Iran vs. KSA: More than Just Optics

The debate about whether or not KSA's women's rights record clean up is merely cosmetic virtue signaling or not, to me, is easily resolveable by an answer to the following question:

Is even a single woman benefiting from the change in policies? If so, it's a step forward.

When you hear news of 35 women arrested at a soccer match in Iran, and then you hear news that women are finally being allowed to attend sports events in KSA, it's pretty obvious that

1. Every step matters, no matter how small.

and

2. One country is going forward, while the other is going forward.

How do you move backwards or forward? One step at a time.

I Don't Do Peace

Inspired by another thread, the thrust of which is the old trope that you make peace with enemies, not friends.

Let me make it clear: I don't believe in making peace, and certainly, not for the sake of peace.

I believe in building bridges, overcoming differences, bringing in mutual understanding, connecting through shared values, and creating valuable networks, relationships, and alliances over common issues.

I don't believe in making pointless sacrifices for the sake of the other side agreeing not to kill you in exchange.

None of my work, nothing I do, is ever about making peace. I do not make peace with human rights violations, I do not make peace with the denial of my identity and dignity, I do not make peace with bad ideas.

I am working towards victory of life affirming values over destructive ones, and of good ideas over bad ones.

I am not a peacemaker; there's nothing peaceful about me.

And the people who matter will respect me for my dedication to my goals and to my values and to the identity that makes me strong much more so than they will ever respect me for begging for crumbs of peace on their terms.

This Is How You Lose Big League on Foreign Policy

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/11/03/this-is-how-you-lose/

Imagine a small country with an insecure government that the past administrations have been supporting, and which has issues that you don't particularly like.

Imagine that this country is a possible ally against a much bigger threat in the region.

What do you do when the bigger threat is courting this country and is promising all sorts of boons with no strings attached?

What's your leverage? Do you engage? Do you give up? Do you continue to stand on principle?

Well, whatever the choices are in this situation, the one thing that is guaranteed not to be helpful is doing absolutely nothing and leaving it up to others to decide how things are going to work.

And that's, of course, precisely what the Trump administration did with Cambodia.

A few months ago, in the wake of the new administration's early forays into foreign policy, regional experts warned about Cambodia moving away from the West towards China, in the run up to the upcoming elections.

Cambodia was worried about losing the elections, and China was offering condition-free loan and political support. Donald Trump, not as interested in pressing for human rights and democracy as some of his predecessors, was, at that point, still an unknown quantity, and could have utilized this opportunity to woo away Cambodia from China by gauging it on other issues. 

For the new administration, it would have been a mistake to rely on the passive continuation of existing foreign relations with even relatively small countries when other countries are actively moving towards engagement in whatever manner.

In bipolar or multipolar circumstances, the smaller countries will engage in maneuvering and play off the superpowers against one another to get the most benefit and influence for themselves. It's a classic Cold War tactic. The mistake the United States was making during the Cold War proxy tensions (and perhaps there were few options at the time) was to be reactive in its approach and merely throw resources as a response. But of course, the Soviet Union would then provide more goodies without any preconditions or expectations of democratization, and so forth.

The better position would have been to a better approach would be to reevaluate various pressure points of Cambodia's foreign policy and to use those pressure points as a more nuanced engagement approach to steer them towards the United States but also make clear that increased engagement with China will not come without a cost. In other words, reverse the position and cause the weak country in question to have to do the cost-benefit analysis of having to choose its allies - or else making the wiser choice, of not being played by China and engaging with both.

That approach very well may have failed. China has no scruples about backing the governments that are loyal and helpful.  And interfering directly in another country's elections is also problematic. But non-interference has not helped us one bit.

Incumbent PM Hun Sen distanced himself from the US, and disregarding all international norms, threw his political opponent in prison.  Earlier engagement may not have stopped this development, but perhaps it could have prevented a complete deterioration of the relationship, and would have allowed us to figure out the leverage for promoting human rights and fair elections. At the very least, we could have taken a more principled stand on this issue before Hun Sen had gone so far in the direction of authoritarianism.

And even after the fact, it is not the President of the United States who has taken an active role in countering this violation of human rights and international norms, but Senator Ted Cruz, who essentially stated that he would work on utilizing the Global Magnitsky Act to deny Cambodian human rights violators entry to the United States. That would, of course, require Congressional pressure on the administration, which has yet to designate human rights violators under that law. At this point, the White House has been put on very public notice, and has no excuse not to take decisive action, including, potentially, sanctions - which is arguably as embarrassing for us, after all the investments we have made into Cambodia, as it is for the Cambodian Prime Minister, who is impolitic reaction to Sen. Cruz's letter was very telling.

However, if US is to be taken seriously, it has no choice but to play an active role in its own relationship, particularly with countries which have been significant recipients of the US taxpayers' money. The US should not have to support corrupt regimes, which have no regard for democracy or freedom, and who are also empowering other dictatorships in order to protect their leadership - but  not their people. And the US should certainly position itself in such a way that other countries should want to do business with it, because an honest relationship with a strong, fair-minded, country respectful of its partners and obligations, and expecting the same should be seen far more reliable and a far better investment than an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt party leaders, which have been known to renege on its financial promises and will just as easily throw you to the wolves when they no longer have use for you as they back you in time of need.  China has a history of dubious financial investments, which have done little for Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries. It has left projects in Latin America left unmanaged, and has become infamous for the corrupt quality of its project and "investment support"/development, amounting to little more than colonial practices, all over Africa.

Choosing to work with the US should be a no-brainer.  But not if we let China do all the leadership and all the talking, and not if we show we have no interest in strong relationship with clear and coherent rules. I hope this situation wakes President Trump and the State Department to the fact that putting America first means putting in the work needed to forge relationships with our allies, partners, and beneficiaries of our investment that are based on the pursuit of mutual interests and respect. Signalling that we just don't care enough to bother with diplomacy will position us in a very weak place down the road, and one day, we may find that those who do care have taken all initiative and all leverage out of our hand. And that day, who we partner with and on what grounds will no longer be up to us.

Overlooking Corruption and Authoritarianism Among Allies Leads to Abuse Of Our Humanitarian and Counterterrorism Aid

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/02/overlooking-corruption-and/

US policy of providing "counterterrorism" funding and humanitarian aid to authoritarian regimes, who claim to be allies, but who utilize that money to suppress criticism, political opposition, and minorities runs counter to its own interests in preventing radicalization in otherwise stable countries and liquidating terrorist groups in the region. We have seen how such misuse of funding worked to perpetuate slavery in Mauritania, where abolitions have been labeled "terrorists" in order to justify the expenditure of US aid to hunt down such critics. 

We are seeing the same pattern in Bangladesh, where the President of the opposition party BJP, Mithun Chowdhury, was just arrested.  The sudden arrest of the leader of the opposition in a country allegedly allied with the United States should be an international scandal, but has not received coverage from the press, no more so than a similar arrest of arrival during the elections in Cambodia. However, unlike Cambodia, which has been shifting in China's direction in months leading up to the elections, Bangladesh's formerly secular Awami Party claims continuous close cooperation with the United States.  In reality, Bangladesh's, Sheikha Hasna is pulling a fast one over the administration, continuing the pattern of the past several years - at the cost to the country's poor population, minorities, and political opposition. 

