Bloodshed and Bombs in Baghdad

Whilst the world turns it's gaze to the atrocities in Syria, Baghdad has been bracing itself against further sectarian attacks following the worst wave of bloodshed in nearly five years. In July alone, over 1000 Iraqis were killed, and, on Wednesday, a further 70 people were killed, with another 200 injured, as at least ten bombs exploded across the city. 

One of the worst hit neighbourhood was Kadhimyah in Northern Baghdad, home to a predominantly Shiite population, as two bombs exploded in a car park followed by a suicide bomber, reportedly resulting in  10 fatalities, whilst injuring almost 30 more. In the South-East of the city, Jisr-Diyala another two bombs exploded, killing 7 and injuring many more. Across the city many more bombs exploded and in predominantly Shiite areas which has led to speculation that the attacks were carried out by Sunni militia, or even by Iraqi al Qaeda, however, as yet, no group has claimed responsibility.

The Interior Ministry have opposed the figures being reported by the media and claim that only around 20 have been killed. With growing concerns the country could be hurtling back towards the brutal civil war which saw thousands killed and millions displaced between 2006-2007, it may be an attempt to minimise casualties to try to reduce the likelihood of retaliation attacks?

We have heard so much about Iraq over the last decade that in the West we are at risk of becoming desensitized to the Iraqi plight and we cannot allow ourselves to think of people's deaths as simply numbers. Instead think of them as your brother, friend, father or child, anything to humanise the statistics we see so often. 

As the last of the U.S. troops left Iraq about eighteen months ago, the country is still struggling to unite it's population. Whilst I do not think a Western military presence is necessary, I do think it is important that some kind of international body steps in simply as an arbitrator. Otherwise attempts to build and maintain a functioning society, with as little sectarian attacks as possible, will ultimately fail. Perhaps I am being naive, but look at Palestine-Israel, look at Egypt and Syria, see what a factious state accomplishes? Now look towards Northern Ireland, proof that even though it takes time, and flare ups still do occur, these are the minority and change can happen and tentative peace can prevail. 

We all have to believe in something, and I believe in that.

Lora.

P.S. Almost forgot to mention, if you like my blog, feel free to follow me on Twitter @LoraDeeC.

"I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood" Blood continues to flow through the streets of Egypt

Six weeks ago, we seen elation on the streets on Egypt as General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi told the world that Egypt's first democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi had been removed from office pending with Chief Justice Adly Manosour assuming his position pending new elections. Outside thousands of anti-Morsi Egyptians watched gleefully on, flashing laser beams in a scene that was more reminiscent of a club than, what many have called, a military coup .

Since then, the situation has rapidly declined with pro and anti-Morsi supporters clashing on the streets whilst the military step in to brutally suppress peace protests of supporters of the deposed ruler. In a little over a month, the streets of Egypt have been running red with the blood of hundreds of people killed in these riots. Three days ago 638 were killed when Rabaa al-Adawiya, one of the pro-Morsi protest camps, was cleared by the military, with reports of women, children and even babies counted among the dead.

The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Morsi is a member, called for a 'march of anger' on 16th August and their call was answered when hundreds of Pro-Morsi supporters turned out in Rameses Square, Cairo, as well as other protests throughout the country. Clashes have resulted in over 60 deaths in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, Damietta and Fayoum. 

There has been international outcry at the heavy handedness of the military with a number of countries and international bodies voicing their growing concern of the situation. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has warned "military interference in the affairs of any state is of concern" and has urged "a speedy resumption of civilian rule." The EU have also spoken out against the military rule as Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy said in a recent statement "I strongly condemn all violent acts... I call on all sides to exercise maximum restraint." Ms Ashton also voiced her disappointment at being denied a meeting with Morsi in a recent trip to Cairo (where he is being held in custody on murder charges in a jailbreak in 2011). These thoughts have been echoed throughout the world as dozens of countries including Iran, Germany, France, Malaysia and Russia all voicing their concerns on the violence and military interference in the state. 

The only way this situation can be resolved is if the rulers calm the people instead of continuing to incite anger and hatred. The military have already stated they are prepared to continue using force which is obviously only going to fan the flames of social unrest, not alleviate them. One of the cornerstones of any democracy should be free speech and the right to protest. If the military are so keen on continuing a truly democratic state, should they not be respecting and adopting these simple maxims instead of slaughtering everyone with an opposing viewpoint?

