South Koreans could not have chosen a better candidate than Moon Jae-in for the presidency, considering the current tense political and strategic situation of the Peninsula.

By K. V. Kesavan

The election of Moon Jae-in as the next President of the Republic of Korea has not only put an end to the prolonged political uncertainty created by the scandal-ridden administration of the previous President Park Geun-hye, but has also brought the Liberals back to power after a gap of one decade. This election was conducted under extraordinary circumstances which saw the nation sharply polarised following the corrupt administration of Park Geun-hye.

Consistent with Moon’s political orientations, his election campaign raised several expectations in terms of Seoul’s attitude towards North Korea, its alliance with the US, its policy towards China and Japan.

Considering the current tense political and strategic situation of the Peninsula, South Koreans could not have chosen a better candidate than Moon Jae-in for the presidency. A liberal by temperament, Moon during the election campaign raised the expectation that he could rally the country under his leadership and move in the direction of the much needed reconciliation among the different sections of the Korean people. Though he garnered only 41% of the votes cast, he was way ahead of his rival candidates. The conservatives who had ruled the country for 10 years are now in total disarray due to the close nexus they had with the strong business world and the consequent vested interests it created. In particular, President Park Geun-hye’s administration was marked by stark abuse of power that undermined governance.

• Related: South Korea: Tumultuous Journey Ahead For Moon Jae-In – Analysis

It is important to note that the electoral success does not seem to have made Moon unduly euphoric. Rather, he appears to have clearly understood the challenges that he is going to face in the coming days. At home, the first and foremost task of President Moon is to project a new vision of his administration that could win the trust of the people. He called on the political parties to keep the national interests of the country above their narrow political ends and move forward with “our hands locked in each others.” He promised to reduce the powers of the President by setting himself as a role model. A true political transformation would be possible only when the President takes initiatives in establishing “trustworthy politics”. He promised that he would be an incorruptible President “who moves in and out of office with clean hands.”

As an experienced politician, Moon understands that though the conservative opponents have lost the election, their continuing role in the Korean politics cannot be ignored. Even in the presidential election, the two major conservative rivals — Hong Jun-pyo of the Liberal Korea Party and Yoo Seong-min of the breakaway Bareun Part — garnered 24% and 7% of the popular votes. There is also wide speculation that the two may get merged in due course and that could pose serious challenges to the Moon administration. The political reality in South Korea is that despite the scandal ridden administration of Park, the conservatives still were able to get almost one third of the vote in the presidential election.

In the National Assembly, Moon’s party has only 120 seats out of the total of 300 whereas the conservative Liberty Korea has 107 and the other conservative breakaway party, Bareun, has 20 seats.

According to the National Assembly Law, legislative bills and nomination of important appointments, including that of the prime minister, must be approved by a three-fifth majority vote in the House. Since Moon’s party has only 120 seats in the House, and falls short of the requisite strength, this hurdle will pose a major challenge at least in the short term.

• Related: The New President Of South Korea – Analysis

As for foreign policy, Moon has to display his statesmanship and diplomatic skills to measure up to a set of extremely complex issues. To seriously pursue his election promise on seeking a rapprochement with North Korea is the single most critical issue that will draw his utmost attention. As one who was associated with the two past Liberal administrations that promoted closer political and economic engagement with Pyongyang under the Sunshine Policy, Moon still believes in the efficacy of that approach. In his inaugural address, he emphasised his conciliatory approach and resolved to work for peace in in the Korean Peninsula. In pursuance of accomplishing this goal, he expressed his willingness to visit the US, China, Japan and even North Korea.

But most analysts see too much of ‘idealism’ in Moon’s inaugural address and believe that his optimism is somewhat misplaced under the prevailing conditions. The nuclear weapons and missile programmes of North Korea have gone too far and there is no indication on the part of Kim Jong-un of even a slight change of attitude towards the new dispensation in Seoul. On the contrary, tensions have intensified following the 14 May ballistic missile test conducted by Pyongyang.

As an ally, South Korea follows the US strategy of seeking to end the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, but it also worries about some of the hawkish and unpredictable aspects of President Trump’s administration. Many in South Korea wonder how Moon will be able to carry forward his peaceful approach to Pyongyang in the midst of the global condemnation of Pyongyang.

Another issue that is going to test Moon’s government is over America’s deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system, designed to provide South Korea a defensive shield against North Korean missiles. China has strongly criticised the THAAD on the ground that it could undermine its own security interests. Even during the election campaign, Moon had expressed his reservations on the THAAD and promised to conduct negotiations with the US to find a solution. Considering the sensitivities of China which is also Seoul’s biggest trading partner, Moon would strive hard to maintain a delicate balance in Korea’s relations with both Washington and Beijing.

Another issue that will engage Moon’s immediate attention is how to improve relations with Japan. Though both Japan and South Korea are long-standing allies of the US, their relations have been estranged in recent years mainly due to their differing perceptions on historical issues. This has even affected their common interest in promoting regional security. During the previous presidency, Park Geun-hye went rather too far in fostering closer relations with China. President Moon does not appear to modify that policy. He is not happy with the 2015 agreement between Tokyo and Seoul on the issue of comfort women. However, he has appointed a pro-Japanese politician Lee Nak-yon as the new Prime Minister. Further, he has also sent a special envoy to Japan to convey his desire to renew the old ‘shuttle diplomacy’ that would encourage the top leaders of the two countries to meet frequently. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his colleagues would surely welcome a new era of better understanding and mutual cooperation between the two countries.

The post Challenges Before New South Korean President – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Trump administration is egging China on to take action against its proxy, using its considerable leverage with the North Korean regime.

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty

Last month, North Korea’s much hyped missile launches fizzled out and the impending nuclear test did not happen. Both missiles exploded after launch, leading to speculation about whether it was a “planned” failure. Unproven media reports claimed that cyber attacks by the United States of America had disabled the missiles. Meanwhile, Donald Trump proclaimed that he had ordered a naval strike group, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson, and accompanying ships, to sail towards the Korean peninsula in a classic attempt at “gunboat” diplomacy.

The threat was clear with Trump using the word “armada”, a word not often used by the US Navy. Trump also threw in for good measure the fact that the strike group was accompanied by submarines that were more powerful than the aircraft carrier. Strategic experts were flummoxed by the mention of submarines in the same breath as an aircraft carrier group. The US was sending out a message that it was preparing to take out North Korea’s nuclear and missile assets.

• Related: Trump’s North Korea Policy: Regional Implications – Analysis

While Trump was talking up the threat of the naval strike group heading towards the Korean peninsula soon after his first summit meeting with the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, in Florida, his administration was left with egg on its face when news broke out that the aircraft carrier group was actually heading in the opposite direction for a pre-planned exercise with the Australian Navy. White House and Pentagon officials tied themselves up in knots trying to explain the discrepancies. The aircraft carrier group was finally ordered to proceed towards the Korean peninsula a week after Trump’s announcement. Keeping everyone guessing seems to be the leitmotif of Trump’s policies.

Meanwhile, North Korea mounted a massive military parade with display of missiles and Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s dictator with the funny hairdo, vowed that his country was ready for war. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea published a letter from Kim Jong-un to the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, marking the 70th anniversary of Syria’s independence. This letter said: “I express again a strong support and alliance to the Syrian government and its people for its work of justice, condemning the United States’ recent violent invasive act against your country.”

The US Vice President, Mike Pence, during his visit to South Korea, warned North Korea not to test Trump’s resolve. Pence pointedly mentioned the recent cruise missile strikes in Syria and the US’s massive ordnance air burst bomb strike in Afghanistan, hinting that such strikes should not be ruled out against North Korea. The US Navy had launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian airfield after an alleged chemical weapons attack. The US Military also announced that it had dropped the “mother of all bombs”, the biggest non-nuclear device it has ever unleashed in combat, on a network of caves and tunnels used by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Pence also announced the deployment of THAAD missiles in South Korea and reiterated the US’s “iron clad alliance” with that country. Significantly, Pence also added, “there was a period of strategic patience, but the era of strategic patience is over”. Trump had earlier tweeted that “North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!”

• Related: Diplomacy With North Korea: A Real Benchmark For President Trump’s 100 Days – OpEd

China’s discomfiture was evident when its official spokesperson announced that the situation in the Korean peninsula remained “highly sensitive” and posed a “high risk” to regional and global security. The foreign ministry spokesperson also warned that any “provocative” action could “pour oil on the fire”. The Russian reaction was more measured. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that North Korea’s “reckless nuclear and missile action were unacceptable and violated international law”. He also warned the US not to resort to unilateral action.

It is China, however, that is caught in a diplomatic cleft stick. Trump has clearly linked trade and economic issues to Chinese action against North Korea — a geopolitical proxy for China in northeast Asia in order to keep Japan and South Korea off balance in a manner analogous to its use of the other proxy, Pakistan. Trump has acknowledged that his softer line on bilateral trade and economic issues depended on China’s willingness to rein in North Korea’s nuclear and missile ambitions. Clearly, the Trump administration is egging China on to take action against its proxy, using its considerable leverage with the North Korean regime.

China has imposed a ban on coking coal imports from North Korea and stopped flights as initial measures. It has also mobilised its air force during the past few days. The US has acknowledged China’s move to apply economic pressure on North Korea and prevent the sixth nuclear test planned by North Korea. China is faced with the dilemma of preserving its enormous trading and economic equities with the US and bringing a recalcitrant neighbour to heel. It has much to lose if the Trump administration designates it a “currency manipulator”, thereby triggering sanctions.

While urging for talks to deal with the situation, China ignores decades of engagement with North Korea and United Nations sanctions that have led to zero result. China has expressed its opposition to the deployment of THAAD in South Korea, which justifies the deployment as a purely defensive response to North Korea’s growing nuclear and missile capacities and increased belligerence. Senior defence officials from the US, Japan and South Korea have been coordinating their positions at the defence trilateral talks in Tokyo. A DTT joint statement has obliquely criticised China for applying economic pressure on South Korean companies operating in China on the issue of the deployment of THAAD.

