Mediaboss Marketing

CW: References to violence and sexual assault.

Syria is a country filled with history. Its a middle-eastern land with rich cultural diversity, from the ruins of Palmyra to the network of towns, fortresses and panoply of lost cities that pepper the ubiquitous sun-kissed dunes. Multitudinous peoples have formed part of the rich tapestry of historical Syria. However, behind this topographical mirage of magnificence lurks a state devestated by a decade-long civil war, and bled by a malign regime headed by a dictator, Bashar al- Assad, obstinate in his desire to retain power at any expense. The expense has been grave, and, as always, has been paid by the people.

Assads iron fist and cruel totalitarianism, facilitated by the insouciant Russian states pillaring of his power, symbolise an unholy alliance that is a fundamental threat to the core values of freedom, moral decency, and the international rules-based order. This article seeks to deconstruct the evil barbarism that plagues Syria, as well as the inadequate current global approach to Syria, whilst outlining the need for a concerted international effort to liberate the Syrian people from Assads blood-soaked tyranny.

The heart-wrenching plight of Syrians at Assads hands is emblematic of the acute threat that he poses to the basic values of freedom. Just last month, the international chemical weapons watchdog (the investigative arm of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) provided a heart-rending insight into how the state machinery systematically represses the vulnerable. It said that it has reasonable grounds to believe that the elite Syria Tiger Forces Corp of the Syrian Air Force was responsible for a chlorine bomb that was dropped on a town in the rebel-controlled Idlib region in 2018, which killed 12 people. A United Nations report indicated that the Assad regime was also responsible for a bomb that was discharged on the Iqra School in the Aleppo Countryside in 2013 (one of a litany of schools bombed by Assad), killing 11 civilians, most of whom were children. Such rapid aerial assaults by the army on its own people are now lamentably common in Syria, and have been since the start of the civil war.

This is the reality on the ground in Syria despite the use of these types of weapons (chemical and incendiary) on civilian populations being illegal under humanitarian international law. But should we really be surprised? Such human rights abuses and flagrant international rule-breaking is Assads and his allies modus operandi.

Millions of refugees are afraid to return to Syria because of the Mukhabarat, or secret police, which systematically torture, rape, kidnap, and kill innocent civilians for simply voicing an opinion that may be construed as dissent, or for even for merely be suspected of harbouring anti-Assad sentiment.

The impact of one mans rapaciousness on Syria itself makes for a sobering read. As a result of Russian and Syrian air strikes and incessant artillery bombardment of cities (such as Aleppo and Homs), homes, infrastructure, and over 800 medical facilities have been reduced to rubble. Most of the more than half a million people killed have been civilians, murdered by barrel bombs and ballistic missiles, famine, sieges, and nerve gas. Not to mention the fact that the UN estimates that more than 6 million people have become refugees outside of the countrys border and another 6.7 million people internally displaced. Syrian economic output has fallen at least two-thirds since the war began which has created an impoverishment crisis. Its currency has lost 80% of its value and the UN estimates that more than 80% of the population has fallen below the poverty line with around 12.4 million Syrians food insecure, which is an increase of 4.5 million people in the last year alone and the highest number ever recorded.

The global response has been tepid at best. It is true that the US has consistently taken decisive action. For example, the Obama administration backed the Syrian rebels by attacking the Islamic State. The Trump administration launched a missile attack against Assad in 2017 in retaliation for yet another regime chemical attack. And just a month into office, the Biden administration launched a rocket attack against facilities in eastern Syria that the Pentagon said are used by Iranian-backed militia.

Moreover, a new round of US sanctions against Assads regime, and those who aid it, came into force just last year. The Caesar Act 2020 punishes all those who in any way aid the Assads, their government, army and institutions, their support networks and allies, or their business interests. The Acts main external targets are Russia and Iran, the Assad regimes external patrons, and the Iran-backed paramilitaries that spearhead its strike forces: Lebanons Hizbollah and Iraqi Shia militia. The overarching rationale for such targeting these groups has been to isolate Assad from vital strategic and military partners in order to ameliorate the impact of his armed forces domestically.