Personally I believe Morsi should have been given more than a year to try and implement the changes the country wanted him to make, however that aside, the violence needs to stop. When babies are murdered and neighbour kills neighbour, how can that ever be the way in which to start a new and peaceful state?

Lora

As always, if you enjoy my blog, feel free to follow me on twitter @LoradeeC.

Tensions begin to surface as Palestine and Israel prepare for latest round of peace talks

Following on from the recent preliminary talks in Washington, the five year stalemate between Israel and Palestine is set to end this week as both countries prepare to meet in Jerusalem on Wednesday for the latest round of peace talks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have a tough job on their hands and before peace talks have even begun, tensions are already rising in both countries. 

As Israel prepares to release over 100 Palestinian prisoners in phases over the coming months, including 26 long term prisoners later today, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who is acting mediator between the two countries, has urged restraint as 1,200 Jewish settlement homes are green lighted by the Israeli government. There has been an expectedly negative reaction to these developments from people in both countries and which could potentially see a rise in attacks between Palestinians and Israelis. 

A substantial number of Israelis are outraged at the imminent release of the political prisoners, seeing their freedom as an insult to their loved one's memory and angry their murderers are going unpunished. In a supreme court hearing yesterday, victim's families clutched pictures of their dearly departed whilst asking judges why the 'butchers' were soon to be released. One Israeli man told the press "It's painful to pay such a heavy price just as a concession for talks." This man lost his father in a brutal attack, so his pain is understandable. However, that said, in times of war, both sides must be prepared to make concessions if they ever hope to achieve a peaceful resolution.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of tension stemming from Israel approving new homes to be built on seized land, a move which many have seen as an attempt to 'sabotage' the peace talks. As well as discontent amongst the government and the general public, a number of high profile Palestinians have condemned the approval of new settlement homes. Winner of the Sydney Peace Prize and PLO Executive Committee member, Hanan Ashrawi, has criticised the move calling it an 'extremely dangerous' policy. Whilst writer Hani Habib denounced the entire peace talks writing "The Palestinians need to quit the talks because all they (Israel) gets is more building in the settlement." Over 500,000 Israelis live in the Palestinian West Bank and despite international condemnation, the number continues to grow. Despite the fact that the UN have repeatedly condemned the occupation of Palestinian lands, citing a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Israeli government refute these claims, calling them 'war-won' lands from the Six-Day war of 1967. To date, no country recognises the annexed lands as Israeli.

Previously President Abbas rejected any peace talks until a freeze was placed on the building of new homes in settlement areas, however Netanyanhu wholeheartedly rejected this, however talks have resumed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the two leaders came to compromise in the pre-peace talks in Washington as Abbas allows the building to continue, whilst Netanyanhu releases Palestinian prisoners. With violent attacks between the two factions rising dramatically, during, and for a time after, any previous peace talks, we have to hope that this time an agreement is reached,  and with as little as possible blood shed.

Lora

P.S. As usual, follow me on Twitter if you enjoyed my blog! @Loradeec

Refugee Restrictions Shaming Switzerland

Famous for fondue, skiing and for maintaining a position of neutrality, Switzerland is under a double spotlight this week, and what's been shown up, well it's not pretty.

A member of the United Nations, the country plays host to a large number of international institutions including the World Trade Organisation, the Red Cross, and World Health Organisation. The country which is the second biggest centre for the UN after America, has one of the highest refugee intakes in Europe with an estimated 48,000 refugees seeking asylum. However, recent restrictions and a celebrity's embarrassing encounter has raised questions of just how accepting this country actually is.

Last month, Oprah Winfrey, one of the the richest women in America, was allegedly snubbed in an exclusive shop in Switzerland's largest city, Zurich. When the TV personality requested to see a handbag costing in excess of £20,000, the shop assistant supposedly declined her request as it was 'too expensive' for her. The owner later claimed it was simply a 'misunderstanding' whilst the Swiss tourist office has apologised to Ms Winfrey with a spokesperson announcing in a statement today 'We are very sorry for what happened to her'. 

