Significance of John Kerry East Africa Visit

US Secretary of State John Kerry visited three countries in East Africa. The visit to Kenya and Djibouti was open in his itinerary but his visit to Somalia was surprising to say the least and according to FP's David Francis "too dangerous". It has been said that his visit to Kenya was to make preparations for President Obama's visit in July. For Kenya, a country that has suffered the brunt of terrorism in the past few years, Kerry's visit and that of President Obama, is a welcome sign of American support to Kenya's fight against Al Shabaab. Kerry's visit further highlight the strides Kenya has made in reshaping her foreign policy which, after the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto was stained. Kenya's foreign affairs docket headed by Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohammed has been transformed remarkably. The country has been able to balance its international obligations well by luring new friends and even rediscovering old foes. An example was Kenya's welcoming of Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in February where they discussed trade and investment between the two countries. 

John Kerry in Kenya

John Kerry while in Kenya met and discussed on various issues with top government officials, members of the opposition and civil societies. Of greater significance was the US pledge of $100 million to boost counter-terrorism in Kenya and a further $45 million to go to refugee aid. John Kerry also pledged support for deradicalization programs to prevent the youth from joining terror networks. US support for counter-terrorism will include intelligence sharing, law enforcement and border security. Although this support does not come without strings, it is a welcome addition to Kenya's fight against terrorism. Kerry's visit comes a month after the Garrisa university attacks that claimed 147 souls. 

Kerry's surprise visit to Somalia, a first for a US Secretary of State further buttress US efforts to combat violent extremism. It also showed according to Kerry "Washington's Commitment" to renewed ties between the two countries. Kerry met with Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mahmoud at the country's airport and later returned to Kenya. Key in their talks was insecurity caused by the Al Shabaab militant group. Kerry promised increased support of the AU mission to Somalia. 

Kerry in Somali - Picture courtesy of FP

Bradley Klapper reporting for Associated Press says Kerry's visit to Djibouti as one that highlights the importance of small nations in US policy. However, Djibouti remains a crucial state in the geopolitical setup of the Horn of Africa. The small country is base to US troops in Camp Lemmonier. With the ongoing Saudi airstrikes in Yemen aimed at Houthi rebels, it is expected that many Yemeni citizens will flee and take refuge in Somalia and Djibouti. Kerry will discuss the Yemen crisis together with his host President Omar Guelleh. 

Kerry while in Kenya also spoke on the Burundi situation which according to analysts is in the brink of a civil crisis. Pierre Nkurunziza, the Burundian president is seeking a third term contrary to the constitution and the Arusha reconciliation Accords. Protesters have since taken to the streets to oppose Nkurunziza's decision. Significantly, Kerry's East Africa visit illustrates US commitment to fighting terrorism in the region. For Kenya, the visit is another foreign policy triumph after a previous backlash and seemingly isolation.     

Kerry meets Zarif at his New York Residence

Secretary of State John Kerry met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif at the Iranian ambassadors residence in New York. This is the first meeting of the two after the P5+1 signed a deal that will see Iran reduce nuclear enrichment that will in effect ease sanctions. This is also a diplomatic victory that will redefine Iran and US foreign policies.

See more analysis on Al-Monitor  

TIME 100: A Reflection

I read through The Time 100: The World's Most Influential People before Sunday Mass yesterday. Inspiring? YES, Informative Graphics? YES, Choice of people? Mh..that is for another day. All in all I enjoyed reading this April 27 - May 4 2015 double issue of TIME. The cover had Kanye West, the maverick American artist - who according to the writer Elon Musk, says would be the first person to tell you he belongs on the list. Kanye West is known far and wide. In our part of the world, he is famed more on his relationship with Kim Kardashian - who is also in the list - than his music. Or am I wrong? My wife doesn't read TIME Magazine, but she took notice of it when she saw Kanye on the cover. Was this TIME's intention? The graphic representation of the Homelands - where the 100 were born is covered in the first pages. It is not surprising to observe the left side of the page which has the Americas is filled with more people - almost three quarters. 

