On October 5, 2016, the UN Security Council unanimously chose António Guterres to be the next Secretary General of the world organization. Late this month, the General Assembly will formally select Mr. Guterres to replace the outgoing Ban Ki-Moon as of January, 2017.

By all indications, this is an exciting new development for the UN, which is in dire need of an energetic and visionary new leader to steer the UN in the right direction. Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal who served for ten years as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has the right credentials to assume the UN’s mantle in an era marked with multiple crises, unresolved conflicts, rampant global poverty and inequality, growing North-South divide, and a tsunami of mass refugees. A socialist with an impressive background in European parliamentary affairs, Guterres is likely to seek a greater involvement of the General Assembly in key UN decisions hitherto reserved for the (elitist) Security Council, to distinguish himself from Ban as a more independent Secretary General who is less apt to be influenced by Washington decision-makers, and to focus on UN’s economic input in global affairs for the sake of reducing poverty and inequality and closing the various gender, education and other similar gaps and to prioritize climate change.

Under Ban, the UN largely turned into a bystander in many crucial global issues and according to some UN insiders the whole bureaucratic headquarter in New York suffered from an “internal malaise” that was partly due to a subtle politics of Americo-centrism followed by both Ban and, before him, Kofi Annan. This will hopefully change to some degree and Mr. Guterres will be able to leave his mark on the UN as a representative of the global community who does not owe his allegiance to any particular country or big power.

Undoubtedly, given his background with refugees, Guterres will be prioritizing the plight of some 60 million refugees in the world today, whose numbers might increase substantially with the continuation of crises such as in the Middle East and Africa, which in turn mandate a more robust UN peacekeeping and peace-making posture. Compared to Ban who has been relatively ineffectual, and at times invisible, with respect to Syria, Guterres can likely make an early impression as an astute leader by actively searching for sustainable peace in Syria, which requires working closely with all the members of Security Council as well as the regional stakeholders in the Syrian conflict. That conflict has the potential to spiral out of control if the US decides to hit the Syrian army, backed by Russia, which can then pose a grave threat to world peace.

As a European politician with leftist orientation, Guterres’s choice is likely welcomed by Russia and China, and he can make some inroads in the current icy Russia-West relations. On issues of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, the next UN Secretary General can take some proactive steps, such as by vigorously pushing for a much-delayed conference on a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone.

A big question mark regarding Guterres is if he will succeed in initiating any meaningful UN management reform and streamlining the decision-process in the UN hierarchy? Guterres has a superb background in reforming the UN refugee agency and can now apply that experience to the entire organization. The UN is a constantly under-budgeted and over-committed organization, with so many peacekeeping operations that swallow a lion share of its annual budget, and it is therefore incumbent on the next Secretary General to explore creative venues to substantially increase the UN’s budget in order to tackle the numerous priorities, challenges and opportunities, facing Mr. Guterres as he prepares to steer the ship of UN through the turbulent waters of global affairs today.

Without doubt, Mr. Guterres will not single-handedly perform miracles as the next UN Secretary General and his tenure will likely be constrained by the limitations of UN itself, as an inter-governmental agency beholden to the big powers, yet as a skillful politician with a deep commitment to humanitarian causes, Guterres can achieve a great deal by simply optimizing the UN resources at his disposal.

This article was published at Iranian Diplomacy

Does USA love Russia or Russia love USA? Can an American President love a Russian counterpart any time in the future? The USA and Russia are strongest foes with largest terror arsenals and their missiles target each other. The only plus point for them is that both are UN veto members, strategically controlling the world.

American media is filled with unbelievable stories about US presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s reverence for Russian president Vladimir Putin – former KGB intelligence officer who later in his career worked for KGB in Germany before he was handpicked by the new and first post-Soviet Russian president Boris Yelstsin to succeed him. Russia, Americans say, is frequently at odds with American interests on the world stage.

Is Trump all that committed on his pronouncements on Russian policy? Is there any creditable evidence that he has received Russian money? Are Trump’s business interests in Russia really all that significant?

Basically, Trump is an American hawk, while Putin is a Russian variety of this character. Trump may have business interests in Russia that Putin may back. Apart from that, Trump may have liked the boldness, stubbornness and thoroughness of Russian president.

Recently, Republican Donald Trump said he is not sure what kind of relationship he would have with Russian President Putin if he is elected US president.

Democrats have consistently mocked Trump’s past remarks in praise of the Russian strongman, the latest instance coming from vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine.

Donald Trump pushed back on Hillary Clinton’s accusation that he’s cozying up to Putin after the charge put Trump’s running mate on the defensive during the vice presidential debate. The billionaire Trump sought to take away an argument that Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, have ramped up in the final weeks of the campaign as they work to portray Trump as dangerous for American interests overseas. While US-Russia relations nosedive over failed diplomacy in Syria, Trump has complimented Putin, calling him a strong leader and even encouraging him to track down Clinton’s missing emails, though Trump later said he was being sarcastic.

The celebrity businessman said his relationship with Russia’s leader would be determined by how Moscow responds to strong US leadership under a Trump administration. “They say Donald Trump loves Putin. I don’t love, I don’t hate. We’ll see how it works,” Trump told a rally outside Las Vegas. Speaking before an estimated crowd of 7,000 in Henderson, Nev., a Las Vegas suburb, Trump said he could not predict the type of relationship he would have with Putin.

Trump was on the campaign trail, making several stops across Nevada. Taking the stage in Henderson, Nev., Trump took his own victory lap for Pence’s performance, which he called “phenomenal.”

Clinton shrugged that off, saying Trump has weird fascination with dictators. “My opponent seems not to know the difference between an ally and adversary,” Clinton said at an evening fundraiser in Washington. “You guys love Russia,” Democratic VP candidate Kaine said in Tuesday’s debate. In a forceful rebuke, Pence described Putin as a “small and bullying leader” but blamed Clinton and President Barack Obama for a “weak and feckless” foreign policy that had awakened Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine and meddling in the Middle East. Pence’s cool demeanor contrasted with Trump’s bluster during his own, top-of-the-ticket showdown against Clinton. However strong Pence’s performance, Trump made clear he considers it a reflection of himself.

During the debate, Trump’s running mate Gov. Mike Pence, who has defended Trump’s praise of Putin, backed away from Trump’s previous praise for Putin, calling the Russian president a “small and bullying” leader.

Trump and Russia

Russia, by whatever yardstick is in vogue, prefers Trump if for no other reason than it hates Hillary Clinton because of her alleged foreign policy interventionist views. But Russian officials are also worried by the disruptive potential of a Trump presidency, specifically about his fulfillment of even some of his chaotic promises.

Vladimir Putin clearly is pleased with Trump’s praise of him, such as saying that Putin has been a better leader than Barack Obama. And the Kremlin is thrilled by Trump’s statements deriding NATO, applauding the British decision to leave the European Union and suggesting that America might not defend allies threatened by Russia.
Stylistically Trump is Putin’s type. Trump seems to Moscow at this point unlikely to put politically correct talk of “Western values” ahead of “our mutual and shared interests.” That he may well harm the Western alliance in the process is a most welcome bonus. Trump will smash America as the Russians currently perceive it. There is little doubt (at least as expressed on Radio Moscow) that Trump’s use of advisers who are sympathetic to Moscow is welcome.

Trump’s views on America’s role in the world completely align with the very fervent hopes Russia has. If reports on Radio Moscow are any guide, there is some understanding of Trump’s unpredictability — that is, just about everything is unknown. While Hillary Clinton is viewed as fiercely anti-Russian, she is nonetheless a familiar figure, and there is some grudging respect. She if elected would just pursue the Bush-Obama imperialist policies abroad.

Donald Trump shows himself to inhabit a fantastical realm where Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked, the president founded ISIS, the Clintons are killers and the father of a former rival was with Lee Harvey Oswald before he assassinated John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

Americans feel depressed that their President Obama does not enjoy the benefits of hard power like Turkish or Russian presidents do. The deeper worry, therefore, is for Russia and Turkey, where “autocrats” use the techniques of post-truth to silence opposing opinions deemed unacceptable by some. In USA, the Congress itself is a hoax, behaves like a collective autocrat.

The USA and Russia back opposing sides in Syria’s civil war but both are fighting the Islamic State group there. The USA cut off talks with Russia about Syria this week after the latest cease-fire collapsed, blaming Russia for failing to fulfill its commitments under the deal. “I can say this: If we get along and Russia went out with us and knocked the hell out of ISIS, that’s OK with me folks,” Trump said, using an acronym for the extremist group.

Democrat Kaine acknowledged that even his wife gave him a hard time for his constant interruptions during the debate. But Kaine said he was effectively able to block Republican VP candidate Pence from attacking Clinton. “I’ve never played hockey but I think I’d be a good goalie, based on last night,” he said.

Vice-presidential debates don’t typically change the course of an election, but this one could be different if Trump heeds its lessons in his next debate. The Republican has slid in the polls since the first debate by getting lost in dead-end issues and self-indulgent Twitter bursts. Pence are a former radio talk show host, and it showed with his cool, articulate delivery. His earnest, low-key demeanor was a notable contrast to Tim Kaine, whose strategy seemed to be to interrupt Pence at every opportunity.

Foreign policy

Foreign policy remains the key area of US interests but it is strange foreign policy maters have not yet entered the debates of the presidential hopefuls. Only Trumps love for Russia has been debated in a vague manner without any perspectives.

Hillary and Trump have not discussed the rationale for the permanent war agenda of USA and NATO. Nor do they say anything in detail about the US aid to third world underdeveloped nations. Disarmament or denuclearization issues have not come up in debates and speeches even by mistake.

The most notable substantive exchanges occurred on foreign policy, with Republican VP candidate Pence offering a ¬detailed critique of Barack Obama’s record and growing global disorder. Democrat VP mate Kaine kept saying Clinton was part of the team that killed Osama bin Laden, but that is old anti-terror news. Pence replied that the main terror threat now was Islamic State, which he said grew out of “the vacuum” left when Obama withdrew all US troops from Iraq.

Notable was the debate on Russia, with Kaine claiming that Trump has business ties with “oligarchs” that cause him to apologize for Vladimir Putin. Trump’s admiration for Putin is mysterious and worrisome. But Pence pointed out Clinton’s hawkishness-come-lately on Russia follows years of weak ¬policy that invited Putin’s aggression. Pence reminded the audience what a classic Republican security policy sounds like — if only Trump would adopt it.

For the most part Pence dodged this trap, going back on offence against the Clinton-Obama record rather than ¬defend every Trump statement, many of which are indefensible. This is a useful lesson for Trump to take into the next debate, a town hall in which audience members will ask the questions. People want to like their presidents.

At least henceforth the presidential candidates must discuss the future war plans of USA and when they should end terror wars for fun and resources, declare a credible plan to withdraw all its terror troops from foreign soils.

Observation

The big moment for their running mates behind them, both Democratic Hillary and Republican Trump are shifting focus back to each other — and to Sunday’s debate, the second of three showdowns between the nominees. The debate is very critical for Trump. Since last week’s debate, Trump has faced a barrage of questions over a leaked tax return showing he lost more than $900 million in 1995. In turn, he’s sought to reframe his life story as a comeback tale he hopes to recreate on behalf of a faltering nation. “America needs a turnaround. American needs a comeback. America needs a change. And that’s why I’m running,” Trump said.

If Republican Trump could make the case for Donald Trump half as well as his ally Mike Pence makes the case for Donald Trump, the New Yorker would be well on his way to the White House.

Also, a latest opinion poll suggests that Republican Trump is ahead of Hillary by 2. 5 points and this trend is likely to go up as poll date approaches. These days, possibly in order to help shoot up the rating of Obama and Clinton Hillary, many TV channels relays Hollywood movies where Black Americans play lead hero role or positive rules to help the White American heroes, among others and naturally the rating of Obama is sound.

Russia gives every appearance of hoping that the presidential run by Republican Donald Trump will prove successful and there is every indication that the Kremlin wants to give him a boost. Russia has made a lukewarm confession of hacking the emails from the Democratic National Committee that appeared on WikiLeaks. Surely this must be a covert Russian operation designed specifically to sow distrust in our elections. Put another way, Trump may well have become an agent of the Russian Federation.

Being cast adrift in ever expanding ocean of American lies spread and “democratize” in order to invade Muslim nations, the American people may well end up with nothing to cling to. This in itself may well end up in old-fashioned oppression in USA. Ukraine’s ex-president Vicktor Yanukovych, a Kremlin ally, recently made a speech in which he denounced America’s hypocritical focus on democratization in all its forms.

The point Democrats are busy driving to the public is to remind Americans that Trump can be crude, nasty and untutored. This fits the Clinton strategy to delegitimize Trump personally as a ¬potential president. His affirmative case for Clinton and her agenda were ¬almost afterthoughts.

Regardless of who takes the White House come November, Russia’s very presence at the center of American electoral politics is celebrated in Moscow. here is wholesale denying of meddling in Moscow; the accusations nonetheless reinforce the sense of Putin’s power. The focus in Russia on the presidential campaign in America is construed to be a true and lasting acknowledgement that Russia has returned to the international arena. That surely must be what Putin really craves.

All said and done, if Trump is elected US president the limping US-Russian relations would develop smoothly. Putin and Trump could find a common language.

By Egle Murauskaite*

(FPRI) — On October 9^th Lithuania will hold parliamentary elections. With no major mobilizing issue or charismatic persona in the race, the populace is expecting more of the same. The governing Social Democrat party (Socialdemokratai) continues to lead in the latest polls with 16%, while at the same time 59% of respondents say they disapprove of the policies of the current government. Social Democrats have remained unpopular throughout their four-year term: ministers and influential members of the party were frequently criticized for corruption and favoritism in several public tenders, and the less-than-stellar public speaking skills of prime minister Algirdas Butkevičius are subject to countless internet memes. However, despite the gradual infusion of younger and more progressive political figures into the political scene, no other party has managed to position itself as a sufficiently credible and appealing alternative to the Social Democrats.

