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

Ralph Nader: Open Letter To Attorney General Lynch: Prosecution Or Guilty Pleas For Corporate Crimes

0
0

Dear Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

News outlets are reporting that you are about to settle the criminal case with Takata airbag defect case for nearly $1 billion and the Volkswagen emissions cheating case for nearly $2 billion.

On the VW case, the New York Times reported that “the company or one of its corporate entities is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges as part of the deal.”

On the Takata case, the New York Times reported that “one point that remains unresolved is whether there will be any guilty plea to criminal misconduct, either by the company or one of its subsidiaries.”

Takata’s defective airbags have been linked to at least 11 deaths and more than 180 injuries in the United States.

As you know, Clarence Ditlow, an engineer and lawyer who headed the Center for Auto Safety for many decades, passed away last year.

In early 2016, Mr. Ditlow appeared on my weekly radio program – The Ralph Nader Radio Hour –  and called for criminal charges to be brought against Takata and VW and its executives.

Ditlow called the Volkswagen diesel case one of the most egregious corporate crime cases in history.

“This is one of the most egregious corporate crimes I have ever seen,” Mr. Ditlow said. “When the Environmental Protection Agency set tough new standards for diesel engines, Volkswagen quickly discovered that its technology wouldn’t meet the new standards. But, what they did is, instead of sending their engineers to work, designing a new system to clean up the diesel, they sent their engineers to work developing a computer program that would instruct the diesel engine to only work the emission controls during the test procedure. And, when the diesel is out in the real world on the highway, to turn off the emission controls. So, in order to do this you have to have engineers who deliberately programmed into the computer system a cheat device, which would turn off the emission controls. Clear knowledge. Clear intent. And they got caught.”

Ditlow said that “in the U.S. there are nearly 500,000 of these diesels with the cheat devices on them.”

“Across the world there are many millions, as many as 11 million vehicles in every country, polluting the atmosphere, causing adverse health effects. And, one study here in the U.S. said that there be as many as 60 deaths due to this corporate crime by Volkswagen.”

“I mean, we’re not talking about a petty crime here. What we’re talking about is a gross corporate crime. These diesels emit up to 40 times the amount of emissions that they are allowed to. And, it’s very fine particulates that are coming out of the diesel. It’s nitrogen oxides. And, it’s going into the lungs of individuals, and if you’re particularly sensitive you are quite likely to suffer disease and illness and ultimately death.”

“The government in the U.S. the governments throughout Europe and the rest of the world  …  send the responsible executives to jail,” Ditlow said. “This is not something that a rogue engineer did. This is something that management approved, because, you cannot sell a car unless you get it certified by EPA. And, top management always looks at that. Because, if it can’t sell the car, you’re not going to make money. And, the way they made money this time was they cheated.”

On Takata, Mr. Ditlow said this: “Up through the year 2000, almost every airbag inflator made worldwide, including by Takata, used sodium azide as a propellant. Very stable. If it broke down it just simply degraded and there were no adverse effects. If you had to replace it, you had to replace it. But, what Takata did in the beginning of 2001 was to change the propellant to ammonium nitrate, an incredibly powerful explosive. It’s what Terry McVeigh used to bring down the government office building in Oklahoma City. It’s what a lot of terrorists in the Mideast are using in the improvised explosive devises. And so, yet this propellant that Takata used, it was known to degrade, known to explode, they put it into the airbag inflator to save, once again, a few pennies per inflator. And so, they knew immediately, once these inflators were put into production that they were failing, they were exploding, and when they exploded they sent the shrapnel of the housing into the occupant compartment. And, if you’re behind the steering wheel and you had no other choice at that time, you are very likely to be killed or seriously injured.”

To bring justice to the victims of the Takata and VW criminal actions, I ask that you not just fine the companies and agree to deferred prosecution agreements, or a guilty plea against some subsidiary of the company – but bring the full weight of the criminal law – against both the parent company and responsible executives.

The recent trend of settling major corporate crime cases with deferred or non prosecution agreements has undermined the criminal justice system and sent a message that we live in a society with a two tier system of justice – deferred and non prosecutions for the powerful, guilty pleas and jail for the powerless.

Whoever it was that leaked to the New York Times that “one point that remains unresolved [in the Takata case] is whether there will be any guilty plea to criminal misconduct, either by the company or one of its subsidiaries” was testing the public’s sentiment on this issue.

Whatever your next stop in the legal field – be it corporate law firm, Wall Street, academia, or public interest group – rest assured your judgment in these cases will go a long way to help define your legal legacy as Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader


Russia’s Foreign Policy At Strategic Crossroads In 2017 – Analysis

0
0

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

Strategic dilemmas face Russia in 2017 in terms of recalibrating its foreign policies with United States and China in response to new US President’s policy shifts recently indicated.

US President-elect Trump has minced no words in enunciating likely hard line policies against China and the United States desire to recast existing American policies for more cooperative relations with Russia.

What is at stake for Russia in 2017 is whether it would like to regain its strategic equivalence with the United States in an engagement mode or continue with its existing tag of being the junior partner in the Russia-China Strategic Nexus viewed as confrontationist to the United States and also not viewed favourably by the existing Major Powers nor by Emerging Powers like India and Japan?

Foreign policies do not take long to change but basing precisely on incoming US President Trump’s assertions so far, it seems that the United States after January 20 2017 can be expected to launch foreign policy initiatives of ‘constructive engagement’ with Russia and a comparatively forceful ‘competitive stances’ towards China both strategically and economically.

In terms of Russia-United States new foreign policy approaches enough commentaries exist that suggest that President Trump is inclined to tilt favourably towards Russia, so much so that he has been dismissive of charges in US media that Russia hacked the presidential elections. In response to outgoing US President Obama expelling 35 Russian from USA on hacking charges, the Russian President stopped his Foreign Ministry from retaliatory expelling of US diplomats from Moscow.

So at this stage there is a matching complementarity between the US President and the Russian President in moving towards policies of mutual constructive engagement. It seems likely that the Russian President’s positive approaches towards a new United States outreach would be independent of concerns for Chinese sensitivities.

In terms of US-China relations after January 20 2017, President-elect Trump has in the run-up castigated China as a currency manipulator against US trade interests, causing strategic and military turbulence in the South China Sea and to top it all questioned United States established policy of sticking to the ‘One China Policy’ vociferously demanded by China from all nations wanting to have diplomatic relations with China.

No American President has ever questioned the ‘One China’ precept so far. Some argue that it is only a bargaining tool against China. Whatever it may be but the fact that it has been publicly articulated unprecedently by an incoming US President and has raised China’s hackles and world capitals are painstakingly deciphering its impact on the Asia Pacific security environment.

Ten days before President Trump’s inauguration, the foreign policy landscape augurs well for Russia-United States relations and a possible down-slide of US-China relations. Chinese official organs commentaries have indulged in stinging name-calling of President Trump, which cannot be counted as a good sign of traditional Chinese patience when faced with complexities.

With the above contextual background one can now refocus on the main theme under discussion and that is what directions Russia will adopt and how will it recast Russian foreign policies in 2017 to meet the contradictory pulls of a very much desirable constructive engagement with a United States willing to reach-out to Russia and retaining the decade and a half old Russia-China Strategic Nexus, which in essence was intended to be a counterfoil to United States predominance?

Logically, for Russia, a cooperative engagement relationship with United States would be globally welcomed as contributively to global stability and security. It would be a return to a more predictable global security and stability template as existent during the latter half of the Cold War.

Repeatedly emphasised in my past writings is the fact that while a US-Russia G2 combination for global security management would be welcome in world capitals a US-China G2 combination is not welcome.

Russia persisting with its cosy Russia-China Strategic Nexus has not witnessed any tangible strategic gains for Russia; only economic gains have followed. But the real danger for Russia would be as to how can it detach itself from the US-China Cold War already underway and which could intensify with President Trump dispensing with traditional ‘strategic restraint’ of hithertofore.

Would it be desirable for Russia now at this stage to respond unreservedly to a new American political reach-out while changing the nuances of its proximity to China to be one of economic preponderance relationship? Would Russia opt for restoring its relationship with the United States as one of established global heavyweights or would Russia persist in siding with a ‘revisionist power’ like China bent on overturning the established stability status-quo?

Complex questions which some are likely to dismiss as speculative but that is the reality which Russia’s foreign policy directions have to cope with in 2017. Hopefully, some imaginative American diplomacy could ease Russia’s predicaments in making the right foreign policy moves of loosening if not full detachment from its China linkages.

In conclusion, what can be said is that the answers to the above questions rest with the Russian President and his foreign policy establishment as they ponder the policy choices that confront Russia at the strategic crossroads in 2017. A stark foreign policy choice awaits Russia whether it wishes to be on the right side of history or against it.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

US Intel Agencies Try To Strong-Arm Trump Into War With Russia – OpEd

0
0

Powerful elites are using the credibility of the US Intelligence agencies to demonize Russia and prepare the country for war. This is the real meaning of the “Russia hacking” story which, as yet, has not produced any hard evidence of Russian complicity.