Human rights attorneys and activists are doing a poor service to the concerns of the most vulnerable in failing to bring to our attention the continuously deteriorating human rights situation in Bangladesh.  As human rights reports produced by such human rights workers who risked their lives inside the country as Shipan Kumer Basu, who have had to flee the country due to threats to their lives show,  under the auspices of the ruling Awami League party, the political opposition has been suffering brutality, facing extrajudicial assassinations and disappearances on a daily basis, has been deprived of due process at show trials, has seen the proliferation of fabricated and forced confessions to spurious charges, has been dealt unspeakable tortures in remand and in prisons, and is being systematically defamed in the press. As such, there is no meaningful alternative or check and balance inside the government, whether with respect to domestic issues or to foreign policy.

The roots of this grave and unsustainable situation go back to the history of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the formation of the Awami League. The Soviet Union has backed this overtly leftist party, which despite the stated secularism, has shown proclivities for violence and chaos more characteristic of totalitarian regimes than liberal democracies. Its historic rivalry with BNP, the leading opposition party, has been marked by mutual violence and distrust. However, the last few years have shown a drastic growth in attacks not merely on the BNP and other rival parties, but the attacks on the parliamentarian model of governance, and thus, on the fabric of the otherwise largely moderate and stable civil society.  The brutal suppression of any criticism under the pretense of counterterrorism, as well as the chaotic situation around the elections two years ago, led to allegations of widespread electoral fraud and BNP’s withdrawal from participation. Arguably, the current government is completely illegitimate, due to the failure of its leading opposition party to participate in the last elections.

However, with the elimination of its chief rival, the Awami League, led by the strongwoman Sheikh Hasina, only intensified its attacks on the opposition and other leaders. Such attacks have been highly damaging to Bangladesh’s claims to democratic governance and participation in respected international organizations alongside the United States. Last year, the then- newly appointed co-secretary of the BNP, Aslam Chowdhury has been arrested and put under remand, which has been extended, under the trumped charges of sedition. His alleged crime? Mr. Chowdhury happened to have been invited to India’s BJP party youth conference, where an Israeli lobbyist also was in attendance. The two interacted with each other, as well as with hundreds of other participants. Bangladesh does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Still, an incidental meeting has been used to accuse BNP, as well as other rival parties, of sedition and conspiracy to overturn the existing government. Several BNP activists and leaders including Mr. Chowdhury have been arrested in a very public manner. Under the remand, the accused, who have recently been officially charged, have no access to lawyers, and their communication with the outside world is extremely limited. They are allowed no visitors, and their condition is quite grave. Torture is a widespread method of extracting false confessions from individuals under remand, as countless accounts of victims have shown.  Already, the Awami League has threatened to utilize Mr. Chowdhury’s alleged comments in remand to arrest his alleged accomplices and to undermine the very existence of BNP, in essence opening a witch hunt against the entirety of Bangladesh’s opposition and leading the country in a very dangerous direction.

This disturbing series of events threatens the stability of Bangladesh and its neighbors, and places strain on the development of future relations between Bangladesh and the United States. Bangladesh participates in such institutions as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. The countries engage in a strong trade relationship. Bangladesh is the beneficiary the largest assistance by the United States in Asia outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The current predicament puts the wisdom of such assistance in question.  Deterioration of human rights, suppression of political opposition, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions and arrests point in the direction of increased political risk in investment and trade. Much of the assistance that is meant to go towards the development of the country and counterextremism measures is likely being misused towards mass arrests of political opponents and critics of the government’s harsh measures and failure to observe the minimal due process. Rather than fighting terrorism, the Awami League fights the critics that keep its own foreign and domestic policy excesses in check. Governments that are largely authoritarian are not reliable partners in security, in trade, or in political processes. The increasing centralization of power in Bangladesh is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, be they opposition to extremism, peaceful development of relations with India, which is increasingly concerned by Sheikh Hasina’s erratic actions, and the stabilization and strengthening of the region vis-à-vis aggressive overtures from China. 

Furthermore, by engaging in public and widespread conspiracy theories against U.S. allies, such as Israel and India, the Awami League betrays the trust the U.S. government is placing into its growing partnership with this allegedly West-oriented party. The Awami League’s fearmongering and defamation against outside scapegoats can only lead to internal destabilization, ethnic clashes, and deterioration in diplomatic relations with other allies and partners.  Whether this current development is merely a natural succession to the last few years’ increase in centralization and Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial tendencies, or whether the current witch hunt against the opposition is a concerted attempt to distract from other, more disturbing developments, leaving such developments to continue unchecked will lead to further disrespect for the U.S. position, assistance, and diplomatic involvement in the country and the region.

I speak for 160 million Bangladeshis who surely deserve better than this untenable political situation when I call on  Congress and the administration to utilize their  collective strength, respect, and wisdom to exert influence on the course of events, before the Awami League’s disastrous actions render irreversible damage on Bangladesh-U.S. relations, and turn Bangladesh from a stable, developing, and moderate country into the Syria of South Asia, an outcome we simply cannot afford.  

 Please consider engaging in applying appropriate political pressures on the Awami League to

demand the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Aslam Chowdhury . Mr. Miltun Chowdhury,and other political prisoners. demand that the government of Bangladesh cease and desist from any further politically motivated arrests, arbitrary detentions, conspiratorial statements and comments to the press, extrajudicial killings and assaults, and other unconscionable attacks on individual and political freedom

demand the review of any funding or other forms of assistance that go towards Bangladesh’s alleged counterextremism efforts and hold the ruling party accountable for any misuse of the U.S. goodwill, trust, and assistance.

Also, speaking on behalf of all the unjustly detained, all the tortured, all the disappeared and murdered individuals, I ask you to hold a public hearing focused on the increasingly authoritarian situation in Bangladesh, and the potential for Awami League to become a regional security threat and a force of aggression and destabilization in the area.

A an U.S. human rights lawyer,  I surely speak with reason when I say that the U.S. taxpayers deserve better than to subsidize an illegitimate authoritarian government which defames our allies, tortures and murders opposition, and misuses the funding that should be going towards the fight against terrorist groups to go after legitimate critics of its policies.

How US Unequivocal Support for Iraqi Nationalism Will Lead to Radicalization and Extremism

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-us-unequivocal-support-for-iraqi-nationalism-will-lead-to-radicalization-and-extremism/

Seth Frantzman, in a recent article, analyzes US position of neutrality on Baghdad takeover of Kirkuk, and further silence on the alleged human rights violations, and punitive actions such as the shut down of Kurdish press, Kurdistan24 and Rudaw. In sum, the thinking is that encouraging Iraqi nationalism, which is based in substantial part in anti-Kurdish sentiment, US will turn Iraq away from Iranian influence, and unify the country under the Saudi Arabia aegis against the spread of Iranian influence. The idea there is that if the Shi'a Iraqi government aligns with the Sunni KSA, together they can counter Iran. And indeed, Iraq has signed a corresponding defense treaty with KSA. However, that is not a meaningful agreement for two reasons: first, Iraq will do just about anything to play all sides, including the US, which has been arming its army. Second, KSA is far away, and Iran is close. Abadi and the Islamic Republic has been getting along quite nicely, and Abadi invited Iran to participate in takeover of Kirkuk. It clearly does not see Iran as a threat, though KSA does. And when forced to choose between its Shi'a neighbor, which has helped Iraq with the Kurdish issue and the Sunni Saudi Arabia, which is known to sympathize with Iraq's Sunni population, tribal and religious considerations will prevail over piece of paper.