Disillusionment

Lithuania. January-August 2016 party ranking trends. Source: Delfi Lietuva, delfi.lt

In May of this year, an ongoing Security Services’ (STT) investigation into widespread political bribery by MG Baltic Group, one of the country’s largest local retail-wholesale businesses, implicated several prominent political figures. These major corruption scandals bear much of the blame for the current stagnant electoral climate, leaving lingering disillusionment with the political process as a whole.

First, allegations of bribery dealt a deadly blow to the Liberal Movement (Liberalų Sąjūdis) – formerly the second most popular party after major wins in the 2015 municipal elections, and a stronghold of supporters in Vilnius. Advocating a leaner government, a labor code allowing more flexible hiring and firing practices, and vocally supporting LGBT rights, the party was favored by urbanites, progressive intellectuals, and young entrepreneurs. In mid-May, the Liberals’ leader Eligijus Masiulis was questioned for allegedly taking 106,000 EUR in cash from MG Baltic Group in exchange for political favors. Masiulis swiftly withdrew from the party, but the interim chairman Antanas Guoga – a member of the European Parliament who had made his fortunes in a gambling business – also resigned within days, following PR gaffes and a failure to garner internal party support. These events resulted in a dramatic loss of face for a party that had positioned itself as an alternative to the old systemic cronyism and prided itself on its modern values.

Liberals were not the only ones caught up in the bribery scandal, however. Later in May Vytautas Gapšys, the deputy leader of the populist Labor Party (Darbo partija) faced allegations of receiving 25,000 EUR in discounts for political advertising on the media controlled by the same MG Baltic Group in exchange for pushing legislation favorable to the company. Investigation of this large political corruption scandal exposed the involvement of the head of the State Food and Veterinary Service in a cover up of the presence of listeria at a major frozen goods manufacturer, Judex. The food company was revealed to be closely linked to Petras Gražulis, member of the populist Order and Justice Party (Tvarka ir teisingumas). STT’s efforts to shed more light on this far-reaching network of corruption have strengthened the impression that everyone across the political spectrum is tainted.

Over the summer public discussion of the upcoming elections effectively ceased. Most parties are barely investing any money into campaigning, with candidates largely sticking to door-to-door campaigning and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, as they are keenly aware of the possibility of being swept up in another scandal.

Debates

Lithuania. Mid-September Polling Data. Source: Delfi.lt

September marks the season of public debates, and laudable attempts by a number of opinion leaders to flesh out the content behind different party programs and encourage voter participation. With only days remaining before the election, one prominent commentator went as far as to encourage the supporters of Liberal and Conservative parties to reach out to people they know to hold opposing political views and, instead of trying to convert them, simply urge them to vote for the “lesser evil” among the choices at the other end of the political spectrum.

Several prominent journalists and youth activists undertook a new initiative, volunteering to organize and moderate public debate events among local candidates in 59 of the country’s provinces. Many of these journalists subsequently noted the lack of quality content, with competing candidates unable to describe any major achievements from their time in office, yet making the populist promises of welfare increases, raising pensions and wages, and initiating education reforms. They were not able to identify how they would fund these new initiatives, but categorically rejected tax increases.

The Institute of International Relations in Vilnius (TSPMI) curated another notable new initiative – public forums for political parties to launch their official electoral programs, with critical assessments by prominent academics. In addition, for nearly a decade TSPMI has also been running an online questionnaire manobalsas.lt (“my vote”) designed to show respondents which political party most closely matches their values and views.

In the national debates traditionally held on live TV, the five leading parties focused on the usual questions of how to stimulate the economy, attract foreign investment, and stop mass emigration and encourage return of the diaspora.  Traditional family issues – such as the treatment of LGBT couples, abortion, and the country’s demographic decline – were also high on the electoral agenda.

Following these televised debates, most analysts pointed to Gabrielius Landsbergis, the chairman of the Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats (Tėvynės sąjunga – Lietuvos krikščionys demokratai), as the most serious challenger to the sitting prime minister. The grandchild of Vytautas Landsbergis, who was head of Sąjūdis and of one of the most seasoned politicians in Lithuania, cut his teeth as a young politician at the European Parliament. Together with other Christian Democrats of his generation, he is now vying for the votes of the former supporters of the Liberal Movement. His image of a progressive stands in contrast to the party’s hard line on socially conservative family values, a position that risks losing the votes of people under the age of 45 because of issues like abortions and LGBT rights. Meanwhile, the Peasant and Greens Union (Valstiečių ir žaliųjų sąjunga), though lacking in charismatic personalities, seems to be quietly gaining popularity by simply staying out of the limelight.

The Peasant-Greens have gained popularity in the provinces by actively promoting sobriety- given that alcoholism is a big problem in rural Lithuania – and are seriously vying for the second place with the Christian Democrats. With an electoral platform promising to recruit private sector professionals for ministerial appointments, the Peasant-Greens will likely be decisive in shaping a coalition government together with the Social Democrats.

Defense

Despite the widely perceived rise in the level of threat and mounting provocations from Russia over the past several years, national security and defense questions are not considered key election issues. The military was never a popular institution in Lithuania, with lingering horror stories of Lithuanians who served in the Soviet army and strong support for the concept of peaceful resistance. Mounting pressure to meet NATO’s 2% GDP defense budget requirement and recent reintroduction of conscription was already a stretch.

At the end of August, another unfortunate instance involving incompetent public procurements surfaced. Dubbed the “golden forks’ scandal,” it became known that a large portion of the first increase in the national defense budget in 2014 was spent on procuring kitchen utensils for the field units – rather than investing in arms or military equipment; in addition, it turned out the utensils were procured at tens or hundreds of times the market rate. This further damaged the image of the military in the public eye, making further defense budget increases an ever harder sell.

Nevertheless, there were also positive developments regarding military policy. These included defense and security policy items making it into electoral programs of the Peasant-Greens and the Liberals for the first time. Traditionally, only the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats had a public stance on defense. Another laudable development was a public debate at Vilnius city hall on national security issues, with candidates across the political spectrum running in the Old Town (Senamiestis) constituency. Most of them identified the need for greater civil engagement and awareness of geopolitical issues as the top national security priority, and failure to participate fully in the European project as the greatest long-term threat.

Interestingly, candidates who actively address defense and security issues are mostly former members of Sąjūdis, the movement famed for victorious peaceful resistance to the Soviet Union, who are now in their 50s-60s, and are concentrated in nationalist political parties that typically attract no more than 1-2% of the vote. Many of these figures favor introducing military training and civic education promoting national pride at schools, and otherwise look to promote a strong Lithuanian identity, which sometimes deteriorates into extremes.

Outlook

Overall, these parliamentary elections in Lithuania will likely see a low turnout and result in a coalition government, continuing with conservative economic policies and limited change regarding defense policy. The country will have to wait another four years for a party or a politician with a visionary agenda that could mobilize voters and lead to systemic change.

About the author:
*Egle Murauskaite is a Nonresident Fellow with the ICONS Project at the University of Maryland. Her research is focused on international security issues and unconventional threats, particularly those related to CBRN weapons and materials. Presently based in Lithuania, she also covers a broad spectrum of regional security issues, including assessing NATO’s security assurances in the changing geopolitical context. Her analyses have been published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Arms Control Today, the Middle East Journal, Peace and Conflict Studies Journal, and Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review. Ms. Murauskaite has also developed courses, workshops, and other training curricula (online and in person) for professionals and academics, exploring different aspects of CBRN-related threats.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

By Lisa Ferdinando

Russia’s alleged violations of airspace in the Nordic-Baltic region are unacceptable, dangerous and unprofessional, US Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said, after both Finland and Estonia accused Russia of breaches.

“Airplanes operating in the same airspace as commercial airliners in an unsafe manner is totally unsatisfactory,” Work said in a press conference here today after meeting with delegates from eight Nordic-Baltic nations.

The talks, Work said, encompassed regional security issues, such as concerns over Russian behavior in the Baltic Sea. In addition, the discussions sought ways to increase defense cooperation, and included updates on the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, he noted.

Work arrived in the Finnish capital Thursday — the same day the Nordic nation said Russia violated its airspace in two separate incidents. Later, Estonia accused Russia of illegally entering its airspace.

“There is absolutely no justification for it,” Work said of the airspace violations.

“Regardless of the timing, regardless of the circumstance, these are unsatisfactory maneuvers that are unsafe [and] unprofessional,” he said. “Hopeful we’ll be able to see a moderation in them to avoid an accident or a tragic occurrence.”

The United States and all the countries in the Nordic-Baltic region are concerned about such actions, he said, adding, “Unfortunately these are becoming the norm rather than the exception.”

Strengthening Partnership in the Region

Work praised the strong U.S. relationship with the countries in attendance at the U.S.-Nordic-Baltic forum: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden.

The purpose of the gathering was to further enhance bilateral and multilateral security cooperation and interoperability, he said. Previous Nordic-Baltic discussions were held in Oslo, Norway, and Stockholm, Sweden.

“This is a very challenging security environment for all the nations in the region,” Work said. “From defeating ISIL to dealing with a more aggressive Russia, we have a lot to do — and the best way to address these challenges is together, which is exactly why this forum was formed and exactly why it is performing such important work.”

Strengthening US-Finnish Defense Cooperation

In addition to the talks with the Nordic-Baltic nations, Work met separately with Finnish Defense Minister Jussi Niinisto. They signed a statement of intent to further strengthen collaboration on defense issues.

“It expresses our shared desire to cooperate on security issues of mutual concern and to ensure that our militaries can work together to confront issues of mutual concern,” Work said.

Even though the statement of intent is not legally binding, it is meant to memorialize the commitment for the next U.S. presidential administration to continue, the deputy secretary said.

US-Finland-Sweden Trilateral

Before wrapping up the day’s talks, Work participated in a first of its kind U.S.-Finland-Sweden trilateral meeting.

Work, Finnish Defense Secretary Jukka Juusti and Swedish Defense Secretary Jan Salestrand agreed to additional trilateral sessions at a working level in Washington later this year, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Gordon Trowbridge said.

Earlier in the day, Work visited with members of the Finnish Coast Guard and toured Finland’s newest ice capable patrol vessel. Before heading off to the series of meetings, Work paid a visit to Finnish President Sauli Niinisto and thanked him for Finland’s contributions to the counter-ISIL campaign, peacekeeping operations and regional security.

Round 2, let’s fight! Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are back for a second bite at the title this Sunday. Both were marred by scandalous revelations on Friday. This debate will be in the town hall format with the audience asking questions.

From Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, this Sunday, October 9 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, the major political party nominees for president face off for the second time. There will be a first time face-off as well, with undecided voters challenging the candidates on the issues.

Again organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, this event will differ in several ways from the first debate a worldwide audience witnessed less than two weeks ago. Not only will the audience, chosen by the Gallup Organization, be asking half of all the questions, but there will be two moderators, Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC News, instead of just one to handle the remainder.

Like the previous debate, this one will run for 90 minutes without any breaks. It will be aired on all the top networks except for NBC, which will be presenting NFL football, a serious competitor for viewers.

As of Friday, the Real Clear Politics average of national election polls dated back to September 26 shows Clinton leading Trump by four-and-a-half points, 48.3 to 43.8 percent. And no, the third-party presidential candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein, did not improve their numbers to the level the debate commission requires for a spot in the debate. In polls released Friday from Quinnipiac and Rasmussen, Johnson was at 6 and 7 percent, while Dr. Stein garnered 3 and 2 percent, respectively.

However, since Friday both candidates have been marred with separate scandals:

Hillary’s leaked Wall St. speech in which she claimed her and Bill’s “fortunes” allowed them to “enjoy” a lifestyle “far removed” from the middle class, and Trump’s 2005 hot mic “Grab them by the p***y” bombshell could have a significant impact on poll numbers.

This unpredictable election cycle continues to heat up, and the rules of the campaign trail are still being rewritten. Sometimes whole new roads to the White House come under construction without warning.

One example is the state of North Dakota, long considered a safe haven for Republican presidential candidates. That red state, however, seems to be veering toward battleground status, as RT’s Ed Schultz hosted a political town hall in Fargo on Thursday night.

The candidates are expected to address some of the most important issues facing America, such as climate change, gun control and social security, but don’t be surprised if Trump’s stance on women (i.e. hot mic) and Clinton’s never-ending email debacle are brought up too.

“I hope that unlike the first debate, there’s actually real discussion over things Americans care about,” Ryan Girdusky of RedAlertPolitics.com told RT on Friday. But he isn’t holding his breath.

“I think Trump is going to be a lot more of an attack dog. I think there’s going to be a lot more training under [vice presidential running mate] Mike Pence and consultation under [campaign manager] Kellyanne [Conway].”

“And I think what Hillary is going to do is try to stick to the Clinton playbook of make Trump go down a rabbit hole,” Girdusky added. “Talk about his taxes, talk about his affairs, his relationships, talk about his money, talk about his hair, who knows, but get him away from the issues.”

Whatever happens Sunday night, it will determine how much momentum each candidate has with the homestretch in sight. The election will be just four weeks away, with the final debate taking place Wednesday, October 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

According to a Politico report, Clinton is by far best positioned to steer the direction of the final days of the presidential race. Her campaign and affiliated accounts have $150 million on hand as of early October, in addition to $80 million already set aside for TV ads as well as more money for direct voter outreach. The report calculates the Clinton camp can afford to spend almost $5 million every single day ahead of November 8, and that does not count the Democratic National Committee coffers of around $11.5 million, from September reports, or the Priorities USA Action Super PAC, which began September with $40 million.

The real estate tycoon, however, reported just $38 million at the start of September, compared to the Republican National Committee with $40.5 million, Politico reported. Other committees supporting Trump have not reported their totals since July.

The Catholic political advocacy group CatholicVote.org has joined calls for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to step down following his lewd comments about women in a leaked audio recording from 2005.

“Newly released comments by Donald Trump…are disgusting and simply indefensible,” the organization wrote in an Oct. 8 statement. “Catholic voters rightly will be unnerved by these developments.”

