Monday, January 26, 2015

Video Music - GRL - Ugly Heart

Music Video - Ella Henderson - Ghost

Music Video - Tajik song Anisa/Аниса

Fidel Castro breaks silence on Cuba-US landmark talks

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has broken his silence over Cuba and the United States' attempts to repair relations between the two countries.

Castro, 88, said while he does not trust the politics of the US, differences between the two nations should be resolved.

They are the first comments made by the ex-president since the US and Cuba, now led by his younger brother Raul Castro, held historic high-level talks to restore diplomatic ties last month.
"I don't trust the policy of the United States nor have I had an exchange with them, but this does not mean a rejection of a peaceful solution to conflicts or the dangers of war," Castro - who retired due to poor health in 2008 - said.
"We will always defend cooperation and friendship with all the peoples of the world, among them our political adversaries."
The comments were made in a statement sent to a student federation and read at the University of Havana.

His initial silence on the talks had sparked speculation over the 88-year-old's health and whether he supported his brother's efforts to form closer ties with the US.

Video - IRAN - How to produce alcohol in a Sharia-controlled country? FRANCE24 gives you the recipe

Opinion: Western leaders' double standards on Saudi Arabia are breathtaking

By Eman El-Husseini

In a day and age where the justice system and western ideals on human rights are constantly in the spotlight because of their double standards, I must say the straw that broke the camel’s back is most definitely the death of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. Western dignitaries extended their condolences and took it a step further by praising the late King for – wait for it – his reform and – you won’t believe this – feminism! The list of commonalities between ISIS and the Saudi Royal family is endless. Yet ISIS is a brutal and barbaric terrorist organization and King Abdullah is a progressive who has left us way too soon, at age 90.

This is the same country – the only country in the whole wide world – to not allow women to drive, to name but merely one of their contributions to feminism. I am pretty sure ISIS is OK with women driving.
To add to the late King’s progressive ruling: Christians in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to practise their faith openly. Nevertheless western leaders made time in their busy schedules to commend his Majesty for his progressive ways by attending his funeral. This is the same King whom U.S. President Barack Obama, leader of the free world, was rumoured to kneel down to. I get it, oil to a politician is like crack to an addict. But where are the leaders who are addicted to nobility? Got equality anyone?
Maybe hypocrisy is simply innate to us human beings. In fact I first noticed it at a very young age, with our parents telling us things like ”Do as I say not as I do” or ”If your friends jump off a cliff, will you do it too?” or ”I don’t care what Tommy does, he is not my child.” And sometimes, ”Why can’t you be more like Tommy? He is so obedient and studious.” This must be the reason therapists need a revolving door to their office.
As a Middle Eastern Westerner, I grew up knowing all too well that life isn’t meant to be fair, but that shouldn’t be acceptable. It is not right that members of half the world’s population are not equals. It doesn’t matter that we have it a lot better in the West as women than we would in the developing world. A lot better is still not equal, not just, not fair.
We are constantly reminded that rules only apply to the less fortunate and justice only to the wealthy. I am grateful for my ability to speak out without being persecuted, but it is not sufficient. Just because it is worse somewhere else doesn’t mean we don’t have to challenge, question and better ourselves. I’m thrilled the Unites States has a black president, but that doesn’t erase racism. I hate driving, but I’m glad I can do it, although gas is expensive and I don’t get paid as much as Tommy does.
As a Muslim, I take it upon myself to condemn terrorist attacks in the name of Islam to dispel misinterpretations used by terrorist organizations and Fox News alike. I don’t know about you, but democracy and freedom of speech are starting to look a lot like our daily horoscopes – it sure sounds pretty, but it’s far from reality.
I hope our elected Western leaders got a barrel of oil for attending the funeral of King Abdullah and perhaps caught a public flogging while they were there.

Expert: What Obama's India visit means to China

By Swaran Singh

India may be pushed back against China once again. This, in essence, is the line many media commentaries have been taking. It is this backdrop that makes US President Barack Obama's visit as the chief guest at India's Republic Day parade on Jan 26 interesting. His visit follows that of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who visited India last year in same capacity and whose second visit is expected in the near future.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's hyperactive foreign policy has triggered speculation of all kinds. Modi has been warming up to his decades-long detractor, the United States - reflected in the back-to-back visits of American secretaries of commerce, defense and state and more than a dozen other senior officials, making India the largest buyer of American weapons and the US the largest trading partner of India. US allies have taken this as a signal to indulge India's new leadership.
Or, are the US allies leading India up the garden path in New Delhi. The fact that Japan and India both have territorial disputes with China is often seen as the reason for the bonhomie between the second- and third-largest economies in Asia. Indeed, Japan was the only developed country not to shun Modi when he, as chief minister of the province of Gujarat, was accused of violating human rights.
India today seems friendly with all major powers, raising questions on how it will balance its engagements with the US and its allies on one hand and China and Russia on the other. Just three years ago, China was India's largest trading partner, and Russia was seen as the largest supplier of its defense technologies.
Even today China remains an important trading partner; in fact, it recently promised to invest $20 billion to revive India's manufacturing sector, especially the power generation sector. This, seen against the backdrop of the hyperactive bonhomie among emerging economies, such as the member states of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) and RIC (Russia, India and China), has been worrying Western powers facing economic slowdown since 2007.
Apart from China's unprecedented rise, its increasing assertiveness in regional and global matters is often cited as a possible trigger for India's policy drift in favor of Western countries. Modi's repeated mention of "expansionism" and maritime terrorism, underlining the need to ensure freedom of navigation and over-flights suits the US, which has introduced the "pivot to Asia" and proposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership to counter China's rise.
Although India's DNA will never allow it to become a close ally of the US and its leadership can never be imprudent enough to adopt a policy of containing China, there is no doubt that China's continuous rise has become a matter of concern for New Delhi.
One of the principal reasons Modi won the election last year was his promise to reverse the tide of scandals and policy paralysis, and focus on development and justice. But Modi must realize that since the Chinese economy has increased from 2.5 times that of India's in 2000 to five times today, he has to focus on economic diplomacy and build partnerships with one and all to replicate China's policies.
Although it could lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings, Modi sees no contradiction in pursuing friendly ties with both, the US and China. Calibrating various competing interests and balancing various competing domestic constituencies calls for bold initiatives at home and diplomatic finesse in foreign policy. And it is the duty of India's partners, including China, to ensure that their mutual trust-deficit is not allowed to derail their expanding partnerships.