Last week’s 25-page report, that was released by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, illustrates to what extent intelligence is being “fixed around the policy”.  Just as the CIA generated false information related to Weapons of Mass Destruction to soften public resistance to war with Iraq, so too, the spurious allegations in the DNI’s politically-motivated report are designed to depict Russia as a growing threat to US national security. The timing of the report has less to do with the election of Donald Trump as President than it does with critical developments in Syria where the Russian military has defeated US-proxies in Syria’s industrial hub, Aleppo, rolling back Washington’s 15-year War of Terror and derailing the imperialist plan to control vital resources and pipeline corridors across the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia has become the main obstacle to Washington achieving its strategic vision of pivoting to Asia and maintaining its dominant role into the next century. The Intelligence Community has been coerced into compromising its credibility to incite fear of Russia and to advance the geopolitical ambitions of deep state powerbrokers.

The “Russia hacking” flap shows how far the Intel agencies have veered from their original mandate, which is to impartially gather and analyze information that may be vital to US national security. As we have seen in the last two weeks, the leaders of these organizations feel free to offer opinions on  issues that clearly conflict with those of the new President-elect. Trump has stated repeatedly that he wants to reduce tensions and reset relations with Russia, but that policy is being sabotaged by members of the intelligence community, particularly CIA Director John Brennan who appeared just last week on PBS Newshour with Judy Woodruff. Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

“We see that there are still a lot of actions that Russia is undertaking that undermine the principles of democracy in so many countries. What has happened in our recent election is not new. The Russians have engaged in trying to manipulate elections in Europe for a number of years…

the Russians tried to interfere in our electoral process recently, and were actively involved in that. And that is something that we can’t countenance.” (“Interview with CIA Director John Brennan”,  PBS Newshour)

Brennan, of course, provided no evidence for his claims nor did he mention the hundreds of CIA interventions around the world. But Brennan’s accusations are less important than the fact that his appearance on a nationwide broadcast identifies him as a political advocate for policies that conflict with those of the new president. Do we really want unelected intelligence officials — whose job it is to provide the president with sensitive information related to national security– to assume a partisan role in shaping policy? And why would Brennan –whose is supposed to “serve at the pleasure of the president”– accept an invitation to offer his views on Russia when he knew they would be damaging to the new administration?

Powerful people behind the scenes are obviously pushing the heads of these intelligence agencies to stick to their ‘anti-Moscow’ narrative to force Trump to abandon his plan for peaceful relations with Moscow.  Brennan isn’t calling the shots and neither are Clapper or Comey. They’re all merely agents serving the interests of establishment plutocrats whose geopolitical agenda doesn’t jibe with that of the incoming administration. If that wasn’t the case, then why would the Intelligence Community stake its reputation on such thin gruel as this Russian hacking gibberish? It doesn’t make any sense. The people who launched this campaign are either supremely arrogant or extremely desperate. Which is it?  Here’s an excerpt from an article by veteran journalist Robert Parry sums it up like this in an article at Consortium News:

“The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information – built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.

But the case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses” – as in the U.S. intelligence community “assesses” that Russia is guilty – suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.” (“US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‘Hack’”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Bottom line: Brennan and his fellow spooks have nothing. The report is little more than a catalogue of unfounded assumptions, baseless speculation and uncorroborated conjecture. In colloquial parlance, it’s bullshit, 100 percent, unalloyed Russophobic horse-manure. In fact, the authors admit as much in the transcript itself when they say:

 “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”

What kind of kooky admission is that?  So the entire report could be BS but we’re supposed to believe that Putin flipped the election? Is that it???

What’s really going on here?  Why have the Intelligence agencies savaged their credibility just to convince people that Russia is up to no good?

The Russia hacking story has more to do with recent developments in Syria than it does with delegitimizing Donald Trump. Aleppo was a real wake up call for the US foreign policy establishment which is beginning to realize that their plans for the next century have been gravely undermined by Russia’s military involvement in Syria. Aleppo represents the first time that an armed coalition of allied states (Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah) have actively engaged US jihadist-proxies and soundly beat them to a pulp. The stunning triumph in Aleppo has spurred hope among the vassal states that Washington’s bloody military juggernaut can be repelled, rolled back and defeated. And if Washington’s CIA-armed, trained and funded jihadists can be repelled, then the elitist plan to project US power into Central Asia to dominate the world’s most populous and prosperous region, will probably fail. In other words, the outcome in Aleppo has cast doubts on Uncle Sam’s ability to successfully execute its pivot to Asia.

That’s why the Intel agencies have been employed to shape public perceptions on Russia.  Their job is to prepare the American people for an escalation of hostilities between the two nuclear-armed superpowers. US powerbrokers are determined to intensify the conflict and reverse facts on the ground. (Recent articles by elites at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute reveal that they are as committed to partitioning Syria as ever.)  Washington wants to  reassert its exceptional role as the uncontested steward of global security and the lone ‘unipolar’ world power.

That’s what this whole “hacking” fiasco is about. The big shots who run the country are trying to strong-arm ‘the Donald’ into carrying their water so the depredations can continue and Central Asia can be transformed into a gigantic Washington-dominated corporate free trade zone where the Big Money calls the shots and Capital reigns supreme. That’s their dreamstate, Capitalist Valhalla.

They just need Trump to get-with-the-program so the bloodletting can continue apace.

Philippines: Duterte Announces ‘National Bible Month’

0
0

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has previously told Filipinos not to believe in religions especially the Catholic Church, has declared January “National Bible Month.”

“The state recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the elevating influence of religion in human society,” a Duterte proclamation signed on Jan. 5 said.

“It is fitting and proper, for the molding of the spiritual, moral and social fiber of our citizenry, that national attention be focused on the importance of reading and studying the Bible,” it said.

The Philippine leader, who has branded the Catholic Church as the “most hypocritical institution,” said history bears witness to the “profound impact of the Bible on the life of nations.”

Catholic Church leaders welcomed the proclamation.

Bishop Ruperto Santos of Balanga said it is “a very praiseworthy and inspiring gesture.”

“We thank the president for giving due recognition to the religiosity of our people and the importance of the Holy Scriptures in the development of our people,” Bishop Robert Mallari of San Jose, said.

Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of San Carlos said the proclamation is a “golden opportunity” for parishes “to work together” with local government units during the observance of the “Year of the Parish” in 2017.

In signing the order, Duterte said the Philippine Constitution mandates the national government to promote the ethical and spiritual values of the citizens and to help improve their morality.

UK: University Students Refuse To Study White European Philosophers

0
0

Students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white, The Telegraph reports.

The student union at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) insists that when studying philosophy “the majority of philosophers on our courses” should be from Africa and Asia.

The union said it is part of wider campaign to “decolonise” the university, as it seeks to “address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism”.

It comes after education leaders warned that universities will be forced to pander to the demands of “snowflake” students, however unreasonable they might be.

Under proposed reforms to higher education, the Government wants to place student satisfaction at the heart of a new ranking system, but critics fear it could undermine academic integrity.

Sir Roger Scruton, the philosopher, said the demands suggest “ignorance”. “You can’t rule out a whole area of intellectual endeavour without having investigated it and clearly they haven’t investigated what they mean by white philosophy,” he told The Mail on Sunday.

“If they think there is a colonial context from which Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason arose, I would like to hear it.’

Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, added: “There is a real danger political correctness is getting out of control. We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been.”

The student union at SOAS, a leading centre for the study of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, stated that “decolonising” the university and “confronting the white institution” is one of its priorities for the academic year.

It said that “white philosophers” should be studied only “if required”, adding that their work should be taught solely from a “critical standpoint”. “For example, acknowledging the colonial context in which so-called ‘Enlightenment’ philosophers wrote within,” it added.

Erica Hunter, head of SOAS’s Religions and Philosophies department, said the union’s viewpoint was “rather ridiculous”, adding: “I would firmly resist dropping philosophers or historians just because it was fashionable.”

Dr Deborah Johnston, Pro-Director (Learning and Teaching), said: “One of the great strengths of SOAS is that we have always looked at world issues from the perspective of the regions we study – Asia, Africa & Middle East.

Spy Chiefs Tell Trump That Russia Has Damaging Info About Him

0
0

US spy chiefs have informed Donald Trump that Russian operatives claim to possess deeply compromising personal and financial information about him, US media reported on the eve of the president-elect’s first press conference.

Trump denounced a “political witch hunt” after CNN reported that intelligence officials briefing him last week on allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. election had also given him a synopsis of the explosive and unverified claims.

“FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!” the president-elect tweeted.

Intelligence chiefs last week presented America’s incoming 45th president, as well as outgoing President Barack Obama, with a two-page synopsis on the potential embarrassment, according to CNN and The New York Times, who cited multiple unnamed U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the meeting.

Obama delivered his farewell address Tuesday, January 10 evening as the bombshell report was reverberating in political and diplomatic circles with just 10 days to go until Trump’s inauguration.

CNN gave no details of the allegations but U.S. media outlet Buzzfeed published, without corroborating its contents, a 35-page dossier of memos on which the synopsis is based, which had been circulating in Washington for months.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes filmed during a 2013 visit by Trump to a luxury Moscow hotel, supposedly as a potential means for blackmail.

