s maritime territorial claims. A combination of massive corruption, lack of strategic foresight, and continued focus on domestic insurgency has undermined the Philippines’ efforts at building a fully-functioning, modern military.

As a result, the Philippines has continued to rely on American military support to deal with both security as well as humanitarian challenges. No wonder, latest surveys suggest that the absolute majority of the Filipinos continue to regard the U.S. with high levels of trust and respect.

Earlier in his trip, Obama went the extra mile to reassure Japan that the U.S. will stand by its ally if a military confrontation were to erupt over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea.

During his visit to Manila, however, Obama carefully avoided making a similar commitment, and instead called for the Philippines to seek a diplomatic compromise with China in accordance with international law. He made it clear that Washington takes no position over the sovereignty of the disputed territories in the South China Sea.

“We believe that nations and peoples have the right to live in security and peace, to have their sovereignty and territorial integrity respected,” said Obama in his speech before the Philippine armed forces. “We believe that international law must be upheld, that freedom of navigation must be preserved and commerce must not be impeded. We believe that disputes must be resolved peacefully and not by intimidation or force.”

Obama’s latest trip deepened Washington’s strategic footprint in Asia, but also demonstrated its unwillingness to militarily confront China over the South China Sea disputes. As a result, the Philippines will have to contemplate alternative diplomatic strategies to avoid an outright confrontation with China and preserve its territorial integrity.

A protest in Peshawar challenges the legality of the drone strikes. Credit: Ashfaq Yusufzai/IPS.

By Ashfaq Yusufzai
PESHAWAR, Nov 2 2013 (IPS)

The drone attack that killed Tehreek Taliban Pakistan chief Hakimullah Mahsud this week seems also to have killed hopes that drone attacks will end.

“After the recent debate in international media about U.S-led drone attacks, there was some hope these illegal strikes would end,” Muhammad Bashir a dental surgeon from North Waziristan Agency, tells IPS.

But the attack coming a day before talks between the Pakistani government and the Pakistani Taliban has sabotaged peace talks, the Pakistani government says."There’s no precise data about the civilians killed in these attacks because these took place near the Pak-Afghan border. It was not possible for media or the general public to visit the scenes.”

It is not just the Taliban who fear drone attacks. Bashir left North Waziristan a year back. He says they passed sleepless nights due to fear of drones that were meant to target terrorists. “Every day we see dozens of drone aircraft buzzing over people live in constant fear. There’s no precise data about the civilians killed in these attacks because these took place near the Pak-Afghan border. It was not possible for media or the general public to visit the scenes.”

But Pakistan’s ministry of defense told parliament Oct. 31  that only 67 civilians were among 2,227 people killed in 317 drone strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) since 2008. Pakistan had recently told the UN that at least 400 civilians had been killed in drone attacks since 2004.

The Pakistani defence ministry statement endorses the U.S. position that these attacks have killed only a few civilians. The government had been blaming the U.S. for breach of its sovereignty.

Bashir says the attacks don’t do any good, and only increase the number of U.S. enemies. Many people know relatives of drone victims, he says.

“The strikes cause fear in women and children as there is no guarantee that these missile will kill terrorists. These are more likely to destroy places located near the target.”

Isa Ahmed says he left his village in North Waziristan to live in nearby Bannu, one of the 25 districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, because of endless drone strikes and the militancy. Most people, he says, support the anti-drone campaign.

Former cricket captain Imran Khan who leads the Pakistan Tehreek Insaf Party (PTI) is a strong opponent of drone strikes. He says the people hope the drone strikes would end as a result of international pressure, not because Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s recent meeting with President Barack Obama. A global consensus is building that these attacks are against human rights and international law, he says.

“The government has been mandated by all political parties to stop drones at the All Parties Conference held on Sep. 27 but the prime minister isn’t interested in talks with Taliban,” he tells IPS.

The worst-affected is the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province where Khan’s party rules. Most bomb and suicide attacks by the Taliban have been carried out here.

“The Taliban, who are based in based in FATA, are targeting people in adjacent KP. There’s an urgent need to talk to them for the sake of peace on the soil and protection of the people,” Khan says.

