Low-paid workers

Editorial Published March 17, 2023 

THE findings of a new global ILO study that 29pc of key workers in essential services, covering health, cleaning and sanitation, education, food systems, security, transportation and manual technical and clerical occupations, are low paid shows how the world treats its real heroes who are expected to carry on with their jobs and serve the rest. Such workers, according to the report, earn 26pc less than other employees. The share of low-paid workers in critical services varies from profession to profession and country to country. In food systems, the share of low-paid key employees is especially high at 47pc, and in cleaning and sanitation at 31pc. Nearly a third of these workers are employed on temporary contracts, although there are considerable country and sectoral differences. In the food industry, 46pc have temporary jobs. A significant number of employees in manual occupations are reported to be on temporary contracts and forced to work longer hours as they lack social protection, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Although we do not have very reliable data in Pakistan regarding the key socioeconomic indicators as they relate to our critical workers, most findings of the ILO study would apply here. In fact, our key workers may be worse off on most indicators when compared to their counterparts in other parts of the world. While the public sector does have some mechanisms to partially compensate them, working conditions in the private sector continue to deteriorate due to lack of government regulations on protecting such employees against arbitrary dismissals or during health and financial emergencies. The systematic destruction of labour unions, which could protect workers’ rights by plugging the gap between employers and their employees, has exacerbated poor conditions in the workplace. The report suggests improvements in working conditions and greater investment in food systems, healthcare, and other key sectors for building economic and social resilience to shocks like the Covid pandemic. One hopes the government will pay heed.

Published in Dawn, March 17th, 2023

AFGHANISTAN

What went wrong?

Touqir Hussain 

Published March 15, 2023 

REGARDLESS of whoever ruled Afghanistan, the country has always been a problem for Pakistan. The latter’s strategic planners may have hoped that with the Afghan Taliban’s return to power the problem would be resolved. Instead, it has worsened.

The Taliban’s rise has reflected the larger failure of Afghanistan that has several architects. Pakistan’s own contribution to the failure may be arguable but not so its Afghanistan policy. The policy had been a failure since the 1990s when the Afghans’ bitter wrangling about the implementation of the Peshawar and Makkah accords, negotiated through Pakistan’s painstaking diplomatic efforts, set the stage for unending conflict in the country.

Pakistan has not been a party to the conflict but has been part of it contributing to the Taliban’s success of which we now face the conseque­nces. The truth is there would have been no TTP had there been no Afghan Taliban. They are but two sides of the same coin.

Afghanistan presented challenges affecting Pakistan’s security and economic future, as well as regional stability. But Islamabad saw it as only a security challenge.

We failed to see that the Taliban’s rise, fall and resurgence was, in fact, the culmination of the long process that began with the overthrow of Afghanistan’s monarchy in 1973. And that the struggles for power triggered by the event had merged and collided with the Soviet invasion in 1979, America’s two Afghanistan wars, and the war against terrorism, impacting the social and political dynamics in Afgha­nis­tan and Pakistan, especially among the Pakhtun population along the border.

It enabled jihadist/sectarian currents present in Pakistan to mingle with other extremist and militant organisations in the region, and transnational networks like Al Qaeda. Afghanistan became a hinterland for some, home to others, and the flagship for all when the Taliban ruled the country. When they lost power, the Taliban’s fight became their fight too.


The Afghans have been badly served by their rulers.

The Taliban have returned to power but lack legitimacy and military control. It can be argued they won through a political deal rather than on the battlefield, and face possible resistance by Afghans and threats from new stakeholders such as the IS-K. It is doubtful if they can ever stabilise Afghanistan. And this would have consequences for Pakistan.

Pakistan failed in its Afghanistan policy, but so did the Americans and Afghans. In a nutshell, the causes of American failure were: lack of knowledge of Afghanistan’s history and culture, poor war aims, the Iraq war distraction, frequent changes of strategy and commanding generals, inept Afghan partners, the dual authority of Kabul government and the US whose interests did not always match, and, last but not least, electoral politics in Washington. Finally, America lost the appetite for failure and simply walked out.

Arguably the biggest failure was of the ruling establishment in Kabul. The Afghans are a great people and nation. They should not be ruled by the Taliban. But they have been badly served by their ruling elite who must share the bulk of the responsibility for what has happened to their hapless country.

Afghanistan has ethnic, linguistic, sectarian and tribal fault lines. Historically, its horizontal power structure has been contested by a Pakhtun-dominated elite run by Kabul and regional strongmen, providing for continued power struggles and conflicts within conflicts.

Its competitive and conflict-prone geopolitical environment has offered opportunities to its neighbours to intervene to their advantage. Neither America’s war nor the Taliban were the answer to Afg­h­a­nistan’s foundat­i­onal challenges.

Kabul should have reached out to Pakistan to jointly find a solution to the Taliban problem, which could have happened only in the complicated context of Pak-Afghan relations. Instead, it tried to use America and India to coerce Pakistan to solve the Taliban problem for them. That was never going to work.

Where do we go from here? Afghanistan is a political challenge with a military dimension — and not a military challenge with a political dimension.

The Afghan policy should be developed in a Foreign Office-led but security establishment-supported process. The pursuit of a declaratory policy by one institution and operational policy by another, with one not knowing what the other was doing, was a prescription for failure. It created credibility problems, affecting foreign policy across the board.

We have to now make the best of a bad situation and help Afghanistan by facilitating its international engagement aimed at neither strengthening nor weakening the Taliban, nor a regime change, all of which are bad options.

The writer, a former ambassador, is adjunct professor Georgetown University and Visiting Senior Research Fellow National University of Singapore.

Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2023

‘Frustrated’ Khamenei pushed for Saudi-Iran deal brokered by China

Reuters 

Published March 17, 2023 

DUBAI: Eager to end its political and economic isolation, Iran had been trying for two years to restore ties with Saudi Arabia, an Arab heavyweight and oil powerhouse.

Last September, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lost patience with the slow pace of bilateral talks and summoned his team to discuss ways to accelerate the process, which led to China’s involvement, according to two Iranian officials.

Beijing’s secret role in the breakthrough announced last week shook up dynamics in the Middle East, where the US was for decades the main mediator, flexing its security and diplomatic muscles.

“The Chinese showed willingness to help both Tehran and Riyadh to narrow the gaps and overcome unresolved issues during the talks in Oman and Iraq,” said an Iranian diplomat involved in the talks.

The deal was struck after a seven-year diplomatic rupture. For Saudi Arabia, a deal could mean improved security. In 2019, Riyadh blamed Tehran for attacks on its oil installations that knocked out half of its supply.

Iran denied involvement. Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi group claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Saudi Arabia’s Finance Minister Mohammed Al Jadaan has said that Saudi investments into Iran could now happen quickly.

Saudi Arabia cut ties with Iran in 2016 after its embassy in Tehran was stormed during a dispute between the two countries over Riyadh’s execution of a prominent Shia leader.

Hostility between the two powers had endangered stability in the Middle East and fuelled regional conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.

Asked whether the Saudi-Iran deal might fray, Wang Di, a Chinese diplomat involved in the talks in Beijing, told reporters the rapprochement was a process without expectations that all issues would be solved overnight.

“The important thing is for both sides to have the sincerity to improve ties,” he said, according to Xinhua news agency reporter Yang Liu on Twitter.

Xi meets Crown Prince

Saudi Arabia, Washington’s most important Arab ally, began exploring ways to open a dialogue with Iran two years ago in Iraq and Oman, said a Saudi official.

This led to a critical moment in December, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Riyadh. In a bilateral meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the president expressed his desire to broker dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“The crown prince welcomed this and promised to send, for us to send to the Chinese side, a summary of the previous rounds of dialogue, a plan on what we think on how we can resume these talks,” said the Saudi official.

In February, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi visited Beijing and the Chinese forwarded Riyadh’s proposals that were accepted by the Iranian side, the official added.

An Iranian official said the deal covered a range of issues, from security concerns to economic and political issues.

“I will not go into details, but we have agreed that neither country will be a source of instability for the other one. Iran will use its influence in the region, particularly in Yemen, to help Riyadh’s security,” the official said.

“Both sides will do their best to preserve security in the Gulf, guarantee the oil flow, work together to resolve regional issues, while Tehran and Riyadh will not get involved in military aggression against each other.”

A Saudi-led coalition has been battling the Houthi movement in Yemen for eight years.

Exactly how much support Iran has given the Houthis, who share a Shia ideology, has never been clear. Gulf countries accuse Iran of interference via “Shia proxies” in the region, something Tehran denies.

“Iran is the main supplier of weapons, training, ideological programmes, propaganda and expertise to the Houthis and we are the main victim. Iran can do a lot and it should do a lot,” said the Saudi official.

Iran chose its senior national security official Ali Shamkhani to lead the negotiations because he is an ethnic Arab, said a regional source who belongs to Khamenei’s inner circle.

“The Chinese showed willingness to help both Tehran and Riyadh to narrow the gaps and overcome unresolved issues during the talks in Oman and Iraq,” said the Iranian diplomat.

“China was the best option considering Iran’s lack of trust towards Washington and Beijing’s friendly ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran. China also will benefit from a calm Middle East considering its energy needs,” said an Iranian official, briefed about the meetings.

After decades of mistrust, ongoing frictions should not come as a surprise. “This agreement does not mean that there will be no issues or conflicts between Tehran and Riyadh. It means that whatever happens in the future it will be in a ‘controlled’ way,” said an Iranian insider, close to Iran’s decision-making elite.

Published in Dawn, March 17th, 2023

Shifting Middle Eastern sands

Zahid Hussain

Published March 15, 2023 

THE unexpected thaw between Saudi Arabia and Iran is a major diplomatic triumph for China. In a rapprochement mediated by Beijing, the two archrivals, which had been engaged in a bitter proxy war in the Middle East for the past several years, have agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations and ease tensions.

The agreement demonstrates the growing assertion of China’s clout in one of the world’s most volatile regions. It also highlights the changing global order, with China playing a bigger role on the world stage.

The détente comes at a time of increasing rivalry between the two superpowers America and China, which threatens to push the world towards a new Cold War. Many analysts describe the agreement signed by the two sides in Beijing last week as an indication of waning US influence in the region. The deal may not bring an end to the deep-rooted rivalry between the two regional powers but it can certainly end discord and open the way for a peaceful resolution of conflicts in the region.

The two countries have agreed to re-establish diplomatic ties and reopen their respective missions within two months. The agreement also affirmed “the respect for the sovereignty of states and the non-interference in internal affairs of states”. Significantly, the trilateral statement released in Beijing last week has also mentioned the 2001 security agreement and the broader 1998 cooperation agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.


Tehran and Riyadh have been locked in a fierce battle for supremacy in the Middle East region for decades. The two have been fighting proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. But the intensification of the civil war in Yemen turned into a flashpoint over the last few years, threatening a wider regional conflagration.

The Saudi-Iran détente comes at a time of increasing rivalry between America and China.

While Saudi Arabia has supported Yemen’s government forces, the Houthi rebels have been backed by Iran. The Yemeni civil war spilled over into Saudi Arabia, with rebel forces targeting oil facilities inside the kingdom. The two countries severed diplomatic ties in 2016 after Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shia cleric, leading a mob in Iran to ransack the Saudi embassy there in protest. That also ended cooperation between the two countries in various fields.