They also suggest Russian officials proposed lucrative deals in order to win influence over the Republican real estate magnate.

The dossier was originally compiled by a former British MI-6 intelligence operative hired by other U.S. presidential contenders to do political “opposition research” on Trump in the middle of last year, according to CNN.

Trump was reportedly informed of the existence of the dossier — and its salacious details — last Friday when he received a briefing from U.S. intelligence chiefs on alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.

The classified two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a regular flow of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and Russian government intermediaries.

“Nothing’s been confirmed,” Trump senior aide Kellyanne Conway told NBC about the material. “They’re all unnamed, unspoken sources.”

Trump’s Education Pick Under Fire – OpEd

0
0

The Senate is expected to hold hearings next week on Betsy DeVos,   President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. As soon as he announced his choice on November 23, anti-school choice activists attacked her.

The ACLU immediately went on the offensive warning that “private and parochial schools” would benefit. Such a condition it said, “perverts the bedrock American value of separation of church and state.”

There is a reason the ACLU never mentioned the “bedrock American value” of religious liberty. When it was founded in 1920, it listed every right incorporated in the First Amendment as one of its top ten priorities, save for freedom of religion. Ever since, it has worked tirelessly against this right, the exception being the religious rights of prisoners, Muslim extremists, and the like.

Also attacking DeVos on the day she was nominated was the Interfaith Alliance. It is so opposed to religious liberty that it has tried to stop the installation of war memorials honoring veterans if they mention God. Its  opposition to the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which defends marriage between a man and a woman, showed its ideological colors. It has also tried to censor me: in 2010, it joined with other left-wing groups lobbying TV producers never to invite me again.

The third organization to rip DeVos was Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Founded as a virulently anti-Catholic group in the 1940s, it is led by Barry Lynn today. He accused DeVos of mounting a “crusade to create school vouchers across the country.” Notice his italic. Betsy the Crusader is coming to Washington!

Katherine Stewart, writing in the New York Times, agrees with Lynn, citing a comment DeVos made in 2001 saying educational reform is a way to “advance God’s kingdom.” Terrifying. That should all but seal her  fate. Had a nominee invoked Satan’s kingdom, it would be seen as free speech, if not applauded.

The public school establishment is, of course, leading the charge. Michael Mulgrew of the United Federation of Teachers warns that school choice would undermine public education in New York City, which is “moving in the right direction.” In point of fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to award failing schools in New York with more funding turned out to be a monumental failure. After spending 869 million dollars, almost all these schools failed to meet expected standards.

Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, is predictably upset. “Betsy DeVos is not qualified,” she said, “and even more than unqualified, Betsy DeVos is an actual danger to students—especially our most vulnerable students.” Of course, it is precisely “the most vulnerable students” who stand to benefit the most by giving their parents the same opportunity that Barack and Michelle Obama have had in sending Sasha and Malia to private schools.

Best of all is the argument made by some faculty members at the University of Cincinnati. “DeVos is unqualified.” Why? “DeVos has no relevant credentials in education, no formal training or experience in teaching, and no advanced knowledge of educational research.” That’s her strength: she hasn’t been corrupted by the credentialized class. She knows what works, which is more than can be said about many of those with initials after their name.

These activists and educrats are scared to death of allowing parents the right to choose which school to send their children to, knowing full well that they might opt to select a charter school, non-denominational private school, Christian school, Catholic school, or a yeshiva.

Betsy DeVos deserves a fair hearing. That means turning a blind eye to the demagogues and the foes of religious liberty out to sunder her.

To read Bill Donohue’s article on school choice that appears in the January/February edition of Catalyst, the Catholic League journal, click here.

Jordan’s Queen Rania Named One Of World’s Most Fashionable

0
0

Queen Rania of Jordan, Qatar’s Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser and Lebanese-British lawyer and activist Amal Clooney are among 150 women chosen by editors of Harper’s Bazaar as the world’s most fashionable.

The magazine’s first-ever such list comes in celebration of its 150th anniversary, Editor-in-Chief Glenda Bailey said Monday. Madonna was chosen as cover girl for the group in the February issue.

The list, released Tuesday, is comprised of Hollywood A-listers, music elite, fashion designers, celebrity stylists, Instagram It ladies and other mavens.

Star power definitely prevails: Rihanna, the former Kate Middleton, Liu Wen, Kristen Stewart, Naomi Campbell, Miranda Kerr, Kendall Jenner and big sister Kim Kardashian West, sisters Gigi Hadid and Bella Hadid, Kaia Gerber and her mother, Cindy Crawford, Beyonce, Zendaya, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Adele, Gwen Stefani, Riley Keough, Lupita Nyong’o, Gia Coppola, Cindy Sherman, Roopal Patel and Olivia Palermo.

Amal, the famous wife of actor George Clooney, never fails to put a stylish foot wrong, whether it is on the red carpet or in the courtroom. She wowed the crowds in a stunning one-shoulder Grecian-inspired dress as she made her Cannes debut at the Palais des Festivals et des Congres this year.

Meanwhile, both Middle East royals, Queen Rania and Sheikha Mozah continue to inspire fashionistas with top-notch looks comprising show-stopping gowns and trend-setting casual wear.

Editors of the Hearst magazine around the world — it has 32 editions worldwide — voted for their favorites.

“Our lists were more or less the same,” Bailey said in an interview. “These women are renowned for style around the world. And they all have such very different styles. This is in praise of the individual.”

The magazine plans a cocktail party to celebrate that fact and its listees the weekend of the Screen Actors Guild Awards ceremony Jan. 29. A series of other events to mark its 150th year are planned.


Obama Appeals For Unity In Goodbye Speech

0
0

U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday the country is a “better, stronger place” than when he took office in 2008, pointing to the reversal of a recession, passage of his landmark healthcare program and the legalization of gay marriage as achievements the American people have won through his message of change.

That section of his farewell address drew huge applause from a crowd of thousands in Chicago, delivered a few kilometers from the site where he gave his acceptance speech the night he won his first term in the White House.

With less than two weeks before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, Obama had directed his team to craft an address that would speak to all Americans, including those who voted for Trump.

Obama said in his speech it is up to all Americans to make sure the government can meet the country’s many challenges and that he has committed to making the transition to the new administration as smooth as possible.

“Understand, democracy does not require uniformity,” he said. “Our founders quarreled and compromised, and expected us to do the same. But they knew that democracy does require a basic sense of solidarity — the idea that for all our outward differences, we are all in this together.”

Obama is the first black man to serve as U.S. president, and he noted that after his election many spoke of what they called a “post-racial” America. But he said race is still a “potent and often divisive force,” and stressed the need to uphold anti-discrimination laws.​

He urged minorities to connect their own struggles to challenges faced by refugees, immigrants, the rural poor and transgender Americans, and for the country’s white population to acknowledge that laws that discriminated against African-Americans have effects that endure 50 years after they were abolished.

“So regardless of the station that we occupy; we have to try harder; we all have to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own.”

Obama listed economic achievements such as cutting the number of people who lack health insurance, a growing economy and a lower unemployment rate. But he said those are not enough and that economic inequality hurts the country’s democratic principles.

“While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind,” he said.

Obama told U.S. military members that serving as their commander-in-chief was the honor of his lifetime, and he pointed to successes in the fight against terrorism, including the killing of former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and the ongoing coalition effort against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

The president said the United States has to guard against weakening its values in the face of fear, further noting his efforts to ban torture, reform government surveillance laws and close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“That’s why I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans,” Obama said, drawing perhaps his loudest applause of the night.

He said he is more optimistic about the country than when he began his presidency. But he also urged people to take an active role in democracy, saying the system depends on Americans “accepting the responsibility of citizenship regardless of which way the pendulum swings.”

During his 2008 campaign, Obama used as one of his slogans, “Change we can believe in.” He returned to that idea at the end of his address Tuesday.

“I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours,” Obama said.

FIFA Approves 48 Nations For 2026 World Cup

0
0

FIFA’s ruling council on Tuesday unanimously approved an expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams in 2026, with a format of 16 groups of three nations.

“The FIFA Council unanimously decided on a 48-team #WorldCup as of 2026: 16 groups of 3 teams,” a tweet from FIFA’s official account said.

The decision marks a major coup for the body’s president Gianni Infantino who has made enlarging football’s showcase event the centrepiece of his young administration.

The controversial proposal had faced criticism from some of the sport’s most powerful voices, including warnings that it would dilute the quality of play and overburden already exhausted players.

But Infantino had in recent weeks voiced confidence that his flagship project would be approved.

The FIFA chief has noted that a bigger tournament would beef up FIFA’s coffers.

And a confidential FIFA report seen by AFP projects a 48-team tournament would bring a cash boost of $640 million (605 million euros) above projected revenues for next year’s finals in Russia.

But Infantino has also argued that more World Cup berths would help drive football’s global growth by boosting “inclusion” in the “biggest social and sporting event”.

Among those who seemed convinced by that argument was Argentine football legend Diego Maradona, who on Monday said a 48-team format “will give more possibilities to countries that have never reached that level of competition”.

Africa and Asia could be the big winners in a larger format with a rise in their number of places, currently at 5 and 4.5 respectively.