The Taliban have described these attacks as a weakness of the government. “The government must stop the drone attacks before peace talks with Taliban,” Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid told media. Without ending these strikes, there will no dialogue, and attacks on the army and police will continue, he warned in a statement Oct. 10.

Najamul Islam, a teacher from North Waziristan Agency is hopeful that strikes will end. Reports by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International challenging the legality of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have strengthened hopes.

“Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is under scathing criticism for his failure to stop drone strikes in FATA,” says Islam. Sharif’s U.S. visit is seen as complete disappointment for local population, he says.

Not everyone is convinced by government figures that these attacks kill only a few civilians. A HRW documentary screened in Pakistan Oct. 26 says that only 47 terrorists were killed in drone attacks among a total of 1,500 surveyed.

The U.S. must be held accountable for drone killings, HRW says. “These unlawful killings could amount to war crimes on the part of the U.S.”

A street in a Damascus suburb after a regime attack on Friday. Credit: Dr. Omar Hakeem/IPS.

By Zack Baddorf
ANTAKYA, Turkey , Aug 31 2013 (IPS)

As the United States prepares to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on military targets inside Syria, Syrians are preparing for a new phase of the conflict that has already left more than 100,000 people dead.

“There is a state of panic in Damascus,” says ‘Sham Land’, who, like many activists uses a pseudonym for security reasons. “People are lining up to get bread. The exchange rate of the dollar is very high – about 75 pounds [65 cents] increase in just the past two days. Many people are preparing to leave the city, especially people who live near the government security buildings.”

Land, who documents civilian casualties for the Syrian Network for Human Rights in Damascus, said that in the evenings fewer people are walking around on the streets or driving through the city.

“Some people are preparing food and storing it. If they have a house in the countryside, they’re leaving to go there,” Land, a 31-year-old former dentist told IPS via Skype.

Elsewhere in the capital, activist Susan Ahmad confirmed these reports."Many people are preparing to leave the city, especially people who live near the government security buildings."

Ahmad, a 30-year-old Syrian who lives in a regime-held part of Damascus, told IPS that “many basics are not available and goods are very expensive,” with people stocking up on supplies like first aid kits, bread, and gas in anticipation of Western military attacks. To substitute for bread, she said, people are eating rice and bulgur cereal food.

High demand on bread has been problematic off and on for months, she said, but the news of a possible foreign military attack has exacerbated the problem.

“People are afraid,” she said.

In particular, Ahmad said talk of foreign military intervention has prompted “pro-Assad people” to start “running away and taking their families out of Damascus.”

Another activist, Abu Yasin, reports that families of military officers loyal to President Bashar al-Assad are leaving Damascus and heading to Lebanon.

Yasin, 26, also said he’s seen “significant” movement of military vehicles around the city. More specifically, he saw armoured vehicles, which may be targeted by the U.S. military strikes, being driven out of the city.

Multiple IPS sources confirmed the Syrian military is dispersing its forces and equipment.

Ahmad noted that the regime is moving its weapon caches out of its security branches throughout the city. Syrian security branches are used to house military personnel, detain prisoners, and store heavy weapons.

Further, in advance of the impending attack, Ahmad claims the regime is now using schools and university campuses to house its soldiers and store its weapons.

Media activist Dani al-Qappani told IPS he has a source working for the regime who saw the military moving prisoners, including activists, into military locations to serve as human shields.

Ahmad also noticed that senior soldiers at checkpoints have been withdrawn and replaced with junior ones. She crosses the checkpoints every day and said there are now “new faces” – soldiers who all look about 18 years old. She said she thinks the regime is protecting the more seasoned fighters from attacks.

Nevertheless, Ahmad said the United States should still attack Syrian military targets.

“Nobody likes foreign intervention,” she said, “but if it’s going to finish Assad, let it happen. The most important thing is to stop the shelling and killing of innocent people.”

Land agrees, saying many Syrian people would welcome the attack on the regime.