Video Report - Pakistan protesters demand public hangings for school killers

Moscow: Lavrov could meet with both sides of Moscow forum on Syria on Wednesday

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the meetings on the crisis in Syria aim at providing an avenue for discussion among all Syrian sides, noting all the participating parties agree on the necessity of establishing peace and combating terrorism in Syria.
In a press conference on Monday, Lavrov said that the inter-Syrian meetings, which are held in Moscow on Monday and Tuesday with the participation of representatives of various opposition factions, aren’t talks, as these meetings seek to provide an avenue and a forum for discourse and discussions with representatives of the Syrian government who will join the meetings, with the goal of establishing direct contact.
He noted that there are no set tasks or goals for this meeting; rather it’s merely an effort to reinvigorate dialogue without conditions to pave the way towards resolving the crisis in Syria.
Lavrov stressed that Russia will continue its efforts along with Egypt and other countries that are interested in resolving the crisis in Syria peacefully, with the aim of creating conditions that permit launching comprehensive dialogue sponsored by the UN.
Meanwhile, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said Lavrov could participate in a meeting that would bring together representatives of the Syrian government and the “opposition” on Wednesday in Moscow.
Bogdanov, who is the Russian President’s Special Representative for the Middle East and Africa Affairs, told journalists in the Russian capital that if all the participants invited to the forum on both sides come to meet together, and there are constructive talks, then a meeting with the Foreign Minister could be planned.
He pointed out that 28 representatives of the “opposition” groups have arrived in Moscow so far. Those have already started consultations.
Sources in Moscow say that the meetings have been referred to as a forum because they are consultative meetings that could pave the way for a dialogue to be convened later in Moscow or Damascus. That depends on the outcomes of the meetings between the government and the opposition delegations, which start on Wednesday.
On Sunday, Lavrov and U.S. State Secretary John Kerry discussed in a phone call the situation in Syria and means to resolve the crisis in it in light of the Moscow inter-Syrian meeting.

A Conversation With Bashar al-Assad - Syria's President Speaks

The civil war in Syria will soon enter its fifth year, with no end in sight. On January 20, Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus to discuss the conflict in an exclusive interview.

I would like to start by asking you about the war. It has now been going on for almost four years, and you know the statistics: more than 200,000 people have been killed, a million wounded, and more than three million Syrians have fled the country, according to the UN. Your forces have also suffered heavy casualties. The war cannot go on forever. How do you see the war ending?

All wars anywhere in the world have ended with a political solution, because war itself is not the solution; war is one of the instruments of politics. So you end with a political solution. That’s how we see it. That is the headline.
You don’t think that this war will end militarily?
No. Any war ends with a political solution.
Your country is increasingly divided into three ministates: one controlled by the government, one controlled by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and one controlled by the more secular Sunni and Kurdish opposition. How will 