But in order to smooth over scepticism about World Cup reform within UEFA, it is likely that Europe will also see its allotments rise above the current 13 places.

A source close to FIFA told AFP that under the new format Europe could get 16 places, with Africa earning nine.

But the information remained unconfirmed and world football’s governing body was not expected to immediately announce its final decision on allotments.

The powerful council officially weighed five proposals during Tuesday’s meeting at FIFA’s snow-covered Zurich headquarters, including maintaining the status quo of 32-teams.

The landmark decision to expand the tournament is the latest overhaul of the World Cup, which has seen its global popularity and financial might surge since the inaugural edition in 1930.

That contest, won by Uruguay, had just 13 countries.

The World Cup expanded to 24 teams in 1982 in Spain before moving to its current 32-team version at France 1998.

Don’t Bet On Enduring Republican Reset With Russia – Analysis

0
0

For domestic politics, Russia’s President Putin may need rivalry with the US more than Trump as friend.

By Daniel Twining*

Donald Trump won’t be the first American president to “reset” relations with Russia following an assault on Western interests and values. In March 2009 President Barack Obama launched his own version of a reset – only seven months after Russia’s brazen invasion of Georgia, an ally of the United States that had been on track for NATO membership. Yet whereas Obama’s outreach was met with the approval of his own party, Trump’s ambitions have fractured a Republican national security establishment that condemns Obama for treating American adversaries with kid gloves and favors a tougher approach.

Russia policy therefore poses the first test of whether Republicans in Congress will bend to the wishes of their party’s leader in foreign affairs or pull him in a direction more consistent with his party’s principles. It also poses a test for Congressional Democrats now in opposition. After eight years in which a Democratic president allowed competitors like China, Iran and Russia to make strategic gains at American expense, and failed to enforce a White House “red line” against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people in Syria, will Democrats return to their historic posture, under Cold War presidents and the post–Cold War administration of Bill Clinton, of advocating that the United States stand firm against aggressive authoritarian rulers?

Divisions among Republicans on Russia policy result partly from the lenses through which Trump and the party’s national security wing view the problem. Republicans in Congress, led by Senator John McCain of Arizona, see a continuing pattern of Russian aggression under Vladimir Putin ever more dangerous to US interests: from the 2008 invasion of Georgia to the 2014 invasion of Ukraine to aggressive military maneuvers on NATO’s borders to, in 2016, active interference in the US presidential campaign. The US intelligence community judges convincingly that Russia’s intelligence services through a combination of hacking, leaks and propaganda worked actively to undercut the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate.

By contrast, Trump assumes that opponents have overstated the effects of Russian meddling.  As made clear by his January 6 statement, when he was briefed by US intelligence leaders on Russia’s state-sponsored intervention in the campaign, his first concern was to push back against any findings that call into question his victory over Clinton.

Democratic partisans have contributed to this sentiment by overstating the effect of Russian interference – by all accounts, Russian operatives did not compromise voting machines or computer tallying of votes. But Trump, at least until his latest intelligence briefing, seemed to suggest that reasonable concerns over Russia’s efforts to compromise American institutions are targeted at delegitimizing him as president-elect. He seems to consider Putin a partner in the US fight against the Islamic State, and after the election, the Kremlin said the two men share an interest in uniting efforts against “international terrorism and extremism.”

De-personalizing the problem will make it easier for policymakers of all persuasions to come to grips with it. So will understanding the true nature of Russian foreign policy under Putin. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said on January 8 that Russia has done nothing to defeat the Islamic State in Syria. Russian forces instead targeted Syrian rebels that oppose the Assad government. Therefore, there is little basis for Trump to form an alliance with Putin against ISIS, since Russian forces are not engaged in the battle against the group.

America’s next president will discover that Russia’s challenge looks different from the Oval Office. Russia’s information operations are targeting mainstream political parties contesting national elections over coming months across Europe, designed to disintegrate the EU and NATO. Trump’s desire for US allies to pull their own weight will be stymied if centrist leaders in Berlin, Paris, Rome and other capitals are deposed by populist fringe parties unprepared to govern.

For their part, European allies will look for reassurance after years in which Europe seemed somewhat of an afterthought for Obama. He promised a “pivot” to Asia, which naturally led European leaders to fear Washington withdrawing from its historic Atlantic orientation in favor of opportunities in the East – a fear confirmed when Obama prioritized a trans-Pacific trade pact at the expense of a potentially more consequential one with Europe. Obama withdrew US support for NATO’s enlargement farther east, signaling to Russia that the gray zone between NATO and the Russian border was ripe for Russian predation, as occurred in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It was Obama, not Trump, who accused European allies of being “free-riders,” and Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who bluntly told European leaders that a NATO alliance in which Americans assumed most of the costs and burdens was unsustainable.

The irony is that members of the Republican Party who follow Trump and now support détente with Putin were among those most critical of Obama’s relative neglect of Europe and reluctance to deploy American power to prevent the construction of new Russian spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Trump seems determined to test his theory that accommodating Russian interests on the periphery could diminish Russian revanchism, by playing to Putin’s ego as an equal partner. But the logic of Putin’s authoritarian rule at home – with free media muzzled, political opponents murdered or imprisoned, and state resources siphoned off by oligarchs granted a free hand by the Kremlin in return for political support – requires him to convince his public that Russia confronts an implacable foe abroad and only a strong leader can defend the motherland. Putin needs America, or its proxy NATO, as an enemy, because true friendship with the West would expose Russia under his rule as a military-industrial kleptocracy fueled by elite rent-seeking at the expense of public welfare.

American intelligence leaders attest that Russia’s campaign to influence the US presidential election was driven by Putin’s personal vitriol against Hillary Clinton, whom he believed encouraged protestors to challenge his rule by taking to the streets in 2011 and 2012. Russian officials expected Clinton to win the White House and worked preemptively to discredit her.

Trump’s victory reportedly was an unexpected surprise for Moscow. He might surprise Putin again by making clear, on taking office, that he will follow his party’s instincts in building up a military superiority that Russia cannot match, juicing US economic growth to leave Russia’s resource-based economy behind in an age of innovation, and reaffirming US leadership of NATO on the grounds that American greatness is partly a function of its allies’ followership.

Deterring further Russian adventurism would allow Trump to be the domestic policy president he was elected to be: His supporters voted for him not to cozy up to dictators but to restore American exceptionalism. Enacting a program of economic reform and growth will require the White House to work closely with Republicans in Congress, not take them on over principles of Russia policy. Nor will Trump, as savvy politician, want to cede to Democrats Republicans’ historic advantage as defenders of national security.

Putin should temper his hopes for an alliance with America, since the structure of rivalry has historically transcended personal relationships between leaders. Congress must pursue its historic role overseeing foreign policy to pull the commander-in-chief in a responsible direction, and European allies should step up their contributions to NATO to prove to the incoming US president their inestimable worth within a shared community of values.

*Daniel Twining is counselor at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a thinktank and foundation in Washington, DC.

Squeeze And Wiggle: Transport Chaos In London – OpEd

0
0

It has the air of being a well minted yet distinctly first world problem: inconvenienced commuters in one of the world’s first true megalopolises, gnashing their teeth as they are pushed and grounded together during the rush hour. All because of a strike by station workers on the London Underground, which supplies the arterial blood for commuter traffic in the city on a daily basis.

The strike, instigated by the Rail Maritime and Transport union and Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, had been calculated to cause maximum inconvenience. Their grounds remain traditional: a persistent dislike for the closing of ticket offices, and the reduction of staff numbers at stations.

London, at the best of times, reeks of greying decay and creaky transport arrangements. The review by TravelWatch into the workings of the London Underground added succour to that proposition. It identified problems with the continuing mania with ticket vending machines, limited access for people with disabilities and the general structural layout of stations.[1] Guidance and information to passengers was also considered poor.

All it takes is one disruption to breed many; one freakish act of nature to stall several parts of an all-ready ill functioning public transport system. Despite such events, there is a striking note of business of as usual. Crankiness, while evident at points, is carefully bottled. London will muddle through.

Today, the crowds and queues gathering on the overland lines heading into the central part of the city gave it an ever greater air of slumming, edging ever to chaos. Clapham Junction featured crowds of such magnitude as to prompt announcements for evacuation. This did not stop others still braving the throngs, mechanically programmed, as ever, to make work on time.

Platforms on stops along the Bedford and Luton line heaved with agitation and lengthy, snaking queues. At the point where the train’s doors would open, people had planted themselves with grim determination, waiting to push in others back into the train at a moment’s notice.

Deodorised (and some not so) bodies rubbed together; there is friction and the odd nervous glare, highly awkward placing of body parts between spaces. Travelling in London is, in the main, a hermetic experience, premised on getting to the point of alighting with little fuss, and preferably little conversation. The hermits were finding themselves looking at each other, though many preferred the escapist route of their phones.

In such situations, the little authoritarian voice is bound to make a showing. One calls out that we are collectively in this together, and we all had to muck in to make the journey more bearable. “Can you wiggle a bit down the carriage?,” came the headmistress-liked tone from an individual who might well be an attendant, or simply an officious passenger.