“We want the United States to bomb the vital power centres of the government, including the soldiers and headquarters of the Syrian Presidential Guard,” Land said, “but we do not want any bombs to hit the country’s infrastructure, including anything that affects the power system.”

The White House said it is not considering options that are focused on “regime change.”

“We are sure that the United States and the West have never had any intentions to help the Syrian people. They could have helped us 28 months ago, when the revolution started,” Land said.

For Land and many Syrians, their main concern is weakening the regime.

“Let me tell you something,” Ahmad said. “We have been subject to shelling for more than two years now. I can’t say that we’re now accustomed to being shelled, but I can say that we can live with [the Western attacks], if it’s going to finish Assad.”

For Abu Yasin, U.S. military strikes are a necessary evil.

Without outside assistance, he said, “there is no hope for the fall of Assad…as the rebels are making very slow progress.” Still, he is “afraid that there will be more victims in the population.”

Media activist Dani al-Qappani also worries about civilian casualties.

Al-Qappani lives in the Damascus suburb of Moaddamiet al-Sham, which was attacked by chemical weapons last week. He said his eyes still hurt from the chemical attack.

Syrians in his town have been “under siege” for a year, he said.

“One year under siege. One year under heavy shilling. One year and our blood is being shed,” al-Qappani said. “We don’t fear death anymore.”

Some Syrians in Moaddamiet al-Sham want to flee to safer areas but can’t, according to al-Qappani. There is no way for them to leave the area since the regime forces surround them.

In the suburbs of Aleppo, former medical student Radwan Kinase said some Syrians have managed to seek refuge in neighbouring Turkey in advance of the U.S. military strikes.

Kinase, who volunteers at local field hospitals in Free Syrian Army-held areas, downplayed the importance of the chemical attacks.

“There is no difference between killing us by shelling, bombing, Scud rockets or killing us by chemical agents,” he said.

Kinase said he expects the United States will hit some targets and then let the fighting continue as before.

“Peace at home, peace in the world” is the official motto of the Turkish Republic. Coined in 1931 by the republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, it implies a causal relationship, but the events this week in Istanbul and dozens of other cities of Turkey suggest that causality can work in reverse order, too.

With protests continuing over the past week, two years of Arab Spring and intense socioeconomic unrest in southern Europe seem to be spilling into Turkey, which until now had stayed out of trouble.

Still, the economy is strong, although not as strong as it has generally been in the past decade. As a result, the similarities Turkey shares with northern and southern Mediterranean countries that are also going through a crisis have more to do with poor leadership.

Financial success, fuelled by foreign direct investment (FDI) in luxury real estate in Istanbul and along Turkey’s Aegean coast and by massive privatisation of state enterprises, has given the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) unparalleled popularity as well as an increasing feeling of invincibility."The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has unparalleled popularity as well as an increasing feeling of invincibility."

Since AKP’s 2011 electoral victory, this sentiment has translated into diminishing transparency and accountability by key government figures. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, AKP’s leader and the Turkish prime minister, and a handful of close collaborators have ostentatiously disregarded calls by trusted advisors to consider the average citizen’s concerns and be more inclusive of the 50 percent of Turkey’s population that has not voted for AKP.

Lack of government transparency, such as in southern Europe, and arrogance towards citizens and their fundamental freedoms, such as in the Middle East, have paved the way to an explosive manifestation of the sense that enough is enough, resulting in three deaths, over 1,000 injuries and 1,700 arrests.

Some observers claim that the crisis started with a kiss, referring to a ban in May by Ankara’s authorities of displays of affection by couples in public areas that triggered youth demonstrations in the capital. Others point to earlier signs of discontent.

In May 2012 and the following fall, Erdogan challenged women’s rights to abortion and caesarean section for giving birth, repeatedly proclaiming that women should have a minimum of three children. Women’s associations took to the streets.

More recently, the Turkish parliament, where the AKP holds 326 of 550 seats, passed legislation severely restricting the promotion and consumption of alcohol, and Erdogan has promised high taxes on alcoholic drinks.

