Iran nuke talks: Deal or ordeal?

OPINION
Iran nuke talks: Deal or ordeal?
A long and difficult path lies ahead regardless of whether there's an interim deal, half a deal, or no deal at all.
02 Apr 2015 13:40 GMT |

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marwan Bishara
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
@MarwanBishara



At best, the nuclear talks in Lausanne will culminate, if at all, in a "political understanding" or a "declaration of principles" of a sort.

Such an understanding will then lead to long and complex negotiations over each and every item that the two parties "understand" requires detailed agreement. This process could go well through June and beyond.

Presidents Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani have lots at stake in these negotiations and it's therefore paramount for them to reach an interim agreement, if only to buy themselves more time.

Iran nuclear talks extend deadline

The Iranian government needs the DEAL to lift the multi-layered sanctions in order to grow their economy and normalise relations with the international community. Such an outcome would eventually help the "reformist" government overcome the ultra-conservative sceptics of the regime.
Threat of military action

Indeed, the regime has much to benefit from such an opening that allows it to improve its standing domestically and in the region. Failure to reach a deal would lead to new tougher sanctions and ultimately to the threat of military action.

For its part, the Obama administration wants a DEAL that ensures Iran doesn't become a "nuclear state" or develop nuclear weapons.

By reaching such a deal without resorting to the use of force, Obama wants to make the larger and more important point that foreign policy is most effective and least costly when the US leads an international diplomatic effort that involves sticks and carrots, not bombs.

According to a recent Washington Post poll, Americans, 2 to 1, support the president on this, although many don't believe Iran will stick to it.

It's estimated that using force against Iran's nuclear programme would have paved the way to a full fledged war culminating in terrible death and destruction without setting back the enrichment process more than a year or two, all the while the US would pay heavily in both lives and dollars, perhaps up to $5 trillion.

Fierce opposition

And yet, expect the opposition forces in both countries to do what they do best, oppose a diplomatic solution.

Unlike the supporters of dialogue over the nuclear programme and other issues, the opponents of a deal enjoy decades of experience and master the discourse of doubt and demonisation of the other.

If there's a deal, they will oppose it in every possible way on the grounds of "GIVING AWAY too much for too little".

And if there's no deal, they will rub it in with the "we told you so" mantra until they get their next confrontation or war.

That's why, American and Iranian delegates might be listening to each other, but their eyes are directed to the home front.

Both leaders need a sweet enough deal that allows them TO WIN enough hearts and minds to withstand legislative and other pressures.

Lausanne, Iran's Oslo?

Iranian officials both in Switzerland and in Tehran have repeatedly underlined the importance of a comprehensive deal, while US officials emphasise the need for a conditional long-term process.
US insistence on multi-phased, performance-based process with Iran reminds me of US-sponsored talks with the Palestinians stemming from the Oslo process. These are meant to keep Iran under probation and allow the US the final word on how and when Iran can be free of all threats of sanctions.

The Obama administration emphasisses the need for "snap back sanctions" in case of Iranian violations of the signed DEAL, Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei has been unequivocal about full sanctions lift as a condition of a nuclear deal.

One gets the impressions that Washington treats Iranians in similar ways it once treated the Palestinians. After demonising them and accusing them of terrorism, it suddenly took them off the terrorist list to become legitimate negotiations partners.

Predictably, US mainstream media, citing the usual suspects with Middle Eastern sounding names, has been picking on Iran's negotiations mindset even though the Iranians proved to be formidable and pragmatic negotiators.
 
However, Iran is a regional power not an occupied nation, and the ayatollahs are in a far stronger position than the PLO.

That's why they won't accept an open-ended process with no specific endgame, that involves safeguarding Iran's sovereignty to enrich uranium while lifting the sanctions and normalisation of Iran's status in the world.

Predictably, US mainstream media, citing the usual suspects with Middle Eastern sounding names, has been picking on Iran's negotiations mindset even though the Iranians proved to be formidable and pragmatic negotiators.

Iranians are criticised for their obsession with "symbolism" merely because of insisting on their "sovereign rights", and for confusing ideology with technology because they reject western double standards.

If or when basic Iranian demands regarding sovereignty and normalcy are met, Ayatollah Khamenei will in all likelihood accept a nuclear deal. But will America's self-designated Ayatollah?

Netanyahu and US Congress

Recalling Netanyahu's rude manoeuvre to speak to Congress, and his obnoxious lecturing of the American people about the naivete of their president and the dangers of their foreign policy towards Iran, the Israeli prime minister is unrelenting.

He claims the deal, which has not been reached or signed yet, will pave the way to Iran's development and possession of nuclear weapons. And he's ready to use whatever dirty tricks, including CONTINUOUSLY invoking the Holocaust to derail the talks.

Alas, much of the Republican Right, including the main 2016 presidential candidates, as well as Israel's staunch friends among the Democrats support Netanyahu's stance.

These extremist forces are bound to do all in order to torpedo whatever understanding is reached, finalised or otherwise, between the US and Iran in Lausanne. And are adamant at escalating the tensions if no deal is reached.

The more delays in the talks, and the deeper the US delves into its 2016 elections, the weaker Obama becomes, and his ability to make grand decisions is undermined.

That's why the P5+1 mechanism is very helpful to the Obama administration. Once a deal is reached and is enshrined in a UN SECURITY Council resolution, it will be tougher for the US Congress or any future president to walk away from the deal.

All of which, makes it timely, rational and perhaps more likely for the two sides to reach a DEAL soonest, or before April 14 when Congress is back in session; a deal that meets the minimum demands of both parties, but leaves the important issues for further discussion in the coming months.
What effect that will have on Iran and the Middle East, is a subject for another day.

Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera

யேமன் அகதிமுகாம் மீது சவூதி அரசு வான்வெளித் தாக்குதல், எண்ணற்ற மக்கள் படுகொலை!

