Mohed Altrad, a Bedouin Who Flees the Desert, Becomes Billionaire, Wins Coveted 2015 EY Award

eiffel eyeful, photo by iwc photo

MARSEILLE, France - How many of us could walk through the desert to sit outside of school because we had such a thirst for knowledge? Would you be motivated enough to gaze through a hole in mud and tin roof schoolhouse and stare at a chalk board covered in symbols which meant nothing to you because you have never seen writing?

What if in addition to this, you knew that everyday after a several hour walk home that you would be beaten upon your arrival because your destiny was predetermined to be a sheepherder? Well not only did he learn to write, he excelled.

The man who did all of this and more is Mohed Altrad, a Syrian son of a Bedouin girl who was either 12 or 13-years-old when she was raped for the second time by his father who was the leader of their nomadic tribe. It was into these horrific circumstances that Altrad and his elder brother were born. In interviews, Altrad says that he doesn't remember his mother's name, but he does know that she died giving birth to him.

His elder brother was eventually murdered by his father, leaving Mohed to be raised by his maternal grandmother just outside Raqqa, which like many towns and cities in Syria, it is now controlled by the Islamic State (ISIS), but back then it was the place he called home.

Because his family were Bedouin tribesmen wandering the deserts of Syria, they kept no records of births or deaths so Altrad has no idea of his true age. According to interviews, he surmises that he is perhaps as old as 65, but this figure is not as important to him as all that he has achieved in remembrance of his mother. The pursuit of this promise to honor her has culminated in his becoming a billionaire, but the prize that has allowed him the visibility to publicly honor her was in being chosen as the 2014 French Entrepreneur of the Year.

As a result of the French Entrepreneur of the Year, he was nominated to represent France in the annual Ernst and Young World Entrepreneur of the Year competition. This year, 52 national award winners were nominated, but Altrad won the coveted 2015 award. Of course his ascent wasn't immediate, but his success was a consequence of his thirst for knowledge, his persistence, and triumph over the limitations set for him by his grandmother.

Once she died he was free to fully engage in the pursuit of his academic studies. He was just 17-years-old when he was awarded a scholarship by a Syrian foundation which granted him admission to the University of Kiev in Ukraine. He packed what little possessions he had and traveled to Europe where he knew no one and didn't speak the language. Upon his arrival he was told that the course was full, so he traveled to France. He recounted how he arrived during the coldest of winter days in France, unable to speak French, and with little means to support himself. He sometimes ate only one meal a day but this did not deter him. It seemed that the hardness of life in the Syrian desert prepared him to face any type of difficulty, and gave him the fortitude to withstand hardship and persevere.

In France he became fluent in French and matriculated into one of the oldest universities in Europe located in the city of Montpellier. There he pursued his undergraduate studies, eventually receiving his PhD in Computer Science. According to interviews, upon graduation he began to look for a business venture and as if destined, while sitting in a cafe he picked up a newspaper and noticed an advertisement from the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company which was seeking engineers to help design the infrastructure for their burgeoning oil and gas industry.

He made the decision to take the job because it would provide him with the opportunity to save money and perhaps to buy a business. Like other foreign nationals who even today work in the Middle East, they are paid astronomical salaries with nothing to spend the money on. Upon the completion of his contract, he returned to France in search of a business venture into which he could invest. He and his partner worked on and brought to market one of the first laptop computers.

These laptops were large and clunky, and according to interviews "were about the size of a suitcase." They were initially used as the precursor to the airport terminal computers that announce flight arrivals and departures. At that time he and his partner lacked the resources to scale and thus sold the company and continued to save money. Always in search of opportunities, he considered and discarded ventures into which he could invest. One day he was approached by a man who had been trying to sell his bankrupt scaffolding business, thus Altrad and his partner bought the faltering business in 1985.

Despite knowing nothing about scaffolding a decidedly non-tech business, he and his partner decided to assume the risk, plus the investment was relatively small. Altrad capitalized his investments by buying and selling not only scaffolding, but also everything that might be of benefit to builders. This included the expansion into the tool market, machinery, and cement etcetera. He also invested in the workforce by providing excellent employee benefits that made them happier and thus more productive. His company philosophy incentivize his employees to take ownership of their work product and feel like they were valuable to the company.

In the past 30 years under his management the Altrad Group has grown to 17,000 employees, with customers in 100 countries, and 170 subsidiary companies. According to their website the company "sells and hires out equipment for building and public works and for industry (mixers, scaffolding, tubular equipment)." An amazing feat for a non-technical company, especially one that was birthed from such meager beginnings but now has $2bn (£1.3bn) in turnover and $200m annual profit.

In a BBC interview Altrad said that he sleeps less than 4 hours a night. He doesn't know why; however from the outside looking in, it is because of this drive and creativity that he is a prolific businessman and a successful writer who has two books in publication. One which is autobiographical and the other which is read in schools across France. Between the two he has sold millions of copies.

In a time when xenophobia is at its height both in Europe where illegal African immigrants arrive daily, or in America where people like the Republican candidate Donald Trump espouse hatred and vitriol toward Mexican immigrants and garners a large following; Mr. Altrad is a shinning example of what it truly means to be an immigrant. A citizen who uses their culture and history to enrich the society into which they assimilate, and as a consequence makes the country stronger and better because of their tenacity, vision, and drive to succeed despite all odds.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: @ ayannanahmias
LINKEDIN: Ayanna Nahmias

Qatar: Conciliators, Regional Superpower, or Simply Another Wealthy Arab Nation?

sheikh tamim bin hamad al-thani amir of qatar e-u. high representative for foreign and security policy and Vice president of the european commission catherine ashton in doha, qatar

DOHA, Qatar - An internationally renowned nation which was once known only for its pearl-fishing has become a major global player. Pumping out nearly 2.3 millions of barrels of natural gas a day which gets shipped around the globe as LNG, it is in the top 25 producers of oil and gas. (Source: Forbes) 

Unfortunately, it is also currently at the center of the FIFA scandal that is reverberating around the world, yet this is not the topic of discussion here.

In the 1940s the nascent country’s oil and gas industry was developed by Western nations as they continued to implement colonization strategies that included primary control of natural resources. This all changed in the 1990s when Qatar exercised greater control of the profits from its oil and gas industry thus transforming it into one of richest countries in the Emirates.

The government recognizes that shifting from a major global supplier of oil and gas will be a long and somewhat protracted process. But, the proactive open-market policies being instituted by the government is helping Qatar to become both a major financial hub in additional to a luxury tourist destination. At the start of 2015, Qatar’s economy was ranked a score of 70.8 according to the data tracked, which means that it is the 32nd most investor friendly economies in the world. With this type of recognition comes the ability to not only exert influence, but also encourages criticism as in the case of allegations of impropriety with the award to host the 2022 World Cup soccer games to Qatar.