Secularist Turks, some of whom have voted AKP in past elections because of the government’s economic performance, have begun complaining that Erdogan is interfering with people’s lifestyles in an unacceptable way.

At the same time, citizens are tired of an excessively liberal economy that has increased the income gap between the bourgeoisie and the working classes.

The decision to turn Gezi, the only green park in central Istanbul, into a shopping mall and luxury apartment complex was the trigger rather than the cause of the Gezi revolt. Cumhuriyet Avenue, adjacent to the park, has already been demolished to make way to a large complex of expensive shops, residences and shopping malls, while Taksim Square, a landmark of Istanbul, will be converted to a large mosque.

Independent research by a non-governmental organisation published in 2012 showed that Turkey, with a total population of 75 million, possesses 85,000 mosques, 17,000 of which were built in the past 10 years.

In comparison, the country has 67,000 schools, 1,220 hospitals, 6,300 health care centres and 1,435 public libraries. The annual budget of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism is less than half of that of the Directorate General of Religious Affairs, which represents the Sunni Muslims of the country (80 percent of the population).

FDI that has flowed into Turkey since 2002, mostly from Qatari and Saudi investors and U.S. and Dutch pension funds, has concentrated on speculative high-end real estate projects. The number of shopping malls grew from 46 in 2000 to 300 in 2012. Istanbul alone currently has 2 million square metres of malls under construction, according to CBRE, an international consulting firm.

A series of privatisations announced this year – a railway system, the national airline, major energy state enterprises, the highways and bridges network – will provide funds for undertaking grandiose construction projects: a third bridge over the Bosporus, a third airport in Istanbul, an artificial second Bosporus that will facilitate even more premium real estate developments, and the largest mosque in the Middle East, to be built in Istanbul.

The demonstrations that began ten days ago were spontaneous and peaceful and appeared to reflect citizen frustration with aloof state governance, but the zero-tolerance attitude adopted by the police and incendiary statements by Erdogan and certain ministers have transformed them into an unexpected political crisis that has uncertain implications for Turkish democracy.

IPS has spoken with political personalities and well known journalists who have been reluctant to discuss the situation as it evolves.

The personal secretariat of Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish Muslim theologian and head of a worldwide movement promoting moderate Islam and inter-faith dialogue, told IPS that Gulen will issue a statement at the end of this week. Currently living in self-exile in the state of Pennsylvania in the United States, he is followed by millions of Muslims.

As rallies continued Wednesday and student mobilisation has been announced for Thursday, the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, and the vice prime minister, Bulent Arinc, both known for political maturity and moderation, have tried to offer limited excuses for police excessive force.

The true litmus test for the evolution of Turkey’s political climate will take place upon Erdogan’s return from North Africa later this week. But statements similar to those he made before his departure, such as “I will press with the Gezi project—if you don’t want a mall I will build a mosque” or labelling the protesters “marauders”, are unlikely to restore social peace.

To old hands in Turkish politics, the current unrest is reminiscent of the hegemonic style of the Democrat Party leadership of the 1950s.

“In 1957, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and President Celal Bayar were quite confident because they had received 47 percent of the votes in the elections,” said Huseyn Ergun, a veteran politician and current chairman of the Social Democrat Party (SODEP), described.

“They had started to put sanctions on the opposition party and its deputies. They also had an investigation commission in parliament against the opposition and destroyed Istanbul landmarks. You know how all this ended.”

Indeed, their reign ended in 1960 with a military coup, history that Turks are not eager to see repeated in their lifetimes.

A Third World War is not impossible, but fortunately is rather unlikely. Let us explore why, and what can be done to prevent it.

Johan Galtung

The worst-case scenario is a world war between the West — NATO, U.S., EU with Japan-Taiwan-South Korea — and the East—the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with Russia, China, Central Asia as members and India, Pakistan, Iran as observers. With four nuclear powers on each side, and West versus Islam as a major issue. In the centre is the explosive mix of a divided territory (Israel-Palestine) and Jerusalem, a capital divided by a wall.