The fact that the United States does not realize that shows the extent of ignorance of our foreign policy leaders of the cultures, which they are now trying to bring together through fictitious borders and imaginary alliances. The British, when they did the same, at least cynically imposed divisions to perpetuate their own power. The US leaders actually believe that this policy is going to work and that it's in the best interests of the Middle East and the United States. It is quite amazing.  This vision of a Baghdad-Riyadh alliance puts aside the dream of a free and democratic Kurdistan. The reason for this groupthink at top levels may be deeply rooted in the underlying psychological need to stay consistent. In other words, the US has already invested so heavily into Baghdad, that having realign its policy now would be equivalent to conceding defeat. In other words, the excuse that this is all about American interests is rational, but the reasoning behind is not. Otherwise, the weight that the US would be giving to other considerations would be at least equal to its own wishful thinking to see this implausible alliance of Iraq and Saudi Arabia to work for more than five minutes, until Iran decides that it should be otherwise.

Much has already been said and written about the potential boons of an independent Kurdistan for the United States - a trading partner with a vibrant economy, a buffer state against Iran's and Turkey's expansionist ambitions, a new model of indigenous evolutionary liberalization, a friendly state, open to Western values and partnership with Israel. All of these potential benefits, in the eyes of the generals, who are spearheading US foreign policy in the Fertile Crescent, is of less interest than having Iraq not be quite-so-pro-Iran.  There is no official analysis on how such calculations are figured, but there is also a darker side of this conversation that likewise does not appear to figure into the equation: the potential for the radicalization of the Kurdish region. Neither friends nor critics are particularly interested in touching on this sensitive topics. Those, who favor independent Kurdistan focus the bulk of their attention on the perceived betrayal by the US - in other words, a valid, but largely emotional talking point, whereas the critics cite the dubious benefits of yet another tribal Muslim state at the cost of weakening another ally - Iraq. The underlying working assumption, however, is that the US decisionmakers are correct in one way: Kurdish independence will bring greater instability than Kurdish "remain", at least in the short term.

Such position relies on the erroneous assumption that Iraq is open to various potential positions, and will pivot in the desirable direction if only the United States will do what Baghdad claims needs to be done to earn its favor - return the oil fields to Abadi's forces without a question, stay moot on the Kurds, encourage peace talks through gentle rhetoric, and ignore the Iran-backed militias and IRGC presence in the vicinity. If only the US does all these things, at some point, all will be well. IRGC will not do much damage beyond security the territory for Iraq and ensuring that the rebellious Kurds will not tempt its own Kurdish population; Turkey is all talk; ISIS has been taken care of, and US can reap the boons of its cynical wisdom. Such wishful thinking is no more practical than believing that Kurdish independence will come without a bloody fight against a variety of regional forces. That's not a commentary on the morality or benefits or likelihood of such a move; that's just a statement of logical observation based in the Middle Eastern dynamics. You get what you are willing to fight for, and only if you win with overwhelming force. In the meantime, US is so focused on its own line of reasoning that it ignores major red flags that undermine its position.

First, Iraq has already and openly pivoted to Iran. The actions of the last few weeks demonstrate it amply. US reasoning that by sacrificing Kurdistan it can stop Iraq from growing closer to Iran is not only mistaken; it is nothing short of appeasement.  Iran's interest is regional dominance. Abadi, if he wants to stay in power in the region, needs to abide by Iran's decisionmaking. It will, therefore, cooperate to whatever extent necessary that it is seen as a fully ally, reliable in supporting Iran's ambitions.  Iran will not stop at building IRGC military basis and headquarters in Kirkuk, nor does it make it any sense to stop when there is no resistance from anyone.

Second, Iran's presence in the Kurdistan area far exceeds what can be gauged from the coverage, especially after Kurdistan24 and Rudaw were shut down. According to one source, Iran has as many as 700 secret houses in Suleimanya alone. If that's accurate, it's quite plausible that Iran has extensive presence, both overt and clandestine, in every corner of Kurdistan. And it is there to stay, long-term.  From disputed territory between Baghdad and Erbil, Kirkuk province are becoming occupied territories, essentially colonized by Iran. If Iran continues to grow its military presence in the area, and there's every reason to believe that without a war, Iran is not going anywhere, the next step is indoctrination of the local population - ranging from forced conversions to political brainwashing.

It may already be building schools, whereas Western educational opportunities in the region are woefully missing. Furthermore, with Baghdad banning all commercial flights in and out of  Erbil, and potentially cutting off access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, Kurds are not only economically isolated, but become wholly dependent on Baghdad and Tehran for humanitarian aid, educational maintenance, and even the news.And Iran is likely to radicalize the local Shi'a population through joint educational programming.  The religious element may prevail over tribal concerns, if Iran is seen as an economic benefactor, rather than an oppressor to the Iraqi majority. Meanwhile, it is taking every step to show who's the boss. Iran is opening up its border with Kurdistan - that is a sign that the regime has achieved a decisive military and psychological victory. It has nothing to fear from the Kurds.

At the same time, however, the support of nationalist sentiments among Iraqis is taking a turn less towards unity and more into anti-Kurdish xenophobia. Already, a Kurdish journalist was stabbed to death in Kirkuk. Iranian militias, not Iraqi forces, arrested dozens of young Kurds in a cafe in Kirkuk. Their fate is unenviable, as anyone, familiar with the brutality of the regime and its treatment of rebellious ethnic minorities will testify. And religious minorities all over the Kurdish region are threatened by the IRGC and the Iran=backed militias. Jewish and Christian sites near Al Qosh are in danger. Multiple Christian and Yazidi groups have expressed concern.  Militias are on full alert protecting civilians, yet they are outnumbered and outgunned by the well-equipped Iraqi forces, and the Iran=backed militias that are not answerable to Abadi's command.  This destabilization is precisely what US support for national unity was supposed to prevent. Instead, it is turning into the scapegoating and vendetta against the Kurds.

Third, these divisions are likely to be exploited by Sunni extremist groups, like Al Qaeda and remnants of ISIS and their ilk. Seemingly defeated, these groups await opportunity for strife in order to make a triumphant comeback, sow discord, and take advantage of other violent situations.  And ideological extremists will surely take the opportunity to appeal to the disenfranchised groups, proselytize among embittered and marginalized Kurdish peripheral regions, and go after every resentful person or group left hopeless after the takeover of Kirkuk.

Worse still, if Iraq continues to try to destroy Kurdish nationalism and sense of identity, as it's doing now, the resistance that will arise will become increasingly radical and violent, and the potential for militant action, all the way to terrorism against civilians is not to be ruled out. We have seen the way the Soviet Union had sown chaos among Turkish Kurds, eliminating all nationalist groups except for the PKK, and turning PKK into a Soviet terrorist group (which after several decades finally reformed, but not before costing many lives of innocent civilians in the process). Interestingly, Russia is moving back into Kurdistan, and is seeking a closer relationship with the Kurds. It's also looking to utilize them more in Syria.  That Russia will use this opportunity to play on the anti-American backlash through what is widely perceived as betrayal is quite obvious.

To make a long story short, the downside to the chimeric US strategy involving the one-sided coddling of Baghdad to the exclusion of all other interested parties, is that instead of building bulwarks against extremists, including Iran, which is the whole goal of this exercise, the US is actually making active enemies out of absolutely everyone in the region, strengthening the potential for extremism, and allowing radical actors to assume the vacuum of leadership, all in the name of unity and the US interests. But the region united by extremism is not in the US interests at all, and neither is giving up opportunities for economic investments and partnerships fall into the hands of Russia and Iran, which have not done anything positive with any place they have ever been involved in.