Owing to economic diversification, investors from different parts of the world have taken a keen interest in doing business with the country as well as establishing corporate headquarters. The ramping up of foreign investments in infrastructure, finance and banking, products and services, etc. being delivered by these foreign corporations prognosticates some excellent job opportunities in Qatar, and is one of the main reasons that it was chosen as a host country for the games.

Qatar is often regarded as a study in contradictions and is known to be significantly more liberal than many of its neighbors. Apart from Saudi Arabia, the state of Qatar is the only Middle Eastern nation to adopt Wahhabism as its official state religion. The religious demographics in Qatar seem to support both the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and the militant Hamas movement, and the internecine conflict between the two is quite complex and sometimes terrifying. At the moment the ‘tug of war’ raging inside the Muslim world consists of two sides. The Salafi jihadis―or hardcore Wahhabis, who are financed and supported by Saudi Arabia versus the Muslim Brotherhood who are supported by Qatar on the other.

For years Qatar has been supporting and propagating the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda in different parts of the Middle East and North Africa through its Al Jazeera television network. Though this may seem partisan at first glance, history reveals a more nuanced story, one in which Qatar has maintained a very diplomatic approach towards an increasingly global religious dilemma. Qatar's ability to act as arbiter and play the role of conciliator was demonstrated in its role in achieving the 2008 ceasefire in Lebanon according to the online news site Asharq Al-Awsat.

Unfortunately, the world’s eyes are trained upon Syria and the tragedies that are occurring within its borders, and though Qataris are working behind the political scene to help support Syrians to establish a post-Bashar Hafez al-Assad governance, these efforts toward stabilization are not obviously visible. As with much that occurs in negotiations, what is seen in the public eye is rarely what occurs behind the scenes, and in this context Qatar always positions itself to ensure that its interests are preserved. One of the main motives and interest in facilitating peace in Syria is the hope that a more moderate form of Islam will prevail in a new Syria, and if successful, may help to garner a bigger seat at the table of powerful Arab nations.

The initiatives taken thus far reflect Qatar’s desire to continue in its role as conciliator in the global economic and religious amphitheater. Qatar hopes that by making greater strides with this goal through an open job market, flexibility in accepting the customs of foreigners within limits of decorum, and negotiating for an air of tolerance, balance, and acceptance will ultimately serve to change external perceptions. From the highest levels of government to the ordinary Qataris, there exists a desire to be counted amongst the most developed and advanced countries in the world, and thus the nation hopes to break the stigma of mistrust and judgment that plagues almost every Muslim nation today.

Middle East Correspondent:  @Vinita Tiwari

Despite Presidential Legacy Goals, Obama Agrees to Slow Afghanistan Troop Drawdown

U.S. Soldier in Afghanistan, Courtesy of the U.S. Army

AFGHANISTAN - In March, President Obama announced that troop levels in Afghanistan would not be reduced, despite the president's pledge to decrease the number by half. In the following weeks a flood of diplomatic engagements, press conferences and speculation by world leaders unraveled about what the bilateral relationship will look like in the coming months and years.

What has become clear is an already tense and fragile relationship has become increasingly volatile with the rise of ISIS, coupled with the lessons learned from Iraq’s draw downs. In Iraq, many think we withdrew too quickly, leaving the vulnerable Iraqi troops to fend for themselves against ISIS, who advanced quickly against the inexperienced resistance.

Despite these factors, amplified lobbying efforts by President Ashraf Ghani certainly doesn't bode well for Obama’s plan to get half of the troops remaining in Afghanistan out by the end of 2015. With these pressures accumulating for months, Obama has officially decided to slow his planned troop draw down by scratching the 50% reduction in troops he was planning for the end of 2015. Now, the plan is to keep 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2015, when the timeline will be further evaluated and structured for 2016.

Regardless of this major decision, Obama is unyielding on his benchmark goal of ending the war in Afghanistan before his Presidency comes to an end. Therefore, while there may be 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in December, he plans to have only a few hundred troops at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul left in the country by the end of 2016. The pace of this drawdown, though, is yet to be situated.

No doubt the White House, Pentagon, CIA and others are weighing the pros and cons versus staying longer to establish peace and stability, a strong Afghan military, and a more robust response to ISIS advances – but there is the eternal reminder that this is already America’s longest war and it cannot drag on forever. And while Obama may be dogged about having troops out by the end of 2016, he may be outweighed by recommendations from senior advisers and officials in these agencies who are pushing for Americans to stay longer and lock in the progress made over the last 13-years. It remains to be seen who will win this fight.

Africa Correspondent: @JessamyNichols
LinkedIn: Jessamy Nichols

To Spite Obama Health Insurance Companies and Pharmaceuticals Choose to Kill Citizens

WASHINGTON, D.C. – At midnight on December 31st the world retired 2014 to make way for 2015. For many it marked a night of festivities, parties, and insouciance. For others, like me, it was the day which marked the resetting of health insurance premiums, deductibles, and prescription coverages which would inevitably result in increased costs.

In the days prior, I frantically traveled to doctor's offices and pharmacies to get all of our prescriptions refilled before January 1st. In one instance, my son's pediatrician wouldn't authorize refills for his asthma medications without an appointment. Thankfully we were able to be seen by him on an emergency basis on the morning of December 31st. It was with grateful relief that he wrote all of the prescriptions needed and that I was able to get them filled before the pharmacy closed.

Unfortunately the insurance company would not authorize the refill of one of my son's most expensive medications until after the new year. One might think, with the figures I am about to report, that the medications to which I am referring are 'Brand Named' versus 'Generic.' However, this is not the case. In 2014, before I met my plan deductible, the generic version of one of his medications was $250 for a 30-day supply, while the cost for the brand name was $491. After I met my annual deductible, the costs of this medicine was reduced significantly to $50 for a 30-day supply of the generic which was a great costs savings for our household.

This reduction from my perspective directly correlated with the enactment of The Affordable Care Act (ACA) which was passed in 2010. The ACA, also known as 'Obamacare' made health coverage mandatory and also provided the means for the uninsured to purchase affordable insurance through exchanges which would help regulate the market prices. For me it was a blessing because it reduced my premiums and enabled me to purchase 'individual/self-pay' insurance without having to pay exorbitant premium fees because of 'preexisting' condition as defined by insurance companies such as Asthma, Cancer, Heart Disease, etc.

The cost to maintain this insurance is expensive, but compared to what I paid for COBRA Continuation Health Coverage in 2012, the 33 percent reduction in premium costs was a welcomed relief. I went from paying $1,660 per month to just over $550 per month for better coverage. The only catch was that my prescription costs increased significantly and thus the net/net was actually more like a 20 percent reduction in costs once this was factored in. However, providing the best healthcare for my son was non-negotiable and often meant that bills remain unpaid, and in some instances I didn't refill my medication or go to see the doctor when I needed.