Iran’s nuclear programme has also been a major Saudi security concern, intensifying the rivalry between the two Gulf countries. Their anti-Iran positions had also brought Saudi Arabia and Israel closer. Not surprisingly, both welcomed the decision of the Trump administration to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal.

Over the past few years, Riyadh has been sending out signals that it was ready for greater cooperation with Israel. The kingdom tacitly supported the recognition of Israel by the UAE and some other Gulf countries. But the fear of a backlash from extremist elements stopped Riyadh from openly establishing official relations with Tel Aviv.

Saudi Arabia has long been America’s staunchest Middle East ally. Though the kingdom has remained dependent on Washington for its security, ties between the two cooled under the Biden administration. The frosty reception given to President Joe Biden during his visit to Riyadh last year was a clear message from the de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that it would not be business as usual.

This was in part a reaction to strong criticism by President Biden regarding the alleged role of the crown prince in the murder of Saudi journalist and US resident Jamal Khashoggi. In contrast, President Xi Jinping of China was accorded a red carpet welcome when he visited Riyadh last December. The growing Beijing-Riyadh ties are also dictated by bilateral economic interests. China is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner, with the kingdom being a major supplier of oil to the former.

Riyadh’s move towards reconciliation with Iran is also driven by the crown prince’s Vision 2030 that envisages the diversification of the kingdom’s oil-dependent economy by attracting foreign investments. It also calls for cultural openness of the conservative society.

Meanwhile, there has been a strengthening of bilateral relations between Beijing and Tehran in the past years, with the tightening of US sanctions against the Islamic Republic. China considers Iran strategically important in the changing politics of the region. In 2021, China signed an agreement for an investment of more than $40 billion in infrastructure development in exchange for oil. The Iranian president was given a rousing reception when he visited Beijing earlier this year.

These developments gave China huge diplomatic clout and it played a mediating role between the two bitter rivals. Last week’s agreement was reached after days of secret parleys between Saudi and Iranian officials, facilitated by Beijing. The landmark deal reflects the shifting sands of regional geopolitics. It is also a personal triumph for Chinese President Xi.

The dramatic diplomatic breakthrough came as he was elected for his third term. Being president, party leader and chairman of the Chinese military makes President Xi the most powerful leader in China’s recent history. It gives him absolute power to determine the future course of the country. Under him, there has been significant projection of Chinese power. Internationally, China is now playing a more proactive role. Washington’s move to contain China has further hardened Beijing’s stance. Relations between the US and China have worsened in recent times.

China is now not only challenging US economic leadership far more intensely than before but is also asserting itself more forcefully on the global stage. Its growing economic and political power is seen as a threat to American domination.

President Xi’s ambition of propelling China to centre stage of the global power game represents a sharp departure from the approach of previous Chinese leaders who strictly adhered to the policy of not taking the lead in global conflicts. Focusing its energies on development helped the country become an economic superpower. But now, China is also taking a lead in global affairs. The latest deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran indicates China’s growing assertiveness on the global stage. Beijing’s increasingly proactive role is likely to alter the existing world order.

The writer is an author and journalist.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
Twitter:@hidhussain

Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2023

Will Iran And Saudi Arabia Join Israel And Get The Bomb? – OpEd

March 17, 2023
By IDN
By Thalif Deen

Saudi Arabia and Iran— two archrivals in the Middle East who severed links seven years ago—re-established diplomatic, political and economic relations last week (15 March) in a historic deal brokered by China, one of the world’s major nuclear powers.

Described as a victory for Chinese diplomacy in a volatile region which for long has been the happy hunting grounds of the United States, the rapprochement between a strong ally of the US and a longstanding ally of the Russians and the Chinese was one of the glorious uncertainties of Middle Eastern politics.

The restoration of ties between the two nations was best described by the New York Timesas “among the topsiest and turviest of developments anyone could have imagined, a shift that left heads spinning in capitals around the globe”.

With the Saudis and the Chinese backing Iran, would this new alliance positively or negatively impact the long-outstanding Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal with Iran and the P-5, plus Germany and the European Union (EU)?

The Times said China, one of the signatories to the JCPOA, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. “If Beijing has new sway in Tehran, American officials hope perhaps it could use it to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” the Times said.

But such a scenario is unlikely.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF), a non-profit, public interest organization which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons, told IDN the stunning news of the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran was preceded by just one day by a New York Times report that Saudi Arabia is seeking concessions from the United States, including assistance with its civilian nuclear program, in exchange for normalizing its relations with Israel—a goal long sought by Israel to help isolate Iran.

With the discovery of massive uranium deposits on its territory, Saudi Arabia has made clear its intention to enrich uranium and build nuclear reactors, ostensibly for civilian purposes, with China’s assistance, she said.

But as recently as December, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister fueled speculation that the Kingdom is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, declaring, “If Iran gets an operational nuclear weapon, all bets are off.” [i]

The implications of the China-Iran-Saudi Arabia deal for the revival of the JCPOA are among many head-spinning questions arising from the deal, said Cabasso.

In a lengthy analysis published in the Tehran Times, an Iranian international relations expert, Amir M. Esmaeili, states his belief that chances for the resumption of Iran nuclear talks in the foreseeable future have been increased.

He argues that “China’s efforts to revive the JCPOA as well as Beijing’s friendly relations with both Tehran and Riyadh might encourage Saudi Arabia to persuade the US for a constructive agreement with Iran”.

He adds that the agreement would enhance Iran’s bargaining power at the negotiating table. [ii]

The underlying question is the potential for the future proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. China is interested in preventing nuclear weapons proliferation there, and as a party to the JCPOA, it has a seat at the table.