அந்தக் கந்தக புகை மூட்டத்தின் உள்ளே தான் இந்தப் படுகொலை அரங்கேறியது1

இடம் பெயர்ந்த யேமன் மக்களின் அகதி முகாம் மீதான, சவூதிக் காட்டுமிராண்டி அரசின் வான்வெளி இராணுவப் போர்த்தாக்குதலில் எண்ணற்ற மக்கள் படுகொலை!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Air strike kills at least 40 at Yemen camp for displaced

ADEN | BY MOHAMMAD MUKHASHAF AND SAMI ABOUDI

(Reuters) - An air strike killed at least 40 people at a camp for displaced people in north Yemen on Monday, humanitarian workers said, in an attack which apparently TARGETED near by Houthi fighters who are battling President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Yemen's state news agency Saba, which is under the control of the Houthis, said the camp at Haradh was hit by Saudi planes. It said the dead included women and children, and showed the bodies of five children laid out on a blood-streaked floor.

A Saudi military spokesman said the kingdom was seeking clarification on the incident.

"It could have been that the fighter jets replied to fire, and we cannot confirm that it was a refugee camp," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri said.

"We will ask the Yemeni official agencies to confirm that," he told reporters.

Hadi's Foreign Minister Riyadh Yassin earlier blamed Houthi artillery for the explosion.

The International Organisation for Migration, which initially reported 45 deaths, said 40 people were killed and 200 wounded - dozens of them severely.

A humanitarian worker said earlier that the strike hit a truck of Houthi militiamen at the gate to the Mazraq camp, near Haradh, killing residents, guards and fighters.

"People in Al Mazraq camp have been living in very harsh conditions ... and now they have suffered the consequences of an air strike on the camp," said Pablo Marco, MSF operational Mazraq, in the province of Hajja next to the Saudi border, is a cluster of camps that are home to thousands of Yemenis displaced by over a decade of wars between the Houthis and the Yemeni state, as well as East African migrants.

Saudi Arabia, supported by regional Sunni Muslim allies, launched an air campaign to support Hadi after he withdrew last month from the capital to Aden. He left Yemen on Thursday to attend an Arab summit and has not returned.

The fighting has brought civil war to the Arabian Peninsula's poorest country. Sunni Muslim tribesmen allied with Hadi are battling northern Zaydi Shi'ites backed by soldiers loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who stepped down after 2011 mass protests against his 33 years in office.

Yemen was already sliding into chaos with a growing southern secessionist movement and a covert U.S. drone campaign -- now stalled -- against al Qaeda in the east.

The growing power of the Houthis, part of a Shi'ite minority that makes up about 20 percent of the country's 25 million people, also means Yemen has become the latest stage for Saudi Arabia's power struggle with Iran.

The two regional rivals support opposing sides in Syria's civil war and in neighbouring Lebanon. Tehran also supports and arms Shi'ite militias in Iraq, although it denies Riyadh's accusations that IT SUPPORTS Yemen's Houthis militarily.

WARSHIPS FIRE ON HOUTHIS

In the capital Sanaa, controlled by the Houthis, jets struck around the presidential palace overnight and made more raids throughout the day. Most of the air strikes, launched on Thursday, have taken place so far only at night.

In the south, Houthi fighters closed in on the port city of Aden, the last major stronghold of Hadi supporters, and residents said warships believed to be Egyptian shelled a column of Houthis advancing along the coastal road.

It was the first known report of naval forces taking part in the conflict. A Reuters reporter heard heavy explosions and saw a thick column of black smoke rising from the area about 15 km
northeast of Aden, apparently after air strikes.

Saudi-led war planes also shook buildings in Aden's Khor Maksar district when they fired at least one missile at the airport, where Houthi-allied fighters are based, residents said. A stray

shell killed at least three people on a mini-bus in the same area, local fighters said.

A Hadi aide told the Dubai-based al-Arabiya TV that Houthi fighters also shelled the president's private residence in Khor Maksar killing a number of guards.

While Hadi's fighters ceded ground around Aden, Pakistan announced it would send troops to support the Saudi-led coalition.

"We have already pledged full support to Saudi Arabia in its operation against rebels and will join the coalition," a Pakistani official said.

In a cabinet statement, Saudi King Salman said Riyadh was open to a meeting of all Yemeni factions willing to preserve Yemen's SECURITY, under the auspices of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Arab leaders agreed at their meeting in Egypt to form a unified military force to counter growing regional SECURITY threats such as the Yemen conflict.

But working out the logistics of the force will be a protracted process and Yemen's rugged geography, internal power struggles and recent history all present challenges to any military
campaign.

Just four years after the 1990 unification of North and South Yemen, civil war erupted when southerners tried to break away, but were defeated by Saleh's northern forces.

In the 1960s, intervention by Saudi Arabia and Egypt on opposing sides of a civil war in North Yemen led to a long and damaging military stalemate.

Saudi Arabia says it is focussing for now on air strikes against the Houthis, rather than a ground campaign, promising to increase pressure on them over coming days.

On Sunday, sources said Yemeni exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) were running as normal despite the shutdown of major seaports. But French oil firm Total said on Monday

operations at its Block 10 had been reduced, with gas production maintained only for local power generation and to supply nearby areas.

Several countries have evacuated citizens from Yemen in recent days. About 500 Pakistani nationals were flown out of the Red Sea port of Hodeida on Sunday, and India said on Monday it was preparing to fly out 500 people from Sanaa.

(Additional reporting by William Maclean, Noah Browning and Rania El Gamal in Dubai, Angus McDowall in Riyadh, Stephanie Nebehay in Lausanne; Writing by Dominic Evans; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Catherine Evans)

Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal

Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON NY Times MARCH 29, 2015

Foreign ministers from other world powers joined Secretary of State John Kerry in an effort to reach the outlines of a nuclear accord with Iran by a midnight Tuesday deadline. CREDIT Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country.

For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons PROGRAM. But on Sunday Iran’s deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.

“The export of STOCKS of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad,” the official, Abbas Araqchi, told the Iranian media, according to Agence France-Presse. “There is no question of sending the stocks abroad.”