Then, on November 14, 2014, The New York Times reported that "The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans." Proponents of ACA asserted that this demonstrated that the legislation was working while Republican opponents pointed to these increases as proof that it is not.

As a parent and someone who is directly impacted by the ACA, I can categorically state that without it neither my son nor I would have insurance coverage. I couldn't have afforded to pay $3,000 a month in premiums and prescription costs because of 'preexisting conditions.' From my perspective the 2015 rate increases coupled with inflation in costs for generic medicines is a ploy devised by the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to incite an already cash strapped American consumer to work against their own best interest. The premise that healthcare for average Americans was better prior to the passing of the ACA is ludicrous.

Me and millions of other Americans remember the heartache and pain of having to watch one's child suffer because an insurance company informed you that your child's healthcare costs would no longer be covered because of an "annual or lifetime" dollar limit. Other parents were faced with the necessity of mortgaging their homes, working several jobs, and making other sacrifices so that they could pay for expensive cancer or heart disease medicines. We all thought these days were behind us, but it turns out that 'we' have become collateral damage in what has been advertised as a war between the Republicans and President Obama.

In reality it is about greed. Providing access to affordable healthcare and prescriptions is not a luxury, it is a need. Parents like me are not 'lazy ne'er-do-wells' seeking to sponge off of the government. We are hard-working individuals who make difficult choices so that our children may live and grow up to be healthy contributors to society. The ACA provided us with hope for such a future, but insurance companies and pharmaceuticals have found a new way to game the system.

Anecdotally, it appears that since insurance companies are forced to insure people who may cost them money, they will make insurance available but the quality of that service is dependent on one's ability to pay for it. Thus, the better the insurance the greater the costs. However, this doesn't help them to recoup their losses (i.e. executives can't buy a new yacht, jet, exotic car, or mansion), so they turn to the pharmaceutical companies to further pressure consumers into lobbying for the dissolution of Obamacare.

When the media first began to report that generic medicine prices would increase substantially I worried but not much. Then, The Chicago Tribune reported on the rising cost of generic drug prices, and I became concerned but couldn't imagine an increase greater than a few percentage points. Then on January 3rd when I asked the pharmacists to fill the one prescription remaining from 2014, I was shocked to learn that the price increased from $50 for a 30-day supply to $391 for a 30-day supply. That was for GENERIC not brand name! I contacted my insurance company and was given a clearly ridiculous story that the cost of manufacturing the drug had increased.

Asthma can be a life-threatening condition and not taking his medication for a few days though not recommended, is not going to kill him. The same cannot be said of parents who have children with a terminal illness like cancer, in which treatment consists of multiple medications and a single prescription can cost upwards of $1,500 per month. Thus, the title of this article seeks not only to grab your attention, but also to help people understand that by taking away our ability to purchase life-saving medicine so that a pharmaceutical company can increase it's profit margin is immoral, reprehensible, and absolutely inhuman; and like it or not the choice to drastically increase the cost of generic drugs is tantamount to 'killing citizens.'

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor-in-Chief: @ayannanahmias

Related articles

• Motivation For Republican Obstruction And Lies About Obamacare (benniewiley.com)

• Obamacare's first year, in one tweet (vox.com)

• Obamacare forces health care companies to experiment, evolve (bizjournals.com)

• In 2015, Consumer Will Be King In Healthcare (techcrunch.com)

Racism Remains in Post-Apartheid South Africa

Apartheid, Photo by UN Photo

SOUTH AFRICA - The World Hates me Because I am Black... Thus I will Love the World Because I am Black.

I will always remember this moment: my mom and little brother coming into the house with mail. She hands me a large envelope with the biggest smile. I quickly glance to see Howard University in big, bold, blue font with 'CONGRATULATIONS' on the bottom.

I didn't know at the time that I would be attending a premier HBCU and one of the leading research institutions in the world. My reality soon became engulfed in Black pride, Black beauty, and Black history. Professors continuously remind the student body of the academic, technological, and cultural contributions by African people to the global network. Because of my experience at Howard University, I learned to appreciate my skin color.

I am currently studying abroad at the University of Stellenbosch in Stellenbosch, South Africa. The town is racially and economically segregated. Walking on one side of Eikstad Mall, a shopping centre, I mainly see students, the white middle class, and employees. However, the other side of the mall reveals a different story. Blacks and Coloureds fill the area while White tourists enthusiastically take pictures. The university itself is notoriously known as a racist university because of its history as an Afrikaans-only school. Even the architect of Apartheid taught at this university. So as a young Black woman, I am defying the slowly dying Apartheid-schema:

WHITE = GOOD & SUPERIORITY; BLACK = BAD & INFERIORITY

Stares continuously confront me as I walk through the streets of Stellenbosch. They range from genuine curiosity to a loaded question of “why are you here?” However, I must mention that the stares vary by the perpetrator's color (I am using color to make a claim and demonstrate my observations; I am not aiming to generalize nor to negatively portray South Africa and its people). White people look with curiosity, fascination, objectification, lust, and a complex, deep-seated hatred and contempt. Coloureds glare at me as if I remind them of a Black perpetrator in their past (Blacks and Coloureds do not have an amicable relationship mostly due to the systematic marginalization of Coloured placed slightly above Blacks - similar to the history and relationship between Blacks and Latinos in America). Black Afrikans stare at me with … well... I would argue curiosity, disgust, and confusion.

Does my natural Afro, American accent, and African-Native-American-European mixed features evoke a 'stop-and-stare' reaction in a non-American country?

Of course.

That would definitely be the acceptable explanation if these stares were solely genuine curiosity.

But they are not.

The actual is not the main issue. I do not favor staring because of my experiences in childhood. Staring is a natural phenomenon that will never disappear; I accept that. The main issue is what lies behind the staring that is not spoken, but clear: a covert global campaign promoting Black inferiority.

Everywhere I turn I see Black women destroying their natural hair with non-stop weaves, wigs, and braids. The Afrikan cultural traditions of decorating one's head with flattering hair-dos and wearing clothes that demonstrates one's roots and status became replaced with conflicting European standards of beauty. Like diamonds in the rough, I see Black people retain their heritage through their language, dancing, and the undying dedication towards Ubuntu. But this is overshadowed in Stellenbosch. Even if I travelled to Afrikan places that fought against the damaging effects of colonialism; like a mouse, it silently scurries in and conveniently leaves droppings as a reminder of its presence.

Ultimately, I travelled from an HBCU bubble, Black pride island back into the real world. A world that constantly reminds me that it loathes my skin color and anything associated to it. At every restaurant, I am confronted with “you don't belong here and should never belong here.” At a club, I am asked for extra identification. At the bar, several customers are served before me. In stores, I am monitored but not helped. From tourists, I am greeted with a traditional Afrikan language. To others, I am worthless until my American origin graces their ears. These experiences have truly influenced my study abroad journey. However, there is one that moves my soul to tears: the contempt for Black Americans from Black Afrikans.