I am not surprised that the list has Kim Kardashian - the first lady of #fame. You can see the harshtag, yes she is a media phenomenon with over 29 million followers on Instagram. When Kim flew to Armenia, her ancestral land, it made the news and remarkably, she made a plea to President Obama to recognise the Armenian Genocide. I am moved by the first woman in charge of the US Federal Reserve Janet Yellen, this is a positive stride in women empowerment. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the celebrated Nigerian novelist also makes the list an indication that the strides women are making are also been felt in Africa. I have read all her books save for Half of a Yellow Sun which I intend to read soon. The way she moulds her characters in her works is just amazing. Her stories resonate with many people in Africa - remember Kambili in Purple Hibiscus? 

Jorge Ramos is described as "America's New Anchor" a man with silver-haired but with a heart of gold. Christiane Amanpour says Ramos who has redefined the immigration narrative can 'move the needle' with another presidential election coming up. Obiageli Ezekwesili was the face of the #bringbackourgirls campaign. You know making the list of TIME 100 is not an easy task, it requires, in some instances, selfless service to humanity, unbreakable commitment and service. It has been a year and the girls in Chibok have not been rescued but Nigeria has a new man in Muhammadu Buhari who also makes the list. 

Mohammad Javad Zarif, is a man I have always admired. Iranian top diplomat returned from the Iran Talks with a deal. The deal has brought about world rapprochement after decades of Iran isolation from international relations. Zarif was a member of the prominent personalities of the dialogue among civilisations of President Mohamed Khatami. A distinguished scholar who has encapsulated President Hassan Rouhani's constructive engagement policy. I also hold to high esteem Pope Francis, who according to Desmond Tutu has instilled a new sense of human-centredness in the papacy. Pope Francis is indeed God's gift to humanity. His humility and modesty is bringing hope to the world's poor. Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu also makes the list. Ehud Barak, writing on Bibi in his last paragraph, he states "To leave his mark Netanyahu must swiftly heal wounds opened by his campaign [] for a tougher policy, and even, if needed, an attack against Iran [..]. Daring actions are needed. Not just words. From praising Zarif's diplomacy during the Iran Talks to Obama's victory on nuclear nonproliferation deal, TIME ought to have warned against Ehud Barak's insinuation.

TIME 100 gives young people like myself time to reflect on the future. I aspire not to make the list of 100 but to be like Pope Francis, a face of humanity or like Malala a champion of education or just simply like Abby Wambach, to use passion to lead. Or simply like the many who have not made the list who touch the lives of others by bringing hope in their lives.      

Lest we Forget Libya!

Every week we look at an article that is making inroads in the field of international relations. In the recent weeks, the world has been grappling with the war in Gaza, the Ebola outbreak in the Western African states of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria. The embers of the conflict in Ukraine seem to be cooling off while infighting in Iraq has seen America sending rescue missions. Closer home in Tanzania, there seems to be no answer to the constitution deadlock. I hear the ruling party is flexing its political muscles while the UKAWA group remains intransigent. 

On Libya. While the global media casts its cameras in Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq and West Africa, the infighting in Libya seems to be forgotten. I asked my Canadian-Libyan friend Amjad how Libya was fairing after the fall of Gaddafi, and his answer was "The militants have taken over". Foreign Policy Magazine in the Passport series looks at the situation in Libya. Titled "Don't look Now, but Libya is Falling Apart", the author,  Siddhartha Mahanta, explores how the militants are fighting for the control of the oil wells in Libya. NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi has been a subject of international debate. When the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 for a no-fly zone over Libya on 17 March 2011, the fall of Gaddafi was inevitable. The legitimacy of the resolution under the pretext of Right to Protect (R2P) is also a subject for debate. Critics of the UNSC further highlighted its flaws with the passing of Resolution 1973. 