The danger of conflict and its devastating consequences are known to all stakeholders. While North Korean bluster continues, the regime will not commit suicide. Hence, it is likely that the combination of Chinese pressure and threat of American military action will force the regime to back off. Indeed, news has been leaked about talks between American and North Korean negotiators in Oslo, a neutral venue. While this respite may be temporary, the core issue of eliminating the nuclear and missile programmes will remain. UN sanctions, including financial constraints, will remain ineffective as long as China continues to nurture and provide succour to North Korea, only occasionally rapping it on the knuckles. China, after all, provided the full range of technologies to Pakistan for its nuclear and missile programme, including facilitating transfer of missile technology from North Korea to Pakistan. For now though, an imminent conflict is off the agenda.

This article originally appeared in The Telegraph.

The post North Korea And A Crisis In The Making – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

Like several other countries of the European Union, Italy too has a populist movement. But as many things in Italy, it is unique and different from other countries’. In the first place, it has become in a short time, barely seven years since its founding, the most popular party in the country and perhaps the most numerous in Europe.

This has happened previously with the Communist party which, once introduced, became the most numerous in Europe and forever changed the character of the party. It remained international in many respects but it also acquired an Italian flavor which forever changed its character. One thinks of Antonio Gramsci.

The same can be said for the populist movement which has swept the EU and the US since 2016: it is generally anti-euro, Euro-skeptic, anti-refugees, even anti-immigrant. But in Italy it isn’t your typical far right party. It is pro-environment protection, sustainable transport, pro protection of public water, anti political corruption, anti-violence, opposition of European austerity measures and foreign interventions. It sounds almost liberal socialist, but there are caveats to pay attention to. For example, its views on relations with Russia and the US are not too far from those of far right French populist leader Marine Le Pen.

• Related: The Fall Of Italy’s Demolition Man – OpEd

The five stars are symbolical of the five key issues on which the party claims to focus: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, the right to internet access, and environmentalism. However, their political stands remain ambiguous. Some say, purposely so, in order to take from both the right and the left and claim to be neither. Some see this as a clever and convenient way to avoid rigorous policy commitments. For example, the party is not openly racist or anti-immigrant but uses dog-whistle tactics to subtly promote it. The slogan “we are not with Putin and we are not with Putin” may indicate that they are with the EU, but that is not the case either. So what is this party with? They claim to have a new approach. What might it be? Let’s see.

To better understand a movement it is best to retrace its origins. The M5S (Movimento Cinque Stelle) was founded by Beppe Grillo, a comedian and blogger in 2009. He attracted attention for his satirizing of the Italian political establishment which was in many ways corrupt. He inveighed against tax evasion via social media and that assured him a sudden rise in Italian political polls. He organized meetings on the site Meetup.com, coalesced activist groups and then fielded candidates for elections. One of their most popular strategies was the advocacy of cuts to Italian parlamentarians’ salaries who earned much more than EU parlamentarians.

The rapid growth of the party can be explained by the fact that a good number of people had legitimate grievances with the traditional ruling parties of Italy. Legitimate grievances explain much of the global populism going on as we speak. It cuts across social lines on both the right and the left. Sometimes a populist movement is the only anti-establishment opposition voice within an oppressive anti-democratic government. Apparently that’s what happened in Italy in 2012 when it began winning mayoral races. The most successful of those races was that of Virginia Raggi, a lawyer, who won with a stunning 67% of the vote. In 2016, at 37 she was the city’s first female mayor and its youngest. Ever since the party has maintained some 30% of the national vote. Grillo’s website is one of the most visited world-wide.

But to go back to our inquiry. What exactly is the new promised approach of M5S? If one peruses carefully and critically Grillo’s blog, one notices a certain authoritarian streak. Followers are urged to follow the leadership line. He seems to like the likes of Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, and Donald Trump whose election he supported, not to speak of their anti-immigrant and Islamophobic views. In a tweet some time ago he compared immigrants to rats and has embraced conspiracy theories about refugees destabilizing Europe redolent of Steve Bannon’s complaints. There are obvious racist tendencies there, a throw-back to the old European cancer of anti-Semitism and White supremacy.

• Related: The Growth Gains From Fighting Tax Evasion: Simulating A Compliant Italy – Analysis

So, what’s in store for Italy’s next general elections to be held next year? The M5S is predicting that it will do very well, and that may happen, but the crucial question remains: will they placate the disenchantment with the status quo after they have riled it up? They have promised to be fiercely independent of other parties, but in Italy politically fractured landscape, how are they to form any sort of government without an alliance with other parties? Hard to see how they will solve that conundrum.

Italians may currently feel trapped within the EU political bureaucracy governed by myopic European politicians all but neglectful of its ideals, that the M5S is their last option. That may be, but it begins to sound like an act of desperation, very much like choosing a Trump in the US for lack of good alternatives. Before heading to the voting boots they may wish to pause and reflect on the fact that presently, with Trump at the helm, democracy is in real and present danger and the outcome as to its survival is in doubt . Grillo does not show great promise of being any better when it comes to democracy, human rights and human solidarity.

About the author:
*Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

The post The Five Stars’ Party: Italy’s Unique Populist Movement – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Tho Bishop*

Twenty one quarterbacks have been signed to new contracts in free agency this year. Included in this mix are names like Kellen Moore, EJ Manuel, and Mike Glennon, who received a contract worth over $14 million a year this past March. Yet the most accomplished quarterback that was on the market has not yet been signed, or even visited another team. That player is Colin Kaepernick, and the difficulty he has had this offseason is a reminder that at the end of the day the NFL is not about wins and losses, it’s about dollars and cents.

It wasn’t so long ago that Colin Kaepernick had the ball five yards away from taking the lead with less than two minutes left in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLVII. At the time he was at the top of the football world. An athletic marvel running a 4.5 second 40 at 6’4”, he showed enough as a pure football passer that former NFL quarterback (and genuine film room geek) Ron Jaworski said the 49ers star “could be one of the greatest quarterbacks ever.”

Related: Protests Of National Anthem Restore My Faith In Humanity – OpEd

While Kaepernick never reached those levels on the field, he remained a capable quarterback during his time with the increasingly chaotic 49ers. Even last year, when the team went 2-14 on the season, Kaepernick outperformed Blaine Gabbert — who recently signed with the Arizona Cardinals.

While NFL teams have tried to make excuses with side issues like concerns over his vegan diet, or questioning his desire to play football, or unrealistic salary demands, the reason he hasn’t been signed is because Colin Kaepernick’s protests during the national anthem last year have made him toxic. He is being blackballed by NFL teams.

And rightfully so.

This has nothing to do with the merits of Kaepernick’s case. America does have an issue with an increasingly militarized police force. It’s not even about his injection of politics into football with his support of Black Lives Matter, or his idiotic admiration of Fidel Castro. At the end of the day, however, the NFL is not a game. It is first and foremost a business. Like any business, the success depends upon serving the desires of consumers, and NFL consumers don’t want to see Colin Kaepernick play football.

Regardless of one’s individual opinion on Kaepernick’s actions last years, it is undeniable that it hit a certain nerve within the country. A Google trend analysis shows that among other players involved with a controversial off the field story, including Tom Brady (deflategate), Richie Incognito (bullygate), Ray Rice (domestic violence), Adrian Peterson (using a switch on his son), and Ben Roethlisberger (sexual assault accusation), only two stories garnered more interest: Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson.

It is worth noting how the league handled all three incidents, and the public reaction to them. In the case of Ray Rice, after TMZ released the video of him hitting his then-fiancé in an elevator, he never played another down of football, nor even received a workout invitation from a team. While Adrian Peterson continues to play in the NFL, signing a contract with the New Orleans Saints this offseason, he was forced to sit out a full season in the prime of his career. The decision to suspend Peterson was highly controversial within the league, with the Players Association suing Commissioner Goodell over the decision. A majority of fans, including the Minnesota Vikings, wanted to see Peterson punished. The league abided.

While Kaepernick’s actions obviously did not involve violence, they still alienated him with the majority of NFL fans. According to Gallup, over 70% of NFL fans objected to his protest. While a majority of those polled did not think the league should punish the quarterback for his action, polls found that a third of NFL fans were less likely to watch the product because of Kaepernick. Incidentally, 2016 was a down year for ratings. It would be wrong to pin the decline entirely on the shoulders of the former 49er — it’s possible election season played a major role — but any hitch to the ratings machine of the NFL is going to get the attention of every league owner.

While the NFL certainly doesn’t represent an ideal symbol of free market capitalism, the success of the product is still dependent upon the wishes of their consumers. While the team’s roster is managed by the general manager, molded by the coach, and led by their quarterback, the lifeblood of the league (and the franchises within it) is its fan base.

As Mises wrote in Bureaucracy:

The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word. In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers. Thus, whenever there is a conflict between the consumers’ views and those of the business managers, market pressures assure that the views of the consumers win out eventually.

Now this does not mean that every roster decision is going to be based on a focus group, or that a good general manager should be obsessed with being popular. (That’s usually the sign of bad ownership.) At the end of the day, nothing grows a fan base quite like winning. Tim Tebow was one of the most popular players in the NFL, but no team thought it could win a championship with his limited skill set.

It’s also clear no team views Kaepernick as a championship player anymore either. So while a team like the Jets or Browns could reasonably view Kaepernick as a more talented player than anyone else in their quarterback room, no franchise is going to risk the health of the league on a team not yet ready to make a serious run for the Super Bowl. Similarly, very few franchises are going to risk alienating fans just to sign a backup.

Whether this is viewed as unfair or unjust is irrelevant. Kaepernick is fully entitled to his freedom of speech, but he’s also subjected to the consequences of his actions on his market value.

Because at the end of the day, football may be king — but the customer is always right.

About the author:
*Tho Bishop directs the Mises Institute’s social media marketing (e.g., twitter, facebook, instagram), and can assist with questions from the press.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

The post NFL Teams Are Right To Blackball Colin Kaepernick – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A nearly 40 year-old murder case was reopened this week to properly prosecute the suspected killer behind the Salvadorian archbishop’s martyrdom.

Because of an amnesty law that prohibited the prosecution of criminal acts stemming from the El Salvador Civil War, the alleged murderer of Archbishop Oscar Romero was never convicted of any crime. The law was lifted last year by the country’s constitutional court, reopening cases from 1980 to 1992.

Judge Ricardo Chicas reopened the case on Thursday and ordered that charges be sought against the main suspect, whose case was dismissed in 1993 because of the amnesty law.