“But will the JCPOA be revived or transformed, or will Iran and Saudi Arabia join Israel and get the bomb? Only time will tell,” she declared.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IDN the establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran should help with the impasse in nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Two regional countries have been spearheading the tough approach towards Iran’s nuclear program: Israel and Saudi Arabia.

“I would imagine that as part of establishing diplomatic relations, Saudi Arabia and Iran must be making efforts to reconcile their differences on two key conflicts: Iran’s nuclear program and the war in Yemen.”

Suppose these efforts are successful, argued Dr Ramana. In that case, that leaves Israel even more isolated than they already are and hopefully creates more pressure on them to be more open to a diplomatic solution to the situation with Iran’s nuclear program.

Apart from the diplomacy between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the other notable feature of this development is that China brokered it. Again, China’s involvement should also help resolve the situation with Iran’s nuclear program, declared Dr Ramana.

In an interview with IDN, Joseph Gerson, President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, told IDN the Chinese-brokered rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia should be welcomed by people in the United States and elsewhere.

“Tensions between these two brutal autocracies have fueled their deadly proxy war in Yemen and destabilized the politics in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon at considerable costs to the people of those nations.”

“In the United States, we need to move beyond neo-colonial thinking in relation to what was once termed the U.S. Middle East sphere of interest and the zero-sum thinking which is fueling the new and extremely dangerous U.S.-China Cold War,” said Gerson, author of With Hiroshima Eyes and Empire and the Bomb.

“The shock of the Chinese diplomatic coup, which reflects China’s growing diplomatic clout, has upset many U.S. policymakers and members of the U.S. elite because, with its ties to Iran, Beijing has done what the United States could not do and because it reflects increased Chinese influence in the oil-rich Middle East,” he noted.

Despite the Iranian revolution, until the catastrophic failures of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, what was once described as the geopolitical center of the struggle for world power lay almost entirely within the U.S. sphere, he added.

In Washington and beyond, the loss of U.S. Middle East regional hegemony, Gerson said, has been disorienting and is being reconfirmed by the Beijing-Riyadh-Teheran deal.

“But we now live in an increasingly multi-polar world order in which other nations have greater agency and an increased ability to secure the interests of their elite than was the case during the Cold War and immediate post-Cold War eras,” he added.

“The shock of the Chinese-led agreement may, over time, help people in the United States adjust and respond to this new and more complex reality.”

The New York Times described the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to renew normal diplomatic relations as a “win-win-win” agreement, limited to China (which will have increased confidence in its energy supplies), Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Even with the downside of the agreement reinforcing the repressive of the three parties to the deal, there are additional winners, said Gerson.

“Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia will continue to compete for leadership and influence across the Middle East, but their agreement carries the potential of decreasing what has been their destabilization of neighboring nations.”

It will increase pressure on apartheid Israel to respect the rights of Palestinians, he argued. And Middle East peace and stability is in the interests of the U.S. people.

“We can also hope that the Chinese brokered agreement will sober arrogant war hawks in Washington, helping them and people across the United States understand that even if our values and ambitions differ, diplomatic collaboration with China to reduce international tensions, to address the climate emergency, and to increase economic security are in our common interests,” declared Gerson.

[i] Saudi foreign minister: ‘All bets off’ if Iran gets nuclear weapon | Reuters

[ii] Frozen ice melts: China bridges Iran-Saudi ties in the new era – Tehran Times



IDN-InDepthNews offers news analyses and viewpoints on topics that impact the world
and its peoples. IDN-InDepthNews serves as flagship of the International Press Syndicate Group,
partner of the Global Cooperation Council.

50,000 teachers go on strike in New Zealand over cost of living

AFP Published March 17, 2023 

New Zealand teachers and early childhood educators gather outside Wellington’s Parliament House as part of a nationwide strike for better pay and conditions, in Wellington, New Zealand, March 16, 2023. — Reuters

WELLINGTON: Around 50,000 teachers in New Zealand went on strike on Thursday, after union talks with the Ministry of Education aimed at improving salaries and conditions stalled.

Teachers demanding better pay waved placards declaring “can’t afford the dentist” and “too poor to print good signs” as the one-day strike forced kindergartens as well as primary and secondary schools to close across the country.

Trade unions argued that the government’s latest pay offer did not match inflation and that the education sector is at a “crisis point” due to teacher shortages. “A quality education is a fundamental human right,” Chris Abercrombie from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association said.

“Tragically, as teachers we are seeing that right being slowly, and surely, undermined.” Improvements to teacher salaries and working conditions are essential to keep experienced staff and recruit graduates, he said.

Teachers “want to send a message to the government about how serious we are about needing change”, said Mark Potter, president of the New Zealand Educational Institute.

“We all want the best for our students but without changes to the system we can’t give it to them.” Education Minister Jan Tinetti said she was disappointed to see teachers strike and wanted the dispute resolved quickly.

Published in Dawn, March 17th, 2023

Nearly 50,000 teachers strike in New Zealand over cost of living

Issued on: 16/03/2023 -
AFP
Text by: NEWS WIRES

Around 50,000 teachers in New Zealand went on strike on Thursday, after union talks with the Ministry of Education aimed at improving salaries and conditions stalled.

Teachers demanding better pay waved placards declaring "can't afford the dentist" and "too poor to print good signs" as the one-day strike forced kindergartens as well as primary and secondary schools to close across the country.

Trade unions argued that the government's latest pay offer did not match inflation and that the education sector is at a "crisis point" due to teacher shortages.

"A quality education is a fundamental human right," Chris Abercrombie from the Post Primary Teachers' Association said.

"Tragically, as teachers we are seeing that right being slowly, and surely, undermined."