Depending on the technical details, that could make the process of enriching it for military use far more lengthy, or perhaps nearly impossible.

Nonetheless, the revelation that Iran is now insisting on retaining the fuel could raise a potential obstacle at a critical time in the talks. And for critics of the emerging deal in Congress, in Israel and in Sunni Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, the prospect of leaving large amounts of nuclear fuel in Iran, in any form, is bound to intensify their already substantial political opposition.

If an accord allowing Iran to retain the fuel is reached, the Obama administration is expected to argue that it would not constitute a serious risk, particularly if it is regularly inspected. So far under an interim agreement negotiated in 2013, Iran has complied fully with a rigorous inspection process for the stockpiles of its fuel, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

But the development could give opponents another reason to object, adding it to a list of what they call concessions made by an administration in search of an agreement. If Iran ever bars the inspectors from the country, as North Korea did a dozen years ago, the international community would have no assurance about the fate of the fuel. Nor has Iran answered longstanding questions about its suspected nuclear design and testing of components that could be used to detonate a warhead.

Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has been critical of the emerging accord, said the development raised serious questions about a possible deal.

“The viability of this agreement as a reliable arms control accord is diminished by this,” Mr. Takeyh said. “One of the core administration arguments has been that the uranium would be shipped abroad as a confidence building measure.”

On the assumption that Iran’s uranium stockpile would be small, the United States and its negotiating partners had been moving toward an agreement that would allow Iran to retain roughly 6,000 centrifuges in operation. It is not clear how much that might change if the fuel, even in diluted form, remains in the country.

If the fuel had been shipped to Russia, the plan called for MOSCOW to convert it into specialized fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran’s only commercial reactor. Once it was converted into fuel rods, it would have been extremely difficult for Iran to use the material to make a nuclear weapon.

It is not clear what form the fuel would take if it remains on Iranian territory.

The disclosure also adds a new element to the growing debate over whether the proposed agreement would meet President Obama’s oft-stated assurance that the world would have at least a year’s warning if Iran raced for a bomb — what experts call “breakout time.”

The argument over warning time, which was accelerated by a skeptical paper published over the weekend by the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offered a taste of the kind of arguments already taking shape in Congress.

On Sunday, Republican leaders made it clear they would press for more sanctions against Iran if no agreement is reached here by Tuesday. In an interview with CNN, Speaker John A. Boehner expressed doubts about a potential agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

“We have got a regime that’s never quite kept their word about anything,” he said. “I just don’t understand why we would sign an agreement with a group of people who, in my opinion, have no intention of keeping their word.”

With pressure mounting to settle on the main parameters of an accord, negotiators were still divided on how fast United Nations’ and others’ sanctions on Iran might be lifted. Important differences remained on what kind of research and development Iran could carry out on new types of centrifuges during the last five years of what is intended to be a 15-year agreement.

There was a clear sense that the talks were approaching a pivotal moment as the foreign ministers from other world powers joined Secretary of State John Kerry in an effort to reach the outlines of a deal by a midnight Tuesday deadline.

“We are not there yet,” said one Western official who, like others in this article, declined to be identified because he was discussing diplomatic deliberations. “There are lots of pieces floating around.”

Yet even if a deal was reached by late Tuesday, American negotiators made clear that this was just an interim step, and that any final agreement would require months of negotiations over what were once called “technical agreements” but are now clearly the source of CONTINUING disagreement.

That calculation over “breakout time” is so complex that experts from Britain, France, Germany and Israel all have somewhat slightly different calculations than those of experts from the United States.

The debate over breakout time intensified when Olli Heinonen, who ran inspections for the I.A.E.A. before moving to Harvard several years ago, published a paper on Saturday concluding that, based on leaked estimates that Iran would operate roughly 6,500 centrifuges, “a breakout time of between seven and eight months would still be possible.”


A senior Obama administration official here said that while he did not dispute Mr. Heinonen’s figures, the former inspector had conducted a textbook calculation rather than examining the real-life conditions at Iran’s facilities.

Like other countries, Iran loses some of its nuclear material every time it is changed from a gas to a solid, and its machinery, the evidence shows, does not run at perfect efficiency. The official said that the United States had created a measure based on what American officials have called the “fastest reasonable” estimate of how long Iran would take to produce a weapon.

Some experts outside government say the American assumptions are reasonable, and perhaps even generous to the Iranians — who have taken 20 years to get to this point, far longer than it took PROGRAMS, including in North Korea and Pakistan, to produce bomb-grade material.

But the emergence of COMPETING estimates could pose a political problem for President Obama, who has made breakout time the paramount measure for a potential agreement.

Parts of the agreement have begun to leak out, and reflect the balancing act underway: An effort by the United States and the other five powers here to cripple Iran’s ability to produce enough nuclear material for a weapon for at least 10 years, while letting the Iranians preserve a narrative that they are not dismantling major facilities, or giving in to American pressure.

For example, a deep underground facility at Fordow — exposed in 2009 — would likely be converted to make medical isotopes. That means it would not be used for enriching uranium.

But several hundred centrifuges might still be spinning there — the facility now has about 3,000 — and that fact alone, American officials acknowledge, could provide fodder to opponents of the deal.

Reporting was contributed by Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran, and Andrew Siddons from Washington.

ஹூத்தி யுத்த ஆதரவுச் சுவரொட்டி

The battle for the Middle East's future begins in Yemen

The battle for the Middle East's future begins in Yemen as Saudi Arabia jumps into the abyss

As a Saudi-led coalition wades into the fight for Yemen – currently under siege from Houthi rebels who are backed by Iran - Robert Fisk examines the much wider-reaching repercussions of this escalating conflict

ROBERT FISK - Robert Fisk is The Independent’s multiple award-winning Middle East correspondent, based in Beirut-  Author Biography   Friday 27 March 2015

Saudi Arabia has jumped into the abyss.

Its air attacks on Yemen are a historic and potentially fatal blow to the Kingdom and to the Middle East.

