National and International Issues

Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change:

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (a) global warming is
occurring and (b) it is extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly
caused it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 and entered
into force on February 16, 2005. There are currently 192 parties (Canada withdrew effective
December 2012)[4] to the Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by
reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Art. 2). The Protocol is based
on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce
current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for
the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The Protocol's first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. A second
commitment period was agreed on in 2012, known as the Doha Amendment to the protocol, in
which 37 countries have binding targets: Australia, the European Union (and its 28 member
states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into
legal force the Amendment with second round targets.[8] Japan, New Zealand and Russia have
participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second
commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada
(which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified
the Protocol). As of July 2016, 66[9] states have accepted the Doha Amendment, while entry
into force requires the acceptances of 144 states. Of the 37 countries with binding
commitments, 7 have ratified.
Negotiations were held in the framework of the yearly UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on
measures to be taken after the second commitment period ends in 2020. This resulted in the
2015 adoption of the Paris Agreement, which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC
rather than an amendment of the Kyoto protocol.

Amendment and possible successors

In the non-binding "Washington Declaration" agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments
from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States,
Brazil, China,India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the
Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both
industrialized nations anddeveloping countries, and initially hoped that it would be in place by
2009.[144][145]

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was one of the
annual series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to
the Kyoto Protocol, and the conference in Copenhagen was considered to be the opportunity to
agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.[146][147]

The 2010 Cancn agreements include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing
countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.[148] In 2010, these 76 countries were
collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.[148][149]

By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had indicated they would not sign up to a second
Kyoto commitment period.[150] In November 2012, Australia confirmed it would participate in a second
commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand confirmed that it would not.[151]

New Zealand's climate minister Tim Groser said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and
that New Zealand was "ahead of the curve" in looking for a replacement that would include
developing nations.[152] Non-profit environmental organisations such as the World Wildlife
Fund criticised New Zealand's decision to pull out.[153]

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference, an
agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and to set a date of 2015 for the
development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020 (see lede for more
information).[154] The outcome of the Doha talks has received a mixed response, with small island
states critical of the overall package.The Kyoto second commitment period applies to about 11% of
annual global emissions of greenhouse gases. Other results of the conference include a timetable
for a global agreement to be adopted by 2015 which includes all countries.[155] At the Doha meeting
of the parties to the UNFCCC on 8 December 2012, the European Union chief climate negotiator,
Artur Runge-Metzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27 European Member States, up
to the year 2020 pending an internal ratification procedure.

Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, called on world leaders to come to an
agreement on halting global warming during the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly[156] on 23
September 2014 in New York. UN member states have been negotiating a future climate deal over
the last five years. A preliminary calendar was adopted to confirm "national contributions" to the
reduction of CO2 emissions by 2015 before the UN climate summit which was held in Paris at
the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Water Dispute
The Indus basin water dispute had its basis in the partition of Punjab. It occurred on April 1, 1948,
when East Punjab in India discontinued the flow of cannel waters to West Punjab that became a
huge threat of dearth and loss of crops in West Punjab. West Punjab is a productive land but a hot
and dry climate. There is insufficient rainfall and unreliable. The main resource of Pakistans
economy is based on agriculture which is dependent upon irrigation by canals delivered from the
Indus River and its five tributaries. The three western rivers the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab
enter into Pakistan from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and three Eastern rivers the Ravi, the
Beas and the Sutlej flow into Pakistan from India. In fact, Indus river system is source of life in West
Punjab that provides water for more than 26 million acres. Pakistans agriculture is dependent upon
these waters. On the other hand, India has a lot of rivers system which fall into sea without any
hindrance and rainfall is also enough to support agriculture without irrigation.

Partition changed the whole structure of subcontinent and created a number of problems and issues
over the water of Indus Basin. In 1947, Pakistan came into being and province of Punjab was
divided into two parts between India and Pakistan. The immediate result of partition was the Indus
Basin division and conflict arose between both countries. Moreover, the head works at Madhupur on
Ravi and at Ferozpur on the Sutlej were in India but many of the canals taken off from them were
irrigating the agricultural land of the Punjab. Pakistan felt that it was extremely dangerous for its
economy because India can stop water at any time, and its agriculture can be affected.

In order to overcome the economic problems Pakistan purchased water from India. Many official
committees were made to deal with the problems arising out of the division of the Punjab. The
question of sharing the water between India and Pakistan referred to committee B. the committee
was agreed that there was no question of changing the authorized shares of water to which the two
zones and the various canals are allowed. Therefore, this question was not referred to arbitral
tribunal selected to settle the dispute between India and Pakistan arising of the partition. The life of
the tribunal ended on March 31, 1948. After India took control of the head works and it stopped
water from flowing in every canal entering Pakistan. So Pakistan could not complaint to committee.
Pakistan was much worried about the situation. The people of Pakistan criticized this act and it got
international concentration. A delegation was send to New Delhi for negotiation on water dispute by
Pakistan. Through inter dominion conference which held in New Delhi on May, 1948, a new
agreement was signed called the Delhi agreement on May 4, 1948. According to that agreement
East and West Punjab recognized their requirement to solve the problem through support and
alliance. Inter dominion conference resolve many of the issues and Pakistan planned that the issue
be submitted to international level, the court of justice or UN Security council. In dispute settlement,
India refused to involve any third world country, also said that inter dominion agreement should be
made everlasting. Now the David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee valley visited the
basin area, urged the World Bank to demonstrate its interest in conflict between India and Pakistan.
Although India criticized the involvement of World Bank but continued his negotiation with
reservations and after eight months treaty was signed on Sep 19, 1960 known as Indus Basin Water
Treaty. Pakistan was represented by president Ayub khan while Prime Minister Pundit Jawahir Lal
Nehru represented India. According to that agreement Pakistan received exclusive rights of the three
western rivers the Jhelum, the Chenab and the Indus while India got three eastern rivers the Beas,
the Sutlej and the Ravi. In order to utilize the water of these rivers, two Dams, five barrages and
seven canals would be built. Apart of cost was to be paid by India and remaining amount was to be
met by Pakistan. This treaty considered as well worked out treaty and the both countries
interpreted it in a different way.