you ever put Syria back together again?
First of all, this image is not accurate, because you cannot talk about ministates without talking about the people who live within those states. The Syrian people are still with the unity of Syria; they still support the government. The factions you refer to control some areas, but they move from one place to another—they are not stable, and there are no clear lines of separation between different forces. Sometimes they mingle with each other and they move. But the main issue is about the population. The population still supports the state regardless of whether they support it politically or not; I mean they support the state as the representative of the unity of Syria. So as long as you have the Syrian people believing in unity, any government and any official can unify Syria. If the people are divided into two, three, or four groups, no one can unify this country. That’s how we see it.
You really think that the Sunnis and the Kurds still believe in a unified Syria?
If you go to Damascus now, you can see all the different, let’s say, colors of our society living together. So the divisions in Syria are not based on sectarian or ethnic grounds. And even in the Kurdish area you are talking about, we have two different colors: we have Arabs more than Kurds. So it’s not about the ethnicity; it’s about the factions that control certain areas militarily.
A year ago, both the opposition and foreign governments were insisting that you step down as a precondition to talks. They no longer are. Diplomats are now looking for an interim settlement that would allow you to keep a role. Just today,The New York Times had an article that talked about increased U.S. support for the Russian and UN peace initiatives. The article refers to “the West’s quiet retreat from its demands that Syria’s president step down immediately.” Given this shift in the Western attitude, are you now more open to a negotiated solution to the conflict that leads to a political transition?
From the very beginning, we were open. We engaged in dialogue with every party in Syria. Party doesn’t mean political party; it could be a party, a current, or some personality; it could be any political entity. We changed the constitution, and we are open to anything. But when you want to do something, it’s not about the opposition or about the government; it’s about the Syrians. Sometimes you might have a majority that doesn’t belong to any side. So when you want to make a change, as long as you’re talking about a national problem, every Syrian must have a say in it. When you have a dialogue, it’s not between the government and the opposition; it’s between the different Syrian parties and entities. That’s how we look at dialogue. This is first. Second, whatever solution you want to make, at the end you should go back to the people through a referendum, because you’re talking about the constitution, changing the political system, whatever. You have to go back to the Syrian people. So engaging in a dialogue is different from taking decisions, which is not done by the government or the opposition.
So you’re saying that you would not agree to any kind of political transition unless there is a referendum that supports it?
Exactly. The people should make the decision, not anyone else.
Does that mean there’s no room for negotiations?
No, we will go to Russia, we will go to these negotiations, but there is another question here: Who do you negotiate with? As a government, we have institutions, we have an army, and we have influence, positive or negative, in any direction, at any time. Whereas the people we are going to negotiate with, who do they represent? That’s the question. When you talk about the opposition, it has to have meaning. The opposition in general has to have representatives in the local administration, in the parliament, in institutions; they have to have grass roots to represent on their behalf. In the current crisis, you have to ask about the opposition’s influence on the ground. You have to go back to what the rebels announced publicly, when they said many times that the opposition doesn’t represent us—they have no influence. If you want to talk about fruitful dialogue, it’s going to be between the government and those rebels. There is another point. Opposition means national; it means working for the interests of the Syrian people. It cannot be an opposition if it’s a puppet of Qatar or Saudi Arabia or any Western country, including the United States, paid from the outside. It should be Syrian. We have a national opposition. I’m not excluding it; I’m not saying every opposition is not legitimate. But you have to separate the national and the puppets. Not every dialogue is fruitful.
Does that mean you would not want to meet with opposition forces that are backed by outside countries?
We are going to meet with everyone. We don’t have conditions.
No conditions?
No conditions.
You would meet with everyone?
Yes, we’re going to meet with everyone. But you have to ask each one of them: Who do you represent? That’s what I mean.
If I’m correct, the deputy of the UN representative Staffan de Mistura is in Syria now. They’re proposing as an interim measure a cease-fire and a freeze in Aleppo. Would you agree to that?
Yes, of course. We implemented that before de Mistura was assigned to his mission. We implemented it in another city called Homs, another big city. We implemented it on smaller scales in different, let’s say, suburbs, villages, and so on, and it succeeded. So the idea is very good, but it depends on the details. De Mistura came to Syria with headlines. We agreed upon certain headlines, and now we are waiting for him to bring a detailed plan or schedule—A-to-Z plan, let’s say. We are discussing this with his deputy.
In the past, you insisted as a precondition for a cease-fire that the rebels lay down their weapons first, which obviously from their perspective was a nonstarter. Is that still your precondition?
We choose different scenarios or different reconciliations. In some areas, we allowed them to leave inhabited areas in order to prevent casualties among civilians. They left these areas with their armaments. In other areas, they gave up their armaments and they left. It depends on what they offer and what you offer.
I’m not clear on your answer. Would you insist that they lay down their weapons?
No, no. That’s not what I mean. In some areas, they left the area with their armaments—that is what I mean.
Are you optimistic about the Moscow talks?
What is going on in Moscow is not negotiations about the solution; it’s only preparations for the conference.
So talks about talks?
Exactly—how to prepare for the talks. So when you start talking about the conference, what are the principles of the conference? I’ll go back to the same point. Let me be frank: some of the groups are puppets, as I said, of other countries. They have to implement that agenda, and I know that many countries, like France, for example, do not have any interest in making that conference succeed. So they will give them orders to make them fail. You have other personalities who only represent themselves; they don’t represent anyone in Syria. Some of them never lived in Syria, and they know nothing about the country. Of course, you have some other personalities who work for the national interest. So when you talk about the opposition as one entity, who’s going to have influence on the other? That is the question. It’s not clear yet. So optimism would be an exaggeration. I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic. I would say we have hope, in every action.
It seems that in recent days, the Americans have become more supportive of the Moscow talks. Initially, they were not. Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry said something to suggest that the United States hopes that the talks go forward and that they are successful.
They always say things, but it’s about what they’re going to do. And you know there’s mistrust between the Syrians and the U.S. So just wait till we see what will happen at the conference.
So what do you see as the best way to strike a deal between all the different parties in Syria?
It’s to deal directly with the rebels, but you have two different kinds of rebels. Now, the majority are al Qaeda, which is ISIS and al-Nusra, with other similar factions that belong to al Qaeda but are smaller. Now, what’s left, what Obama called the “fantasy,” what he called the “moderate opposition”—it’s not an opposition; they are rebels. Most of them joined al Qaeda, and some of them rejoined the army recently. During the last week, a lot of them left those groups and came to the army.
Are these former defectors who came back?