Howard reminds me that I have brothers and sisters in Afrika and in the Afrikan diaspora, yet I believe the feeling is not mutual. A Black-American girl from Boston told me that in her conversation with some Afrikans, she mentioned that she identifies herself as African-American. To her surprise, she was met with laughter and a firm “you are not Afrikan.” We can always debate on 'what is Afrikan,' but the disregard of our historical bond disturbs me. Clearly the definitions of Afrikan, Black, isiXhosa vs. isiZulu, Zimbabwean vs. South African are significant to most. Yet, all hope is surely not lost.

One of my best days spent in South Africa was at Mzolis in Gugulethu, a township. My flatmates, Christine and Alyssa, and I were chilling in a lounge with Afrikan men watching a soccer game . Our passionate, young 'tour guide' stopped all conversations to remind us that our ancestors were taken from Africa for the slave trade; however, everyone in that room are brothers and sisters. The men instantly agreed and jokingly identified our African origins based off our physical appearances, mannerisms, and speech. Apparently, I am undeniably South African, but it is a debate between Xhosa and Zulu origins.

In coming to South Africa, I was reminded of the world's hatred for Blackness. But I also experience the community's love for me. South Africa presents me the challenge to love my existence. It shows me the remarkable diversity of Africa and Africans. As I prepare to return to America and Howard University, I shall remember this:

The world hates me because I am Black, Thus, I will love the world because I am Black, I love the world because it is Black, And that will never change.

Follow Chrycka on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Poet & Literary Critic: @chrycka_harper

This post is dedicated to my Black sister, Christine Smith, that shared the experiences described in this post in our semester spent in South Africa.

Will Scotland Choose Independence?

GLASGOW, Scotland -- The Scottish referendum on independence will take place 18 September 2014. If 40% of the population in Scotland vote in favor of separation, Scotland will be an autonomous nation once again, following 300 years of political fusion with Great Britain.

The movement is spearheaded by the opposing 'Yes Scotland' and 'Better Together' campaigns, which advocate Scottish independence and United Kingdom solidarity, respectively. The First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond is perhaps the most visible spokesman for the 'Yes Scotland' outfit. Allistair Darling is a longstanding member of the British parliament and heads the Better Together movement.

According to the 'Yes Scotland' and 'Better Together' factions, social problems in Scotland need to be addressed. But the two camps are at odds over whether these changes can take place with London in the driver's seat. According to Alex Salmond, the power dynamic between the UK and Scotland are among the most unequal in Europe.

Poverty, drug abuse and suicide affect Scots at much-higher rates than their British or Irish neighbors. Recent studies conducted throughout the Highlands find that Scottish men have a suicide rate 73% higher than males throughout the rest of the UK. The same study found that female Scots committed suicide at twice the rate of women throughout the Kingdom.

Wealth inequality has fluctuated over the past decade but remains a serious problem in Scotland. Throughout the population, one in five children are living below the poverty line. A study published by Child Poverty Action Group finds that in many Scottish communities, one in three children are currently impoverished. The 'Yes Scotland' campaign believes that with increased autonomy, Scots will be able to address problems in their communities, without relying on representatives in Westminster as middlemen.

The agriculture industry in Scotland is particularly invested in the outcome of September's referendum. Currently, Scottish farmers receive subsidies through the European Union. The EU allocates a lump sum to the UK, and stipends are generated to English and Scottish farmers from these funds.

Pro-independence farming coalitions believe that farmers in Scotland are undervalued in these calculations. They argue that an independent Scotland would receive greater allowances from the EU. Opponents of Scottish independence claim just the opposite, stating that the UK has greater lobbying power in the EU debates, and Scottish famers are wrong to think they could collect larger subsidies as a small, independent nation.

One of the largest controversies in the debate over Scotland's future is centered in massive oil reserves located in UK waters, off Scotland's coast. Alex Salmond has claimed that £1.5 trillion in natural gas deposits lie within Scotland's jurisdiction, but this figure is largely disputed. The veracity of the estimate is unclear, and both sides have much at stake with regards to the amount and ownership of the deep sea oil in question.

Scots are still widely divided on the issue of independence, but the international community is not so unsure. In recent weeks, President Barack Obama has come forward in support of UK solidarity.

In September Scotland will make its voice heard. Preliminary polls show that Scots are within reach of the votes required to pass the referendum. If Scotland splits from the UK, the dispute over Scottish identity will only intensify. Arguments over currency, citizenship and the economy are guaranteed to draw conflicting viewpoints between officials.

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

Related articles

• Salmond: 'It isn't George Osborne's pound' (itv.com)

• Salmond dismisses promises of further devolution (scotsman.com)

• Referendum campaigns mark milestone (bbc.co.uk)

• Scottish independence: Everything you need to know with 100 days to go (telegraph.co.uk)

• Scottish Voters 'Not Getting Full Picture' - Sky News (news.sky.com)

1/3 Native Women Are Raped, Non-Indian Attackers Still Immune to Prosecution

Michael Ransom, Contributing EditorLast Modified: 15:25 p.m. DST, 19 May 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On American Indian reservations, Native women's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are seriously threatened. Study after study confirm the appalling frequency at which Indigenous women are raped, sexually assaulted and battered. Throughout Indian country, more than one-third of women will be raped during their lifetime.

Today, it is no secret that these women stand a greater chance of being assaulted than living unscathed. The US Department of Justice found that 61% of American Indian women have been subjected to some form of physical assault. Because of the historic and ongoing inaction of the federal government, these women experience a crapshoot application of security and justice.

More disturbing is the role that American citizens and officials play--and don't play--in the violence. Over 70% of assailants are not tribal members, but rather American nationals who entered reservations for a variety of reasons. Some come to hunt. Other perpetrators live with woman who they abuse. And many simply cross the street into neighboring Indian country. [When tribal lands were downsized by the federal government, the borderlines of reservations were manipulated.]

This territorial patchwork could be acceptable, if tribal law applied to non-Natives who travel into reservation grounds. But, reservations are considered dependent nations according to US policy, and therefore cannot arrest, try or incarcerate non-Natives. Heinous crimes like rape are therefore defacto permissible, and a violent or deranged man can assault a women in Indian country with legal immunity.

According to the Supreme Court decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction in reservation regions. This 1978 ruling set a dangerous precedent of nonexistent federal law enforcement, and fundamentally compromised tribal attempts to self-govern and protect members. In 2011, the Justice Department put a plan in motion to place Assistant Attorneys in prosecution capacities within reservations, and a task force to prioritize the safety of women and children.

Many see these measures as too little, and certainly decades late. Indian country largely remains a lawless area, and not because American Indians want it that way. Before 2010, councils were unable to sentence Indian convicts to less than one year of jail time. Recently enacted, the Tribal Law and Order Act now allows tribal courts to incarcerate members for up to three years. Unfortunately, that is the limit, even for the most deplorable crimes.