“Fuck off!” snarls a commuter in the back of the carriage. “Don’t worry about him,” replies the officious headmistress with indifference. Her purpose was set for the glory of encouragement. “He is just being selfish. Come one everybody, pull yourselves together and don’t be selfish at the start of the week!”

The ride into St. Pancras becomes oppressive, only relenting at the City Thameslink stop, but the famous British temper in the face of intervening inconvenience, and in some cases existential threat, holds. There is nothing to be done, and people do their best to wiggle and move in the fiercely occupied spaces, adjusting their work bags, crushing the odd toe or finding an errant hand on a less than willing breast. Again, the bottling of emotion is evident, and the mind begins to reflect on hidden neuroses, concealed conditions, and the mysterious inner anger that always seems mediated.

Even the other Europeans obviously going in for work in the city are making a decent, sombre fist of it, knowing that things could always be worse, even if the London system can be, at times, atrocious relative to continental counterparts.

There is much to be entertained by – the fanatical desire to keep The City’s financial fires burning, the robotic sense of purpose that defies self-examination. For others, the fuss is simply too much. It was always going to be a bit too rich for those with a cardiovascular condition, or any other range of conditions which make proximity to fellow humans a challenge. The journey to St. Pancras stalls with some excitement, with the driver informing everybody, apologetically, that some one had taken ill and was being tended to on the platform. The curious crane locked necks, though the fuss proved to be minimal.

There are also tips available for those who had not thought how to navigate the city on foot. Taking the underground tends to be automatic position of London commuter, even between short distances. “Stuck during the tube strike?” went the IB Times UK. “Here’s how long it takes to walk between stations.”

Those seeking to use such transport services as Uber and Addison Lee were coming up with little. Transport for London announced a remedy of 150 extra buses, interesting commuters with a few vintage models. All in all, it was evident that the city, on this Monday, was paralysed. Focus, then, turned on the motivations behind the strike.

The usual vox pops approach by the media suggested a rag bag of opinions. The general theme was that such a strike was “annoying” and did little to advance the broader union cause, though such a figure as one Dr. Simon Quantrill would tell The Guardian that he “did not agree with cutting work staff at the stations… people do not want to go on strike. They don’t get paid.”

London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan found himself in the embarrassing situation of having an election pledge broken. Under his stewardship, he promised that the city would see no more strikes. He must have believed it himself, given the TSSA union’s donation of a decent £15,000 to his mayoral campaign.

Khan, along with his predecessors, has tended to believe that the human factor needs to suffer in the face of technological change. A leaner employment force armed to the teeth with dispensing machines, where human agents are minimal and distant, is deemed better than a larger, better informed LU force that provides a broader range of services. And so the battle continues.

Notes:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38181908

Print Media At All Levels Collapsing In Russia – OpEd

0
0

Print media are going out of business because of shrinking readerships, advertising budgets, and cutbacks in subsidies from governments or owners, a trend that will undermine the communities that depend on them much as the closing of schools and post offices does even if some of them are able to make the transition to electronic versions.

In addition, and perhaps by design, their closure will mean that there will be less coverage of official actions by governments at all levels and that Russians will simply know even less than they do today about what is going on in their communities and among the powers that be ruling over them.

This week brought the news that the Kommersant media empire is suspending publication of the paper versions of two of its flagship journals, “Dengi” which was devoted to financial news and “Vlast” which covered political developments. Not surprisingly their demise has sparked much discussion (profile.ru/obsch/item/114483-kommersant).

The closure of these two weeklies, which had a combined circulation of 60,000, is only the latest in a long line of print media shut downs in Russia in recent years, which includes, at the national level, such outlets as “Afisha,” “Iz ruk v ruki” where the number of journalists employed fell from 2600 to 360, “Novyye izvestiya,” “The New Times,” “Allure” and “Conde Naste Traveller.”

Aleksandr Oskin, president of the Association of Print Production Distributors, told “Profile” that the publications were being shuttered just now “not only as a result of the economic crisis but also because of the lack of a desire on the part of the government to help the media sector.”

And he said that the notion that electronic media can simply substitute for print media is misguided: as other countries have shown, the best situation is when the electronic version and the print version work together, supplementing each other rather than either thinking it can do without the other.

The state of the print media may be even worse at the local level, commentators and journalists say. Many local papers which have been in existence for decades are folding as their readership declines and local governments cut back subsidies (thebarentsobserver.com/en/civil-society-and-media/2017/01/local-russian-newspapers-crisis).

Only about one Russian in ten subscribes to any paper now, down from far larger shares in the Soviet past. And while this is a worldwide trend, its impact on Russia is likely to be even greater given the role that the print media has traditionally played there

US Senators To Vote On Montenegro’s NATO Bid

0
0

By Dusica Tomovic

The US Senate is expected to vote on Wednesday on the ratification of the protocol on Montenegro’s accession to NATO, which would mark the final step in the Balkan country’s membership process.

The Senate’s vote is taking place amid some doubts raised in the US and local media that the 100-seat house will approve the protocol due to expectations of warmer relations between Moscow and Washington after Donald Trump becomes president.

Russia, once Montenegro’s close ally, strongly opposes any NATO expansion, which some US-based experts see as an obstacle for the protocol to secure two-thirds majority in the Senate in the light of the impending Trump presidency.

Russia’s allies and followers in Montenegro hope that the friendlier attitude towards Moscow being displayed by Trump could mean that the ratification process becomes blocked in the US Senate.

Daniel Serwer, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in the US and an expert on the Balkans, voiced concern about the priorities of the incoming US administration but said he believes that no one in the Senate “wants to slow down the ratification under Russian influence”.

“If Trump fails to support Montenegro’s accession to NATO, there is a possibility that Montenegro falls into Russian hands,” Serwer told Montenegrin newspaper Pobjeda on Monday.

NATO officially endorsed the accession bid at its summit in Warsaw in 2016. So far, 22 of 28 NATO allies have officially approved the accession protocol and the endorsement of the US could signal others to give the green light.

Montenegro’s bid to become the 29th member of the alliance is strongly backed by the White House and the Pentagon.

The White House initiated the ratification process of Montenegro’s Accession Protocol to NATO on June 28, sending an initiative to the Senate for ratification.

“Montenegro’s accession to NATO will demonstrate to other countries in the Balkans and beyond that NATO’s door remains open to nations that undertake the reforms necessary to meet NATO’s requirements and contribute to the security of the Alliance, and is yet another milestone in advancing the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Balkans,” President Obama’s initiative read.

Some media commentators in Washington have suggested however that Montenegro’s membership would be more trouble than it is worth.

In a comment published by Forbes magazine on December 4, Doug Bandow dismissed tiny Montenegro as a “military midget”, and said the Senate should not ratify its membership of NATO.

“The Balkans obviously is of more interest to Russia and Europe than to America. Adding Podgorica to NATO would make the world more dangerous for the US in order to take a symbolic slap at Moscow,” Bandow wrote.

In December, several other influential US magazines and analysts also raised doubts about Montenegro’s NATO membership, saying it could cause additional problems in Washington-Moscow relations – which Trump has said he wishes to improve.

In an opinion piece titled “Does NATO Need Montenegro?”, US analyst Charles Pena wrote in The National Interest magazine that Montenegro would contribute little to the alliance.

Pena said Montenegro adds no real assets – economic or military – to the alliance.

Secondly, he noted, under Article 5 of the NATO charter, the US would become obliged to defend a country that is irrelevant to its own national security.

Montenegro signed the accession protocol with NATO on May 19, marking the final stage of the country’s path to full membership of the alliance. The process is expected to take about a year-and-a-half but will be complete only when US lawmakers have ratified the protocol.

Montenegrins remain sharply divided about joining NATO and a recent poll suggested only about 45 per cent of the population support membership.

NATO remains especially controversial among members of Montenegro’s large ethnic Serbian community because of the role it played in enabling neighbouring Kosovo to break away from Serbia.

Many Serbs also resent the way the country’s pro-Western government has loosened ties with Montenegro’s traditional ally, Russia.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/us-senators-set-to-vote-montenegro-s-nato-bid-01-10-2017#sthash.L7P4Mf0c.dpuf

Georgia Condemns Russian Troops Destroying Historical Monuments In Abkhazia

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili has strongly condemned the demolition of the 19th century church and the Polish cemetery in breakaway Abkhazia by Russian troops as “an act of deliberate vandalism” and called on the international community “for adequate reaction.”

RFE/RL’s Russian-language Ekho Kavkaza reported on January 6 that the ruins of the church built near the Polish cemetery in the 19th century and listed as the cultural heritage site by authorities in Sukhumi was demolished with a bulldozer on January 3. The territory located in the village of Tsebelda in Gulripshi district of breakaway Abkhazia was handed over to Russian border guards for building a shooting range. According to the same report, although demolition works have been suspended and the breakaway region’s government is working to find a solution, experts say that the church cannot be restored.

In a statement released on January 10, President Margvelashvili expressed “extreme concern” over “the destruction of the historical heritage site in the village of Tsebelda by the Russian Federation’s occupation forces.”