It may be the talk show host was the unfortunate victim of an anomaly; a racist shop assistant that in no way represents the majority of the Swiss public. The concern is, what if instead of being a anomaly, the assistant is actually an accurate representative of an inherent racism deeply rooted in the European country? The recent refugee restrictions mean we could potentially be looking at an ugly answer.

The municipality of Bremgarten in Northern Switzerland has been granted permission by the Swiss government to limit the movements of refugees within the area. 32 'exclusion zones' have been created where asylum seekers do not have permission to enter including day care centres, nursing homes, church yards and community halls. With these restrictions, I'm not entirely sure how a refugee is to set up a new life... what is a single working parent going to do if they cannot go to a child care centre? Where is a devout Christian going to go to worship?

Raymond Tellenbach , the mayor of Bremgarten, has defended the restrictions in his town stating "For security reasons, we decided to make these areas inaccessible to order to avoid potential conflict and primarily to prevent the consumption of drugs... We are not inhuman." Okay, not inhuman, just very prejudiced. The head of the Migration Ministry, Mario Gattiker, announced his approval of the move, citing public safety as his concern. Gattiker told the Swiss press the restrictions have been enforced in order to 'help avoid friction and resentment'. If anything, these bans will incite friction not avoid it. 

Bremgarten is not the vanguard of exclusion zones, other towns throughout the country, notably in Lucerne, have already enforced a variety of bans ranging from forests to nursing homes. People who have come to the country to try and make a better life for themselves and their children will not face further adversity in their supposed sanctuary. The riots in Sweden earlier this year showed us the dangers of sub communities forming in countries where refugees are not fully integrated into their new society, surely Switzerland risk a similar situation occurring if they ban the refugees instead of incorporating them into Swiss communities?

I understand the public may be uneasy at the recent spike in asylum requests, but if that is the case, why not limit the number of refugees rather than granting them asylum than imposing restrictions and laws onto them? Imposing these bans is quite frankly degrading and humiliating, granting asylum is not enough if you are going  to continue to persecute them for simply existing and keep them segregated from the rest of the population. I simply cannot comprehend why a country who hosts a multitude of UN organisations simultaneously restricts human rights. Maybe I am naive, perhaps I am missing something here, if I am, please feel free to comment below, alternative opinions on this matter will be greatly welcomed!

Lora

If you like my blog, feel free to follow me on twitter @LoraDeeC. 

Prawer Plan sparks Protest amongst the Bedouins in Israel

As peace talks begin afresh with Palestine, Israel are facing new opposition, this time from the Bedouins. As the Israeli state prepare to 'relocate' tens of thousands of people from their ancestral homes to 'modernised' areas of 'better infrastructure', protests have been breaking out across the country as the Bedouins challenge the controversial 'Prawer Plan'. 

The Bedouins are an Arab minority who have been living in the Negev area and throughout the North, for thousands of years, however, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948 it has been part of Israel. Despite the fact that the Bedouin people have been living in the area for an impossibly long time, in old villages they love and do not want to leave, Israel has sparked worldwide controversy by declaring the villages as 'unrecognised' and 'trespassers on state land'. 

Throughout the country, people have been protesting against the 'Prawer Plan', the name given to the 5 year relocation initiative. Recently, in the town of Wadi Ara people from across the country descending on a public park protesting against the proposed law and is reported to have included a number of Palestinians. One protester, Fatima Birro, told a reporter "the Prawer law is denying our right to be in our homes. We are being treated like second-class – no, fifth-class – people in our own land.'"

Like many throughout the country, Birro believes the action to be one of oppression, a bid to rid Israel, including Palestinian territories, of the Arabic people as she continues to tell the reporter 'The law to remove the Bedouin, who have been there for thousands of years, is all part of the same policy of ethnically cleansing this land of the Arabs. It’s the same with the way the Palestinians are treated in the West Bank... Where are we supposed to go?"

The law to enforce the controversial law has passed through one of three stages of Israeli Parliament back in January and went largely unnoticed by the average joe of the international community. However, Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has noticed it, and has in fact condemned the law who has said it "legitimize(s) forcible displacement and dispossession" which the Israeli foreign minister called a 'display of ignorance.' Because a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights would naturally be in the habit of making general statements without properly checking all the facts first...