Similarly, the UK imposed its first sanctions against Syria since leaving the EU through its new Global Human Rights Sanction Regime; these so-called Magnitsky-style sanctions (in homage to the late Russian whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky) seek to target global individuals and organisations abusing human rights. In relation to Syria, UK asset freezes and travel bans to the UK were instituted for six Syrians, including the foreign minister Faisal Miqdad, Assad media adviser Luna al-Shibl, and financier to Assad, Yasser Ibrahim. Coupled with that, the UK have adopted a justly polemical rhetoric on the international stage with the UK Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, sniping that the Assad regime has subjected the Syrian people to a decade of brutality for the temerity of demanding peaceful reform.

However, the Magnitsky-style sanctions, as valuable and coercive as they are, seem unlikely to protect civilians on the ground who are enveloped by privation, suffering, and abuse; and the upper-echelons targeted were already under some form of restrictive international sanction. It also seems to have achieved very little in deterring Assad, and arguably, the stringency of the Caesar Act actuated the demise of the Syrian currency and therefore exacerbated the impoverishment crisis on the ground as Syrian simply can no longer afford basic foodstuffs like bread. Notwithstanding that, the repeated US military interventions from the sky seem to be distant and lacking in substantive success, whilst costing innocent lives in the process and leaving many Syrians too frightened to roam the streets. For me, there appears to be no real concerted strategy or game-plan from the West, vis--vis Syria, when there ought to be, given how acute the crisis has now become after 10 years.

The main focus of the West in relation to Syria appears to be on the management of the refugee crisis stemming from there as opposed to tackling the causes of the refugee crisis, which is tantamount to treating the symptoms, not the cause. For example, some EU countries have recently, and arbitrarily, tightened their criteria for asylum, resulting in more asylum seekers being granted subsidiary protection instead of refugee protection. Indeed this is not isolated but indicative of an alarming trend across EU countries that are implementing policies designed to discourage and deter people from seeking asylum in their countries by stripping away the benefits. However, alas, such policies are fatally flawed by myopia; it is axiomatic that this will not address the underlying cause of why people are coming, nor does it resemble a long-term solution to the refugee crisis despite a resolution being in the international interest.

As an international community, we must recognise that the reason that millions of Syrians are escaping their countries to come to the West is because they have no choice but to leave. We must imagine a world where we feel too frightened to wake up in the morning; insecure going to work or school; and denumbed with angst in our everyday environments because of the reality that we may be killed for wanting basic freedoms. Syria and Russia together have committed the cardinal sin of stripping Syrians of the ability to live. These citizens are haunted by the omnipresent realities of life in Syria: of dead friends and relatives, blood, and war. In Syria, people exist, but they do not live. It is because of that harrowing fact that they leave.

The UN as a tool of change is looking increasingly vacuous in relation to Syria. As Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it has exercised its veto repeatedly (14 times since the beginning of the war in Syria, as of March 2020) to block diplomatic efforts of accountability. That includes vetoing, alongside China, a resolution supported by 65 countries and the rest of the security council that would have referred war crimes committed in Syria to the International Criminal Court.

The only solution to assuage the refugee crisis and bestow hope and justice to Syrians is a long-term political peace settlement in Syria, where people are once more able to regain the ability to live. Working concertedly and formulating a long- term plan with broad bipartisan commitment, as an international community, to end the conflict and help rebuild Syria with united endeavour, resources, time, and treasure; it is the morally noble thing to do. It would alleviate the Syrian people of their suffering, allow Syrians to build futures for themselves at home in lieu of making the perilous journeys across migrant routes or being exploited by people smugglers, and allow Syria to be a bastion of hope and freedom in the Middle East. But it would also be beneficial for the world as it would mitigate the influx of migrants at borders (often a politically vexed issue in the West), deliver a more stable and peaceful Middle East thus reducing the risks of vacuums of power being filled by terrorists preying on the vulnerable, which more often than not culminates in a latticework of terror groups forming, and fomenting attacks globally.What is clear is that the current approach is not working, and we have a moral obligation to ramp up our efforts. The practical form of a long- term plan is complex and multi- faceted. What it cannot include is simply more sanctions, or greater humanitarian aid alone (although these do play their part). We, as an international community, must champion the values that we believe in, freedom and justice, and never in good conscience passively allow nations of people to capitulate to tyranny. In the words oft-attributed to the late great parliamentarian, Sir Edmund Burke, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. We must do much more than nothing.

