Friday, February 12, 2016 INTERNATIONAL

Skip Navigation Links
 
link
 
link
SUPPLEMENT

Visitor Login










North Korean satellite launch heightens US-China tensions

Peter Symonds

An image from the rocket is broadcast on Korean TV

North Korea went ahead with its planned satellite launch on 7 February, ignoring international opposition, including concern expressed by China. The launch was immediately condemned by the US and its allies. Coming a month after North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test, the event will escalate tensions in North East Asia.
BBC report said: North Korea fired a long-range rocket, which critics say is a test of banned missile technology. A state TV announcer said that North Korea had successfully placed a satellite in orbit.

N. Korea snubbed Wu
South Korea says it is to begin discussing with the US the deployment of a missile defence system.
Pyongyang’s decision to proceed is a slap in the face to its ally China, which only last week sent veteran diplomat Wu Dawei to North Korea to persuade its leadership to call off the launch. The regime not only snubbed Wu but sent the satellite into orbit a day ahead of the previously announced schedule. Beijing is already under intense pressure from Washington to impose tough new sanctions on Pyongyang, but is reluctant to precipitate an economic and political crisis in North Korea.
There is nothing progressive about North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and associated missile technology. Its small, rudimentary nuclear arsenal and equally primitive rocket technology are no defence against the US, which could annihilate North Korea’s military and industrial capacity many times over. Furthermore, Pyongyang’s nationalistic grandstanding and threats provide Washington with a convenient pretext to accelerate its military build-up in Asia.
The US and Japan seized on the satellite launch to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and push through a resolution condemning North Korea and foreshadowing new sanctions. US National Security Adviser Susan Rice branded Pyongyang’s actions as “destabilising and provocative” and declared North Korea in breach of previous UN resolutions banning its testing of ballistic missile technology.

Chorus of condemnation
US allies in Europe and Asia all joined the chorus of condemnation and magnified the “threat” posed by the launch. France’s UN ambassador Francois Delattre accused North Korea of an “outrageous provocation” that threatened the future of the international non-proliferation regime. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said that he had spoken to his Japanese counterpart and both agreed on the need for strong UN action.
While the rocket technology required to launch a satellite would aid in the development of long-range ballistic missiles, the US and the international media routinely conflate the two. However, as Melissa Hanham from the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies explained to the Washington Post: “This kind of rocket is designed as a space launch vehicle. Before we can consider it an inter-continental ballistic missile, there are a number of modifications that have to be made.”

Washington exploiting Pyongyang’s actions
As in the past, Washington is exploiting Pyongyang’s actions to intensify pressure on Beijing. Following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, US Secretary of State John Kerry visited China to demand it impose measures, including restrictions on the provision of oil, which would cripple the North Korean economy. Beijing has rejected such sanctions, which could trigger the collapse of the regime and undermine China’s security through the installation of a pro-US government in Pyongyang.
On 5 February, President Barack Obama rang Chinese President Xi Jinping to again insist on tough measures against North Korea. Following the satellite launch, China expressed “regret” at Pyongyang’s action and appealed for restraint on all sides and a return to negotiations. Beijing has been the sponsor of the six-party talks that broke down in 2009 after the US unilaterally demanded tougher inspections of North Korea’s nuclear facilities.
Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and rocket launches are in large measure a desperate and futile attempt to force Washington to reach an agreement to end its protracted blockade of the country which has been in place since the end of the Korean War in 1953. The Obama administration has repeatedly made clear that it has no intention of negotiating unless North Korea agrees to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs in advance.
No agreement has been reached as yet between the US and China over new UN sanctions. However, the US Congress is currently working on unilateral legislation that would impact not only on North Korea, but also China. Modelled on the crippling US sanctions imposed on Iran, the measures would penalise North Korean entities and individuals, as well as anyone doing business with them. Given that China is by far North Korea’s trading partner, such sanctions would fall heavily on Chinese companies by preventing them from conducting business with the United States.
More ominously, the US is exploiting the latest nuclear test and rocket launch to justify its accelerating military expansion and restructuring in the Indo-Pacific region. The build-up is part of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which is aimed at subordinating China to US economic and strategic interests and maintaining American hegemony throughout the region.