Who decided that this extraordinary battle should take shape in the poorest of Arab nations? The Saudis, whose King is widely rumoured in the Arab world to be incapable of taking decisions of state? Or the princes within the Saudi army who fear that their own SECURITY forces may not be loyal to the monarchy?

The “story” of Yemen appears simple. Houthi rebels, who are Shia Muslims, have captured the capital of Sanaa with the help – so say the Saudis – of the Iranians. The legitimate President
– Abed Rabou Mansour Hadi – has fled to the Saudi capital of Riyadh from his bolthole in the old southern Yemeni capital of Aden. The Saudis will not permit an Iranian proxy state to be
set up on their border – always forgetting that they already have an Iranian-proxy state called Iraq on their northern border, courtesy of the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. The real “story” is more important. Perhaps half of the Saudi army is of Yemeni tribal origin. Saudi soldiers are intimately – through their own families – involved in Yemen, and the Yemen revolution is a stab in the GUTS of the Saudi royal family. No wonder King Salman of Saudi Arabia – if he indeed rules his nation – wishes to bring this crisis to an end.

But are his bombing raids on Sanaa going to crush a Shia Muslim rebellion?

You can understand what it looks like from Riyadh. To the north, the Shia Muslim Iranian Revolutionary Guards are assisting the Shia-dominated Iraqi government in their battle against
Sunni Muslim Isis. To the north-west, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are assisting the government of Alawite (for which read, Shia) president Bashar al-Assad against Isis and al-Nusrah and whatever is left of the so-called “Free Syrian Army”. The Shia Hezbollah from Lebanon are fighting alongside Assad’s army.  So are Shia Muslims from Afghanistan, wearing Syrian uniforms. Saudi Arabia claims the Iranians are in Yemen with the Houthis. Unlikely. But be sure their weapons are in Yemen.

Unprecedented in modern Arab history, a Sunni Muslim coalition of 10 nations – including non-Arab Pakistan – has attacked another Arab nation. The Sunnis and the Shia of the Middle East are now at war with each other in Iraq, in Syria and Yemen. Pakistan is a nuclear power. The armies of Bahrain and the Gulf states include Pakistani soldiers. Pakistanis were among the dead in the first great battle against Iraqi troops in the 1991 Gulf War.

But already, the battle for Yemen is dividing other Arab countries. In Lebanon, the former Sunni Muslim Prime Minister Saad Hariri has praised the “brave and wise” decision of King

Salman to attack. Mr Hariri is not only a Sunni – he is also a Saudi citizen. But the Shia Hezbollah, who oppose Saudi intervention, called the Saudi assault an “uncalculated adventure”.

These words were chosen with care. They are exactly the words the Saudis used against Hezbollah after it captured three Israeli soldiers in 2006, a stupid political act which STARTED the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon that year.

The Americans do not know what to do. They cannot give the Saudis direct military assistance – their nuclear talks with Iran are more important – and so their soft verbal support for King Salman is supposed to mollify their Sunni allies and avoid antagonising the Iranians. But the closer a nuclear deal comes between the US and Iran, the more forcefully their partners in the Arab world will push their cards. What provoked the Saudis into their extraordinary adventure in Yemen was not the approach of Houthis towards Aden but the approach of US-Iranian agreement at Lausanne.

Hezbollah may call the Saudi attacks a “Saudi-American conspiracy” – an overused phrase which contains some truth – but the reality, evident to every Arab, is that the Saudis, armed (or over-armed, as many might say) by the US, are clearly prepared to use their firepower against another Arab nation rather than the traditional enemy further north. Listening to the rhetoric of the Saudis, you might think that they were bombing Israel.

History may say that the attacks on Yemen are the START of a great civil war between Sunnis and Shia in the Middle East. This would satisfy the West – and Israel – in a belief that the Arabs are at war with themselves. But it may also be true that this is the last attempt by the Saudis to prove that they are a major military power. In 1990, faced with the arrival of Saddam’s legions in Kuwait, they asked infidel America to protect them (to the fury of Osama bin Laden). They are a Wahabi nation, loyal – officially, at least – to the same theology as the Taliban and Isis. Saudi provided 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11. They gave us Bin Laden, who – let us not forget – was also of Yemeni tribal origin. After Yemen supported Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, the Saudis threw tens of thousands of Yemenis out of the Kingdom. In revenge for their disloyalty. Do they expect Yemenis now to rally to their support?

The last time the Saudis involved themselves in Yemen, they fought Nasser’s Egyptian army. It was a disaster. Now they have the Egyptians on their side. Indeed, they even suggest the Egyptians may stage a landing in Yemen. But to do what? To ensure that Yemen remains a faithful Sunni nation? Will this assuage the Sunni militias battering the Egyptian army in Sinai?

More seriously, will it resolve the coming struggle within the royal family, whose princes do not all believe Yemen must be the cornerstone of Saudi power – nor that Wahabism must be the permanent sectional belief. And who gains from the new Yemen crisis? The OIL producers, of course. And that means Saudi Arabia – and Iran.

How Yemen became the front line of a Mideast-wide war

How Yemen became the front line of a Mideast-wide war
By Mohamad Bazzi March 27, 2015
March 26, 2015. REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

In the early morning of Mar. 26, Saudi Arabia went to war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. In doing so, Saudi leaders opened the latest chapter in a long history of meddling and influence over their southern neighbor.

Since Saudi Arabia was founded in the 1930s, its leaders have tried to keep a friendly regime in power in Yemen and to prevent it from posing a threat to Saudi interests. That often meant meddling in Yemen’s internal politics, keeping populist movements in check, using guest workers as leverage, buying off tribal leaders and occasional military interventions.

This time, the stakes are higher for both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Saudi leaders say that, along with a coalition of nine other countries, they launched airstrikes and are blockading the Yemeni coast to drive back the Houthis and their allies in the Yemeni military, who have taken over much of the country in recent months. The Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies want to restore Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi to power.