The roadblocks to prosecution are embedded in the established legislation, but progressive action is beginning to take shape. President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act in early 2013. This legislation will help protect domestic violence committed by non-Indian husbands, but fails to address non-Indian attackers that are outsiders in the community. When seven of every ten attackers are protected from prosecution, the law is far from impressive. Plus, it is only in a trial phase now in three reservations.

Conservative members of Congress decreased provisions that would punish non-Indian criminals, concerned that non-Native suspects would not receive far trial, and may be crucified for the historic crimes against the First People of the continent. Perhaps the fears of these lawmakers are just projection; statistics clearly show that women are victimized by the current legal system, not men. Republicans would be hard-pressed to find instances where White men have been wronged by the intersection of American and Native law codes.

The United States continually plays Big Brother to tribal officials. By butting into supposed tribal authority, Washington limits the power of the Native justice system as to render it ineffective. Plainly, reservations do not want a weak police force and court system, but many in the federal government would rather risk women's well-being than see bolstered Indigenous agency of any kind.

Follow Michael on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Contributing Editor: @MAndrewRansom

Related articles

• The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010: A Step Forward for Native Women (whitehouse.gov)
• Who Deserves Protection in America? Native American Women and the New VAWA (firstpeoples.org)
• How abusers get away with targeting Indian women (salon.com)
• Rape on the Reservation (readersupportednews.org)
• Native Indian women get U.S. Federal legal power to report violence (womennewsnetwork.net)

Iran's President Defies Ayatollah on Overtures to the West and Women's Rights

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 10:19 a.m. EDT, 11 May 2014

IRAN -- In a country known by outsiders as prone to anti-West sentiment, extreme political suppression, and gross human rights violations, it came as a shock to many when the 7th President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, defied the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on yet another issue.

President Rouhani, a lawyer,academic and former diplomat, has adopted a stance at odds with the hardliner as he appears to move the nation from the radical isolation enforced by religious leaders, to a position which would enable greater communication between his government and the West.

Currently, according to an article written by David Blair, "Khamenei, who sits at the apex of Iran’s power structure, said that he supported Mr Rouhani’s overtures to the West, but denounced America for being “untrustworthy. While in New York last month, he offered 'peace and friendship' to Americans and spoke by telephone to President Barack Obama for 15 minutes, thefirst direct contact between the leaders of the two countries since Iran’s revolution in 1979." (Source: The Telegraph)

He is also a lawyer,academic and former diplomat.

Yet, in April 2014, President Hassan Rouhani defied the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, when he publicly declared that.........

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor-in-Chief: @ayannanahmias

U.S. to Send Aid for Safe Return of Kidnapped Nigerian Schoolgirls

Boko Haram Kidnapped Nigerian School Girls, Photo by Gullpress

NIGERIA - Three weeks ago, the Islamist extremist group Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 girls from the Chibok Government Girls Secondary School in Borno State as they were about to sit for their final exams.

Boko Haram, which translates to "Western education is sinful," then set the school on fire. Since then, 53 girls have managed to escape -- though Tuesday, 6 May 2014, there was another kidnapping of 8-girls from the nearby village of Warabe.

Thus far the search for the missing girls has primarily been conducted by residents of Borno, who have been braving the dangerous Sambisa Forest as well as potentially fatal encounters with Boko Haram, all with little on-ground military support.

The military says it is using aerial surveillance to look for the girls. However, many suspect that the government is afraid to engage in a conflict with Boko Haram which is heavily armed.

After three weeks of little or no support from the Nigerian government, as well as the lack of information on the exact location and status of the kidnapped girls, citizens have begun to lose confidence in authority.

However, the girls have international support: the British government expressed concern, the UN condemned the kidnappings as acts against humanity, protests are happening worldwide, awareness has gone viral with the hashtag "#bringbackourgirls," and Nigeria has recently accepted help from the US military.

While the girls were originally kept nearby, there is belief that some have been transported to neighboring countries.  If the girls have been split up into several groups, rescue efforts could potentially take years.

Boko Haram plans to sell the girls. Additionally, some may be kept as human shields to prevent rescuers from bombing the camps they're kept at, and others may be ransomed back to their parents.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said that finding the girls will be a top priority.

United States Takes Steps towards a Syrian Intervention

Jessamy Nichols, Africa CorrespondentLast Modified: 01:35 a.m. DST, 28 August 2013

SYRIA - As was posted a few days ago, the situation in Syria has worsened as reports of larger and more deadly chemical weapon attacks emerge. The UN sent in investigators to inspect and report back on the damage and death toll, but they have faced issues as Syrian authorities restrict their access to war sites and have even fired bullets at the UN vehicles.

Because the Syrian government is clearly behaving like a government who has something to hide, global leaders are making more advanced steps towards action and a potential intervention. In the last 48 hours, President Obama has held urgent phone calls and meetings with President Hollande of France, Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Harper of Canada, Prime Minister Rudd of Australia, and the United States National Security Council.

Furthermore, the United States government has taken steps to make it very clear to Syrian leaders that they have gone too far and are warranting an international response. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallim last week and warned him that without an immediate move towards transparency and access for outsiders, there would be consequences.

However, before the United States makes any serious strikes or actions, our nation's leaders must consult Congress and deliberate how best to handle the complicated situation. In the mean time, they have moved Navy destroyers and equipment closer to Syria in case an order is made. Based on this move and the feeling of increasing tension, some are saying that the US could strike as early as this Thursday. However, the choice of response by the international community will be based on information and intelligence that comes in within the next few days, hours and even minutes. Syria's actions are forcing countries and alliances who respect human rights to move towards the brink of military intervention, and this is unlikely to change unless Syria makes drastic changes immediately. Note: Be sure to check out Senator John Kerry's speech, where other statements by Senior Officials will be posted daily.

Follow Jessamy on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Africa Correspondent: @JessamyNichols

Related articles

• UK and US finalise plans for military strikes against Syrian regime (theguardian.com)
• Military intervention in Syria: 'US like any power, especially any dominant power' - expert (voiceofrussia.com)
• US 'ready' to launch Syria strike (bbc.co.uk)
• Cameron and Clegg pave the way for UK role in Syria strike (theguardian.com)
• Iran warns against military intervention in Syria (dnaindia.com)
• U.S. Warships Set for Cruise Missile Strikes on Syria (freebeacon.com)

Obama Weighs in on Zimmerman Verdict

Jessica Tanner, Staff WriterLast Modified: 01:18 a.m. DST, 18 August 2013

SANFORD, Florida - Shortly after a Florida jury acquitted a white man of murdering a black youth in cold blood, President Barack Obama expressed his views on the controversial verdict of the Trayvon Martin Case.