Improvements to teacher salaries and working conditions are essential to keep experienced staff and recruit graduates, he said.

Teachers "want to send a message to the government about how serious we are about needing change", said Mark Potter, president of the New Zealand Educational Institute.

"We all want the best for our students but without changes to the system we can't give it to them."

Education Minister Jan Tinetti said she was disappointed to see teachers strike and wanted the dispute resolved quickly.

The cost of living has become a major political issue in New Zealand as the government struggles to keep a lid on inflation.

Recent figures have suggested that New Zealand'seconomy is shrinking, fuelling fears of a looming recession.

(AFP)

FIFA
Infantino re-elected, Women’s World Cup prize money increased

Agencies Published March 17, 2023 

KIGALI: FIFA president Gianni Infantino gestures during a news conference following the 73rd FIFA Congress at the BK Arena on Thursday.—Reuters

KIGALI: Gianni Infa­ntino has been re-elected as president of FIFA until 2027 after standing unopposed at the congress of world football’s governing body on Thursday.

The 52-year-old Swiss lawyer, who succeeded the disgraced Sepp Blatter in 2016, was waved in for a third term by acclamation, just as he was four years ago, by delegates from the 211 member federations.

“To all those who love me, and I know there are so many, and also those who hate me, I know there are a few: I love you all,” Infantino told delegates in the Rwandan capital, where the voting system did not register the number of dissident voices.

While FIFA statutes currently limit a president to a maximum three four-year terms, Infantino has already prepared the ground to stay until 2031, declaring in December that his first three years at the helm did not count as a full term.

Infantino, who stau­nchly defended Qatar’s hosting of last year’s World Cup as the Gulf state’s treatment of migrant workers, women and the LGBTQ community came under the spotlight, has overseen the expansion of the men’s and women’s World Cups and huge increases in FIFA revenues.

Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness had said she would not support Infa­ntino and tabled a proposal to discuss at the congress “FIFA’s responsibilities to remedy human rights abuses” in relation to the Qatar World Cup and future tournaments.

The Norwegian and Swedish representatives in Kigali displayed their opposition by not joining the delegates who rose to applaud.

On Wednesday, German FA president Bernd Neue­ndorf said he would not back Infantino, citing a lack of transparency from FIFA and insufficient exp­la­na­tions of “why certain decisions are made and who was involved in them”.

However, Infantino’s opponents were not able to put forward a candidate to stand against the man who was once Michel Platini’s number two at UEFA.

Infantino himself took aim at media who have criticised him and world football’s governing body, saying: “I don’t understand why some of you are so mean. I don’t get it.

“Today I was re-elected after receiving more than 200 letters of endorsement, and a standing ovation, so an overwhelming majority has the feeling that I am doing a pretty good job, including in Europe,” he added.

His re-election followed a long speech in which he triumphantly listed his achievements, alternating smoothly between English, French, Spanish and German.

That was after he told audience members a visit to the Kigali Genocide Memorial, which commemorates the 1994 Rwandan genocide, had inspired him to persist during his first campaign for election in 2016.

“What this country has suffered, how this country came back up, is inspiring to the entire world, so I certainly couldn’t give up,” he said.

“There is a lot to be looking forward to,” Infantino added as he turned thoughts to the next four years and declared the 2026 World Cup, the first edition to feature 48 teams, will be “the most inclusive ever”.

FIFA earlier announced that the tournament in North America will feature 104 matches, a huge incr­ease from 64 at the 2022 World Cup, as it will start with 12 groups of four teams.

The upcoming Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand this year will be the first to feature 32 teams, up from 24 at the last edition.

It will also see overall prize money for participating teams increased to $150 million, up sharply from $50 million in 2019 and a huge rise on the $15 million in 2015.

Infantino is also planning to introduce a new, expanded Club World Cup to be played every four years starting in 2025 and featuring 32 teams.

“We need more, not fewer, competitions worldwide,” he told delegates.

Infantino has also announced projected income of $11 billion in the four years to 2026, compared to $7.5 billion over the last four years.

But he said that figure did not include revenues generated by the Club World Cup, suggesting the final amount will be even greater.

Those improved financial results allow FIFA to keep on increasing the amount of money it provides in subsidies to federations, in turn helping ensure many of them will continue to back Infantino.

In order to make football “truly global”, as Infantino says, at a time when leading European clubs are able to hoard talent and wealth, FIFA distributes money evenly.

That means the likes of Trinidad and Tobago and Papua New Guinea receive the same amount as Brazil, and each has one vote at the congress

VISIT SAUDI NOT TO SPONSOR WOMEN’S WORLD CUP

Visit Saudi will not be a sponsor at the women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand later this year, but Infantino has not ruled out future commercial opportunities for gulf nation in women’s football.

The Saudi Arabia tourism board had been touted as a potential sponsor of the expanded 32-team tournament, which drew sharp criticism from a number of quarters, though Infantino says it is all a “storm in a tea cup”.

The greatest ire came from Football Australia (FA), who said there was an “overwhelming consensus that this partnership does not align with our collective vision for the tournament and falls short of our expectations”.

“There were discussions with Visit Saudi, but in the end these did not lead to a contract. So it was a storm in a tea cup,” Infantino said at FIFAs Congress in Kigali on Thursday.

“But having said that, FIFA is an organisation made up of 211 countries. There is nothing wrong with taking sponsorships from Saudi Arabia, China, United States of America, Brazil or India.”

Published in Dawn, March 17th, 2023

What did the US war in Iraq ultimately cost?

America's years-long conflict in Iraq left hundreds of

 thousands dead, millions displaced and cost trillions of

dollars

A convoy of US marines crosses the desert near Diwaniya

 in central Iraq on April 4, 2003.