The conflict in Yemen is complex, with a shifting set of alliances. Hadi and his supporters, who are mostly Sunni Muslims, are backed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Houthis,

who belong to a sect of Shi’ite Islam called Zaydis, are allies of Shi’ite-led Iran, the regional rival of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states. While the Saudis are quick to label the Houthis as Iranian proxies, it’s unclear how much support they receive from Tehran.

The Houthis are allied with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a longtime dictator who was ousted from power after the Arab uprisings of 2011 spread to Yemen. Once a Saudi ally, Saleh was replaced by Hadi in 2012 under a deal BROKERED by Riyadh. But Saleh still retains support among large segments of the Yemeni security forces and those troops helped the Houthis capture the capital, Sanaa, and move south toward Hadi’s stronghold of Aden.

With direct Saudi military intervention, Yemen has now been dragged into a regional proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This series of battles in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain have defined the Middle East since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Over the past decade, the traditional centers of power in the Arab world — Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states — grew nervous about the rising influence of Iran: its nuclear ambitions; its sway over the Iraqi government; ITS SUPPORT for the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and its alliance with Syria.

yemen coalition

The proxy war is drawing in more regional actors. For example, Egypt’s security interests are not directly affected by Yemen, unlike Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. But Egypt’s military rulers are now highly dependent on FUNDING from the Saudis and their Gulf allies. Hours after the start of the Saudi-led bombing campaign, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said in a statement that Egypt’s navy and air force would soon join the fight, and that its army was ready to send ground troops to Yemen “if necessary.”

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia increasingly see their rivalry as a winner-take-all conflict: If the Shi’ite Hezbollah gains an upper hand in Lebanon, then the Sunnis of Lebanon — and by extension, their Saudi patrons — lose a round to Iran. If a Shi’ite-led government solidifies its control of Iraq, then Iran will have won another round. So the House of Saud rushes to shore up its allies in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and wherever else it fears Iran’s influence.

****

Yemen’s geography and web of tribal, regional and sectarian alliances make it a difficult and costly for foreign invaders to exploit. Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt suffered significant losses during past military adventures there.

For centuries, Yemen was an autonomous province in the Ottoman Empire. With the empire’s collapse at the end of World War I, Yemen SECURED its independence as a kingdom in 1918 and its first ruler was Imam Yahya, head of the Zaydi sect. (The Zaydis have long been a minority in Yemen. Today they comprise about a third of the 24 million total population.) In the 1920s and 1930s, Yahya extended his rule over tribal lands across northern Yemen, which was then mostly inhabited by Sunnis.

But Yahya, who kept Yemen isolated and had virtually no outside allies, faced pressure from Saudi Arabia throughout his rule. In 1934, two years after Ibn Saud established the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, he fought a short war against his southern neighbor. The Saudis seized the provinces of Asir and Najran from what Yahya and other Zaydis considered “historic Yemen.” That set the roots of a territorial dispute along the coast of the Red Sea and conflicts over border demarcation that would last until 2000.

Yahya and the Zaydis also skirmished in the south with the British, who had established a colony in the port city of Aden and its hinterlands since the 1830s. After Yahya died in 1948, his son and successor, Imam Ahmad, ended the kingdom’s isolation. He established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and China, hoping to SECURE military and development aid.

This caused new tensions with the House of Saud, which feared communist influence at its southern border.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the Arab world struggled to rid itself of the vestiges of colonial rule and hereditary monarchies. A group of Egyptian military officers, led by the charismatic Gamal Abdel Nasser, overthrew British-backed King Farouk in 1952, and kindled the hope of Arab unity. Nasser used his populist appeal, powerful military and rousing speeches (broadcast over the newly invented transistor radio in a popular PROGRAM called Voice of the Arabs) to influence events in other Arab countries, including Yemen. But the Arab liberation movements would end in great disappointment — a politics of betrayal, exile and carnage.

When Yemen’s Ahmad died in September 1962, his son and successor, Imam Badr, was overthrown within a week in a coup led by army officers. Inspired by Egypt’s Nasser, the officers declared the Yemen Arab Republic. The royal family resisted the coup and sought support from the House of Saud, which did not want a successful military-led republican regime next door.

The Yemeni revolution quickly devolved into a civil war, and Yemen became the scene of a proxy battle between Egypt and Saudi Arabia — viewed by many as a struggle for the future of the Arab world, between the so-called “progressive” republican regimes and the “conservative” monarchies. Nasser decided to throw his weight behind the new military regime and flooded Yemen with Egyptian troops. At the end of 1963, there were 30,000 Egyptian soldiers in Yemen. By 1965, that number rose to nearly half of the Egyptian army — 70,000 troops.

The Egyptian army was bogged down fighting tribal guerrillas on their home terrain. Over the five-year war, more than 10,000 Egyptian troops were killed and the Egyptians failed to advance far beyond the capital city, Sanaa. Blinded by his fervor to promote revolution in the Arab world, the Yemen war became Nasser’s Vietnam.

At the same time, the Saudis were FUNDING the royalist opposition, providing arms and hiring foreign mercenaries. But the Saudis did not make the same mistake as Nasser of committing thousands of their own troops to the fight. Nasser finally withdrew the last Egyptian forces from Yemen after the humiliating Arab defeat in the 1967 war with Israel.

When the civil war ended, northern Yemen remained a republic. The Saudis were not able to restore the monarchy, but Egypt had suffered such a defeat that it no longer had much sway over Yemeni politics. Around the same time, in the southern provinces that had been COLONIZED by the British, a Marxist-ruled state was established in late 1967 with Aden as its capital.

South Yemen — officially known as the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen — soon became a Soviet satellite state.

In May 1990, after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, South Yemen united with northern Yemen (which had been ruled by Ali Abdullah Saleh since 1978) to form a single state, the Republic of Yemen. By that point, northern Yemen was heavily dependent on Saudi aid — which was intended to balance Soviet assistance to South Yemen — and remittances from several hundred thousand Yemenis WORKING in the kingdom.