Image Credit: Chaoyue Pan / CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support youre able to provide; itll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!

See more here:
Syria: What is the international community's long term plan? - Cherwell Online

When you first step into the prime ministers office at the Maximos Mansion in Athens, it feels oddly familiar. The reason is that youve seen it time and again in his televised public addresses over the course of the pandemic. In the two years since being elected, Kyriakos Mitsotakis has had to face one major crisis after another, and it is these Turkey and the pandemic that we discuss with him in an assessment of the governments tenure so far and a projection of what lies in the next two years to come.

I would like to take you back to June 8, 2019, the day when you first entered this office. What is your recollection of that day? What was your understanding of the job at the time and how has that perception changed over the past couple of years?

I have to say that this two-year period has been so dense that I too am surprised at how quickly the time passed since the July 7 elections. The joy over winning an election is very short-lived. Immediately after the announcement of the election results, you begin to realize the weight of the responsibility that Greek voters have placed on your shoulders. My first priority on entering the Maximos Mansion was to make sure that we could swiftly organize the structures of the central executive power so as to be able to implement our policy program. I believe that many things over that period went according to plan.

If I asked you to identify one mistake that you could erase from the past, what would that be?

I would go back to the way that we dealt with the second wave of the pandemic originally. We should have imposed restrictions in northern Greece sooner.

Why did that not happen?

It did not happen because no one can be absolutely certain about the data. One must also examine the trends. We were then looking at the beginning of the trend. We said we would wait a bit longer to see if this trend would become more permanent. In hindsight, we should have acted sooner. Its something I have also said in Parliament. On the other hand, I believe that we learn from our mistakes. That is why we were very prompt in acting ahead of the third wave. If you wait for all the data, then you will be late in making a decision. The problem will overcome you.

We now have a key fact which says that vaccinations can provide a way out of the crisis. And, as far I can see, this is where we are stuck. The inoculation program has hit a wall of hesitancy. If my interpretation of the governments moves is correct, you are trying to get this moving, to motivate more citizens into getting the shot.

First of all, what you are describing is a global phenomenon. It is not some Greek particularity. I would say that in terms of vaccination willingness, Greece is about average. Now we need to address those who appear to be more distrustful, more skeptical of the need to get vaccinated. And these people do not make up a homogenous group. There are people who reject vaccination on a philosophical basis. It is practically very difficult to convince them about the need to get vaccinated. There is however a large group of people who may be still skeptical; or even some people whose behavior is, in my opinion, extremely reprehensible. Its the people who say, Well, I know it works; let other people have it so that the pandemic will be overcome without me having to get the shot. These people, who are known in English as free riders, expect others to do their job for them.

The freeloaders?

Yes, the freeloaders. But freeloading is no more.

The question is, how can you motivate them?

In two ways, I believe. First, we must insist, particularly in respect with older age groups, on hard scientific facts and statistical evidence, which we now have at our disposal regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines. I looked at evidence on the 60 to 80 age group over April, May and June. And it is indeed striking. A total of 2,245 citizens in that age group died over these three months. Only 22 of them were vaccinated. The other 2,223 were unvaccinated. In other words, they were citizens who could have been vaccinated or were able to do so and didnt. However, let me add this: I cannot force anyone. I cannot make vaccination mandatory. The country will not enter yet another lockdown to protect the small number of unvaccinated and have the large majority of the Greek population, who are vaccinated, pay the price. I believe that vaccinated individuals enjoy rights that are conferred on them [due to their inoculation].