 AFP

Kyle Fitzgerald

Washington

Mar 16, 2023

The US war in Iraq cost far more than some of the most audacious forecasts in terms of both money and human lives.

Economist Larry Lindsey's $100 billion to $200 billion price tag was dismissed as an overestimate by the administration of president George W Bush, which in 2003 calculated a conflict would be closer to between $50 billion and $60 billion.

And a 2003 analysis from the Brookings Institution that same year estimated the US would face between 100 and 5,000 casualties, compared with up to 100,000 losses for Iraqi military forces and civilians.

But those estimations paled in comparison to the true costs of the war as America's projected 60-day invasion of Iraq turned into a years-long presence in the country and Middle East.

The financial cost of the war in Iraq

READ MORE

Revisiting Colin Powell's UN address that led to war in Iraq

Iraq war: The mass grave hunter who despairs of the nation's future

The US financial commitment spiralled out of control, far topping pre-invasion estimates as Washington poured more and more troops into Iraq.

By 2006 Congress had already provided the Pentagon with $303 billion to be used for direct-war costs.

In 2007 and with the war reaching its peak, Mr Bush sent another 30,000 troops into Iraq.

The Pentagon's non-base funding — funding provided outside its base budget — also peaked at 28 per cent of the department's budget that year and in 2008, the Congressional Budget Office reported.

A Flourish map

A Congressional Research Services Report in 2014 estimated that $815 billion of the $1.6 trillion for military operations were allocated for Iraq.

The CRS also reported that annual war costs decreased from $195 billion at its peak in 2008 to $95 billion in 2014.

It was not until Barack Obama began his term in 2009 that war spending in Iraq trended downwards as US troops began to withdraw from the country.

The wars in Iraq and Syria cost $787 billion, according to a Pentagon 2022 estimate, although it does not include costs such as veteran care, interest paid on debt or other expenses.

Taking into account these costs, the total price of the US war efforts in Iraq is closer to $2 trillion, according to an estimate from Brown University's Cost of War project.

A Flourish map

But even after most troops had withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, costs of the war and other US war-related efforts continued to accumulate.

The $2 trillion price tag on US war in Iraq is only a fraction of the total spending for those counter-terrorism efforts. The entire post-9/11 wars cost the US an $8 trillion, Brown University's project estimated.

The figures include funding appropriated for the war, with veteran care alone costing $1 trillion.

Other contributing factors include State Department/USAID operations, Homeland Security spending and interest on incurred debt.

The human cost of the war in Iraq

Again, the true human costs of the war far passed original estimates before the US invasion.

A Pentagon casualty status published on March 14 reported that US military and civilian casualties totalled 4,431, another almost 32,000 military personnel wounded in action.

But that number fails to include the suicide rate experienced by Iraq war veterans and other veterans of America's post-9/11 wars.

But an overwhelming majority of deaths as a direct result of war violence came from civilians.

A Flourish map

Although not all civilian deaths were recorded, Cost of War estimates that as many as 209,000 Iraqis were killed in the conflict. Hundreds of thousands were also affected by the war's lingering effects such as water supply and sickness.

Another consequence in Iraq and America's post-9/11 wars was the displacement of millions of citizens. Iraqi civilians accounted for 9.2 million of the 38 million displaced as a result of those wars.

Nearly 1.2 million Iraqis are still displaced, the UN High Commission for Refugees reported.

Ninety per cent of Iraqis have not been able to return home for three years, and 70 per cent have not been able to return for at least five years since they left their country.

Updated: March 16, 2023, 8:30 p.m.

Families urge Philippines to work with ICC on ‘drug war’ probe

The court is looking at the deaths of thousands of people after former President Rodrigo Duterte unleashed his brutal ‘drugs war’.

Nanette Castillo grieves over the body of her son Aldrin after he was killed in October 2017 [File: Noel Celis/AFP]

By Michael Beltran
Published On 17 Mar 2023

Manila, Philippines – Families of the victims of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal “drug war” are urging the new government to cooperate after the International Criminal Court (ICC) said it would resume its investigation into the killings.

Llore Pasco, 68, lost two of her sons in May 2017.

According to the police, they were criminals and probably killed by fellow hoodlums or rivals.

Pasco never believed the story. Her sons’ bodies were peppered with bullets and torture marks.

Officially, the incident is still being investigated by the Philippine National Police (PNP) but Pasco says no officer has ever come to ask her questions or share updates on the status of the case.

Pasco joined six other family members in August 2018 to file complaints before the ICC against Duterte and the PNP for murder and crimes against humanity.


“What is Duterte afraid of? He is getting his day in court, a chance to defend himself. That’s more than our loved ones got, they were just executed,” she told Al Jazeera.

Pasco never considered filing a complaint before the Philippine courts because she says the justice system is “notoriously slow for ordinary people like me”.

“How many cops have been punished for their crimes since the drug war?” she said. “Less than the fingers on my hand and yet thousands have died.”

Thousands of people have been killed in the ‘drug war’. The ICC wants to investigate the killings as a possible crime against humanity [File: Aaron Favila/AP Photo]

According to the police, about 6,000 people have died in drug-related operations. But human rights groups and even the Philippines’s Commission of Human Rights have said the number is probably closer to 30,000.

The ICC suspended its investigation in November 2021 when Duterte’s administration said the Philippines was conducting its own review into the killings but in January, the international court said it would resume its work because it was “not satisfied” that Manila was “undertaking relevant investigations”.

Duterte, who cut ties with the ICC after it announced the original investigation, left office last May but the government of his successor Ferdinand Marcos Jr has also reacted coolly to the ICC decision.