Yes, they came back to the army. They said, “We don’t want to fight anymore.” So what’s left of those is very little. At the end, can you negotiate with al Qaeda, and others? They are not ready to negotiate; they have their own plan. The reconciliation that we started and Mr. de Mistura is going to continue is the practical solution on the ground. This is the first point. Second, you have to implement the Security Council resolution, no. 2170, on al-Nusra and ISIS, which was issued a few months ago, and this resolution is very clear about preventing anyone from supporting these factions militarily, financially, or logistically. Yet this is what Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are still doing. If it’s not implemented, we cannot talk about a real solution, because there will be obstacles as long as they spend money. So this is how we can start. Third, the Western countries should remove the umbrella still referred to by some as “supporting the moderate opposition.” They know we have mainly al Qaeda, ISIS, and al-Nusra.
Would you be prepared to take any confidence-building measures in advance of the talks? For example, prisoner exchanges, or ending the use of barrel bombs, or releasing political prisoners, in order to build confidence on the other side that you’re willing to negotiate in good faith?
It’s not a personal relationship; it’s about mechanisms. In politics, you only talk about mechanisms. You don’t have to trust someone to do something. If you have a clear mechanism, you can reach a result. That is what the people want. So the question is, what is the mechanism that we can put in place? This takes us back to the same question: Who are they? What do they represent? What’s their influence? What is the point of building trust with people with no influence?
When two parties come together, it’s often very useful for one party to show the other that it’s really interested in making progress by taking steps unilaterally to try and bring down the temperature. The measures that I described would have that effect.
You have something concrete, and that is reconciliation. People gave up their armaments; we gave them amnesty; they live normal lives. It is a real example. So this is a measure of confidence. On the other hand, what is the relation between that opposition and the prisoners? There’s no relation. They are not their prisoners anyway. So it is completely a different issue.
So have you offered amnesty to fighters?
Yes, of course, and we did it many times.
How many—do you have numbers?
I don’t have the precise numbers, but it’s thousands, not hundreds, thousands of militants.
And are you prepared to say to the entire opposition that if you lay down your weapons, you will be safe?
Yes, I said it publicly in one of my speeches.
And how can you guarantee their safety? Because they have reasons to distrust your government.
You cannot. But at the end, let’s say that if more than 50 percent succeed, more than 50 percent in such circumstances would be a success. So that’s how. Nothing is absolute. You have to expect some negative aspects, but they are not the major aspects.
Let me change the subject slightly. Hezbollah, Iran’s Quds Force, and Iranian-trained Shiite militias are all now playing significant roles in the fight against rebels here in Syria. Given this involvement, are you worried about Iran’s influence over the country? After all, Iraq or even Lebanon shows that once a foreign military power becomes established in a country, it can be very difficult to get them to leave again.
Iran is an important country in this region, and it was influential before the crisis. Its influence is not related to the crisis; it’s related to its role, its political position in general. When you talk about influence, various factors make a certain country influential. In the Middle East, in our region, you have the same society, the same ideology, many similar things, the same tribes, going across borders. So if you have influence on one factor, your influence will be crossing the border. This is part of our nature. It’s not related to the conflict. Of course, when there is conflict and anarchy, another country will be more influential in your country. When you don’t have the will to have a sovereign country, you will have that influence. Now, the answer to your question is, Iran doesn’t have any ambitions in Syria, and as a country, as Syria, we would never allow any country to influence our sovereignty. We wouldn’t accept it, and the Iranians don’t want it either. We allow cooperation. But if you allowed any country to have influence, why not allow the Americans to have influence in Syria? That’s the problem with the Americans and with the West: they want to have influence without cooperation.
Let me just push you a little bit further. Last week, a commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, of their airspace command, Hajizadeh, said in an interview in Der Spiegel that Iran’s supreme leader has ordered his forces to build and operate missile plants in Syria. That suggests that Iran is playing a greater role and doing it on its own.
No, no. Playing a role through cooperation is different from playing a role through hegemony.
So everything that Iran is doing ... ?
Of course, in full cooperation with the Syrian government, and that’s always the case.
Now Iran is one thing to deal with because it’s a country. But you also have militias, which are substate actors and therefore more complicated. One problem with working with these groups is that, unlike a government, they may not be willing to cooperate and it’s not always clear who to talk to. Are you worried about your ability to control these forces and to rein them in if you need to? And, a related question, this week, Israel attacked Hezbollah forces in the Golan Heights, and the Israelis suggest that they attacked them because Hezbollah was planning an attack on Israel from Syrian territory. Doesn’t this also highlight the danger of allowing militias with their own agendas, not necessarily your agenda, to come into the war?
Do you mean Syrian, or any other militias in general?
I mean especially Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite militias.
It’s natural to say that only the institutions of the government, of the state, let’s say, are the guarantee for stability and to put things in order. Any other factor that would play a role in parallel with the government could be positive, could be good in certain circumstances, but it will always have side effects, negative side effects. That is a natural thing. And having militias who support the government is a side effect of the war. You have it, but you’re going to try to control this side effect. Nobody will feel more comfortable than if they are dealing with government institutions, including the army and the police and so on. But talking about what happened in Quneitra is something completely different. Never has an operation against Israel happened through the Golan Heights since the cease-fire in 1974. It has never happened. So for Israel to allege that there was a plan for an operation—that’s a far cry from reality, just an excuse, because they wanted to assassinate somebody from Hezbollah.
But the Israelis have been very careful since the war began to not get involved except when they felt their interests were directly threatened.
That’s not true, because they’ve been attacking Syria now for nearly two years, without any reason.
But in each case, they say it’s because Hezbollah was being given weapons from Iran through Syria.
They attacked army positions. What is the relation between Hezbollah and the army?
Those were cases where the army accidentally shelled ...
Those are false allegations.
So what do you think Israel’s agenda is?
They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they make an attack in order to undermine the army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke: “How can you say that al Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force.”
To return to my question about militias, do you feel confident that you’ll be able to control them when this war ends? Because after all, to have effective sovereignty, any government has to have what’s called a monopoly of force, and that’s very hard when you have these independent armed groups running around.
That’s self-evident: the state cannot fulfill its commitment to society if it’s not the only master of order.
But you see in Iraq how hard that is. It is now very difficult for the government to control all the Shiite militias that were empowered during the war.
There’s a very important reason in Iraq: it’s because Paul Bremer didn’t create a constitution for the state; he created one for factions. Whereas in Syria, why did the army stand fast for four years in spite of this embargo, this war, tens of countries around the world attacking Syria and supporting the rebels? Because it has a real constitution, a real, secular constitution. That is the reason. In Iraq, it is sectarian. When you talk about a sectarian constitution, it’s not a constitution.
But what will you do about these militias when the war ends?
Things should go back to normal, like before the war.
And you’re confident ... ?