Lets say that they are no longer deprived of the freedoms that were taken away for public health reasons.

This may be the most appropriate description. This is why we dubbed it Operation Freedom. Also, on the issue of the Freedom Pass that we granted to young people, I do not understand those who accuse us of trying to bribe the youth. What would be the benefit of that? Does anyone really think that when elections are held in two years that young voters will still remember that we handed out 150 euros?

The Freedom Pass was one of the things you did. The other is the system whereby businesses in the leisure sector choose whether to cater only to vaccinated customers or a mix of both. Critics have questioned how these measures will be implemented. Do you really believe that the vaccination certificates of people going to a club late at night will be scrutinized?

This all reminds me of something. It reminds me of things we heard with the smoking ban. It happened. I want to remind people of that, because weve forgotten. Banning smoking in indoor public spaces was one of my first decisions [as prime minister]. We heard the same thing: Theres no way its going to be enforced. It was. And this is very easily enforced technologically.

But why the mixed system? Why not a simpler solution, like people who are not immunized are not allowed in indoor leisure venues?

Because no country has done anything like that yet. Because we believe it would be stretching the limits of constitutionality. And because we believe that this is the middle road we have to take right now. People who are not vaccinated must also have the right to entertainment.

Isnt there a question of fairness, though? Meaning that those who have the option of being vaccinated ignore the risk to society in order to enjoy themselves?

We chose this path, at this point, of the market adapting to this reality. Yes, more freedoms for the vaccinated, but the unvaccinated will also have options, if businesses so desire, to cater to them with stricter occupancy restrictions. If the markets response is for all businesses to be for the vaccinated, you will achieve the same result but in a way that, in our opinion, is more on more solid constitutional ground.

If I understand what you said earlier correctly, you are ruling out new horizontal measures but not the possibility of a stricter framework, a clearer policy. Is that correct?

Lets wait and see. I want to stress that this is just one aspect. The other is persuasion. Ive heard criticism that, apparently, we havent carried out a persuasion campaign. Are they serious? Its all weve been talking about for the past 16 months. We have explained how imperative vaccination is, in every possible way, scientific and lay. We have given citizens access to all the public data surrounding what were doing. And still people accuse us that were not trying to convince citizens? I really wonder sometimes at the quality of public discourse.

Theres only one small party in Parliament that is skeptical.

I can accept an anti-vaxxer, someone who is philosophically opposed to the idea of vaccination, calling the public to protest. What I cannot accept is someone who believes in vaccinations and argues that we must be vaccinated saying that they will take on the risk while also protesting. I find it inconceivable. And this is what happened to the country; it must be said. It was sabotage, sabotage of public health with the sole purpose of political gain which was not ultimately achieved by the parties of the opposition, foremost among which was the main opposition. And that is unforgivable in my book. Unforgivable.

Greek-Turkish relations

Lets talk about the other big crisis of your tenure so far: Greek-Turkish relations. You met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently. With what degree of certainty would you say that the period of increased tension is over?

I am quite confident that the summer of 2021 will be quieter than the summer of 2020. If youre asking me whether we have dealt with the structural causes of this tension, then, no, we have not solved our differences with Turkey all of a sudden. What we have done, though, is clearly laid out our positions. We have explained to Turkey that we want a good relationship and that this would be in the interest of both countries and both peoples. If, however, Turkey chooses the path of escalated tension, there will be consequences. We have demonstrated in the field that certain practices are not acceptable. Greece will never allow the weaponization of the refugee crisis and a repeat of the events of last March [2020]. We proved this in the field. We prove it in the field every single day. We built the fence at Evros. We have increased patrols in the Aegean, with absolute respect for human rights. Let me also be clear, though, that the Hellenic Coast Guard is not a refugee and migrant reception service. It is there to guard our borders. And in the event of danger, that anyone is endangered at sea, that person will be rescued, just as weve saved thousands of lives at sea.