“The Russian Federation’s armed forces have demolished the 19th century church and the Polish cemetery in order to build a shooting range there. It is a deliberate act of vandalism that grossly violates the norms of international law, including the terms of the 1954 Hague Convention,” Margvelashvili said.

“We call on the international community, UNESCO and other international organizations to adequately assess the illegal actions carried by the Russian Federation on the territory of Georgia and react on them accordingly,” the President’s statement reads.

In a statement released on January 10, the Georgian Foreign Ministry called on the Russian Federation “to halt the practice of damaging and destructing the cultural monuments in the occupied territories.”

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns yet another fact of damaging the historical and cultural heritage sites of Georgia by Russian occupation forces as an act against the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the statement reads.

“This illegal act again points at the grave humanitarian and military situation in Georgia’s occupied territories,” MFA added.


Should NATO And Europe Seek To Contain Or Cooperate With Russia? – Analysis

0
0

By Nargiz Hajiyeva*

Over the history, Russian-West relations have been distinguished with various kinds of factors. From the standpoint of the western policymakers, Russia has never been the West and will never be West in the whole periods of history due to different behaviors and a huge gap of misunderstanding between Russia and West.

It is mentioned: “We have not only utterly different understandings and behaviors but also variety of goals, morals and traditional values that cannot coincide with each other, therefore we are unable of doing direct conversation about our differences, thus, because of these different approaches and misinterpretations, in a broad term, the glaring sense of cultural alienation, antagonistic maneuvers have taken a dominant role upon them over time. ”

Generally, 2014 cannot be considered as a successful period for Russia and West due to the Russian annexation of Crimea, instead, it can be characterized the beginning of a new era marked by rivalry and competition between not only Russia and United States but also Russia and the European Union. Before moving on to taking approaches toward Russia by NATO and EU, it is crucial to trace back to the last years and recent periods in order to state in a few words, the main pivot of Russian assertively political actions and attitudes in international system concerning Georgian-Russian war, Ukrainian-Russian war, frozen conflicts of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the annexation of Crimea.

During recent years, Russia has devastated the image of a stable, safe and economically healthy Europe that guided NATO and the EU strategy for two decades. In the meantime, the Russian actions in the region have not been left unanswered. The US, mainly NATO and EU responded with the tools of coercive diplomacy namely economic sanctions on Russia and other conventional military measures. During the past 10 years, Kremlin’s attitude toward EU has changed significantly and today, Russia no longer regards Europe as a model in the international arena. One crucial fact is that after the first year administration of Vladimir Putin, Russian media considered his policy by stating the famous sentence from Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita: You should never ask anyone for anything, never, especially not from those who are more powerful than you”, then Bulgakov’s next sentence: “They will make the offer and they will give of their own accord” From this sentences, everything has shown itself on the example of Georgian and Ukrainian War, especially, the annexation of Crimea and other political alteration.

The five-day long disastrous Georgian War and the conflict over Abkhazia and South Ossetia ignited mass havoc and put the situation in the jeopardy in the region. Although the parties have met many times in Geneva in order to analyse the politically arduous situation and gain achievements concerning the disputes over two territories, but efforts on the ground remained bleak. When it comes to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, the security of this territory impedes somehow Azerbaijan’s accession to NATO and EU. After Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, the pendulum has swung back to the reassertion of the idea of territorial integrity. The Ukraine crisis in 2014 caused the deterioration of Russian-West relations and thereby, the situation got much worse.

Consequently, all of these political events raise some questions how and through which ways or strategies West can make a mutual deal or and an engagement with Russia in the shadow of cultural alienation, though? How the West can be able to change its political moral and regards towards Russia? – First of all, NATO and the EU should have to take the Russian keen attitudes and intentions into account in advance and persuade Russia to get rid of zero sum approach. The essay will investigate the possible solutions and give main ailments in order to make a mutual deal or decisive collaboration with Russia at later periods.

The implementation of smart diplomacy: avoiding winning the East, and beating Russia. From the historical course, it is ostensible that NATO and the EU interests have collided with Russian genius affinities in the region. Although the EU has geographical proximity with the partner countries to influence these countries constantly, however, this closeness does not mean that the EU has a strong and balanced capability of meddling into the region sufficiently. Furthermore, geographical nearness is a weak indicator to take decisive actions towards region countries compare to Russia. Therefore, opting for containment strategy rather than engagement toward Russia is more likely to be very costly for the EU. Take an example of EaP programme; The EU should have to understand its possible interests in these countries and why the EU established EaP programme and what do partner countries mean for it. Yet, there is a potential danger that in some way, the EU has launched the Eastern Partnership programme to involve these countries into the Union and isolate Russia away from the region. In some way, the EU has used the Eap programme as a strategy against Russia and today, it has to avoid using this programme as a strategy against Russia. It is a fact that during the onset of ENP, Russia had also a huge enthusiasm to join in it, however upon the commencement of EaP programme; Russia began to demonstrate assertive and intense actions against the EU, and saw it as a threat to its interests in the region and as a response to the EU, launched the Eurasian Economic Union in 2011 by involving Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan. Therefore, Russia yet does not want to give all oily sides of meat to the EU even to NATO in terms of partner countries. So, what is a major solution for the reengagement of Russia is to choose positive sum strategy rather than a zero-sum game.

First and foremost, the EU policy should be shaped around major challenges and obstacles stemming from these countries rather than the Russian factor. As mentioned in Riga summit, the EU external policy toward the Eastern European countries does not have to be against anyone and bearing in mind that should not irritate Russia. Second of all, the West (EU and NATO) should not create the chance of choice with Russia that partner countries have to make a choice between Russia and the EU. It is more likely away from reality. The real thing is that if the EU and NATO takes a choice strategy, it put high cost on them, the reason is that Eastern countries (mainly post-Soviet countries) understand well that getting away from Russia and choose only the West can cause high price for them in face of Russian intense action that it threatened trade sanctions, energy supply interruptions, and security retaliation against these countries. Another point is to select engagement rather than containment towards Russia in the region. Hence, it put demands on the EU to change its role theory and strategy toward Russia. Russia can be a reliable partner for the EU and NATO rather than a regional antagonist. According to the strategy of diplomacy by Hans Morgenthau, diplomacy is a technique to take into consideration not only the interests of one side but also another side, by doing so is to make a possible deal between them. By taking into account this paradigm, both the EU and NATO has a broad potential to make an engagement with Russia in the region and should have to avoid using their policy mechanisms against Russia. If the West again does not keep a meat on bones, Russia will absolutely expose its antagonist actions and maneuvers against them, and it is less likely to be beneficial for both the West and partner countries. Even, after the presidential election in the US. new president-elect Donald Trump mentioned that he will mainly concentrate on closing the ties with Russia in different kind of areas including military, economic, and social spheres. This step can lead to the weaken the Western-dominated international order and to strengthen the relations between Russia and the West in order to achieve their shared interests. Consequently, the EU and NATO needs to not only do opt for smart diplomacy and values-oriented version of geopolitics but also to continue to engage with Russia through effective offers of regional collaboration and inclusive trade arrangements in order to persuade it to overcome its zero-sum approach.

The strategic change: Focusing more on the involvement of Russia rather than Eurocentric impression and lofty objectives. The one of the main reason of shortcomings in the EU policy premises on its technocratic approach toward Russia. (it can also include other neighborhood countries). This bureaucratic attitude gives little chance of participation and engagement with different communities in Russia. The major false engenders from the merely focussing on the enlargement policy of EU that does not give an extensive place for the countries to be involved in the strategic thinking.

A technocratic aspect of the EU foreign policy is less likely to improve its broad thinking in the way that prevents the EU from achieving the cooperation with Russia. In order to make an engagement, first and foremost, the EU need to solve the coherence problem, otherwise, its eurocentric attitude will prevail over Russia and hinder the progress of cooperation between Russia and the West. Before the inception of ENP, European Commission president Romano Prodi stated that the EU would share “everything but institutions… Major false comes from this approach. Thereby, the EU should have to remove its lofty objectives and Eurocentric attitude towards Russia. (Note: it also relates to the partner countries) and pave the way for Russia to involve and engage in the implementation of different projects with the EU.

Development of civil society. The most effective policy to re-engage Russia is the development of civil society could boost the reengagement policy in Russia. Currently, the major obstacles are dealing with the less development of a civil society that impedes the progress and leaves them behind in foreign policy issues. The progress of civil society concerning on civil and political society dynamics is the optimal chance for the West to reset and then strengthen their cooperation with Russia. Therefore, the creation of a cooperation environment is tied to people’s ability to evaluate cultural values which, in turn, is closely tied to the growth of a civil society and a mutual compromise between the West and Russia. The development of civil society can bring many benefits for both sides and give them an impetus to be involved in deep engagement on the economy, business, cultural activities, tourism, exchange programs. At later stages, the development of relations can lead to phase out visa restrictions over ordinary Russian citizens and will give them to benefit from a visa-free regime as well. So, this not only will reset a good image of the EU, but also create a better environment for the EU in the east.