Saleh became president of the newly unified state, and he soon faced a severe test that would strain his relationship with the Saudis. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, prompting the United States to send hundreds of thousands of troops to protect Saudi Arabia. Saleh was allied with Hussein, who had the support of most Arab countries and Western powers during his eight-year war against Iran.

Saleh was reluctant to tow the Saudi line and cut off all relations with Iraq, which was an important TRADING partner and oil supplier for Yemen. At the time of the Kuwait crisis, Yemen

also held the rotating Arab League seat on the United Nations Security Council. After Yemen voted against the Security Council resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq, the

United States and Saudi Arabia cut off all aid. The Saudis also expelled nearly 750,000 people — Yemeni workers and their families, some of whom had lived in the kingdom for decades.

The expulsions cut off the majority of remittances and devastated Yemen’s economy.

The expulsions and their aftermath OFFER an instructive lesson for Saudi leaders who today are waging war against the Houthis, hoping to turn Yemenis against them. In 1991, Saudis hoped that Yemenis would blame Saleh’s government for instigating the expulsions and the subsequent economic collapse. But instead, Yemenis rallied around their leader, disdained the Saudis and expressed open admiration for Hussein.

In 1994, leaders of southern Yemen tried to secede after years of frustration with the north. A war broke out between the north and south, but Saleh’s forces defeated the southern rebels within a few weeks. The Saudis, still angry at Saleh for his no vote at the United Nations, had supported the southern rebels with arms and FUNDING. But once again the Saudis backed the wrong side, and the Sanaa government reimposed unity by force.

Saleh’s relationship with the Saudis remained tense until the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. At that point, Saleh maneuvered himself as an ally of both the Saudis and Washington in fighting al Qaeda. From 2004 until late 2009, Saleh’s government waged a series of six wars against the Houthi rebels based in the northern provinces of Yemen, near the Saudi border. The Saudis supported Saleh through all of these wars, and the Saudi military was directly drawn into the last of these conflicts in 2009. Saudi forces suffered about 200 casualties over several months of fighting.

Today, Saudi Arabia has intervened more directly in Yemen than in the past. In light of this history, the Saudis are reluctant to send ground troops to fight the Houthis on Yemeni soil. But recent conflicts — in Iraq, Syria and Libya — show that air power alone is not enough TO WIN a decisive victory. And the longer this conflict drags on, the more likely that the Houthis will gain wide popular support as the defenders of Yemen’s independence against an aggressive and meddling neighbor.

A Policy Puzzle of U.S. Goals and Alliances in the Middle East

MIDDLE EAST | NEWS ANALYSIS

A Policy Puzzle of U.S. Goals and Alliances in the Middle East
By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK MARCH 26, 2015 New York Times

Smoke rising from Tikrit, where the United States and Iran have similar aims. But in Yemen, they are on opposite sides. CREDIT Khalid Mohammed/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Already struggling to navigate the chaos engulfing much of the Middle East, the United States is now dipping its toe into another conflict.

In Yemen, the Obama administration is supporting a Saudi-led military campaign to dislodge Iranian-backed Houthi rebels despite the risks of an escalating regional fight with Iran.

But in Iraq and Syria, the United States is on the same side as Iran in the fight against the Islamic State, contributing airstrikes to an Iranian-supported offensive on Tikrit on Thursday even while jostling with Iran for position in leading the operation.

All that while the Obama administration is racing to close a deal with Iran to remove economic sanctions in exchange for restraints on its nuclear program, alarming Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The site of an airstrike near the Sana airport on Thursday. Saudi Arabia and nine other countries began military operations in Yemen to counter the Houthis, who rallied against the airstrikes.

The administration finds itself trying to sustain an ever-growing patchwork of strained alliances and multiple battlefields in the aftermath of the Arab Spring four years ago. The momentary moral clarity of the demands for democracy across the region has been replaced by difficult choices among enemies and unappealing allies who have rushed to fill power vacuums.

Corrupt and dysfunctional Arab autocracies that had stood for half a century in places like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya lost credibility because they had failed to meet the needs of the citizens. But no new model has emerged; instead, an array of local players and regional powers are fighting skirmishes across the region as they vie to shape the new order, or at least enlarge their piece of it.

Making sense of the Obama administration’s patchwork of policies “is a puzzle,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, a researcher at the Brookings Institution and former senior State Department
official.

“But whether that puzzle reflects the lack of a coherent policy on the administration side or whether that puzzle simply reflects the complexity of the power struggles on the ground in the region — well, both are probably true,” she said.

The chaos gives regional rivals “more reasons to fight out that power struggle and more arenas to do it in,” Ms. Wittes said.

The lightning pace of events has fueled criticism that the Obama administration has no long-term strategy for the region. In picking proxies and allies of convenience, the argument goes, the administration risks making the chaos worse — perhaps strengthening terrorist groups’ hand, and deepening the chances of being drawn into fights Americans do not want.

One senior Obama administration official described the difficulty of trying to develop a coherent strategy during a period of extreme tumult.

“We’re trying to beat ISIL — and there are complications,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We have a partner who is collapsing in Yemen and we’re trying to support that. And we’re trying to get a nuclear deal with Iran. Is this all part of some grand strategy? Unfortunately, the world gets a vote.”

The administration had until recently held up Yemen as a model of a successful counterterrorism campaign, only to see the American-backed government in Sana crumble and the efforts against Qaeda operatives in Yemen crippled indefinitely. Earlier this week, American Special Operations troops stationed there had to detonate their large equipment before evacuating

Yemen and flying across the Red Sea to an American base in Djibouti — concerned that the war matériel would fall into the hands of the Houthi forces.

In Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, the administration talks as if it is supporting the orderly transitions to state building, but its actions are in fact helping to dismantle the central states, said Peter Harling, a researcher with the International Crisis Group, who with the journalist Sarah Birke recently wrote an essay analyzing the regional dynamic.

In each case, local players like the Islamic State or the Houthi movement have stepped into a power vacuum to stake their own claims, but none have the credibility or wherewithal to unify or govern.