The administration should snap out of this dangerous delusion quickly, and start drawing and enforcing boundaries for its "ally" Baghdad, which include, first and foremost, getting Iran and out of the picture completely, and only then creating positive bilateral and equanimeous conditions for further negotiations. It should send a clear signal to Kurds that their identity is recognized and respected, and to all other actors, that US has a central role to play in the region, and that chaos and extremism of any sort is not an option and will not be tolerated - not after all the lives the US has sacrificed to get to where we are today. Most importantly, the US should remember that alliances among former enemies are temporary, and for that reason Iraqi-Saudi alliance cannot be relied upon to last.

But strong long-term relationship among groups of people who have a baseline of common interests, values, and a history of fighting together for common goals can endure and move in the most positive direction. We should not continue following the same failed policy of putting all our eggs in one basket (in this case, Abadi), only to be bitterly disappointed and face new crisis yet again.  We have the luxury of hindsight to make better, more informed decisions, and the richness of our experience to build a better, more secure future for ourselves, and the world that we want to live in.

Why Baghdad's Move on Kirkuk Is Not about The Independence Referendum

Cross-posted at:

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/11/22/why-baghdads-move-on-kirkuk-is-not-about-the-independence-referendum/

By now, it should be abundantly obvious that  Baghdad’s move to take over Kirkuk has been pre-planned and would have advanced with or without the independence referendum.

Iraqi forces and Peshmerga were allied against ISIS in the liberation of the territories, yet Iraq’s ultimate priority has always been in retaining the control over the oil fields and revenue from the Kurdish-held territories. And with Barzani’s resignation as KRG President, we now know that whatever criticisms could be made about the latter’s hold on power well beyond the constitutional provisions, his concerns about Kurdish security and move for independence were a great deal more than just power play. Further proof of Baghdad’s disingenuous bluster about territorial integrity and “unity” (carved out by the British under the Sykes-Picot agreement, that would intentionally keep different nations with disparate identities cobbled together, foster divisions, and allow the British Empire to maintain control) are Abadi’s actions with respect to the Kurdish citizens the moment the Baghdad-Iran alliance assumed control of much of the disputed territories and the oil fields, which were, in fact the central concern.

The legitimacy of Baghdad’s concern for its national sovereignty is undermined by the unnecessary assault on the Kurdish autonomy, which can only make the Kurds yearn for independence more, not less. Though Middle East is all about overpowering and crushing your enemy to make him respect you, the excessively vindictive actions by Baghdad, and its welcoming of a foreign regime (IRGC) into this punitive takeover is likely to have the opposite effect. Baghdad’s reimposition of power began with a crackown on Kurdish media – the banning of Kurdistan24 and Rudaw, two of the major local outlets, which have been providing detailed information about both the military action of the past few weeks and internal Kurdish matters of interest to their families in Syria, Turkey, and Europe, and enhancing the understanding of world leaders who would otherwise be uninformed about the alphabet soup of Kurdish parties and factions in the region.

This move signals illegitimacy of having a separate Kurdish identity, a bitter point for a nation of approximately 30 million people with distinct languages, culture, and indigenous roots in the region, but to this day without an independent state.  Second, it is an insurance policy that the international community will have no access to real-time information on the ground, and certainly not the English-language Kurdish take on it. There is a small coterie of Western journalists presence, but as the Israeli journalist Seth Frantzman has pointed out, they tend to rely on other Western journalists for information, and thus likely miss a great deal of internal dynamics and the full spectrum of regional narratives.  Lack of alternative information will go a long way towards creating an appearance of only one perspective: Baghdad’s position, made public through official channels and formal meetings.  Whatever public support the Kurds are currently getting is largely fueled by the unrestricted access to their voices. The legitimacy of Baghdad’s own actions are severely undermined by its move to squash down criticism from the significant portion of its population, and its ally in the war against ISIS.

Second, Baghdad has moved to pay salaries directly to the Kurdish civil servants, bypassing the KRG. This undermines the authority of the Kurdish leadership, and makes the Kurdish infrastructure heavily depended on, and thus potentially loyal to, Baghdad. For sure, even if the bulk of the Kurdish civilian forces grow resentful of this deprivation of a sense of autonomy, others will cling to security for their immediate situation, and Baghdad thus far successfully divides-and-conquers the already splintered Kurdish groups.  For the same reason, Abadi’s forces are seeking to cut off Peshmerga access to the pipeline that delivers oil to Turkey, and to provide all oil to Turkey, bypassing the KRG. It’s just another way of undermining Kurdistan, weakening its economy, undermining its business relationship with Turkey, and ensuring that Iraq is viewed as the central authority, whereas Kurdistan is merely a province with no independent power to make deals or provide anything of value to the region.

Third, Baghdad is seeking to undermine the use of Kurdish languages in the region, in order to weaken the sense of a national identity and common destiny among the Kurds in Iraq, as well as a sense of unity with the Kurds in other countries. The first sign of this cultural crackdown is the attack against a Kurdish official, who used his own language rather than Arabic, in a formal media setting. While Baghdad has not yet made this move an official policy, this disturbing incident is a sign of what it could do, and what it will likely do, following the example of Turkey, if Kurds continue to resist. Suppression of national culture is the best way to weaken a potentially rebellious or troublesome population. The Soviet Union has done that systematically to the Jews; Iran has persisted in its tactics against a whole host of national minorities; and Turkey before and during Erdogan has imposed fascist policies to ensure cultural conformity.

Fourth, Baghdad is looking to divide the minorities living in Kurdish area, and has already done so, in that various groups have associated themselves with Peshmerga, PMU (connected to Iran), or with Iraqi forces, that have been trained and armed by Americans.  At the same time, Iraqi forces claimed to have no control over the Iran-backed militias, that are retaking the territories, and have opened up civilians and minorities to potential exploitation and destruction by the militias.  Having gone as far as Al Qosh, these groups have threatened a Jewish historical site, and the Christian sites in the area.  And Christian groups have reached out to the international community to complain of threats directed at them by Hashd. Yet the forces have not stopped at the borders of areas that are of strategic and geopolitical importance to the Iraqi government. They have pushed out outwards, and have been repelled by Peshmerga in multiple places, and have made way in others. Although strictly speaking there has been a ceasefire, between Iraqis and Peshmerga, that has not affected non=Peshmerga Kurdish forces protecting civilians and minorities, and who are still under threat of Iran-backed militias and IRGC. At the same time, these moves are a clear indication that Baghdad is not seeking a truce. It is seeking domination and full control of the Kurdish population, a repressive and punitive one at that.

Thus far, the response from the international community, particularly from the United States, has consisted of calls for peace and agreement, support for Iraq’s unity, and proposals of mediation to the tune of “why can’t we just all get along”. None of that was aimed at curbing Iraq’s abusive behavior or at seriously reassuring our Kurdish allies as to the commitment of the US to their security, cultural preservation, and autonomy, even under our official position of preserving Iraq as a cohesive state – quite ironic, given that there is nothing indigenous about the Sykes-Picot treaty imposed on Iraq by the British. Furthermore, there is radio silence from the US administration as to the article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, assembled with the help of US State Department and top American lawyers, which provides for Kurdish independence. Certainly, such a provision would at the very least provide a level of recognition and provision for Kurdish rights.