In conclusion, nowadays, the challenges that the West faces is unavoidable. In order to tackle the problems that the EU is facing first and foremost, it should have to undertake crucial responsibilities and duties concerning the rational arrangement or the strengthening of relations with Russia. Over the history, relationship between Russia and the West has undergone many ups and downs. However, there is a clear reality that their effective partnership might give them an opportunity to tackle the problems. Thus, the transition from competition to collaboration can give them benefits and gain them a “win-win” position in different kind of fields including energy, free trade and visa liberalization, economy, military, tourism, healthcare and education and related areas. Hence, in any cases, the collaboration is much more beneficial than the competition. Collaboration or engagement (less assertive) stands on the “win-win” proposition and is inclined to the mutual perceptions of the parties. However, the competition (more assertive) mainly focuses on the success of only one party and does not give a chance to another one and evokes the antogonistic maneuvers. Therefore, the relationship between Russia and the West should have to be characterized from the prism of the collaboration rather than competition, because both of them have a huge potential in order to participate in and get “win-win” position within international system.

About the author:
*Nargiz Uzeir Hajiyeva
is a policy analyst and independent researcher from Azerbaijan. She holds master degree from Vytautas Magnus University and Institute de Politique de Paris (Science Po). She got bachelor degree with distinction diploma at Baku State University from International Relations and Diplomacy. Her main research fields concern on international security and foreign policy issues, energy security, cultural and political history, global political economy and international public law. She worked as an independent researcher at Corvinus University of Budapest, Cold War History Research Center.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

India’s Manufacturing Powerhouse: Threat To China? – OpEd

0
0

In a surprise revelation, a Chinese daily rang alarm for China’s manufacturing powerhouse to rally behind India. It warned of China  losing its competitive edge in manufacturing and and which could dent job opportunities in China. Foreign investors were already on the spree to dislocate their manufacturing activities to low cost countries.

The target countries are India and Vietnam. In addition, US President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to bring back jobs in USA will be double whammy for Chinese manufacturing activities, the Chinese daily warned.

The recent decision of Apple for considering to set up manufacturing facilities in India after failing to retail due to tough domestic procurement rules and the exodus of Apple production chain, Foxconn, perked up concerns for loss of ten of thousand jobs in China. Foxconn is the contract manufacturer for Apple and is the world’s largest contract manufacturing company in electronic industry. Foxcon has decided to invest US $ 5 billion in India.

If Apple expands in India, it may lure other tech giants in India and China is likely to face more transfer of supply chains in India, the Chinese daily apprehended.

At a time when China’s manufacturing sectors are battling for overcapacity, concerns are rising for further loss of job, with the Chinese outbound investment on the rise.

The recent decision of Chinese largest telecom company Huawei Technologies Co Ltd to set up smart phone manufacturing plant in India perturbed the Chinese daily. It beaconed China’s loss of competitive edge and forecast India to be on the way to become the world’s new hub for manufacturing.

Besides Huawei, a number of Chinese vendors are in the rally to set up their smart phones manufacturing plants in India. Vivo China has already set up a smart phone manufacturing unit in Greater Noida. Xiaomi , ZTE, One Plus, Gionee are in the queue to open their manufacturing shops in India.

Chinese renewable energy firm Chint Group, chemical firm Sopo Group , Shanghai Electric Company and Ding Sen are among the firms looking for substantial investment in India. Chinese biggest industrial park developer CFLD looks to set up 10 industrial parks in India.

Even the Indian electronic manufacturers and assemblers, who were solely dependent on import from China, are shifting their strategies of procurement due to high costs. Instead of importing from China , Indian firms forayed in establishing their own manufacturing operations in India. Havells , Godrej, Micromax (a handset manufacture), Bosch ( auto part maker ) have all started exploring manufacturing operations in India.

The competition between India and China is centered on low labor cost and labour skill. India’s labour cost is one-third of China after the yuan appreciation. According to Boston survey, in 2014 average manufacturing labour cost in India was US $0.92 per hour, compared to US $ 3.5 per hour in China. China has an edge in skill over India. Even then, yawning difference in wage has a significant role in luring foreign investment, when the world is bogged down by frequent currency fluctuations.

The global slump in export led China shifting the growth model from export to domestic demand base. This wobbled manufacturing activities in China. Growth of manufacturing production plunged to 6.8 percent in August 2016 from 11.3 percent in October 2013, according to Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. Number of private enterprises were reduced to 214 thousand in 2014 from 274 thousand in 2010. These sent China into the red zone for job opportunities. China is going to lay off 5-6 million workers in the next two to three years in the wake of overcapacity in the country. According to Chinese Minister for human resources and social security, China would lay off 1.8 million workers in coal and steel sectors.

Further, unlike China, India’s high economic growth is sustainable because of its strong domestic demand. Nearly 65 percent of the GDP is engineered by domestic demand.

The downturn in Chinese manufacturing provides opportunities to India. It revved up India’s manufacturing strength. Even though share of manufacture in India’s GDP is low – 15 percent against 30 percent in China, it has become the engine for the surge in GDP growth. India sustained the world highest GDP growth of 7 percent during the past two years. In 2015-16, manufacturing witnessed the highest growth of 9.3 percent in GDP , making a big leap from 5.5 percent in 2014-15. Even though misgivings shrouded over the statistical fudging, when it is compared with index of industrial production, which crawled to 2.4 percent growth, the Chinese and foreign investors brushed aside the fuss

The undeterred foreign investors continued to flow their investment in India. Foreign investment spurred by 67 percent over the two years period of Modi government. Of these, investment in manufacturing was highest with 65 percent share.

Chinese nervousness of losing its manufacturing edge was unveiled when China introduced Made in China campaign , immediately after Made in India. “Make in India” and “Made in China” evoked similar sound. But, conceptually they are different. While “Make in India” was a call to establish world’s biggest manufacturing hub and increase share of manufacturing in GDP from 15 percent to 25 percent, “Made in China” was to re- built China’s manufacturing sector into a qualitative workshop with production of more Hi-tech products. So far China’s manufacturing sector served as turf for volume production.

Make in India steered a fierce competition between India and China. Growth of mobile telephone industry is a case in point. India’s mobile telephone industry made a landmark shift from import to domestic base production industry. Until two years ago, a few were manufacturing mobile phones in India, after Nokia closed down its factory in Sriperumbudur in Tamilnadu. Today, there is a spurt in domestic production. It meets 45 percent of the mobile demand in the country. India produced 100 million mobile phones in 2015, against 64 million mobile phones in 2014- triggering a growth by eighty percent within a year. Import from China plunged by over 25 percent during the past two years.

*S. Majumder, Adviser, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), New Delhi. Views are personal.

Consumption Of Low-Calorie Sweeteners Jumps By 200 Percent In US Children

0
0

About 25 percent of children and more than 41 percent of adults in the United States reported consuming foods and beverages containing low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) such as aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin in a recent nationwide nutritional survey, according to a study out today. Those numbers represent a 200 percent increase in LCS consumption for children and a 54 percent jump for adults from 1999 to 2012.

“Just 8.7 percent of kids reported consuming low-calorie sweeteners in 1999 and thirteen years later that number had risen to 25.1 percent. Kids aren’t alone in this trend. More adults also are taking in low-calorie sweeteners in diet soft drinks and in a variety of foods and snack items,” said lead author of the study Allison Sylvetsky, PhD, an assistant professor of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health (Milken Institute SPH). “The findings are important, especially for children, because some studies suggest a link between low-calorie sweeteners and obesity, diabetes and other health issues.”

Low-calorie sweeteners are often used in place of added sugars such as sucrose and high- fructose corn syrup. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several of these sweeteners including acesulfame-potassium, advantame, aspartame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose. Plant extracts such as stevioside and rebaudioside A are also used in place of sugar.

This study is the first to look at the use of low-calorie sweeteners in foods, beverages, and packets using the most recent data for the U.S. population. More importantly, it clearly shows a striking increase in LCS consumption for U.S. children and teens, said Sylvetsky.

The researchers conducted a cross sectional study using data from nearly 17,000 men, women and children included in the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) from 2009 to 2012 and compared the findings to their prior analysis using data from 1999-2008. In the current study, the researchers used the survey results from two dietary interviews in which consumers recalled what they ate or drank during a previous 24 hour period.

Among the key findings:

  • Of those reporting consumption of low-calorie sweeteners, forty four percent of adults and 20 percent of children consumed low-calorie sweeteners more than once a day.
  • Seventeen percent of adults had a food or beverage sweetened with these products three times a day or more.
  • The likelihood of consuming low-calorie sweeteners went up as adult body mass index, a measure of obesity, went up.
  • Nineteen percent of adults with obesity compared to 13 percent of normal weight adults used LCS products three times a day or more.
  • About 70 percent of LCS consumption occurred at home and this study shows that children as young as two are eating or drinking LCS-sweetened foods and beverages.

Despite the rising popularity of diet or “light” foods and beverages, there is still no scientific consensus on the health impacts connected to low-calorie sweeteners. Some studies have suggested that the use of foods and drinks containing low-calorie sweeteners can help with weight loss. Others have shown that consumption of diet drinks and foods may paradoxically lead to weight gain–perhaps because exposure to intensely sweet foods can trigger a craving for more. Or it may be that people who drink a diet soda think they’ve saved enough calories that they then indulge in second helpings, Sylvetsky said.