Libya is now in the hands of hungry militants who are fighting themselves. One wing of the militants are aligning themselves with Islamists. Just like Iraq was stable under Sadam Hussein, so was Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. One excruciating fact is that both countries were undone by UNSC resolutions, which were against international law norms. As ISIS continue to wreck havoc in Iraq, the militants in Libya will get more radicalized. At whose expense was the brutal removal of Sadam and Gaddafi? The people of Iraq and Libya must be cursing and questioning the motives of the powers that be. But as we say in international relations, albeit in the realist thought, 'States pursue power at all cost and their primary concern is state survival'. 

 

#Iran Nuclear Talks: Who's the real loser?

Every week I post an interesting article on issues foreign policy and international affairs. Today, we look at an article by Camelia Entekhabifard who analyses the ongoing Iran nuclear talks with the P5+1 posted on Al Jazeera website opinion space. 

She posits that as much as China and Russia side with Iran, the end of sanctions in Iran will not go down well in Beijing and Moscow respectively. She is of the idea that Russia, China and black marketeers all have something in common - that is, they have nothing to lose if the talks fails. Iran would likely grow more reliant on Russia as a regional security buffer and Russia would lose an oil and gas competitor and might even secure a better deal with Iran if the talks fall apart.

Another interesting point made here is on the stability of the region. The Middle East region faces numerous security challenges. Israel, an arch enemy of Iran is now fighting Palestine's Hamas. In what started as kidnapping of Israelis, the retaliatory attacks have killed over 200 Palestine people in the last week. It has been argued that a failure of the Iran Nuclear Talks will further destabilize the region. For more indepth analysis see link below. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/iran-nuclear-talks-20147156547235397.html

#WorldPolitics: Why is the World Cup more exciting than World Politics?

I will be posting links to interesting articles touching on International Politics and Foreign Policy in my blog from today. 

Here is an interesting analysis by Hamid Dabashi, one of my favorite authors and commentator of world affairs. He ponders why the World Cup is more interesting than World Politics. Even though he hasnt mentioned the fact that he has been over the moon for Iran national team qualification to the World Cup and the somewhat inspiring performance, I believe this article has been highly motivated with #TeamMelli. I was also supporting Iran by the way.  

Here is the article courtesy of Aljazeera:  Why is the World Cup more exciting than world politics?

Iran World Cup Cartoon

The hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin

There has been a buzz over Ukraine in the last few weeks. The media is reporting it as the Crisis in Ukraine, emblematic to previous media declaration such as those in Syria (Syrian Crisis), Egypt (the Crisis in Egypt) e.t.c. What started as street protests by the people of Ukraine over the country's stance of being anti-European Union, soon escalated and saw the entrance of other forces. Efforts to pacify the opposition factions by the now ousted President Viktor Yanukovich were squashed. Yanukovich had made serious concessions which the European Union rebuffed in contempt. The February-21 agreement was mediated by Russia, France, Germany and Poland and aimed to end the bloodshed in Kiev by reducing presidential powers and establishing a framework for a national unity government, in addition to electoral reform, constitutional changes, and early elections. These efforts failed and the opposition toppled Yanukovich.

John Kerry and Ukraine interim leaders

British Foreign Secretary William Hague

In a leaked telephone conversation between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador in Ukraine saw the use of 'undiplmatic' language (Fuck the EU). Russia was responsible for the telephone leak. The conversation between the two showed America's proclivity to meddling in foreign relations and determining the destinies of countries based on Washington's recourse. As soon as the 'crisis' took another dimension after the ouster of a legitimate government, Nuland's conversation and statements were quickly forgotten and the barrel shifted. The interim government, reminiscent of the Transitional National Council in Libya, received praise and admiration from the West. Kiev, the capital of Ukraine started to receive high profile visits from the British Secretary of State William Hague and his American counterpart John Kerry. It did not take John Kerry long to brand the actions by Russia on Ukranian autonomous region of Crimea as an 'incredible act of aggression'.  Russia had sent its troops to Crimea, a region  with a 59% Russian speakers. 