But Washington, Mr. Harling said, insisted in each case on maintaining the fiction that its favored local player had a viable chance to rebuild an orderly state — whether moderate rebels in Syria, the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad or the Hadi government in Yemen.

The Western powers “have to pretend the situation is not as bad as it is, so they don’t have to accept failure and take ownership of the situation,” Mr. Harling said. “In many years of working in the region, I have never seen such a distance between statements and fact.”

The Saudi-led military campaign against the Houthis has led to fears of a burgeoning proxy war among the Middle East’s big powers. But it is unclear how, or if, Iran will directly respond to a campaign led by a coalition of Sunni nations against a Shiite militia force.

Some Middle East experts caution that the Houthi rebels are hardly puppets of Tehran, and that Iran spent years largely ignoring the group’s struggles in Yemen.

Stephen Seche, a former American ambassador to Yemen, said that the Houthis had rarely defined their struggle in Yemen in sectarian terms and that their ties to Iran had been overstated by Gulf nations.

“The Saudis and the Sunnis have made this a sectarian issue,” he said. “This military campaign is the Sunni world saying to Iran: Get out of our backyard.”

Saudi officials argue that Iran has orchestrated the Houthi military advance so they can exert influence on yet another Middle Eastern capital and destabilize Saudi Arabia’s southern border.

Adel al Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, told reporters Thursday that there was evidence that Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives and Hezbollah fighters had embedded with the Houthis. He called the military campaign a way to protect the Yemeni people as well as “a way of protecting our national interests.” But while Saudi officials welcome American support for the Yemen operation, they are keeping a wary eye on the United States’ interactions with Iran elsewhere in the region.

Leslie Campbell, the regional director of Middle East and North Africa programs at the National Democratic Institute, said that it was hard to ignore the notion that the Saudi-led offensive in Yemen was in part a message to the United States as it negotiates a nuclear deal with Iran and finds, to some degree, common cause with Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq.

The message, he said, is “if you all want to make friends with Iran, have a good time; this is what you’re going to get.”

Few disagree that the continuing tumult in the Middle East has scrambled American priorities there. This has led many to argue that the Obama administration’s policy for the region is adrift — without core principles to anchor it.

But amid the confusion, some experts said that there cannot be an overarching American policy in the Middle East at the moment. The best the White House can do, they said, is tailor policies according to individual crises as they flare up.

“I would be more concerned if we had some sort of overly rigid policy,” said Barbara Bodine, another former American ambassador to Yemen who is now the director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.

“It is messy. It is contradictory. That’s foreign policy.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.New York Times Highlights ENB

யேமன்: மத்திய கிழக்கில் மற்றொரு உலகமறுபங்கீட்டு போர்க்களம்!

WAR & CONFLICT
Iran warns of bloodshed as Saudi-led forces bomb Yemen

At least 18 people reported killed in air strikes in Sanaa, as Iran warns violence could spread across the region.

26 Mar 2015 13:56 GMT | War & Conflict

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Saudi-led air strikes hit Houthi targets in Sanaa and Aden
18 civilians killed in Sanaa during overnight attacks, civil defence sources say Coalition of 10 countries including GCC nations involved in operation, Saudi says Egypt and Jordan confirm their PARTICIPATION in Saudi-led coalition

Saudi air strikes on Shia rebels in Yemen have triggered a furious reaction from regional rival Iran, with top officials warning that military action could spill into other countries.

Saudi Arabia said that a coalition consisting of 10 countries, including members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), had begun air strikes at 2am local time on Thursday, targeting Houthi positions in the capital, Sanaa.

According to Al Jazeera sources, the strikes carried out by 100 jets from Saudi and its coalition, have destroyed Iranian-made missile launchers in the capital Sanaa.

Houthi military barracks and air bases controlled by the rebels were also reportedly destroyed, Fayez al-Duweiri, a retired Jordanian general and defence analyst, told Al Jazeera.

The Houthi-run health ministry in Sanaa said that at least 18 civilians were killed and 24 others were wounded in the Saudi-led attacks on the capital.

The bombing of the Houthis, who are said to be backed by Iran - a charge Tehran denies - came after several weeks of warnings that Yemen was descending into civil war.

Saudi Arabia said it had launched the bombing raids to reinstate what it called the legitimate government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who has been holed up in the main southern city of Aden since fleeing rebel-controlled Sanaa.

ENB File Photo Yemen Regions

The Houthis and their allies within the armed forces had been closing in on Hadi's last bastion, Aden.

Houthi TV aired pictures showing the aftermath of the air strikes in Sanaa

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the air strikes would lead only to greater loss of life.

"Military action from outside of Yemen against its territorial integrity and its people will have no other result than more bloodshed and more deaths," he told the Iranian-owned Al-Alam television channel.

"We have always warned countries from the region and the West to be careful and not enter shortsighted GAMESand not go in the same direction as al-Qaeda and Daesh," he added, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.

He also called for an "urgent dialogue" among the Yemeni factions "without external interference".

The comments from Zarif, who is in the Swiss city Lausanne for talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry on Iran's CONTESTED nuclear programme, echoed condemnation of the Saudi-led strikes by officials in Tehran.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from Sanaa, Houthi spokesman Mohammed al-Bukhaiti called the military action a declaration of war on Yemen, adding that reports alleging a Houthi leader, Mohamed Ali al-Houthi, had been injured were false.

Meanwhile, thousands of pro-Houthi protesters gathered in Sanaa on Thursday to condemn the Saudi-led air strikes. In the city of Taiz, supporters of President Hadi organised a rival protest.

Sanaa targeted

Huge explosions were heard in Sanaa as strikes hit an air base at the capital's airport and other locations in the city, an AFP correspondent reported.

Strikes were also reported on targets in the Malaheez and Hafr Sufyan regions of Saada province, a main Houthi stronghold on the border with Saudi Arabia.

Citing Saudi military sources, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV channel reported that 100 Saudi war planes were involved in the operation, dubbed "Decisive Storm".