“Strategic assets”
Following last month’s nuclear test, the Pentagon flew a nuclear-capable B-52 strategic bomber to South Korea and indicated that discussions were underway with South Korean officials to station “strategic assets” in the country. Such assets—aircraft, submarines and warships capable of launching a nuclear attack—are not only a military threat to North Korea, but also to nearby China.
In the wake of the satellite launch, the US and South Korea announced that formal discussions would begin on the placement of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) battery in South Korea “at the earliest possible date.” The installation would be integrated with two batteries stationed in Japan, along with other anti-missile systems. The THAAD system is designed to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
South Korea has resisted US pressure to install the THAAD system so as not to offend China, its largest trading partner. The deployment of THAAD batteries in North East Asia is part of the Pentagon’s plans for fighting a nuclear war with China. Far from being defensive in character, the anti-ballistic missile systems are designed to neutralise China’s ability to retaliate in the event of a first nuclear strike by the US.

THAAD announcement
China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin stated that China was deeply concerned about the THAAD announcement. The joint US-South Korean statement claimed that the THAAD system, if deployed, would be targeted only against North Korea. However, such assurances are meaningless. In the event of war on the Korean Peninsula, the US will assume full operational control of the South Korean military, including the THAAD batteries, under longstanding military operation plan (OPLAN) arrangements between the two countries.
After North Korea’s third nuclear test in 2013, the US dramatically escalated tensions on the Korean Peninsula. During the annual joint military exercises in March and April that year, the Pentagon sent nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers to South Korea to send a menacing warning to Pyongyang, and also Beijing. Three years later, the US military build-up in Asia is significantly more advanced and the entire region is more tense. This is heightening the danger of an incident or accident on the Korean Peninsula precipitating a confrontation that spirals out of control into a war between nuclear-armed powers.
—WSWS

Comment

Peter Symonds

An image from the rocket is broadcast on Korean TV

North Korea went ahead with its planned satellite launch on 7 February, ignoring international opposition, including concern expressed by China. The launch was immediately condemned by the US and its allies. Coming a month after North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test, the event will escalate tensions in North East Asia.
BBC report said: North Korea fired a long-range rocket, which critics say is a test of banned missile technology. A state TV announcer said that North Korea had successfully placed a satellite in orbit.

N. Korea snubbed Wu
South Korea says it is to begin discussing with the US the deployment of a missile defence system.
Pyongyang’s decision to proceed is a slap in the face to its ally China, which only last week sent veteran diplomat Wu Dawei to North Korea to persuade its leadership to call off the launch. The regime not only snubbed Wu but sent the satellite into orbit a day ahead of the previously announced schedule. Beijing is already under intense pressure from Washington to impose tough new sanctions on Pyongyang, but is reluctant to precipitate an economic and political crisis in North Korea.
There is nothing progressive about North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and associated missile technology. Its small, rudimentary nuclear arsenal and equally primitive rocket technology are no defence against the US, which could annihilate North Korea’s military and industrial capacity many times over. Furthermore, Pyongyang’s nationalistic grandstanding and threats provide Washington with a convenient pretext to accelerate its military build-up in Asia.
The US and Japan seized on the satellite launch to call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and push through a resolution condemning North Korea and foreshadowing new sanctions. US National Security Adviser Susan Rice branded Pyongyang’s actions as “destabilising and provocative” and declared North Korea in breach of previous UN resolutions banning its testing of ballistic missile technology.

Chorus of condemnation
US allies in Europe and Asia all joined the chorus of condemnation and magnified the “threat” posed by the launch. France’s UN ambassador Francois Delattre accused North Korea of an “outrageous provocation” that threatened the future of the international non-proliferation regime. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said that he had spoken to his Japanese counterpart and both agreed on the need for strong UN action.
While the rocket technology required to launch a satellite would aid in the development of long-range ballistic missiles, the US and the international media routinely conflate the two. However, as Melissa Hanham from the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies explained to the Washington Post: “This kind of rocket is designed as a space launch vehicle. Before we can consider it an inter-continental ballistic missile, there are a number of modifications that have to be made.”