"It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations," Kerry said. It hard to imagine these words coming out of John Kerry, whose country has in the past in utter disregard of international law and norms invaded countries and violated their sovereign authority and integrity using various euphemistic pretexts such as 'humanitarians' 'democracy' etc. Before the ongoing Geneva Talks over Iran Nuclear, there was heightened rhetoric of a plausible invasion of Iran with America's ally Israel fueling the rhetoric. Western media camouflaged in 'humanitarian plea' demanded Obama to act on Syria's use of chemical weapons on its citizens. In 2011, the US invaded Libya on humanitarian grounds brutally killing Muammar Gaddafi. The US has also used the drones, sending them to Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan allegedly to do away with 'terrorists'. All these acts are tantamount to aggression, the same crime they accuse Russia of doing. This is an aberration to the foundations of democracy and rule of law which US prides itself on. 

President Putin affirmed that Russia is not going to war with Ukraine and there are not trying to make Crimea apart of Russia. What is mind boggling is the$ 1 billion in US aid, loan guarantees pledged by US to help Ukraine economy. Your guess is as good as mine!   

Iran and the two Genevas

Via Al Monitor- Iran Pulse

Interesting analysis..read more here.

Why Iran seeks constructive engagement

OPINION

By Hassan Rouhani,
Hassan Rouhani is president of Iran.

Three months ago, my platform of “prudence and hope” gained a broad, popular mandate. Iranians embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.

The world has changed. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds. World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities.The international community faces many challenges in this new world — terrorism, extremism, foreign military interference, drug trafficking, cybercrime and cultural encroachment — all within a framework that has emphasized hard power and the use of brute force.

We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is — or should be — counterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others. A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable.

A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences. More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc. Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we stronglycondemn. In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.

My approach to foreign policy seeks to resolve these issues by addressing their underlying causes. We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East.At their core, the vicious battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are over the nature of those countries’ identities and their consequent roles in our region and the world. The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.I am committed to confronting our common challenges via a two-pronged approach.First, we must join hands to constructively work toward national dialogue, whether in Syria or Bahrain.

We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates. As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.Second, we must address the broader, overarching injustices and rivalries that fuel violence and tensions. A key aspect of my commitment to constructive interaction entails a sincere effort to engage with neighbors and other nations to identify and secure win-win solutions.We and our international counterparts have spent a lot of time — perhaps too much time — discussing what we don’t want rather than what we do want. This is not unique to Iran’s international relations.

In a climate where much of foreign policy is a direct function of domestic politics, focusing on what one doesn’t want is an easy way out of difficult conundrums for many world leaders. Expressing what one does want requires more courage.After 10 years of back-and-forth, what all sides don’t want in relation to our nuclear file is clear. The same dynamic is evident in the rival approaches to Syria.This approach can be useful for efforts to prevent cold conflicts from turning hot. But to move beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program or its relations with the United States, we need to aim higher. Rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to think — and talk — about how to make things better. To do that, we all need to muster the courage to start conveying what we want — clearly, concisely and sincerely — and to back it up with the political will to take necessary action. This is the essence of my approach to constructive interaction.

As I depart for New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, I urge my counterparts to seize the opportunity presented by Iran’s recent election. I urge them to make the most of the mandate for prudent engagement that my people have given me and to respond genuinely to my government’s efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of all, I urge them to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.

Can Rouhani engage with the US?