Obama stated, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” He also urged who gathered in cities across America to protest this travesty of justice to remain non-violent and to not take the law into their own hands.

The president also made it clear that Americans are aware of the “history of racial disparity in our criminal laws.” This is a pervasive and persistent problem in the Deep South, so much so that during this recent election cycles many of the old Confederate states – Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia among others, challenged the Voter’s Rights Act which was signed into law on 6 August 1965.

Efforts by some Republicans in these states to disenfranchise and intimidate African-Americans, Latinos, and Indians to prevent them from voting using tactics that were reminiscent of Jim Crow era tactics. Certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan, are also included.

Florida has a long history of racism and inequality in the justice system when it comes to arbitration against or for African-Americans.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that Obama stated that the government should seriously consider reviewing some state and local legislation, particularly Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Many believe that this law may promote rather than discourage violent confrontations.

On Saturday, 13 July 2013, an all-female jury in Sanford, Florida acquitted George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin’s February 26th, 2012 shooting death. This verdict ignited anger among many who viewed this incident as racially motivated through murder.

The next day, Obama issued a written statement, which noted that the jury had spoken and urged calm and reflection. According to Obama, many Americans have gotten better at changing their attitudes on race, “but we have to be vigilant and work on these issues.”

Many demonstrators are calling for federal charges against George Zimmerman. Obama said, “They must have some clear expectations here.” He stressed that law enforcement and the criminal code, “is traditionally done at the state and local levels, but not at the federal level.”

Follow Jessica Tanner on Twitter Twitter: @nahmias_report Staff Writer: @JessTanner1991

Related articles

• COMMENTARY: Zimmerman Acquittal Says It's Open Season on Black Males (blackamericaweb.com)
• A verdict and more: Get caught up on the George Zimmerman case (cnn.com)

Chicago Teen Fatally Shot After Obama Gun Violence Speech

Patrice Ellerbe, Staff WriterLast Modified: 12:53 p.m. EDT, 21 February 2013

CHICAGO, IL. - Hours after President Barak Obama gave his Inaugural speech, in which he pushed for tighter gun control laws; a young woman was fatally shot only one mile from the President’s Chicago home.

The victim was 18-year old Janay Mcfarlane. Earlier that day, McFarlane’s 14 year-old sister witnessed the President’s Inaugural speech, after he was sworn in on 21 January 2013.

Mcfarlane was shot in the head at approximately 11:30 p.m., Friday, 21 January 2013, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The victim had a 3-month old son, and was visiting friends and family in a North Chicago suburb. McFarlane’s mother said the bullet that killed her daughter was meant for a friend.

Police are questioning two suspects who are believed to be in connection with McFarlane’s shooting; however, charges have yet to be filed. Media spoke with Mcfarlane’s mother, Angela Blakely, as she grieved for her daughter, expressing, “I really feel like somebody cut a part of my heart out”.

Just one month ago, another fatal shooting involving 15-year old Hadiya Pendleton shook Chicago residents. The honor student was killed last month in a South Side Chicago park. According to Chicago police, it was a case of mistaken identity, and two suspects have been charged. Not only have there been more than 40 homicides in Chicago during the month of January alone, this makes the death toll the highest in 10 years.

Mcfarlane was affected by Pendleton’s death, as she often expressed to her mother how she felt bad for the victim’s family. Little did she know, she would also be a victim of gun violence. This case, as of many, is still open. Each day action is not taken regarding gun laws, the United States must hear another story such as this one. The media is focusing more on the fact that Mcfarlane’s sister was at President Obama’s gun violence speech. In order to stop reporters like me and others from having to write stories out like this, more than platitudinous speeches need to be delivered.

The fault does not lie entirely with President Obama, but with a society that believes that the right to bear arms/guns, especially those which exceed what is required for protection, such as automatic assault weapons, trumps all other concerns. This thinking, coupled with the powerful and deep pocketed lobbying on behalf of the National Riffle Association (NRA), makes the task of addressing this problem at a granular and thus meaningful level nearly impossible despite evidence that tighter gun control laws do result in decreased rates of gun homicides.

In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law and it has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010 compared to the United States' 5.1 (over 40 times higher). (Source: Wikipedia)

The numbers speak for themselves, and if we hope to one day stop reporting on this type of violence that unfortunately appears to be on the rise in the U.S., then each American must take a hard look at our values, our voice, and our responsibility. There are hundreds of thousands of Mcfarlane's across America, and but for her connection to President Obama's speech, she would be just another anonymous victim of gun violence in a poor, urban area. Our hearts and prayers go out to her family.

Follow Patrice Ellerbe on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Staff Writer: @PatriceEllerbe

 

The Arab Spring Withers | Al-Qaeda Opportunism

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 12:44 PM EDT, 13 September 2012

SANAA, Yemen – The coordinated murders of Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other diplomats on the anniversary of 9/11 is troubling.

It also alludes to an intelligent design behind the attack by well-armed, militarized marauders whom some suspect may be loosely aligned with al-Qaeda.

The difference between the Cairo and Benghazi attacks are stark. Cairo seems to be a spontaneous outburst by protesters who were upset with a despicable anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube under several titles, including "Innocence of Muslims," whereas the objective of the protests in Benghazi appear to have provided cover for a military operation with an objective to kill Americans.

In both confrontations demonstrators blamed the United States for the film in which the Prophet Mohammad is depicted in terms seen as blasphemous by Muslims even though it was vociferously denounced by Washington.

Today, unrest spread across the region in response to the video. Most notably, hundreds of Yemeni demonstrators stormed the U.S. embassy compound in Sanaa also under the pretext of protesting the film, resulting in clashes with embassy security forces who fired in the air in an attempt to disperse the crowd. The protesters, many of them young men, briefly retreated during the firing but quickly returned.

The protesters pelted the embassy security officers with stones and also ‘set fire to at least five cars just before they breached the heavily fortified compound. Riot control forces finally used tear gas and water cannon to disperse the demonstrators. (Source: Reuters)

Although, only one protester died, at least 15 people were wounded. The U.S. State Department confirmed that all of the embassy personnel are safe. Reportedly, at least 12 people were arrested in the wake of the riot. The attack against the U.S. embassies in Benghazi, Cairo, and now Sanaa, elicited worries about the continued safety of American diplomatic personnel across the Middle East.

1 2 Next Page »

Published: 13 September 2012 (Page 2 of 2)

As in Egypt yesterday, it was reported that Yemeni security forces were slow to intervene as the crowd began to march upon the embassy holding 'God is Greatest' signs and placards.

Today, after a call with President Obama, the president of Egypt Mohamed Morsi finally issued a tepid statement in response to the assault of the U.S. embassy in Cairo. Many view his statement as too little, too late.

By contrast, President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi of Yemen offered an immediate "personal apology" to President Barack Obama for the murder of American diplomats and the storming of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and promised a swift investigation.