Alvaro Rafael Saravia was a soldier and is the main suspect tied to a right-wing death squad who killed the priest at a hospital in San Salvador. Blessed Romero was killed while saying mass at the hospital’s chapel. The archbishop was well known for preaching against the country’s poverty and corruption from the pulpit.

• Related: El Salvador: Dilemma Over Prosecution Of War Criminals

Social and economic inequality of the 1970s resulted in demonstrations and rebellions against the El Salvador government. The protests were encountered by government repression, leading to death squads and forced disappearances. Pro-government forces fought against left-wing guerilla groups from 1979 to 1992.

The El Salvadoran Civil War claimed an estimated 75,000 lives before a peace agreement was established in 1992.

Many of the clergy spoke against El Salvador’s inhumane practices, and many Catholic leaders faced backlash once they denounced the government. Blessed Romero especially decried both the social injustices which heavily oppressed the poor and the military’s oppressive tactics.

Blessed Romero became exceedingly outspoken once a close friend and teacher to the archbishop was gunned down by military forces on the way to Mass. Before he died in 1980, 30 priests in his archdiocese were either murdered or expelled from the state, and many more lay faithful were subject to the same fate.

Investigation into Archbishop Romero’s canonization officially opened in 1993, but was delayed until the early 2000s because of complex politics and false reports. In January of 2015, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints unanimously recognized the priest as martyr due to the hatred towards the faith identified within the act, and Pope Francis approved for the beatification a month later.

The post Reopened Murder Case Of Blessed Oscar Romero appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“Everywhere I look, Lord
I see FB Eyes
Said every place I look, Lord
I find FB Eyes
I’m getting sick and tired of
gover’ment spies” — Richard Wright, The FB Eye Blues, 1949

President Trump’s dismissal of FBI director James Comey is certainly a topic worthy of discussion and debate. In typical Trump fashion, his amateurish administration has given a variety of contradictory rationales for the action. While there may be confusion about what precipitated the decision, there should be no confusion about the FBI’s long history of persecuting black people in this country.

No one should forget the FBI played a major role in prosecuting Marcus Garvey. A young agent named J. Edgar Hoover led the investigation during the Wilson and Harding administrations. Hoover destroyed the Garveyite movement by arranging a trumped up charge of mail fraud. Garvey was convicted, imprisoned and deported from the United States.

The FBI never relented in this strategy of actively opposing the black struggle for human rights. In fact every FBI agent was responsible for managing at least one informer to report on activities in black communities. Political action was not the only target of attack. Writers such as Langston Hughes, Claude McKay, W.E.B. DuBois, and James Baldwin were all under FBI surveillance. The works of Lorraine Hansberry, Ralph Ellison and others were submitted to the FBI by a network of informers.

All of these activities fell under the umbrella of the Counter Intelligence Program, COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO used murder, disinformation, character assassination, and double agents to crush the liberation movement. Of course Martin Luther King was a focal target of surveillance. The FBI even wrote an anonymous letter which urged him to commit suicide. Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered by FBI agents acting in concert with the Chicago police department in 1969.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the FBI used informants to entrap innocent people into planning nonexistent terror attacks and then sentencing them to long prison terms. The Liberty City Seven and Newburgh Four are amongst those victims.

James Comey has his own history of eroding civil liberties and maintaining the police state apparatus against every black person in the country. When mass protest arose against police killings Comey was among those who peddled the lie of a “Ferguson effect.” He made the spurious case that the police were suddenly afraid to kill black people. If only that were true. The Obama administration was in the business of pretending to undo mass incarceration and Comey exposed their fraud by claiming that it didn’t even exist.

The FBI will always be in the business of crushing dissent. The agency coordinates its work with police departments across the country with Joint Terrorism Task Force operations that target black people, Muslims of all races and anyone else who may fit a profile rife with racism and xenophobia.

This is the FBI that many people now lionize in the wake of the Comey firing. Trump’s dispute with Comey has created a dangerous cognitive dissonance on the part of people suffering from selective amnesia. If black people can’t be depended upon to remember the FBI’s history of evil doing we are in very serious trouble.

Former National Intelligence director James Clapper laments that FBI agents are now suffering from “low morale” after their boss was told to clean out his desk. We can only hope that their condition is so serious that they no longer want to target individuals and groups for surveillance, arrest and imprisonment. We would be fortunate indeed to have an ineffectual FBI.

The term “deep state” has become popular of late but it is something of a misnomer. The deep state is nothing new or extraordinary. It was and is ever present in the lives of black people. That dynamic is unchanged, regardless of who sits in the corner office of the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington DC.

The fact that Hoover’s infamous name has not been removed is significant. It is further proof that the fate of a particular FBI director should be of no concern to black people. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose Donald Trump. However the emphasis on him rather than on the system has created a sad spectacle of foolishness and further proof of the sorry state of black political understanding.

The post No Tears For The FBI – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Lulwa Shalhoub and Hani Hazaimeh

Saudi-US deals worth at least $380 billion were struck on Saturday during the historic visit to Riyadh by US President Donald Trump, officials said.

King Salman and Trump held high-level talks in the Saudi capital, where they co-signed the Saudi-US “Joint Strategic Vision Declaration,” as a series of defense, business and technology deals were agreed in the Saudi capital.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir said that Trump’s visit marks “the beginning of a turning point” in relations with the Arab world.

Speaking at a press conference held with his US counterpart Rex Tillerson in Riyadh on Saturday, Al-Jubeir said that the strategic partnership agreement by King Salman and Trump would develop into a strong strategic partnership.

“The two countries have signed a series of agreements, both by private, commercial entities and inter-governmental, including on investment and infrastructure,” said Al-Jubeir.

“The value of the deals exceeds $380 billion; they will be executed over the next 10 years and will provide many opportunities both for the Kingdom and for the United States.”

Tillerson said that over 20 licenses were issued to large US companies helping direct investment between the two countries, which will result in the creation of thousands of jobs for Americans, an increase the purchase of US goods, equipment and technologies, and also benefit Saudi Arabia.

Defense played a key element in the myriad deals announced in Riyadh on Saturday.

Saudi Arabia and the US signed arms deals worth approximately $110 billion, the White House announced on Saturday.

Several other multi-billion-dollar deals were sealed at the inaugural Saudi-US CEO Forum, also held on Saturday.

They included a landmark $6 billion defense and armament agreement under a “letter of intent” to assemble 150 Lockheed Martin Black Hawk helicopters.

The agreement, which was revealed during the forum, is expected to support around 450 jobs in the Kingdom.

“At Lockheed Martin, we are proud to be part of this historic announcement that will strengthen the relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” said Marillyn A. Hewson, chairman, president and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation.

“We are especially proud of how our broad portfolio of advanced global security products and technologies will enhance national security in Saudi Arabia, strengthen the cause of peace in the region, and provide the foundation for job creation and economic prosperity in the US and in the Kingdom. The agreements will directly contribute to His Majesty’s Vision 2030 by opening the door for thousands of highly skilled jobs in new economic sectors.”

Energy — one of Saudi Arabia’s strongest sectors — witnessed a number of announcements with a combined $22 billion worth of new deals signed during the forum by Saudi and American executives in the oil and gas industry.

A major funding boost for the largest oil refinery in the US was among a number of announcements in refining and petrochemicals signed on Saturday at the forum.

Saudi Aramco-owned Motiva Enterprises announced a landmark investment in the US totaling $12 billion with a likely additional investment of $18 billion by 2023.

It is estimated the deal will create approximately 2,500 additional jobs in the short term and a further 12,000 by 2023.

Announcing the deal at the Saudi-US CEO Forum, Amin Nasser, president and CEO of Saudi Aramco, said: “Today we are investing in long-term job creation and the future of the refining industry in the United States, and we are delivering on Vision 2030 to expand the US-Saudi partnership.

“The message is clear: the longstanding bonds between our two countries are reinforced by both the value and scale of today’s agreement.”

Following his participation in the forum, Nasser also announced several agreements with suppliers including Jacobs, Honeywell and McDermott.

The post Trump Means Business: $380bn Deals Signed In Riyadh appeared first on Eurasia Review.

My fellow Americans,

This weekend I begin my first trip overseas as president – a trip with historic significance for the American people.

I will be visiting with the leaders in many different countries to strengthen our old friendships, build new partnerships, and unite the civilized world in a fight against terrorism.

In that spirit of unity, I will travel to lands associated with three of the world’s great religions.

My first stop will be Saudi Arabia – the heart of the Muslim World. There, I will address a historic gathering of the leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations. I will represent the views of the American people frankly and clearly.

Many of these leaders have expressed growing concern about terrorism, the spread of radicalization, and Iran’s role in funding both. Now it appears Muslim leaders are ready to take more responsibility and a much bigger role in fighting terrorism in their region. It’s about time we do it, we’ll do it together, but it has to be done.

America cannot solve all of the world’s problems, but we can – and we must – help any nation willing to join in the common cause of eradicating terrorism from the face of the earth.

Next, I’ll travel to the ancient city of Jerusalem to talk with my good friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu, about bringing peace and prosperity to both our nations. Israel is an important American ally, but in recent years we haven’t always treated them that way. It’s time to renew our friendship.

While I’m there, I’ll also meet with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in Bethlehem to discuss ways to advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

From there, I’ll head to the Vatican, where I will have the great honor of an audience with Pope Francis. I look forward to speaking with the Pope about how Christian teachings can help put the world on a path to justice, freedom, and peace.

I will also meet with friends and allies in Europe at a gathering of NATO in Brussels and at the G-7 Summit in Italy. Finally, I will close my trip by saying thank you to some of the courageous men and women of the United State Military serving their nation overseas.

In my Inaugural Address, I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, to seek new partners in pursuit of peace, and above all – to always put American people first.

I also pledged that our partners must show that they’re partners, they must show that they’re friends, and they must contribute financially to the tremendous cost – the money that we’re spending – is so big; it’s so much; and it’s not fair for our nation. They have to help and I’m sure they will. The fact is that I’m excited about new possibilities for peace and prosperity – and I hope you are too.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

The post President Trump’s Weekly Address – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David Patrikarakos

(RFE/RL) — President Hassan Rohani has won a second presidential term in Iran, comprehensively beating his main challenger, the conservative ex-prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi.