Nico Minde

New Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was sworn in early this month. He takes over from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who according to many analysts took the already sour relations with the US to the abyss. Dr. Rouhani is a moderate cleric who is seen by many as a person who could try and engage with the US on issues central to Iran's nuclear agenda. Al Monitor offers an analysis on the same here. The era of Ahmadinejad was filled with fiery rhetoric and Iran positioned itself for increased sanctions from the West. Iran became isolated and its economy hit the doldrums. In his swearing in ceremony, Rouhani called for a "language of respect" when negotiating with Iran and not through sanctions. "If you seek a suitable answer, speak to Iran through the language of respect, not through the language of sanctions," the president said. The president also hinted that Iran will seek to engage with the US. He further said that Iranian nuclear program was a peaceful one and one that is geared towards generating electricity and sustainable energy. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking on CBS News before Rouhani took oath, he said that Iran is getting closer to the red line he illustrated during the UN summit in New York last September. The two sides continue to be antagonistic towards each other which could jeopardize the negotiations and talks. However, the indications by the new President saying he is willing to engage with the US is welcoming. Iran should however be wary of American scheming and not fall into their marauding antics. Before his elections Rouhani said that the West needs to be genuine if they were to negotiate over Iran nuclear issue. As a former chief nuclear negotiator, President Rouhani understands this very well.

Rouhani wins Iran Poll

Congratulations Hassan Rouhani for winning the Iran Elections. Jalili and Qalibaf concede.

Hassan Rouhani takes early lead in Iran Election

Via various online sources

Moderate reformist candidate Hassan Rouhani has taken an early lead in the Iran Presidential Elections. Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf is coming in second place.  Informed sources say the voter turnout in Iran’s 11th presidential election has been around 80 percent, Press TV reports. With 2.9m ballots counted, the cleric had 1.46m votes, or 49.87%, well ahead of Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, with 488,000 votes, or 16.65%.

Man, State and War: Thank you Kenneth Waltz, now Rest in Peace

Nicodemus Minde 

As a student of International Relations and an aspiring theorist of the discipline, the news of the passing of Kenneth Waltz is sad. This guru embodied the neo-realist theory throughout his great academic history. Ken was the author of several enduring classics of the field, including Man, the State, and War (1959), Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics (1967),  and Theory of International Politics (1979).   His 1980 Adelphi Paper on nuclear proliferation ("The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better"), was also a classic, albeit a controversial one. 

Kenneth Waltz

As a first year student at the university studying International Relations, Ken's works came in handy. We dissected and unpacked various theories of IR. Theorist such as Hans Morgenthau, the father of realism were introduced to us with the monumental piece of "Politics Among Nations". Others such as E.H Carr, Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli also epitomized the realist discourse. The epistemology and ontological points of departure came in handy when unpacking the theory debate. This being said, Kenneth Waltz remains my all time favorite theorist in International Politics. I have read his book "Man, State and War" and it together with the monumental seminal work on foreign policy of "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis by Graham T Allison remain as my all time favorite reads in international relations. 

 

In essence, Waltz's thesis in the book "Man, State and War" is on the causes of war in a contextual framework of the man and society. Using units of analysis, Kenneth Waltz divides international relations theory into three images: that of man, state and system. He looks at the three images vis-a-vis each other and forms his theoretical premise of the causes of war. Interesting in this reading was his analysis of man within a polity or society. He asks "Can man be best understood by studying society or by studying man?" His analysis is premised on the conception that man is born good but it is society that erodes their character. 

 

Writing recently on nuclear deterrence in Iran and the politics of the bomb, Kenneth Waltz reminded us of his unique analytical skills.  In Foreign Affairs magazine, Professor Kenneth N. Waltz says it is time to back off and let Ahmadinejad develop his nuclear weapons. I wrote in this blog before on Waltz's perspective. He believed that a nuclear Iran will bring stability in the Middle East region. Just the standoff between India and Pakistan that cooled down through nuclear deterrence, Waltz believed Iran-Israel tensions could be healed this way. 

 

I eulogize Kenneth Waltz's on his excellent and critical formulation of IR theories and events. I have never met his in person but through his great works. He introduced me to the discipline that is International Relations. We debated and argued on the images as conceived by Waltz in class both at undergraduate and graduate studies. My analytical skills within the corpus of IR have largely been influenced by this great scholar. In scholarship, one is acclaimed and despised in equal measure but for me, Waltz remains one of my great mentors.   