We have heard accusations and not just from the opposition here that the 2020 Evros crisis served as an alibi for a more stringent approach, for pushbacks.

I reject the concept of pushbacks, as a term. I reject it. It is word that does not exist in my vocabulary. But when theres a boat coming, and we see it coming, and weve seen where its coming from, we have an obligation to alert the Turkish Coast Guard and do what we can so that the boat goes back where it started. This is what we do, and we always do it with the utmost respect for human life.

I have heard you say on numerous occasions that the lines of communication between Athens and Ankara must always be kept open. Do you feel that this is something that has been accomplished on a personal level with President Erdogan?

I believe that I wont have any difficulty picking up the phone and talking to him.

He has said some very insulting things about you, personally, in public.

OK. Im overlooking that. The climate [of our meeting] was good.

So there is regular communication?

Of course theres communication. We talk to everyone. Why would Turkey be the exception? Of course we talk. And if theres a particular reason, of course I would pick up the phone to talk to Erdogan and I think he would do the same. Just as there are channels of communication at every level, from the exploratory contacts and the confidence building measures, to the relationship of the two [foreign] ministers, Mr [Nikos] Dendias and Mr [Mevlut] Cavusoglu.

Keeping a finger on the pulse

You had said that you would be out and about, getting out of the office, and I cannot recall another prime minister being so present for every initiative and on so many tours.

Its not just about public relations. I find tours to be the best stimulation, because I hear so much and take in so much. I am also constantly pleasantly surprised. There is clearly a Greece out there that is very creative. It is doing things under the radar. The other day, for example, I was at a school in a small village, in Nikiforo in Drama [northern Greece]. I met a physics teacher there who has created a small observatory and an amazing outdoor exhibition of physical instruments to teach the children experientially. No one told him to do it. He did it in his spare time. And I thought: These are the two worlds. The civil servant who goes above and beyond for his children and the other world which is the unionists who keep reproducing the same stereotypes and do not want evaluations. Let me perfectly clear which side Im on. Im with the teacher who is creative.

I imagine youre referring to the OLME teachers union. Its president, though, is a member of your party.

I would like to remind you that there were times, even before I became the head of New Democracy, when I did not get along with certain and I stress certain unionists. But unionism is also something that needs to be modernized. It just must. Otherwise, it will deteriorate. Unionists are already discredited and I wonder how they dont see it.

How do you explain the fact that people from your own party, party officials in fact, are opposing government reforms?

What this proves, after all, is how outdated some of the party stereotypes are, like Left-Right. When a radical leftist party has been able to govern in harmonious cooperation with the populist right, this means that the dividing lines are not so partisan after all, but exist in an entirely different framework. Also, New Democracy of 2021 is not the same as ND of 2016. I have, I believe, made a mark. I have changed the party, as I had vowed to, in terms of people and ideas, so we can embrace the big political and ideological challenges that lie ahead, always with respect for our history.

In the last parliamentary debate, both you and the leader of the main opposition praised US President Joe Bidens policy line. The leftists also appear to see it as a vindication of their own beliefs. I wonder, do you feel like the pandemic has turned you into a center-leftist?

I am not center-left. I was, I am and I believe I will always be a progressive, liberal, center-right politician.

In terms of the economy, however, you appear to be revising the neoliberal model that has prevailed since the 1980s.

I have never been a neoliberal and my greatest concern right now is that growth, which will come, does not further expand but shrinks the existing disparities. This is my concern. The growth that will come in the years ahead and I believe it will be strong cannot be the same as the growth pre-crisis. Firstly, because pre-crisis growth was distorted. It was basically growth with borrowed money. Secondly, because the pandemic, but also climate change, have made the protection and opportunities of our weakest fellow citizens our top political priority. That is what our policies are aimed at.