The post Six Takeaways From Rohani’s Victory In Iran – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

European governments, preparing for a round of major summits with Donald Trump, are wary.

I spent much of the past week speaking with officials and cabinet ministers in Europe. All they wanted to talk about was Trump.

Here, in summary, are the most frequent remarks I heard from them, and from others in my travels, in rough order of frequency:

1. Trump is unstable, and we’re not going to count on anything he says or commits to.

2. Trump doesn’t support NATO or European integration.

3. Trump is actively encouraging racist nationalists in our country.

4. Trump is allied with Putin to bring Europe down.

5. There’s no doubt Trump worked with Putin to win the U.S. presidential election.

6. If Trump’s polls drop too low, he’ll start a war in order to get Americans to rally around him. (Opinions varied on whether Trump’s war would be with North Korea, Iran, terrorists in Nigeria, or an escalation in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.)

7. How did you Americans come to elect this ego-maniac? (Others called him an infant, moron, ignoramus, fool.)

8. He’s another Berlusconi (or Franco, Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler).

9. We remember fascism. We never thought it would happen in America.

10. The world depends on American leadership. We’re very worried.

My overall impression: Anti-Trump sentiment is even stronger in Europe than it is in the U.S. If Trump expects his European trip to give him a reprieve from his troubles at home, he’s mistaken.

The post Robert Reich: Europe’s View Of Trump – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Die Morina

The competition to become Kosovo’s next PM will focus on three candidates with very different ideological profiles – Ramush Haradinaj, from ‘the war wing’, Avdullah Hoti, from the Democratic League of Kosovo, LDK and Albin Kurti, from Vetevendosje.

Ramush Haradinaj, candidate of the “war wing”:

Ramush Haradinaj will be running as the candidate of the biggest coalition in Kosovo, linking the Democratic Party of Kosovo, PDK, led by Kadri Veseli, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo, AAK, led by Haradinaj himself and Fatmir Limaj’s initiative for Kosovo, NISMA.

The three parties are all led by former leaders of Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, which makes it the first time since the Kosovo war ended that the entire “war wing” has run together in an election.

Before entering the coalition, Haradinaj and Limaj strongly opposed the ruling coalition of which the PDK was a part.

His candidacy follows his release from France where he was held on the basis of war-crimes charges filed by Serbia.

“I have honoured to my people and my fellow soldiers for the trust given to me during the war, I have honored the trust given me by President [Ibrahim] Rugova, and with the trust given to me today I will honour my homeland!” Haradinaj wrote on Facebook after confirming his candidacy on Wednesday.

Haradinaj was briefly Prime Minister of Kosovo in 2004 after he entered a coalition with the LDK, then led by the late Ibrahim Rugova.

However, after only 100 days in office, Haradinaj quit and surrendered to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, ICTY, to face war crime charges. He has been cleared of war crimes charges twice now by the UN tribunal.

Avdullah Hoti, economist and key ally of Mustafa

Avdullah Hoti is running as the candidate of LDK. His candidacy marks the first time since Isa Mustafa was appointed LDK leader in 2010 that another member of the party will run for the post of prime minister.

Currently Minister of Finance, he was always an important ally of Mustafa’s. When Mustafa was mayor of the capital of Kosovo, Pristina, Hoti served as deputy mayor from 2010 to 2013.

The coalition that Hoti will run for unites the LDK, the New Kosovo Alliance, AKR, of Behgjet Pacolli, and a new formation, Alternative, led by Mimoza Kusari- Lila, Mayor of Gjakova. Hoti was a former Minister of Industry and Trade for the AKR.

After his candidacy became official, Hoti said that he regarded his candidacy as an enormous responsibility.

“I have the full support of LDK structures, a party that has assumed the biggest burden for all the processes that have taken place in Kosovo,” Hoti said on Tuesday.

“This is the biggest day of my life and I believe that with the unity of the LDK this coalition will win the elections,” he said.

Albin Kurti, from the only party that has never governed

The only political force heading into the elections alone is the opposition nationalist Vetevendosje party, which has decided that its candidate for the post of Prime Minister should be its former leader, Albin Kurti.

“Vetevendosje and I are ready to serve the people as PM. We have had tremendous growth in the last two years … people are also looking for change,” Kurti said after his candidacy was announced on Thursday.

He added that Vetevendosje did not want to allow “this split coalition on two lists to continue its extortion.

“People are afraid they cannot find jobs. People fear that children are not educated. People are afraid they may soon become poor. It’s the last time to bring about change,” he added.

Vetevendosje has never been in government Kosovo but its role in the country’s development has been important, mainly by opposing important processes such as the controversial agreement on border demarcation with Montenegro, which led to the fall of Mustafa’s own government.

Together with Haradianaj’s AAK and Limaj’s NISMA, Kurti and his party colleagues often released tear gas in parliament as a protest gesture.

This makes Kurti the only candidate to have a warrant arrest, issued by the Pristina Basic Court in late April, after he failed to show up for his trial, accused of letting off teargas in parliament last year.

The post Kosovo: Trio Battle It Out To Become Next Prime Minister appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania arrived in Riyadh on Saturday on a historic visit to the Kingdom, where Trump met with the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz.

The president’s bilateral talks with King Salman are expected to revive a new page of historic and strategic relations between the two countries.

Trump is also expected to meet with Saudi officials with an aim to enhance historic relations and will participate in a signing ceremony of several agreements that will further solidify US-Saudi security and economic cooperation.

The US President will attend a summit with leaders of Gulf Cooperation Council to enhance strategic ties between the US and GCC states. During the summit, both sides would discuss several initiatives on armament, the confrontation of terrorism, in addition to security and economic issues.

On Sunday, Trump will meet with Arab and Islamic leaders to renew US commitment to the security of its allies in the region and the world and to tackle means to confront terrorism and international extremism.

The summit on Sunday will also focus on issues linked to security and stability, and will reaffirm the need to cooperate in defeating terrorism worldwide.

For his part, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir affirmed on Friday that the first foreign visit of Trump to the Kingdom and his participation in the first Arab-Islamic-US Summit indicates joint work to defuse tensions in the region and clarify the human values which include justice, equality and peace among peoples.

Trump made Saudi Arabia his initial stop Saturday on his first official trip overseas, before visiting Israel and the Vatican.

During his trip, the US President was accompanied by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, the president’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Habib Powell, White House Economic Adviser Gary Cohn, Press Secretary Sean Spicer, in addition to his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner.

Ahead of arriving in Saudi Arabia, Trump said: “Our task is not to dictate to others how to live, but to build a coalition of friends and partners who share the goal of fighting terrorism and bringing safety, opportunity and stability to the war-ravaged Middle East.”

By Abdul Hadi Habtoor, original source

The post Trump In Riyadh To Shore Up Ties With Saudi Arabia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Garamone

The U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will continue to build on the progress made to date to accelerate the campaign to annihilate the vicious group wherever it tries to form, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said during a Pentagon briefing.

Mattis was accompanied by Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The terror group seemed to appear from nowhere two years ago and swept across Syria and Iraq, causing death and destruction wherever it touched. ISIS affiliates formed in Afghanistan and North Africa. And swarms of foreign fighters sought to reach Raqqa, Syria, the terror group’s self-styled capital.

The United States is leading the campaign to defeat the terror group, and crush the idea that ISIS is invincible.

Taking the Fight to ISIS

“Thanks to the leadership and authorities granted by President (Donald J.) Trump, thanks to the spirit of dozens of nations committed to this fight, thanks to the nations whose troops have gone toe-to-toe with this terrorist group … we have retaken over 55 percent of ISIS territory there in the core,” Mattis said. “Over four million people have been liberated. And not one inch of territory seized from ISIS has been … recaptured by them.”

Soon after taking office in January, Trump ordered a review of the effort against ISIS. Two changes came from that review: Delegation of authority to lower command levels, and the president directed a tactical shift from shoving ISIS out of safe locations in an attrition fight to surrounding the enemy in their strongholds, so we can annihilate ISIS,” Mattis said.

“The intent,” he said, “is to prevent the return home of escaped foreign fighters.”

All this was done with no change to the rules of engagement or changes in protecting innocent civilians caught in the fighting.

It’s truly an international effort against the brutal group, Mattis said.

“Since this began in 2014, the coalition has strengthened and expanded,” the secretary said.

There are now 68 members in the counter-ISIS coalition, Mattis said. Those nations and affiliated organizations are sharing intelligence, providing troops and funds for combat and for the post-combat recovery. A total of 26 nations contribute more than 4,000 non-U.S. troops on the ground and in the air.

“Our recent coalition meetings in Brussels, Copenhagen and elsewhere reflect an energized campaign among contributing nations partnering with, of course, the Iraqi security forces in Iraq and the counter-ISIS forces in Syria,” Mattis said.

This effort has “reduced ISIS-held territory, limited their freedom of movement, destroyed a great deal of their leadership, reduced the flow of foreign fighters into and from the region, diminished their financial resources and, I think, perhaps most importantly, we’ve undermined the credibility of their narrative that there is a physical caliphate in Iraq and Syria,” Dunford said.

Counter-ISIS Campaign in Iraq

In Iraq, U.S. and coalition forces provide equipment and intelligence to Iraqi security forces, the chairman said. Coalition pilots bomb ISIS targets and coalition advisors work with Iraqi leaders on the campaign. But it is the Iraqis paying most of the cost, the general said.

“In Mosul alone, they’ve suffered approximately 980 killed and over 6,000 wounded,” Dunford said of Iraqi losses in the fight against ISIS.

However, the Iraqi forces have gotten much better and far more competent, the chairman said.

“Just as an aside, in addition to the competence that they’ve demonstrated Mosul, and the sacrifice, the one thing I’ve seen over time, in the 15 months I’ve been back and forth visiting in Iraq, in this particular assignment, is the confidence of the Iraqi leadership,” Dunford said. “Compare the fall of 2015 to today, it’s very clear … who is in charge, and the level of confidence of the commanders in their ability to lead and in their soldiers’ ability to fight is remarkably different than it was a short time ago.”

In Syria, working with Turkey and partnered forces, the coalition has sealed the Turkish-Syrian border, stemming the flow of foreign fighters, weapons and money to ISIS, Dunford said. The general said at its peak there were about 1,500 foreign fighters crossing that border each month. That has dropped to less than 100 today, he said.