And ironically, it is this potential suppression of Kurdish autonomy that provides the greatest justification to independence under international law. (The Katanga case). At the end of the day, however, any nation that feels oppressed or that is otherwise dedicated to independence and pursuit of its own destiny must come to terms of having to organize its forces into strong cohesive units, making at least temporary alliances with its factions abroad, procuring whatever is needed for strong offensive and defensive fronts, through subterfuge, if necessary, and being prepared for a military triumph and complete capitulation of its opponents. In other words, if Kurds want their own state, they are going to have to fight for it, and international support will emerge only once it becomes clear that they can actually win, and have the wherewithal to support their own state without anyone’s help. It’s not pretty, but this is how it worked out for Israel, which likewise was surrounded by overwhelming enemy forces, had very limited access to inferior weapons, and no international recognition – yet there she is, nearly 70 years later, small but independent.  I hope that the US administration will see that the Baghdad government is losing its own legitimacy with each oppressive step that it takes, that its direction comes from the Iranian ayatollahs and will do the only right and practical thing under the circumstances – change its policy to fully backing the Kurds and keeping the worst of Baghdad’s actions at bay. But I wouldn’t hold my breath or rely on that.  I would also not remain passive, waiting for miracles to happen or for these problems to resolve themselves. Time may very well be ripe for a Kurdish state – but are the Kurds themselves ready?

Irina Tsukerman, human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.

Why The Usual Suspects Are Silent on the Plight of Afro-Cubans

The Castro regime's outright racism draws no attention from the liberal-minded human rights defenders in the views. Those who were the first to decry (and rightfully so), South Africa's apartheid regime see no reason to raise alarms over Cuba's isolation and exclusion of Afro-Cubans, a narrative that challenges the "conventional wisdom" of equality for all in this Communist paradise. Same people, I'm sure, still believe in the fairy tale of Cuba's "superior" free medical care, oddly accessible only to the top echelons of the regime at the level that goes beyond Potemkin villages presented for tourists, or its "exceptional" free education, which somehow has failed to eradicate the vast poverty in which most Cuban citizens find themselves.

There are no Black Lives Matter demonstrations for the miserable status of the Afro-Cuban, and the staunch defenders of "normalization", two years in, have no comment about the failure to improve the condition of most people, particularly Afro-Cubans, in any perceptible way. Were they so naive as to think that cronyist support of investments into the regime would somehow translate into human rights? Or were they so ideologically married to their support of the Obama administration that the nature of the actual policy and its ramification was irrelevant? If so, some of these "human rights activists" are even more cynical and soulless than I thought.

US has an interest in justice, freedom, and accountability around the world

We frequently criticize our leadership for failing to take leadership on human rights, particularly on countries that do not come to mind as issues of top priority "strategic importance".

First of all, defending democratic principles and freedom is always of strategic importance. The question only is what is the proper way to do that.

Second, I would sincerely like to commend Senator Ted Cruz for taking a very vocal and assertive stand on behalf of an opposition leader imprisoned for his participation in the election process in Cambodia. Not only did he condemn his act, but he clearly promised to take very specific measures should justice not prevail, in holding the Cambodian government accountable and blacklisting them from coming to the US, an embarrassing and effective step outlined in the Global Magnitsky Act to protect human rights defenders.

Also, kudos on guaranteeing that he would work with other members of Congress and administration - and thus holding our own government accountable on doing the right thing.

I hope to see that this example will start a new foreign policy - one where the US places its interests in justice, freedom, and accountability first.

Accused of Spying for Refusing to Spy

There's a slew of cases where highly educated Iranians with dual citizenships, upon returning to Iran for lectures or to visit families, are arrested and are forced to engage in espionage. If they refuse, they are tortured, forced to confess to spying for Israel or the United States, and imprisoned or executed. These men and women who refuse to engage in spying for Iran and for promoting its evil agendas deserve our full support. Please be aware that this is a frequent occurrence, and don't go to Iran, even if you receive an official invitation for conferences or other professional engagements.

US is grasping defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq

Two disturbing developments: Hashd, an Iran-backed militia, basically told US forces in Iraq to get lost. So if the US has been supporting Abadi vis-a-vis Kurds in hopes that Abadi is going to be better than someone more pro-Iranian leader, they are in for a disappointment. Iraq now has much more powerful buddies - Iran and Russia, which is seeking to widen its business operations in Iraq, and particularly, Iraqi Kurdistan, and increasingly doesn't need the US. US is losing out not only with Kurds but with Iraq as well entirely due to its show of weakness. That's an important cultural point that the administration simply doesn't get, because it thinks only in terms of short-term military tactics, without understanding the tribal nature of the societies it's dealing with. Furthermore, US is endangering the local minorities. Iraqi military has made it clear that it doesn't have control over Iranian militias and what they choose to do to Yazidis, Christians, and others. Second, Iraq is seeking to not only control 100% of oil fields in Iraqi Kurdistan, but to block important passages to Syria and Turkey. That will prevent freedom of movements for Kurds who have passed back and forth unrestricted since the beginning of life in that area. It's actually very, very dangerous and will enable Turkey to potentially enter the area in the future. It will also prevent Peshmerga from assisting with fight against ISIS or other terrorists in Syria.

No Such Thing As Coincidences

I doubt that Bill Browder's visa revocation is an accident.

More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.

Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.

Cuba Bans Dissidents and Independent Journalists from Travel

So Cuba is engaged in the Soviet-era tactics of preventing dissidents and independent journalists from traveling abroad.

Possible reasons may include fear of defections, as well as possible truthtelling about the evils of the Castro regimes.

Just a guess, but if Cuba were the idyllic place of wonderful free healthcare, top notch medicine, and free education unparalleled in quality, the regime would have had nothing to worry about.

And for those of you who still think that normalization with Cuba have somehow improved the conditions inside the country or will lead to liberalization, get your heads out of the sand.

The only people who have benefited are the people directly connected to the regime.

Everyone else continues to suffer deprivation and a worse human rights crackdown than before the normalization.

My article on the Iran decertification published in JPost

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trumps-Iran-policy-shift-should-be-the-first-step-of-a-more-aggressive-approach-507777

Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH

> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN  OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.

Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)

US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.

Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.

It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.

The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.

What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.

Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.

However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.

And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.

What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.

The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”

The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.

And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.

While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.

While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:

1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.

2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.

3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.

4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.

5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.

Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.

The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.

Western Feminists Should Learn from Moroccan Ministry of Education

Congratulations to Morocco for banning the degrading niqab from classrooms.

People can express themselves however they wish on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't cause security problems, but the only signal of having women have their faces closed off in an educational environment is disparagement on the basis of simply being a woman. This is not about modesty, good behavior, or propriety. It's treatment of a woman as nothing but a sex object, whose very face is provocative and unworthy of being seen. It's dehumanizing and simply bad for society.

I am glad that the Moroccan government is looking to promote a focus on education, not on external matters, that were brought into the country by religious extremists from abroad. Kudos! And I hope this thoughtful step will signal to the "feminists" and "human rights activists" in the West that it's ok to make education about education, and that men and women should be treated equally as human beings. Protecting inherent humanity of both men and women is not Islamphobic.

Dangerous Words Lead to Dangerous Actions

In an earlier post, I surmised that dehumanization of Kurds and other minorities in Turkey can eventually lead to the justification of mass atrocities against them, just as in 1915, the Ottomans used political enmity to justify the massacre of over a million Armenian men, women, and children.

However, the US ally Erdogan is not the only one capable of riling up the masses into an extreme nationalistic (and also religious) fervor. Our other ally, supported, supplied, and strengthened by the United States, Iraqi VP Nouri Al-Maliki, recently stated that ISIS was created in Erbil in order to lead to the partition of Iraq.  This level of political propaganda, and there is no doubt that's what this is, is aimed to manipulate tribal, deeply divided, and in many cases, largely uninformed public to shift the blame for lack of unity inside the country from the people who drew the maps with the purpose of creating internal divisions and thus minimizing the possibility of rebellion against the British Empire to the Kurds, who are seeking a peaceful separation.