The rise and rise of Tanzania as a regional economic hegemon

Tanzania has historically played a second fiddle in the East African region behind Kenya. Tanzania's foreign policy over the years has been based on its strong cooperation with the East and the Non-Aligned Movement. Tanzania's ideology has been that of a socialist democracy dictated by the ideals of humanity, equality, brotherliness and good neighborliness. Under the founding father Julius Nyerere, Tanzania practiced the Ujamaa ideology, a brand of Socialism which Nyerere termed as "Tanzania's unique socialism". The Ujamaa ideology was aimed at fostering national cohesion, self reliance and independence through the virtues of humanity. With this brand, Tanzania's close allies were Cuba, China and the now defunct USSR and currently Russia. Tanzania worked in close partnership with these nations whilst playing a non-aligned pragmatic foreign policy. Nyerere was good at this. 

With the triumph of capitalist liberal democracy that saw 'the end of history' as elucidated by Francis Fukuyama, Tanzania adopted open market liberal economic approaches. With this, Tanzania opened up for global investments and direct trade with financial institutions which Nyerere had once rebuffed as neo-imperilist tools. Whilst this happened, Tanzania carried out its foreign relations in a very pragmatic and strategic manner. Tanzania's foreign policy was anchored on African liberation during the 1960s and 1970s. Tanzania played a leadership role in the fight for African liberation not only political liberation but also economic. Tanzania criticized the Apartheid regime in South Africa and played a leading role in fronting for peaceful coexistence and settlement of disputes in Africa and beyond.

Tanzania is now at a critical juncture in mapping out its future. With the drafting of a new constitution, Tanzania is joining the league of African nations that are rethinking their future through the drafting of a new legal regime. I trust that the Constitutional body is doing a good job. Tanzania is also experiencing a resource boom. With plenty of natural gas, uranium, coal, oil and other energy resources, Tanzania is been seen as rising economic giant within the region. There is no doubt that Tanzania is at the behest of greatness. With investors wooing Tanzania, right-left and center, it is a manifestation of good times ahead. The new Chinese President Xi Jinping is visiting the country in what political pundits see as expanding of China-Tanzania relations. The Chinese government brings investment opportunities and trade to Tanzania. They enter into partnerships with the Tanzanian government in areas of infrastructure, health, education, trade etc. This is good for Tanzania. Chinese investments are 'unconditional' and due to historical ties, will benefit both countries. Western countries are also competing for a stake in Tanzania's riches. This is great news. With disciplined and shrewed leadership, Tanzania stands to greatly benefit. I have no doubt that US President will visit Tanzania just like his two predecessors, George Bush and Bill Clinton. This is the rise of Tanzania.   

All politics is local? Why International Relations then?

 Nicodemus Minde

They say all politics is local, or rather all politics is domestic. As a student of international politics, this saying could mean I wasted four years of my undergraduate studies plus other two for my graduate studies. After meditating on the phrase for a long time through inspired reading and philosophical and epistemological analysis, I think I got a counter phrase or rather a complementary phrase. Yes, indeed, all politics is local but after reading an article on Al Monitor, the Middle East website on "What Russia learned from the Iraq War" I can confidently say that "all politics is local. All international politics is a derivative of jostling for hegemonic status either regionally, continentally or in many occasions global". 

The pursuit of individual freedoms, justice and rule of law as embedded in the DNA of American constitution is local politics. The desire to push this enduring tenets to a global audience either through implicit or explicit tactics is what can be termed as international politics. When Putin was quizzed over Russia's position on the Iraq War 10 years ago, he said it was their problem. This is despite the fact that Russia as a global player should have positioned itself with 'the allied forces' against the forces of evil or 'axis of evil'. This then, is how domestic politics plays the role of international politics. When America supported the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine yet Russia had publicly declared they would work best with George Bush and not John Kerry during the elections, the concept of internationalization of domestic politics manifested itself. A great read from Middle East Al Monitor has opened my international relations eyes wider. Thank God for daily insights.   