And Syrian Democratic Forces are isolating Raqqa — the center of ISIS.

“We’re also taking the fight to ISIS outside of Iraq and Syria, attacking their affiliates and any groups that claim allegiance,” Dunford said. “ISIS is a transregional threat, and we have a global approach.”

The chairman told reporters he is working to expand the already huge coalition against ISIS. “I’m working very closely with more than 60 of my counterparts to expand the coalition that we have in dealing with ISIS, and our priority clearly is to prevent attacks against the homeland,” he said. “Our strategic approach is to cut the connectivity between ISIS affiliates and associates, and that’s specifically the foreign fighter flow, their illicit resources and their message.”

The effort is more than a military effort — it is a whole of government approach, and Brett McGurk, the president’s special envoy, said this is “enabling an anaconda-like approach to suffocate ISIS of its territory, finances, propaganda and ability to move foreign fighters.”

This cooperation has enabled closer political coordination between local, regional and national governments to help return people to their homes after the battles are won through an innovative post-conflict approach based on empowering people at the local level to restore life to their communities, McGurk said. The effort is being led by Germany, Italy, France, the United Arab Emirates, Norway, the United Kingdom and other key contributors.

The initial focus on de-mining key facilities is a critical coalition focus. “Iraqis, trained by our coalition supporting demining, have now cleared 34 tons of explosive material,” he said.

In Iraq, 1.7 million Iraqis are now back in their homes, McGurk said.

“That record is historically unprecedented in a conflict of this nature, and we give tremendous credit to the government of Iraq and local leaders who have worked cooperatively to stabilize local areas and return local populations,” he said. “To date in Mosul, 116,000 displaced civilians have returned, 250,000 boys and girls are back in school and we’re working to ensure that these trend lines continue.”

McGurk said the coalition will attempt to use the same model in Raqqa with local leaders planning for “the day after ISIS.”

The post Top Defense Leaders Cite Coalition Progress To Annihilate Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Indonesian government has issued a recommendation for the Islamist group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) to be legally prohibited. While some observers have criticised the proposal on grounds of freedom of expression or assembly, the move may be justifiable for Indonesian security.

By Alexander R Arifianto*

On May 8, 2017, retired general Wiranto, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, issued a statement stating that after a careful study, the Joko Widodo (Jokowi) administration will start legal proceedings to declare Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) a prohibited organisation throughout the country.

He stated that his rationale to ban the organisation is because HTI’s ideology which promotes a global Islamic caliphate is contradictory to Indonesia’s national ideology Pancasila. Thus, it has violated Law No. 17/2013 on Civil Society Organisations (CSO), which authorised the government to prohibit any organisations which “propagates any ideological or philosophical teachings which violates Pancasila and Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution”.

Payback or Crackdown?

Some critics have accused the Jokowi administration’s action as retaliation against HTI for its active role in the movement directed against former Jakarta Governor’s Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (popularly known as Ahok) that ended his re-election bid last month. However, Wiranto strongly denied this accusation.

The Indonesian government, he said, would begin the legal proceedings to ban HTI, which requires the government to file a motion in a district court to revoke HTI’s permit to operate as a CSO in Indonesia. If granted, the organisation has the right to appeal the court’s ruling in an Appellate Court, and finally in the Indonesian Supreme Court.

HTI has received legal recognition in Indonesia since 2000, after operating underground for more than two decades during the Suharto regime. An affiliate of the global Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) movement, it was first introduced in Indonesia around 1980 by a West Java-based cleric named Abdullah bin Nuh and an Australia-based preacher named Abdurrahman al-Baghdadi.

They founded a campus preaching (da’wa) centre at Bogor Institute of Agricultural Studies (IPB) that became the cornerstone for Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activities in Indonesia. Over the next two decades the movement managed to gained membership at state university campuses as well as in professional associations.

HTI’s Influence in Indonesian Society

HTI maintains its strong presence at Indonesian state universities during the post-Reformasi period. Unofficial estimates put its membership to be at least one million followers. It is especially strong at state universities which specialise in training public school teachers – the so-called teacher’s training and educational universities (IKIP). It is strong in these universities because it seeks newly minted public high school teachers as potential recruits.

After being inducted as its cadres, these teachers could assist in spreading HTI’s ideology to promote a global caliphate among their junior and senior public high school teachers throughout Indonesia. Serving as rohis (short for rohani Islam or high school propagation teachers), these teachers are able to control the rohis classes’ curriculum and to pass on HTI’s ideology among their high school pupils.

Recent surveys done by a number of research institutes have confirmed HTI’s influence among public high school teachers and their pupils. A survey released in January 2017 conducted by the Institute for the Study of Islam and Society (PPIM) of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University finds 78 percent of surveyed Indonesian Islamic religious teachers in public schools support the implementation of Islamic (shari’a) law in Indonesia, while 77 percent supports conservative Islamist organisations which are advocating for this goal.

A 2016 survey by Maarif Institute – a think-tank affiliated with Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim organisation – shows more than half of public high school students in West Java province are supportive towards the establishment of a caliphate-based state.

Freedom of Expression vs Security Consideration

There are other aspects of HTI strategies that have attracted attention. Its nusrah (seeking allies) strategy aims to invite national and local civil servants, politicians, and security apparatus to HTI events, to turn them to become potential sympathisers, if not cadres.

HTI provincial board members from East Java province have revealed in an interview with the author that it has engaged in extensive dialogues with a number of local politicians, including the province’s deputy governor who is widely anticipated to seek the gubernatorial position during the 2018 regional election, to “educate” them regarding HTI and its ideology. They also claim HTI currently has several dozen mid-level officers of the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) who have been inducted to become its cadres.

A number of observers have criticised the Indonesian government’s proposed ban against HTI by stating that Law No. 17/2013, which forms the legal foundation of the government’s case against the organisation, is legally vague. If interpreted broadly, it can open a pathway for potential abuse of power by the Jokowi administration to silence its critics, including but not limited to, hard-line Islamic groups.

While these criticisms do have merit, the above evidences show that by expanding into public high schools and universities and recruiting politicians, civil servants, and TNI officers as potential sympathisers, HTI may endanger Indonesia’s domestic security, with implications for regional security as well.

At a time when the possibility of regional extremism is at an all-time high, the Indonesian government has placed a premium on security considerations over an organisation’s right to freely express itself, especially when such expressions are in clear contradiction of Indonesia’s national ideology.

However, even if it was successfully enacted, the proposed ban against HTI would not stop its da’wa campaign in Indonesia. Hizb ut-Tahrir branches elsewhere have proven themselves to be very effective when they are being forced to operate underground. How the Jokowi administration would enforce the prohibition once it is enacted remains an open question.

*Alexander R Arifianto PhD is a Research Fellow with the Indonesia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The post Banning Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia: Freedom Or Security? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has been re-elected in a landslide victory, endorsing his efforts to re-engage with the west and offer greater freedoms at home. With a huge turnout, polling stations stayed open until midnight in parts of the country, defying concerns that moderates disillusioned by the weak economy or slow pace of change would not vote. The president received close to 23 million votes, Interior Minister Abdul Reza Rahmani Fazli said on state television, in an election that had an unexpectedly high turnout of about 70%.

Iran’s reformist President Hassan Rouhani has decisively won the country’s presidential election, fending off a challenge by principlist rival, Ebrahim Raisi a conservative cleric. With all of votes in Friday’s poll counted, Rouhani was re-elected with 57 percent, Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmanifazli said. “Of some 41.2 million total votes cast, Rouhani got 23.5 and won the election,” Rahmanifazli said in remarks carried live by state TV. Raisi, Rouhani’s closest rival, main challenger, former prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi received 38.5%, or 15.7 million votes, not enough to take the election to a second round. A big turnout on Friday led to the vote being extended by several hours to deal with long queues.

Rouhani, a moderate who agreed a deal with world powers to limit Iran’s nuclear programme, pledged to “remain true” to his promises. The decisive victory gives him a strong mandate to seek reforms and revive Iran’s ailing economy, analysts say. In his first remarks after winning the poll, Rouhani said: “Great people of Iran, you’re the winners of the election.”

Giving full details, Iran’s interior minister, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, announced live on state television that Rouhani received 23,549,616 votes (57%), compared with his conservative rival Ebrahim Raisi, who won 15,786,449 votes (38.5%). More than 41.2 million people voted out of 56 million who were eligible to do so. The two other lesser known candidates, Mostafa Aqa-Mirsalim and Mostafa Hashemi-Taba, got 478,215 and 215,450 votes respectively.

The incumbent saw off a strong challenge from Raisi, a fellow cleric with radically different politics who stirred up populist concerns about the sluggish economy, lambasted Rouhani for seeking foreign investment and appealed to religious conservatives. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, issued a statement addressed to the Iranian people in which he praised the “massive and epic” turnout.

Presidency

In Iran’s unique and uneasy hybrid of democracy and theocracy, the president has significant power to shape government, although he is is ultimately constrained by the supreme leader. Khamenei, a hardliner thought to have favored Raisi in the election and as a possible successor for his own job, generally steers clear of daily politics but controls powerful bodies from the judiciary to the Revolutionary Guards. Despite losing the overall race, Raisi appeared to have won enough votes to allow him to campaign for office again or justify his promotion in unelected bodies.

Rouhani’s campaign headquarters said there was no plan to hold a celebratory rally. Iranians are usually quick to celebrate such victories, mainly by honking car horns or dancing in streets or distributing sweets. The scale of voter turnout was the highest for many years. The governor of the northern province of Gilan was quoted as saying the turnout there was 80%. In Yazd, the home city of former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, there was 91% participation.
Fear of a Raisi presidency prompted many in Iran to vote. In Tehran, even political prisoners such as the prominent human rights lawyer Narges Mohammadi, cast their votes inside the notorious Evin prison. And the double Oscar-winning film director Asghar Farhadi voted in Cannes while participating at the festival.

Significance

Rouhani’s victory will be welcomed by Iranian reformists as well as the country’s opposition green movement.

Opposition leaders under house arrest, Mir Hossein Mousavi, his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi, had urged people to vote for Rouhani. The president changed his tone on the campaign trail in order to appeal to the opposition. “Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein” was a ubiquitous slogan chanted by Rouhani fans in almost every place he campaigned in the three weeks before the vote.