Yes. We don’t have any other option. That is the role of the government. This is self-evident.
What impact are falling oil prices having on the war in Syria? After all, your two closest allies and supporters, Iran and Russia, are very dependent on oil prices, and they have suffered tremendous damage to their budgets in recent months as the price of oil has fallen. Do you worry about their ability to continue helping you?
No, because they don’t give us money, so it has no effect on Syria. Even if they are going to help us, it would be in the form of loans. We’re like any other country: we have loans. Sometimes we pay; sometimes we take loans.
But their military support costs them money, and if they have less money to pay for their own militaries, won’t that become a problem?
No, because when you pay for armaments or any other goods, you don’t have a problem.
So you’re saying everything you’re getting from the Russians and the Iranians ... ?
So far, we haven’t seen any changes, so what the influence is on them, I cannot answer.
You’ve said in past interviews that you and your government have made mistakes in the course of the war. What are those mistakes? Is there anything that you regret?
Every government, every person, makes mistakes, so that’s again self-evident; it’s a given. But if you want to talk about political mistakes, you have to ask yourself, what are the major decisions that you took since the crisis started? We took three main decisions: First of all, to be open to all dialogue. Second, we changed the constitution and the law according to what many in the opposition were saying, allegedly, that this is the reason of the crisis. Third, we took the decision to defend our country, to defend ourself, to fight terrorists. So I don’t think those three decisions can be described as wrong or mistakes. If you want to talk about practice, any official in any place can make mistakes, but there’s a difference between practice mistakes and policy mistakes.
Can you describe some of the practical mistakes?
I would have to go back to officials on the ground; there’s nothing in my mind. I would rather talk about policies.
Do you feel there have been any policy mistakes that you’re responsible for?
I mentioned the major decisions.
But you said those are not mistakes.
To defend the country from terrorism? If I wanted to say that it’s a mistake, then to be correct would be to support the terrorists.
I’m just wondering if there’s anything you did that you wish in retrospect you had done differently.
Regarding these three main decisions, they were correct, and I am confident about this.
In terms of lower-level practical mistakes, are people being held accountable, say, for human rights abuses, for the excessive use of force, or the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, those kinds of things?
Yes. Some people were detained because they breached the law in that regard, and that happens of course in such circumstances.
In terms of their treatment of civilians or protesters, is that what you’re referring to?
Yes, during the protests at the very beginning, yes.
Since the United States began its air campaign against the Islamic State, Syria and the United States have become strange kinds of partners and are effectively cooperating in that aspect of the fight. Do you see the potential for increased cooperation with the United States?
Yes, the potential is definitely always there, because we’ve been talking about or asking for international cooperation against terrorism for 30 years. But this potential needs will. The question that we have is, how much will does the United States have to really fight terrorism on the ground? So far, we haven’t seen anything concrete in spite of the attacks on ISIS in northern Syria. There’s nothing concrete. What we’ve seen so far is just, let’s say, window-dressing, nothing real. Since the beginning of these attacks, ISIS has gained more land in Syria and Iraq.
What about the air strikes on Kobani? Those have been effective in slowing down ISIS.
Kobani is a small city, with about 50,000 inhabitants. It’s been more than three months since the beginning of the attacks, and they haven’t finished. Same areas, same al Qaeda factions occupying them—the Syrian army liberated in less than three weeks. It means they’re not serious about fighting terrorism.
So are you saying you want greater U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS?
It’s not about greater involvement by the military, because it’s not only about the military; it’s about politics. It’s about how much the United States wants to influence the Turks. Because if the terrorists can withstand the air strikes for this period, it means that the Turks keep sending them armaments and money. Did the United States put any pressure on Turkey to stop the support of al Qaeda? They didn’t; they haven’t. So it’s not only about military involvement. This is first. Second, if you want to talk about the military involvement, American officials publicly acknowledge that without troops on the ground, they cannot achieve anything concrete. Which troops on the grounds are you depending on?
So are you suggesting there should be U.S. troops on the ground?
Not U.S. troops. I’m talking about the principle, the military principle. I’m not saying American troops. If you want to say I want to make war on terrorism, you have to have troops on the ground. The question you have to ask the Americans is, which troops are you going to depend on? Definitely, it has to be Syrian troops. This is our land; this is our country. We are responsible. We don’t ask for American troops at all.
So what would you like to see from the United States? You mentioned more pressure on Turkey ...
Pressure on Turkey, pressure on Saudi Arabia, pressure on Qatar to stop supporting the rebels. Second, to make legal cooperation with Syria and start by asking permission from our government to make such attacks. They didn’t, so it’s illegal.
I’m sorry, I’m not clear on that point. You want them to make legal ... ?
Of course, if you want to make any kind of action in another country, you ask their permission.
I see. So a formal agreement between Washington and Damascus to allow for air strikes?
The format we can discuss later, but you start with permission. Is it an agreement? Is it a treaty? That’s another issue.
And would you be willing to take steps to make cooperation easier with Washington?
With any country that is serious about fighting terrorism, we are ready to make cooperation, if they’re serious.
What steps would you be prepared to make to show Washington that you’re willing to cooperate?
I think they are the ones who have to show the will. We are already fighting on the ground; we don’t have to show that.
The United States is currently training 5,000 Syrian fighters who are scheduled to enter Syria in May. Now, U.S. General John Allen has been very careful to say that these troops will not be directed at the Syrian government, but will be focused on ISIS alone. What will you do when these troops enter the country? Will you allow them to enter? Will you attack them?
Any troops that don’t work in cooperation with the Syrian army are illegal and should be fought. That’s very clear.
Even if this brings you into conflict with the United States?
Without cooperation with Syrian troops, they are illegal, and are puppets of another country, so they are going to be fought like any other illegal militia fighting against the Syrian army. But that brings another question, about those troops. Obama said that they are a fantasy. How did fantasy become reality?
I think with this kind of training program.
But you can’t make extremism moderate.
There are still some moderate members of the opposition. They are weaker and weaker all the time, but I think the U.S. government is trying very carefully to ensure that the fighters it trains are not radicals.
But the question is, why is the moderate opposition—if you call them opposition; we call them rebels—why are they weaker and weaker? They are still weaker because of developments in the Syrian crisis. Bringing 5,000 from the outside will make most of them defect and join ISIS and other groups, which is what happened during the last year. So that’s why I said it’s still illusory. It is not the 5,000 that are illusory but the idea itself that is illusory.
Part of what makes Washington so reluctant to cooperate with you more formally are the allegations of serious human rights abuses by your government. These allegations aren’t just from the U.S. government; they are also from the UN Human Rights Commission, the independent Special Investigative Commission of the UN. You are familiar with these allegations, I’m sure. They include denying access for relief groups to refugee camps, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, photo evidence provided by the defector code-named Caesar, who made a presentation to the U.S. Congress showing terrible torture and abuse in Syrian prisons. Are you prepared to take action on these issues in order to make cooperation with the United States easier?