Because Yemen is home of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which is viewed by Washington as the most dangerous branch of the militant network established by Osama bin Laden,' this attack and the one in Libya are viewed with extreme caution.(Source: Reuters)

The success of the Arab Spring is quickly descending into a ‘winter of discontent’ because newly elected governments are ruling without mandates and are in the inevitable position of trying to coalesce numerous factions with differing objectives into a functioning democracy, as daunting a task as herding cats.

These fissures in Arab Spring governments have allowed the opportunistic and fluid tentacles of al-Qaeda to infiltrate and sabotage the efforts of these Middle Eastern countries’ to embrace Democracy.

As more information becomes available, many are considering the possibility that these attacks are not isolated events, but coordinated efforts to destabilize nations like Libya and Yemen which successfully accomplished regime change and formed valuable alliances with the United States.

Because the Yemeni ousted Ali Abdullah Saleh last year, President Barak Obama committed to provide $345 million in security, humanitarian and development assistance this year, over double last year's aid.

In light of current events, the U.S. Congress in conjunction with President Obama is evaluating continued aid to Yemen, but more specifically the average $2 billion in foreign assistance that the U.S. provides Egypt is also on the table for reevaluation. President Morsi’s government has not given any indication that it desires to continue the strong alliance the U.S. enjoyed with his predecessor, the former dictator Hosni Mubarak.

In response to this outright attack of U.S. diplomats and the potential danger to all American citizens in the region, President Barack Obama has dispatched two destroyers to the region and vowed to hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators who murdered Ambassador Steven and 3 other Americans.

Our condolences go out to the families of these victims, while we reassert our belief that religious intolerance leads not to peace but to increased violence.

Return to Page 1 »

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor: @ayannanahmias

Related articles

• Yemeni protesters storm US embassy in Sanaa - Reuters (reuters.com)
• Al-Qaeda leader urges support for ousting Assad (dailystar.com.lb)
• Mideast Turmoil Spreads to U.S. Embassy in Yemen (nytimes.com)

President Obama Hosts Ramadan Iftar Dinner

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 22:22 PM EDT, 10 August 2012

White House Table Setting, Photo by Luigi Crespo

Tonight President Barak Obama is hosting his fourth Iftar dinner at the White House to honor Muslims celebrating Ramadan. It is a tradition begun under President Bill Clinton and maintained by President George Bush during his eight-year presidency.

The dinner will be presented in the State Dining Room to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar is universally observed by over one billion Muslims who fast from sunup to sundown.

Ramadan is the third "pillar" or religious obligation of Islam. During this holiday adherents learn self-control through fasting which some describe as an emptying of attachments to the physical and thus empowers their spiritual nature to grow closer to God.  In addition to prayer and study, Muslims also engage in giving charity, purifying behavior, and doing good deeds.

According to the White House, the invited guests for the evening “include elected officials, religious and grassroots leaders in the Muslim American community, and leaders of diverse faiths and members of the diplomatic corps.” (Source: CNN)

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter:

@nahmias_report

Editor:

@ayannanahmias

Related articles

• Obama's Day, Aug. 10: Hosting Iftar Dinner (theroot.com)

• President Obama official schedule and guidance, Aug. 10, 2012. Iftar dinner for Ramadan (blogs.suntimes.com)

• Obama's day: Iftar dinner (content.usatoday.com)

• Ramadan: the day I invited non-Muslim guests to iftar (guardian.co.uk)

Ghana Mourns President John Atta Mills

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 11:35 PM EDT, 24 July 2012

ACCRA, Ghana — Beloved Ghanaian President John Atta Mills died in a military hospital located in the capital of Accra on 24 July 2012.

Mills governed the country from 2009 to 2012 and had planned to run for a second term on 7 December 2012.

President Mills is the first Ghanaian head of state to die in office, and immediately following the announcement of his passing, Vice President John Dramani Mahama was sworn in to finish the remaining five months of Mills' term.

Mills was a seasoned political official serving in various capacities within the Ghanaian government after a 25-year tenure as a law professor at the University of Ghana. Shortly before becoming president he served as vice president of President J.J. Rawlings who was widely regarded as a military dictator.

The 2009 election was Mills’ third run for the highest office in the nation, and though the election was extremely close, independent observers praised the process as free and fair which resulted in a peaceful transition of power. Under Mills’ leadership Ghana experienced strong economic gains to become one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.

According to Reuters, Mills reiterated his commitment to political stability during a visit with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House in March. Many Ghanaians are devasted by the loss of this pragmatic leader who recognized that success is not so much about power as it is about peace and mutual benefit.

”When there is no peace, it is not the leaders who suffer; it is the ordinary people who have elected us into office. So we have a big challenge, and we know that some of our friends in Africa are looking up to us, and we dare not fail them." (President John Atta Mills)

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor: @ayannanahmias

Related articles

• John Atta Mills, President of Ghana, Dies at 68 (nytimes.com)
• Ghana President John Atta Mills dies (euronews.com)
• Ghana's President John Atta Mills Dead at 68 (voanews.com)

Jim Yong Kim, New World Bank President

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 00:16 AM EDT, 17 April 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The World Bank announced today that they selected President Barack Obama’s nominee Jim Yong Kim to serve as its president. Mr. Kim has been selected to replace the out-going president Mr. Robert B. Zoellick.

Mr. Kim, a Korean-American doctor, will be the first leader of the institution who doesn’t come to the post with a financial pedigree. He successfully challenged the Nigerian nominee, Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and Colombia's former finance minister and development expert, Jose Antonio Ocampo.

“During the bank’s 68-year history, an American has always headed the institution, while the top job at its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), traditionally goes to a European. But emerging economies have recently been contesting that informal arrangement at both the IMF and the World Bank and presenting their own candidates.” (Source: VOA)

Although, some of the Bank’s 187 members have expressed concern that Kim lacks the requisite financial acumen to head the institution, other view his tenure as the director of the World Health Organization and a co-founder of global non-profit Partners in Health as vital to his understanding of the needs of the countries to which the World Bank provides financial and technical assistance.

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda gave a ringing endorsement of Kim, as he reflected upon the dedicated support he provided in helping Rwanda to restore its health system. He went so far as to say, “Kim is a true friend of Africa and well known for his decade of work to support us in developing an efficient health system in Rwanda."

When Kim headed the World Health Organization he successfully implemented a program to increase access to affordable HIV drugs in the developing world.  He was tenacious in his efforts to extend treatment for HIV and AIDS to over 7 million people in developing nations.

Kim’s nomination has become controversial, with opponents angered by the upset of the pro forma appointment of wealthy nominees being selected to lead the institution, and in the process enrich themselves and their cronies; and proponents who believe that it is time for a new selection process and applaud the US' bold move in nominating an unlikely candidate.