To conclude, this intention of India was not always in favor of Pakistan and they always tried to
exploit Pakistan and destruct its economy by various instruments and the water dispute was also a
part of it. It was also result of Pakistans intimidation that since the supply rivers of the Indus Basin
were in India. Through this treaty, Pakistan overcame its problems of irrigation to a large extent.
Moreover, the foreign policy of Pakistan was also affected and we have to stable our relations with
third world countries due to repercussions by India.

Sir Creek
Sir creek issue basically water disputed between Pakistan and India in Rann of kutch 60 mi
long. This flows the Arabian Sea. It divides kutch region of India state Gujarat , Sindh region
of Pakistan. It is situated almost 23 58N 68 48E. Sir Creek was requested to solve the rivalry
between ruler of Sindh and Rao of kutch. The Green line proclaimed by Pakistan and Red
line proclaimed by India and Black line is an undisputed section. Kutch was the part of
sindh before the division of India afterwards. It was included in the Bombay presidency.
Resolution which mark boundaries between two territories as a part of whole the Creek
part of sindh thus the surrounding boundary eastern at the side of Creek. The boundary
line is known as the Green Line is dispute by India which cause that iws Indicative
Line known as ribbon line technical jargon.

India argues in her support by a refereeing Thalweg Doctrine . The law provides that a
river can be divided from its mid channel if two nations are agreed upon the dividence.
Pakistan rejects the laws by advocating that the law is not applicable because Sir Creek
is not navigable but it respect 1925 map. India insists that Sir Creek is navigable in high
tied situation and fisherman use it to go to open seas Pakistan does not honor Thalweg
Doctrine if international law because she has to gave up thousands of kilometers of
territory. The area contributed to Indo Pak war of 1965 because a Skirmish was broke
out between two states in April 1965 though in same year tribunal was setup by to
resolve the issue due struggle British Prime Minster Harold Wilson in a verdict Pakistan
got 35 hundred square miles of its claim again Indians air forces MiG 21 short naval air
arm breguet Atlantique patrol plane in Atlantic region of Sir Creek 10th August 1999.

The area is not so much of military value but is very much important for its economic
resources of oil and gas line beneath the surface of sea and it is one of the exclusive
economic zones. There are many tries to resolve the issue since 1969 as dispute includes
allocation delimitation demarcation and administration both the sides had tride to give
their own type of solution but the other hand out writely rejected the proposal.

This issue has been hanging ever since and can be rightly regarded as a part of the
long list of the outstanding disputes causing friction and estrangement between India
and Pakistan. It is not that big a problem as Kashmir but enough to contribute in the
strained relationship. Though numerous efforts have been made to sort out a solution
but all ended in failure. Only need is a requisite political will so that an amicable
resolution could be sought. The rigid and inflexible standpoints should be replaced with a
desire to bring about weal and welfare in the lives of the inhabitants of this region.
Such a betterment is possible only by removing the existing obstacles in the way of
eradication of seeds of enmity and bellicosity. An immediate solution of Sir Creek can
prove highly beneficial for taking along the resumed dialogue process and making it
productive. Lets take a start from it and moral booster it will become helping in
removing trust deficit prevailing in the bilateral relationship between two countries.

To conclude the issue of Sir Creek is one of the many between India and Pakistan.
Though small in quantum but large in potential to cause an unlucky event leading to
war. It is the responsibility of the both government to avoid any such untoward incident
and that can be avoided only if the problem is erased. Its solution would be a great
helping hand for the resolution of all disputes and ushering an age of peace in the
region. The current developments appear to be heading in the light direction. The
Stalwarts in New Delhi and Islamabad seem to have realized the transformed situation. It
can be hoped that both would learn to live peacefully and securing resolution of all
problems through dialogue and talks. It is in the interest of all.
Siachen conflict

The Himalaya known as Abode of the Gods is situated to the north of Pakistan and extended
towards China and India. Siachen is situated on that unique mountain environment. It is the
worlds longest mountain glacier. It is also the source of water for the entire country.

This world Heritage was turned into the battle ground due to the conflict between India and
Pakistan in 1984.The boundary of Siachen was undefined, which was the major cause of bone
of contention. The line of control (LOC) of 1972 between Pakistan and India was demarcated on
the south of Siachen, at a grid point known as NJ9842. At that time this zone was called a
neutral zone but latter after 1984, both countries claimed their right to control the area. Thus,
even today Siachen has no defined boundary and the armies of both countries were protecting
the glacier from further advance against each other.

Indias selfish interest behind this conflict was also the major cause of the problem. Due to its
strategic location, India wants to conquer K.2. He also wants to reach at Karakoram Highway
and intervene between the Pak-China relations. Even an Indian Senior Army official claimed
that glacier was important not just strategically but also a 5,000 square km water reservoir of
the future. Hence, it will also be proved from this fact that in April 1984, India captured Saltroo
Ridge and also two important passes, the Sia La (6160m) and Bilafond La (5550m) in the
Pakistani region. He also aimed to advance further to K.2 but Pakistani Army becomes an
obstacle in their purpose.

Heavy financial drain along with casualties from both sides, it also causes a great deal of
damage to the fragile mountain environment. All military garbage and waste will be end up in
the Nubra River (originates from Glacier), which flows in to the Shyok River, which then flows in
to the Indus, on whose waters millions of people depend. The recent incident of Gyari Sector
in which 140 soldiers of Pakistan Army died is also one of the impacts of this fragile mountain
environment.