“In our own opinion the viability of Donald Trump’s candidacy is now in question. Furthermore, the good many hoped to achieve, in spite of Trump’s many well-known flaws, is also now in doubt. If Donald Trump is unwilling to step aside, the Republican National Committee must act soon out of basic decency and self-preservation.”

CatholicVote.org isn’t the only organization calling for Trump to step down from presidential race. Many leading Republicans have withdrawn their endorsements of Trump following the leak.

Trump told the Wall Street Journal Saturday that despite these calls to step down, there is “zero chance I’ll quit.”

In the leaked video, Trump uses graphic language in bragging to “Access Hollywood’s” Billy Bush about kissing, groping and trying to seduce married women. Trump tells Bush “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”

CatholicVote.org has said Trump’s comments in the recording are indefensible.

“Christians should not waste their breath defending them,” the organization said. “The mere fact that this conversation is occurring in the context of a presidential campaign impoverishes us all.”

Until now, Catholics have had mixed reactions to the GOP candidate. Pro-life advocates have questioned Trump’s commitment to the pro-life cause, due to his strong pro-choice statements in 1999 and 2000. Trump has also described his sister Maryanne Trump Barry as an ideal Supreme Court nominee, despite her striking down New Jersey’s ban on partial-birth abortions as a judge.

And while the GOP candidate says he opposes same-sex marriage, he has attracted criticism from defense-of-marriage groups who note that he has bragged in the past about having affairs with other married women. Additionally, Trump’s casino was the first in Atlantic City to have an in-house strip club.

1. Hillary Clinton is elected President.

2. Democrats take over the Senate, and reduce the Republican margin in the House to just 3 votes.

3. Elizabeth Warren announces she’ll challenge Hillary in the 2020 Democratic primaries if Hillary isn’t sufficiently progressive and bold during her first term.

4. The Democratic National Committee issues new rules eliminating “superdelegates” and requiring open primaries.

5. In her inaugural address, Hillary Clinton promises to “wrest back control of our democracy and economy from the moneyed interests that have taken over both.”

6. President Hillary Clinton nominates Barack Obama to the Supreme Court, who immediately pledges to reverse “Citizens United.” Senate Democrats make a rule change that allows Obama to be confirmed with 51 Senate votes. He is.

7. President Clinton nominates Bernie Sanders for Treasury Secretary and Michelle Obama for Attorney General. Both are immediately confirmed.

8. The chairman of the Republican Party officially repudiates Donald Trump, saying “shame on us for having nominated him.” Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Pence appear in a joint news conference in which they apologize for having ever supported Trump.

9. Disgraced and with his brand in tatters, the value of Trump’s properties drops 80 percent. His creditors demand that his personal assets – homes, planes, furniture, all he possesses – be liquidated to pay his bills.

10. Rupert Murdoch fires Sean Hannity from Fox News.

Magnolia Public Schools, one of the crown jewels of Fethullah Gülen’s U.S. charter school empire, prides itself on a rigorous math and science curriculum. But despite all their boasting of excellence in these subjects, the school’s finances display some incredibly shady calculus.

Like all charter schools, Magnolia’s ten institutions in California receive their funding from taxpayers, making the countless cases of misappropriation a matter of public concern. Earlier this year, Amsterdam & Partners LLP filed a formal complaint against Magnolia Public Schools after a state audit was unable to verify the propriety of nearly 70% of the network’s financial transactions. That is a shockingly high, unacceptable number.

Magnolia’s CEO, Caprice Young, has repeatedly sought to derail investigations into the network’s misconduct – including the use of gag orders from the school’s legal team.

In June, facing possible loss of more charters over concerns of this misconduct, Magnolia urged its students, parents, and alumni to protest at the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles in order to deflect attention from the financial and visa fraud that run rampant within the school system. They even provided all kinds of incentives including transportation, meals, and freebies. Disgraceful as it may be, this willingness to use unwitting pupils as human shieldsshould come as no surprise give the history of this organization.

Having served as Magnolia’s CEO for a little under two years, Caprice Young commands a yearly salary of $236,000, well over the average US public school superintendent salary of $112,000, though still below that of Michelle King, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), who brings in $350,000.

Ms. King, however, oversees the nation’s second largest school district, serving nearly 640,000 students throughout LA County. To put that in context, Young serves just over 3,400 students across Magnolia’s ten California schools.

The per capita differential between these two salaries, both paid by California taxpayers, is astounding.  King serves 168 times as many students as Young, but receives just 1.4 times her pay. That comes out to a salary of about 55 cents per pupil, compared to Young’s $69 per pupil.

Young’s exorbitant salary is far from the only example of the Magnolia’s wasteful application of public funds. State auditors found that the school network has spent hundreds of thousands on immigration lawyers to import instructors and administrators from Turkey on dubious grounds – many of whom lack basic English language skills to teach courses. Like other Gülen school networks, Magnolia cites an apparent – and unsubstantiated – lack of qualified teachers in the US as its reason for hiring a disproportionate number of Turkish nationals.

Like Young, these imported teachers are paid with taxpayer dollars and can often be trusted to “donate” a significant portion of their salary back to Fethullah Gülen’s movement, or directed toward the political campaigns of certain officials at the local, state, and federal level. This money laundering scheme occurs on an even greater scale through the conferral of massive contracts to Gülen-affiliated vendors.

But don’t take my word for it; just look at the records.  In but one example, Magnolia handed a $700,000 annual contract to the Accord Institute for Educational Research, an educational services vendor founded by the then-CEO of Magnolia, Suleyman Bahceci. After awarding the inflated contract, Bahceci left Magnolia to take over as CEO of Accord and reap the profits. The degree of overlap between Magnolia and Accord’s upper management effectively meant Magnolia was operating as both a public educational and a corporate entity. This contract, like countless others we have observed throughout Gülen’s schools, represented an illicit shuffling of taxpayer funds from a public school to a private enterprise.

Caprice Young has taken Magnolia on the offensive in an attempt to mask these glaring irregularities, but California residents deserve to know how their money is being spent. Magnolia’s methodology follows that of all Gülen schools. The network funnels public funds toward the Hizmet, uses an intricate web of shell companies and intermediaries to obfuscate the process and dodge accountability, and ensures a hefty personal profit for upper management, all under the guise of filling the gaps in American education.

The California Department of Education owes a duty to its 39 million financiers to conduct a comprehensive investigation into Magnolia’s activities. The network has filed applications soliciting nearly $380 million for the establishment of eight new schools, and unless the State of California begins investigating Magnolia for its unlawful activities, taxpayers will continue to foot an ever greater bill.  This November, Magnolia is seeking to open even more campuses, where these same patterns of abuses are no doubt likely to continue.

For a school that tries to pretend it is very good a teaching math, they sure don’t know how to add up their books.

Though first documented 70 years ago, the Zika virus was poorly understood when it burst onto the scene in the Americas in 2015. In one of the first and largest studies of its kind, a research team lead by virologists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) has characterized the progression of two strains of the viral infection. The study, published online this week in Nature Medicine, revealed Zika’s rapid infection of the brain and nervous tissues, and provided evidence of risk for person-to-person transmission.

“We found, initially, that the virus replicated very rapidly and was cleared from the blood in most animals within ten days,” said corresponding author James B. Whitney, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research (CVVR) at BIDMC. “Nevertheless, we observed viral shedding in other bodily fluids such as spinal fluid, saliva, urine and semen, up to three weeks after the initial infection was already cleared.”

Whitney and colleagues infected 36 rhesus and cynomolgus macaques with strains of the Zika virus derived from Puerto Rico and Thailand. Over the next four weeks, the scientists tested blood, tissues, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and mucosal secretions for the presence of Zika virus, as well as monitored the immune response during early infection. Their data shed new light on the previously little-studied virus, and might help explain how Zika causes the devastating neurological complications seen in adults and unborn babies.

“Of particular concern, we saw extraordinarily high levels of Zika virus in the brain of some of the animals – the cerebellum, specifically – soon after infection,” said Whitney, who is also assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate member of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard. “Only one in five adults has noticeable symptoms of infection. However, if our data translate to humans, there may be need for enhanced clinical vigilance for any persons presenting with unusual neurological symptoms, and they should be tested for Zika infection.”

Like in humans, Zika infection in the experimental primates appeared relatively mild, producing fever and an increase in blood cells associated with the immune response. All recovered without intervention. But while the virus was cleared from the blood stream within ten days, the researchers observed Zika virus in urine as soon as two days after infection in some subjects. By the third day after infection, Zika was detectable in the saliva of up to half of the subjects, where it remained until the study ended at 28 days after infection.

“This underscores the need to understand what’s happening in anatomic reservoirs where the virus may hide for a long time,” said Whitney.

Early in infection, the researchers found high levels of Zika in the genital tracts of both sexes. Zika remained detectable in semen and in uterine tissues until the end of the study. The first sexually transmitted case of Zika in humans was documented in 2007, but these new findings suggest transmission may occur long after Zika symptoms – if they ever appeared – resolve. Because the researchers found high levels of the virus in semen and uterus, but little in vaginal secretions, the findings may also illuminate sexual transmission of Zika.

“We found that male-to-female transmission may be easier, while female-to-male may be less likely,” said Whitney. “Nonetheless, the high levels of Zika we observed in the uterus underscore the danger to a developing fetus.”

The new study also highlights the need for the rapid development of vaccines and therapies against the virus. Zika infection in pregnant women has been shown to lead to fetal microcephaly and other major birth defects. The World Health Organization declared the virus epidemic a global public health emergency on February 1, 2016.

The first debate between the Democratic and Republican US presidential nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, took place in New York State on September 26.

During the 90-minute debate, the candidates were trying to prove their vision of US foreign and domestic policy is the only right one; however analysts were unable to declare a clear winner.

The experts maintain that politicians avoided incorrect statements against each other and did not make factual errors while speaking, apart from some inaccuracies.

Hillary Clinton attacked her Republican rival’s credibility, saying that he is not possessing the proper temperament to be president. Donald Trump, meanwhile, accused the former Secretary of State of not being strong enough, reminding she was recently diagnosed with pneumonia.

According to the polls, the race is close: the main struggle is for the votes of undecided.

Commenting on the results of the debate, Daniel Chirot, the author of Modern Tyrants, Professor of Russian and Eurasian Studies at Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, said the consensus is that Hillary Clinton did a much better job that Donald Trump.

“However, that may not have much effect on voting because Trump supporters already know what he is like and were probably not surprised by his style — all bluster, no real facts, no specific policy proposals,” he told PenzaNews.

In his opinion, the pre-election atmosphere in the country seems unfavorable.

“This is ugliest presidential election in anyone living’s memory. The public mood is disheartened as neither candidate is popular. At the same time, the public mood is tense because the two candidates are farther apart from each other in temperament, mood, and experience than anything since the election of 1860 that resulted in America’s civil war,” Daniel Chirot explained.

The odds are that Clinton will win, but that is not certain as the polls indicate a close race, he said.

“If Clinton wins, we can expect a continuation of the moderate liberal policies of the Obama administrations, but also continued efforts by Republicans to block as much as possible. If Trump wins he is like to pick very right wing judges and national security advisers, and to try to destroy as many of the regulatory branches of the government as possible. There is a real possibility that the uncertainty and chaos that would result could provoke an economic disaster. Also, racial conflict will increase, and there will be politically motivated violence,” the analyst said.

“Those of us who follow world events are well aware that Russia’s President seems to think it would be good if Trump wins. But actually, having an unpredictable, uninformed, and poorly advised president creates many dangers, including an increased risk of war and worldwide depression, something no one should be eager to see. Of course America would be weakened, but nothing will change the fact that it will remain the world’s greatest economic and military power for some time to come, and if it follows disastrous policies, everyone, including Russia and China, will suffer,” he suggested.

In turn, political expert Arthur Lupia from University of Michigan noted that the Republican did not bad in the first round of debate.

“Expectations for Donald Trump were very low. He exceeded them. His most effective points were asking why someone who had been in politics so long had failed to solve major problems with the economy and foreign policy. His allusions to a growing number of people and organizations endorsing him were also effective in giving moderate and undecided a basis for rethinking his candidacy,” the expert said.

His weakest moments were likely his admission that he may not have paid any income tax and his comments about his own temperament, he added.

“[Former] Secretary of State was strong on making linkages to her middle class roots. I believe that she also benefited from the debate’s circus atmosphere. If the audience is as large as estimated, it is likely the largest audience she will have had as a presidential candidate. She was strong on details but inconsistent in relating her ‘plans’ to voters’ concerns. Her repetition of the word ‘plans’ inadvertently reinforced Trump’s ‘why have you waited so long’ narrative. There were a few cases in the later part of the debate where she became bogged down in details to her detriment. Her final responses on Trump’s temperament, her own stamina, and Trump’s views on women were strong and direct,” Arthur Lupia said.

According to him, a key flashpoint of the debate will likely be the tax return – email exchange.

“Hillary Clinton’s raising of numerous hypotheses about why Trump was not releasing his tax returns was brilliant stagecraft. By raising the ideas as questions, rather than making assertions, the presentation can set the stage for days of questioning about the topic. Trump’s attempt to bind the question to release of Secretary Clinton’s e-mails will mute the effectiveness of Trumps’ stagecraft with his supporters,” the political expert said.

From his point of view, there is a great deal of tension about the presidential race.

“At the same time, many people are enthusiastic and optimistic about visions for the country coming from a variety of state and local candidates. […] I would not declare a winner of the debate at this point, but given the quality of Secretary Clinton’s responses against the recent bumps in her campaign, I would expect her to gain a slight edge in polling as a result of the debate,” the analyst added.

Mark Sawyer, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), shared the opinion that during the first debate Democrat surpassed her rival.

“Hillary Clinton was sharp and on her game. Trump was woefully unprepared. Trump had a descent opening but trailed off when he started interrupting Clinton and was clearly unprepared on a number of issues. He spent minutes on things he should keep to a minimum like his lie that he was against the war in Iraq. Clinton started slow but had a commanding performance,” the expert said, adding that the election race atmosphere in the US is terrible.