We have been there before: the Cold War, with West versus Communism as a major issue. In the centre was the explosive mix of a divided Germany, and Berlin, a capital divided by a wall; and a divided Korea, by a demilitarised zone. And yet no direct, hot war, except by proxies; Korea, Vietnam. Why?

No doubt nuclear deterrence was one factor. They went to the brink but turned around–like in the 1962 Cuba-Turkey missile crisis. And no doubt nuclear deterrence also plays a role today, limiting the attacks on Israel, U.S. support for Israeli attacks on Arab-Muslim states ­ Syria-Iran in particular ­and any attack on Russia-China. But nuclear deterrence is not the material out of which positive peace is made: no depolarisation, and certainly no solution and conciliation.

The Cold War NATO-Warsaw Pact system was polarised, with secret police controlling contacts, speech and thoughts, looking for traitors. But the world was not polarised: there was the huge non-aligned movement. Europe was not polarised: there were the 10 neutral, or non-aligned, countries. And ultimately a strong movement against war emerged.

The NATO+-SCO+ system is less polarised, but the world and Europe more. So far, no non-aligned movement, and no strong peace movement.

The United Nations vote showed a 3/4 world united in YES for Palestine, NO to USA-Israel. Both are turning any moral high ground into moral deficit through continued expansion-occupation-siege and invasion-occupation-extrajudicial killings. The world is not against U.S.-Israel defending true homeland borders or 1967 borders but against the force and excesses they seem incapable of reversing. Reverse those policies and they could regain the moral high ground.

But still no actors carrying concrete peace policies like the Helsinki Accords. The reason lies in the difference between the West-Islam and the West-communism conflicts. Islam, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, covers more of the world territory and population than the West, but has few friends outside; unlike the West, emulated and admired by Russia-China-India, by Latin America and Africa. In all but Israel, Islam has a huge and growing diaspora by immigration-birth-conversion. Not a superpower, not an alliance, only “Islamic cooperation”; but present everywhere.

The result is uncertainty and fear: what do they want? A challenge to other worldviews, guaranteed by the freedoms of speech and religion. Islam offers healing togetherness and sharing to a West suffering from materialist individualism and egoism.

But Islam also threatens Western institutions with unwanted change. Western secular states won the struggle against the church with a secularism also exported to the Muslim colonies as loyalty to the state and the empires behind them. Today parts of the Islamic diaspora hit back, demanding loyalty to Alla’h and the ummah (community) beyond loyalty to Western states.

For immigration to be a peace-building effort, immigrants must respect laws and customs of the host country and be met with curiosity and respect in dialogues, for mutual learning benefiting all. If broken by either or both, stop immigration, and build ummah at home.

How about the other danger spots and zones in the world?

Afghanistan is coming to a close, not only with NATO withdrawal–except to guard what it was all about: a base for a possible war with China and an oil pipeline. There may be wars between India and Pakistan, but no other country feels strongly enough about Kashmir to participate. The world is concerned with Israel not because of anti-Semitism, but because of an alliance that may involve so much of the rest of the world.

North Korea has both nuclear arms and missiles, and will neither attack nor be attacked. The fight for peace treaty and normalisation with the U.S. will probably bear fruits, in the interest of all.

Taiwan and China will slowly converge toward a Hong Kong style solution of one country-two systems, Taiwan as part of China yet highly autonomous. Wisdom would urge the same for a limited Tibet. In neither case do we have conflicts out of which a third world war is made. For that to happen the ties have to be tight, like U.S. to other NATO countries and to Israel. Or, presumably, Russia and China to each other.

We are left with West-Islam. The lack of cohesion on the Islamic side helps. But we are missing a non-aligned Hindu India, lined up with the West in any major confrontation. Indonesia and Egypt are on the Islamic side, neutral Yugoslavia no longer exists, Latin America is Christian-West, and Africa is divided.

We need moderates on both sides. Tunisia-Turkey and the non-aligned powers, Egypt and Indonesia. And the West—maybe Germany, experienced in inter-faith dialogue? Germany should play a major peace role!

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

* Johan Galtung, rector of the TRANSCEND Peace University, is author of “The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What?” (www.transcend.org/tup)