The election was seen by many as a verdict on Rouhani’s policy of opening up Iran to the world and his efforts to rebuild its stagnant economy. Rouhani swept into office four years ago on a promise to reduce Iran’s international isolation.

Friday poll was the first since he negotiated a historic deal with world powers in 2015 to curb the country’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. In the campaign trail, Rouhani sought to frame the vote as a choice between greater civil liberties and “extremism”, criticising the continued arrest of reformist leaders and activists. Raisi, for his part, accused Rouhani of mismanaging the economy and positioned himself as a defender of the poor and calling for a much tougher line with the West.

Political commentator Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that in contrast to the 2013 election campaign, when Rouhani spoke about the removal of sanctions and the improvement of the economy, this time his message was different. “He resorted to other campaign slogans, like [calling for] social and political freedom, and he pushed the boundaries in order to gather public support, especially in large cities,” Khoshcheshm told Al Jazeera. “If he has secured this result, it’s because of the large cities and the middle class society living there – they have voted for him and made him a president and they expect him to do his promises.”

Trita Parsi, of the National Iranian American council, said the results showed Iranians had chosen “a path of gradual transformation through peaceful participation”. “President Rouhani’s convincing win is a sharp rebuke to Iran’s unelected institutions that were a significant brake on progress during his first term,” he said. “It is also a rebuke of Washington hawks who openly called for either a boycott of the vote, or for the hardline candidate Ebrahim Raisi to win in order to hasten a confrontation.” He said it was now time for Rouhani to deliver on the promises that inspired people to vote him back in.

Hardliners

Iran’s hardliners had pulled all the stops and mobilized all their resources to bring out as many people as possible to grab the last centre of power in Iran that was not under their control, namely the executive branch. Sensing an effort by the hardliners, supporters of President Rouhani who back his promises to steer the country toward moderation came out in big numbers too. Turnout has been unprecedented. In Tehran, five million people turned out to vote – twice as many as in 2013.

This was a revenge of the people against the hardliners who intimidated them, jailed them, executed them, drove them to exile, pushed them out of their jobs, and discriminated against women.

Campaign

President Rouhani will now have a bigger mandate to push through his reforms, to put an end to extremism, to build bridges with the outside world, to put the economy back on track.

Iranians have said a resounding Yes to President Rouhani who, in recent years and particularly during the last several weeks of campaigning, promised to expand individual and political freedoms and make all those centres of power, like the Revolutionary Guard, accountable. He also promised a moderate vision and an outward-looking Iran and, at rallies, openly attacked the conservative-dominated judiciary and security services. Another challenge, experts say, will come from abroad, and the relations with the new US government. President Donald Trump opposes the nuclear deal which eased sanctions on the Middle Eastern country, but his White House renewed it earlier this week.

As polling day draws closer in Iran, the state of the economy has become the key battleground for the six candidates running for president.

With rampant unemployment, some are promising jobs and others cash hand-outs as they appeal for votes.

Given his record, winning this election ought to be easy for incumbent Hassan Rouhani – but his re-election is by no means a certainty.

Rouhani managed to strike an historic deal in 2015 with world powers over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, resolving a long-standing crisis with the West.

International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives. “For the past two years, many have stayed away from the property market, first with the hope prices would fall post-sanctions and now for the fear of what happens in the elections,” says Ali Saeedi, a real estate agent. “Many of my colleagues left their jobs because the market is dead,” Saeedi, 33, says.

Iran’s housing sector shrank 13% in the year to March 2017, while the country’s overall economy grew by almost 6.6%, estimates International Monetary Fund.

That growth came mostly from increased oil exports following the lifting of sanctions. Iran’s highest record in the past four decades has been creating 600,000 jobs a year. Iran’s current unemployment rate stands at 12.7%, up 1.7% over the past year. That puts the number of those with absolutely no employment at 3.3 million.

But when it comes to young people, one in every three of those aged 15-24 is jobless. In that age group, every other woman is unemployed. For those without a job, Qalibaf is also offering a 2.5m rial ($66) monthly unemployment benefit, a first in the 38 years since since the Islamic Revolution. The price tag for this election promise alone is a staggering $2.6bn. Qalibaf does not say where he will find the money, nor how he will manage to double Iran’s job creation record.

Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his two terms (2005-2013) started cash hand-outs when removing subsidies, offered low-interest loans for small businesses and launched massive projects of affordable housing for the poor.

But when Ahmadinejad left office the economy was shrinking by 7% a year and inflation reached 40%. He blamed international sanctions. Economists blamed Ahmadinejad’s populist policies and his mismanagement of the economy.

Challenge

The economy remains the number one challenge. Rouhani, 68, signed a nuclear deal between Iran, the US and other countries in 2015. International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives. While oil exports have rebounded and inflation is back at single-digits, unemployment remains high, especially among the young people.

Rouhani has brought inflation down from around 40 percent when he took over in 2013, but prices are still rising by over seven percent a year. Oil sales have rebounded since the nuclear deal took effect in January 2016, but growth in the rest of the economy has been limited, leaving unemployment at 12.5 percent overall – close to 30 percent for the young – and many more are under-employed or struggling to get by. “Rouhani now gets his second term, and will be able to continue the work that he started in his first four-year term trying to reform Iran,” Hull said. “And moving on, crucially, from the nuclear deal to try and bring much more economic progress to satisfy the people who have found themselves extremely disappointed with the very slow pace of change since that agreement was signed.”

President Rouhani has brought GDP growth back into the black, inflation into single-digits and trade deficit into a surplus. But expectations are high and Rouhani himself is to blame, having promised miracles once the sanctions were lifted.

Most members of Iran’s fledgling private sector say they will give Mr Rouhani another chance. “We want him to improve the business environment and free the economy from rent-seeking, corruption and monopoly,” says Hamid Hosseini, chief executive of Soroosh oil refinery in Iran.
Hosseini is a board member of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines and the founder of the country’s oil products export union.He says a large group of private sector executives have come together to support Rouhani. “His government has given the society hope with lifting sanctions, increasing growth and tourism, attracting foreign investment and should be confident in this race,” Hosseini says. But the choice for some young Iranians like Ali Saeedi is not crystal-clear.

Rouhani’s re-election is likely to safeguard the 2015 agreement, under which most international sanctions have been lifted in return for Iran curbing its nuclear program. Rouhani has vowed to work towards removing the remaining non-nuclear sanctions, but critics argue that will be hard with Donald Trump as US president – Trump has repeatedly described it as “one of the worst deals ever signed”, although his administration re-authorised waivers from sanctions this week.

Rouhani is also expected to face the same restrictions that prevented him from delivering substantial social change in his first term.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has veto power over all policies and ultimate control of the security forces, While Rouhani has been unable to secure the release of reformist leaders from house arrest.

Rouhani, during an “increasingly acrimonious election campaign, alienated a lot of Iran’s significant state institutions who may be in no mood to cooperate with him going forward”.

While the nuclear deal was at the forefront of the election, the campaign was dominated by the issues of poverty and unemployment.

The post Iran: Rouhani Re-Elected President – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In his first overseas trip as president, Donald Trump sealed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $350 billion over 10 years, with nearly $110 billion to take effect immediately. The agreement is said to bolster security “in the face of Iranian threats.”

“This package of defense equipment and services supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of malign Iranian influence and Iranian related threats. Additionally, it bolsters the Kingdom’s ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on US military forces,” the US Department of State said in a statement on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump, along with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who is accompanying him on the trip, attended a signing ceremony for almost $110 billion worth of defense capabilities to be conveyed to Saudi Arabia, effective immediately.

“This package demonstrates the United States’ commitment to our partnership with Saudi Arabia, while also expanding opportunities for American companies in the region,” the statement read.

The deal also “potentially supports tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States,” it added.

The “intended sales” include deals in five categories that include border and coastal security, cybersecurity, air force modernization, as well as air and missile defense, the State Department announced.

Tanks, artillery, helicopters, light close air support, intelligence-gathering aircraft, and systems such as Patriot and THAAD are just a few among a large list of weapons and machinery to be sold to Riyadh.

“Offers of extensive training” are also included in the package.

Speaking at a news briefing, Tillerson said the deals send a “strong message to our common enemies.” The US Secretary of State also told the media that a centerpiece of Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia is to curb any threats to the region allegedly posed by Iran, AP reported.

Leaders of the two countries also discussed fighting “extremism and terrorism” in the region, including in Yemen and in Syria. Speaking at a joint meeting with Tillerson, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said the ties between Riyadh and Washington would help “drain the swamps” from where the threat “emanates.”

The series of agreements inked provide for a “total value of investments… in excess of $380 billion,” Adel al-Jubeir told reporters.

The US president himself has only briefly commented on his first day in the Saudi Arabian capital. He said the deals he had inked would lead to “tremendous investments” in the US, and create “jobs, jobs, jobs,” as quoted by AP.

Reports of Washington and Riyadh engaging in talks over multi-billion arms deals emerged earlier in May.

The arms package includes a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from Lockheed Martin, similar to the one being made operational in South Korea, which costs around $1 billion, Reuters reported earlier, citing unnamed sources within the administration.

A software system, a package of satellite capabilities, as well as fighting and artillery vehicles are also reportedly part of the negotiations. More than $1 billion worth of munitions, including armor-piercing Penetrator Warheads and Paveway laser-guided bombs made by Raytheon, might also be included in the package.

International human rights organizations have been voicing concerns over Saudi-led coalition attacks in Yemen, where Riyadh is fighting against Houthi rebels and supporters of the former Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who are allegedly backed by Iran.

Human Rights Watch says the coalition headed by Riyadh has violated the rules of war, with some of its military action likely amounting to war crimes, including attacks on hospitals, markets, schools, and religious centers.

In the last month of his term in office, former President Barack Obama halted the sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia over concerns that the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) was targeting civilians in Yemen.

The post Trump Strikes Arms Deal With Saudi Arabia Worth $350bn appeared first on Eurasia Review.

For the opposition to remain hopeful of getting Yameen impeached and disqualified from elections 2018 is a tall order.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy

After losing the much delayed, nationwide local council elections to the opposition MDP-led combine, President Abdulla Yameen last out them for their ‘divided past’ and taunted them to return home to take up legal and political challenges. With this, obviously, he has also shut the doors once again on the purported peace moves aimed at an all-round ‘political solution’.