“Donald Trump has mainstreamed racist, and sexist ideas spoken by himself and has embraced groups associated with white nationalists. He has also re-tweeted white nationalists racist memes,” Mark Sawyer stressed.

“I expect Clinton to win due to her experience and Trump’s lack of discipline,” he added.

In turn, Tinashe Chuchu from School of Economic and Business Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, said that from his point of view, Hillary Clinton won the debate.

“First, Hillary Clinton was able to bring Trump’s past statements on women which are a strong reminder to voters about some of Trump’s many flaws. Second Clinton brought Trumps taxes and put him on the defence. […] Moreover, Clinton scored a big point when she raised the ‘birther controversy.’ Most Americans despise Trump for accusing President Obama of not being born in America,” the leading University of South Africa expert said.

In his opinion, Trump did not do enough to bring in any new voters or change opinions of undecided voters because the temperament he had during the primaries is the same as the one had when he faced off with Clinton.

“This is not to say that he doesn’t have a lot of supporters. He has strong support but he’s childish antics of speaking over debate opponents, moderators and constant one-liners made for TV only appeal to his base supporters and not more moderate voters,” Tinashe Chuchu explained.

According to him, Hillary Clinton will likely perform better in three big swing states: Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio.

“Florida will likely swing in favor of Hillary Clinton due to the high Hispanic vote. Hispanics view Trump unfavorably because of his ‘I will build a wall’ remarks,” the expert said.

In his opinion, a Trump win will divide the country this is because he appeals to the most extreme elements of the country.

“His rallies have experienced racial tensions. It is well documented that his base supporters are anti-immigrant and clash with minorities. Meanwhile, a Hillary Clinton will probably keep the status quo. This is not to say the country will not be divided. Sure it will but it will look at lot like today since Clinton is viewed by most if not all that she will be a continuation of President Obama,” the analyst said.

“A Republican loss could be very devastating implying major changes to their ideologies, possibly becoming more inclusive of minorities. A Clinton loss would be less devastating but more embarrassing: she was a US senator and the US secretary of state, while Trump has never held elected public office with less than two years’ political experience. It would also be difficult for democrats to recover from such a loss,” he added.

According to Charles Henry, Professor Emeritus of African American Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, the debate did not change any votes from the core supporters of either candidate.

“However, I think that those voters who haven’t made up their mind might be more inclined to vote for Clinton, especially after Trump’s comments about the weight of a beauty contest winner and his statement that not paying taxes was smart,” the expert said.

He also said that this is the most polarizing election environment he has seen with the exception of the 1968 election between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon.

“It is a difficult election to predict because Trump has supporters who have not voted in the past and Sanders had supporters who have not voted in the past. This makes the polls unreliable. The question is: will the Trump supporters turn out and will the Sanders supporters turn out for Clinton? This is also the first election I can remember in which a foreign power has been accused of trying to influence the vote,” Charles Henry added.

A tremendous amount of hype surrounded the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in New York, said Aaron Kall, Director of Debate at the University of Michigan.

“Trump opened strong during the first thirty minutes while concentrating his message on free trade and the workers in the swing states of Ohio and Michigan that are negatively impacted by such actions. The tenor of the debate quickly turned when the subject of birtherism was raised by moderator Lester Holt,” the expert reminded.

According to him, Donald Trump’s discussions on this topic are likely to offend African-American voters, with whom he is already struggling.

“Moreover, he similarly overshot the question regarding his temperament by claiming he had the best temperament. Close to two-thirds of American voters question Trump’s temperament to be president, so this proclamation likely stretched the imagination of many voters. Clinton finished the debate very strong by bringing up controversial past comments about women and Latinos from Trump. Since this interaction occurred so late in the debate, he didn’t have a real opportunity to respond,” Aaron Kall said.

He also stressed that the Republican avoid talking about past infidelities by President Clinton.

“Instead of employing the nuclear option, Trump took the high road and even said he would abide by the results of a Clinton election victory. Clinton came across as the more experienced and prepared candidate during the debate,” he said.

In his opinion, Trump’s supporters are very loyal, but for him to win the election he must attract more undecided and moderate voters to his side.

“Clinton probably is a 55–65 percent favorite to win the election as of today. She’s currently favored, but the race is close enough where the additional debates and other factors could still impact the ultimate trajectory of the race. […] Given that approximately 84 million people tuned into the first debate and no knockout punch was delivered, I expect interest in the last two debates to remain strong. These will likely be the last two opportunities for major movement to occur in the race,” Aaron Kall concluded.

There are three rounds of United States presidential election debates.

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took place at Hofstra University in Hempstead (New York State) on 26 September 2016.

According to CNN post-debate poll, Hillary Clinton became the winner by 62% to 27%. However, the Republican nominee published winning tweets with the results of other polls. In particular, he shared the data by The Time showing he is ahead by 59% to 41%,The Hill — 59% to 36%, СNBC — 61% to 39%.

The second presidential debate will take place in Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 9. The third presidential debate will be held in the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on October 19.

The United States elections are scheduled for Tuesday, November 8.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/62878-2016

Can a video tape deal a death blow to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign? Could the unthinkable really happen?

The Republican presidential candidate is in a deep shit – excuse my English here – after the release of a 2005 video tape this Friday in which he bragged about groping and trying to have sex with women. He came out in the soap opera as a skilled predator who used his ‘celebrity’ status to do whatever he wanted with women – married or unmarried – while he was already married to his 3rd wife. In this video, he revealed himself as a filthy, vulgar, sexually obsessed and aggressive SOB with no moral compass. Of course, such a revelation should not have surprised anyone, except perhaps the Republican die-hards who wants to remain in their cocoon state of mind.

This was the second major revelation, or ‘October surprise’. Last week the New York Times revealed that Trump took a $916 million loss on his 1995 taxes, which could have relieved him from paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years

In recent weeks several women have come out to expose Trump’s predatory behavior at business and off the TV set.

While being married, he had been philandering all those years. Apparently his current wife and perhaps his older children, too, have gotten used to the fact that Donald would philander with other women. It is the norm, and not an exception, for a pervert like Donald!

Before the video tape emerged many of the towering figures within the GOP, including former presidents, had already vowed not to vote for Trump. Now other GOP leaders are finding the latest episode of the Trump-case a major embarrassment for the party and their candidates. They want him to drop out of the race. No ifs and buts.

House speaker Paul Ryan is “sickened” by Trump’s lewd comments about women in the 2005 video. He also asked Trump not to appear at a scheduled campaign stop in his home state of Wisconsin on Saturday. “I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said in a statement. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Poor Ryan! After avoiding the GOP presidential nominee for months when he was just getting ready to appear with him in public, on the campaign trail, for the first time in the general election, Trump shames him. According to the Washington Post, this isn’t the first time that Trump has made life difficult for Ryan within a 24-hour period. “Ryan endorsed Trump in June. Literally the next day, Trump questioned a federal judge’s objectivity, citing his ‘Hispanic’ heritage.” (Ryan was forced to call that “the textbook definition of racism.”)

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a statement, a rare condemnation from the party’s chairman who has stood by Trump through several other controversies.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., issued one of the most strongly worded statements, late Friday: “As the father of three daughters, I strongly believe that Trump needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere, and take full responsibility for the utter lack of respect for women shown in his comments on that tape.”

Republican strategists warned that the new revelations would likely hurt Trump, especially with women voters. Meanwhile, vulnerable GOP candidates and sitting lawmakers either sought to distance themselves quickly or remained eerily silent.

“His comments are totally inappropriate and offensive,” said Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), who is locked in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. By the time Ayotte released the curt one-sentence comment, her Democratic opponent, New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, had already sought to tie her to Trump, reminding voters that at a debate earlier in the week, she called Trump a role model.

“These vile comments from Donald Trump cannot be excused,” Hassan said in a statement. “It is beyond comprehension how Sen. Ayotte could continue to support this man for the highest office in the land, let alone call him a role model.”

In a statement, Trump described the recording as “locker room banter.” He added, “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course, not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.” As can be seen, he did not characterize it sexual assault, and instead tried to justify his inexcusable behavior.

Longtime Trump foe Jeb Bush, ex-president George W’s younger brother, signaled that Trump’s couched apology was insufficient. “As the grandfather of two precious girls, I find that no apology can excuse away Donald Trump’s reprehensible comments degrading women,” Bush tweeted.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) who has long been a vocal critic of Trump, exploded on Twitter. “DJT (Donald J. Trump) is a malignant clown — unprepared and unfit to be president of the United States,” Kirk said. He demanded that the Republican Party break from Trump.

And former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican who recently said he would vote for Trump, called for Trump to resign. “In a campaign cycle that has been nothing but a race to the bottom — at such a critical moment for our nation — and with so many who have tried to be respectful of a record primary vote, the time has come for Governor Pence to lead the ticket,” Huntsman told The Salt Lake Tribune.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee who has vocally criticized Trump said that Trump’s comments “corrupt America’s” image to the world.

“This is a moment of truth for Republicans,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV. “It is time for every Republican elected official in this county to revoke their endorsements of Donald Trump and state that they will not vote for their party’s nominee, who has been caught on tape bragging about routinely sexually assaulting women.

“There is no way to defend the indefensible. In the name of decency, Republicans should admit that this deviant – this sociopath – cannot be president,” he added.

In the USA, if someone had committed such sexual assaults on a woman he would be arrested, prosecuted and end up in jail. And yet, Trump has managed to remain free.

Can America afford to have a president who has dodged the system not only to evading taxes for decades but also in assaulting women sexually without ever being put behind the prison bars? Will this lewd video tape end the presidential aspiration of Donald Trump? Can such an immoral person lead America to greatness? Can he be trusted for doing the right thing at the critical time?

I guess we shall have to wait to find those answers.

In spite of Trump’s many flaws in character he has many cheerleaders. They are the anti-establishment ‘outsiders’ to the Republican Party. They have found their messiah in Trump who want him to run and win the election. And Trump is not quitting either.

Trump’s political ascendancy has already shown that the GOP is divided as never before and needs serious overhaul immediately to stop further fissures or meltdown within the party.

That overhaul must start with introspection. The party leaders must find answers to why and how the party of Abraham Lincoln transformed itself into a party of exclusion (and not inclusion), a party that demeans (and not respects) women and other minorities, a party that proudly wears the emblem of racism and bigotry (and not multi-culturalism), and a party – thanks to the guys like Trump and Giuliani – where the old slogans of upholding ‘family values’ have become a crass joke. They must also find answers to why and how the party of Eisenhower got hijacked by a vocal few who promote war and remind us more of fascism than of democracy.

For too long, the Republicans have allowed the war-mongers, the ‘War Party’ – sold to the ‘military industrial complex’, the ‘Amen Corner’ in the Capitol Hill – expediters of the Armageddon, and the right-wing talk show hosts and the Fox News to formulate and dictate the policy of the party. Fear mongering and hatred of the ‘others’ became indispensable tablets that were pushed down the throat of its mesmerized or gullible supporters to get the party’s hawkish candidates elected.

So, the meteoric rise of a populist leader like Trump with fascistic leanings who has mastered the art of showmanship and who could exploit people’s fear was only waiting to happen in this toxic environment of politics.

Wake up, Republican Party!

But still the GOP leadership can redeem itself. If it is serious about capturing the moral high ground – preached so often now by its charismatic House Speaker – its leadership must amend its rule to dump Trump. This would require a majority of the party’s Rules Committee and two-thirds of the entire party. This may be difficult, but is both necessary and feasible. Its failure to dump Trump will be a catastrophe – sure to permanently divide the party.

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed that Moscow relies on “traditional Islam” as its first line of defense against extremism, but neither he nor any other member of his regime has defined that term, thus opening the way to conflicts among those who have different views as to just what “traditional” Islam means in the Russian context.

Fights over this definition have broken out periodically over the last 25 years, but they have intensified in the last six weeks as a result of a fetwa issued by a meeting of some but far from all Muslim leaders in Russia that defined the North Caucasian version of Sufism as traditional and all other Muslims, from radicals to reformers, as not.

That conference and its fetwa represented the effort of Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov to define the sufism of the North Caucasus “traditional Islam,” to make himself the leader of Russia’s Muslims, and to shove aside everyone else in the name of fighting Islamist extremism. (See windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/09/chechnyas-plan-to-use-sufism-to-unite.html.)

Those in Moscow who are happy to see the Muslims of Russia fighting with each other or who appear to believe that what Kadyrov is doing will contribute to the fight against ISIS more than what his opponents can have suggested that those who reject the August fetwa are wrong to do so. (See the argument of Roman Silantyev at ng.ru/facts/2016-10-05/1_grozniy.html).

But many Muslim leaders in Russia and many commentators in the North Caucasus view things differently, seeing what Kadyrov has done as a personal power play and a step that has the unfortunate effect of dividing the Russian umma and undermining its recovery from the depradations of Soviet times.

Among those is Ruslan Aysin, a political analyst in the North Caucasus, who often writes on Islamic issues for the Kavkazskaya politika portal. His most recent article, entitled “The Fatal Fetwa from Grozny,” is devoted to the current controversy and to the support of Kadyrov’s opponents (kavpolit.com/articles/fatalnaja_fetva_iz_groznogo-28562/).

He begins by pointing out that the Chechens insisted that the fetwa adopted in Daghestan in August be obligatory for all of Russia’s Muslims even though the two largest Muslim organizations in the country, the Central Muslim Spiritual Directorate (MSD) and the Council of Muftis of Russia (SMR) either did not take part or have actively opposed this declaration.

That alone, he continues, “has provoked discussion on this issue in the Muslim community;” but it was hardly unexpected given that “Kadyrov and his MSD already for a long time have sought a suitable occasion to legitimize a split of the Russian Islamic umma between ‘the correct Sufis and everyone else who are thus incorrect.’”

In his letter to Chechen Mufti Salakh Mezhiyev, SMR head Ravil Gaynutdin made this point: “To our great regret those who compiled the fetwa intentionally or not stroke to divide Muslims into ours and not ours,” a position that was also taken by Saratov Mufti Mukaddas Bibarsov, who is the vice president of the SMR.