The funny thing about this administration is that it’s the first one in history to build its evaluation and later decisions on social media. We call it a social media administration, which is not politics. None of these allegations you mentioned are concrete; all of them are allegations. You can bring photos from anyone and say this is torture. Who took the pictures? Who is he? Nobody knows. There is no verification of any of this evidence, so it’s all allegations without evidence.
But Caesar’s photos have been looked at by independent European investigators.
No, no. It’s funded by Qatar, and they say it’s an anonymous source. So nothing is clear or proven. The pictures are not clear which person they show. They’re just pictures of a head, for example, with some skulls. Who said this is done by the government, not by the rebels? Who said this is a Syrian victim, not someone else? For example, photos published at the beginning of the crisis were from Iraq and Yemen. Second, the United States in particular and the West in general are in no position to talk about human rights. They are responsible for most of the killings in the region, especially the United States after getting into Iraq, and the United Kingdom after invading Libya, and the situation in Yemen, and what happened in Egypt in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorism in Tunisia. All these problems happened because of the United States. They were the first ones to trample international law and Security Council resolutions, not us.
That may or may not be true, but those are separate issues, and that does not absolve your government of responsibility.
No, no. The United States accused, so we have to answer that part. I’m not saying if there’s any human rights breach or infringement, the government has no responsibility. That is another issue. The second part of your question is about the allegations. They’re still allegations. If you want me to answer, I have to answer about something that is concrete, proved, and verified.
Are you prepared to categorically deny that there’s torture and abuse of prisoners in Syria?
If there’s any unbiased and fair way to verify all those allegations, of course we are ready. That would be in our interest.
What impact would a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal have on Syria?
Nothing, because the crisis here was never part of the negotiations, and Iran refused to make it such. And that is correct, because there is no link between the two.
But many in the United States anticipate that if Iran and the United States strike a deal, it will make cooperation between the two countries much easier. People therefore wonder if Iran might decide to reduce its support for Syria as a favor to the U.S. government.
We have never had any positive information about such a thing, never. I cannot discuss something which I don’t have any information about.
Describe whether you think the war is going well from the government’s perspective. Independent analysts have suggested that your government currently controls 45 to 50 percent of the territory of Syria.
First of all, if you want to describe the arena—it’s not a war between two countries, between two armies where you have an incursion and you lost some territory that you want to regain. It’s not like this. We’re talking about rebels that infiltrate areas inhabited by civilians. You have Syrian terrorists that support foreign terrorists to come and hide among civilians. They launch what you call guerrilla attacks. That is the shape of this war, so you cannot look at it as being about territory. Second, wherever the Syrian army has wanted to go, it has succeeded. But the Syrian army cannot have a presence on every kilometer of Syrian territory. That’s impossible. We made some advances in the past two years. But if you want to ask me, “Is it going well?” I say that every war is bad, because you always lose, you always have destruction in a war. The main question is, what have we won in this war? What we won in this war is that the Syrian people have rejected the terrorists; the Syrian people support their government more; the Syrian people support their army more. Before talking about winning territory, talk about winning the hearts and minds and the support of the Syrian people. That’s what we have won. What’s left is logistical; it’s technical. That is a matter of time. The war is moving in a positive way. But that doesn’t mean you’re not losing on the national level. Because you lose lives, you lose infrastructure; the war itself has very bad social effects.
Do you think you will eventually defeat the rebels militarily?
If they don’t have external support, and no, let’s say, supply and recruitment of new terrorists within Syria, there will be no problem defeating them. Even today we don’t have a problem militarily. The problem is that they still have this continuous supply, mainly from Turkey.
So Turkey seems to be the neighbor that you’re most concerned about?
Exactly. Logistically, and about terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but through Turkey.
Do you blame Erdogan personally? This is a man you once had a fairly good relationship with.
Yes. Because he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which is the base of al Qaeda; it was the first political Islamic organization that promoted violent political Islam in the early twentieth century. He belongs strongly and is a staunch believer in these values. He’s very fanatical, and that’s why he still supports ISIS. He is personally responsible for what happened.
Do you see any other potential partners in the region? For example, General el-Sisi in Egypt?
I wouldn’t talk about him personally, but as long as Egypt and the Egyptian army and the government are fighting the same kind of terrorists as in Iraq, of course, we can consider these countries eligible to cooperate with in fighting the same enemy.
Two final questions, if I may. Can you imagine a scenario in which Syria returns to the status quo as it was before the fighting started almost four years ago?
In what sense?
In the sense that Syria is whole again, it is not divided, it controls its borders, it starts to rebuild, and it is at peace and a predominantly secular country.
If you look at a military map now, the Syrian army exists in every corner. Not every place; by every corner, I mean north, south, east, west, and between. If you didn’t believe in a unified Syria, that Syria can go back to its previous position, you wouldn’t send the army there, as a government. If you don’t believe in this as a people, you would have seen people in Syria isolated into different ghettos based on ethnic and sectarian or religious identity. As long as this is not the situation, the people live with each other; the army is everywhere; the army is made up of every color of Syrian society, or the Syrian fabric. This means that we all believe Syria should go back to the way it was. We don’t have any other option, because if it doesn’t go back to its previous position, that will affect every surrounding country. It’s one fabric—it’s a domino effect that will have influence from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
If you were able to deliver a message to President Obama today, what would it be?
I think the normal thing that you ask any official in the world is to work for the interests of his people. And the question I would ask any American is, what do you get from supporting terrorists in our country, in our region? What did you get from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood a few years ago in Egypt and other countries? What did you get from supporting someone like Erdogan? One of the officials from your country asked me seven years ago in Syria at the end of a meeting, “How do you think we can solve the problem in Afghanistan?” I told him, “You have to be able to deal with officials who are not puppets, who can tell you no.” So for the United States, only looking for puppet officials and client states is not how you can serve the interests of your country. You are the greatest power in the world now; you have too many things to disseminate around the world: knowledge, innovation, IT, with its positive repercussions. How can you be the best in these fields yet the worst in the political field? This is a contradiction. That is what I think the American people should analyze and question. Why do you fail in every war? You can create war, you can create problems, but you cannot solve any problem. Twenty years of the peace process in Palestine and Israel, and you cannot do anything with this, in spite of the fact that you are a great country.
But in the context of Syria, what would a better policy look like?
One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after more than 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society, like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power.