Post- Siachen relations with India were the greatest impact of this conflict. Although the
relations between both countries was not cordial even from its independence. From very
earlier, Kashmir problem, water disputes, active involvement in cold war and the wars of 1965
and 1971 were the bitter facts before the incident of Siachen. Both countries also diverge and
even fought with each other after this incident. India suspected Pakistan on Khalistan issue.
Pakistan criticized Indian assistance to Kabul regime. Issue of Indian hijacked PAN AM Aircraft,
which landed in Karachi. Issue of Wuller Lake dam on the River Jehlum was contested by
Pakistan, Kargil conflict of 1999, Attack on Indian Parliament on 13 December, 2001 and so on.
But beside these, both countries want to settle the Siachen Issue and normalize the relations.
The Foreign Secretaries of both countries met at Islamabad in April 1985 and revived the
bilateral dialogue. Zia-ul-Haq and Rajiv Ghandi agreed in principle for the expansion of trade
and economic relations and other political issues. Their defense secretaries discussed the
Siachen glacier and the related matters. They also sign treaties for not attacking each others
nuclear installations and no war principle. But, Infect if the agreement is about to sign and
relations were about to normalize then the political climate changed and the moment was lost.

Idea of Trans-boundary Peace Park is one of the solutions that could be followed by both
countries. This would enable both armies to withdraw with honor and save their billions of
rupees. Even today this idea is being followed by other countries for example, the Waterton-
glacier International Peace Park between Canada and United States, The Kgalagadi Trans
frontier Park between South Africa and Botswana and so on.

Last but not the least solution to be followed was given by General V.R Raghavan. This would be
followed by three steps:
End the fighting without disengaging or redeployment let Siachen recede from public mind;
this phase might last for 2-3 years.
Introduce technical means of monitoring and surveillance, permitting meaningful reductions of
forces to be negotiated
Work out a complete demilitarization.
Today, with thousands of armed men facing each other across the border, talk of ending the
fighting and of Peace Parks seems remote. But the dawn always come after darkest period;
perhaps there will also a dawn for Siachen.

Kashmir Issue

Since the partition of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947, the Kashmir
dispute has been an intractable one between them. They fought three wars over it in1948,
1965, and 1999, but have not been able to resolve it. The partition left the fate of over 550
princely states undecided. They were required to accede to either of the two states on the basis
of the geographical location and wishes of their people.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir should have acceded to Pakistan because of its Muslim
majority population and geographical location, but this was not happened when Mahraja Hari
Singh seek military assistance from India to resist the Pakistani tribals attacks and ultimately
signed the Instrument of Accession with India. Eventually Indian forces intervened and
captured the state of Jammu and Kashmir. From that day Kashmir dispute has been the core
issue between both Pakistan and India, which also had kept the security of entire South Asia at
stake because of their extensive nuclear capability.

So, the Kashmir issue has been a major bone of contention from the day of independence,
resulted in three wars, numerous conflicts between India and Pakistan and severely rigid
diplomacy. The United Nations Security Council had tried to resolve the dispute by declaring
that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the
democratic method by holding a free and fair plebiscite but India had rejected any mediation
which opposed its claim regarding Kashmir.

Kashmirs strategic importance lies in the fact that its borders meet with China and Afghanistan
and also is close to Russia. Almost all the rivers which flow through Pakistan, originate from
Kashmir, thats why both the countries ignore stepping back claiming of this territory.

The failure of diplomacy to resolve the Kashmir issue attracted international and regional
attention to it. After the wars of 1948, 1962 and 1965, determined efforts were made to
resolve this issue. In 1948, the United Nations became deeply involved but India didnt show
flexibility. After the India-China border War of 1962, there were intense but fruitless American
and British efforts to bridge a gap between India and Pakistan. The end of 1965 war saw Soviet
Union as a regional peacemaker. The Soviets did manage to promote a peace treaty at
Tashkent, but this could not establish peace in the region and soon Indian involvement in East
Pakistan led to her separation in 1970-71.

The most consistent feature of great power influence on the Kashmir problem has been its
ineffectiveness. Besides Cold war rivalries, both United States and the Soviet Union have played
significant, often parallel and cooperative roles in the subcontinent. Both Washington and
Moscow made several inconclusive efforts to mediate the dispute or bring about its peaceful
resolution, but were distrustful of anything more. It took the 1990 crisis with its nuclear
dimension, to bring the United States back to the region.
Soviet Union, United states and China have different policies towards the Kashmir dispute
according to their own interests. In the beginning all of them showed neutrality but with the
changing worlds politics and dimensions, they formulate their concerns regarding Kashmir.
Chinas Kashmir policy has passed through different stages. In first phase, from 1949 to 1960s,
China avoided siding with either India or Pakistan; instead it favored a resolution of the issue
through peaceful settlements and also opposed the role of UN and United States to mediate
Kashmir issue.

The second phase started from early 1960s and lasted till 1970. Sino-Indian border war of 1962
started hostility between India and China resulted close relations with Pakistan. China stood by
Pakistan on Kashmir issue with firm support for the right of self determination. But in 1970s,
China adopted neutral policy on Kashmir issue as its relations were normal with India; this was
reflected during Kargil conflict and Indo-Pak military possible conflict in 2001-2.

The normal relations between India and Pakistan on Kashmir would bring benefits to the United
States. Indo-Pak tensions are especially dangerous because they bring two nuclear states on the
brink of war. They divert Pakistan from fighting terrorists and militants on their own soils. India
and Pakistan need to engage in combined bilateral talks on all important issues. Continuing
tensions over Kashmir will weaken any initiative to bring stability to South Asia as well as bring
about the risk of a nuclear war. It will be quite right by assuming that Kashmir is the root cause
of much of the militancy in South Asia.

It is necessary for international community to realize that peace and stability in South Asia can
only be guaranteed if all outstanding disputes between Pakistan and India, including the
Kashmir dispute should be resolved because Pakistan has become a frontline state against the
Global War of terrorism.The best solution of the Kashmir dispute could be the right of self
determination which should be given to Kashmiris in order to give them the right to decide to
whom they want to accede.