There is no question that in an unstable region fraught with tensions, such comments are inherently incendiary and can be interpreted as an incitement to hatred, if not to outright violence. The people of Iraq who have suffered greatly in the hands of ISIS are now being pointed in the directions of the Kurdish region, which played a significant part in the fight against the common enemy, as a perpetrator. The idea that Kurds created ISIS is as preposterous as comparing right-wing Jews to Nazis, and yet, this comment was made by the Vice President of the country.  This is the government the United States supports and considers a legitimate democratic representation of all of the people of Iraq. Despite President Trump's comments that the United States is not taking sides in any tensions between Baghdad and Erbil, the State Department stated otherwise, specifically calling for joint administration of all regions, and claiming that separation might be exploited by ISIS, and likewise referring to all parties involved as Iraqi partners, despite the fact that the recent independence referendum established that at the very least, the Kurds no longer think of themselves as such, nor wish to stay in this dubious union.

However, even such commitment to the chimeric idea of Iraqi national unity does not justify excusing and ignoring blatantly provocative comments from top level officials, who are maliciously and deliberately encouraging strife and violence against a particular group of people. US should pressure Al-Maliki into disavowing his comments, issuing an official apology to the Kurds, and explaining that Kurds were equal partners in the fight against ISIS and can in no way be blamed for its creation. What makes these comments particularly dangerous is that they complemented by action. Specifically, despite earlier claims from the Pentagon that the invasion of Kirkuk was due to a misunderstanding of the official instructions, the Iraqi forces, backed by IRGC and Iran-supported militias, are on the march for the second day and have now entered Sinjar.

Sinjar is an area that is home to a large  number of Yazidis, who have also formed their own forces. IRGC is not known for being particularly welcoming to minorities, and Iran and Shi'a militias have threatened Yazidis in the past. Despite tensions with the Barzani government, Yazidis are better off under Kurdish control of the area than should the likes of Soleimani and Al-Maliki be left in charge.  Barzani, meanwhile, issued a non-commital statement expressing an unspecified hope for the creation of an independent Kurdistan one day in the future. With PUK reportedly having abandoned Barzani's coalition due to an agreement with or perhaps pressure from the IRGC forces, Kurdish unity is likewise in question. As they quarrel and point fingers, Baghdad's agents continue to gain control of essential oil fields, leaving the Kurds with not much to go on at this juncture. The visuals of the Iraqi forces on the march with their Iranian partners while the Vice President is making comments blaming the Kurds for the creation of ISIS are striking and horrific. Kirkuk was largely empty and for now the troops are under control, focusing on their military targets, but it takes but a match to light the fires of enmity, fear, and nationalist fervor that could lead to bloody attacks against the locals. Such reprisals may indeed be planned by the Iraqi government in order to ensure complete control and kill off the Kurdish dream altogether. The Pentagon threatened the cessation of armament and supply of the Iraqi troops in the event they attack and cause harm to the Kurds, but it's unclear that this will either actually happen or, even if it does, will in any way undermine the Iraqi determination to subdue the Kurds, in thought as well as in deed.

What should Barzani do now?  Regrouping... and planning a more strategic response that will not, in the future, rely on untrustworthy groups. Including leaders of other tribes and factions into the decisionmaking process regarding further plans may ensure the groups remaining on the same page and being less likely to be divided by IRGC or anyone else. Kurdish democracy is imperfect, and an adversary can easily pick off different parties one by one by promising them future leadership, threatening that particular group, or bad-mouthing Barzani's leadership. There's nothing new to exploitation of internal divisions. In fact, to provide a historical comparison, Israel went through much the same in the early stages of the formation of the state. However, at the end of the day, the leadership managed to summon just enough unity and agreement to do what was needed to be done to achieve independence (and then happily continued to fight and backstab each other from the day Israel was created until now).

Disunity is not an impediment to creation of the state, just so long as there is enough commitment among the core group to make a strategic victory possible. Barzani should take lesson from this experience, and not leave major cities or other sites in the hands of small groups of people. Additionally, this is the time to come to an agreement with Kurds in Syria and Turkey, and start forming and organizing a real army, strong, numerous, and committed enough to stand up to Iraq and its militias, with or without support from the United States, Israel, or anyone else. There will be help, but in the beginning it will be clandestine, limited, and highly dependent on circumstances. Once the Kurds show their commitment to victory through strengths, even the United States will start coming around. But for now, hard times lie ahead, and the Kurds should look inwards for solution, while receiving consultation and limited supported from a few early enthusiasts until such time as they start showing signs of clear success and military superiority.

How US Can Prevent Future Unjust Imprisonments and Arbitrary Detentions of Americans by Cuba and Others

In early October, a US citizen and her husband, a former Cuban diplomat, were sentenced to 13 and 17 years respectively on charges of espionage by a  military court in Havana. This sentencing follows the expulsion of 15 Cuban diplomats from the United States by the State Department, after Cuba failed to protect US diplomatic personnel from repeated sonic attacks on its territory. This news went largely unnoticed by U.S. media and thus elicited no outrage or condemnation by the international community, nor public expressions of concern by the State Department.

Cuba has a long and sordid history of arresting critics, dissidents, and foreigners on trumped up national security charges.  Alan Gross is but the most famous of foreigners who spent years in Cuban prison for humanitarian work and assistance in civil engagement. Cuban government had engaged in a campaign of extortion, and finally released Mr. Gross, after US paid over $3 million in settlement.  It seems that the Castro regime was less concerned about the assault on its law than about getting a hefty renumeration for its own pockets. President Trump acted to restrict tourist travel to Cuba for American citizens in June, but that still leaves 12 categories of travel legal and does not address the issue of American citizens who are already in Cuba.  In other words, US nationals continue to travel to Cuba for various, entirely valid reasons, and yet are subject to arbitrary detentions, imprisonment on trumped up charges, denial of medical treatment in Cuban jails, and abuse of all kinds.

The Alan Gross case had worked in Cuba's favor and set a precedent of successful use of Americans as hostage, whose release can be negotiated for financial and political boons.  President Obama's shift in policy, normalizing the diplomatic relations between the two countries did little to address the Castro regime's illegitimate use of the justice system to secure payments for prisoners, that under normal circumstances would be considered a form of racketeering under US RICO statutes. Two years after normalization, this shift in policy has failed to empower and enrich millions of Cubans unaffiliated with the Castro regime, has not only not fixed the deplorable human rights situation but actually led to a crackdown on human rights activists, caused medical concerns for US diplomats in Cuba, and in general, and with respect to anyone and anything excepting the wealthiest crony investors, has misfired "big league".

The worst of it for the US is that Cuba continues to play it both ways - demands legitimacy accorded to it by the normalized relations, while also continuing to use Americans as pawns against the US government. This latest conviction is not only a perverse tit-for-tat in retaliation for the expulsion of the Cuban diplomats from the United States, but a reminder that Cuba, despite being smaller, weaker, and known for its support of terrorists and rogue regimes from all over the world, still has the upper hand in its relations with the United States. Cuba can detain, convict, and abuse Americans and the US will play right into its hands, because the US values human life and the Castro regime does not. US is willing to go to extreme lengths to secure the release of its unjustly held citizens and permanent residents, whereas for Cuba, a person is only worth as much as the regime can get in payment for his release. And until recently, short of banning all travel to Cuba, we were powerless to do anything about it, because we have no leverage short of going along with the demands of the extortionist regime and exchanging prisoners or paying money. We are not willing to engage in the same terrorist behavior and hold Cuban diplomats or citizens hostages here just to secure the release of American nationals.