“Why should you stay in hiding abroad? Those who thirst for power here should come back to the Maldives. The first thing you should accept is that court verdicts will be binding on everyone,” Yameen told his followers at a political rally in capital Male. Among others, the reference obviously was directed at former MDP President, Mohammed ‘Anni’ Nasheed, who is facing contempt charge after ‘jumping jail’, and his own half brother and another former President, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who has been spending most time outside the country, lest possibly, he (too) could face political harassment.

“It won’t do when you criticise these things from afar,” the Maldives Independent quoted Yameen as saying. He was obviously referring to the combined opposition’s charges of misgovernance, political harassment, human rights issues and economic downtrend. “Our opponents now, they are also opposed to each other. We can see what they have said about each other. But now none of them is in a state where they can provide protection for the other. All of them have collectively gone into self imposed exile.”

Yameen also taunted the opposition combine by pointing out how at MDP rallies they were playing now songs praising Gayoom, after they had worked to unseat him from the presidency over a long period. Clearly, the incumbent seemed wanting to divert the cadre attention from the relatively poor performance in the local council elections, and also to sow seeds of confusion in the combined opposition on their ‘common candidate’, if any, to take on him in the presidential polls, due by November 2018.

Poor turnout

As was only to be anticipated, Yameen-led faction of the ruling PPM came an uncomfortable second after the MDP-led opposition in the local council polls, which his Government had got postponed thrice at least over the past months. Even more important, especially from the opposition standpoint should be the poor turnout, especially in capital Male, with a third of the nation’s voters and a combined majority with them.

Yameen claimed that the difference was caused by the seats where his ruling PPM rebels had contested the party’s official candidates.

Neither the result, nor Yameen’s explanation is saying a lot, as no details are available about the number of councils that each of the two main combines have won and/or lost. For sure, the MDP retained the three urban, ‘population’ centres of Male, southern Addu and Fevumulla, with a high seat count. The JP is said to have won 11 seats, all told, but this is not reflective of Gasim’s 25 percent first round vote share in 2013.

Prima facie, this voting pattern can well reflect in the presidential polls, too. But there are hitches. Up by two per cent from the voter turnout in the last LG polls, the current figure of 66 percent is way short of the 90 plus poll percentage in 2013 presidential elections. At 44 percent, the voter turnout in Male was worse still. How the Male voters would behave in elections 2018 thus remains a mystery now.

Though Nasheed had lost some of its new/young voters from 2008, elections 2013 still witnessed a substantial rise in the vote share of Jumhooree Party’s Gasim Ibrahim, a third ally of his MDP, since. Today, they are together, along with Gayoom and also the religion centric Adhaalath Party (AP), whose leader, Sheikh Imran, is also in prison. But there is no knowing how a low turnout, if any, in the presidential polls could impact on the results.

Hits hard rock

In the absence of guarantees for Nasheed to return home as a freeman and contest elections, and the removal of the Yameen induced 65-year age-limit for Gayoom and Gasim to contest, the combined opposition may not be able to identify and agree upon a ‘common candidate’. Gayoom’s acknowledged political heir in elder son Faaris Maumoon is a possibility, but all may not be agreeable to the choice, especially the MDP.

Nasheed too would have to make up his mind soon on an alternative candidate from within the party, if he is still denied the opportunity to contest. He will then have to market that candidate (with alternates) within his party and then make his ‘choice’ acceptable to allies and later on to the Maldivian voters. Gasim would have his own problem being able to retain and then ‘transfer’ his 25 percent ‘committed’ voters from the first round in 2013, to a candidate of his choice, whether within the party or from the combined opposition.

Gasim was arrested and granted bail with stiff conditions, barring him from active politics. The court lifted the conditions after Gasim’s legal team cited the Prosecutor General’s advice to the police that there was no evidence that he bribed MPs ahead of the failed no-trust-vote against Speaker Abdulla Maseeh.

Faaris Maumoon is the new target as his passport has been impounded after a month-long court ordered travel ban. In his case again, the PG’s office said that the funds misappropriation charge dating back to his father’s presidency, was time-barred and not maintainable. It is not unlikely that prospective presidential aspirants/candidates from the opposition parties could face a similar fate.

In this background, for the opposition to remain hopeful of getting Yameen impeached and disqualified from elections 2018 is a tall order. Even more difficult would be their agreeing to legal, judicial and legislative measures that could facilitate Nasheed and Gayoom, Gasim and Sheikh Imran becoming free men, with the right to contest elections. Any mutual acrimony could be to their disadvantage unlike in 2008, where the anti-Gayoom parties were still at loggerheads in the first round, but the newly democratic voters did not mind.

Off China Summit

Yameen’s serious attention to domestic politics can be gauged from his staying away from the China initiated OBOR Summit in Beijing, and instead addressing party men nearer home. It was also possibly a message to the Indian neighbour, which has boycotted the Summit totally, owing to a variety of bilateral concerns. However, Economic Development Minister, Mohamed Saeed, represented Maldives at the Summit.

Indications are that Yameen, who prides himself as a ‘development man’ and claims to be inspired by Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, would make it his election agenda for 2018. The subtext would be that the opposition was fighting for power in the name of democracy, with him and among them. They were thus not concerned about the nation and its people. In the process, they were stalling development and Maldives on the track.

Yameen is expected to present the China funded Male-Hulhule sea-bridge to the airport as his ‘electoral offering’, and promise more of the kind to the voters, whatever be their ultimate use to the people. However, the local council elections have not provided any evidence to such a campaign working wonders, at least as of now.

The post Maldives: After Poll-Loss, Yameen Taunts ‘Divided Opposition’ Leaders To Return Home – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Bhaskar Roy*

Events in the Korean Peninsula have just been pulled back from the brink of a major disaster which could engulf the Asia Pacific region and impact the world at large.

North Korea appears to have suspended its sixth nuclear test mainly due to pressure from China. This is the view of some Chinese experts. Pyongyang made a serious diplomatic mistake by attacking and even threatening Beijing in a recent commentary carried by its official news agency, the KCNA. But there is no guarantee that the stability may not deteriorate again. North Korean leader Kin Jong-un remains unpredictable.

The North Korean nuclear issue including missile development programme are parts of a whole and very complex. There are several parties which have contributed to things coming to this pass, including Pyongyang, Beijing, Washington and to a certain extent, Seoul.

The “Agreed Framework” deal reached by the Clinton administration and North Korea in 1994 stipulated that Pyongyang would freeze its Yongbyon nuclear facility in return for economic assistance and certain diplomatic concessions. Although progress was slow, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s emissary was received by Clinton, and US Secretary of State. Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang and met Kim in 2000. This was the highest point thaw reached between the two countries. When George W. Bush came to power in Washington, hard-line conservatives led by Vice President Dick Cheney turned the table over. The Framework Agreement was sabotaged quoting distrust. North Korea was listed in the “Axis of Evil” along with Iran and Iraq.

North Korea watched with alarm the unfolding of the Bush administration’s foreign policy of regime change. Iraq was attacked on false and manufactured evidence and Saddam Hussain as elected President was executed. Believing in American promise, Saddam had virtually disarmed his military, shut down nuclear and CBW facilities and discarded his Scud missile production. The US then went in for the spectacular attack. Saddam had no chance. Then came the ouster of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. The Americans had no end game, leaving both countries in turmoil and festering jihadism.

Finally Syria had been targeted, with the sole aim of ouster of President Assad. China, meanwhile, has played all sides. It kept Pyongyang healthy, while periodically voicing common stand with the international community urging North Korea to curb its nuclear ambition. There have been instances when it revealed it was putting pressure by reducing oil supply to Pyongyang, or reducing coal imports among other things. But these were one off actions for brief periods. North Korean companies including front companies have been operating in China. More than 80 percent of North Korea’s foreign trade is with China, and it is totally dependent on China for its oil.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, howsoever clandestine, are not new, and that is common knowledge. North Korean scientists and engineers have worked in China for long periods of time, though clandestinely. North Korea’s collaboration with Pakistan has taken place on Chinese soil. Pakistani aircraft carrying material to and from North Korea for Shaheen missiles refuelled secretly in Beijing. Much came out in the public domain when Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. A. Q. Khan’s nuclear black market was busted. Photographs emerged last year of a North Korean truck-mounted missile launcher that had an uncanny resemblance to a Chinese launcher. Perhaps it may have been the work of Chinese arms exporter without the knowledge of the government. Be that as it may, there is the question of liability and responsibility.

Has China done enough to curb the North Korean WMD programme? Clearly not enough, and there was complicity earlier on. What was China’s strategy? If the Chinese thought they would be able to control a nuclear North Korea and use it as a card against the US, Japan and South Korea periodically, they completely misjudged the North Korean regime.

China’s plea that it lacked influence on North Korea is not completely true. After Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed with US President Donald Trump on sanctions against Pyongyang, North Korea showed some nervousness. It retorted in the practised manner and threatened China. Its official news agency and mouth peace, the KCNA, warned that, “China should no longer recklessly try to test the limitations (Sic) of our patience”. The commentary further threatened “grave consequences for the reckless act of chopping down the pillar of DPRK-China relations”. It said China should thank North Korea “in an honest manner” for protecting the peace and security of China by keeping out the United States for more than seven decades.

The Chinese foreign minister’s response to KCNA was polite but firm, saying China was “unswervingly devoted to the denuclearization of the peninsula and maintaining peace and security, and resolving the issue through talks”.

China just cannot afford a war in the Korean peninsula and an eventual reunification of the two Koreas. A war would seriously damage the economy and stability of East Asia and South East Asia South Korea will risk huge civilian costs with North Korean artillery bombarding Seoul and other parts of South Korea. A United Korean peninsula will result in democratic forces prevailing (as in the unification of East and West Germany where democratic West Germany prevailed). It would bring the US on China’s shoulder, which would have serious security implications for Beijing.

Equally important, both Koreas have territorial claims on China and a United Korea may bring this issue to the fore.

For the US, a war against North Korea will not be the walk-over it had in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, North Korea geographically is mountainous and the North Korean military will retreat into the mountains and stage a last ditch guerrilla warfare. Its leaders, starting from Kim Jong-un do not care for their civilians’ lives. They may resort to an internal revolution. This projects a disastrous scenario in the Korean peninsula which could take a long time to rebuild. The consequences would be global, and alter the security scenario.