Bibarsov suggested that the fetwa mistakenly sought to define only one trend in Islam as doctrinally justified and to treat all others as illegitimate. That ignores both the founding principles of Islam and the history of the faith in the territories which are now part of the Russian Federation.

How could it be, he asks rhetorically, that “the overwhelming majority of Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, and yes the majority of Muslims of the North Caucaus who historically have followed the Hanafi and Shafai rites of Sunni Islam but who are not Sufis” nonetheless kept the faith alive in Russia as did the Sufis.

“If in the North Caucasus, one gives Imam Shamil as an example, then among the Turkic peoples there is Salawat Yulayev, who did not go along the path of Sufism but was a Muslim educated according to the princip;es of Islam. Both are heroes of their own peoples and both undoubtedly are legitimate.”

According to Bibarsov, Aysin says, the identification of individuals and groups by “schools, tariqats, scholars and their works leads to a lack of understanding and to divisions between one’s own and others according to even more superficial sings, national, linguistic, cultural and so on.”

Sufism of the kind described in the Daghestani fetwa “does not correspond to that doctrinal line which the majority of Tatars follow,” the political analyst says. Yes, there have been and are Sufis in the Middle Volga, but they “are not the defining and dominating trend” there.

Gaynutdin was even more direct: “In the spiritual-cultural development of the Muslim peoples,” knowledge about Sunni Islam in the form of Muslim modernism (jadidism) played “a no less positive role” in the dissemination of Islam than did Sufism. Moreover, the jadids had an influence throughout the Muslim world from the Ottoman Empire to Xinjiang.

The Chechen mufti has responded to this in the best tradition of the Soviet past: he refused to join the argument about the acceptability of diversity within Islam and the importance of modernism in particular and instead accused the SMR of harboring Islamist radicals on its staff.

And that exchange between the defenders of modernist Islam and its opponents is also a recrudescence of the Soviet past when communist officials attacked the former more intensively than the latter believing that this was the best way to root out Islam in the population by allowing only the most reactionary to continue to preach.

Strong regional corporation is the key to overcome the challenges of poverty and equity said Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena on Saturday when he called on the Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for bilateral discussions this evening during his working visit to attend the Asia Corporation Dialogue (ACD) held in Bangkok. Prime Minister Chan-o-cha and Spouse Paraporn Chan-o-cha welcomed the President and First Lady Jayanthi Sirisena at the Thai Government House.

Prime Minister Chan-o-cha thanked the President Sirisena for attending the ACD as the increased corporation in the Asian region is vital for keeping its competitiveness and overcoming poverty. Thai Prime Minister also thanked the President for his visit in November 2015 and presenting sacred Buddhist relics to Thailand.

President Sirisena highlighted the bilateral relation of Sri Lanka and Thailand is entrenched in the Theravada Buddhism that both countries inherited. President Sirisena appreciated the assistance Thailand provided during the natural disasters in Sri Lanka. Further President Sirisena welcomed more corporation in developing agricultural technology in Sri Lanka.

Thai Prime Minister appreciated Sri Lankan President’s dedication to fight corruption and bring about reconciliation of in Sri Lanka. Prime Minister Chan-o-cha further affirmed Thailand’s willingness to assist Sri Lanka in its effort to rebuild its economy. Thai Prime Minister expressed that connectivity between Thailand and Sri Lanka can further improve in terms of increased flights and that would help boost tourism in Sri Lanka.

President Maithripala Sirisena thanked the Thai Prime Minister for his hospitality and said the importance of the ACD as a platform to increase the Asian identity is vital.

President Sirisena signed guest book at the Government house of Thailand. After the talks, President Sirisena and First Lady Jayanthi Sirisena attended the dinner hosted by Thai Prime Minister and Spouse.

Deputy Foreign Minister Dr. Harsha De Silva, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador Kshenuka Seneviratne were present during the talks.

By Alessandra Bajec*

The 17 September asset freeze decision against a group of independent Egyptian NGOs marked an unprecedented point in Egypt’s mounting repression against human rights organizations and targeting of rights defenders.

A North Cairo criminal court issued an order, on 17 September, to freeze the assets of three rights centres (the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center and the Egyptian Center on the right to Education) as well as the personal funds of five prominent human rights defenders, including Hossam Bahgat, Gamal Eid and Bahey el Din Hassan, in what is known as Case 173 of 2011, which indicts 37 NGOs for receiving illegal foreign funding.

The court order sent a frightening signal across the Egyptian human rights movement that formal criminal proceedings against the defendants could follow any time soon. This is the latest turn in a five-year-old case that saw in past months a number of repressive measures requested by the investigative judges, including travel bans, asset freeze orders, the summoning of NGO staff or directors for interrogation, and closure orders.

Egyptian civil society organizations have been operating in a risky environment since December 2011, when authorities raided the offices of 17 rights groups accusing them of using funds from abroad for illegal purposes, such as destabilizing the country’s unity and harming security and public order. Or in other words: joining a foreign conspiracy against Egypt.

Earlier in July 2011, the investigation into the funding of organizations began and subsequently led to the first trial in 2012 that resulted in the 2013 verdict handing prison sentences ranging between 1-5 years to 43 NGO staff of foreign NGOs including 15 Americans who had fled Egypt, and closing several foreign pro-democracy groups which included US-based Freedom House and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

“What I find very surprising here is that if there are countries presumably funding NGOs to conspire against Egypt, then why the Egyptian government has never taken a diplomatic stance or made a single statement against those countries?” noted Bahey eldin Hassan, founder and head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS).

On the contrary, the same states which are said to be “conspirators” are Egypt’s major allies, and their strategic cooperation has even consolidated and expanded over the years, as Hassan stated, suggesting that such contradiction would prove the government’s real intent is to suppress independent human rights groups, not to fight international conspiracy.

The 2012-13 trial paved the way for more intimidation and pressure from the Egyptian state versus other foreign NGOs, pushing many of them to close their offices and relocate elsewhere.

“I cannot count how many organizations shut and moved out of Egypt following the trial,” the CIHRS director said, “so after the authorities finished the job with international groups, they moved on to clamp down on local organizations.”

The investigation resumed in 2014 and went on targeting dozens of Egyptian NGOs and human rights advocates, charged with illegally obtaining foreign funding and harming national security. It was later frozen and reopened earlier this year to end up now with the prosecution of NGO leaders, which is essentially due to their legitimate human rights work.

“This large-scale case from its start has no legal basis, it’s political and it targets almost 90% of the Egyptian independent human rights organizations that are openly opposed to the regime” asserted Gamal Eid, founder and director of the Arab Network for Human Rights (ANHRI).

Similarly for the CIHRS founder, the whole case has been purely a political one with no upholding of the rule of law nor independence of judiciary.

Eid highlighted that procedures in the case contained several violations. For example, none of the NGO staff summoned for questioning had been formally charged, some defendants – including the five directors whose assets were frozen – were prosecuted without even being investigated, and several local rights workers who had not been involved in the previous trial were now included. This was like the ANHRI director himself, who just last March found out about the request to freeze his assets from Egyptian newspapers, without prior notice or formal request from the investigating judges.

“I was accused of receiving foreign funds on my personal account, I brought to the judges and the press an official statement from my bank that proved the contrary. Legally speaking, the case should have been closed at that point,” said the human rights lawyer.

Earlier in February, both Hossam Bahgat and Gamal Eid were also banned from travel in connection to the lawsuit, however they were not notified of any pending charges against them back then.

In April, after the case was reopened, the spokesman of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said in a statement that the secretary general was following closely judicial proceedings in Egypt regarding Case 173, stressing the need for human rights defenders, civil society in general and media “to work without undue restrictions.”

In response, Egypt’s foreign ministry rejected any remarks “that aim to interfere in the work of the Egyptian judiciary, particularly when such statements are released hours prior to the date of a court session.” The Foreign Ministry spokesperson also noted that it is ‘’unacceptable” for a statement to imply that the defendants in the case “will not be able to benefit from all due process and fair trial standards.”

Numerous statements have appeared from local and international rights organisations, the U.S., and the UN, widely criticizing the handling of the foreign funding case, including the decision to reopen an investigation into Egyptian NGOs.

In contrast, it seems there has been hardly a substantial argument or legal justification from the Egyptian authorities to motivate Case 173 and its reopening.

The evidence used by the investigative judges in Case 173 appears to be based mostly on reports by the National Security Agency of the Interior Ministry that claim the NGOs received funds for activities that harm national security. The evidence of these “crimes against national security‘’ are in fact related to the work of the human rights organizations.

Asset freezes, travel bans, interrogation and arrest of NGO staff are all pre-trial punitive measures that seem to fit in a larger plan to retaliate against anyone who defends human rights in Egypt.

“This effort to eradicate civil society comes during a period of unprecedented government repression that has led to more radicalization; a time where civil society is needed the most,” Hassan said in a press release delivered before the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) two days after the asset freeze order.

The CIHRS founder also stated that asset freezes are just one step, and “more severe rulings are expected.” Under Article 78 of the Penal Code amended by decree by President Sisi in 2014, which is said to address terrorism but for the first time is being used against rights defenders, NGO workers can receive a sentence of up to life imprisonment (25 years in prison in Egypt) if a judge determines that they received foreign funding.

In today’s Egypt, where there is no independent judiciary, most media outlets are state-run, and political parties are no longer speaking out, the reopening of the 2011 case comes as a ‘legal pretext’ for the state agencies to smear and crush the only remaining voices critical of the government’s policies.

Prosecution of the most credible and independent human rights NGOs in Egypt may lead to the closure of these NGOs and the sentencing of their workers and senior staff, with a detrimental effect on the Egyptian rights movement as less and less organizations will be left to expose violations on the ground.

In that sense, the verdict in the asset freeze trial risks eradicating the ability of many independent rights organizations to operate and continue their work amid the worst crackdown on human rights and civil liberties in memory.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

By Malone Gabor*

On October 7, 2016, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos for his efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between the Colombian government and the leftist Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Over the past four years, Santos has staked his presidency on these negotiations, with great hope of ending a conflict that has resulted in the displacement of 5.7 million people, the disappearance of 25,000 people, and over 220,000 deaths.[i] On August 24, the Colombian government and FARC representatives signed the agreement, bringing an end to the conflict. However, in a shocking turn, Colombian citizens voted against the accord on October 2 by the narrowest of margins. The timing of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee could not have been better and appears to give President Santos’ efforts to continue the Colombian Peace Process new momentum.

The past years have been filled with intense negotiations between Santos’ representatives and FARC leaders. The Colombian peace negotiation is one of the most complicated and tedious experiences Latin America has gone through. Facilitated by Cuba and Norway from the beginning, the peace talks started in 2012. Since then, major achievements have been celebrated. Among the most important sections of the peace agreement are sections addressing rural development and agrarian reform, political participation, illicit drugs, reparations to victims, ending the conflict, and implementation of the accord.[ii]

Despite all the hard work, the peace agreement suffered a strong blow when it was barely defeated in a national plebiscite. The final vote was 50.2 percent against and 48.8 percent in favor of the peace agreement, a margin of merely 60,000 votes.[iii] Additionally, the process suffered from extremely low voter turnout with less than 38 percent of participation, further complicating the significance of the plebiscite’s outcome. Moreover, in areas that polled strongly for “Yes,” Hurricane Matthew limited voters’ access to the polls.[iv] Lastly, the “No” campaign, led by former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, was effective at driving down voter turnout by capitalizing on Colombians’ fears of the FARC and launching an effective smear campaign that called for harsh punishments against the guerillas.[v] In the end, the outcome of voting patterns was influenced by regional dynamics, including a sharp divide between rural and urban areas, affected and non-affected areas, and pre-existing political alignments.[vi]

Despite the adverse results, Santos has remained staunch in his commitment to achieving peace in Colombia, stating, “I will continue seeking peace until the last day of my presidency.”[vii] In fact, the President has set October 31 as a new deadline for the peace process’ completion. In the meantime, Santos has sat down with opposition leaders, including former Presidents Andrés Pastrana and Uribe to discuss their concerns with the agreement.[viii] Santos also sent his representatives to continue talking with FARC leaders in Havana. Although the outcome of the vote did not ratify the accord, both the Colombian government and FARC plan to keep the peace process moving forward and the ceasefire intact.

What does this prestigious award mean for Colombia?

Although the agreement seemed headed toward defeat after Sunday’s electoral results, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Santos appears to have revitalized the peace process. In a joint communiqué released earlier today, President Santos and the FARC leadership reasserted that the peace process will continue to move forward and the final agreement signed on August 24 will be maintained.

What becomes clear is that the Nobel Prize has strengthened the hand of those political actors that supported the Peace Accord in several ways. First, the prestige of this award gives Santos more political capital at a crucial time. After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Santos should be more respected and supported throughout the revision process. His newfound prestige will elevate the power of his position in the renegotiation process with members of the “No” campaign, as his actions have been formally recognized as an inspiration for peace. If the opposition continues to hinder the process, they risk being shamed for publically opposing the Nobel Peace Prize recipient and rejecting international standards of peace promotion. The weight of this award also gives the peace process more international support. This is crucial because the accord required strong support from the United Nations (UN), specifically for on-the-ground “monitoring, verification, and resolution of differences.”[ix] International actors are less likely to pull support and will be more inclined to back a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

In addition to international support, the Nobel Peace Prize is likely to increase domestic support for the process. Santos has become a source of national pride as one of only two Colombians to ever be awarded a Nobel Prize. It is also possible that many people who are still uncertain about the agreement may be swayed to support it. Interestingly, it will also likely improve the international reputation of FARC, because the organization has been an active partner in achieving the peace accord. As Santos’ partner in mobilizing support for the Peace Accord, the award is likely to grant the FARC a legitimacy that it has not recently had as a political actor. On the other hand, the fact that Uribe’s primary political rival was granted the Nobel Peace Prize is likely to weaken his political position and force him soften his opposition to preserve his reputation. Should he continue to oppose a Colombian Nobel laureate, Uribe runs the risk of being sequestered on the international and domestic stages.