Obama Pledges Economic Aid to India, but Says Trade Barriers Remain

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged $4 billion in American investments and loans to India, but said trade between the world's two largest democracies is still marked by "so much untapped potential."
On the second day of a three-day visit to India, Obama told a business conference attended by U.S. and Indian corporate executives there are "still too many barriers, hoops to jump through" in completing deals between the two countries. He noted that bilateral U.S.-India trade totals only $100 billion annually, less than a fifth of American business deals with Chinese companies Rain did little to dampen the excitement around President Barack Obama's landmark visit to India as thousands of troops took part in a dazzling military parade Monday where he was the guest of honor.
Obama is the first U.S. president to attend India's Republic Day, which celebrates its first constitution as an independent state, taking effect on January 26, 1950.
The U.S. president spent the first day of his three-day visit Sunday bonding with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and sealing a clutch of deals.
Nuclear agreement Obama and Modi announced they have reached a "breakthrough" in a long-stalled nuclear power agreement.
The U.S. signed a deal with India in 2008 to provide civilian nuclear technology. But implementation has been stalled over an Indian law that makes companies that build and supply the equipment liable in case of an accident.
Both sides agreed Sunday to set up a multi-million-dollar insurance pool that does not force India to change its laws.
Details are still not clear. But President Obama called Sunday's agreement an important step that shows how both sides can work together to elevate relations.
Prime Minister Modi said he is pleased India and the U.S. can cooperate commercially under Indian and international law.
At a banquet Sunday night, President Obama toasted what he called the great partnership between India and the U.S., and friendship between their peoples.
Along with attending the Republic Day celebration Monday, Obama will speak at a forum of American and Indian business leaders. He will skip a planned visit to the Taj Mahal Tuesday, to fly to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects following last week's death of King Abdullah.


By Rajesh Rajagopalan

With President Barack Obama being the first US President to visit India twice and the first to be the Chief Guest at the Republic Day parade, we should expect the hyperbole that normally accompanies such state visits to be a notch higher this time.
Being democracies, both India and the US would prefer to base their foreign policies on something larger and nobler than narrow self-interest. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s developmental agenda means that American investment and smart cities may garner a lot of attention. But without strategic understanding, economic ties itself will also suffer.
Both sides need to get more realistic about their relations so that we move beyond the traditional trap of exaggerated expectations and inevitable disappointments. The two sides could begin by junking all talk about a ‘non-transactional relationship’ because there is no such thing in international politics.
All international cooperation is transactional and therefore limited. Non-transactional relationships suggest relations based on love or kinship, non-existent in international relation. Nation-states cooperate because their interests coincide and they cooperate for as long as those interests are aligned. This is why international politics is full of seemingly strange bedfellows, such as Pakistan and China or the US and Saudi Arabia. This is also why seemingly obvious partners have great difficulty cooperating, whether it is India and the US or various supposedly fraternal groups such as the Cold War socialist bloc or the Arab bloc.
Transactional international relationships are not such a bad thing as long as the two sides are clear about the terms of the transaction. Instead of pursuing the mirage of a non-transactional relationship, India and the US should focus on areas where there is mutual interest and agree not to let areas of disagreement come in the way. This requires clear-eyed realism on both sides: New Delhi needs to overcome the fantasy that Washington needs it more than the other way around, either for economic reasons or for balancing China. Equally, Washington needs to understand that this partnership is not about democracy or common values but about common interests.
Both sides should understand that this common interest does not include Pakistan or Afghanistan. Pakistan is America’s kryptonite, a country they have been wrong about every decade for the last six. India should have no expectation that Washington’s helplessness on Pakistan will change. In any case, despite their minimized Afghan presence, America’s continued efforts to stabilize Afghanistan means that the US still needs to keep the Pakistan army in good humour. If that effort fails, the US can be expected to wash its hands off the whole problem, much like they did in the 1990s. Neither is helpful to India though there is little India can do about this except to adjust its expectations accordingly. The US and India can cooperate on Pakistan on the fringes, especially on intelligence sharing, but outside of this New Delhi should not expect or give much.
If regional concerns cannot be the basis for strong ties, global issues are an unlikely ballast for strong relations even when India and the US share common interests, such as on terrorism, nuclear security and non-proliferation and in the abstract, democracy.
The real strategic glue in the relationship is the common concern in maintaining some sort of balance in the larger Asian region in the context of China’s rise. This is not just an Indian or an American worry but one that is widely shared in the region, a consequence of China’s surprisingly maladroit strategic behaviour the last few years. Preventing China from entirely dominating the Asia-Pacific is in Indian and American interest. That makes a strong India an American interest. Less recognized, especially in New Delhi, is that a strong US is also in India’s interest because India and other Asian powers cannot manage China on their own.
India conducts military exercises with Japan, Vietnam and Australia and others in the region but they cannot expect to match China either alone or together because none have the capacity to reach across the entire region. Only the US can, which is why it has to anchor such efforts at regional security cooperation. This makes a strong US an Indian and Asian interest.
The biggest threat in all this is buck-passing: both sides trying to free-ride, hoping that the other will shoulder the burden of balancing China. Such buck-passing is dangerous. If neither side shoulders the burden, both could suffer. Preventing such buck-passing requires both India and the US to be clear-eyed about their common self-interest.