Days after the ICC announcement, Juan Ponce Enrile, the president’s chief legal counsel, threatened to have the court’s officials arrested if they stepped on Philippine soil. Marcos Jr, a longtime ally of the Duterte family, had previously criticised the court and said its activities were an “intrusion in [the Philippines’s] internal matters and a threat to [the country’s] sovereignty”.

‘Existential threat’

The antagonism towards the ICC is shared in many areas of the Philippine political system.

In the Congress, former president Gloria Arroyo spearheaded a House Resolution, filed on February 16, for the “unequivocal defence” of Duterte.

Senator Robin Padilla filed a similar resolution four days later in the Senate and said Duterte was only fighting illegal drugs because “it is an existential threat to the country’s social fabric”.

At a press conference after the ICC announcement, Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla said the court was “insulting us”. Speaking on television, he said the Philippines was not shielding anyone from prosecution and insisted the involvement of the ICC was “not practical” because it would undermine the country’s courts.

Like Marcos, Remulla insists the ICC has no jurisdiction but the court says it has the authority to investigate alleged crimes that occurred in the Philippines during the nearly eight years the country was a party to the Rome Statute, under which the ICC was established.

Duterte’s drug war began and was at its height in 2016 but he only pulled the Philippines out of the Rome Statute in 2019

.

New president Ferdinand Marcos Jr (second right) is a long  time ally of the Duterte family [File: Manman Dejeto/AP Photo]

The ICC has said the Philippine government is appealing the court’s announcement that it will resume its work. Meanwhile, the court told Al Jazeera it planned to increase engagement with civil society in the Philippines and broaden cooperation in the region.

“Now that the investigation is authorised to continue, the Office of the Prosecutor will pursue its efforts to deliver justice to victims in the Philippines,” the ICC spokesperson said.

Relatives of victims like Pasco have also organised support networks that campaign for justice.

Pasco is a leader with Rise Up for Life and Rights, a large alliance that has established links with various faith-based groups and is pushing the government “to assist and welcome” the international court. It was also part of the complaint filed by the relatives of the victims.

Nanette Castillo is also cautiously optimistic about the resumption of the ICC investigation.

Her only son Aldrin, 20, was killed in October 2017 while crossing the street in Quezon City. He was allegedly attacked by seven masked men on motorcycles and shot five times; three of the bullets lodged in his head. Castillo tried for months to get the police reports on her son’s murder, which was classified as a “death under investigation” but gave up in 2018.


The Human Rights Commission has said his killing was a case of mistaken identity.

“Many of us are hoping but not too much,” she said. “We know it will take a while and we don’t want to get disappointed if nothing comes of it. I just want our officials to see our pain. Don’t they have children as well?”

Castillo says she would often travel a couple of hours to the PNP headquarters in Manila to try and get more information on her son’s case. But she says the officers at the station were uncooperative and unwilling to help her.

“After many tries, they finally gave me a copy of the spot report. But for the police report, they wanted to hand it to me at 12 midnight in the station. I was too afraid to go and so I never went back,” she said. A spot report refers to the immediate incident report while the police report is produced later and is more detailed.

Representing the victims’ families at the ICC, lawyer Kristina Conti argues that the critical failure of the administration is “the pervasive acceptance that because the ‘war on drugs’ is a government policy, it is untouchable and unassailable, and the accompanying insidious assertion that the abuses are not policy.”

Conti cautions that having a working judiciary is also no guarantee of justice.

“It’s also about how other branches of government have ensured no rights violations or abuses, how they have ascribed accountability, how they have dealt with bad policies,” she told Al Jazeera.

Catholic priest Flavie Villanueva blesses the urns of men killed in the drug war

 [File: Eloisa Lopez/Reuters]

Sheryll Ceasico, a teacher in one of the poorest districts of Manila, says “whatever cover-up they try to do, people like me are living proof of the crimes they committed”.

Ceasico’s brother surrendered himself to the police as a former drug user early on in Duterte’s drug war. He thought it would reduce the risk of violence.

Three days later, Ceasico says she saw a masked man break into their house and kill her brother with four gunshots.

“There are still so many of us. Our testimonies have not yet been heard by the ICC or any court,” she told Al Jazeera.

 KEEP READING

Philippine police officer jailed for killing teens in ‘drug war’  

ICC to resume investigation into Philippines’s deadly drug war

Senior Philippine police urged to resign to ‘cleanse’ force

ICC prosecutor to reopen Philippines ‘drug war’ investigation

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

STATE CAPITALI$M

China to create powerful financial watchdog run by Communist Party

BEIJING - China will set up a financial watchdog run by the Communist Party, state media reported on Thursday, as part of a broad reorganisation of governing bodies set to give the ruling party direct control and supervision over financial affairs.

The creation of the Central Financial Commission will see the dissolution of the state-run Financial Stability and Development Committee, a powerful body set up in 2017 and headed by former vice-premier Liu He to curb risks in China’s complex and often opaque financial system.

The new watchdog will be responsible for the top-level design, development and supervision of the financial sector, strengthening “unified leadership on financial work”, according to a plan published by state media.

To strengthen the ideological and political role of the party in China’s overall financial system, a separate Central Financial Work Commission will also be established.

The reorganisation of party and state-run financial bodies comes after Xi Jinping secured a precedent-breaking third term as party leader in October and also a new term as president earlier this month, making him China’s most powerful leader since Mao Zedong.

“The line between the party and the government has become decisively blurred, so there is no way that the new financial watchdogs will contradict with what the party wants,” said Mr Yan Wang, chief China strategist at Alpine Macro, a global investment firm based in Montreal.

Reuters previously reported that Beijing was planning to resurrect an elite party financial watchdog that operated between 1998 and 2003 to increase political control over the financial sector.

It would be headed by a member of the seven-member Politburo Standing Committee, the party’s top decision-making body helmed by Mr Xi, sources previously said.