I will go back to the issue of changes at public schools. Education is and will continue to be, in my opinion, the big conveyor belt of social mobility. Free public education is what will allow a child born into a poor family to eventually lead a better life than his or her parents did. My ideological identity, therefore, is very, very clear. The pandemic certainly made me put much greater weight on certain issues, such as a modern national health system, for example.

That said, nothing has really changed, structurally, in that respect. You have bolstered it materially and with staff, to an extent.

And? Is that negligible?

What Im asking is whether you have plans for a complete structural overhaul?

Of course, and this is a major opportunity that I will not allow to go to waste. Health is not just about hospitals. It starts with prevention. I repeat. Our non-smoking policy will bring results five or 10 years down the line. We cannot allow Greece to be at the forefront of childhood obesity. Our health policy cannot only be about hiring more people at hospitals. How outmoded is that? There will, of course, be more hirings at hospitals. And weve already done that. But that cannot be it. We need to sever the Gordian knot of primary healthcare so that people dont use hospitals as much. And, yes, the pandemic has shown us that our hospital system is often working at two different speeds. There are cases where we have many more regional hospitals than necessary. We cant have three hospitals in a radius of 20-30 kilometers because everyone wanted a hospital in their town and expect to have three good hospitals. Its just not possible. This doesnt mean closing them down, but they can, for example, be transformed into chronic care facilities. But, yes, we will be redrawing the healthcare map.

If I understand correctly, it will basically entail mergers.

The healthcare map will be redrawn. As soon as the pandemic is over, I will be asking an independent committee of experts to give us a comprehensive and honest assessment of what went well and what did not.

In the public eye

You have already said that you see no reason to call early elections, so I wont ask you again. Do you wonder, though, whether the governments good performance in public opinion polls may be a trap? That it may cultivate a sense of complacency, or even arrogance?

That is a very good question. I would like to maintain the sense of urgency dictated by the pandemic over the next two years as well. The challenges [that lie ahead], in a sense, are more interesting. We have a recovery fund to manage. We have an economy that is obviously rebounding. We have creative policies, which we can implement to the benefit of the citizens. No, I cannot allow myself any sense of complacency. Sometimes, you need to take a deep breath, take a step away from a good opinion poll and tell yourself that the next one could be much worse. And you need to prepare for that eventuality.

On a different note, your family your wife and children are in the media and social media quite a lot. Your sons personal life recently became a major topic of public conversation. Does that bother you? Is it, as some of your rivals say, a very American style of political marketing?

As far as my wife is concerned, it was others that put her in the crosshairs of political rivalries. She was vulgarly targeted. And I think that we know exactly what happened by now, so those who are being critical should examine their own behavior first. My wife is dynamic. She stopped work because she thought there may be a conflict of interest with her role as the prime ministers wife. She helps discreetly in a lot of things, which I believe help the countrys image. She is a dynamic woman with a public presence and I wouldnt have it any other way.

All three of my children are now adults, and they have chosen to have a social media presence. Its perfectly understandable that this should cause some interest. But they are incredibly careful and they are not publicity seekers at all. So, what more do you want me to say? Since you ask, I may as well say that certain mechanisms are obviously at work, taking aim even at my sons private relationship.

A podcast of the full interview, in Greek, is available online at http://www.kathimerini.gr.

See original here:
Almost halfway into his term, PM looks back and ahead - Kathimerini English Edition

Washington, DC U.S. Representative Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03) earlier this month introduced H.R. 3659, the Migrant Resettlement Transparency Act, which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to consult in advance with state and local officials of impacted jurisdictions regarding federally administered or funded migrant resettlement. It will also require the Administration to submit to Congress and governors a monthly, state-specific report regarding the resettlement, transportation, or relocation of illegal aliens. United States Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) joined Rep. Fleischmann to introduce the bill in the Senate.