Most parents–and many experts–challenge whether it is a good idea for kids to be eating or drinking lots of foods or beverages with such sweeteners. Yet this study shows that one out of four U.S. children are consuming these sweeteners and in most cases they’re eating foods or beverages containing low-calorie sweeteners while at home. Those findings suggest that parents may not realize the term “light” or “no added sugar” may mean that a product contains a low-calorie sweetener. Parents may be buying the light versions of the family favorites thinking they are healthier, Sylvetsky added.

For consumers that want to steer clear of low-calorie sweeteners and perhaps reduce the overall sweetness of their diet, the best approach may be to follow the dietary guidelines put forth by the U.S. government. Stick to a diet with plenty of fruits and veggies, whole grains–and do limit added sugars.

“Drink water instead of soda. Sweeten a serving of plain yogurt with a little fruit,” said Sylvetsky. “And don’t forget an apple or another piece of fresh fruit is a great snack for both kids and adults.”

People With Forms Of Early-Onset Parkinson’s Disease May Benefit From Boosting Niacin In Diet

0
0

People with certain forms of early-onset Parkinson’s disease may benefit from boosting the amount of niacin in their diet, according to new research from the University of Leicester.

Niacin, or Vitamin B3, is found in a variety of foods, including nuts and meat.

“This study strengthens the therapeutic potential for Vitamin B3/niacin-based dietary interventions in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr Miguel Martins, MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Leicester.

The team from the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Leicester studied fruit flies with a mutation that mimics the human disease.

The results of the study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council, reveal a mechanism for how early-onset Parkinson’s affects the brain, and point to other drugs that may also help this subset of patients.

Dr Miguel Martins, who led the study, explained: “Parkinson’s disease occurs when dopaminergic neurons in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra are lost. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but in some hereditary cases, the main problem is unhealthy mitochondria – the organelles that power the cell.

“Mutations in genes such as PINK1 prevent cells from clearing out the defective powerhouses. When they accumulate, neurons can’t get enough energy and die. The faulty mitochondria also release toxic molecules that damage their genes encoded by DNA.

“Curiously enough, there’s a compound in the body that’s important for both energy generation and DNA repair. It’s called NAD. With all the mitochondrial damage going on, we wondered if in cases of Parkinson’s the molecule ends up in short supply.”

To investigate this, the team fed fruit flies with the mutated PINK1 gene food supplemented with niacin, which is made into NAD inside the body.

With this extra source of NAD, the flies had far fewer faulty mitochondria than their mutant peers on a regular diet.

The vitamin also prevented the flies from losing neurons.

The team of neuroscientists then examined whether stopping DNA repair from depleting NAD would protect the flies with Parkinson’s – and found that genetically switching this function off kept mitochondria healthy and neurons alive, as well as improved the flies’ strength, mobility and lifespan.

Dr Martins added: “The results suggest that in familial Parkinson’s, available NAD is critical for keeping mitochondria in shape and the disease at bay. Drugs that block NAD-consuming DNA repair already exist to treat cancer. Loading up on niacin probably can’t hurt either.

“While neither of these would be cures, they would expand treatment options for Parkinson’s patients with faulty mitochondria.

“This study strengthens the therapeutic potential for Vitamin B3/niacin-based dietary interventions and PARP inhibition in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.”

Trump’s Nuclear Twitter Menacing Ahead Of UN Talks In March – Analysis

0
0

By Ramesh Jaura

Ahead of the inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States on January 20, analysts are far from certain whether he would take to policies that reduce nuclear dangers or resort to actions resulting in a suicidal arms race.

The guessing game is taking place against the backdrop of the United Nations General Assembly having confirmed that beginning March 2017, it would hold a conference open to all member states, to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”. The conference to be held at UN headquarters in New York will be divided into two sessions: from March 27 to 31 and from June 15 to July 7.

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the prospects of a nuclear-weapons free world is the fact that the new UN Secretary-General António Guterres is not known to ever have directly challenged the nuclear weapons policies of the P5 (five permanent members of the Security Council: USA, Russia, China, UK and France) during his term as Prime Minister of Portugal (1995-2002).

This, according to Alyn Ware, Global Coordinator of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, might also have been an influential factor in him getting the Security Council endorsement ahead of the other candidates in October. The P5 are all nuclear-armed, and are the ones most responsible for a continued lack of progress in achieving multilateral nuclear disarmament.

In contrast to Guterres, Ban Ki-moon, whose second five-year term as Secretary-General expired on December 31, was persistently championing – though with little success – the cause of a nuclear-weapons free world on the basis of a Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament released on United Nations Day October 24, 2009.

However, as head of the UN Refugee Agency, Guterres participated in the first international Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March 2013 on Oslo.

“How Guterres addresses nuclear disarmament as UN Secretary-General, will be a critical question,” according to Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute.

“The objective to eliminate nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was agreed by all UN members in the very first resolution of the UN General Assembly. The unconditional obligation to achieve this goal was unanimously affirmed by the World Court. But so far this objective has not been met and humanity still lives under the existential threat of nuclear annihilation. The UN Secretary-General has a responsibility and mandate to act on this core global issue,” Granoff stated.

In an Open Letter to Trump on January 3, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation recalls: “You have suggested that more nations – such as Japan, South Korea and even Saudi Arabia – may need to develop their own nuclear arsenals because the U.S. spends too much money protecting other countries. This nuclear proliferation would make for a far more dangerous world.”

The letter adds: “It is also worrisome that you have spoken of dismantling or reinterpreting the international agreement that places appropriate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program and has the support of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.”

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Mr. Trump does not seem to have a well-grounded understanding regarding threats to use the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This poses a dramatic danger to the whole world, including U.S. citizens. His presidency may constitute and the most dangerous period in human history.”

The Open Letter advises Trump of the U.S. obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. It explains that nuclear deterrence is based upon on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It goes on to say that nuclear proliferation and a renewed nuclear arms race would both make for a far more dangerous world.

In Arms Control Today, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) wrote on January 6: Donald Trump has made some promising remarks about nuclear policy and some irresponsible comments. He reportedly told Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev, “There is no more important issue than nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation to be addressed in a global context,” according to a Kazakhstan-issued statement on their November 30 phone call.

But weeks later, Trump strongly implied he is contemplating a radical break from decades of bipartisan U.S. policy to reduce nuclear stockpiles and avert global nuclear competition, wrote Kimball. On December 22, he launched a tweet declaring, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

When asked by MSNBC to clarify, Trump reportedly said, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them…and outlast them all.” According to Kimball, Incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer offered an interpretation to NBC News that Trump is sending a “warning” to other countries “that this president’s going to take action”.

ACA’s Executive Director rightly pointed out that if Trump and his advisers really believe nuclear “warnings” and calls for a global arms race are in the interest of the United States, they should think again. “History suggests that nuclear threats do not intimidate the likes of Russia, China, North Korea, or terrorist groups. Such bravado is reckless and dangerous. It confuses close allies, undermines global nonproliferation efforts, and motivates adversaries.”

In its Open Letter, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation reminds Trump that as President of the United States, he will have “the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during your term of office”.

It adds: The most certain way to fulfil this responsibility is to negotiate with the other possessors of nuclear weapons for their total elimination. The U.S. is obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in such negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

“A nuclear war, any nuclear war, would be an act of insanity. Between nuclear weapons states, it would lead to the destruction of the attacking nation as well as the attacked.  Between the U.S. and Russia, it would threaten the survival of humanity,” the Open Letter warns.

It points out that there are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which the United States possesses approximately 7,000. Some 1,000 of these remain on hair-trigger alert. A similar number remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia. “This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.”

Even if nuclear weapons are not used intentionally, says the Open Letter, they could be used inadvertently by accident or miscalculation. “Nuclear weapons and human fallibility are a dangerous mix.”

Nuclear deterrence presupposes a certain view of human behaviour, says the Letter. “It depends on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It provides no guarantees or physical protection. It could fail spectacularly and tragically.”

The Open Letter adds: “As other presidents have had, you will have at your disposal the power to end civilization, the human species and most other forms of complex life. You will also have the opportunity, should you choose, to lead in ending the nuclear weapons era and achieving nuclear zero through negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

The letter, signed among others by Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, David Ellsberg, advisors, board members and staff of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and many others who view Trump’s presidency as possibly the most dangerous period in human history, concludes: “We, the undersigned, urge you to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world.  It would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.”

Kimball recalled that for decades, Republican and Democratic leaders have negotiated agreements to limit and cut nuclear arsenals, worked to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, and sought to reduce the risk of miscalculation and catastrophe.

The ACA Executive Director wrote: “Since the administration of Ronald Reagan and the end of the Cold War, the United States has drastically reduced the size of its nuclear arsenal. In fact, Republican presidents have cut the arsenal far more aggressively than have their Democratic counterparts. Since 1992, presidents – regardless of political party – have observed a nuclear test moratorium.”

He adds: “If Trump hopes to reduce and not increase nuclear dangers, he must maintain the previous bipartisan policy of engaging with Russia to cap and reduce the two nations’ still enormous and deadly nuclear arsenals, strengthen the global taboo against nuclear testing, and bring the world closer to the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images