Washington exploiting Pyongyang’s actions
As in the past, Washington is exploiting Pyongyang’s actions to intensify pressure on Beijing. Following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, US Secretary of State John Kerry visited China to demand it impose measures, including restrictions on the provision of oil, which would cripple the North Korean economy. Beijing has rejected such sanctions, which could trigger the collapse of the regime and undermine China’s security through the installation of a pro-US government in Pyongyang.
On 5 February, President Barack Obama rang Chinese President Xi Jinping to again insist on tough measures against North Korea. Following the satellite launch, China expressed “regret” at Pyongyang’s action and appealed for restraint on all sides and a return to negotiations. Beijing has been the sponsor of the six-party talks that broke down in 2009 after the US unilaterally demanded tougher inspections of North Korea’s nuclear facilities.
Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and rocket launches are in large measure a desperate and futile attempt to force Washington to reach an agreement to end its protracted blockade of the country which has been in place since the end of the Korean War in 1953. The Obama administration has repeatedly made clear that it has no intention of negotiating unless North Korea agrees to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs in advance.
No agreement has been reached as yet between the US and China over new UN sanctions. However, the US Congress is currently working on unilateral legislation that would impact not only on North Korea, but also China. Modelled on the crippling US sanctions imposed on Iran, the measures would penalise North Korean entities and individuals, as well as anyone doing business with them. Given that China is by far North Korea’s trading partner, such sanctions would fall heavily on Chinese companies by preventing them from conducting business with the United States.
More ominously, the US is exploiting the latest nuclear test and rocket launch to justify its accelerating military expansion and restructuring in the Indo-Pacific region. The build-up is part of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which is aimed at subordinating China to US economic and strategic interests and maintaining American hegemony throughout the region.

“Strategic assets”
Following last month’s nuclear test, the Pentagon flew a nuclear-capable B-52 strategic bomber to South Korea and indicated that discussions were underway with South Korean officials to station “strategic assets” in the country. Such assets—aircraft, submarines and warships capable of launching a nuclear attack—are not only a military threat to North Korea, but also to nearby China.
In the wake of the satellite launch, the US and South Korea announced that formal discussions would begin on the placement of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) battery in South Korea “at the earliest possible date.” The installation would be integrated with two batteries stationed in Japan, along with other anti-missile systems. The THAAD system is designed to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
South Korea has resisted US pressure to install the THAAD system so as not to offend China, its largest trading partner. The deployment of THAAD batteries in North East Asia is part of the Pentagon’s plans for fighting a nuclear war with China. Far from being defensive in character, the anti-ballistic missile systems are designed to neutralise China’s ability to retaliate in the event of a first nuclear strike by the US.

THAAD announcement
China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin stated that China was deeply concerned about the THAAD announcement. The joint US-South Korean statement claimed that the THAAD system, if deployed, would be targeted only against North Korea. However, such assurances are meaningless. In the event of war on the Korean Peninsula, the US will assume full operational control of the South Korean military, including the THAAD batteries, under longstanding military operation plan (OPLAN) arrangements between the two countries.
After North Korea’s third nuclear test in 2013, the US dramatically escalated tensions on the Korean Peninsula. During the annual joint military exercises in March and April that year, the Pentagon sent nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers to South Korea to send a menacing warning to Pyongyang, and also Beijing. Three years later, the US military build-up in Asia is significantly more advanced and the entire region is more tense. This is heightening the danger of an incident or accident on the Korean Peninsula precipitating a confrontation that spirals out of control into a war between nuclear-armed powers.
—WSWS


Login to post comments


(0)



President reaffirms commitment to reconciliation process

Jehan Perera in Colombo

Prior to Independence Day there was an increasing concern about the extent of President Maithripala Sirisena’s commitment to the reconciliation process.  These doubts surfaced with the President’s declaration that there would be no international involvement on issues arising from the war.  He followed this up by saying that no war crimes had been committed in Sri Lanka and that the UN report only alleged human rights violations.  Both of these assertions were given wide media publicity.  They contradicted the government’s agreement with the UN Human Rights Council regarding international participation of foreign judges, prosecutors and investigators in a judicial accountability mechanism.  It was left to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to exercise his damage control skills and assure the international community that Sri Lanka would stand by its international commitments.
In the course of his Independence Day speech President Sirisena fell in line with the Prime Minister’s position.  He said “There are incorrect interpretations given about the resolution presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council. I clearly state that we are facing these resolutions in order to protect the pride and dignity of our country, our people and our security forces, and also to make our tri forces to be internationally renowned armed force. We should face these resolutions with patience, discipline and decorum so that our country could be respectfully recognized by all international organizations including the UNO and all states in the world.” This change of direction ensured that the visit of UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein to Sri Lanka would not start on a note of fundamental disagreement. 
The government has used the presence of the UN High Commissioner to share its plans for an expedited series of consultations with the general public in the space of three months and to bring in an element of international participation into the process.    An eleven-member Consultation Task Force will work with the help of Pablo de Greiff, Special UN Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.  The framework for the consultation process, already formulated, will have two phases — a web-based process in all languages and a face-to-face coonsultation process which will focus on specific stakeholders –including childrren, military, disabled combatants, widows and ex-child combatants.  The government has planned to mobilize civil society groups to undertake wide ranging consultations with multiple sectors of society to modify and supplement the mechanisms it has proposed. 