Federal transparency with state and local officials is always important in our republic, but its particularly critical during the ongoing crisis on the border,said Congressman Fleischmann. Im proud to join with Senators Hagerty and Blackburn to address this issue and require disclosure from the federal government.

Over half a million illegal aliens have been apprehended since President Biden took office,said Senator Blackburn.In Tennessee, the Biden Administration was caught using a Chattanooga airport to secretly traffic migrant children into the interior of our country without the knowledge or involvement of state or local officials. We have no idea where else this is occurring, and communities have a right to know what is happening in their backyard. President Bidens failed immigration policies have turned every town into a border town.

Tennesseans have a right to know if the federal government is resettling migrants in their communities,said Senator Hagerty. President Bidens border crisis has turned every town into a border town, and the resettlement of migrants is an effect of that crisis that impacts citizens on a local level, placing new strains on schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and other emergency services.

Representatives Steven Palazzo (MS-04) and Tim Burchett (TN-02) are cosponsors of H.R. 3659.

###

Read more:
ICYMI: Fleischmann, Blackburn, and Hagerty Introduce Migrant Resettlement Transparency Act - Clerk of the House

JUSTICE Ashok Bhushan bid farewell to the Supreme Court on Wednesday as he shared a ceremonial bench with Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and concluded his judicial work. He retires on July 4.

His judgments stand testimony to his welfarist and humanistic approach. He will certainly be remembered for his judgments, CJI Ramana said.

Justice Bhushan said the Bar had been very kind and respectful to him, both inside and outside court.

I am of the view that judgment delivered by a judge cant be called only his contribution, but the Bars contribution is more than the judges contribution. I am proud to be part of this Supreme Court which has upheld the rule of law. To be part of the Supreme Court is a matter of great pride, Justice Bhushan said.

Justice Bhushan was appointed judge of the top court on 13.05.2016. Prior to his elevation, he served as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. He originally belongs to the Allahabad High Court.

In his five years tenure, Justice Bhushan was part of the Constitution bench even as he handed down many significant rulings. He was part of a five-judge bench concerning power tussle between the Central Government and the Government of Delhi. In another case, he upheld the Aadhaar Act in his separate but concurring opinion with the majority decision.

Justice Bhushan was also part of the Ayodhya judgment giving the disputed land to the Ram temple. In 2020, a bench headed by him took suo motu cognisance of the migrant crisis that followed the nationwide lonckdwon.

Early this year, a Justice Bhushan-led bench refused to grant interim protection from arrest to the makers of the Amazon web series Tandav in multiple FIRs filed against them by the police from different states. After the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Amazon Primes Aparna Purohit in the FIR in Lucknow, Justice Bhushan stayed the arrest though he termed the Centres rules for regulating over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, toothless.

Yesterday, a bench headed by himdirected all states that had not implemented the one nation one ration scheme to do so by July 31, 2021. The bench also directed that community kitchens continue to provide food to migrant workers till the pandemic is over.

On his last working days, a bench of which Justice Bhushan was part, held that theNational Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) had failed to perform its duty by not recommending minimum standards of relief for families of those who had died of Covid19. The bench, thus, ordered theNDMA to frame guidelines for ex-gratia compensation for COVID deaths within six months. It left the amount to the discretion of the national authority.

Read more here:
Justice Ashok Bhushan who headed bench on migrant crisis to retire on July 4; shares ceremonial bench with CJI - The Leaflet

Support for Turkey's struggle in managing the migrant crisis should not be reduced to financial issues only, said the ruling Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) spokesperson Tuesday, who added that Turkey has a limit to the burden it will carry on migration.

mer elik criticized the European Union for "reducing the issue of migration to merely financial aid," which he viewed as "a lack of vision, unsustainable in the long run, a grave mistake."

He said the aid will be provided to Syrian refugees, not Turkey, and the EU desires to protect Europe from migration and its negative effects through the funds.

"Turkey bears this burden, but there is a limit to Turkey's bearing of this burden. Therefore, the determination of close cooperation should not be reduced to financial issues only, but should be viewed from a broader perspective," he said.