Nuclear program of Iran

The nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines, a research
reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment
plants.[1] In 1970, Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),[2] making its nuclear
program subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification.
The program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms
for Peace program.[3] The participation of the United States and Western European
governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled
the Shah of Iran.[4] Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear
cooperation with Iran was cut off. In 1981, Iranian officials concluded that the country's nuclear
development should continue. Negotiations took place with France in the late 1980s and with
Argentina in the early 1990s, and agreements were reached. In the 1990s, Russia formed a joint
research organization with Iran, providing Iran with Russian nuclear experts and technical
information.
In the 2000s, the revelation of Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment program raised concerns
that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA launched an investigation in 2003
after an Iranian dissident group revealed undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran.[5][6]
In 2006, because of Iran's noncompliance with its NPT obligations, the United Nations Security
Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. In 2007, the United States
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated that Iran halted an alleged active nuclear weapons
program in fall 2003.[7] In November 2011, the IAEA reported credible evidence that Iran had
been conducting experiments aimed at designing a nuclear bomb until 2003, and that research
may have continued on a smaller scale after that time.
Iran's first nuclear power plant, the Bushehr I reactor, was completed with major assistance
from the Russian government agency Rosatom and officially opened on 12 September
2011.[10] The Russian engineering contractor Atomenergoprom said the Bushehr Nuclear
Power Plant would reach full capacity by the end of 2012.[11] Iran has also announced that it is
working on a new 360 MW nuclear power plant to be located in Darkhovin, and that it will seek
more medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines in the future.
As of 2015, Iran's nuclear program has cost $100 billion in lost oil revenues and lost foreign
direct investment because of international sanctions ($500 billion, when including other
opportunity costs).

IsraeliPalestinian conflict
The IsraeliPalestinian conflict (Hebrew: - Ha'Sikhsukh Ha'Yisraeli-
Falestini; Arabic: - al-Niza'a al'Filastini al 'Israili) is the ongoing struggle
between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the mid-20th century.[3] The conflict is wide-
ranging, and the term is sometimes also used in reference to the earlier sectarian conflict in
Mandatory Palestine, between the Jewish yishuv and the Arab population under British rule. It
has been referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict", with the ongoing Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reaching 50 years.[5][6][7]
Despite a long-term peace process and the general reconciliation of Israel with Egypt and
Jordan, Israelis and Palestinians have failed to reach a final peace agreement. The key issues
are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli
settlements,[8] Palestinian freedom of movement,[9] and Palestinian right of return. The
violence of the conflict, in a region rich in sites of historic, cultural and religious interest
worldwide, has been the object of numerous international conferences dealing with historic
rights, security issues and human rights, and has been a factor hampering tourism in and
general access to areas that are hotly contested.[10]
Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, involving the creation of an
independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel (after Israel's establishment in 1948).
In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred
the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.[11]
Moreover, a majority of Jews see the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just,
and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state.[12] The majority of Palestinians
and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have expressed a preference for a two-state
solution.[13][14][unreliable source?] Mutual distrust and significant disagreements are deep
over basic issues, as is the reciprocal scepticism about the other side's commitment to
upholding obligations in an eventual agreement.[15]
Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and
opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and
Palestinians, but also within each society. A hallmark of the conflict has been the level of
violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. Fighting has been conducted by regular
armies, paramilitary groups, terror cells, and individuals. Casualties have not been restricted to
the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides. There are
prominent international actors involved in the conflict.
The two parties engaged in direct negotiation are the Israeli government, currently led by
Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), currently headed by
Mahmoud Abbas. The official negotiations are mediated by an international contingent known
as the Quartet on the Middle East (the Quartet) represented by a special envoy, that consists of
the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. The Arab League is
another important actor, which has proposed an alternative peace plan. Egypt, a founding
member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant.
Since 2006, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions:
Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas. After Hamas's
electoral victory in 2006, the Quartet conditioned future foreign assistance to the Palestinian
National Authority (PA) on the future government's commitment to non-violence, recognition
of the State of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements. Hamas rejected these
demands,[16] which resulted in the Quartet's suspension of its foreign assistance program, and
the imposition of economic sanctions by the Israelis.[17] A year later, following Hamas's seizure
of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the territory officially recognized as the PA was split
between Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance
between the parties had effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance of the PA.
However, in 2014, a Palestinian Unity Government, composed of both Fatah and Hamas, was
formed. The latest round of peace negotiations began in July 2013 and was suspended in 2014.
 IsraeliPalestinian conflict

Part of the ArabIsraeli conflict

Central Israel next to the Palestinian National Authority in

the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 2007

Date Mid-20th century[3] present

Main phase: 19641993
Location Middle East
Primarily in Israel, West Bank, Gaza
Stripand Lebanon
Status IsraeliPalestinian peace process
low-level fighting, mainly between Israel and
Gaza
Territorial Establishment and dissolution ofPalestinian
changes administration (19481959) in Gaza
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank(1948
1967)
Occupation of West Bank and Gaza by Israel
in 1967
Transition of "A" and "B" areas from Israeli
Civil Administration to the Palestinian
National Authority in 19941995
Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005

Belligerents

State of Israel All-Palestine (1948

1959)
 Palestine Liberation

Organization (19641993)

Palestinian National

Authority (20002004)

Gaza Strip (2006

present)

Supported by:[show] Supported by:[show]

Casualties and losses

21,500 casualties (19652013)[4]

Kurdistan Issue
Between 25 and 35 million Kurds inhabit a mountainous region straddling the borders of
Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia. They make up the fourth-largest ethnic group in
the Middle East, but they have never obtained a permanent nation state.

In recent decades, Kurds have increasingly influenced regional developments, fighting

for autonomy in Turkey and playing prominent roles in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria,
where they have resisted the advance of the so-called Islamic State (IS) jihadist group.

Where do they come from?

The Kurds are one of the indigenous people of the Mesopotamian plains and the
highlands in what are now south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Syria, northern Iraq,
north-western Iran and south-western Armenia.
Today, they form a distinctive community, united through race, culture and language,
even though they have no standard dialect. They also adhere to a number of different
religions and creeds, although the majority are Sunni Muslims.
Why don't they have a state?
In the early 20th Century, many Kurds began to consider the creation of a homeland - generally
referred to as "Kurdistan". After World War One and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the
victorious Western allies made provision for a Kurdish state in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.
Such hopes were dashed three years later, however, when the Treaty of Lausanne, which set
the boundaries of modern Turkey, made no provision for a Kurdish state and left Kurds with
minority status in their respective countries. Over the next 80 years, any move by Kurds to set
up an independent state was brutally quashed.
Why are Kurds at the forefront of the fight against IS?
In mid-2013, IS turned its sights on three Kurdish enclaves that bordered its territory in
northern Syria. It launched repeated attacks that until mid-2014 were repelled by the Popular
Protection Units (YPG) - the armed wing of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (PYD).
The turning point was an offensive in Iraq in June 2014 that saw IS overrun the northern city of
Mosul, routing Iraqi army divisions and seizing weaponry later moved to Syria.
The jihadists' advance in Iraq also drew that country's Kurds into the conflict. The government
of Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region sent its Peshmerga forces to areas abandoned by
the army.
For a time there were only minor clashes between IS and the Peshmerga, but in August 2014
the jihadists launched a shock offensive. The Peshmerga withdrew in disarray, allowing several
towns inhabited by religious minorities to fall, notably Sinjar, where IS militants killed or
captured thousands of Yazidis.
Alarmed by the IS advance and the threat of genocide against the Yazidis fleeing Sinjar, a US-led
multinational coalition launched air strikes in northern Iraq and sent military advisers to help
the Peshmerga. The YPG and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), previously active in Turkey,
also came to their aid.
Although the IS advance on Kurdish territory in Iraq was eventually halted by the Peshmerga
and their allies, it did not stop trying to capture the Kurdish enclaves in Syria. In mid-September
2014, IS launched an assault on the enclave around the northern town of Kobane, forcing tens
of thousands of people to flee across the nearby Turkish border.
Despite the proximity of the fighting and the threat posed by IS, Turkey refused to attack the
jihadist group's positions near the border or allow Turkish Kurds to cross to defend it, triggering
Kurdish protests. In October, Ankara partially relented and agreed to allow Peshmerga fighters
to join the battle for Kobane, after US-led air strikes helped halt the IS advance.
In January 2015, after a battle that left at least 1,600 people dead and more than 3,200
buildings destroyed or damaged, Kurdish forces regained control of Kobane.
Since then, the Kurds have inflicted a series of defeats on IS in northern Syria with the help of
US-led coalition airpower. They have established control over a 400km (250-mile) stretch of
contiguous territory along the Turkish border and advanced to within 50km (30 miles) of the IS
stronghold of Raqqa.
Fighting under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the YPG has emerged as a key
ally of the US-led coalition, which considers it one of the few effective partners on the ground
in Syria.
Why is Turkey reluctant to help the Kurds battle IS?
There is deep-seated hostility between the Turkish state and the country's Kurds, who
constitute 15% to 20% of the population.
Kurds received harsh treatment at the hands of the Turkish authorities for generations. In
response to uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s, many Kurds were resettled, Kurdish names and
costumes were banned, the use of the Kurdish language was restricted and even the existence
of a Kurdish ethnic identity was denied, with people designated "Mountain Turks".
In 1978, Abdullah Ocalan established the PKK, which called for an independent state within
Turkey. Six years later, the group began an armed struggle. Since then, more than 40,000
people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced.
In the 1990s the PKK rolled back on its demand for independence, calling instead for greater
cultural and political autonomy, but continued to fight. In 2012, the government and PKK began
peace talks and the following year a ceasefire was agreed, although clashes continued.
The ceasefire collapsed in July 2015, days after a suicide bombing blamed on IS killed 33 young
activists in the mainly Kurdish town of Suruc, near the Syrian border. The PKK responded by
attacking Turkish soldiers and police, and the Turkish government launched what it called a
"synchronised war on terror" against the PKK and IS. Since then, hundreds of people have been
killed in clashes in south-eastern Turkey and in air strikes on PKK camps in northern Iraq.
Women carry the coffin of Sirin Oter, one of two women killed during security operations by
Turkish security forces, in Istanbul (23 December 2015)Image copyrightAP
The Turkish authorities also blamed the YPG for a suicide bomb attack in Ankara in February
2016 that left dozens of people dead and Turkish troops shelled YPG positions in north-western
Syria to prevent it capturing the rebel-held town of Azaz.
Turkey's government says the YPG and the PYD are affiliates of the PKK, share its goal of
secession through armed struggle, and are all terrorist organisations.
What do Syria's Kurds want?
Salih Muslim, head of the Democratic Unity Party (PYD) receives condolences from Syrian Kurds
after his son Servan was killed in fighting with jihadist militants (15 October 2013)Image
copyrightAFP
Kurds make up between 7% and 10% of Syria's population. Before the uprising against
President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011 most lived in the cities of Damascus and Aleppo, and in
three, non-contiguous areas around Kobane, the north-western town of Afrin, and the north-
eastern city of Qamishli.
Syria's Kurds have long been suppressed and denied basic rights. Some 300,000 have been
denied citizenship since the 1960s, and Kurdish land has been confiscated and redistributed to
Arabs in an attempt to "Arabize" Kurdish regions. The state has also sought to limit Kurdish
demands for greater autonomy by cracking down on protests and arresting political leaders.
The Kurdish enclaves were relatively unscathed by the first two years of the Syrian conflict. The
main Kurdish parties publicly avoided taking sides. In mid-2012, government forces withdrew to
concentrate on fighting the rebels elsewhere, after which Kurdish groups took control.
A Kurdish fighter from the Popular Protection Units (YPG) shows his weapon decorated with its
flag in Aleppo, Syria (7 June 2014)Image copyrightREUTERS
The Democratic Unity Party (PYD) quickly established itself as the dominant force, straining
relations with smaller parties who formed the Kurdistan National Council (KNC). In January
2014, they united to declare the creation of a democratic autonomous government, with
branches based in the three Kurdish enclaves. The parties stressed that they were not seeking
independence from Syria but "local democratic administration" within a federal framework.
PYD leader Salih Muslim has insisted that any political settlement to end the conflict in Syria will
have to include legal guarantees for Kurdish rights and recognition of Kurdish autonomy. Mr
Muslim has also denied that his party is allied to the Syrian government, even though the YPG
has fought against some rebel groups and avoided conflict with the army, stressing that
President Assad cannot remain in power after any transitional period.
Will Iraq's Kurds gain independence?
Mulla Mustafa Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, holds hands with Saddam
Hussein, then deputy chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of the Iraqi Baath Party
(20 March 1970)Image copyrightHULTON ARCHIVE
Kurds make up an estimated 15% to 20% of Iraq's population. They have historically enjoyed
more national rights than Kurds living in neighbouring states, but also faced brutal repression.
Kurds in the north of Iraq revolted against British rule during the mandate era, but were
crushed. In 1946, Mustafa Barzani formed the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) to fight for
autonomy in Iraq. After the 1958 revolution, a new constitution recognised Kurdish nationality.
But Barzani's plan for self-rule was rejected by the Arab-led central government and the KDP
launched an armed struggle in 1961.
In 1970, the government offered a deal to end the fighting that gave the Kurds a de facto
autonomous region. But it ultimately collapsed and fighting resumed in 1974. A year later,
divisions within the KDP saw Jalal Talabani leave and form the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK).
Iraqi Kurdish refugees take shelter at a refugee camp in south-eastern Turkey after fleeing
fighting between Iraqi government forces and Peshmerga in May 1991Image copyrightAFP
In the late 1970s, the government began settling Arabs in areas with Kurdish majorities,
particularly around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and forcibly relocating Kurds. The policy was
accelerated in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War, in which the Kurds backed the Islamic
republic. In 1988, Saddam Hussein unleashed a campaign of vengeance on the Kurds that
included the poison-gas attack on Halabja.
When Iraq was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War Barzani's son, Massoud, led a Kurdish rebellion.
Its violent suppression prompted the US and its allies to impose a no-fly zone in the north that
allowed Kurds to enjoy self-rule. The KDP and PUK agreed to share power, but tensions rose
and a four-year internal conflict erupted in 1994.
The two parties co-operated with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that toppled Saddam
Hussein and have participated in all national governments formed since then. They have also
governed in coalition in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), created in 2005 to
administer the three provinces of Dohuk, Irbil and Sulaimaniya, and sought to maximise Kurdish
autonomy by building a pipeline to Turkey and exporting oil independently.
Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani at a news conference in Dokan (3 May 2009)Image
copyrightAFP
After IS captured large parts of northern Iraq in 2014, the KRG sent the Peshmerga into
disputed areas claimed by the Kurds and the central government, and then asked the Kurdish
parliament to plan a referendum on independence.
In February 2016, Massoud Barzani - who became president of Kurdistan in 2005 - reiterated
the call for a referendum. However, he stressed that it would be non-binding and would simply
allow Kurdish leaders to "execute the will of the people at the appropriate time and
conditions".

Cyprus dispute
The Cyprus dispute (also known as Cyprus issue or Cyprus problem) is an ongoing dispute,
which started as anti-colonial struggle but quickly evolved into a dispute over power-sharing
between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Following the 1974 war, the dispute has been
complicated further because of the presence of Turkey in north Cyprus, including the stationing
of military forces, which Greek Cypriots object and the UN has often deplored in reports and
resolutions.[1][2][3] Although the Republic of Cyprus is recognized as the sole legitimate state,
sovereign over all the island, the north is de facto under the administration of the self-declared
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is guarded by Turkish Armed Forces.[4] Whether
Turkey intervened or invaded Cyprus remains subject to debate, while there is broad
recognition that the ongoing military presence constitutes occupation of territories that belong
to the Republic of Cyprus.
Initially, with the annexation of the island by the British Empire from the Ottoman Empire, the
"Cyprus dispute" was identified as the conflict between the people of Cyprus and the British
Crown regarding the Cypriots' demand for self determination. The dispute, however, was finally
shifted, under the British administration, from a colonial dispute to an ethnic dispute between
the Turkish and the Greek islanders.[5] The international complications of the dispute stretch
far beyond the boundaries of the island of Cyprus itself and involve the guarantor powers under
the Zrich and London Agreement (Turkey, Greece, and the United Kingdom), the United
Nations and the European Union, along with (unofficially) the United States.[6]
The 1974 Cypriot coup d'tat prompted Turkey to invade,[7] and occupy the northern part of
the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus. In 1983, the Turkish Cypriot community
unilaterally declared independence forming the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), a
sovereign entity that lacks international recognition with the exception of Turkey,[8][9] with
which TRNC enjoys full diplomatic relations, in violation of Resolution 550, adopted on 11 May
1984 by the Security Council of the UN.
As a result of the two communities and the guarantor countries committing themselves to
finding a peaceful solution to the dispute, the United Nations maintain a buffer zone (the
"Green Line") to avoid any further intercommunal tensions and hostilities. This zone separates
the southern areas of the Republic of Cyprus (predominately inhabited by Greek Cypriots), from
the northern areas (where Turkish Cypriots along with Turkish settlers are now a majority).
Recent years have seen warming of relations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, with
officially renewed reunification talks beginning in early 2014.[10]

Chechen Wars
In 1991, Chechnya declared independence and was named the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
According to some sources, from 1991 to 1994, tens of thousands of people of non-Chechen
ethnicity (mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Armenians) left the republic amidst reports of
violence and discrimination against the non-Chechen population.[28][29][30] Other sources do
not identify displacement as a significant factor in the events of the period, instead focussing on
the deteriorating domestic situation within Chechnya, the aggressive politics of the Chechyen
President, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and the domestic political ambitions of Russian President Boris
Yeltsin.[31][32] Russian army forces invaded Grozny in 1994[33] but, after two years of intense
fighting, the Russian troops eventually withdrew from Chechnya under the Khasavyurt
Accord.[34] Chechnya preserved its de facto independence until the second war broke out in
1999.[35]
In 1999, the Russian government forces again invaded Chechnya, in response to the invasion of
Dagestan by Chechen-based Islamic forces.[35] By early 2000 Russia almost completely
destroyed the city of Grozny and succeeded in putting Chechnya under direct control of
Moscow.[35] According to Norman Naimark, "serious evidence indicates that Russian
government developed plans to deport the Chechens once again in the mid-1990s if they had
lost the war."[36]

Chechen insurgency
Since the end of the Second Chechen War in May 2000, low-level insurgency has continued,
particularly in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan. Russian security forces have succeeded in
eliminating some of their leaders, such as Shamil Basayev, who was killed on July 10, 2006.[37]
After Basayev's death, Dokka Umarov took the leadership of the rebel forces in North Caucasus
until his death owing to poisoning in 2013.[38]
Radical Islamists from Chechnya and other North Caucasian republics have been held
responsible for a number of terrorist attacks throughout Russia,[39] most notably the Russian
apartment bombings in 1999,[40] the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002,[41] the Beslan
school hostage crisis in 2004, the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings[42] and the Domodedovo
International Airport bombing in 2011
Syrian Civil War
The Syrian Civil War (Arabic: , Al-arb al-ahliyyah as-sriyyah) is an ongoing
multi-sided armed conflict in Syria fought primarily between the government of President
Bashar al-Assad, along with its allies, and various forces opposing the government.[101] The
unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with
the Assad government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal
were violently suppressed.[102][103][104] The war is being fought by several factions: the
Syrian government and its allies, a loose alliance of Sunni Arab rebel groups (including the Free
Syrian Army), the majority-Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Salafi jihadist groups
(including al-Nusra Front) and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Syrian opposition groups formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and seized control of the area
surrounding Aleppo and parts of southern Syria. Over time, some factions of the Syrian
opposition split from their original moderate position to pursue an Islamist vision for Syria,
joining groups such as al-Nusra Front and ISIL. In 2015, the People's Protection Units (YPG)
joined forces with Arab, Assyrian, Armenian and some Turkmen groups, to form the Syrian
Democratic Forces, while most Turkmen groups remained with the FSA.[105]
Russia and Hezbollah support the Syrian government militarily, while beginning in 2014, a
coalition of NATO countries began launching airstrikes against ISIL.[106][107]
International organizations have accused the Syrian government, ISIL and rebel groups of
severe human rights violations and of many massacres.[108][109][110][111][112] According to
Amnesty International and the pro-opposition SNHR, the largest number of these abuses were
carried out by the Syrian government and its allies.[113][114] The conflict has caused a major
refugee crisis. Over the course of the war a number of peace initiatives have been launched,
including the March 2017 Geneva peace talks on Syria led by the United Nations, but fighting
continues

Yemeni Civil War (2015present)

The Yemeni Civil War is an ongoing conflict that began in 2015 between two factions claiming
to constitute the Yemeni government, along with their supporters and allies.[74] Houthi forces
controlling the capital Sana'a and allied with forces loyal to the former president Ali Abdullah
Saleh have clashed with forces loyal to the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, based in
Aden. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
have also carried out attacks, with AQAP controlling swathes of territory in the hinterlands, and
along stretches of the coast.[75]
On 21 March, after taking over Sana'a and the Yemeni government, the Houthi-led Supreme
Revolutionary Committee declared a general mobilization to overthrow Hadi and further their
control by driving into southern provinces.[76] The Houthi offensive, allied with military forces
loyal to Saleh, began on the next day with fighting in Lahj governorate. By 25 March, Lahij fell to
the Houthis and they reached the outskirts of Aden, the seat of power for Hadi's
government;[77] Hadi fled the country the same day.[78][79] Concurrently, a coalition led by
Saudi Arabia[9] launched military operations by using airstrikes to restore the former Yemeni
government and the United States provided intelligence and logistical support for the
campaign.[4] According to the UN, from March 2015 to March 2017, 16,200 people have been
killed in Yemen, including 10,000 civilians.[69][70]
The Saudi intervention, which has included widespread bombing of civilian areas, has been
sharply condemned by the international community

2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

The 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis began when several countries abruptly cut off diplomatic
relations with Qatar in June 2017. These countries included Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Bahrain, and Egypt. The severing of relations included withdrawing ambassadors, and imposing
trade and travel bans.[8][9][10]
Saudi Arabia and other countries have criticized Al Jazeera and Qatar's relations with Iran, and
accused Qatar of funding terrorist organizations. Qatar denied that it supports terrorism, given
that it has assisted the United States in the War on Terror and the ongoing military intervention
against ISIL.
Saudi Arabia's move was welcomed by United States president Donald Trump. A number of
countries in the region, including Turkey, Russia and Iran, called for the crisis to be resolved
through peaceful negotiations.

Background
Qatar has had differences with other Arab governments on a number of issues: it broadcasts Al
Jazeera; it is accused of maintaining good relations with Iran; and it has supported the Muslim
Brotherhood in the past.[11] Qatar is a close ally of the United States, hosting the largest
American base in the Middle East, Al Udeid Air Base.[12]
The countries withdrawing diplomatic relations accuse Qatar of supporting terrorism, of
interfering with their internal affairs[13] and of maintaining relations with Iran.[14][15] Qatar
denies allegations that it supported terrorism, and pointed out that it has been contributing to
the U.S.-led fight against ISIL.[16][17]

Issues of contention
Qatar maintains relatively good relations with Iran. In 2006, Qatar was the only UN Security
Council member to vote against United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696, which was
calling on Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment program (which for Saudi Arabia is a very serious
issue of national security).[18] Qatar and Iran share ownership of the South Pars/North Dome
Gas-Condensate field,[19][20] by far the world's largest natural gas field, with significant
geostrategic influence.[21] In April 2017, after a 12-year freeze, Qatar lifted a self-imposed ban
on developing the gas field with Iran,[22] which would require cooperation between the two
countries.[23] According to Jim Krane, energy research fellow at Rice Universitys Baker
Institute, "Qatar used to be a kind of Saudi vassal state, but it used the autonomy that its gas
wealth created to carve out an independent role for itself... Above all, gas prompted Qatar to
promote a regional policy of engagement with Shiite Iran to secure the source of its
wealth".[24] According to David Roberts, a Qatar foreign policy expert at King's College,
London, if a conflict erupts between America and Iran, Qatar would literally be caught in the
middle. "If you are Qatar, you look across the water and you think, when Iran did have the
opportunity to take a few Arab islands, they did it" "Qatar needs to have the ability to
peacefully go about their business of sucking all the gas out of that giant field." Iran could make
that process very difficult.[25] A senior fellow of Middle Eastern studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations concludes that "There's a recognition of the general tendencies of the Gulf
states to hedge their bets,""There's always a question in the back of the minds of the
leadership--how much faith can they put in the U.S.?"[25]
Since he took power in 1995, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani believed Qatar could find security only
by transforming itself from a Saudi appendage to a rival of Saudi Arabia.[26] Saudi Arabia
withdrew its ambassador to Doha from 2002 to 2008 to try to pressure Qatar to curb its
individualistic tendencies. This approach broadly failed.[27]
The crisis has turned into a proxy battle between partners and adversaries of Iran[28][29] and
UAE politicians claim that "Qatar invests billions of dollars in the U.S. and Europe and then
recycles the profits to support Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and groups linked to al Qaeda.
Qatar hosts the American military base from which the U.S. directs its regional war against
extremism, yet it also owns media networks responsible for inciting many of the same
extremists".[30]
Qatar also used its contacts to help negotiate peaceful exchanges of hostages for the safe
evacuation of civilians from areas affected by the Syrian Civil War.[11] However, Qatar also sent
its forces to fight against alleged Iranian-backed militias in the current Yemeni Civil War and has
supported rebels fighting the Iranian-allied government of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil
War.
Qatar has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the past.[32] Saudi Arabia and other Gulf
monarchies see the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat, as it ideologically opposes hereditary
rule.[32] The government of Egypt has long viewed the Muslim Brotherhood as "enemy number
one".[33] In 2011, during the Arab Spring, Qatar supported the Egyptian protesters agitating for
change, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.[34] By contrast, Saudi Arabia supported Hosni
Mubarak and currently supports Abdel Fattah el-Sisi since the 2013 Egyptian coup d'tat.[35]
Qatar has been accused of sponsoring terrorism.[36] Some countries have faulted Qatar for
funding rebel groups in Syria, including al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusra Front,[37]
although the Saudis have done the same.[11][38][8][9][39] Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have
been involved in the CIAled Timber Sycamore covert operation to train and arm Syrian
rebels.[40][41]
Qatar has hosted officials from the Afghan Taliban[42] and Hamas. Qatar defends this move by
saying it is trying to act as an intermediary in regional conflicts.[43] For example, Qatar hosted
talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government in 2016.[44]
On 27 May 2017, the newly-reelected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani held a phone call with
Qatar's Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.[45] Rouhani told Qatar's emir, "The countries of the
region need more cooperation and consultations to resolve the crisis in the region and we are
ready to cooperate in this field."[46]
Former US Defense Secretary and ex-CIA chief Robert Gates stated in May 2017 that he does
not "know instances in which Qatar aggressively goes after (terror finance) networks of Hamas,
Taliban, Al-Qaeda,"[47] and that "My attitudes toward Al-Udeid and any other facility is that
the United States military doesnt have any irreplaceable facility."[48][49] Qatar hosts the
largest American base in the Middle East, the Al Udeid Air Base, which has been used by the
United States in its campaigns in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.[12][50] According to the WSJ,
during President Barack Obamas first term, some members of his National Security Council
lobbied to pull a U.S. fighter jet squadron out of Al Udeid to protest Qatari support of militant
groups in the Middle East.[51]
Al Jazeera (based in Qatar's capital) has had a mandate to produce ambitious journalism on a
wide range of subjects (some taboo). It offers, too, a broader range of opinions than most Arab
media. These qualities have made it the most popular network in the Middle East. It's also
attracted a lot of enemies. Rulers in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt resent the station's
broad reach and its willingness to rile up opposition. They don't like its Islamist bent, and
they're angry that their populations are exposed to reporting critical of their regimes (and
supportive of the Qatari agenda).

Demands on Qatar and responses

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Bahrain issued Qatar a list of 13
demands through Kuwait, which is acting as a mediator, that Qatar should agree in full within
10 days. According to reports on June 23, 2017 these demands included:[202][203][147]
Close al-Jazeera and its affiliate stations
Close the Turkish military base in Qatar, and terminate the Turkish military presence and any
joint military cooperation with Turkey inside Qatar.
Reduce ties to Iran. Only trade and commerce with Iran that complies with US and international
sanctions will be permitted.[204]
Expel any members of the IRGC and cut off military and intelligence cooperation with Iran.[205]
"Qatar must announce it is severing ties with terrorist, ideological and sectarian organizations
including the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al Qaeda, Hezbollah,
and Jabhat Fateh al Sham, formerly al Qaeda's branch in Syria" according to one Arab official
Surrender all designated terrorists in Qatar, and stop all means of funding for individuals,
groups or organisations that have been designated as terrorists
Qatar should stop interfering in the four countries' domestic and foreign affairs and having
contact with their political opposition
Stop granting citizenship to wanted nationals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain.
Revoke Qatari citizenship for existing nationals where such citizenship violates those countries'
laws.[204]
Payment of reparations for years of alleged wrongs
Monitoring for 10 years[202]
Close news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby
Al-Jadeed and Middle East Eye.
Align itself with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially and
economically, as well as on economic matters, in line with an agreement reached with Saudi
Arabia in 2014.[204]
According a report by Qatar owned Al-Jazeera "Qatari officials immediately dismissed the
document as neither reasonable or actionable." Iran denounced the blockade. Rex Tillerson said
that some of the demands would be very hard to meet but encouraged further dialog.[206]
On 23 June 2017, Turkey rejected demands to shut down its military base in the country.