*Malone Gabor, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] Bazak, Jordan. “The Colombia-FARC Agreement: A Fragile Step Toward a Sustainable Peace.” Council on Hemispheric Affairs. August 26, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. http://www.coha.org/the-colombia-farc-agreement-a-fragile-step-toward-a-sustainable-peace/.

[ii] Alsema, Adriaan. “Colombia’s 2012 – 2016 Peace Talks | Fact Sheet.” Colombia News Colombia Reports RSS. September 25, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. http://colombiareports.com/colombia-peace-talks-fact-sheet/.

[iii] Cobb, Julia Symmes, and Nicholas Casey. “Colombia Peace Deal Is Defeated, Leaving a Nation in Shock.” The New York Times. October 2, 2016. Accessed October 7, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/world/colombia-peace-deal-defeat.html?ref=americas&_r=1.

[iv] Brodzinsky, Sibylla. “Colombia Referendum: Voters Reject Peace Deal with Farc Guerrillas.” The Guardian. October 03, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/02/colombia-referendum-rejects-peace-deal-with-farc.

[v] Idler, Annette. “Colombia Just Voted No on Its Plebiscite for Peace. Here’s Why and What It Means.” Washington Post. October 3, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/03/colombia-just-voted-no-on-its-referendum-for-peace-heres-why-and-what-it-means/.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Brodzinsky, Sibylla. “Colombia Referendum: Voters Reject Peace Deal with Farc Guerrillas.” The Guardian. October 03, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/02/colombia-referendum-rejects-peace-deal-with-farc.

[viii]Colombia’s Santos Sets Short Deadline to Salvage Farc Peace Process.” LatinNews. October 4, 2016. Accessed October 7, 2016. http://www.latinnews.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=70102&uid=17952&acc=1&Itemid=6&cat_id=804148 communique.

[ix] “Joint Communique #2: Meeting of the Delegations of the National Government and the FARC-EP.” FARC-EP International. October 7, 2016. Accessed October 07, 2016. https://farc-epeace.org/communiques/joint-communiques/item/1726-meeting-of-the-delegations-of-the-national-government-and-the-farc-ep.html.

Trump supporters who in recent months have come to see Wikileaks as a valuable ally, have become deeply frustrated since yesterday afternoon. As #TrumpTapes trends on Twitter, Bill Mitchell asks:

Will the media completely ignore Wikileaks? Will the debate ignore Wikileaks?

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) October 8, 2016

And one “Bronze Age Pervert” from the ranks of the nationalist, fascist, nudist, bodybuilders lining up behind Trump, says:

This was TIMED and COORDINATED by both puppet GOP and DEM establishments to coincide with Wikileaks. Last stand of oligarchy against Trump.

— Bronze Age Pervert (@BronzeAgePerv) October 8, 2016

It’s not hard to understand the pervert’s suspicions about that the timing of the release of the #TrumpTapes.

Even so, for those who assume that by nefarious means Julian Assange got outmaneuvered, why didn’t he just postpone the release of his latest batch of “revelations” about Hillary Clinton?

(But just to be clear: It turns out that the actual sequence of events leading up to the release of the #TrumpTapes story had nothing to do with Wikileaks.)

It required no genius to anticipate what would dominate the news cycle in the hours leading up to the next presidential debate, so why allow the Wikileaks story to so easily get buried?

Is the Wikileaks bureaucracy so cumbersome in its operations that a last minute course correction was impossible? I kind of doubt it, since that really just boiled down to one man’s choice.

On the contrary, the fact that Wikileaks pressed on in such a quixotic fashion is more likely a reflection of its own internal assessment of the shock-value of the latest leaks: that in terms of actual content, they were close to worthless.

Instead, what turned out to look slightly more promising would be another opportunity to promote the narrative of Wikileaks as the victim. At least on social media a few people could cry foul.

In addition, having trolled the media earlier this week with a news conference that turned out to be a boring birthday celebration, and having been berated by Alex Jones as “a Hillary butt plug,” Assange knew his already dwindling credibility would be decimated if yet again he delivered nothing.

Let’s say you’re inclined to vote for Donald Trump largely because you dislike Hillary Clinton and are fed up with government messing up and serving Wall Street over Main Street. You’ve heard all the things said about Trump and it doesn’t make any difference because he says with absolute confidence that he is going to shake up Washington and “make America great again.”

Why not try this experiment to bring matters down to earth where you live, work and raise your families? Suppose you’re souring on your two friends, who have been increasingly disrespectful. Along comes a person who wants to be your friend and protector and make your life great again. He reassures you because he says he’s quite well-to-do and always tells you how smart he is in all ways.

Day after day, he tells you about his successful life, his determination to address many of your concerns about health care, safety, uppity newcomers, and he promises to lower your taxes and get your neighborhood roads fixed. He emphasizes that he’ll stop the closing of a factory where you work that is planning to flee to China and make sure no more jobs in your community move to low-wage countries. He never says how, but that’s ok because you believe him. He’s like a father figure ready to make life better and more secure.

All this sounds just great to you. But then you start hearing people cautioning you about the man. He bankrupted his gambling business, while taking government subsidies. He doesn’t pay taxes. He regularly says things that are not true – about himself and about the country, about safety regulations in your factory, and about immigrants.

He harshly goes after anyone who takes him to task for his behavior, his false statements and his sneering descriptions of other people, especially if they are overweight (like he is) or on hard times, or they want a living minimum wage.

Worse still, you start noticing that he is a freeloader – cheating his own employees, small business suppliers who aren’t getting paid, gouging customers and that he doesn’t pay any taxes, unlike you. After a few drinks, he even brags about his “competitive advantage” over the people he’s stiffed.

Sometimes he’s even made vicious comments about people you like and even about you, as if he thinks he is better than you. Although your neighbors have pointed out these rough edges, you keep forgiving him because of the many ways he’s promised to make your life better. But after a while, you see that he never apologizes for his falsehoods and never takes responsibility for any of his failings, always blaming someone or something else. He bullies weaker people in his business dealings.

Like a schoolyard bully, he knows how to dish it out but can’t take it. You’d better not give him some of his own medicine because he’ll lash out at you with uncontrollable rage. You admire people who can control their temper and ego. He seems unable to control his own explosive impulses.

Other remarks bother you. He is too rough on women and minorities. He jeers about people’s physical features and thinks he’s perfect. For all his assurances about what he’d do for you, he doesn’t know very much about anything or how he’s going to get anything done. You’ve never seen him pick up a check. He takes everything personally, and goes berserk when criticized or corrected.

But somehow, he talks your language, thinks your thoughts and, oh, how he can describe your resentments about “other people.” What you might be thinking to yourself, he says out loud, afraid of nobody.

Over the years, your friend has moved away, built and lost bigger gambling casinos, gotten into much debt but managed to always personally escape his creditors. He’s anchored big-time television shows as the hero-decider, decided to run for president against all odds and stunned the country by getting people like you to make him the Republican Party’s nominee.

If he wins, he is still the same person except he has huge power over everyone. Unfortunately his disturbing characteristics and temperament will only get worse if he is elected.

He can impose his will on you with all the power of the White House. Already, you’ve noticed he’s siding with the big oil, gas and coal interests, asking for campaign money from the very fat cats he vigorously denounced for a year to get your primary vote.

He can dictate, start wars and make life very unpleasant for people like you and turn little protests into big time retaliation from Big Brother in Washington.

You know, a wise philosopher 2,000 years ago said “character is destiny.” I would add “personality is decisive.”

We all confront these traits in our neighbors, co-workers and other friends. Do you really want the traits you yourself have noticed in your friend lodged in a secretive presidency having the greatest power to betray his supporters, lashing out in all directions?

All the media noise about the possible implications of an eventual British exit from the EU (Brexit) should not stand in the way of a much-needed reassessment of the strategic potential offered by stronger bilateral ties between Spain and the UK.

By Luis Simón*

Without prejudging the significance of Brexit or its possible implications, there is a risk that the debate surrounding an eventual British departure from the EU might monopolise the perception that Spain’s political and strategic elites have of the UK. This could cause Spain to overlook or pay insufficient attention to a series of structural changes that have been unfolding in recent years at the core British foreign and defence policy. Such changes indicate a strengthening of the UK’s global engagement and potential, and are aimed at preparing it for a world characterised by the progressive displacement of the centre of economic and geopolitical gravity towards Asia, the US’s consequent strategic rebalancing towards Asia, the growing strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific sea corridor and doubts about the economic, demographic, political and strategic sustainability of Europe.

In a world in which Europe seems to be destined to count for less and the rest of the world destined to count for more, the future and the prosperity of European countries lies in their potential to project power globally, ie, beyond their immediate geographical neighbourhood. In this regard, its heritage as a global power and maritime persona mean the UK is arguably Europe’s best-prepared country to get by in a ‘non-European’ world. Thus, the bilateral relationship with the UK appears to be a highly valuable asset for Spain in the context of a much-needed rediscovery of its own maritime and global potential.

Analysis

Introduction

After the uncertainty generated by the negative result of the British referendum about remaining in the EU, there is a risk of the perception of the UK in Spain being entirely conditioned by stereotypes and simplistic categories, eg, pro-EU versus anti-EU. This could well prevent many Spaniards from grasping wider changes in the global geopolitical scenario (such as the rise of Asia and other regions and the relative decline of Europe), as well as Britain’s ongoing efforts to adjust to such changes, ie, through a deliberate commitment to strengthening its strategic, diplomatic and economic influence beyond Europe.

The fallout from Brexit could certainly degenerate into British strategic atrophy and retrenchment, compromising both its internal cohesion and its capacity for leadership in Europe. However, this sort of speculation appears to be somewhat premature. In any event it is conceivable that the UK will try to maintain the closest-possible relations with the EU and seek to compensate for a possible Brexit by increasing defence spending and strengthening its network of bilateral relations in Europe and its role in NATO.¹ Theresa May, the new British Prime Minister, seems to be showing a clear interest in restating Britain’s commitment to European and global security post-Brexit.² In this context, and without prejudging the possible implications of Brexit, it is worth emphasising that its global sensitivity and its record of strategic influence in the maritime domain make the UK the best-prepared country in Europe for confronting a ‘non-European’ world. This makes London a particularly attractive partner for Madrid.

Unlike many other EU countries, the historical legacy and strategic persona of Britain and Spain is one that transcends Europe. That is arguably the most important feature these two European countries share, and bears witness to the fact that their international position and orientation is informed by similar geopolitical traits and parameters. Critically, the Pyrenees and the English Channel play a comparable role in terms of framing the geostrategic predicament of Spain and the UK, in that they underscore the fact that they are both at the same time linked to the European peninsula but somewhat ‘semi-detached’ from it –and, through the Atlantic, oriented towards the wider world–. If Spain is located at the crossroads between the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, Europe and Africa, the UK too is perched between Western Europe and the Atlantic, with the North Sea-Baltic corridor taking the role of the Mediterranean. As with Spain, Britain’s power depends to a great extent on its capacity to ensure an appropriately complementary fit between its (extra-European) maritime-global sway and a position of influence in the European geopolitical balances. In this very important sense, Britain’s maritime and global character embodies the historical legacy of the Spanish Empire, and it is therefore an important point of reference for developing the strategic strength of Spain. Notwithstanding the key role that Europe and the EU have and will continue to have for Spain, the UK thus represents a significant partner in the context of a necessary global reorientation in Spanish foreign and defence policy.

Without prejudging the importance, the eventual disentanglement or the fallout from the Brexit drama, the need for reviving the strategic bilateral ties between Spain and the UK may be justified by a series of shifts in the tectonic plates that underlie global geopolitics, namely: (1) the gradual displacement of the world’s economic and geopolitical centre of gravity towards Asia and the growing strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific sea corridor; (2) the US’s consequent strategic rebalancing towards Asia; (3) the growing instability in Eastern Europe and the Middle East; (4) the doubts about the economic, demographic, political and strategic sustainability of Europe; and (5) the fact that Europe and the EU virtually monopolise the attention of Spanish foreign and security policy and exercise an influence over it that is more and more constraining, to the extent that it may become absorbed by them entirely. It follows from this that it is necessary to rethink the foundations of Spain’s foreign and defence policy, complementing a very necessary and fruitful pro-European stance with a strengthening of Spain’s extra-European outlook and a consequent diversification of its portfolio of alliances and partnerships. This would require greater effort to be made in terms of strategic maritime and global influence.³

In a changing world, bilateral relations with the UK are a highly valuable asset for rediscovering and developing Spain’s maritime and global potential and persona. Here it is worth pointing out that strategic relations between Spain and the UK are under-exploited. This is due in large part to Spain’s fixation on its Euro-Mediterranean component, to the detriment of the maritime and global component of its historical legacy and its strategic persona. The origins of this circumstance may be traced back to the ‘crisis of 1898’, and it seems to have taken on the tenor of a ‘structural feature’ of Spain’s foreign and defence policy, evident since the transition to democracy in the late 1970s. To a somewhat lesser extent, the dispute over Gibraltar also acts as a hindrance to greater strategic cooperation between the UK and Spain.

The geopolitical and strategic foundations of British power

While its influence in Europe is perhaps less palpable today than that of Germany’s, the UK continues being a strategic power of the first order on the continent. Apart from wielding a global influence and reach that arguably exceeds any other European country, the institutional and political balances of Europe continue to a significant extent to reflect the post-war Anglo-American geo-strategic design.⁴

The UK is a strategic power of the first rank in Europe and is also the European power with the greatest strategic global scope. This circumstance is underpinned by: (1) its advantageous geographical position (between the Atlantic and the North European plain and with its bases on the Gibraltar-Cyprus Mediterranean projection line), which confers upon the UK a sort of ‘natural command and control’ over the main European sea lanes of communication; (2) its demographic dynamism; (3) the depth of its strategic relations with the US; (4) its capacity for global influence (political, strategic and cultural); (5) London’s role as a European and global financial centre; (6) its excellence in scientific and technological-industrial innovation (especially in the defence realm) and in the production of ideas and discourses (leading universities, think tanks, literature and television, publishers, news media with global reach); and (7) the geographical diversity of its trade and investments.