It is fitting that President Obama would take the bold step of appointing an outsider to ‘change’ an entrenched culture and reform an organization which has lost sight of its mission to assist countries better support and improve the lives of their citizenry.

Kim will begin his five-year tenure in July 2012.

Related articles

• World Bank names US-nominated Jim Yong Kim as president (guardian.co.uk)
• American Jim Yong Kim chosen to lead World Bank (cbsnews.com)
• World Bank Selects Jim Yong Kim as President (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Jim Yong Kim Officially Selected as Next World Bank President (blippitt.com)
• It's official: The next World Bank president will be Jim Yong Kim (devex.com)

India and Iran Thwart US Sanctions

Ayanna Nahmias, Editor-in-ChiefLast Modified: 10:04 AM EDT, 26 March 2012

NEW DELHI, India - Three years ago, on 13 April 2009, Shri M. Hamid Ansari, the current Vice President of India, released a book titled, "Challenges and Strategy: Rethinking India's Foreign Policy" authored by Ambassador Rajiv Sikri of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

In the book, Sikri seems to have anticipated the United States’ move to initiate economic sanctions against Iran and outlined a roadmap for India to respond to this eventuality.

At that time Ambassador Sikri was the “Secretary (Deputy Minister) in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, in charge of India’s relations with Central Asia, Caucasus, East Asia, ASEAN, the Pacific region, the Arab world, Israel and Iran.

He also served as Ambassador of India to Kazakhstan and as Deputy Chief of Mission at the Indian Embassy in Paris.” (Source: Foundation for Non-Violent Alternatives)

In his book, Sikri postulated India’s position in the world would continue to ascend in terms of its economic prowess, scientific acumen, and human capital. China, in addition to its continued role as banker to a number of countries, most notably the United States; is another emerging economy that continues to realize growth through its strategic receptivity to business innovation.

In fact, according to The National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the United States, both China and India are expected to achieve parity with the U.S. within the next 10 years. Having prognosticated this over 3 years ago in his book, Sikri proposes that India’s role during this period of rapid growth should also include increased “stability in the littoral states.”

He opined that increasing freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, security of sea lanes, and the availability of an interdiction capacity to safeguard Indian shipping will go a long way toward India becoming a major player in the region. The effect of this level of engagement would be the development of more dynamic political relationships with all the states of the Persian Gulf.

Also, in 2009, Sikri correctly deduced that in the future India would find itself in conflict with American strategic policies. In a chapter titled ‘U.S. and Nuclear Issues,’ he emphasized the importance of India as a sovereign nation to determine its own foreign policy strategies. As such, its commitment to continue to trade with Iran despite America's imposed economic sanctions demonstrates their determination to enact policies in the best interest of the nation.

By following this protocol, the government ensures its continued growth and development that will ultimately result in an increased standard of living for India's estimated 1.2bn people. (Population Figure from World Bank)

According to Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired career officer in the United States Army, Iranians have every reason to view the U.S.government with suspicion and hostility. The history of tensions between the U.S. and Iran is nearly 60 years old.

In 1953, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA and British MI-6 collaborated to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government and installed a puppet leader, an action undertaken without any concern for the Iranian people, but in pursuit of near-term strategic interests.

In his book "The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism," Bacevich postulates that the current Iranian ‘nuclear’ crisis is a cover for more convoluted motives similar to the political machinations of the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. It started when Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, led the Egyptian Revolution which resulted in him becoming president in 1956, a position he held until his death in 1970.

Under his leadership, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, an act that was untenable to Britain which had colonized and ruled Egypt for decades. Consequently, Britain enlisted the support of the U.S., France and Israel to regain control of Egypt through military aggression, ostensibly on behalf of the international community. Because they did not succeed in toppling the government, Nasser and his rule came to embody anti-imperialist efforts in the Arab World and Africa, a nationalist and political movement now known as Pan-Arabism or Nasserism.

With regard to nuclear disarmament and preemptive strikes, the U.S. has a long history of taking military action against any country that possessed equal armament, military might and therefore constitutes a direct and imminent threat. By this yardstick, North Korea, qualifies, because its nuclear program is well-developed, they are an isolated and hostile government, and its government currently possesses long range nuclear weaponry that could potentially threaten the U.S. and its allies.

In fact, on Monday, 26 March 2012, the Nuclear Security Summit met in Seoul to discuss the issue of nuclear terrorism. In attendance were President Barak Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev, as well as leaders from 53 nations and organization who gathered to discuss methods to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear bombs or highly enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.

Though North Korea was not on the agenda, its planned long range missile launch scheduled for this week was hotly debated, and Summit leaders agreed that some preemptive action should occur if peaceful negotiations failed. By contrast, Iran possesses no such weaponry, and like the phantom ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which were the pretext by which George Bush justified the war in Iraq; the likelihood of discovery of any significant cache of weaponry in Iran is highly speculative.

It is true that there are a number of radical and virulently racist voices within the Iranian government, but unlike Kim Jong-il, and his successor Kim Jong-un, it appears that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posturing obscures Iran’s inability to enforce any threats. In fact, Bacevic equates this current incitement by American strategists with regard to Iran, as the same mindset by which arm chair war mongers successfully manipulated previous American presidents into a nuclear war crisis with the Soviet Union until “cooler heads prevailed.”

These same voices instigated the open-ended 10-year war in which the U.S. has been mired in Afghanistan and more recently Iran with the intent to enrich military contractors without regard to the loss of thousands of lives by thousands of American soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis. In fact, these two conflicts didn’t yield a single victory until President Obama directed a change in strategy to include targeted assignations like the one which killed Osama bin Laden.

India and Iran number among China, India, Russia, Europe, and maybe Brazil operate in a world in which the U.S. no longer the sun against which all other countries must resolve. According to Bacevic the new geopolitical landscape will be multipolar, and America must mature and accept its role in this new governance paradigm. President Obama in a recent speech stated that ‘American Exceptionalism’ must evolve in order to survive. This new reality does not negate other countries’ sovereign rights to pursue strategies which are in their best interests and compromise shall become the order of the day.

As Tehran and New Delhi plan to hit $25bn in annual bilateral trade over the next four years, it remains to be seen if India will back down in its support of and continued trade with Iran. In any event, the Indian government has taken a stand, flexed its muscles, and stands poised to assume its rightful place in a 21st century multipolar order.

Follow Nahmias Cipher Report on Twitter

Twitter: @nahmias_report Editor: @ayannanahmias

Related articles

• | Pentagon predicts Israel will drag US into war with Iran! (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
• Zakaria: India, please stand up (globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com)
• Pentagon predicts Israel will drag US into war with Iran (independent.co.uk)
• BBC News - Iran warships enter Mediterranean via Suez Canal (bbc.co.uk)
• Iran warships enter Mediterranean amid Britain's 'new Cold War' nuclear fears (metro.co.uk)
• Iran and the price of oil - Jan 22 (energybulletin.net)