Video - President Obama Makes History in India

World News Videos | ABC World News

Video - President Obama Speaks at the U.S.-India Business Council Summit

Obama Makes the Most of India’s Republic Day Parade

Crimson-clad border troops with identical mustaches, astride camels decked out in gold braid and multicolored pompoms. A bagpipe and drum corps in scotch plaid and leopard skin. Sikh regiments in dress turbans, their starched fringes fanning out like gold lamé pie plates. A formation of combat helicopters that thudded past, releasing drifts of marigold petals.

On one level, of course, it was just a parade. But it served as a fitting geopolitical metaphor as well. Russian-made Sukhoi-30 fighter jets roared over, so low that the scent of jet fuel settled over the V.I.P. section, and Russian T-90 tanks trundled by, a reminder of India’s ties to Moscow dating to the Cold War.
Yet it was Mr. Obama in the seat of the chief guest, the first American leader to do so. In the 65 previous parades, the chief guest has twice been Soviet, once Russian, twice Yugoslav, three times French, twice British, once Chinese. Even Pakistan has been invited. Mr. Obama’s acceptance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation this year was seen here as a great tribute to India, a sign of the country’s arrival on the world stage.
“The crowd is getting understandably excited and ecstatic at the arrival of the motorcade of the president of the United States, Barack Obama,” the parade announcer said when Mr. Obama’s Cadillac pulled up. At that point, a military policeman in a red-fringed turban gestured sternly for spectators to remain seated, but they ignored him completely, scrambling atop their chairs for a view. Two men unfolded a banner that read “I [heart] Obama.”
Mr. Obama’s presence required extensive security preparations, as he has not spent such a long stretch outdoors in public in a foreign country during his six years in office. As is typical for outdoor events, he was seated behind bulletproof glass shields. Indian security was so tight that ballpoint pens were confiscated from reporters covering the parade.
Republic Day is a major holiday in India, commemorating the day in 1950 when the post-partition democratic Constitution came into force. Seats are provided for 125,000 people, according to the Defense Ministry, which arranges the event. Spectators began streaming through the streets toward the parade ground at dawn, some wrapped in wool blankets against the chilly rain. Though elaborate, snaking barriers had been erected along the routes leading to the site, the crowds quickly spilled over them and surged into the road.
“I came because of Obama,” said Vinay Kumar, 32, who had woken at 4:30 a.m. to catch a bus from his home on the city’s outskirts. “We hope he and Modi together will help grow the economy. And help us to get H-1B visas to visit America.”
“I am not looking for a permanent visit,” he added, "just one year or two.”
Many said they came out of pride. Indian crowds adore military spectacle, a fact that British colonial powers recognized in the 19th century, adopting the fabulous displays of the maharajahs who preceded them. George Curzon, the British viceroy, at one point “issued instructions that European officials were not outshined by the Indian princes who came wearing their jewelry,” said Rana Chhina, who heads the Center for Armed Forces Military History in New Delhi.
“The colonial state was of the view that the Indian people loved a parade, loved pageantry, and they wanted to give it to them,” he said. “Pomp, pageantry, all of this — they are symbols of power.”
For all his socialist leanings, India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, retained those flourishes when he introduced the Republic Day parade, in addition to a display of heavy weaponry directed toward Pakistan. As members of a Sikh regiment passed on Monday, swinging their arms so vigorously that they seemed in danger of dislocating them, the announcer remarked in a tweedy British accent that “this regiment has the reputation of creating terror among the enemy.”
Monday’s parade included all-women contingents from the army, navy and air force. Mr. Obama seemed particularly impressed by a display of motorcycle trick-riding, showing a thumbs-up. There were also many reminders that India has been the world’s largest consumer of Russia’s arms industry, particularly after a series of flyovers by MIG-29 and Su-30 fighter jets.
Mr. Obama and the American delegation have made it clear they want to compete for India’s defense dollars, renewing the defense pact between the two countries on Sunday and agreeing to cooperate on aircraft carrier and jet engine technology. They also agreed to work on joint production of small-scale surveillance drones.
That did not mean that Russia was about to cede a lucrative, longtime market. Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian defense minister, made a point of visiting last week, just before Mr. Obama arrived, to discuss joint production of a light utility helicopter and to resolve disagreements about a long-delayed fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
But as he left the parade on Monday, Sunil Mudgal, 39, an army officer, said he saw India’s relationships beginning to shift, in part because the United States’ “outlook toward the neighboring countries, especially Pakistan, has changed.”
“Ten years back, we were only reliant on Russia,” he said. That morning, added his wife, Anuradha, the couple’s young son could think of nothing but Mr. Obama, who was seated across the parade route from the family. “He asked me,” she said, “'If I wave to him, will he see me?'”