The demographic factor is especially revealing. In contrast with the rapid ageing characteristic of the rest of Europe (and Germany in particular), the UK maintains dynamic and sustainable population growth. According to current projections, by 2040 the UK will be the country with largest population in Europe. It will have around 75 million inhabitants, of whom only 17 million will be aged above 65. For its part, Germany will have some 73 million inhabitants in 2040, of whom 24 million will be aged above 65.⁵

The UK’s political geography accounts in large measure for its strategy and power. The twin strands of the British Empire were its maritime and global power and its involvement in European affairs. Its active engagement in European affairs, through a persistent strategy of forward diplomatic, economic and strategic presence, has enabled London to contribute to the preservation of a balance of power on the continent for the last three centuries, thereby forestalling the possible emergence of a dominant power that might upset the regional balance and eventually mount a challenge to British maritime-global primacy. In turn, its global power infrastructure has provided Britain a highly valuable source of wealth and strategic depth, one that helped underpin its own standing and position in European geopolitics.⁶ The efforts expended by British colonies during the Second World War provide a clear example of the strategic depth that the high seas and its global project give the UK amid the prospect of possible threats emanating from the European continent.

Admittedly, British power underwent a process of global strategic retrenchment following the Second World War –a process that was further compounded by the so-called withdrawal from ‘east of Suez’ in the 1970s–. Having said that, the tension between the global-maritime and the European dimensions continues to be at the heart of current discussions on the future of British grand strategy.⁷ Since the Second World War the special relationship with the US and NATO have come to represent Britain’s maritime vocation, while its involvement in the EU (focusing on promoting free trade in Europe and counteracting the political and strategic integration of the continent) should be seen as an extension of its traditional strategic goal of preserving a balance of power on the continent.

The British geostrategic ‘pendulum’, which swings between the high seas and continental Europe, is clearly evident in the current circumstances. A good demonstration of this is the political distancing from an EU that is perceived from London as an excessively supranational project, and the steady weaving by the UK of a network of bilateral alliances in Europe that could serve as a counterbalance to the process of integration that, according to this logic, represents a threat to national sovereignty and to the concept of the balance of power in Europe, and would emphasise the economic and political leadership of Germany.⁸ This process includes mainly the strengthening of strategic ties with France and the development of stronger political, economic and strategic links with the Baltic and Scandinavian countries.⁹

The current Conservative government’s interest in reviving the UK’s maritime-global dimension should be added to this strategy of creating a system of balances in Europe. Despite the impact that the cuts in defence spending have had on the Royal Navy in recent years (it is currently without any aircraft carriers), the UK spends more on defence than any other European country.¹⁰ If anything its leadership in this arena has become more pronounced, owing to the fact that, over the last few years, defence cuts in other European countries (including France) have been even deeper than in the UK.

With two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers, eight Type 26 frigates and Astute-class submarines in the pipeline (the latter significantly superior in capability to the French Barracuda class), greater tonnage, modern operational experience underpinned by its indisputable status as ‘top lieutenant’ to the US in the main post-Cold War western operations (Afghanistan and Iraq) and a global infrastructure of bases, intelligence and diplomacy, the UK’s capacity for maritime-global influence is arguably unparalleled in Europe. In light of the pace of naval construction in China, India and Russia, and the intangible development and experience that is needed to get a global naval and maritime infrastructure up and running, it may be expected that the UK will remain the country with the second-greatest capacity for strategic maritime and global influence at least until the end of the 2020s.

In addition to the above it is important to highlight Britain’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its network of global strategic partnerships, namely: (1) the opening of a new Royal Air Force station in Dubai and a new Royal Navy station in Bahrain, as well as the strengthening of the UK’s strategic and industrial ties with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (initiatives that according to several British analysts herald a ‘return east of Suez’); (2) recent efforts to develop a strategic relationship with Japan and (to a lesser degree) South Korea; (3) the growing presence in Myanmar; (4) the carrying out of periodic military exercises in the Indo-Pacific with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand (with which the UK maintains a defence commitment within the framework of the Five Power Defence Arrangements); (5) the establishment of a strategic maritime partnership with Brazil, with the recent signing of a naval ‘memorandum of understanding’, and greater investment in the bases on Ascension and Saint Helena (which facilitate the UK’s influence on both sides of the South Atlantic); (6) the collaboration agreement signed with Canada on global diplomacy; and (7) the drawing up of a strategy for the Arctic.¹¹ These initiatives confirm a pattern that promises to result in the reinforcement of Britain’s global persona, perhaps to the detriment of Europe, and may well be further aggravated in the coming years given the continent’s negative long-term economic and demographic prospects. In short, the UK is taking steps at a rather impressive speed, at the level of strategies, capabilities and alliances, with the aim of strengthening its global influence and presence in an international context dominated by the rise of Asia and Europe’s relative economic and political decline.

The UK’s geostrategic priorities for the decades ahead may be portrayed as follows: (1) to consolidate itself as a leading powerin the main maritime spaces surrounding the European peninsula (the Baltic-Arctic and the Mediterranean); (2) to affirm its position of strategic control (in cooperation with the US and France) over Europe’s main maritime communication routes, including the North Atlantic, the ‘old route’ between Asia and northern Europe (via the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean), the ‘new route’ between Asia and northern Europe (via the Arctic Ocean and the Baltic Sea), as well as the connection between Europe and the Atlantic, both north (North and Central America) and south (West Africa and South America); (3) to strengthen its presence and strategic reach in the Persian Gulf and the western Indian Ocean in a context of strategic American scaling back; and (4) to maintain and underpin its strategic influence in the Indo-Pacific maritime corridor.

The UK and Spain: shared interests and geostrategic synergies

The advantages that Spain can derive from a strategic alignment with the UK are obvious, given the UK’s position as a major strategic power in Europe and Europe’s foremost global power, as a Mediterranean and Atlantic power and its pre-positioning in the Indo-Pacific and Arctic geopolitical spaces. A close strategic relationship with the UK would help advance some of Spain’s main geopolitical objectives.

Its progressive distancing from the EU and global outreach does not mean Britain becomes unattractive as a partner for Spain. In fact, a strong bilateral relationship with Spain can help Spain overcome its excessive political dependency on the EU and diversify its global network of partnerships and alliances.

Moreover, its status as a global power makes the UK a highly valuable asset in aiding the necessary rediscovery of Spain’s maritime and extra-European personality, indispensable for ensuring its political influence and economic prosperity over the medium and long run.

An improved strategic alignment with the UK would help Spain to ‘think beyond’ Europe and the Mediterranean, constituting an essential asset in regenerating its maritime and global character, as well as mitigating its excessive and growing economic, political and cultural dependence on the process of European integration.

Beyond its global and extra-European dimension, the UK’s importance in Europe and its immediate geographical vicinity is only reinforced by the US decision to concentrate American strategic energies in the Asia-Pacific. Although the US will continue having influence in Europe from the rearguard, and offering ‘strategic depth’ to NATO, the UK will be one of the key European leaders of the Alliance, both in terms of guaranteeing the preservation of the balance of power in Eastern Europe and in terms of leading any European efforts to project power beyond Europe.

It is worth emphasising the special importance of the maritime corridor that stretches from the eastern Mediterranean to the western Indian Ocean by way of the Red and Arabian Seas (of critical economic and security importance to Europe and Spain). The strategic retrenchment of the US and its rebalancing towards Asia have exposed the instability of this region, as exemplified by the violence and chaos currently ravaging the wider Middle East. In this context, Britain’s efforts to strengthen its position both in the eastern Mediterranean (witness the intervention led by the UK and France in Libya in 2011, and the Royal Air Force’s involvement in Syria) and ‘east of Suez’ will help safeguard European and Western security interests in those areas. In order to contribute to these goals and bolster its strategic influence, Spain should strengthen its cooperation in the maritime corridor that encompasses the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

That said, Spain should on no account make the mistake of idealising its relationship with the UK or, for that matter, any other bilateral or multilateral partnership. Any alliance runs the risk of creating pronounced dependencies. The only cast-iron guarantee that a particular alliance will be beneficial to Spain is Spain’s own strength, which requires both a greater investment in defence as well as a diverse portfolio of strategic alliances and partnerships. Spain should thus combine its alliance with the UK with a greater financial investment in defence, a more globally-oriented defence and foreign policy, stronger strategic ties with Portugal, and strong relations with the US and France, which share key interests with Spain in Europe and the Maghreb-Sahel region.

Bearing all the above in mind, an alignment with the UK (at the level of capabilities and alliances) could serve to galvanise the development of Spain’s strategic power and maritime reach over the coming decades. Here it is helpful to have an idea of the basic foundations of British maritime power:

• Investment in and commitment to developing long-range sea, air and amphibious capabilities, the principal goal of which is to underpin the UK’s global influence and strategic reach.
• Investment in a worldwide diplomatic and intelligence network (civilian and military).
• The maintenance of a dense and profound worldwide strategic infrastructure for logistical provisioning, one that revolves around its overseas territories and a network of bases and supply points that extends to the Mediterranean (Gibraltar and Cyprus), the North Sea (Shetland Islands), Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia), Pacific Ocean (Singapore and Brunei) and the South Atlantic (Ascension-Saint Helena-Tristan da Cunha and the Falklands). Here it is worth emphasising the special importance of Ascension-Saint Helena and Diego Garcia, in terms of facilitating the UK’s strategic reach in the South Atlantic (both South America and West Africa in its totality) and the Indo-Pacific, respectively.
• The cultivation of a network of strategic alliances and partnerships with small and larger powers located in geographical areas that facilitate the UK’s global mobility and strategic reach. Examples include: Sierra Leone, Nigeria and South Africa in western and southern Africa; Brazil and Chile in the South Atlantic; India, Australia, Myanmar and Singapore (in the Indo-Pacific region); Cyprus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and southern Gulf States in the area adjoining the Mediterranean-Red Sea-Gulf corridor; Japan and South Korea in the North Pacific; and Norway and Canada in the Arctic. By means of access agreements, periodic visits, educational, military and intelligence exchanges, and the periodic carrying out of joint training, manoeuvres and exercises with these countries, the UK seeks to improve its situational awareness in regions of (growing) strategic and economic importance.

Apart from the benefits that close relations with the UK would have on Spain’s influence in Europe, such relations would also garner the following specific rewards: the strengthening of Spain’s strategic influence on the west coast of Africa (owing to the UK’s naval power, relationships and bases in the region); projection towards the East, including the Levant, the Red Sea and (principally) the Indian Ocean; and Spain’s pre-positioning in the Arctic.

Gibraltar as an opportunity

Of course, any attempt to reassess the need for closer bilateral strategic cooperation between Spain and the UK runs the risk of hitting the stumbling block of Gibraltar. This subject needs to be set in the appropriate context however, namely domestic politics and symbolism. The strategic impact on Spain of the British presence in Gibraltar is minor, and in any event not necessarily negative.

In fact, the main strategic challenge of the Gibraltar dispute is arguably its capacity for undermining (for domestic political reasons) greater strategic cooperation between the two countries. It is important that Spain’s strategic and political elites take this problem on board and do not allow the Gibraltar ‘squabble’ to sabotage the development of a bilateral relationship that represents a major asset in realising Spain’s strategic potential.

Paradoxically, the British decision to place its strategic relations with the US ahead of its frustration with such developments as Irish independence and the Suez crisis provide Spain with an example of how to address the Gibraltar dispute in a pragmatic manner. It is worth recalling in this context that the US has been a major political advocate of the independence of Ireland, the geographical location of which (between the UK and the Atlantic) could have a strategic value for the UK that is the equivalent of Gibraltar for Spain. The US also contributed, with its attitude to the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, to the progressive weakening of British influence in Egypt and east of Suez.

Despite these developments being initially perceived as unfavourable (if not downright hostile), the UK did not turn its back on the opportunity of strategic relations with the US. On the contrary: after the Suez crisis, if anything the UK strengthened its relations with US, thereby demonstrating its pragmatism and ‘cool-headedness’, prioritising the promise of a better future over the emotions generated by an uncomfortable past. The gamble paid off, because the strategic relationship with the US has played a key part in British global influence over recent decades.

The lesson to be learned is not that Spain should renounce its sovereignty over Gibraltar, but that it should not allow its relations with the UK to be ‘hijacked’ by a dispute (surrounding Gibraltar) that tends to be governed more by the dynamics and emotions of domestic politics than by geostrategic logic. In this context, Spain should view the British presence in Gibraltar as an asset, in terms of the two countries sharing a series of fundamental geostrategic interests in common, namely: the need to safeguard the freedom of navigation in the Straits and the trade and strategic route between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the need to ensure that instability in North Africa does not jeopardise the geopolitical status quo in the Straits.

Conclusions and recommendations

In a world in which Europe seems destined to count for less and the rest of the world to count for more, the future and prosperity of European countries depends upon their capacity for global strategic and economic influence, beyond the confines of their immediate geographical locale. In this context, and without prejudging the disengagement or possible implications of Brexit, it is worth highlighting that its global awareness and its record of engagement in the maritime domain ensure that the United Kingdom is the best-prepared country in Europe for a ‘non-European’ world. It follows that bilateral relations with the UK represent a highly valuable asset in the context of a much-needed rediscovery and development of Spain’s maritime and global heritage and potential.

The fostering of cooperation at the highest political level is an indispensable requisite for constructing a close strategic relationship between Spain and the UK. Such a relationship should revolve around the willingness of Spain to align its capabilities and its ‘portfolio of alliances and partnerships’ in accordance with a maritime and global vision. In this context, the next Spanish government may wish to consider the following courses of action for its foreign and defence policies at the levels of strategy, capabilities and partnerships/alliances.