Media coverage
It was not only the government welcome that awaited the UN High Commissioner.  His arrival in Sri Lanka was also marked by angry protests led by nationalist members of the opposition.  They expressed their concerns that the High Commissioner was part of an international plot to impose a Western agenda on the country which would be detrimental to its unity and sovereignty.  This is a sentiment that finds resonance in the majority of the Sinhalese people in particular who have a memory of long years of Western colonial oppression.  In this context, the government’s warm reception and positive engagement with the visiting UN High Commissioner reflects is reflective of its top leadership’s commitment to addressing the long festering ethnic conflict and resolving it in a manner acceptable to all communities.  However, this is not going to be an easy task.
President Sirisena’s efforts to limit the international participation into the inquiries about the past are likely to reflect the political concern that the majority of people need to be supportive of any government initiative taken to address the ethnic conflict.  History is replete with examples of government leaders trying to resolve the problem without having the necessary political backing to carry out their intentions due to opposition, and ending up on the rocks as a result.   There would be the further concern that any inquiry into the military’s conduct of the war is fraught with uncertain potentials.  The Sri Lankan military is one that won the war at considerable cost, and it continues to remain strong both in terms of its physical presence in all part of the country and in the hearts and minds of the majority of people.  In many countries that have undertaken investigations into the past, these have taken place after decades, and not after a few years.
Notwithstanding the president’s caution, there is reason to believe that he is serious in his determination to resolve the ethnic conflict and realizes that accountability is a key part of both good governance and reconciliation.  Since becoming president he has had a consistent track record of public speeches in which he speaks of the war as a ‘cruel war’ and has referred to the experiences of suffering of the people of the North and East as being much worse than those of the people who live elsewhere. More recently, he said that if the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957 and the Dudley Senanayake- Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965 had been implemented, there would have been no LTTE. Unfortunately, the media does not give a high degree of coverage when he speaks of his commitment to find a path to reconciliation.  On the other hand, it gives coverage in great detail and with much emphasis when the President says that he will not accept international involvement or when he praises the role of the Sri Lankan military in ending the war.

Priority action
There are those who would cast doubt on the president’s sincerity saying it is limited to words. But they were provided an unexpected answer when the national anthem was sung in full in Tamil at the Independence Day celebration on February 4.   It was a significant actions taken with the intention to lessen the sense of alienation of the Tamil speaking people and make them feel a sense of equal belonging to the national polity.  It will also increase hope and confidence that the government will stay true to its mission of healing the wounds of many decades of inter-ethnic strife and war.  The issue of language has long been an emotive and divisive one.  The boycott of the Independence Day events by the opposition and the government’s mixed messages on the implementation of the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council were indications of the pressures that exist within the polity.
It is in the face of nationalist opposition that the government led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has taken the decision to go forward with the reconciliation process as their commitment for the unity of the country.  The government had the courage and the wisdom to overcome the objections of nationalists and had the national anthem sung in both the Sinhala and Tamil languages.  This was a message of care to the Tamil people.  It is reported that Tamil leaders present at the Independence Day event has tears in their eyes.  Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims have said they had tears in their eyes watching the event live on their home television sets.  There is a need for more messages of care that would demonstrate to the Tamil people that they are not marginalized and are a part of the national polity.
Some other key areas for the government to tackle would be release of land taken over by the military, release of detained persons who have been incarcerated without charge for many years and ascertaining the fate of missing persons.  Immediate steps taken in these areas would increase the trust and confidence of the Tamil people in the commitment of the government to resolve their problems and treat them as equal citizens.  It would give more time and space to the government to tackle the contentious and sensitive issues of accountability for war crimes.  There is the possibility of sequencing in the transitional justice process. Pablo de Greiff, who has been detailed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist the Sri Lankan members of the Consultations Task Force is the Special UN Rapporteur for the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.  The UNHRC resolution, which needs to be implemented, and the concept of transitional justice, are more than about accountability for war crimes, and include truth seeking, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence which could be given priority at this time.