ENB File photo: Oil field in Yemen and Regional map

The United Arab Emirates is participating with 30 jets, Bahrain with 15, Qatar with 10, Morocco and Jordan both with six, while Sudan offered three planes, officials said.

An Egyptian official told the AFP news agency that Egypt would also take part. Saudi Arabia said that another four Muslim countries including Pakistan wanted to PARTICIPATE in the Saudi-led military coalition.

Kuwait's defence ministry announced it was sending three squadrons of its F-18 Super Hornet aircraft to Saudi's King Abdulaziz airbase in Dhahran to take part in the offensive.

Four Egyptian warships also entered the Suez Canal on Thursday en route to the Gulf of Aden after Cairo pledged military support for the campaign, canal officials said.

The officials said the ships will take part in operations "to secure" the strategic waters that control southern access to the Suez Canal.

Pakistan, which has longstanding ties to Saudi Arabia, was examining a request from Riyadh to join the coalition, Islamabad said.

"I can confirm we have been contacted by Saudi Arabia in this regard. The matter is being examined," foreign office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

US delegation happy with Lanka

US delegation happy with Lanka

March 21, 2015 07:21 Eric P. Schwartz

A US delegation, which visited Sri Lanka to assess the climate for religious freedom, other human rights, and tolerance, have noted progress on the issues in Sri Lanka since the country’s 2015 election.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said that it was encouraged by statements made by officials with whom they met, and in particular welcome
comments in support of national reconciliation among all Sri Lanka’s religious and ethnic communities.

USCIRF Commissioner Eric P. Schwartz said that during their recent three day visit, USCIRF had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affaris, Mangala Samaraweera, Justice Minister Wijedasa Rajapaksa, Minister of Buddha Sasana Karu Jayasuriya, and Minister of Muslim Religious Affairs Abdel Halim Mohamed Hasheem, as well as representatives from Sri Lanka’s diverse religious communities, among others.

“We are encouraged by statements made by officials with whom we met.  In particular, we welcome comments in support of national reconciliation among all Sri Lanka’s religious and ethnic communities.  After a devastating war and reports that religious minority communities were increasingly subjected to attacks in recent years, the new government’s engagement with religious minorities is an important step forward in the effort to promote national unity and increased space for all religious groups,” he said in a statement.

USCIRF welcomed other measures by the government, in the areas of freedom of expression and association in particular, which tend to create a climate conducive to religious freedom.

“We are very pleased to hear that reports of abuses perpetrated against minority religious communities have diminished over the last few months.  We encourage the government to hold
perpetrators of such crimes accountable.  We believe accountability will encourage a critical sense of security and well-being among affected communities,” Schwartz added.

While welcoming recent government measures, Schwartz called on the authorities to ensure the ability of religious communities to practice their chosen faiths without restriction.  This
includes the ability to build houses of worship and to be free of any acts of intimidation or harassment.

Schwartz said his delegation left Sri Lanka with a sense of great encouragement, and look forward to further progress on critically important issues. (Colombo Gazette)

Lanka a model for others says UN

Lanka a model for others says UN
March 23, 2015 18:45

The United Nations (UN) says Sri Lanka has served as an important model for other countries in terms of demonstrating the importance of policies such as free-education and free-health  for promoting human development.

Subinay Nandy, the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Sri Lanka said

 that Sri Lanka’s recent renewed emphasis on upholding human rights and the rule of law, whilst addressing lingering inequalities and promoting peace, mean that the newly proposed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – which explicitly address these issues – fit well with local priorities, and Sri Lanka’s aspirations and unfolding development vision.

Nandy was speaking at the launch of the Millennium Development Goals Country Report 2014 for Sri Lanka at an event graced by Deputy Minister of Policy Planning and Economic Affairs, Dr. Harsha De Silva, this morning.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of eight goals agreed by world leaders in 2000 to be achieved before the end date in 2015. The eight MDGs range from halving

extreme poverty rates to promoting gender equality and providing universal primary education. As countries near the end target date in September 2015, governments around the world are reviewing their progress towards achieving the MDGs in the last 15 years.

The MDG Country Report is the third MDG review report produced by Sri Lanka. It is also the first report that covers the entire country, allowing comparison across the 25 districts and providing policy makers with information to identify and support regions lagging behind. It also analyses achievements and thematic areas requiring further attention.

Speaking at the launch event, Dr. Harsha De Silva said: “The government of Sri Lanka understands the need in building bridges, in integrating our society, and in Sri Lanka being a country of Sri Lankans. I hope that we can make further progress in integrating the differences within communities. We have to ensure that in our market framework there is social goodwill and economic justice. That is what we mean by a social market economy.”

The Report, which was prepared by the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, is a joint publication by the Government of Sri Lanka and the United Nations in Sri Lanka. Its findings show that Sri Lanka has performed well against the MDGs overall, having already achieved or being on-track to achieve the majority of the goals and indicators.

Highlighting Sri Lanka’s MDG performance, Nandy, stated, “The findings in the report make a strong case for Sri Lanka to be a leading and credible actor in the global deliberations around the development agenda for post-2015. Sri Lanka’s long history of INVESTMENT in health, education and poverty alleviation programmes, has translated into robust performance against the MDGs, and Sri Lanka has many lessons to SHARE”.

Ms. Shanthi Sachithanandam – CEO, Viluthu.

Looking to the future, the report also highlights certain areas that require additional focus such as Women’s Empowerment, Nutrition, Climate Change and Regional Disparities and these were discussed during a panel discussion on ‘Priorities Moving Forward’. The panel discussion took place with the PARTICIPATION of Alain Sibenaler – UNFPA Representative, Dr. Suren Batagoda – Secretary of the Ministry of Power and Energy, Ms. Una McCauley – UNICEF Representative, Dr. Shanthi Goonewardena – Director, Nutrition Coordination Division, Ministry of Health, and Ms. Shanthi Sachithanandam – CEO, Viluthu. (Colombo Gazette)