Will the global community allow such a thing to happen? Unlikely, by the time a truce could be implemented, serious damage would have been done. To note, technically the two Koreas are still at war.

The election of Moon Jae-in as President of South Korea could not have come at a better time. A liberal, he wants peace, talks and better relations with North Korea. Pyongyang did not unleash a tirade against him, which is a good sign. North Korea’s recent missile test which impacted near the Russian Coast rather than Japanese waters is seen as a petulant reaction. China’s position on the issue may have deterred North Korea from conducting a sixth nuclear test. But given the track record of the nation nothing can be said with certainty. On the other hand, Trump’s tweets saying he would like to meet Kin Jong-un if the climate is conducive, while surprising, must be appreciated. But then, Trump is given to mood swings and his retraction from hard positions in international affairs have now become legend. He must move away from George W. Bush’s strategy of regime changes. Trump’s recent signal that he is not about to scrap the Iran nuclear deal is a welcome sign.

The only hopeful light over the horizon, at least for the present, will be to revert to the Bill Clinton strategy and the Agreed Framework agreement on North Korea, packaged in a new formulation. China’s proposal of “two suspensions”, that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programme. Simultaneously with US and South Korea stopping their anti-North Korea military exercises, needs to be considered.

Hoping that North Korea rolls back its nuclear and missiles programmes and allows IAEA inspectors to return, will be too much to expect. Pyongyang will not give up what it has. This has to be accepted prima facie to start with. President Moon should be given a bigger role and, in time, there must be direct talks been the US and North Korea.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

The post Can Moon Jae-In Cool The Korean Peninsula – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ryan McMaken*

During the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders refused to answer questions about Venezuela during an interview with Univision. He claimed to not want to talk about it because he’s “focused on my campaign.” Many suggested a more plausible reason: Venezuela’s present economy is an example of what happens when a state implements Bernie Sanders-style social democracy.

Similarly, Pope Francis — who has taken the time to denounce pro-market ideologies for allegedly driving millions into poverty — seems uninterested in talking about the untrammeled impoverishment of Venezuela in recent years. Samuel Gregg writes in yesterday’s Catholic World Report:

Pope Francis isn’t known as someone who holds back in the face of what he regards as gross injustices. On issues like refugees, immigration, poverty and the environment, Francis speaks forcibly and uses vivid language in doing so.

Yet despite the daily violence being inflicted on protestors in Venezuela, a steadily increasing death-toll, an explosion of crime, rampant corruption, galloping inflation, the naked politicization of the judiciary, and the disappearance of basic food and medical supplies, the first Latin American pope’s comments about the crisis tearing apart an overwhelming Catholic Latin American country have been curiously restrained.

This virtual silence comes in spite of the fact that the Catholic bishops who actually live in Venezuela have denounced the regime as yet another illustration of the “utter failure” of “socialism in every country in which this regime has been installed.”

Thus, for many Venezuelans, the question is: “Where is Pope Francis?”

As with Sanders, it may very well be that Francis has nothing to say about Venezuela precisely because the Venezuelan regime has pursued exactly the sorts of policies favored by Bernie Sanders, Pope Francis, and the usual opponents of market economics.

It’s an economic program marked by price controls, government expropriation of private property, an enormous welfare state, central planning, and endless rhetoric about equality, poverty relief, and fighting the so-called “neoliberals.”

And, as Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has helpfully explained, “There are two models, the neoliberal model which destroys everything, and the Chavista model which is centered around people.”

The Chavista model is simply a mixture of social democracy and environmentalism which is easily recognizable as the Venezuelan version of the hard-left ideology espoused by a great many global political elites both in the United States and Europe. Neoliberalism, on the other hand — as I’ve noted before — is a vague term that most of the time really just means a system of relatively free markets and moderate laissez-faire. 

Indeed, no other regimes in the world, save Cuba and North Korea, have been as explicit in fighting the alleged menace that is neoliberalism.

For this reason, as Venezuela descends into chaos, we are hearing a deafening silence from most of the left, as even some principled leftists have noticed.

In an article at Counterpunch, for example, Pedro Lange-Churion points out:

Venezuela was news while it was good news and while Chávez could be used as a banner for the left and his antics provided comic relief. But as soon as the country began to spiral towards ruination and Chavismo began to resemble another Latin American authoritarian regime, better to turn a blind eye.

Nevertheless, as a dedicated leftist, Lange-Chrion unfortunately still mistakenly thinks that the Venezuelan problem is political and not economic. For him, it’s merely an unfortunate coincidence that the implementation of the Chavismo economic agenda just happened to coincide with the destruction of the nation’s political and economic institutions.

But here’s the thing: it’s not a coincidence.

In fact, it’s a textbook case of a country electing a leftwing populist who undoes years of pro-market reforms, and ends up destroying the economy.

This has been going on for decades in Latin America where, as explained by Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastián Edwards, the cycle repeats itself again and again.

It’s happened in Argentina and in Brazil most recently, and it goes something like this: first, a relatively neoliberal regime comes to power, moderately reduces government spending, somewhat restrains government power, and ushers in a period of growth. But, even with growth, middle-income countries like those of Latin America remain poor compared to the rich countries of the world, and large inequalities remain. Then, populist social democrats convince the voters that if only the regime would redistribute more wealth, punish greedy capitalists, and regulate markets to make them more “humane,” then everyone would get richer even faster. And even better, the evil capitalists would be punished for exploiting the poor. Eventually, the economy collapses under the weight of the new social democratic regime, and a neoliberal regime is again elected to clean up the mess.

Venezuela is in the midst of this cycle right now. After decades of relatively restrained government intervention, Venezuela became one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America. During the most recent twenty years, though, the Chavistas were able to take that wealth and redistristribute it, regulate it, and expropriate it for the sake of “equality” and undermining capitalist evil. But, you can only redistribute, tax, regulate, and expropriate so much before the productive classes give up and the wealth runs out. 

RELATED: “Are Oil Prices to Blame for the Venezuelan Crisis?” by Daniel Fernández Méndez

To the leftwing mind, the explosion of poverty that results can’t possibly be the result of bad economic policy. After all, the Chavismo regime got everything it wanted. It redistributed wealth at will. It “guaranteed” a living wage, health care, and plentiful food to everyone. “Equality” was imposed by fiat over the cries of the “neoliberal” opposition.

The only possible answer, the left assumes, must be sabotage by capitalists or — as the Pope reminds us — too much “individualism.”

The problem the global left has in this case, though, is that this narrative simply isn’t plausible. Does Colombia have fewer capitalists and individualists than Venezeuala? It almost certainly has more. So why do Venezuelans wait hours in line to cross the Colombian border to buy basic food items not available in the social-democratic paradise of Venezuela? Has Chile renounced neoliberal-style trade and markets? Obviously not. So why has Chile’s economy grown by 150 percent over the past 25 years while Venezuela’s economy has gotten smaller?

The response consists largely of silence.

This isn’t to say that what the left calls call “neoliberal” is without its faults. Some aspects of neoliberalism — such as free trade and relatively free markets — are the reason that global poverty and child mortality are falling, while literacy and sanitation are rising.

Other aspects of neoliberalism are odious, particularly in the areas of central banking and crony capitalism. But the free-market answer to this was already long-ago voiced by Ludwig von Mises, who, in his own fight against the neoliberals, advocated for consistent laissez-faire, sound money, and far greater freedom in international trade.

For an illustration of the left’s answer to neo-liberalism, however, we need look no further than Venezuela where people are literally starving and will wait hours in line to buy a roll of toilet paper.

And if this is what the the left’s victory against neoliberalism looks like, it’s not surprising the left seems to have little to say.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. (Contact: email; twitter.) Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

The post Why The Left Refuses To Talk About Venezuela – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The loss of a mighty Soviet empire stills haunts Russians and their leaders. Russian President Putin has not made any secret of his anguish and anger over the unexpected disintegration of Soviet Union that made Russia a less important super power. Initially Putin made efforts to rebuild the Soviet state but could not succeed as many former Soviet republics now independent nations refused to join the Russia dominated single nation. The way he crushed the Chechens on his ascendance to presidency forced many of those pro-Russia states within the Soviet space rethink their desire to promote a mighty Russia.

Putin has been making conscious efforts to rebuild the former Soviet states in some format by launching economic, political and military formations but they have not become as successful as the Warsaw Pact or COMCON had been during the Cold War.

The concept of Eurasia – bringing Europe and Asia together- got a phillip under Putin who is eager to see the region emerge more important and larger continent than EU in all respects, especially in economics and defense. However, the USA is not impressed by the Russian move to counter its NATO in the longer context.

Inspired by the Chinese initiative of OBOR and its vast potentials for the region covering three continents, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Beijing on May 14 that he salutes China’s “large-scale” Belt and Road Initiative and called for greater Eurasian partnership. Putin made the remarks at the opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Initiative Forum for International Cooperation taking place in Beijing on May 14-15.

The Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China in 2013 consists of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road. It aims to build a trade and infrastructure network connecting Asia with Europe and Africa along and beyond the ancient Silk Road trade routes.

During a visit to Moscow in May 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement with Putin on aligning the Belt and Road Initiative with the EEU, which currently groups Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.

Calling the Belt and Road Initiative an example of cooperation in such fields as infrastructure, transport and industry, the Russian president said his country has supported the initiative from the very beginning. He said the historical experience of cooperation between countries linked by the ancient Silk Road through Asia, Europe and Africa is important in the 21st century when the world is facing “very serious challenges.”

Putin called for more cooperation to meet worldwide challenges like unbalanced development in globalization, poverty and regional conflicts, saying that Russia is working with its partners to advance the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), among others.

The integration of the Belt and Road Initiative, the EEU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has laid the groundwork for building a great Eurasian partnership, he said.

Meanwhile, Putin urged concrete actions to materialize the existing initiatives by facilitating flow of goods, cooperation between enterprises of different countries in Eurasia, infrastructure construction and establishment of joint and large-scale research institutions. He said the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China is “very timely and promising.”

China goes farther than Russia’s Eurasia n approach with its OBOR concept to include the African continent as well. Both ideas are, however, despised by Washington that considers Russia-China alliance the most dangerous to its own global military supremacy scheme.

Already, China is very close to USA in economic and military dolmans.