But what recourse do we have under such circumstances? It appearance that we do have a path forward that does not include negotiations with an illegitimate revolutionary regime that thinks nothing of extortionist abductions to further its goals. After examining existing human rights laws on the books,  I discovered that:

* Currently, there are no laws, nor pending bills that would penalize states or individuals or entities responsible for arbitrary detentions, arrests, denial of medical treatment, or torture against US citizens and permanent residents.

* The only legislative requirements associated with US prisoners in other countries are regular reporting requirements by the President to Congress, which obviously do not do much to assist those in need.

* Currently, there are at least 10 US citizens & permanent residents held captive in Iran, at least 4 in North Korea, at least one in Turkey, and just this weekend, there has been news of conviction of a US citizen on Cuba on espionage charges, resulting in a 13 year sentence.

*  In the past, US citizens have been held or convicted on trumped up charges, denied medical treatment, and brutally tortured in a number of countries. Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Turkey have all used the imprisonment of these individuals to extort political and financial concessions from the United States.

* One solution to this legislative gap would be a law incorporating Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act  type language, that would would assert visa cancelations and asset freezes for any individuals and entities associated with unjust treatment of US nationals.  That would include judges, prison guards, wardens, torturers, and doctors involved in denial of life-saving medical treatment in prisons.

* Such legislation  would essentially ostracize anyone involved in such activity on the basis of their unconscionable actions, and not simply for the fact of membership in an organization such as IRGC. Organizations can dissolve or be renamed; many of the people involved in the lawless arrests and imprisonment of Americans are not members of any political organizations, and yet contribute to this gross injustice.

* In addition to making such people unwelcome in the international arena, and denying them the possibility of utilizing the US banking system, as well as providing a bit of justice for the survivors and for the families of people who have gone missing or died as a result of actions by these state enablers (such as Bob Levinson and Otto Warmbier), this legislation would likely positively affect the outcome of hostage negotiations by giving the executive branch additional leverage in conducting these talks. Currently, we have no leverage and as a result have been forced to either admit defeat and retreat or to grant concessions which only encourage what ultimately amounts to terrorist behavior.

* Another positive aspect of this legislation is making these countries safe for travel. Executive actions are currently preventing US citizens from traveling to countries such as North Korea, and strong travel warnings and restrictions have been placed on Cuba and other places. Visas have are not being issues for travel to Turkey. Such actions ultimately only hurt the idea of freedom of travel, which is central to a functioning democracy, and are only necessary because currently there is no other way of providing for the basic security of those traveling to these countries. Such measures are inimical to health people-to-people relations and any possibility of business, cultivating individual relationships, or frankly, even liberalizing such countries through their exposure to Western ideas and private initiatives.  A much better way of ensuring security for Westerners is attacking the cause of all problems - extortionist state action, which endangers travelers. Legislation that penalizes those who benefit from such extortion would disincentivize these states from further engaging in such actions, deter abductions, and make US travels restrictions less necessary.

And while the audience considers the upsides of taking legislative action that would empower our negotiators and reduce the power of racketeering regimes over the United States, I hope the White House considers highlighting this case of a gross miscarriage of justice, publicly denounces the Castro regime's extortion, shuts down the US embassy in Cuba until further notice, and expels the remaining diplomats from the United States. There is no reason why the enablers and servants of the Castro regime should continue to be treated as legitimate actors by the international community while continuing to engage in illegitimate actions and unjust convictions of foreigners. Civilians are not, and should never be, fair game during diplomatic tensions, and this instant conviction for "spying" that has come so shortly after the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from the US, should be no exception.

Is Turkey preparing for mass atrocities against Kurds and other minorities?

Systemic dehumanization of Kurds (not just PKK) has been going for the past two years, since the conflict Erdogan unleashed against PKK in order to justify his manipulation of the elections, as AKP floundered in a failing economy. Of course, the conflict ended up largely targeting civilians, and included burned buildings, tortures, murders of women and children, and a widespread crackdown on civil rights in the entire region, which precipitated the rise of authoritarianism across the country.

Now, books about Kurds are being banned on national security grounds.

Historically, using pejorative language against a minority ethnic or religious group, and consequently claiming that the entire group is a national security danger, a fifth column, or an enemy within has been used to justify attempted mass elimination of that group.

The group may be a historic rival of another group, or it may just be a convenient scapegoat, but whatever the political grievances used as a justification eventually end up being largely used against civilians and innocent bystanders.

We have seen the Nazis compare Jews to rats until that concept became firmly lodged in the minds of much of the country as the Nuremberg Laws were being imposed, and as the FInal Solution was adopted.

We have seen this in Rwanda, where a politician would call Tutsis "cockroaches", leading to the perception of that group as inferior, inherently worthless, destructive, and disgusting. Regular people were so brainwashed into believing that other human beings had nothing human about them that they were living to stand by or even partake in mass murder.

Kurds are increasingly being portrayed as all members of PKK and all a national security danger to Turkey. There is an implication that they are disloyal, that they spy for foreign governments. Professors at universities have been fired for being Kurdish, sometimes under the excuse that they were a foreign element, and sometimes for no reason other than the fact that they were a minority.

Kurdish newspapers have been shut down; Kurdish politicians thrown in prison; Kurdish social media accounts and websites have been blocked.

The entire group is being indiscriminantly treated as members of an uprising.

Turks are being conditioned, programmed to believe that you cannot trust members of that community, that anything written about Kurds is by definition against unified Turkish identity; that identifying oneself as a minority is a threat to Turkish culture and to the government, that speaking any language other than Turkish means that you may be planning a government coup or that you are a separatist that wants to split the country apart and start a civil war. This incendiary rhetoric coupled with action distracts the population from Erdogan's crackdowns on other fronts; scapegoats the Kurds, and creates an internal enemy linked to external enemies - the Kurds in Syria, who wants to form an autonomy, with territory that would be contiguous with the Kurdish areas of Turkey, and with KRG, that just voted to form an independent state and is claiming Kirkuk - an area that Turkey insists it has historic claims on - as its own.

Now, Erdogan's expansionist, neo-Ottoman ambitions have a solid justification: security of Turkey, which is under threat from a militant nation that is surrounding it from all sides and is trying to take away Turkish land. And it has coopted a signficant portion of its population, into a fifth column, and the PKK is not just a terrorist organization, it's paid by enemies. And anyone who supports Kurdish aspirations for independence is opposed to Turkish national sovereignty.

See how it all works?

Unless the United States and its Western powers, utilizing all the significant leverage that they have, make it clear to Erdogan that this dehumanizing campaign ends full stop or else, we are very likely to see further significant infringements on human rights of the Kurds in Turkey and outside of it, and possibly, if the events continue to unravel in the same direction, bloody massacres and other atrocities that will not spare women or children, to follow.

Erdogan is on a path of no return, and the more he is appeased under the pretense of NATO alliance and dealmaking, the more he is likely to utilize this freedom against his own population, starting with the people that make a very compelling target for a bloodthirsty dictator, obsessed with staying in power, and the brainwashed masses who are being increasingly whipped up by an Islamist, nationalist frenzy - a terrible combination, to be sure.

I hope the international community, and particularly the US government, firmly intervenes before it's too late.