The Bedouins are originally a nomadic group and are happy living in small communities; favouring a traditional lifestyle which still incorporates modernity. For these people, to be forced from the land of their ancestors, leaving behind the freedom and space of the Negev desert, and into purpose built towns where people from all different communities live on top of each other, is never going to be productive and could easily spark a conflict similar to that of Palestine. 

Whilst war between East and West continues to ravage neighbouring countries, we cannot be allowed, nor indeed allow ourselves, to forget the dispossessed; the Palestinians, and soon the Bedouin people too.  

Lora

Please note, quotes from Fatima Birro were obtained from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-our-land-protests-at-plan-to-remove-bedouins-from-ancestral-villages-8748966.html a highly recommended read from Alistair Dawber, a correspondent to my favourite newspaper The Independent

P.S. If you like my blog, feel free to follow me on twitter @LoradeeC

American citizens urged to leave Yemen as terror threat level increase

Following on from pulling diplomatic staff from Yemen, along with a number of Middle East and African countries last week, the U.S. have now urged all American citizens to leave the Arab country immediately with the expectation of an imminent attack. The drastic measure has been replicated by the British government who have also recalled embassy staff, with both countries stating the move has been 'out of an abundance of caution'. 

A reported 4 U.S. drone strikes have occurred in the last ten days, resulting in the deaths of 4 al Qaeda militants, as well as an attack on a mosque in the capital, Sanaa, which seen a bomb thrown into the mosque killing one and injuring a further 12. Following on from this, a secret message was intercepted from high level al Qaeda operative, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In the message, al-Zawahiri tells al-Wujayshi to 'do something' about the attacks. As Ramadan ends this week, and with tensions running high, now would be a significant time to launch an attack on the West. 

After an attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya,last year which killed four Americans, including the American ambassador it is unsurprising that the country is taking such drastic steps to ensure the safety of it's citizens. However, what is surprising is that if the US intercepted these messages, why would they make such a public statement telling the world they were withdrawing embassy staff instead of discreetly pulling them out. It could be a staged pre-emptive move in order to stop any plans that may be afoot following on from the drone attacks, which, if it is the case, could be a fairly antagonistic move. However, I may be too cynical and the US and British governments are simply acting out of genuine concern for their people with no ulterior motive (which would be a first). Regardless of their motives, I think it's fairly safe to say that any attacks al Qaeda may have planned for the Western diplomats in Yemen, will be unlikely to come to fruition. However, it may be worth while for the U.S. and U.K embassies to put other diplomats in the neighbouring area of high alert, if al Qaeda want retaliation, I am sure they will find a way to get it.

Lora  

Iranian Inauguration Sparks Hope

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has ignited hope in his people after declaring in his inauguration speech, that as well as tackling the failing economy, the government will be less involved in the daily lives of the people and granting more rights to women. Replacing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June after a landslide victory, the cleric's moderate stance has been welcomed by the Iranian people and Western political powers alike. 

 Rouhani's inauguration is the first swearing in that foreign dignitaries were invited to attend since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. That Western diplomats were even invited to attend the event shows the previously controversial Middle Eastern country is taking positive steps in foreign relations.

Later in his speech, Rouhani directly addressed Western nations, as the cleric advised “If you want an adequate response, you shouldn't speak the language of sanctions, you should speak the language of respect". A reference to the sanctions imposed on Iran over the development their nuclear weapons programme. This is a bit harsh perhaps, considering his more radical predecessor was intent on riling the Western powers as much as possible. However, in light of the rest of his speech as well as having foreign dignitaries present, these potentially inflammatory words appear to be Rouhani is simply displaying a resolute stance; that whilst Iran is keen to improve relations, it will not be a push over to the Western world.

If the new president sticks to his word, delivering change across the social and political spectrum as well as reaching an agreement on Iran's controversial nuclear programme, there is no reason why a mutually beneficial relationship with the West cannot be reached. Considering the ongoing problems in Syria and the ever escalating tension in Egypt, this olive branch is likely to be accepted with gusto by those hoping for an ease in tensions with the Middle East. Most importantly, we have to hope these promises of change are fulfilled, or at least put into action, and not simply lip service to the West.

With vast unemployment, a struggling economy, broken  international relations and an archaic attitude towards women to change, it's fair to say Rouhani has his work cut out for him. Hopefully it won't be a case of promising too much and delivering little (like Obama) and this will be the dawn of a new age in Iran.

Lora