Strategic level

Spain needs to recognise and declare that its strategic vision revolves around the same fundamental principle governing British geostrategy: the preservation of a balance of power in Europe, and of a liberal and maritime-oriented regional geopolitical order. In this context, Spain should consider the following courses of action in the foreign policy realm:

• Recognising the UK as a necessary and positive interest in Europe, given its interest in countering hegemonic tendencies and preserving a balance of power on the continent. Here Spain should express its concern regarding the UK’s political parting of ways from the EU and, in a hypothetical post-Brexit scenario, affirm its commitment to supporting the closest-possible relationship between London and Brussels.
• Conveying its concern about the decline in defence spending in Europe, making a bigger effort at the national level, and showing willingness to work with the UK, France and other countries (both within the framework of the EU and NATO) in order to remedy this tendency.
• Embracing its maritime and extra-regional vocation and its commitment to a defence policy centred on the promotion of strategic capabilities and a strategic culture that reflect this vocation, both within the framework of NATO and the EU and its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). In a possible post-Brexit scenario, Spain should look favourably on close ties between the UK and the structures of the CSDP and work in pursuit of a close relationship between the EU and NATO.
• Working towards greater strategic coordination and cooperation with the UK in West Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean, and increasing Spain’s strategic presence, and cooperation with the UK, in the eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Arctic.

Capabilities

In this regard the capabilities of the Spanish Navy will need to be strengthened, consolidating the long-term commitment to maintaining excellence in areas that are critical to maritime and global power projection –such as surface vessels, submarines and modern and long-range aerial and amphibious resources– and strengthening strategic cooperation with the UK in the naval and aerial arenas.

Alliances/partnerships level

It will be necessary to strengthen strategic bilateral relations with the US and France (Britain’s principal strategic partners) and invest in developing an infrastructure of strategic alliances relevant to Spain’s maritime ambitions, following the trail carved out by the UK: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Nigeria, India, South Africa, Australia, Malaysia, Myanmar, South Korea and Japan (most of them countries with significant demographic and economic potential).

Original version in Spanish: Beyond Brexit: hacia una mayor cooperación estratégica entre España y el Reino Unido.

About the author:
*Luis Simón, Director of the Brussels office and senior analyst of the Elcano Royal Institute | @LuisSimn

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute.

Notes:
¹ See, for example, James Stavridis (2016), ‘Europe’s Loss is NATO’s Gain’, Foreign Policy, 25/VI/2016.

² Theresa May (2016), ‘I’ll make sure we build Trident right now’, Daily Mail, 4/VII/2016.

³ Luis Simón (2014), “‘España después de Europa’: la proyección marítima como elemento de la renovación estratégica española”, Estrategia Exterior Española, nº 14/2014, Elcano Royal Institute, 14/V/2014.

⁴ See for instance John Baylis (1993), The Diplomacy of Pragmatism: Britain and the Formation of NATO, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

⁵ National statistics offices of the UK and Germany. These projections take migration trends into account.

⁶ Brendan Simms (2007), Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, Penguin Books, London.

⁷ See for instance Julian Lindley-French (2015), Little Britain? Twenty-First Century Strategy for a Middling European Power, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

⁸ James Rogers & Luis Simón (2016), ‘Brexit: Europe at a strategic crossroads?’, European Geostrategy, vol. 8, nr 17.

⁹ Luis Simón and James Rogers (2011), ‘British Geostrategy for a New European Age’, The RUSI Journal, vol. 56, nr 2, pp. 52-58.

¹⁰ See The Military Balance 2016, International Institute of Strategic Studies, London, chapter 4.

¹¹ See for instance Gareth Stanfield & Saul Kelly (2015), ‘A Return East of Suez? UK Military Deployments to the Gulf’, Briefing Paper Royal United Services Institute, April; Jonathan Eyal et. al. (2015), ‘Partners for Global Security: New Directions for the UK-Japan Defence and Security Relationship’, Whitehall Report, vol. 2, nr 15, 11/VIII/2015); James Rogers (2013), ‘European (British and French) Geostrategy in the Indo-Pacific’, Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, vol. 9, nr 1, pp. 69-89; and Luis Simón (2015), ‘Europe, the Rise of Asia and the Future of the Transatlantic Relationship’, International Affairs, vol. 91, nr 5, pp. 269-289.

By Lowana Veal

Recently released declassified documents by Washington have unleashed a debate whether the U.S. ever deployed nuclear weapons in Iceland, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since its foundation in 1949.

Experts are of the view that though the U.S. claims to have never deployed nuclear weapons in a country at a strategic juncture of the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, it does not mean that it had no nuclear plans for Iceland. Previous research by Valur Ingimundarson and William Arkin demonstrates that during the Cold War Iceland was considered a potential storage site.

The documents, consisting of various letters and telegrams, released by the U.S. National Security Archive (NSA), date back to November 18, 1951 – six months after the U.S. and Iceland secretly signed a defence agreement whereby the U.S. would take over the defence of Iceland.

The authorities had deemed this necessary both because of the Korean War and because Iceland has never had an army.

In the first telegram, Icelandic Foreign Affairs Minister Bjarni Benediktsson had shown U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Morris N. Hughes a London Times article quoting Senator Edwin Johnson, who said that Iceland, North Africa, and Turkey were better deployment sites for atomic weapons than the UK.

Knowing that Johnson’s thoughts would not be popular with Icelanders, Hughes recommended “official reassurance” that the U.S. had no plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Iceland.

Ensuing telegrams essentially focused on the classic “neither confirm nor deny” stance about the locations of nuclear weapons. In a “Top Secret” telegram dated December 21, 1951, Hughes was authorized by U.S. State Department officials to inform Benediktsson confidentially that the U.S. would “make no move without [the] full consultation and agreement” of Iceland’s government.

Jump to 1960. Not long after a U.S. U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Russian air space, the Foreign Minister of the time, Gudmundur I. Gudmundsson, asked Ambassador Thompson whether the U.S. had used Keflavik air base for U-2 flights, had stored nuclear weapons there or had moved them through Keflavik in southwest Iceland.

The formal response remains classified, but a draft response from Ambassador Thompson assured Gudmundsson that the U.S. had neither stored the weapons in Iceland nor shipped them via Keflavik.

An earlier draft had been sent in a telegram a week previously and had mentioned the requirement of U.S. Navy for an Advanced Underseas Weapons Shop (AUW) for storing nuclear depth bombs and its ongoing construction, but that item was dropped from the later draft. Apparently the Icelanders who were building the facility thought it was going to be used to store torpedoes.

The final document mentioned in the NSA press release is a response by Thompson to a top-secret letter sent by Ivan White, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for External Affairs, which still remains classified.

Thompson’s reply intones that White may have asserted that the U.S. government “was free to deploy nuclear weapons in Iceland without securing the agreement of Reykjavik“.

Furthermore, “[If] that was the case, the Eisenhower administration had departed from the Acheson policy of assuring “full consultation and agreement.””

Iceland was not the only country in which the U.S. was contemplating the storage of nuclear weapons. West Germany, the UK, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece were also considered, but only Germany and the UK have been officially disclosed.

According to the press release that accompanied the declassified documents, it is now a “settled issue” that nuclear weapons were never deployed in Iceland.

Ásbrú is a part of the former U.S. Naval Air Base Keflavik not supervised by the Icelandic defence authorities. Credit: Lowana Veal | IDN-INPS

However, when IDN-INPS showed the declassified documents to Elvar Astradsson, a peace activist, he instantly remarked: “That is all known. But they don’t make any mention of the secret documents that no one knew about.”

These are annexes and technical schedules to the NATO agreement that were signed by Iceland and the U.S. on May 5, 1951 – three days before the NATO agreement was signed – but only came to light when a former Foreign Minister of Iceland, Valgerdur Sverrisdottir, published them on the Ministry website in January 2007. “She was not very popular amongst her fellow politicians for doing so,” he added.

“These documents basically allowed the U.S. to do whatever it liked,” he continued. He also pointed out that before the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was set up in the UK in 1958, there was very little awareness of the nuclear weapons issue “and Icelanders wouldn’t have been following it”.

Besides making arrangements for housing personnel and making the area fit for military use, Article 10 of the Annex on Administration of the above-mentioned agreement states: “United States public vessels and aircraft, and the armed forces and vehicles, including armour, of the United States shall, in connection with operations under this Agreement, be accorded free access to and movement between ports and the agreed areas through Iceland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea. … United States aircraft may fly over and land in any of the territory of Iceland, including the territorial waters thereof, without restriction except as mutually agreed.”

Technical Schedule no. 1 states: “The United States military authorities and the appropriate authorities of Iceland will consult together, to the extent military requirements permit, relative to the location of structures and facilities which the United States may desire to construct in the Keflavik area.“

Despite the assertion by the NSA that nuclear weapons were never deployed in Iceland, there are many indications that nuclear weapons have been in Iceland, at least on a transitory basis.

The organ of the long-established Campaign Against Military Bases organization, Dagfari, contains a number of such accounts and stated in 1977: “Anti-militarists have long suspected that the Keflavik airfield is a nuclear base, though it is clearly stipulated in the NATO agreement that no such weapons shall be situated here.”

Another issue of Dagfari from 1999 says that although the question remains whether nuclear weapons have ever been stored in Iceland, “there is little doubt that nuclear weapons have been in Icelandic waters on navy vessels on their way through Iceland”.

One issue contains an account of an American positioned in Iceland who recounted how he shared a military plane with nuclear material as well as with five high-ranking officers.

The plane used the “hot” runway that was used for planes carrying weapons. “It’s best to completely forget this flight,” the pilot told him after he alighted. After refuelling, the plane continued its journey. The following day, he discovered that the plane had almost definitely been carrying nuclear weapons to be stored in Germany. This would have been sometime between 1983 and 1986.

The U.S. military left Iceland suddenly in 2006. Since then most of the site has been used as a centre for innovative industries, technology and education, using buildings and facilities previously owned by the military.

But earlier this year (2016), the U.S. requested the use of a hangar for submarine monitoring, so they could fly over the sea and detect submarines using sonar.

Then in June the U.S. Department of Defense met with the Icelandic Foreign Affairs Minister, Lilja Alfredsdottir, about wanting to strengthen cooperation with the U.S. military once more, because the security situation had changed since 2006.

Then in July 2016, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report in which they openly suggest: “NATO can optimize its ASW [anti-submarine warfare] posture to ensure that the right capabilities are in the right places at the right time by reopening Keflavik Naval Air Station in Iceland and encouraging Norway to reclaim and reopen its submarine support facility at Olavsvern.”

Which could mean anything.

By Lyndal Rowlands

The 15 members of the UN Security Council jointly announced Wednesday their decision to select Antonio Guterres of Portugal as the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations.

“We have a clear favourite and his name is Antonio Guterres,” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN and Security Council President for the month of October told media, flanked on either side by his 14 counterparts on the council.

Per UN tradition, the UN Security Council’s decision, to be formalised on Thursday, is expected to be endorsed by the full 193 members of the UN General Assembly.

However this show of unity from Security Council members comes at a time when diplomacy over Syria is at a new low with US Secretary of State John Kerry announcing earlier this week that Russia and the United States were suspending talks on Syria.

The ongoing conflict in Syria is just one of the many challenges that Guterres will face as the world’s top diplomat.

Fortunately many believe that Guterres is among those best prepared for the task, as shown through his performance in what has been the most open and transparent selection process of a UN Secretary-General to date.

Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002 Guterres was later UN High Commissioner for Refugees from 2005 to 2015, during a time when the number of displaced people worldwide grew to its highest level since the end of the Second World War.

However Guterres’ selection has ultimately disappointed those who believed that the next Secretary-General should be the first woman to lead the international organisation or the first Eastern European to hold the job.

While skipping the Eastern European rotation is a break with tradition, the inability to select a female candidate from seven highly qualified female contenders seems like an even deeper blow for an organisation which has long claimed to see gender equality as one of its central goals. However the gender break down of the Security Council itself, 14 men and one women, shows that for many UN member states gender equality is still a long way off. Guterres will also be the fourth European man to hold the position – although the first since 1981 – showing that Europe with just over 10 percent of the world’s population still has a firm grasp on global affairs.

Michel Gabaudan President of Refugees International who worked under Guterres at UNHCR told IPS that he was delighted that this year’s open selection process ultimately resulted in the selection of Guterres.

“I think we need a strong leader, we need a visionary leader and we need a diplomatic leader and I think Mr Guterres definitely has shown to have all of these qualities,” said Gabaudan.

“He brings countries together which is basically the job of the Secretary General so tremendous challenge ahead for Mr Guterres but I think the UN has selected the right person for that difficult job.”

Natalie Samarasinghe, Executive Director of the United Nations Association, UK and co-founder of the 1 for 7 Billion campaign told IPS that she believes that Guterres selection also reflects the success of this year’s improved selection process.

“The announcement today is testament to the impact of the more open and inclusive process for which 1 for 7 Billion campaigned,” Samarasinghe told IPS.

“Guterres was not seen as a frontrunner at the beginning of the race – “wrong” gender and region for starters – but was widely considered to have done well in his General Assembly dialogue and in other events, with many commenting on his experience and ability to inspire.”

The 1 for 7 Billion campaign has called for improvements in the appointment of the Secretary-General, including calling for a single, longer term of office to remove the perceived pressures of pleasing the veto-wielding five permanent members of the Security Council – China, France, Russia the United States and the United Kingdom.

These perceived pressures were also noted by Louis Charbonneau, UN Director at Human Rights Watch.

“Ultimately, the next UN secretary-general will be judged on his ability to stand up to the very powers that just selected him, whether on Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, the refugee crisis, climate change or any other problem that comes his way,” noted Charbonneau.

However, like many others, Charbonneau also welcomed Guterres appointment:

“With Antonio Guterres, the Security Council has chosen an outspoken and effective advocate for refugees with the potential to strike a radically new tone on human rights at a time of great challenges.”

Guterres is considered likely to be a candidate willing and able to stand up for the voiceless at the UN. In April, he told journalists of how his experience volunteering with the homeless had inspired his career in politics.

The news of Guterres’ selection also coincided with the confirmation that the Paris Climate Change agreement has enough signatories to enter into force within 30 days. The important next stage of implementing the non-binding agreement will now fall to Guterres’ purview.

Guterres will replace outgoing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of South Korea.