How Rogue Regimes Use Double Standards to Impose Their Will At Home and Abroad

What is striking about Turkey's demand for ransom to free an American pastor which eventually sparked the current reciprocal visa freeze between Turkey and the United States is Turkey's unironic expectation that that US (and international community) should grant equal degree of legitimacy to the US process and Turkey's clearly arbitrary way of going after anyone who is convenient at the time. Turkey unjustly imprisoned an American evangelical Andrew Brunson under trumped up charges in horrendous conditions that have cost him his health. In exchange, it demands US return clergy associated with Fetullah Gullen, Erdogan's political nemesis. Aside from expecting US to violate international agreements related to the return of political asylees who would likely face unjust imprisonment, torture, or execution in their home countries, Erdogan thinks nothing of arresting a  US citizen, fabricating charges against him, and mistreating him as a way to force a political solution to its witch hunt against other political factions.

A dictatorship's grotesquely distorted idea of national sovereignty thus extends far beyond its own borders. It is willing to violate all international norms of civil behavior to make a political point, imposing its will abroad, even if it means risking a serious deterioration in relationship with an important ally. To an authoritarian dictator, who thinks nothing of torturing and murdering his opposition, be they military, political rivals, or Kurdish citizens asserting their rights to distinct cultural heritage, human life has no value except as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The only lives that matter are those of the authoritarian leader and his equally corrupt cronies, who may be in favor today, and exiled or assassinated tomorrow if they grow too powerful or somehow cross Erdogan.

Erdogan's Turkey is not unique in this manner. Iran, North Korea, and other countries engage in this perverse strategy on a regular basis. Cuba has done the same with Alan Gross.  These countries expect to be treated as equals among nations despite having no respect for any other state or anyone else's interests but their own.  Despite the claim that these societies are obsessed with security and are thus safer and less prone to crime and espionage than more open societies, these states are inherently lawless and illegitimate, with one person or a small coterie of kleptocrats controlling all the means of governance at the time, and the rest of the society largely defanged, divided, brainwashed, and hopeless. Iran has an Orwellian strategy of making public enemies out of human rights defenders.

As per Kaveh Taheri, an investigative reporter focused on human rights, Iran frequently uses national security and blasphemy laws as an absurd way of shutting down dissent or simply arbitrarily grabbing anyone who needs to be detained, be that a regular person, caught drinking alcohol, a minority member demanding cultural rights, a political dissident or human rights activist, a member of a faction that has fallen into disfavor, a dual national, or a Westerner that appears to be good bait, or an errant artist, whose work is deemed threatening to the regime despite a lack of obviously disruptive agenda. Any freedom of thought that is not granted by the regime explicitly and strategically to select individuals resides in the shadows.

Kaveh states:

"Acting against national security" is one of the punishable crimes under Iran's Islamic Penal Code. The article 279 describes that the crimes including armed robbery, armed fighting, disturbing public orders through armed acting could be recognized as Moharebeh (Enmity against God) as well as judge can issues death penalty or long-term imprisonment, and life-time imprisonment for the criminals. 

Further, the articles 286-288 describe that those people act against national security through disturbing economy, spreading false news against the regime of Iran, spreading false news to disturb public order, ignite and destruction public or state properties, outbreaking of toxic and dangerous microbial substances, establishing of corruption centers for gambling or sex, high drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and those armed opposition groups who fight the regime of Iran could be recognized as Ifsad-e fil arz (corruption on the earth) [the member of the groups is identified as Mofsed-E-Filarz], whereupon, judge issues heavy sentences as long-term imprisonment, life-time imprisonment or death penalty.

Iran Islamic Penal Code is a complicated context that the IRI's Law Enforcement officials (judges, Prosecutors, attorney general, …) can have their own interpretation of the law which may lead them to issue death penalty or prison term for the detainees.

But, especially about your question, the officials (Judicial Department officials, Intelligence Service officials, and IRGC's Intelligence Service officials) use the ambiguity in the law to put pressure upon dissidents. The IRI officials convict the Iranian dissidents to death or heavy sentences for the ambiguous charges as "acting against national security", "propaganda against the regime of Iran", "spreading false news against IRI", "disturbing public order", "Moharebeh through membership of the opposition groups", "Ifsad-e fil arz through membership of the opposition groups", "insulting the Supreme Leader of IRI of the other state officials", … .

In instance, the imprisoned student activist Arash Sadeghi was sentenced to 19 years in prison. His wife Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee was sentenced to 6 years in prison. The human rights activist Atena Daemi was initially sentenced to 14 years in prison, which was commuted to 7 years imprisonment. And, many civil and human rights activists who have been jailed for their peaceful activism.  

In this manner, the Islamic Republic actually acts in a completely arbitrary and lawless manner, cynically manipulating both Islamic concepts and security jargon to go after its enemies, real and imaginary, sometimes simply for the sake of dividing or scaring any potential opposition that may emerge. In fact, randomness in enforcement, and periodic clamp downs, are part of a deliberate strategy to illustrate the absolute power of the state. By that token, the Islamic Republic is also ultimately a godless society, because arbitrary arrests and punishments serve to show that ultimately, the power lies not with Allah, but with the ayatollahs, who alone determine which sinners can be overlooked, and which will be penalized. 

They alone, human beings, not a deity, decide who is a danger, and who, though engaged in very similar action, is a good citizen and a good Muslim.  A society in which vast corruption permeates the higher circles, but only the danger to the regime that is a violation serious enough to warrant the kind of torturous ordeal that easily strikes a regular average Iranian who ate in public during Ramadan, who went out to demonstrate against oppression, or who was merely a dual citizen on a visit with his family - is not a society that promotes awe of some omnipotent being. It's a society that emphasizes state control, human power, above all else.

The dual standards that permeate these authoritarian states extend beyond their borders. Obsessed with spies and foreign agents, these states, nevertheless, maintain extensive intelligence networks all over the world, which consider espionage, active measures, psy-ops,  and even assassinations par for the course and think nothing of other countries' national sovereignty, international norms, or even potential repercussions of going too far too often. And it works. More open societies think it beyond their virtue to engage in disruptive activities concerning even their adversaries, much less of cynical abductions, overwhelming propaganda, or other actions that are supposed to intimidate and oppress the enemy. And open societies are generally open to infiltration, to the point of self-preservation becoming a secondary concern to the preservation of accepted civil norms.

For that reasons, we will find Erdogan's jaundiced view of the West's unwillingness to simply give up Gullenists in exchange for one of their own shocking, but to Erdogan, the only shocking part is how staunchly the West adheres to the norms of diplomatic proportionality and how it continues to treat violators of its own standards and laws with civil reciprocity, rather than crushing, overwhelming force.

What would that entail? Having a threat of reprisals against particular individuals in those regimes for the mere fact of violating national sovereignty, and certainly for the mere act of detaining, much less torturing, US citizens and permanent residents, under these bogus charges. Passing legislation, similar to Magnitsky Act, that would empower the US government to freeze the assets of corrupt and evil regime officials, and to deny them and their families entry to the US, would make compliance more likely, give us leverage during the negotiation, since the mere threat of such measures would make these officials less likely to engage in extortion, and prevent the US from having to restrict its own nationals' freedom to travel by having to institute travel bans for their own security. Indeed, holding specific individuals accountable for the harm done to the US nationals, even before any such harm is done to anyone, would go along way in preempting them from ever engaging in such behavior in the first place, and would contribute decisively towards making the world both a more free and more secure place for everyone.