Comment

Jehan Perera in Colombo

Prior to Independence Day there was an increasing concern about the extent of President Maithripala Sirisena’s commitment to the reconciliation process.  These doubts surfaced with the President’s declaration that there would be no international involvement on issues arising from the war.  He followed this up by saying that no war crimes had been committed in Sri Lanka and that the UN report only alleged human rights violations.  Both of these assertions were given wide media publicity.  They contradicted the government’s agreement with the UN Human Rights Council regarding international participation of foreign judges, prosecutors and investigators in a judicial accountability mechanism.  It was left to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to exercise his damage control skills and assure the international community that Sri Lanka would stand by its international commitments.
In the course of his Independence Day speech President Sirisena fell in line with the Prime Minister’s position.  He said “There are incorrect interpretations given about the resolution presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council. I clearly state that we are facing these resolutions in order to protect the pride and dignity of our country, our people and our security forces, and also to make our tri forces to be internationally renowned armed force. We should face these resolutions with patience, discipline and decorum so that our country could be respectfully recognized by all international organizations including the UNO and all states in the world.” This change of direction ensured that the visit of UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein to Sri Lanka would not start on a note of fundamental disagreement. 
The government has used the presence of the UN High Commissioner to share its plans for an expedited series of consultations with the general public in the space of three months and to bring in an element of international participation into the process.    An eleven-member Consultation Task Force will work with the help of Pablo de Greiff, Special UN Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.  The framework for the consultation process, already formulated, will have two phases — a web-based process in all languages and a face-to-face coonsultation process which will focus on specific stakeholders –including childrren, military, disabled combatants, widows and ex-child combatants.  The government has planned to mobilize civil society groups to undertake wide ranging consultations with multiple sectors of society to modify and supplement the mechanisms it has proposed. 

Media coverage
It was not only the government welcome that awaited the UN High Commissioner.  His arrival in Sri Lanka was also marked by angry protests led by nationalist members of the opposition.  They expressed their concerns that the High Commissioner was part of an international plot to impose a Western agenda on the country which would be detrimental to its unity and sovereignty.  This is a sentiment that finds resonance in the majority of the Sinhalese people in particular who have a memory of long years of Western colonial oppression.  In this context, the government’s warm reception and positive engagement with the visiting UN High Commissioner reflects is reflective of its top leadership’s commitment to addressing the long festering ethnic conflict and resolving it in a manner acceptable to all communities.  However, this is not going to be an easy task.
President Sirisena’s efforts to limit the international participation into the inquiries about the past are likely to reflect the political concern that the majority of people need to be supportive of any government initiative taken to address the ethnic conflict.  History is replete with examples of government leaders trying to resolve the problem without having the necessary political backing to carry out their intentions due to opposition, and ending up on the rocks as a result.   There would be the further concern that any inquiry into the military’s conduct of the war is fraught with uncertain potentials.  The Sri Lankan military is one that won the war at considerable cost, and it continues to remain strong both in terms of its physical presence in all part of the country and in the hearts and minds of the majority of people.  In many countries that have undertaken investigations into the past, these have taken place after decades, and not after a few years.
Notwithstanding the president’s caution, there is reason to believe that he is serious in his determination to resolve the ethnic conflict and realizes that accountability is a key part of both good governance and reconciliation.  Since becoming president he has had a consistent track record of public speeches in which he speaks of the war as a ‘cruel war’ and has referred to the experiences of suffering of the people of the North and East as being much worse than those of the people who live elsewhere. More recently, he said that if the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957 and the Dudley Senanayake- Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965 had been implemented, there would have been no LTTE. Unfortunately, the media does not give a high degree of coverage when he speaks of his commitment to find a path to reconciliation.  On the other hand, it gives coverage in great detail and with much emphasis when the President says that he will not accept international involvement or when he praises the role of the Sri Lankan military in ending the war.

Priority action
There are those who would cast doubt on the president’s sincerity saying it is limited to words. But they were provided an unexpected answer when the national anthem was sung in full in Tamil at the Independence Day celebration on February 4.   It was a significant actions taken with the intention to lessen the sense of alienation of the Tamil speaking people and make them feel a sense of equal belonging to the national polity.  It will also increase hope and confidence that the government will stay true to its mission of healing the wounds of many decades of inter-ethnic strife and war.  The issue of language has long been an emotive and divisive one.  The boycott of the Independence Day events by the opposition and the government’s mixed messages on the implementation of the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council were indications of the pressures that exist within the polity.
It is in the face of nationalist opposition that the government led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has taken the decision to go forward with the reconciliation process as their commitment for the unity of the country.  The government had the courage and the wisdom to overcome the objections of nationalists and had the national anthem sung in both the Sinhala and Tamil languages.  This was a message of care to the Tamil people.  It is reported that Tamil leaders present at the Independence Day event has tears in their eyes.  Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims have said they had tears in their eyes watching the event live on their home television sets.  There is a need for more messages of care that would demonstrate to the Tamil people that they are not marginalized and are a part of the national polity.
Some other key areas for the government to tackle would be release of land taken over by the military, release of detained persons who have been incarcerated without charge for many years and ascertaining the fate of missing persons.  Immediate steps taken in these areas would increase the trust and confidence of the Tamil people in the commitment of the government to resolve their problems and treat them as equal citizens.  It would give more time and space to the government to tackle the contentious and sensitive issues of accountability for war crimes.  There is the possibility of sequencing in the transitional justice process. Pablo de Greiff, who has been detailed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist the Sri Lankan members of the Consultations Task Force is the Special UN Rapporteur for the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.  The UNHRC resolution, which needs to be implemented, and the concept of transitional justice, are more than about accountability for war crimes, and include truth seeking, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence which could be given priority at this time.


Login to post comments


(0)



METROPOLITAN
EDITORIAL
COMMENTS
INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS
INFOTECH
CULTURE
MISCELLANY
AVIATOUR
LETTERS
LAST WORD
DIARY
 OIC DIARY : WEEK ENDING 11 DECEMBER 2015  First Expert Meeting OIC Network on Public Health and Reproductive, Maternal, New-born and Child Health Care
OIC DIARY: WEEK ENDING 18 DECEMBER 2015 OIC Secretary General on the Peace Process in Southern Philippines
 OIC DIARY: WEEK ENDING 25 DECEMBER, 2015 Media Strategy to Encourage Investments in Member States
 ART & CULTURE DIARY Poster wins in short-film competition
 AVIATOUR DIARY TOURISM YEAR 2016 Carnival in Cox's Bazar from the year-end of 2015
 OIC DIARY: WEEK ENDING 1 JANUARY, 2016 HOLY SITES IN AL-QUDS European Union speaks against violation
 OIC DIARY: WEEK ENDING 1 JANUARY, 2016 OIC hails the liberation of Ramadi in Iraq
 WEEK ENDING JANUARY 15, 2016 CHAIR OF THE ISLAMIC SUMMIT President Abdel Fattah El-SISI Receives OIC Secretary General
 WEEK ENDING: JANUARY 22, 2016 Terrorist attack on Splendid Hotel in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
 WEEK ENDING: JANUARY 29, 2016
 ART & CULTURE DIARY BON MANUSH A portrayal of oppressed working class
 WEEK ENDING 5 FEBRUARY, 2016 OIC elections monitoring unit
 WEEK ENDING 12 FEBRUARY, 2016 OIC AMBASSADORIAL GROUP IN NEW YORK Appeal for Immediate Release of Journalist Al-Qiq
FOUNDING EDITOR: ENAYETULLAH KHAN; EDITOR: SAYED KAMALUDDIN
Contents Copyrighted © by Holiday Publication Limited
Mailing address 30, Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208, Bangladesh.
Phone 880-2-8170462, 8170463, 8170464 Fax 880-2-9127927 Email holiday@bangla.net
Site Managed By: Southtech Limited
Southtech Limited does not take any responsibility for any news content of this site