The revival of the high-level oversight body comes as Chinese leaders race to inject new momentum in the world’s second-largest economy battered by three years of heavy Covid-19 curbs, a protracted property slump and weak external demand for the country’s exports.

“From investors’ point of view, the near-term impact of the regulatory overhaul is unlikely to be significant. Promoting growth is clearly Beijing’s top priority, so it is unlikely to upset the market and hurt the economy with drastic policy changes,” Mr Wang said.

A detailed reform plan for state institutions was released during China’s annual parliamentary meeting that concluded on Monday.

Under the State Council, helmed by the new Premier Li Qiang, China will establish the National Financial Regulatory Administration tasked with regulating the country’s US$57 trillion (S$76 trillion) financial industry, excluding the securities sector.

The banking and insurance regulator will be abolished, and certain functions of the central bank and securities regulator will be transferred to the new financial administration.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
China corruption watchdog says crackdowns will continue to prevent Communist Party's decline

China’s economy shows signs of recovery, though impact of Covid-19 curbs persist

‘Party-inzation’

Separately, China will establish a new Central Technology Commission to strengthen the party’s centralised leadership over science and technology.

A Central Office for Hong Kong and Macau overseen by the party will be set up to supervise the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy, and implement the governance of the central government in the two administrative regions.

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office under the State Council will be abolished.

China aims to complete the reorganisation of central government institutions by the end of 2023.

Mr Carl Minzner, senior fellow at US think tank the Council of Foreign Relations, said he expected an increasing trend towards the “Party-ization” of China’s bureaucracy, with party organs steadily assuming roles once held by state bureaucracies, or even directly absorbing them.

“This both reflects Xi Jinping’s drive to reassert the party’s dominance over state and society alike, and represents a steady erasure of the limited boundaries between party and state that Chinese authorities themselves had attempted to draw during the post-1978 reform era.” REUTERS

UNFAIR COMPETITION CRIES UNCLE SAM
China's Speed in Selling Arms Prompt US Partners to Buy From Beijing, Say Officials

March 16, 2023 
Jeff Seldin

General Michael E. Kurilla testifies during a Senate committee hearing March 16, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

WASHINGTON —

China's ability to move quickly on military sales is costing the United States in two key regions and could have even more dire consequences in the years to come, top U.S. military officers are warning lawmakers.

The blunt assessments from the commanders of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and South Asia, and from U.S. Africa Command come as a growing number of defense officials voice concerns about the rapid military modernization that has already made China the Pentagon's "pacing challenge."

"This is a race to integrate before China can penetrate," Central Command's General Michael Kurilla told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, pointing to an 80% increase in Chinese military sales to the region over the past 10 years.

"Our security partners have real security needs, and we are losing our ability to provide our equipment," he said, citing long waits for U.S. military sales to be approved and for the equipment to be delivered.

"What China does is they come in [and] they open up their entire catalog. They give them express shipping. They give them no end-user agreement. And they give them financing," Kurilla said. "They are much faster."



Africa Command's General Michael Langley shared a similar story regarding U.S. partners on the African continent.

"Even with our significant security cooperation initiative, that process is not any faster," Langley said.

"The sense of urgency, especially in West Africa, across the Sahel, across Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Benin and Togo, they need equipment. They need weapons now," he told lawmakers. "So, they make choices, and they make the wrong choices in going with the PRC or Russia for, especially, lethal aid."

Such concerns about China’s weapons sales are not new and have persisted despite Washington’s overall dominance in arms exports.

According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the U.S. was the world’s top weapons exporter from 2018 to 2022, accounting for 40% of all arms exports. China ranked fourth, accounting for just over 5% of sales.

State Department data released earlier this year said arms sales by the U.S. government jumped even higher, growing by almost 50% in fiscal year 2022 to $51.9 billion, buoyed in part by the war in Ukraine. Commercial arms sales also increased, hitting $153.7 billion.

Still, U.S. defense and intelligence officials have been continually warning about the impact of arms deals between Beijing and African countries, in particular, for years. One report, in February 2020, noted China even then was supplementing the sales to African countries with military and technical training.



And SIPRI data, analyzed in a report issued this month by the Washington-based Atlantic Council, showed that China is gaining a considerable edge in sub-Saharan Africa, where Beijing recorded more than $2 billion in arms sales between 2010 and 2021, trailing only Russia.

More recently, between 2017 and 2020, Chinese arms exports to sub-Saharan Africa outpaced the United States by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1, the report said.

The commanders of CENTCOM and AFRICOM told lawmakers Thursday that the more China is able to make inroads with arms sales, the more the U.S. will struggle to work with countries that would otherwise choose to be partners with Washington.

"If there's Chinese equipment there, we cannot integrate it with U.S. equipment," Kurilla said.

"Whether that's a radar or whether that's an actual air defense system, we can't let that touch our network based on what we know about the Chinese equipment," he said, describing the Chinese outreach in the Middle East as aggressive.

But there are concerns from some researchers that the data, which give many cause for alarm, do not give a full picture.

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers program, said despite overall growth in Chinese arms exports over the past two decades, sales over the past five years fell by 23%.

"Expectations about Chinese arms exports based on the rapidly developing quality and advancement of the products that [they] have on offer haven't really come true yet," he said Wednesday at a webinar hosted by the Washington-based Stimson Center.

"We also see that China has not been able to become a major supplier to at least one region where you would expect it to have significant chances to develop as such, and that is in the Middle East," Wezeman said. "We haven't seen any major sales of things like submarines or combat aircraft to Saudi Arabia or Qatar or any of the other larger recipients in the Middle East. We've even seen that Chinese exports to Egypt have decreased."

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY