Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Confirmed Attack On Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner In Malaysia

0
0

Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday confirmed reports that Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Malaysia was assaulted by a group of persons at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport on Sunday.

The Government of Sri Lanka condemned the act of violence on Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in Malaysia, in the strongest terms.

The High Commissioner is receiving medical attention, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, without releasing further details.

The High Commission of Sri Lanka in Kuala Lumpur is coordinating with local law enforcement authorities in Malaysia and other relevant local authorities to identify perpetrators and assist with investigations, the Sri Lanka government said.


Daniel Craig Reluctant To Accept $150 Million Offer To Film New Bond Movie?

0
0

Many men – and women too, for that matter – would love to play James Bond. Most of us would also love $150 million.

But Hollywood superstar Daniel Craig is not most people.

The 007 actor, who has played the spy since 2005, has reportedly been offered the hefty sum listed above to return to the franchise for two more films. But Craig has made no secret of his reluctance to step back into the famous tuxedo.

“The studio is desperate to secure the actor’s services while they phase in a younger long-term successor,” a source told the celebrity news website Radar.

The source also suggested that by playing coy – remember when he told an interviewer he’d rather “slash his wrists” than immediately return to Bond? – Craig has only upped his perceived value.

He’s essentially made himself into the man too cool to play Bond.

“Everyone knows how much executives adore him, and the idea of losing him at such a crucial time in the franchise isn’t an option as far as all the studio honchos are concerned,” said the source, who added that Craig “has played a genius hand.”

“Daniel’s the key for a seamless, safe transition as far as Sony and Bond bosses are concerned, and they’re prepared to pay a king’s ransom to make it happen.”

The story above, which has not been confirmed by Sony or by representatives for Craig, comes in the wake of a May 2016 claim that Craig had turned down a $100 million offer to return for two more films. If true, it could suggest that studios is trying to tempt Craig back with increasingly larger sums.

In the meantime, there’s been a steady string of rumours about who could replace Craig as Bond, with a new hopeful claimed as the frontrunner almost every other week (we’re getting pretty fed up of writing the weekly news articles, truth to be told).

Some of the latest contenders named include Victoria actor Tom Hughes, who has allegedly impressed Bond producer Barbara Broccoli, and Marvel stars Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston.

Despite claiming he’s too old for the role, Idris Elba remains a popular choice with Bond fans, as does Billy Elliot star Jamie Bell.

Kashmir: Is Virus Of Political Islam Inspired By Wahhabi Jihad? – Analysis

0
0

By R.Upadhyay

This article makes out the case that the Kashmir problem is primarily rooted to the Jihadi ideology and religio-separatism of political Islam.

In the modern history of Kashmir, despite repeated dialogues since 1947, the Kashmir problem related to political Islam is still unresolved. The political leadership in Delhi has apparently failed to achieve any fruitful solution. Even the Rajya Sabha resolution on this issue adopted on August 10 recently also seems to be an addition to another crisis management formula to pacify the protesters in the valley temporarily.

The Islamic history of Kashmir suggests that the gentle version of this faith laced with pre-Islamic practices in the region with heavy influence of Sufi mysticism remained at the centre of the cultural and spiritual life and therefore the larger majority of them are still the followers of the Sufi version of Islam. In fact, the Islamic stream which came to Kashmir through Persian route got diluted in the cultural cauldron of Hinduism. This cultural fusion was known as Kashmiriyat.

Enter Wahhabism in the Valley

But after the entry of Wahhabism in the valley, the descendants of the Islamist invaders are now set to hegemonise Kashmiriyat under a very small Arab component in the veil of ‘Azadi’. These fringe elements or separatist group that are primarily rooted to their foreign lineage don’t have any racial fraternity with the Muslims of Kashmir ancestry who are born and brought up in the gentler version of Kashmiriyat.

Contrary to this cultural identity of the locals, the separatists had Jihadi narratives of Kashmiriyat which they linked with Wahhabi version of Islam that is totally opposed to the tomb worship tradition of the people. Ironically, these separatists are sending their own children for study in big cities out of Kashmir while using other children as their foot soldiers to carry on their designs within Kashmir. The soft line approach of the mainstream politicians towards the separatists has gradually turned the situation from bad to worse and has now emboldened the patrons of jihadi outfits both across the border as well in Kashmir to campaign for the hard line version of the faith to grow day by day.

While carrying the mental load of the medieval version of Islam, this fringe group in the valley facilitated the import of Saudi funded version of hard-line Islam known as Wahhabism. Over the years emergence of Madrasas and mosques under the control of Wahhabi Mullahs and support of a section of power hungry native nobles as also with a little help of Pakistan were able to mobilise a section of local youths for spreading jihadi doctrine in the name of ‘azadi’ and that is the root cause behind the unrest in the valley today.

The Kashmir Problem: Is it political or religious?

To understand this problem of Kashmir which is not a political but religious, one has to look into the Saudi-Wahhabi imperialistic design in the Muslim world particularly in the Indian sub-continent. With the Islamist’s conquest starting from Arabian Peninsula to the ongoing terror war against the Crusaders, Jews, Sufi Muslims and Hindus, the desert warriors who never tried to understand the rational world view of love, peace and co-existence took civilisational evolution to be the history of conflict and cruelty. Accordingly, they never reconciled with the non-Islamic power anywhere in the world.

Shal Waliullah and Abd al-Wahab are two sides of the same coin

Emergence of two Islamist reformers of eighteenth century namely Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) in India and Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1787) in Arabian Peninsula re-ignited the medieval fire of Islamism among the Muslims. While studying together in Medina they came up with a considered view that Islam will not survive without political power and suggested an aggressive drive for revival of hard-line conservative Islamism as the only solution to stop the sliding decline of the glory of Islamic power in Indian sub-continent. Although, the two reformers had some tactical differences over execution of their common goal to achieve Pan-Islamic Arab imperialism in the world, both of them are known as the co-founders of political Islam.

Waliullah, the follower of Hanafi school of Sunni Islam which is in majority in this region was upset with the rise of Maratha power and the fading glory of Mogul Empire and therefore, tried to unite the Muslim society by establishing concordance between the conflicting schools of Islamic thought and also presented an integrated view of the different branches of Islamic schools. His plan was to unite the different Islamist warlords of Indian sub-continent to crush those who challenged the Islamic rule in this region. He was the one who invited Ahmad Shah Abdali to India in 1760.

Contrary to the tactical compromise formula of Waliullah with Shia and other tomb worshiping Muslims, Wahhab being the follower of Hanbali School of Islam and a hard core Sunni cleric treated the tomb worshippers as infidels. His sole objective was to Saudi-ise the Muslim society by pushing them to the extreme Arabic tradition and to bring them under a single command of a Bedouin Saudi warlord Mohammad ibn Saud with whom he had an agreement in 1744. Since then, the successors of Ibn Saud while pursuing Wahhabism and unjustly claiming as sole upholder of Islam emerged as a force in Arabian Peninsula from the beginning of eighteenth century.

While Wahhab in alliance with Mohammad Ibn Saud laid the foundation stone of the Saudi Kingdom, Waliullah mobilized the Muslims in India against infidels! The success of the Jihadi concept of political Islam in defeat of Marathas in 1762 and rise of Saudi-Wahhabi alliance as an independent kingdom left a deep Jihadi dent on the psyche of the Muslim society of Indian sub-continent.

Emergence of Saudi-Wahhabi dominance after the collapse of the Caliphate

After the collapse of the institution of Caliphate under Ottoman Empire in mid-twenties of the last century when the Saudi-wahhabi monarchy became the self-made custodian of the two holiest shrine of Islam, the latter with its design for dominance over the Muslim world started challenging the non-wahhabi Muslim region by exporting puritanical version of faith known as Wahhabism. It’s emergence as a richest oil exploring country further added to its lust particularly when the spade work for hard line Islam was already initiated in India by Shah Waliullah(1703-1762) and pursued by his son Shah Abdul Aziz (1745-1823)’s disciple Syed Ahmad Barelvi((1786-1831), and Deoband movement which was identical to the hard-line Islam similar to Wahhabism.

After successful entry of Wahhabism in Pakistan, the petro-dollar giant Saudi Arabia accelerated its Islamist mission in India by making Kashmir as its operational zone. With increase of Saudi funded madrasas and mosques in Kashmir, wahhabism posed a strategic challenge to India. It is said that out of nearly 8 million Muslim population in Kashmir, Wahhabi claims to have indoctrinated 1.5 million of them (http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/kashmir-india-pakistan-sufi-wahhabi-i…).

The death of Burhan Wani is incidental to the rise of Wahhabi infuenced Jihad

Actually, the recent increase in the mass terror attack in Kashmir particularly after the killing of Pakistan trained Kashmiri Burhan Wani followed by violent protests and demonstration by a group of native youths against security forces is an intrinsic part of militant Wahhabi jihad against India with its operational headquarters in Kashmir. It has been a long term strategy of the Islamists to restore Muslim rule in Indian sub-continent under the imperialistic control of Saudi Arabia for which the latter has been pumping huge money for propagation of wahhabi ideology and Jihadi invasion in Kashmir since 1947 itself.

The plan of Wahhabi is to first wahhabise the Sufi influenced Muslim populace of Kashmir and then use them for transformation of their co-religionists in rest of India to hard-line Islam. The protracted movement for the restoration of the lost Muslim rule in the region by the pro-Wahhabi Deobandi, Jamaat-e-Islami, Tablique Jamaat and other hard-line Islamist organisations, and individuals like Zakir Naik and Owaisis under the patronage of vote greedy Indian political parties has already done the spade work to facilitate the extension of militant Jihad from Kashmir to the rest of India. Making successful inroads in Kashmir valley since 1990 which is said to be due to heavy inflow of foreign funds particularly from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi Mullhas propagated the term ‘azadi’ sponsored by Pakistan which is nothing but a politico-religious militancy supported only by a small section of the locals. Over 70% of Kashmiri Muslims particularly in countryside are still the followers of Sufi Islam and they are against this so called ‘azadi’ movement.

Politicians Messing up the “Real Issue”

It is unfortunate that some politicians instead of understanding the changing nature of the protests have been issuing sympathetic statements in favour of the protestors.

The statement J & K Chief Minister in a convention of her party PDP in Srinagar on July 28 that “she would not let their sacrifices go waste” could be misunderstood and taken to mean as support to the terroists

Former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s comment that “Burhan’s grave would act as the new galvanising factor in the valley” only further provoked the stone pelting youths to continue their depredations against the law and order agencies. More unfortunate was his statement in a press conference on August 17 that “Pakistan is not the architect” of the present crisis. Was he not aware of the origin of the present crisis or was he angling for political/religious support in future elections? What is forgotten is that Burhan Wani was the leader of a terrorist group waging war against the establishment.

Except the area of Kashmir valley which constitutes not more than eight percent of the total area of J & K state, rest of the region namely Ladakh and Jammu are peaceful. The Hindu majority Jammu, the Buddhist Ladakh and Shia Muslim majorit Kargil have in fact never demanded ‘azadi’. Even in Kashmir valley only a small section of its population under the patronage of Saudi funded guidance from Pakistan is impacted by the virus of so called azadi in general and Burhan Wani syndrome in particular. Truly speaking, only this small section serves as the nursery of Jihadi terror under the supervision of wahhabi Mullhas, and the separatists combine. Ironically, both the regional parties in the state namely the National Conference and the PDP hardly dealt with the anti-national role of this combine firmly.

Despite the fact that the problem of Kashmir is confined to only the eight percent area of the entire state and not the whole of the State of J &K, some of the valley politicians have been propagating s that the whole of the J & K is demanding for a political solution for the present crisis.

Against the wahhabisation strategy of the Kashmiri Muslims under the cover of their so called demand for ‘Azadi’ being perpetrated by Pakistan, silence of the moderate forces of the valley based political parties against the wahhabi militants is intriguing. Haven’t they realised that it will be seen as connivance with the separatist outfits and being exploited by Pakistan?

What dialogue and with Whom? With the Wahabi inspired Jihadists?

J & K Chief Mininister Mehbooba Mufti has urged the Prime Minister to revive the dialogue process on Kashmir initiated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Spelling out her mind, she said, “… there has to be a political solution which can be reached by involving all stakeholders ….”.

Vajpayee’s dialogue process was to win over the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris. But this dialogue hardly ended in any conclusive result. Moreover, Mebooba’s suggestion favouring political solution to a Wahhabi problem in Kashmir is contradictory and does not reflect the ground situation. Burhan Wani was a Jihadi terrorist fighting in Kashmir under the banner of Islam and he was commemorated as martyr in Pakistan and by the separatists in Kashmir when he was killed on July 8.

Solution

Since Kashmir problem is primarily rooted to the Jihadi ideology and religio-separatism of political Islam, its solution lies only in neutralisation of this ideology partly ideologically and partly militarily by isolating the fringe elements in the Kashmir valley that had started an aggressive campaign of Jihadi ideology in the region since the eighties in the last century when the Jihadis became jobless after defeating the Soviet army in Afghanistan.

Ever since the entry of Islam in the region it got diluted in the pre-Islamic socio-cultural cauldron of the diverse religious groups in the state which was known as Kashmiriyat that is ‘inclusive Islam’. But, the term was misinterpreted by the Wahabi patrons as a political term and raised the issue of ‘Azadi’which is not endorsed by the larger majority of its people.

The separatists have used this term only to befool the uneducated population of this state. If the term Kashmiriyat is taken seriously it will have its implication in other regions of the state on the similar plea of Laddakhiyat, Jammuiyat and Kargiliyal which are religiously different from Kashmir valley.

Contrary to the pre-Wahhabi meaning of the term Kashmiriyat, Wahhabisation or religious radicalisation of Muslims has been a new phenomenon in the state that must be tackled on a war footing (Retired Maj. Gen. Afsir Karim – http://www.asianage.com/india/wahhabi-preachers-new-threat-peace-jammu-a…). He said, “Pakistan has been inducting a large number of Wahhabi preachers in the valley, who are exhorting Kashmiri Muslims to give up their moderate Sufi culture and fight to establish Sharia laws. This movement is the vanguard of a new phase of war sought to be waged by the people” (Ibid.).

Although the moderate Kashmiris are the custodian of Kashmiriyat, they are incapable of generating violent movement in fighting back the violent Wahabis. Therefore, the state government with the support of the centre must launch an aggressive counter –ideological movement to neutralise the Wahabis and save Kashmiriyat. The World Sufi conference held in Delhi in last March has already launched a counter movement against Deoband school of Sunni Islam known as a representative organisation of Wahabism but to fight them back in Kashmir is primarily the duty of the local Muslims with the support of the political leadership of the state. According to some report 70% of Kashmiri Muslims are still the followers of the Sufi brand of Islam. If they get the support of the political leadership it may not be difficult to neutralise the Wahabis.

Let the Islamic scholars in rest of India who believe in the gentler version of Islam give an aggressive ideological support to the Kashmiris in their fight against Wahhabism. They should rather take a lead in association with Sufi Ulema and organise a debate in Kashmir under the protection of security forces and adopt a resolution to reject the Wahhabi version of Islam and convince the people to counter the whhabi influenced smaller group in the valley who are under the roll of Pakistan. Any cognizance to the Pakistan sponsored Wahhabi voice of local youths means allowing Kashmir to march towards the anarchy like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Getting Tougher: Vietnam’s Response To China’s South China Sea Bases – Analysis

0
0

By Felix K. Chang*

(FPRI) — Over the last few months, Vietnam has quietly deployed the components of several Extended Range Artillery (EXTRA) rocket systems to five of the islands that it occupies in the Spratly archipelago, according to Western officials. If true, Vietnam likely did so in response to China’s construction of military facilities on the islands that it controls across the region. Vietnam has reportedly dispersed and camouflaged the EXTRA rocket systems, but can arm them within days.[1] While Vietnam currently lacks the real-time surveillance and reconnaissance needed for the systems to target ships at sea, they can put at risk China’s island bases. With a maximum range of 150 km and an accuracy of within 10 meters, they could render inoperable many of China’s newly built airfields.

Vietnam is not a country known to shrink from a challenge, even when the odds are stacked against it. So far, that has been the case in the South China Sea where the growth of China’s naval might and its determination to assert sovereignty over the region have made the odds of successfully resisting it increasingly steep. Hanoi is doing what it can. It has lavishly spent on new Kilo-class submarines and Gephard-class frigates from Russia. It has accepted Japanese help to build a more robust coast guard. It has even strengthened its military ties with the Philippines, despite its concerns over Manila’s commitment and strength. (Indeed, the Philippines’ new president, Rodrigo Duterte, has eased the confrontational approach of his predecessor by offering to open talks with China based on the recent arbitration court ruling.)

Vietnam’s military buildup in the South China Sea may prompt China to take further steps to strengthen its hold on the region. China is not taking any chances. It is already building reinforced concrete shelters to protect aircraft on its island airfields.[2] Earlier this summer, the Chinese air force began to send its fighters and bombers on “combat patrols” over the region.[3] All the while, China has continued its efforts to squeeze out the Philippines and Vietnam from the islands they hold by interdicting the resupply of their garrisons.

Still, the hardening of defenses on Philippine and Vietnamese-held islands is bound to make further Chinese attempts to seize new territory more difficult. The ease with which China occupied Scarborough Shoal in 2012 is less likely to be repeated. The only remaining island features in the region that now seem vulnerable are those of Malaysia, like James Shoal.

The arms buildup on the islands of the South China Sea may seem alarming. But the mere presence of more arms does not mean that conflict is inevitable. It does mean that if a conflict does occur, it could rapidly spiral. Given the strategic vulnerability of the islands involved, the deployment of offensive weapon systems, like rocket systems, may present commanders with a use-or-lose choice during a crisis. That would indeed be disturbing.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Greg Torode, “Exclusive: Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea – sources,” Reuters, Aug. 10, 2016.

[2] Eric Beech, Idrees Ali, and Michael Martina, “Photos suggest China built reinforced hangars on disputed islands: CSIS,” Reuters, Aug. 11, 2016.

[3] Michael Martina, “China conducts ‘combat patrols’ over contested islands,” Reuters, Aug. 6, 2016.

Oil Price Downturn Sets Markets Up For A Dramatic Oil Price Spike – Analysis

0
0

By Nick Cunningham

Another oil price downturn threatens to deepen the plunging levels of investment in upstream oil and gas production, which could create a more acute price spike in the years ahead.

Oil and gas companies have gutted their capex budgets, necessary moves as drillers went deep into the red following the crash in oil prices. But the sharp cutback in investment means that huge volumes of oil that would have otherwise come online in five or ten years now will remain on the sidelines.

The industry will cut spending by $1 trillion through 2020, according to Wood Mackenzie. Those reductions are creating a “ticking time bomb” for oil supply. The consultancy projects that the market will see 5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (mboe/d) less this year, compared to expectations before the collapse of oil prices. And next year, the industry will produce 6 mboe/d less than it otherwise would have had the spending cuts not been made.

This is creating the conditions for a supply crunch and a price spike. The reason is simple: demand continues to rise by some 1.2 million barrels per day each year, but supplies are no longer growing because of the spending cuts. That is not a problem today as production still slightly exceeds demand and high levels of crude oil and refined products sit in storage. But by as early as the end of 2016 the oil market could tip into a supply deficit. And because the industry has scaled back so intensely on capex, global supplies could fall short of demand for quite a while. The end result could be a dramatic price spike.

This scenario has been described before by Wood Mackenzie, which published an estimate earlier this year that put the total value of cancelled projects over the past two years at $380 billion, projects that would have yielded 27 billion barrels of oil and gas.

So far, the markets are not pricing in the brewing supply crunch. Oil prices continue to fall, and speculators have taken the most pessimistic position in months, selling off long bets and buying up shorts.

Oil analysts and forecasters do not see a rapid rise in prices either. A Bloomberg survey of 20 analysts revealed a median price forecast of just $57 per barrel in 2017. No doubt that record levels of inventories are on their minds – even if oil production itself flips into a supply/demand deficit, it could take years to work through storage levels.

“We’re looking at a market that’s still in a very slow process of rebalancing and we don’t think that you’ll get a sustainable deficit until the second quarter of 2017,” Michael Hsueh, a strategist at Deutsche Bank AG, told Bloomberg. “Those deficits are necessary to draw down global inventories, but that will still take until the end of 2018, it appears.”

But the swing from surplus to deficit could be more dramatic than many think. Now that oil is once again entering a bear market, with WTI and Brent dropping to $40 per barrel, the industry could be forced to slash spending even deeper than it already has, leaving even more oil reserves undeveloped. And in any case, it is possible that high storage levels and the two-year production surplus is leading to a myopic view of the future – just because the markets are oversupplied today does not meant that they will in several years’ time.

Wood Mackenzie says that while U.S. shale has been the hardest hit by the steep fall in investment, the shale industry will be the first to bounce back because of the short-cycle nature of shale drilling. The price spike will lead to a resurgence in shale, and Wood Mackenzie is predicting that shale production doubles from the 2015 high-watermark of 4.5 million barrels per day to 8.5 mb/d by the mid-2020s.

But that is a long way off for oil executives dealing with deteriorating balance sheets and rising debt levels.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Todays-Downturn-Sets-Markets-Up-For-A-Dramatic-Oil-Price-Spike.html

The Destruction Of Libya And The US Military Invasion Of Africa – OpEd

0
0

By Danny Haiphong*

Libya once was a proud nation that rejected US military presence on the continent, seeing it as an obstacle to Pan-African unity. With the country destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent. And it has been President Obama, not George W. Bush, who has presided over the rapid neo-colonization of Africa.

Endless war has been a staple of the Obama era. The first Black President’s imperialist record is so expansive that it could not possibly be fit into a singular piece on his legacy. Obama’s endless military incursions in Africa have been the least covered area of US foreign policy in the corporate media. From the outset of his selection in 2008, President Obama quietly militarized the African continent without the knowledge or consultation of the vast majority of the US population. In 2011, Obama’s policy of militarization exploded into full-scale war on the nation of Libya.

The US imperial campaign against Libya marked a watershed moment in the Obama legacy. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi by way of US-NATO sorties and jihadists made Obama the first Black President to bomb an African country. In addition, Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a “humanitarian intervention.” The Obama war doctrine rewrote the rules of war in the realm of international law. “Humanitarian intervention” and the “Responsibility to Protect” provided a more effective justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.

Obama’s promotion of racist, colonialist lies about Libya helped muster public support to destabilize the most prosperous nation on the continent. According to President Obama and the corporate media, Gaddafi was a genocidal butcher of his own people. So-called mercenaries loyal to Gaddafi were accused of committing genocide against “peaceful” protesters. The “Libyan Revolution” was thrown into the so-called Arab Spring against brutal tyrants in North Africa. Mythological tales of Gaddafi’s loyalists using Viagra to rape women and children were run around the clock by the corporate media and its masters in Washington.

What actually occurred in Libya was US-NATO sponsored genocide. Obama received plenty of help from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which provided jihadist mercenaries with the necessary financial and military aid to wage war on Libya. Black Libyans were brutally lynched by jihadist mercenaries in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte. Over 30,000 US-NATO bombs were dropped on Libya over the course of the six-month military invasion that began in March of 2011. Tens of thousands of Libyans died and the Libyan state was effectively dissolved.

When Gaddafi was illegally murdered by jihadists in October of 2011, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled “we came, we saw, he died” in an interview with the corporate press. The imperial hubris of Secretary Clinton was completely supported by Obama. Not only did he destroy Libya, but also later in 2016 described the aftermath of the intervention as a “mistake.” Yet leaked emails from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server scandal have proven that the war against Libya was waged for economic and geopolitical reasons. Libya’s nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa. So Obama led the charge to destroy this effort by sending Libya into a state of never ending chaos.

Today, Libya remains in the control of terrorists. The Libya prior to 2011 that possessed free healthcare, education, and numerous subsidies to support the wellbeing of the Libyan people no longer exists. Libya’s role in supporting African liberation in South Africa, Namibia, and Angola has been, for now, relegated to the history books. Libya once was a proud state that rejected US military presence on the continent, seeing it as an obstacle to Pan-African unity. With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.

And it has been President Obama, not George W. Bush, who has presided over the rapid neo-colonization of Africa through military means. Under Obama, the US African Command (AFRICOM) has penetrated every African country but Zimbabwe and Eritrea. AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience. In 2014, the US conducted 674 military operations in Africa. According to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by Intercept, the US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations. US imperialism supposedly sees “enemies” everywhere in the form of jihadist groups. Yet it was the US-NATO alliance that empowered the spread of jihadists throughout Africa by arming them to destroy Libya.

The US has fueled instability in Africa as the primary means to undermine Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent. In 2013, China’s investment in Africa was estimated to total 200 billion USD. Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations. This has threatened the capitalist class in control of the US imperialist system. When Obama was elected, he made it a point to subvert China with the only weapon left in its arsenal: military force.

However, China is a rising global power and the US is not. US imperialism is in crisis and its military policy in Africa is a reflection of decline. The militarization of Africa led by Obama has done nothing but spread chaos from North to South, East to West. China still leads the US by tens of billions of US dollars per year in terms of real investment in Africa. And the regional catastrophes that Obama’s Africa policy has created are not going away. The rise of Boko Haram and the international jihadist terrorist network threatens to make the continent ungovernable. This may not be what US corporations want, but its all US policy is going to give.

President Obama’s staunch support for the US military takeover of Africa has not stopped him from claiming identification with African people. However, Obama’s identification with Africa has not stopped him from condemning the continent for homophobia or chastising African nations to forget about colonialism. Obama has yet to condemn Rwanda and Uganda for their support of proxies that have murdered over 6 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1996. The Obama legacy in Africa should thus be characterized as the highest stage of hypocrisy. Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 only to intensify African dependency on US imperialism, especially militarily.

The struggle for African liberation will continue long after Obama is out of the White House. His Africa policy will serve as the largest obstacle to efforts to rid the continent of neo-colonialism once and for all. The US military network currently operating in nearly every Africa country serves the purpose of arresting the ongoing process of self-determination. Solidarity efforts in the US mainland must recognize that the fate of Africa will determine the course of struggle worldwide. Obama expanded the US military state’s footprint in Africa. Africa’s liberation thus means the rejection of everything he has stood for.

* Danny Haiphong is an Asian activist and political analyst in the Boston area. He can be reached at wakeupriseup1990@gmail.com. This article previously appeared in Black Agenda Report.

Are The Bad Times Returning To Zimbabwe? – OpEd

0
0

Between 2008 and 2009, Zimbabwe experienced a devastating social, economic and political crisis. Despite an impressive recovery, there are worrying signs that the old crisis is returning.

By Edward Chinhanhu*

Between 2008 and 2009, Zimbabwe experienced its harshest socio-economic and political crisis since independence. Slowly but surely, every economic sector and government institution – from industry to education, health, transport and social amenities – crashed, leaving only the ever-visible military. Inflation was an astronomical 231 million percent, the highest in the world. The entire nation was in limbo.

Eventually, the crisis led to the establishment of the Government of National Unity in September 2009. Remarkably, within three months, goods had reappeared on supermarket shelves, children had returned to school, transport had improved massively and, in short, the nation saw hope. The next four years under the Unity Government were some of the most blissful that many Zimbabweans remember. But then came elections, and the Unity Government was abandoned, leaving Zanu PF, which had been in power since independence in 1980, back in sole control.

Now the signs and symptoms of the pre-Unity Government era are returning. This time around, the crisis could even be worse, unless immediate steps are taken to avert it.

Worrying signs in Harare

The first signs that things have once again fallen apart in Zimbabwe are evident in the first buildings you see as you enter the one-time “Sunshine City” of Harare. Water flows freely on the roads, the buildings are dilapidated, the streets are awash with litter, which is often piled by the roadside. The people look frail and grim as they amble along or group awkwardly in conversation.

The air in the streets is smoky, with old vehicles spewing carbon monoxide and rubbish burning. Humanity is clogged in every vacant space, a good many people shoving bundles of notes into your face, asking if you want to purchase US dollars or South African rand.

All around people push and shove, as pedestrians weave around bodies and vehicles for space to get out and be anywhere else. Everywhere are shouts from touts and the blaring of horns as public taxis compete for passengers, which they pick and drop anywhere, adding to the chaos.

Only a few privileged people travel by taxi these days, with most left to walk to and from town. And in the same streets are lines of vendors, some well sheltered under umbrellas, others holding their delicate wares on their chests or balancing them on their head.

If you have been here before, say during the 80s and 90s, the question uppermost on your mind is not “how are you?”, or “how is life?”, but “what happened?”. And you ask that question with trepidation, anticipating a horrific answer.

But everywhere you turn for an answer, it is the same. “Life sucks, bro”, people exclaim, avoiding eye contact. You sense shame, guilt and powerlessness.

Pushed further, people point to politicians as the cause of the fall. “They are shamelessly corrupt” said one interviewee, “they don’t care about us”. And he moved quickly away, not out of fear, but for more pressing matters. People no longer fear to speak their minds publicly, but they are still powerless to do anything about the situation.

Economic difficulties

For those who still have a job, things are often no better. All banks have declared a critical shortage of cash, and have placed restrictions on withdrawals. Civil servants, the biggest chunk of the employed, have had their pay dates delayed until the middle of the following month. Yet they complain of additional work constantly piled on top of their normal working hours. Restaurants and bars, which once flourished on the back of Zimbabweans’ love for social life, are but dark caverns frequented by the homeless, and a few vendors who walk in and out.

The problem, most people agree, is that the country is not producing anything worth exporting. Once the few US dollars still in circulation leave the country, there is no way of recouping them. Many families used to rely on groceries purchased in nearby South Africa, but this has been banned in order to protect domestic industry, which falls far short of meeting demand. On 1 July 2016, residents from the Beit Bridge area joined forces with cross-border traders in violent protests, and torched a large warehouse in which customs officials stock confiscated groceries and other imports. More than seventy people were arrested.

The NGO sector, which used to provide a cushion in terms of employment, money and moral support in voicing dissent, is facing a serious problem in funding. Most NGO employees and staff now work only two or three days a week. As a result, public demonstrations are few and far between, and some demonstrators have been arrested, tortured or disappeared, with few repercussions.

Needless to say, these problems take their toll. Many people seek solace in religion, and churches have sprouted up everywhere, preaching hope and the gospel of prosperity. Some priests have taken over the roles of doctors, promising to cure anything from headaches to HIV and cancer.  Seeing this, and true to custom, the government is extending its hand to the churches for related taxes.

Is violence next?

Amid all this chaos and confusion, political, religious and social rumours and intrigue swirl. These rumours, one fears, might one day run out of control, causing panic and the outbreak of violence. Already there have been scenes of violence and demonstrations by public taxi operators against random police roadblocks. Social media is awash with news that teachers and nurses will stop work this July in protest against unpaid June salaries.

Meanwhile, the political bickering escalates. The next general election will be in 2018, but judging by the restlessness, anything could happen before that. The government has vowed to do everything in its power to win. The opposition, on the other hand, remains at sixes and sevens, playing a game of egos, while the people suffer silently. There is no doubt that the Government of Zimbabwe needs to act now to avert a serious socio-economic crisis, or things could get out of hand.

*Edward Chinhanhu is Insight on Conflict’s local correspondent for Zimbabwe. A peace activist and fellow at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in Cape Town, he has an MA in Peace and Governance, and also studied for a postgraduate diploma in governance and public policy in the Hague. Edward is a Rotary Peace Fellow of Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

This post was originally published by Insight on Conflict and is available by clicking here. The views represented in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of TransConflict.

Clinton Versus Trump: How It Might Matter For The Middle East – OpEd

0
0

By Richard Falk*

When it comes to foreign policy, it seems at first glance to be a no brainer. Hilary Clinton is experienced, knowledgeable, intelligent, an internationalist, known and respected around the world. In contrast, Donald Trump repeatedly shoots himself in the foot and others elsewhere, seems clueless on the complexities of the world, makes such reckless hyper-nationalist boasts about how he will crush enemies and make allies squirm. Such posturing makes people everywhere fearful, hostile and even wondering whether the American citizenry as a whole is collectively experiencing a psychotic episode by taking seriously such an outlandish candidate.

Between Militarism and Isolationism

Yet a closer look makes the choice between these two candidates less obvious, and more interesting, although not more encouraging, especially if the focus is what the election might mean for the Middle East. One of the few consistent positions taken by Trump is to voice his deep skepticism about regime-changing interventions in the region, especially Iraq and Libya, and the accompanying expensive delusions of former presidents, as well as Clinton, about policies aimed at producing democracies. As expected, Trump has some awkward inconsistencies in his earlier pronouncements on these issues if you bother to check out what he had to say a few years ago. Still, his present opposition to military interventions in the Middle East has been consistently expressed throughout the presidential campaign. His essential position is summarized by his own words:

“After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.”

What follows, then, is the likelihood that Trump will oppose intervention in the Middle East unless there is a clear connection present with a terrorist threat directed at the United States posed by ISIS, and maybe al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Clinton has a consistently hawkish record in foreign policy, which she tried her best to put out of sight during the primary competition with Bernie Sanders, whose progressive views were surprisingly similar to Trump on this central question of military intervention in the Middle East. During her time as Secretary of State (2009-2012), including shaping policy toward Russia, China, Afghanistan, and in the Middle East, Clinton over and over again pushed President Obama hard to adopt more militarist and confrontational positions, most visibly in the region with respect to American military involvement in Libya and Syria. When visiting Libya shortly after Qaddafi was brutally executed in 2011 by rebels when captured in a Libyan town, Clinton chillingly observed, “We came, we saw, he died.” It was a revealing comment, a kind of cold-hearted gallows geopolitical quip.

Stability First, or America First?

It is also relevant that Clinton’s regional grand strategy was premised on keeping friendly dictators in power even in the face of overwhelmingly popular uprisings, disclosed rather starkly in her lobbying efforts to stand by Mubarak in his hour of troubles with the Egyptian people back in 2011. Although she now downplays her support for the 2003 aggressive war in Iraq launched against the regime of Saddam Hussein, she clearly supported at its outset the most disastrous American foreign policy decision since the United States committed itself in the mid-1960s so heavily to the losing side in the Vietnam War. Not only did the attack on Iraq bring many deaths, much devastation, massive displacement, and lasting chaos to Iraq and its people, but the long American-led occupation spread disorder beyond Iraqi borders, and was an important contributing cause to the origins and rise of ISIS.

Yet, despite these Clinton policy misjudgments in the Middle East, isn’t the world still better off with the steady hand of Clinton than the wildly impulsive Trump. Her morbid quip struck hard at what this distinction could mean: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” Such anxiety is intensified as soon as we realize that there are no political checks limiting the capacity of an American president to use nuclear weapons. This makes us aware of how people everywhere despite their huge stake in prudent American leadership, play no role in determining the outcome of a presidential election in the United States. It may be time to consider a plan to enfranchise the whole world to have a vote of some kind in American national elections if the ideal of global democracy and the rule of law are ever to achieve political traction.

Trump has made a number of assertions about nuclear weapons that not only challenge decades of Western conventional wisdom, but also strike fear in the hearts of people wherever they are, including the Middle East. In his preoccupation with conserving American financial resources Trump has suggested that it might not be a bad thing for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons, and then take over responsibility for their own security. Supposedly he asked a friend, “Why can’t we use nukes?” True, such assertions are not necessarily indicative of what Trump would do as president in the Middle East but neither should they be ignored. Trump seems neo-isolationist in overall outlook, which means fewer international commitments and a desperate search for ways to cut overseas expenditures. It is possible that his unwillingness to give unquestioned support to the nonproliferation regime that has frozen the nuclear status quo for decades might generate a renewed push for phased, total nuclear disarmament, the only decent and reliable long-term solution.

There are other worries. Trump opposes the Iran nuclear deal, probably the most constructive diplomatic initiative taken during the eight years of the Obama presidency. Trump thinks it was a terrible deal since it “gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us nothing.” Scrapping the agreement, or even failing to live up to its commitments, endangers an unraveling of the whole normalizing relationship of Iran within the Middle East, and could tempt Israel to launch some kind of preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or even give rise to an extremely dangerous nuclear arms race in the region. It should be noted, in passing, that both Trump and Clinton have tied themselves so firmly to the mast of pro-Israeli alignment as to be blind to the desirability of promoting a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone, a proposal that enjoys the support of every Middle Eastern government except Israel, and would probably do more to stabilize the region than any other single initiative.

Regressive Ideology

Thinking that Clinton is more reliable than Trump may be more a matter of style than substance. Supposedly she did not oppose giving Israel a green light to attack Iran during her period as Secretary of State. Also worrisome is her long undisguised admiration for the warped wisdom of Henry Kissinger, and even Robert Kagen, considered the most militarist member of the neoconservative inner circle, and despite being closely identified in the past with Republicans, has endorsed Clinton, and reportedly acts as the most prominent adviser in her foreign policy braintrust. It is hardly a surprise that 50 self-proclaimed Republican national security specialists publicly endorsed Clinton over Trump, but it is a marker of how unusual this contest for the American presidency has become. As has been often observed, Clinton is of the foreign policy/national security establishment that has brought to where we are now, while Trump is seen as a potential spoiler who might pursue policies that would cause structural disintegration and with it, the collapse of the neoliberal economic order, that is, ‘the Washington consensus.’

Trump, too, boasts of his meetings with Kissinger, as some kind of certification of his worthiness that overcomes his amateurish qualifications for high political office. Yet his opinions adopt lines of thought that are probably an anathema to this aged master of real politik. Clinton, of course, has reflected more and longer on such matters, and in an effort to please all sides opts for what she is calling ‘smart power,’ a customized blend of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power that is supposed to be responsive to the complexities of shaping foreign policy in the early 21stcentury. The Clinton formula, not unlike that of other recent mainstream candidates in the U.S., is designed to please as much as possible the warlords of the Pentagon, the wizards of Wall Street, and the champions of Israel, or at least not distress any of these three nodes of American geopolitical primacy.

With these profiles as a background, can we predict the foreign policy of a Clinton or Trump presidency in the Middle East? It is possible to make more reliable guesses about Clinton because she has made some of her positions already clear: an escalation of support for anti-Assad Syrian forces (except ISIS), a hardening of diplomatic bargaining with Iran in carrying out the nuclear agreement, a further upgrading of the ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and no change of course with respect to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the other Western-leaning autocracies in the region. In addition, a possible recommitment of American military forces in Iraq, and especially robust military action against political extremism throughout the region,

Trump can be expected to indulge his neo-isolationist inclinations, likely moving policy in an opposite direction, withdrawing American combat forces and downgrading military bases in the region, in effect, a pivot away from the Middle East. The exception would seem to be his extravagant pledge to crush ISIS, whatever that might mean in practice, especially as it already seems almost crushed. The related idea of imposing an absolute ban on Muslim immigration to the US, if enacted, is likely to have disastrous blowback effects, fanning the flames of Muslim civilizational discontent.

If voting for an American president was only about the Middle East, I would rate the candidates as a tossup, but it isn’t. When the American domestic scene is taken into account, as well the rest of the world, Clinton holds the clear edge unless one feels so disgusted her candidacy as to write in Bernie Sanders on the ballot or cast a vote of conscience for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. I remain uncertain as to which of these choices to make.

My liberal friends become angry when even such a possibility is mentioned. They still blame the Ralph Nader candidacy in the 2000 election for depriving Al Gore from a victory in Florida, and thus a national victory over George W. Bush. I remain puzzled by and opposed to such a logic. Why allow third party candidates to seek public office if the pundits view it as irresponsible, or worse, to vote for them if the best candidate? Or maybe, it is okay to vote for them if your state is not ‘a swing state,’ but that again means that it is more important to vote for the lesser of evils to avoid the greater of evils rather than to vote for the best candidate. I take a more nuanced position. It depends on how evil is the greater of evils compared to the lesser evil, and whether this seems to matter. At present, if I were in a swing state I would vote for Clinton, although reluctantly (domestic issues and nuclear weapons policy), but since I live in California I will probably vote for Jill Stein. Somehow I wish Bernie Sanders had wrestled with this dilemma rather than uncritically adopting the liberal consensus, which given Clinton’s slide to the right since the Democratic Party convention should keep him awake some nights.

*Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Visit his blog


Apple To Unveil iPhone 7 On Wednesday

0
0

Apple is expected to unveil a new iPhone and maybe even a second-generation smartwatch at a special event in San Francisco on Wednesday.

The rumour mill has been grinding away with talk of iPhone 7 models that will boast faster chips, more sophisticated cameras, and improved software while doing away with jacks for plugging in wired headphones.

To assuage users accustomed to wired headphones, Apple could roll out accessories that include an adapter that plugs into a remaining port.

The event would also be a chance to showcase wireless headphones, perhaps some from Beats, which Apple bought two years ago in a deal valued at $3 billion.

In the Apple’s usual enigmatic style, it provided little more that the date, time and place to the invitation-only gathering.

Apple has maintained a rhythm of introducing updated iPhone models on an annual basis, timing introductions to coincide with the year-end holiday shopping season.

In July, the company announced the sale of its billionth iPhone, a milestone for the company as it seeks to keep momentum in a competitive smartphone market.

Apple reported a drop in iPhone sales in the second quarter of this year, a second straight drop after uninterrupted growth since its introduction in 2007.

South Korean consumer electronics giant LG is set to show off a new premium V20 smartphone in San Francisco the evening before the Apple event.

The V20 will be the first to ship with a new Nougat version of Google-backed Android operating software.

Meanwhile, leading smartphone maker Samsung has announced it will recall its latest flagship smartphone after faulty batteries caused some Galaxy Note 7 “phablets” to explode while charging, in a massive blow to the South Korean electronics giant’s reputation.

Apple Watch time?

California-based Apple could also use the event to showcase updates to other products, such as its smartwatch and laptop computers.

Speculation regarding an Apple Watch 2 was fuelled in part by the fact that the original hardware has not been updated since it debuted in April of last year.

Improved iPhone and smartwatch models would be arriving just as Apple is set to roll out a new version of the mobile operating system.

The event on Wednesday will come as Apple squares off with the European Union over a multibillion-dollar bill.

Analysts told AFP that Apple was in position to fend off the blow from the EU demand that the iPhone maker pay a record 13 billion euros ($14.5 billion) in back taxes in Ireland.

“It’s total political crap,” Cook told the Irish Independent newspaper, of European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s assertion that the company had paid a tax rate of 0.005 percent on its European profits in 2014.

The commission ruled that Apple had received favourable tax terms that amounted to state aid — illegal under its rules.

Apple expects to repatriate billions of dollars of global profits to the United States next year, Cook told Irish national broadcaster RTE without providing specific figures.

The ease with which the company could write a cheque to pay the gargantuan bill was seen as potentially coming back to bite Apple by giving the impression it is greedily avoiding doing right by the public coffers.

According to its most recent earnings report, Apple had $231.5 billion in cash plus marketable securities at the end of June.

Of that total, $214.8 billion, or 93 per cent, was said to be outside the United States, Apple’s chief financial officer Luca Maestri said on an earnings call.

Apple has vowed to fight the tax bill.

Jordan: Released Controversial Islamic Preacher Amjad Qourshah On Bail

0
0

Jordan’s State Security Court (SSC) prosecutor reported that the Court ruled to release Islamic preacher Amjad Qourshah on a bail on Tuesday.

The prosecutor added that Qourshah was detained mid-June of this year, when the court accused Qourshah of violating the latest amendments to Jordan’s anti-terrorism law, which criminalizes acts that “negatively impact [Jordan’s] relations with a foreign state” or acts that threaten to harm society, peace and security.

Qourshah had previoulsy released a video on YouTube in which he urged the people of Jordan and the Jordanian Army to rethink the war against Daesh and other militant organizations operating in Iraq and Syria.

Original article

Obama, South Korean President Park Reaffirm US-South Korea Alliance

0
0

While attending a regional summit meeting today in Vientiane, Laos, President Barack Obama and South Korean President Park Geun-hye reaffirmed their countries’ long-standing alliance and condemned North Korea’s nuclear program and missile launches, according to a White House news release.

Obama is attending the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit meeting hosted by Laos as part of his Asian trip, which included a prior stop in China to attend the G-20 summit.

In Laos after a bilateral meeting with South Korea, Obama said it was a pleasure to meet with Park and her delegation. South Korea, he added, is one of America’s oldest and closest allies. That alliance, he said, remains the linchpin “of peace and security, not just on the Korean Peninsula, but across the region.”

North Korea continues its threatening and provocative behavior in the Asia-Pacific region through its missile launches, Obama said. The United States, he said, is deploying a missile defense system — the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system — to its ally South Korea to deter North Korea.

Strengthening Alliance

Obama added: “In recent years, we’ve worked together to strengthen our alliance, and to ensure our readiness against any threat. For instance, our missile defense cooperation — THAAD — is a purely defensive system to deter and defend against North Korean threats. And today, I want to reaffirm that our commitment to the defense and security of South Korea, including extended deterrence, is unwavering.”

The United States and South Korea “are united in condemning North Korea’s continued missile launches, including this week while China was hosting the G20,” Obama said. “These launches are provocative. They’re a violation of North Korea’s obligations internationally.”

North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, Obama said, are a threat to not only South Korea, but also to Japan and other U.S. allies and partners in the region, and a threat to the United States.

“So we are going to work diligently together with the most recent U.N. sanctions that are already placing North Korea under the most intense sanctions regime ever,” Obama said. “We’re going to work together to make sure that we’re closing loopholes and making them even more effective. And President Park and I agreed that the entire international community needs to implement these sanctions fully and hold North Korea accountable.”

‘Provocations Will Only Invite More Pressure’

North Korea needs to know “that provocations will only invite more pressure and further deepen its isolation,” Obama said, “but that if it is willing to recognize its international obligations and the importance of denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula, the opportunities for us to dialogue with them are there.”

Obama said the U.S.-South Korean alliance is global as well as regional, noting the U.S. and South Korea “stand together” against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The U.S. and South Korea both provide humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people and for refugees, Obama said.

South Korea has been “an excellent partner” in helping Afghanistan to stabilize, Obama said.

And, South Korea “has been an outstanding partner on global health and security issues,” he added.

‘Stalwart Ally, Friend

Park “has been a stalwart ally and friend on a whole range of issues,” Obama said. “And her steady and wise leadership, I think, has greatly contributed to the strengthening of what was already one of our most important alliances. So I want to thank her personally for the excellent contributions she’s made to advancing all the various issues that we’ve been working on. And I want to thank her team as well that worked very hard behind the scenes to make that happen.”

Park said the U.S.-South Korea alliance “is playing a pivotal role for the peace and stability of not only the Korean Peninsula, but the entire region.”

North Korea’s nuclear test earlier this year and its continued launching of missiles “are fundamentally threatening the security of both the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia,” Park said.

South Korea and the U.S. “will respond resolutely to any provocations by North Korea by utilizing all means,” she added.

Park said she expressed her gratitude to Obama for clearly expressing the unwavering commitment of the U.S. for South Korea’s defense. Park said she and Obama “have agreed to maintain a strong deterrence posture by enhancing our combined defense capabilities to include the deployment of the THAAD system.”

The United States and South Korea have agreed to implement U.N. Security Council resolutions against North Korea, and further strengthen efforts to seal loopholes, Park said.

“Taking into consideration the importance of China’s role in effective implementation of sanctions and the resolution process of the North Korean nuclear issue, our two countries have agreed to continue to communicate with China through various channels,” she said.

Park said she and Obama also “have agreed to not only expand cooperation in new frontiers such as global health, climate change and space, but also expand our roles in areas such as refugees, peacekeeping operations and development cooperation.”

“I find it meaningful that through our discussions today, I was able to confirm yet once again that the foundations of our bilateral relationship are rock-solid,” Park said.

A Good Beginning – OpEd

0
0

It seems that some who have the ears of U.S. elite decision-makers are at least shifting away from wishing to provoke wars with Russia and China.

In recent articles, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Thomas Graham, two architects of the U.S. cold war with Russia, have acknowledged that the era of uncontested U.S. global imperialism is coming to an end. Both analysts urge more cooperation with Russia and China to achieve traditional, still imperial, U.S. aims. Mr. Graham recommends a shifting mix of competition and cooperation, aiming toward a “confident management of ambiguity.” Mr. Brzezinski calls for deputizing other countries, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran to carry out the combined aims of the U.S., Russia and China so that this triumvirate could control other people’s land and resources.

It’s surely worthwhile to wonder what effect opinions such as Brzezinski’s and Graham’s might have upon how U.S. resources are allotted, whether to meet human needs or to further enlarge the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and further enrich the corporations that profit from U.S. investments in weapons technology.

If the U.S. might diminish offensive war preparations against Russia, when would DOD budget proposals begin to reflect this? As of April 15, 2016, the U.S. DOD was proposing that the U.S. Fiscal Year 2017 budget significantly increase funding for the “European Reassurance Initiative” (ERI) from $789.3 million the previous year to $3.4 billion. The document reads: “the expanded focus is a reflection of the United States’ strong and balanced approach to Russia in the wake of its aggression in Eastern Europe.” The requested funds will enable the U.S. “defense” establishment to expand purchases of ammunition, fuel, equipment, and combat vehicles. It will also enable the DOD to allocate money to airfields, training centers, and ranges, as well as finance at least “28 joint and multi-national exercises which annually train more than 18,000 U.S. personnel alongside 45,000 NATO Allies.” This is good news for major “defense” contractors.

In the past year, the National Guard of my home state of Illinois has participated in the DOD reserve component. 22 U.S. states matched up with 21 European countries to practice maneuvers designed to build up the ERI. The IL National Guard and the Polish Air Force have acquired “Joint Terminal Attack Controller” systems that enable them to practice coordinating airstrikes with Poland in support of ground forces combatting enemies in the region. Members of the IL National Guard were part of NATO’s July 2016 “Anakonda” exercises on the Russian border. As the state of Illinois spent an entire year without a budget for social services or higher education, millions of dollars were directed toward joint military maneuvers with Poland that ratcheted up tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

Many families in Illinois can relate to the impact of rising food prices in Russia while family income stays the same or decreases. People in both the U.S. and Russia would benefit from diversion of funds away from billion dollar weapons systems toward the creation of jobs and infrastructure that improve the lives of ordinary people.

But people are bombarded with war propaganda. Consider a recent piece of propaganda-lite, just under 5 minutes, which aired on ABC news, showing Martha Raddatz in the back seat of an F-15 U.S. fighter jet, flying over Estonia. “That was awesome,” Raddatz coos, as she witnesses war-games from the F-15’s open cockpit.  She calls the American show of force a critical deterrent to Russian forces. The piece neglects to mention ordinary Russians on whose borders, in June 2016, 10 days of U.S. / NATO military exercises involving 31,000 troops took place.

In the high plateaus of Afghanistan, peasant women provide a striking example of risk-taking in order to literally plant new seeds. The New York Times recently reported on women in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan province who have formed unions, risking ridicule and possible physical abuse to form cooperative groups. These women help one another acquire seeds for vegetables other than potatoes and also for new varieties of potatoes. They manage to feed their families and to pool resources so that they can spend less on delivering their crops to the market.

These women are acting with clarity and bravery, creating a new world within the shell of the old. We should be guided by such clarity as we insist that lasting peace can’t be founded on military power.

The end of U.S. empire would be a welcome end. I hope that policy makers will let themselves be guided by sanity and the courage to clarify the U.S.’ vast potential to make a positive difference in our world by asking themselves a simple, indispensable question:  how can we learn to live together without killing one another? An indispensable follow-up is: When do we start?

Zarif, Iran’s Next President? – OpEd

0
0

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s resourceful top diplomat, may be still recovering from the hectic marathon nuclear negotiations that yielded a historic agreement one year ago, but chances are that he is destined to become Iran’s next president, given his immense popularity in Iran, particularly among the educated strata.

Already, there is a growing conversation among the political elite regarding Zarif’s candidacy, in light of the presidential elections next Summer, and some prominent figures have begun to openly mention Zarif as a viable candidate. Of course, President Hassan Rouhani remains the likely choice of moderate clergy and their mass of supporters, but the political dynamic in favor of Zarif’s inclusion in the list of candidates is rapidly taking shape, perhaps despite the personal reservation of Zarif himself, who is not affiliated with any political faction and prides himself for his superb diplomatic skills, for good reasons.

Zarif has singlehandedly “turbocharged” Iran’s diplomacy since assuming the helms as Iran’s foreign minister in mid-2013, as anticipated by this author in his interview with Zarif at the time, and since then the tumultuous regional environment of Iran has been much helped by Zarif’s crisis-management efforts and focus on good neighborly relations. Needless to say, this is a work in progress with a myriad of unresolved issues, such as the intense Iran-Saudi rift and maritime tensions with the US, yet overall it is fair to say that in the new post-sanctions milieu Iran has emerged as a stronger and more confident country, thanks in part to its skillful diplomats such as Zarif who are keen on capitalizing on the combination of soft and hard Iranian power.

In order for this possibility to happen, Zarif himself ought to express interest, so that his sea of supporters can be galvanized into action, given the complex nature of Iran’s domestic politics that filters the presidential candidates. The jury on the nuclear accord is still not out yet and the accord has its own internal detractors who focus on Zarif, and therefore Zarif’s candidacy will inevitably turn into a contest on the merits of the accord as well.

An important prerequisite for Zarif’s candidacy is the sustained support of Iran’s Supreme Leader, who has repeatedly thanked Zarif and other members of the nuclear negotiation team for their efforts. Should the leader see fit that Zarif’s candidacy will add to the wealth of Iran’s Islamist democracy, then Ayatollah Khamenei may send the proper signals that would clear for Zarif’s entry into the presidential race.

Kosovo Celebrates Historic World Cup Football Debut

0
0

By Die Morina

People celebrated in Kosovo as the national team drew against Finland, securing a point in a World Cup qualifier at the country’s first-ever competitive international football match.

Fans gathered in Pristina on Monday evening to watch the Kosovo team kick off its inaugural World Cup qualifying campaign with an important 1-1 away draw in Turku in Finland.

Kosovo’s scorer was Valon Berisha, who earned the point with a penalty kick just hours after football’s world governing body FIFA cleared him to play for the country.

His team-mates Amir Rrahmani, Alban Meha, Herolind Shala, Milot Rashica and Samir Ujkani were also only cleared to play by FIFA on the day of the match.

Berisha used to play for Norway and the other five had represented Albania, but asked to switch allegiance after Kosovo became a member of FIFA in May 2016.

Kosovo’s historic match against Finland was played at the same time as a World Cup qualifier between Albania and Macedonia, and two big screens were set up in Skenderbeu square in Pristina, so fans wearing the colours of both Kosovo and Albania could watch the two matches at the same time.

However there was also some debate among the onlookers as to whether footballers should still play for the Albanian national team or join their homeland side in their blue and yellow jerseys.

Hamdi Krasniqi, aged 45, who was watching the game in the square even though it was raining, told BIRN: “It would be better for players from Kosovo to play for Kosovo and those from Albania to play for Albania.”

But Vlora Nikci, an actress living in Pristina, told BIRN that she respected players who did not decide to switch allegiance and remained with the Albanian team.

“I like the fact that someone from Gjakova [in Kosovo] plays together with someone from Tirana [in Albania]. I love the symbolism of it – the unity,” she said.

Eighteen-year-old Donjeta Hoxha told BIRN that she went out to watch both matches.

“Kosovo’s team gives me a special emotion, maybe because it is the first time we as a new country have this chance [to compete internationally]. But I am sticking by both nation’s teams,” she said.

Bars in Pristina were also screening both matches on two screens and people celebrated by singing songs with lyrics like “Without Kosovo there will not be Albania” and “We are one”.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008 and has been recognised by more than 100 countries, but not by Belgrade.

In May, Kosovo became a member of FIFA despite strong opposition from Serbia, which opposes any international endorsement of its former province’s independence.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/first-historic-point-at-kosovo-s-first-match-09-06-2016#sthash.hAu7jqas.dpuf

High Utility Bills Trigger Anxiety And Depression In Low-Income Households

0
0

A researcher at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health studied a hidden source of hardship: energy insecurity, the inability to adequately meet basic household energy needs, and its adverse environmental, health, and social consequences.

The study provides real-world examples of three dimensions of energy insecurity: economic, physical, and behavioral. This study is one of the first to examine how household utilities, which account for a large share of living expenses, are a critical measurement of material hardship. Findings are published online in Social Science and Medicine.

“Utilities bills at $200 per month represent nearly 30 percent of household income for those at or near the federal poverty level making it a significant, and likely unaffordable, expense,” said lead author Diana Hernández, PhD, assistant professor of Sociomedical Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health.

“While participants often expressed an ethos of responsibly ‘paying the bills,’ many simply cannot afford the monthly utility payments and were often ‘playing catch up’ in a vicious economic cycle of prioritization and trade-offs, complicating the already fragile financial profiles of low-income ratepayers.”

Dr. Hernández conducted in-depth interviews with 72 low-income families from community health centers in the Boston area. Participants included those reporting at least one housing hardship, ranging from housing affordability, to frequent moves, to hazardous housing conditions and income at or below $32,000, which equals 150 percent of the 2008 federal poverty level. Heads of household ranged in age from 18 to 59, were mostly single mothers (97 percent), racial/ethnic minorities (47 percent African American; 29 percent Latino), with a high school education or higher (85 percent). The majority received housing subsidies (65 percent). Participants reported a wide range of household energy expenditures per month, reaching as high as $650 at the height of the heating season.

“Energy insecurity is a term little understood,” said lead author Dr. Hernández, “In this analysis, participants described energy as a main source of hardship. Collectively the data conveyed a tale of economic adversity, inefficient building infrastructure, complex coping strategies, and limited options for assistance.”

Mental and Social Fallout. The experience of energy insecurity triggered mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression. The constant threat of service interruptions due to non-payment fueled parental fear and stigma. Parents felt judged by persistent surveillance on the part of child protective services and feared losing parenting privileges. Moving represented a way out of the discomfort for some participants who expressed feelings of shame and a disruption of family life when living through a utility service disconnection. “However, this coping strategy brings with it negative consequences, as residential instability spurs the loss of social network and institutional ties, which comes at a significant cost in terms of social capital,” observed Dr. Hernández.

Inefficient Infrastructure Exacerbates Economic Burden. The challenge in simply trying to pay the bills is further exacerbated from inefficiencies in their physical homes, reflecting the second dimension of energy insecurity. Deficiencies in the physical infrastructure of the home environment included poor quality heating and cooling systems and the use of subpar building materials that can increase energy costs. In response to these challenges, study participants often devised a variety of behavioral strategies to juggle expenses and cope with the physical and economic facets of energy insecurity.

Limited Options for Assistance. Dr. Hernández also points to the current options to support affected populations such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program: “These programs have historically been underfunded and subject to budget cuts, particularly in recent years,” she said. “Greater awareness of the dimensions of energy insecurity and accompanying advocacy may lead to more comprehensive policy measures to expand existing programs in order to ensure that the needs of low-income householders are better met.”

Other research by Hernández and colleagues has demonstrated the prevalence and risks associated with energy insecurity. In a study published last year on how energy efficiency upgrades could help low-income tenants and landlords alike, Dr. Hernández reported that low-income single-family homeowners reaped the greatest direct benefits. However, all respondents experienced enhanced health and safety, improved thermal comfort, and reduced energy costs–$60 per month in some cases–as a result of the upgrades. A study published earlier this year showed that African Americans across the economic spectrum experienced economic energy insecurity at the highest rates while Asian and Latino immigrants were the least burdened. An upcoming study will report on the association between energy insecurity and its effect on mental health.


Existence Of A New Boson Predicted

0
0

Scientists at the High Energy Physics Group (HEP) of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg predict the existence of a new boson that might aid in the understanding of Dark Matter in the Universe.

Using data from a series of experiments that led to the discovery and first exploration of the Higgs boson at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in 2012, the group established what they call the Madala hypothesis, in describing a new boson, named as the Madala boson. The experiment was repeated in 2015 and 2016, after a two-and-a-half year shut-down of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. The data reported by the LHC experiments in 2016 have corroborated the features in the data that triggered the Madala hypothesis in the first place.

“Based on a number of features and peculiarities of the data reported by the experiments at the LHC and collected up to the end of 2012, the Wits HEP group in collaboration with scientists in India and Sweden formulated the Madala hypothesis,” said Professor Bruce Mellado, team leader of the HEP group at Wits.

The Wits Madala project team consists of approximately 35 young South African and African students and researchers who are currently contributing to the understanding of the data coming out of the LHC experiments, along with phenomenological investigations from theorists such as Prof. Alan Cornell and Dr. Mukesh Kumar and support in the area of detector instrumentation from Prof. Elias Sideras-Haddad (all from Wits University).

The hypothesis describes the existence of a new boson and field, similar to the Higgs boson. However, where the Higgs boson in the Standard Model of Physics only interacts with known matter, the Madala boson interacts with Dark Matter, which makes about 27% of the Universe.

“Physics today is at a crossroads similar to the times of Einstein and the fathers of Quantum Mechanics,” said Mellado. “Classical physics failed to explain a number of phenomena and, as a result, it needed to be revolutionised with new concepts, such as relativity and quantum physics, leading to the creation of what we know now as modern physics.”

The theory that underpins the understanding of fundamental interactions in nature in modern physics is referred to as the Standard Model of Physics. With the discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC in 2012, for which the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 2013, the Standard Model of Physics is now complete. However, this model is insufficient to describe a number of phenomena such as Dark Matter.

The universe is made of mass and energy. The mass that we can touch, smell and see, the mass that can be explained by the Higgs boson, makes up only 4% of the mas-energy budget of the Universe. The rest of the mass in the Universe is simply unknown, yet it makes about 27% of the world around us. The next big step for the physics of fundamental interactions now is to understand the nature of Dark Matter in the Universe: what is it made of? How many different types of particles are there? How do they interact among each other? How does it interact with the known matter? What can it tell us about the evolution of the Universe?

The discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC at CERN has opened the door into making even more ground-breaking discoveries, such as the observation of new bosons that are linked to forces and particles unknown before. These new particles can explain where the unknown matter in the Universe comes from.

“With the Madala hypothesis predictions of striking signatures are made, that is being pursued by the young scientists of the Wits HEP group.” Some of these scientists include Dr. Deepak Kar and Dr. Xifeng Ruan, two new academic staff in the group, who have years of expertise at the LHC.

Havoc In The Middle East: The Other Side Of The Coin – OpEd

0
0

In a number of articles published in Western media in recent years, the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean appear as somehow distant and obscure regions. Yet, what the region is experiencing should not in any way be perceived in these terms, or as someone else’s history. This not (or not only) in light of a relatively distant past, but in consideration of a present that hinders the construction of a sustainable future.

The natural resources (fuel, gold, gas ect) of most of the African countries and a number of the states in the Eastern Mediterranean are siphoned off through offshore companies that, to a large extent, are linked to European and American companies and businessmen. In other words, as the Panama Papers confirmed, tax havens are used to exploit the natural wealth of some of the world’s poorest countries.

Resources are today sucked out of the civilian economy into the military, and here as well Western players continue to play the role of co-protagonists. The equivalent of a billion and 350 million euros in rifles, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, mortar shells and anti-tank weapons are currently exported from Europe (particularly the Balkans) to the Middle East: a meaningful percentage of them are currently used by terrorist groups operating in Syria and Yemen.

It is noteworthy that German arms exports doubled in 2015: Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two of the major markets. Similar data apply to Britain (Saudi Arabia is UK arms industry’s biggest customer) and a number of other European countries.

The contribution coming from the other side of the Atlantic is no less relevant. In the first six years of the Obama Administration (“The Drone Presidency”), the US entered into agreements to sell more than $190 billion in weaponry worldwide: more than any US administration since World War II.

Washington is responsible for 33% of global arms sales and the Middle East is the primary destination of a large majority of U.S.-made weapons (with Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates topping the list and Iraq and Egypt making the top ten). Particularly devastating have been the effects of the bombs (a huge number are made in Italy) and missiles provided to the Saudis for their war in Yemen, where more than 370,000 children are currently at risk of starvation.

Unsurprisingly, weapons’ export to the region is often justified using a “defensive rhetoric”. Echoing an increasingly common opinion, political scientist Avery Plaw contended for instance that “drone strikes save lives, American and other”.

While it is true that quantitative data available on armed drones and other weapons is still not yet sufficient to make any definitive pronouncements, a number of studies have shown that a relevant percentage – in some cases about 90 percent – of the extrajudicial killings carry out in some areas of countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, is composed by civilians (“collateral murder”). Only at times these attacks are carried out with the prior consent of host countries or the UN Security Council: very often they infringe both sovereignty and due process.

As noted by Audrey Cronin in Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict, terrorist groups have generally been suppressed not through military interventions, but by detaching and isolating them from their potential communities of support.

The global drone warfare is causing the opposite effect. Those in favor of drones, pointed out Radhya al-Mutawakel, who heads Mwatana, a human rights group based in Sana’a, “praise them as precise and technologically advanced weapons that limit civilian harm. We, Yemenis, disagree. Drones do not bring peace or security. They bring death, destruction, suffering, lives lost and irreparably changed for generations”.

In this context it should be added that the content of several studies on the use of weapons – such as armed drones – carried out by some leading international think tanks, including the Brookings Institution in Washington, have been strongly influenced by donors’ agendas.

In a comparative perspective that takes into account the region’s past, did massive military supplies help to stabilize the region? Did it provide any sort of positive effect to the region?

One of the most meaningful possible answers can be found in the data provided by the US State Department, according to which “incidents of terrorism” increased 6500% since the “war on terror” began in 2001: half of them have been registered in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose destabilization has had a sort of earthquake effect on the all region.

Too often “we” tend to approach the dramatic present of the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean as something that pertains peoples and countries that are largely detached from their political, historical and economic past and present.

This mindset is often part of an ongoing medievalization of the region, or the tendency to juxtapose an allegedly medieval Middle East to a modern, secular, normative West.

It is necessary to overcome this segregated interpretation of “our history” and “their history”, paving the way for a more humble approach toward the peoples’ region and their sufferance.

*Lorenzo Kamel is Marie Curie Experienced Researcher at the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) and a Senior Fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). He is also a nonresident Associate at Harvard University’s CMES, where he served as a Postdoctoral Fellow for two years. Among his most recent books: ‘Arab Spring and Peripheries’ (Routlegde 2016) and ‘Imperial Perceptions of Palestine: British Influence and Power in Late Ottoman Times’ (I.B. Tauris 2015), shortlisted for the Palestine Book Award 2016. Twitter: @key_1907

Meant To Promote Cooperation, G20 Meeting Shows Discord – Analysis

0
0

G20 leaders, many embattled and questioned at home, struggle to manage globalization or explain its rewards.

By Chris Miller*

The G20 meeting of world leaders in Hangzhou, China displayed more signs of discord than cooperation. In theory, the annual meeting of those leading 20 of the world’s largest economies is designed to explore political and economic collaboration. In practice, this meeting highlighted disagreement and reticence to tackle immediate crises.

Two broad themes stand out. First, competition among the world’s great powers is, if anything, increasing. Second, the economic underpinnings of the current order are under threat not from global leaders’ disagreements but because of a widespread popular sense that governments do not know how to manage globalization. This second trend is more disruptive because it is more unpredictable.

Surely, one might think, it is hard to get more unpredictable than Kim Jong Un, the North Korean dictator who recognized the G20 summit to which he was not invited by shooting three medium-range ballistic missiles into Japan’s air defense identification zone.

But the Korean risks seem manageable. More worrisome is the chance of a direct clash among the great powers, for example, over the disputed rocks and islands in the South and East China seas. This year’s G20 summit comes on the heels of a July ruling from an international tribunal that declared China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea illegal. For several years, Beijing has transformed a variety of rocks, one aptly named “Mischief Reef”, into large airstrips. The ruling was silently cheered by China’s neighbors in Southeast Asia, from Vietnam to Malaysia to the Philippines, but under pressure from China they have kept quiet. US President Barack Obama admonished China to respect the tribunal’s ruling, but Beijing marked the G20 meeting by gathering naval forces near the Scarborough Shoal, a contested reef that China occupies.

Where the South China Sea holds risks, the inability of the great powers to come to an agreement in Syria is proving destructive every day. Russia, the United States, and more importantly other regional powers are backing different sides in the country’s disastrous civil war. Russia along with Iran supports Bashar Assad’s forces, while Turkey and several Arab states fund a rebel alliance, part of which is supported by the United States. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies are waging an air campaign against Daesh, the terrorist group also known as the Islamic State.

In advance of the G20 summit, US Secretary of State John Kerry sounded optimistic about the prospects of enhanced cooperation between Washington and Moscow, whereby the two countries would work together against Daesh and other militant groups. But like the previous year of negotiations, these talks proved fruitless. Even had a deal between Russia and the United States been signed, it would have at best slightly reduced the fighting and allowed aid delivered to cities under siege. But after a “blunt and businesslike” meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Obama on the sidelines of the G20, now even modest goals in Syria look unattainable, with Obama citing “gaps of trust” that harmed the talks. And the Syrian war, which has lasted half a decade, killed several hundred thousand people, and displaced millions more, looks as far from resolution as ever.

Amid such disastrous wars and dangerous political conflicts, it’s hard to imagine global leaders who assembled in Hangzhou agreeing on much of anything. But on the second broad category of threats to the current order – unhappiness with globalization – the main conflict is not among countries but rather between leaders and disaffected portions of their population.

In many countries, influential groups are speaking out, and voting against, what they see as elites who are unable to manage globalization. Signs of this are everywhere. Britain is struggling to resolve a contradiction created by June’s vote for Brexit. Voters appeared to signal that international integration, both in terms of economics and migration, had gone farther than they were comfortable with. Now the government is struggling to devise a means of setting tighter limits on migration in particular without threatening the trade links on which the economy depends.

The rest of Europe, too, is facing similar trends. Calls are growing for Europe’s leaders to scrap a new trade deal with the United States, called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, on the grounds that it threatens Europe’s ability to autonomously regulate its economy. Traditional protectionism, of the sort that comes from producers who would be hurt from more efficient foreign competition, also plays a role. French leader François Hollande alluded to these sentiments in Hangzhou, declaring that “our country refuses a globalization without rules, where social models are pit against each other and dragged downward, where inequalities grow.”

Yet it would be wrong to interpret the backlash against globalization solely, or even primarily, in terms of the inequality cited by Hollande. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, discovered after an election in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which happened to coincide with the G20. Her Christian Democratic Union party came in third, overtaken by the Alternative for Germany, an anti-immigrant party that was founded only three years ago.

The backlash against Merkel, long seen as one of Europe’s most successful politicians, is due primarily to her policies on migration. Similar sentiments are drive much of the popularity of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate in the United States, who has attracted fans with his promise to build a wall on the US border with Mexico.

What links these events is a belief that globalization has gone out of control. Some of this fear is not grounded in fact, such as concerns about Mexican immigration to the United States, which has slowed. Behind the fear lies a legitimate concern about how globalization can be reconciled with democracy. Trade deals with foreign countries by definition give up sovereignty over tariffs and regulations. That is their point: By standardizing rules in different countries, doing business is easier and products become cheaper.

The dilemma, as the British are now learning, is that with more control comes less integration. Many in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, hoping for free access to European markets and control over migration. The reality, they are discovering, is that they now must choose. Coinciding with the G20, Japan issued a stark warning to Britain about the risks it faces if it cuts economic ties with Europe. Japanese companies, Tokyo warned, may opt to move if Brexit turns out badly.

The British have control, it turns out, but only over a limited set of options. That is true of nearly all of the conflicts about globalization today. Many people feel like globalization is beyond their control, but they value the wealth and opportunities that trade has created. There is no easy way to have complete sovereignty along with the benefits of global trade. With luck and skill, the leaders who assembled at the G20 can manage the political conflicts that divide them. Even longstanding problems such as climate change were addressed at the summit in Hangzhou. But the dilemmas posed by globalization seem set to persist.

*Chris Miller is associate director of the Grand Strategy Program at Yale and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is currently finishing a book manuscript on Russian-Chinese relations.

What If Islamic State Becomes Stateless? – OpEd

0
0

The grandiose dreams of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of Islamic State (IS) who envisioned a jihadist caliphate encompassing the entire globe under his leadership, appear to be crumbling. In parallel with Adolf Hitler’s “thousand year Reich” which in fact lasted barely twelve, IS’s initial period of amazing success and swift territorial gain has been followed by a slow but steady attrition of those early victories. It is estimated that since its heyday in mid-2014, IS has lost about half its territory in Iraq and some 20 percent in Syria. On September 4, 2016, IS was chased from the last of its holdings on the Syrian-Turkish border, depriving it of a key transit point for recruits and supplies.

Its leaders, moreover, are being eliminated, one by one. The latest, and perhaps most significant, loss was that of Abu Muhammad al-Adnani on August 30, 2016. Adnani, the leading IS strategist, was the mastermind behind many of its spectacular terror attacks against Western interests. In September 2014 he called on Muslims in the West to kill Europeans wherever and however they could, warning foreign governments: “We will strike you in your homeland, especially the spiteful and filthy French.” And he urged them to do it in any manner they could: “Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car.”

Adnani was the most recent in the catalogue of leading IS figures tracked down and killed by the US-led coalition. Last year saw the elimination of Baghdadi’s right-hand man, Haji al-Mutazz, aka Ned Price; Abu Sayyaf; logistics expert Tariq al-Harzi; Junaid Husssein; extortion expert Abu Maryam; chief accountant Abu Salah; Abu Nabil; and chief chemical weapons expert, Sleiman Daoud al-Afari – nor is this an exhaustive list.

In 2016 those removed include Mustafa al-Qaduli, IS’s chief financier, and Omar al-Shishani, generally considered IS’s minister of war. “The stench of decay hangs over IS” in the words of Middle East commentator David Blair. In March 2016, in a stark illustration of a movement in the process of disintegration, Abu Ali al-Tunisi, commander of IS military operations in northern Raqqa, was killed at the hands of fellow IS militants.

“Al-Tunisi was attacked by a group of IS militants who used to fight under his command in the northern countryside of Raqqa,” reported local media activist Ammar al-Hassan. The militants apparently opened fire at their commander’s car on March 6, 2016, killing him and two of his escorts.

This assassination occurred amid escalating rifts within IS. Local disaffection among members has centered on a decrease in salaries resulting from the group’s loss of key resources, and on the promotion of a number of foreign jihadis to senior positions.

The caliphate that al-Baghdadi professed to be recreating harked back to the idea of an Islamic republic owing allegiance to one leader, regardless of national boundaries. The caliphate concept was abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924, but Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state that, at various times during the course of Islam’s 1,400-year history, ruled over the Middle East, much of North Africa and large parts of Europe.

As regards IS’s intention to do just that, in December 2015 the UK’s Guardian newspaper revealed the contents of a leaked internal IS manual showing how the terrorist group had been setting about building a state in Iraq and Syria complete with government departments, a treasury and an economic programme for self-sufficiency.

The 24-page document, entitled “Principles in the administration of the Islamic State”, set out a blueprint for establishing foreign relations, a fully-fledged propaganda operation, and centralised control over oil, gas and the other vital parts of the economy. It built up a picture of a group, according to the Guardian that, “although sworn to a founding principle of brutal violence, is equally set on more mundane matters such as health, education, commerce, communications and jobs. In short, it is building a state.”

Charlie Winter, a senior researcher for Georgia State University, believes that IS had “an extremely complex, well-planned infrastructure behind it.”

IS’s subsequent loss of territory puts paid to these extravagant plans, much to the relief of substantial sections of the population which had languished under IS rule. When Manbij was recaptured by Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on 13 August 2016, mass jubilation engulfed the city. Women were seen ripping off their burqas and burning them; men were pictured cutting off their beards. Those subjected to IS governance will not forget the dread of living under an extremist version of sharia, the horrendous mass slaughter of “non-believers”, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the glorification of inhumane beheadings, amputations and crucifixions.

Having suffered a steady loss of territory and continuous depletion of its leading figures, IS is down, but not out. It will doubtless put up an energetic rearguard action against the battalions arrayed against it – the UN-led coalition, the Russian-Iranian alliance, the legions of Syria’s President Bashar Assad, and the Syrian Democratic Forces which encompass the doughty Kurdish peshmerga troops, the fighters who have proved the most effective against IS on the ground. But it will have lost status and prestige, especially among the vulnerable and impressionable Muslim youth worldwide, whom it has targeted in its recruiting drives. Loss of territory carries with it the stigma of loss of power.

Putting a brave face on IS’s succession of disasters, in May 2016 Adnani declared: “Do you think, America, that defeat is by the loss of towns or territory? No, true defeat is losing the will and desire to fight.”

He may have had a point, but there is all the difference in the world from the position IS had acquired in its heyday, and a stateless group simply concerned with promulgating terrorism across the globe – a sort of latter day al-Qaeda following the assassination of its leader Osama bin Laden, a movement rendered not toothless, but far less of a universal menace. That is very possibly the fate awaiting Islamic State.

Links Between Gold And Coca In Colombia – Analysis

0
0

By Joseph Green*

Following the recognition that Colombia is once again the world’s top coca producer, with a 39 percent production increase in 2015 alone, experts have been analyzing the data to determine what could have caused a spike so soon after its historic low in 2013.[1] [2] Studies by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have linked flagging levels of coca production to that of the more recent phenomenon of illegal gold mining, and organizations like the UNODC and the Ideas for Peace Foundation (FIP) in Bogotá recognize illegal mining as an additional factor related to the drug trade that needs to be observed in order to better comprehend and combat illegal practices regarding both materials.

Gold and coca are intricately tangled in webs of financial corruption and violence in Colombia. While the implications of coca cultivation have been well-publicized since the heyday of the cocaine cartels in the 1980s, illegal gold mining by similar armed groups today is less understood. For instance, the guerrillas of the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) are often cited as being the principal offenders. Both groups have expanded into drugs and illegal mining to complement “traditional” fundraising efforts like kidnapping and extortion. None of these activities are exclusive to the guerillas; instead, the common denominator is profitability.

Illegal Mining

Illegal mining operations are those that do not adhere to zoning, licensing, environmental, and a variety of other commercial regulations designed for the sector. In this way, participants in the industry are afforded opportunities to bring in new streams of revenue, often with capital gained through other unlawful financial activities. Industry leaders include guerrilla groups, paramilitary groups, and organized crime elements, while the labor force supporting their activities consists of poor rural dwellers, indigenous people, and garimpeiros (migrants with job experience from similar operations in Brazil).[3] Setting up operations in remote areas, the workers clear the land and excavate open-air mines with bulldozers. The loose material is filtered first with water, and then with mercury or cyanide; once the precious metals are extracted, and toxic byproducts are abandoned.[4] Spurred by the high gold prices of recent years, illegal mines provided up to 87 percent of Colombia’s annual gold exports.[5] Illegal gold mining charges are difficult to establish if the perpetrators are not caught in the act, and carry lesser sentences in any case. Currently, the only formal incentive for change is the option to apply for the legalization of ongoing, illegal mining operations.[6]

Coca Production

The coca plant is native to the Andean region of South America and has been used for medical and ceremonial purposes by indigenous peoples since ancient times. After the dismantling of the major drug cartels in Colombia, the guerrillas, paramilitaries, and criminal gangs moved in to take their place. To take down such illegal cultivation, the Colombian government has traditionally used the chemical glyphosate–known colloquially as “Roundup”–on coca fields. This was largely done by aerial “crop-dusting” from the Clinton-era Plan Colombia until 2015, when the tactic was suspended due to effects on environmental and human health. Manual spraying (previously a compliment to aerial spraying) is now the only method of Roundup distribution and has the added benefit that the plants are also physically removed. In this way the new method lengthens the interval before production resumes and in theory, more effectively detains production.[7] On the other hand, manual spraying is slower, more labor-intensive, and reaches fewer coca fields–contributing to the increase in production.

As another method of discouraging coca cultivation, the government has introduced crop substitution programs, which use subsidies, education, and technical assistance to incentivize former coca growers to return to traditional crops. These programs have had success by addressing the economic realities that forced many into coca cultivation in the first place, but their implementation has been limited so far.

Shared Ties

Coca and illegal mining operations are linked in two ways. They are managed by the same extralegal armed groups, and their respective land needs have relegated them to the same isolated production centers. Thirty-eight percent of the overall territory affected by illegal mining is also affected by coca cultivation. Furthermore, the top-producing departamentos (Colombian states) tend to have high levels of both coca and gold–particularly Cauca, Nariño, Putumayo, and Caquetá.[8] [9]

Drug eradication efforts are commonly seen as having a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the supply; by this logic, chemical spray and crop incentives would be the major causes of the pre-2014 decline in coca output. However, FIP’s analysis states that this is not the case, but instead claims that the traditional actors in the coca sector simply branched out into extractive mining in pursuit of higher profits brought about by the steep rise in gold prices between 2007 and 2012.[10] According to FIP, now that the price relationship between gold and cocaine has changed, these actors are starting to return to the coca fields.

Price Relationship

The fact that gold and coca are often produced and sold by the same parties means that they compete for the same resources. In turn, the two products have an inverse relationship in which a difference in the profitability of one product affects its priority over the other. The phenomenon is encompassed in a concept called “relative profitability.” Economists Susan Grant and Chris Vidler discussed relative profitability and its importance for organizations that can easily produce different products or services: “If supplying an alternative product [gold] becomes more profitable the supply of the good in question [coca] will fall…On the other hand if the supply of an alternative [gold] becomes less profitable there could be a shift…showing an increase in supply [of coca].”[11]Picture1-1

The inverse relationship can be seen in the graph above.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] As the price of gold rose compared to a fairly stagnant coca price, production of the former went up while coca production went down. Once the price of gold started to fall, gold production fell as well and coca production began to mount again.

There are other factors beyond price that affect profitability. Illegally mined gold is processed onsite, while coca processing is decentralized and the labs and fields tend to be far removed from each other, making for a more complex logistics system. On the other hand, coca cultivation requires less equipment and initial investment than mining, and each hectare planted produces an average of 4,800 kilos of coca leaf per year.[20] At any rate, gold has proven 20 times more profitable than coca at its peak price.[21] The basic tenets of supply and demand compounded the effects of the subsequent drop in gold prices; as the available supply of coca went down, the price went up, thus increasing its profitability relative to gold even more. Meanwhile, though gold prices are currently dropping, they are still well above where they were a decade ago, so the abandonment of illegal mining will likely be more gradual than that of coca. By 2015, illegal mining’s contribution to Colombia’s overall gold production already had dropped five percentage points compared to the year before.[22]

Implications for Policy

Though it is nowhere near the record high for coca production, the present increase in coca acreage still presents a complicated situation for Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. A growing fiscal deficit makes it increasingly difficult to assign the necessary resources to combat the coca cultivations. Not even priority anti-drug programs in one of the best-performing economies in Latin America are immune to the region’s current economic difficulties. On the other hand, successful efforts have pushed illegal activities into increasingly consolidated areas, such as Colombia’s Pacific region, making them easier to control. The imminent peace agreement with the FARC will ostensibly remove one of the major players in both illegal mining and all facets of coca commercialization from the equation, and officials hope that the legalization of medical marijuana will further restrict illicit revenue streams.[23] The fact remains that the larger problem is fundamentally external, with the majority of the coca being processed and exported to satisfy demand in Europe and North America.[24]

In the short term, Colombia can combine its actions against coca and illegal mining to address the common source; this would not only be more effective, but also more efficient, especially in light of continually shrinking budgets. Illegal mining has only recently begun to be studied at a deeper level, and this must be encouraged to continue in order to develop an appropriate response to the situation.[25] In addition, more action can then be taken against illegal mining along with stricter regulations on gold sales.

As FIP points out, all presidents have bad years in the battle against coca, including the notoriously heavy-handed ex-president Álvaro Uribe.[26] A more comprehensive treatment of the issue now will elude the kind of violence that Uribe resorted to in his time and help propel Colombia into a new era of peace and prosperity.

*Joseph Green, Extramural Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[1] El Espectador, ¿Por qué Colombia volvió a ser el mayor productor de coca en el mundo?, July 8, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/judicial/colombia-volvio-ser-el-mayor-productor-de-coca-elmundo-articulo-642227

[2] Daniel Rico Valencia, 96.000 hectáreas de coca, y sumando, Fundación Ideas para la Paz, July 12, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.ideaspaz.org/publications/posts/1359

[3] Jhon Torres Martínez, Minería ilegal en Colombia: Nuevos desiertos avanzan detrás de la fiebre del oro, El Tiempo, December 17, 2015. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.eltiempo.com/multimedia/especiales/mineria-ilegal-en-colombia-nuevos-desiertos-avanzan-detras-de-la-fiebre-del-oro/16460299

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Frédéric Massé and Juan Munevar, Due Diligence in Colombia’s Gold Supply Chain, OEDC, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/Colombia-gold-supply-chain-overview.pdf

[7] UNODC, Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2015, July 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Monitoreo_Cultivos_ilicitos_2015.pdf

[8] UNODC, New Colombia report sheds light on link between gold extraction and criminal activities, August 9, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2016/August/new-colombia-report-sheds-light-on-link-between-gold-extraction-and-criminal-activities.html?ref=fs1

[9] UNODC, Colombia: Explotación de oro de aluvión, Evidencias a partir de percepción remota, June 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/colombia/2016/junio/Explotacion_de_Oro_de_Aluvion.pdf

[10] Daniel Rico Valencia, 96.000 hectáreas de coca, y sumando, Fundación Ideas para la Paz, July 12, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.ideaspaz.org/publications/posts/1359

[11] Susan Grant and Chris Vidler, Economics in Context (London: Heinemann, 2000), 42

[12] UNODC, Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey 2006, June 2007. Accessed August 15, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/icmp/colombia_2006_en_web.pdf

[13] UNODC, Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2010, July 2011. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Colombia-cocasurvey2010_es.pdf

[14] UNODC, Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey 2012, June 2013. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Colombia_Coca_Cultivation_Survey_2012_web.pdf

[15] UNODC, Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey 2013, June 2014. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Colombia_coca_cultivation_survey_2013.pdf

[16] UNODC, Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey 2014, July 2015. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/censo_INGLES_2014_WEB.pdf

[17] UNODC, Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2015, July 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Monitoreo_Cultivos_ilicitos_2015.pdf

[18] Gold Price, Gold Price. Accessed August 15, 2016. http://goldprice.org/

[19] SIMCO, Historico de Producción de Oro. Accessed August 15, 2016. http://www.upme.gov.co/generadorconsultas/Consulta_Series.aspx?idModulo=4&tipoSerie=116&grupo=355

[20] UNODC, Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2015, July 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Monitoreo_Cultivos_ilicitos_2015.pdf

[21] Jhon Torres Martínez, Minería ilegal en Colombia: Nuevos desiertos avanzan detrás de la fiebre del oro, El Tiempo, December 17, 2015. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.eltiempo.com/multimedia/especiales/mineria-ilegal-en-colombia-nuevos-desiertos-avanzan-detras-de-la-fiebre-del-oro/16460299

[22] Pedro Vargas, Así ‘lavan’ el oro de la minería ilegal en el país, Portafolio, June 10, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.portafolio.co/economia/gobierno/lavan-oro-mineria-ilegal-pais-497191

[23] Ezra Kaplan, Colombia’s New, Legal Drug Barons Focus on Medical Marijuana, The New York Times, August 4, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/business/international/colombia-medical-marijuana-drugs.html?_r=0

[24] UNODC, The Global Cocaine Market, World Drug Report 2010. Accessed August 14, 2016. https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/1.3_The_globa_cocaine_market.pdf

[25] UNODC, Colombia: Explotación de oro de aluvión, Evidencias a partir de percepción remota, June 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents/colombia/2016/junio/Explotacion_de_Oro_de_Aluvion.pdf

[26] Daniel Rico Valencia, 96.000 hectáreas de coca, y sumando, Fundación Ideas para la Paz, July 12, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2016. http://www.ideaspaz.org/publications/posts/1359

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images