The West needs to be genuine if they're to negotiate with Iran over the nuclear issue

TEHRAN – Iran’s former chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani has said that Tehran’s nuclear issue can be resolved if world powers enter negotiations seriously. 

 

Rohani, the current director of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council, told reporters on Friday that the issues between Iran and the West, whether nuclear or otherwise, must be resolved through dialogue.  

 

“Iran has always said that it is ready to hold serious negotiations,” Rohani said. 

 

Commenting on unilateral sanctions against Iran, Rohani said, “When the West is increasing pressure and at the same time is talking about negotiations, then negotiations mean surrender.”

 

“If negotiations are serious and based on mutual understanding, there is no need to such tough actions,” he added. 

 

Rohani emphasized that if the West is seeking to make the Iranian nation surrender, it will never achieve its goal. The only solution is that they seriously come up for negotiations, he added.

Iran Revolution Anniversary Reflections

Via Reuters
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday Tehran would not negotiate about its disputed nuclear program under pressure, but would talk to its adversaries if they stopped "pointing the gun". In a speech to mark the 34th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, he struck a more conciliatory tone than Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who on February 7 rebuffed a U.S. call for direct negotiations between the two countries. Ahmadinejad does not have the authority to authorize talks over the nuclear program, which lies with Khamenei. Iran has already agreed to a new round of talks with world powers, but not direct U.S. talks, in Kazakhstan on February 26. 

"You cannot point a gun at the Iranian nation and then expect them to have negotiations with you," Ahmadinejad told a crowd gathered in the capital Tehran's Azadi (Freedom) Square. His speech was carried live on state television. "Talks should not be used as a lever to impose one's opinions ... If you stop pointing the gun at the Iranian nation, I will negotiate (with you) myself," he added. The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran may be trying to develop atomic weapons capability under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy program, a charge Iran has denied. Many experts believe any nuclear deal needs a U.S.-Iranian thaw and direct talks addressing myriad sources of mutual mistrust and hostility lingering since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
 

ENEMIES "WILL NOT SUCCEED"
Tehran wants sanctions lifted that have slashed oil exports and helped cut the value of the Iranian rial, raising inflation and weakening purchasing power for ordinary Iranians. People held banners saying "Down With U.S.A." at state-organized demonstrations in Tehran and other cities to mark the anniversary of the ousting of a Western- friendly monarchy in favor of clerical leadership under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Ahmadinejad did not address specifics of the planned talks in Kazakhstan. He said Iran would counter sanctions by boosting non-oil exports and weaning itself off crude oil revenues. "Enemies are trying their utmost to put pressure on the Iranian nation to stop its progress but they will not succeed," he said. Khamenei on Thursday rejected a U.S. offer of direct talks, saying talks and pressure were incompatible. He was believed to have been replying to remarks by Vice President Joe Biden, who said on February 2 the United States was ready for direct talks if Iran was serious about negotiations.

SHOW OF UNITY 

The national celebrations are taking place a week after Ahmadinejad and his political rival, parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, traded public accusations of corruption, an outbreak of infighting that is expected to grow more vicious as the country approaches presidential elections slated for June. The parliament is dominated by a faction loyal to Khamenei and hostile to Ahmadinejad, who cannot stand for reelection. Khamenei, Iran's unelected leader, has struggled to suppress rows among officials which have broken out into the open despite warning that such public spats were a betrayal of the country. 

The last presidential election in 2009 set off mass protests at Ahmadinejad's victory, which opponents called fraudulent. Ahmadinejad is believed to have since lost Khamenei's backing. In January, Khamenei's representative to the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ali Saeedi, said it was part of the role of the Guards to "engineer" the elections. Ahmadinejad, who is believed to want to maintain influence after stepping down, possibly by backing an ally as a candidate, appeared to warn against such efforts on Sunday. "Some people say they want to engineer and manage the election,Ahmadinejad said. "The great Iranian nation knows which path to take ... some must not speak or act in such a way so as to play into the hands of Iran's deceitful enemies."

Ayatollah Khamenei rejects talks with US

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei strongly rejected an offer by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden for direct talks over the country's nuclear development program in remarks posted on his website on Thursday. Biden made the offer on Saturday saying the U.S. was ready to hold one-on-one talks with Iran "when the Iranian leadership, supreme leader, is serious." However, Khamenei maintained that talks would not solve the problem. He wrote, "You take up arms against the nation of Iran and say: 'negotiate or we fire.' But you should know that pressure and negotiations are not compatible and our nation will not be intimidated into actions." The statement came after the U.S. Treasury Department announced new economic sanctions on Wednesday as sanctions that were enacted in August 2012 took effect. The new sanctions target companies involved in inhibiting the flow of information and cracking down on dissent such as the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its director, the Iran Cyber Police, the Communications Regulatory Authority, and Iran Electronics Industries which makes equipment used for jamming and monitoring. The sanctions from last summer will target companies connected with Iran's energy, petrochemical, insurance, financial, and shipping sectors. While one senior U.S. official said the move is "a significant turning of the screw" others are more skeptical. According to another senior U.S. official, "The people may be suffering in Iran, but the supreme leader isn't, and he's the only one who counts."

Iran marks 34th anniversary of Islamic Revolution

Via Press TV

Special ceremonies are being held across Iran to mark the 34th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the US-backed Pahlavi regime. The ceremonies kicked off all over the country on Thursday morning at 9:33 a.m. local time (0603 GMT), the time when the late founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, returned to the Iranian capital, Tehran, on February 1, 1979 after a 15-year exile in Paris. 

 

High-ranking Iranian officials and people from all walks of life came together at the mausoleum of the founder of the Islamic Republic in southern Tehran to renew their allegiance to the ideals of late Imam Khomeini. 

The day of Imam Khomeini's return to Iran marks the beginning of the Ten Days of Dawn, which culminates with the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution on February 10. Iranians have arranged different programs to celebrate the event by honoring Imam Khomeini's historic return and the memory of the revolution’s martyrs. On Wednesday, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini to pay tribute to the founder of the Islamic Revolution. 

 

 The Iranian nation toppled the US-backed Pahlavi regime 34 years ago, ending 2,500 years of monarchic rule in the country. The Islamic Revolution, under the guidance of Imam Khomeini, established a new political system based on Islamic values and democracy.

Iran to send living creature into space

Via Press TV

 

Head of Iran’s Space Agency (ISA) Hamid Fazeli says the country plans to send a living organism into space on board the Pishgam (Pioneer) satellite carrier in the near future.

“Iran’s Space Agency (ISA) is fully prepared to send the Pishgam satellite carrier bearing a bio-capsule with a living creature,” Fazeli said Sunday.

He expressed hope that the Pishgam satellite carrier, previously known as the Kavoshgar 5 (Explorer 5), would “soon” be successfully launched into space carrying a monkey. Iran sent its first bio-capsule of living creatures into space in February 2010, using the indigenous Kavoshgar 3 carrier.

The country successfully launched its first indigenous data-processing satellite, Omid (Hope), into orbit in 2009. As part of a plan to develop its space program, Iran also successfully launched its second satellite, dubbed Rassad (Observation), into the earth's orbit in June 2011. Rassad's mission was to take images of the Earth and transmit them along with telemetry information to ground stations.

Iran also launched its domestically-built Navid-e Elm-o Sanat (Harbinger of Science and Industry) satellite into orbit in February 2012. The records made by the telecom, measurement and scientific satellite could be used in a wide range of fields. Iran is one of the 24 founding members of the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was set up in 1959.