Last week, the European Union agreed on additional funding of 3 billion euros ($3.6 billion) for migrants in Turkey.

In response, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said that the decisions taken regarding Turkey at the EU summit in Brussels are far from containing the expected and necessary steps.

"The proposed new financial aid package is for Syrian refugees, not Turkey, and is essentially a step to be taken to ensure the EU's own peace and security. Reducing migration cooperation to merely a financial dimension is a big mistake. Aiming for close cooperation in this area would be beneficial for everyone," it said.

elik went on to say that the 2016 migration agreement between Turkey and the bloc should be addressed in all aspects rather than partial approaches.

In March 2016, the EU and Turkey reached an agreement to stop irregular migration through the Aegean Sea and improve the conditions of more than 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The deal has been successful in stemming the flow of migrants and refugees, but the EUs reluctance to take in refugees from Turkey and bureaucratic hurdles in transferring promised funds for refugees have led to sharp criticism from Turkish politicians.

Ankara criticized the EU for failing to fulfill its pledge to provide funding for migrants and refugees in Turkey as part of the pact while allocating billions of euros to Greece.

Five years on, the pact is failing as Turkey struggles with increased numbers of migrants, while the EU is more divided than ever over its asylum policy.

Turkey is hosting 6 million migrants, with nearly 4 million from Syria, its migration authority says. That is 2 million more than in 2016 and a heavy burden on a country that only had 60,000 asylum-seekers in 2011 before Syria's civil war broke out.

elik also reiterated that Greece violated the 1988 Athens Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by declaring war drill zones in the Aegean Sea during the summer tourism season, a period not allowed by the deal.

He said the attitude Greece adopted is against the deal as well as discussions between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

"As a result of Greece's tendency to maintain the policy of tension, Turkey issued a Navtex," said elik. "Turkey has no choice but to issue a Navtex ... The whole world must see that tensions originate in Greece."

Turkey last week announced a new NAVTEX in the Aegean Sea's international waters in retaliation for Greece's recent NAVTEX announcement that violated the two countries' bilateral agreements.

According to the information received from security sources, with the Athens MoU signed between Turkey and Greece in 1988 it was decided not to carry out exercises in the international waters of the Aegean Sea and not to declare a military training area during the busy summer tourism season between June 15 and Sep. 15. Taking into account the moratorium period established by the MoU, Turkey did not declare an area in international waters in the Aegean Sea for military training between June 15 and Sept. 15 during the planning of its 2021 operations-training activities. Greece, on the other hand, did not comply with the agreement and declared a training/practice area for this year, including the period determined by the moratorium. Despite Turkey's respectful attitude and diplomatic initiatives to the moratorium, Greece did not make any changes in the areas it had declared in order to comply with the moratorium.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlt avuolu recently said that Greece must halt its provocations in order for relations to grow and to avoid further escalation. The bilateral ties between the two neighbors have become tense due to conflicts concerning drilling rights and maritime borders in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Turkey, which has the longest continental coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean, has rejected the maritime boundary claims of Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration, stressing that these excessive claims violate the sovereign rights of both Turkey and Turkish Cyprus.

On the Cyprus issue in particular, elk said decisions about the island at last week's EU summit did not present a fair attitude.

"The EU failed to see the realities on the island once more, as seen in the summit decisions. We emphasize once again that the EU needs to see the truth on the island, and that there is a state and society that shares equal status with the Greek Cypriots, as the TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)," he said.

Turkish leaders have repeatedly stressed that Ankara is in favor of resolving all outstanding problems in the region through international law, good neighborly relations, dialogue and negotiation. Turkey has also criticized the EUs stance on the Eastern Mediterranean conflict, calling on the bloc to adopt a fair attitude regarding the dispute and give up favoring Greece under the pretext of EU solidarity.

Excerpt from:
'Cooperation on migration should not be reduced to financial aid' | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah