Yemen Air Strikes: A Guide to The Countries Backing Saudi Arabia
A Saudi-led coalition has been targeting Shia rebels and their allies in a campaign of air strikes, now in its third week. Here’s a look at the Sunni Arab countries involved in the fighting, as well as others backing the operation
Yemenis inspect destroyed houses after a Saudi-led air strike in al-Jiraf district in Sana’a. Photograph: News Agency/Rex Shutterstock
Friday 10 April 2015
Which countries are conducting air strikes?
Saudi Arabia:The kingdom is leading the coalition carrying out air strikes in Yemen, targeting the rebels known as Houthis and their allies, namely forces loyal to the former Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saudi Arabia has deployed about 100 fighter jets, 150,000 soldiers and other navy units for the operation, according to reports by the Saudi-owned satellite news channel al-Arabiya. The kingdom’s military has targeted Yemeni airbases, Houthi camps and missile sites. The military also says its Apache attack helicopters have struck Houthi positions just across the border in northern Yemen. United Arab Emirates:The seven-emirate nation has dispatched its fighter jets in strikes targeting Scud missiles in Yemen, as well as Houthi camps, air defence systems and other military targets, the state-run WAM news agency has reported. It said 30 jets from the UAE were taking part in the strikes.
Smoke rises from the Faj Attan Hill area in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, after a reported air strike by coalition forces. Photograph: AFP/Getty
Who has contributed aircraft to the coalition?
Kuwait: The kingdom has offered 15 fighter jets for the operation, the state-run Kuwait Mews Agency has reported. It is unclear whethere they’ve carried out strikes.
Bahrain:The tiny island kingdom sent 12 fighter jets to take part in the operation, the state-run Bahrain News Agency has reported. It is unclear whether they have carried out strikes.
Qatar: Qatar has contributed 10 fighter jets to the operation, according to WAM. The state-run Qatar News Agency has not reported on the contribution, or whether the jets have taken part in any strikes.
Morocco: The counrty has offered six warplanes to take part in coalition air strikes, the Saudi ambassador to Morocco, Abdulrahman Mohammed al-Judai, has said. Morocco previously stationed six F-16s in the United Arab Emirates, detailed to that country’s military, to target Islamic State in air strikes as part of a US-led coalition against the extremists. Morocco has offered no specific details about its role. Sudan: The African country has put four fighter jets at the disposal of Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese information minister, Ahmed Bilal Osman, has said. Sudan also offered to dispatch 6,000 soldiers for ground operations for the coalition as well, Osman said. The Sudanese government has not disclosed whether it has carried out strikes. Egypt: Egypt is believed to be offering aircraft and naval vessels for the operation, though officials have not given a breakdown of their contribution, or said whether they have launched strikes.
Pakistan’s defence minister, left, and the chief of the country’s religious hardline party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam talk at Parliament House in Islamabad. Photograph: AFP/Getty
Who has contributed material to support the coalition?
United States: The US has conducted aerial refuelling of Emirati F-16s and Saudi F-15s taking part in the bombing campaign, as well as offering logistical and intelligence support. It has not taken part in air strikes.
Who has offered unspecified support to the coalition?
Jordan:A Jordanian official has told the Associated Press that the country is participating in the coalition, but declined to say if that included air strikes. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to discuss the issue with journalists.
Who has declared itself neutral?
Pakistan:After days of discussion, Pakistan’s parliament has voted to declare the country neutral in the Yemen conflict, calling on the warring parties to resolve the situation peacefully through negotiations. It had previously voiced support for the Saudi-led coalition.
Who has voiced support for the coalition?
Somalia:The country has voiced support for the coalition’s mission, Somali media has reported.
SOURCE: http://www.firstpost.com/world/counter-terrorism-piracy-high-on-radars-of-india-sri-lanka-maldives-1425681.html Counter-Terrorism, Piracy High on Radars of India, Sri Lanka, Maldives By Rajeev Sharma Mar 9, 2014
Strategic diplomacy is one area which is always work in progress and this work goes on despite local political scenarios. The Indian diplomatic and strategic establishments continue to be hyperactive even though the country is in the middle of general elections and foreign governments are staying engaged with the UPA government despite political projections that the UPA is unlikely to be in government by 1 June. One such work-in-progress was the third National Security Advisor (NSA)-level Trilateral Meeting on Maritime Security Cooperation between Maldives, Sri Lanka and India on 6 March in New Delhi, an event which expectedly failed to rule the media outfits’ TRP.
Yet, the event was fairly important for obvious politico-strategic reasons. First of all, it is of vital interest for India that India maintains its prime status in the Indian Ocean. This comparatively new process of trilateral maritime security, which features Sri Lanka and Maldives along with India, is a baby step towards that goal and hence its importance.
Representative image. Reuters
Equally importantly, this event cements New Delhi’s closer security ties with Colombo and Male. India has had running contentious issues and controversies with each of its two partners. This event provides an important platform for the three South Asian countries to stay engaged on security and strategic issues. Then there is the inevitable China factor, the perennial elephant in the room in any South Asian discourse. China is not an Indian Ocean power and yet Beijing has been continuously enlarging its strategic footprints in the region. This is an important red flag for the Indian strategic establishment. The trilateral maritime cooperation involving India, Sri Lanka and Maldivescan do precious little to keep the Chinese out of the Indian Ocean nor is it the raison d’être of this small club. But through this process, the three neighbours are keeping in close touch on vital maritime security issues which they would not have done had this process not started in the first place. Also, this unassuming loose formation is set to expand further in the near future with probable inclusion of Mauritius and Seychelles which attended the 6 March event hosted by India as observers. The clout and capabilities of this process would be significantly enhanced once Mauritius and Seychelles are made full-fledged members of this NSA-level dialogue. During the third NSA-Level meeting in Delhi, the participants reviewed and expressed satisfaction over the progress in the implementation of various activities in the identified areas, according to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. They also discussed new areas of cooperation including hydrography; training in “visit, board, search and seizure operations”; training on board Indian sail training ships; exchanges between think tanks; and joint participation in adventure activities. Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon led the Indian delegation and chaired the meeting. The Maldivian delegation was led by Col (Retd) Mohamed Nazim, Minister of Defence and National Security, and the Sri Lankan delegation by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Urban Development. Delegations from Mauritius and Seychelles also participated in the meeting as Guest countries. Motichand Seebah, Permanent Secretary in Prime Minister’s Office, represented Mauritius, while Ambassador Maurice Loustau-Lalanne, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, represented Seychelles. India, Sri Lanka and Maldives launched the Trilateral Cooperation in Maritime Security in October 2011 at the first NSA-level Trilateral Meeting on Maritime Security Cooperation in Maldives. Since then it has become an annual event. Shivshankar Menon put the things in perspective succinctly with these remarks: “If you look at the Indian Ocean, today over a 100,000 ships pass through the Indian Ocean every year. Something like 66 per cent of the world’s oil cargo, over 50 per cent of the world’s container traffic, and something like 33 per cent of the world’s bulk cargo go through the Indian Ocean every year. So it is very important to our economies and in terms of security for all of us. And it is not an issue that any single country can actually solve on its own. So we decided to see what we could do.” This body is focusing essentially on three big areas: (i) trying to keep a tab on what is going on in the Indian Ocean, (ii) inculcate maritime domain awareness and (iii) to share information on what is happening in real time between the member countries. “We have now actually put in place the systems so that we can share; we see the same picture of what is going on in the maritime area around us. We have trained our people we have nominated; we are putting in place the hardware so that we can share that information. The IMO (International Maritime Organization) has a system, for instance a long-range identification and tracking system for ships. We also have our own automatic identification system data which we now have one platform on which we will be sharing,” Menon said. The next big step for this trilateral maritime cooperation would be its expansion by taking Seychelles and Mauritius in its fold. The two countries attended the Delhi event as observers for the first time and both have evinced their keenness to join the body. The trilateral effort is a commendable step as it enhances practical cooperation among the member countries’ coastguards, navies and various institutions concerned with maritime security. A concrete deliverable of this trilateral effort is that they now have in place a platform which will actually enhance concrete responses to situations as diverse as piracy, pollution, drug running or counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism and piracy are on the front burner of this trilateral cooperation. This is what Shivashankar Menon had to say about these two issues: “Counterterrorism is still obviously an interest for all of us. When I say that we share information and we also consider joint action against illegal activities, it includes terrorism. But the immediate threat that we have been facing in the last few years was piracy. That fortunately at least in the Arabian Sea and off the Horn of Africa is down, due to a variety of factors not just what the three of us are doing with this, the whole world has been actually working at that problem. But even though the numbers may be down and it might have decreased because of the effort that we have put in, the primary source of the problem, which is on land, has not been solved.”
(The writer is a FirstPost columnist and a strategic analyst who tweets @Kishkindha.)
·Sumitra Devi, whose husband died
during Kargil war due to heart attack was refused liberalised benefits by MoD,
which are admissible only in operational deaths. AFT, too, dismissed her
petition but the High Court quashed AFT’s order and granted relief.
·Lt Nishant Karol of the armoured
corps died during a battle. AFT allowed the pension to parents only for a
period of 6 months prior to filing of the petition. The High Court set aside
the order and directed the release of pension from the date of death.
·Maj Arvind Suhag suffered 100
per cent disability during an operational move in Kargil area. AFT refused the
grant of war injury pension. The Delhi HC set aside AFT’s order and granted him
the applicable war injury pension.
All the
above cases show that the litigants from the defence community had a potent
avenue of appeal in the high courts across the country which has been taken
away by an apex court judgment last month.
Now, one of the largest
ex-servicemen body in the country has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi
asking for an amendment to the Armed Forces Tribunal Act to allow for appeals
in the high courts.
Writing
to the PM, Major General Satbir Singh (retd), Chairman, Indian Ex-Servicemen
Movement (IESM) has said that the majority of litigants before the AFT cannot
afford litigation in the SC where an appeal is in any case not admissible
unless one can prove a
“point of law of general public importance”.
“We have
reasonable information to believe that one of the grounds raised by the
MoD/Army in the appeal for denying the right of judicial remedy, like other
citizens of India, was that fundamental rights can be restricted/abrogated
under Article 33 of the Constitution for defence personnel and hence a judicial
remedy under writ jurisdiction of high court would not be available. If it is
true that this argument was raised, then it is the most unfortunate that the
system itself is pleading for placing defence personnel on a lower pedestal
than other citizens and pleading before the Supreme Court that the military
community does not deserve the enjoyment of fundamental rights like others,”
said Singh.
The
letter goes on to say that it is not understood how the defence ministry
expects poor litigants, including disabled soldiers and widows from all over
the country, to travel to Delhi and engage lawyers in SC to fight their cases.
Most of the cases in the AFT involve issues such as disability benefits,
pension, minor allowances, pay fixation, ACRs etc and litigants would now be
expected to suffer in silence if they feel that they have not got justice from
AFT.
Speaking
to The Indian Express, Major Navdeep Singh, a former President of the Bar
Association of AFT Chandigarh bench said that the decision of the SC based on
the appeal filed by the MoD makes access to justice impossible and illusory for
veterans and widows since on one hand the high courts have been asked not to
entertain writs against AFT orders and on the other hand there is no provision of appeal in the Act to the SC. “The situation is in teeth of constitution bench decisions of the SC including the L Chandra Kumar’s case, Kartar Singh’s case and more recently the National Tax Tribunal judgement of 2014,” he said. According to Singh, AFT functions under the MoD and even its members are appointed by the MoD and selected by a committee which has the Defence Secretary as its member. “We request you to kindly abrogate Sections 30 and 31 of the AFT Act so that AFT orders can be challenged on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) thereby making justice accessible and practical for defence personnel, ex-servicemen, widows and their families,” said Singh in the letter.
Soldiers, Not Second-Class Citizens By Deepak Sinha
Monday,
13 April 2015
The Supreme Court has taken the burden of hearing writ petitions against
the Armed Forces Tribunal away from High Courts, and upon itself.
This doesn’t
speed up legal processes but in fact takes away the soldiers’ right to
appeal
Both the
print and the broadcast media have focussed on the landmark ruling of the
Supreme Court, abrogating the repugnant Section 66A of the Information
Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008 as unconstitutional. In doing so, the apex
court has shown itself to be a powerful defender of the citizen’s fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression.
Sadly, at
around the same time, another landmark order received little media coverage.
The highest court of the land turned approximately five crore members of the
military community, that includes serving soldiers, veterans and their
families, intobona fide second-class citizens.
In this
retrograde action, the military members received no support from civilian
bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence, who — and this will certainly come as a
big surprise to most of readers — are considered by most military men to be
even more dangerous than the most fearsome militant they may have met!
(COROLLARY:BABU of MOD is more DANGEROUS than the most fearsome MILLITANT ever encountered )
In fact,
one can go so far as to state that there are many within the military who
believe that the damage that the civilian bureaucracy has inflicted on the
military over the years, in every aspect of its functioning, far outweighs
anything that any of our enemies has ever been able to do us. (areBABUs are NAXALs to AFS )
To be fair
to the bureaucracy, senior officers of the military too have certainly played
their part and supported them in their shenanigans, some deliberately for their
own ends, but most because, they were unable or unwilling to comprehend the
intent or ramifications of the issues involved.
( AVS COMMITEE's PLASTIC CARROT GIFT )
In this
particular case, in an appeal by the Ministry of Defence, based on Article 33
of the Constitution that empowers the executive to restrict or abrogate the
fundamental rights of members of the Armed Forces — an article that
incidentally, is also applicable to other uniformed services including the
police — a two-judge Bench in its order of March 12, has taken away the right
of High Courts to hear writ petitions that are filed against the orders of the
Armed Forces Tribunal.
It has,
instead, directly taken upon itself, the burden of such litigation. You can be
forgiven for believing that by its actions, the Supreme Court has ensured that
members of the Armed Forces will receive speedy justice, something that many
citizens can only wish for in this country.
Unfortunately
for us, the implications of the ruling, as lawyer and tireless advocate for the
rights of the military community, Major Navdeep Singh, has explained,
is nothing
short of disastrous.
The Supreme Court only entertains appeals that concern a
‘point of law of general public importance’ involving the case.
The issue
in question here is the fact that, as per the Supreme Court itself, ‘public
importance’ does not include issues that are personal to litigants, such as
matters pertaining to disability or to other kind of pensions, pay, promotions
or annual confidential reports.
This implies that most petitioners will never
be able to challenge any order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that they are
dissatisfied with.
Joseph
Heller of Catch 22 fame would have certainly appreciated the humour of
the situation. Thus, in practical terms, the court has ensured that the Armed
Forces community does not deserve what every murderer or rapist, or for that
matter, what even Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab took for granted:
The right
to appeal against the orders of every court till it was finally disposed of by
the highest court of the land.
The Supreme Court has, in one fell swoop,
demolished the cardinal principle of democracy —the right of appeal against
what one may consider an unfair judicial ruling.
The
tragedy does not end here because most cases before the Armed Forces Tribunal
pertain to military veterans or widows and next of kin, none of whom are
affected by Article 33, which among others was invoked to justify the ruling.
Moreover, this ruling is only specific to the Armed Forces and not to others in
uniform.
Ironically, it does not apply to the bureaucracy that pushed for it,
since the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal can be challenged in
the High Court.
We need
to ask ourselves: What was the necessity for the Ministry of Defence to have
appealed against High Courts’ entertaining writs by Armed Forces personnel if
they were dissatisfied with judgements of the Armed Forces Tribunal, especially
since other Union or State Government services, including the paramilitary and
police forces, can continue to do so in similar circumstances?
Is this
just another deliberate attempt, in a long series of such measures, to ensure
that the military continues to eat the humble pie before the civilian
bureaucracy?
(The writer is a former military veteran and consultant with
Observer Research Foundation)
The popular belief is that New Delhi, besides being the national capital, is also the rape capital of India. But official figures by the National Crime Records Bureau for 2012 state otherwise.
Madhya Pradesh reported the highest number of rape cases (3,425). Rajasthan ranks second with 2,049 cases followed by West Bengal (2,046) and Uttar Pradesh (1,963).
Rediff.com's data journalists have broken down 2012 district-wise NCRB data into a constituency-wise listing.
Crime figures have been calculated based on cases per million population.
Mizoram constituency has the highest incidence of rape in the country (94 cases per million population), Chandni Chowk comes second (86 cases per million) and third is Shillong constituency (81 cases per million).
ATTACK ON "NEUTRALITY OF NET" is a direct assault on 'DEMOCRACY'
What is Net Neutrality ?
It is the principle that all traffic on internetshould be treated the same.
----------
So What's Happening Now?
TRAI consultation paper (open to comments till April 24) is the first step in potentially allowing operators to discriminate internet traffic.
----------
How does This Iimpact Me?
1. Your internet bill could go up.
2. Apps you love may no longer work.
ISPs and Telcos could charge you more. When you buy a 1 Gb data pack, you can use it for anything you wish. Without Neutrality, you could be forced to buy a Skype pack for Skype calls, a video pack to watch YouTube and dailymotion.
OR
you could be charged a different rate for each service. 4p/10 KB if you are browsing, but 10p/10 KB for VoIP calls.
That would be like your milkman telling you 30 Rs/L if you make tea, but 60 Rs/L if you make milkshake.
You could be denied service as well. (for making too much noise)
Telcos could decide that WhatsApp or Viber is eating into their sms revenue and block them completely.
Or Airtel could block gaana, saavn, hungama, rdio etc (owned by RIVALs) and allowed access only to wynk (owned by Airtel)
----------
YOU, I MEAN YOU, THE USER OF INTERNET WILL BE REDUCED TO A STATE OF CAPTIVE MARKET WITH A GAG IN YOUR MOUTH AND HANDCUFFED TO A RAT HOLE TO ROT INTO THE STATE OF HELPLESSNESS STAGE OF ETERNAL SLAVERY OF MENTAL "HIBERNATION" WHICH MAY CULMINATE INTO DEMENTIA DUE TO LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE INPUTS OF KNOWLEDGE.
Let TRAI know that you hate this idea. Go to http://www.savetheinternet.in and follow the instructions to email TRAI letting them know of your displeasure.
----------
What else you can do?
Yes. Inform family and friends about net neutrality and TRAI's attempts to kill it (under pressure from telcos probably).
