By FPIF

By Arnie Saiki

Since it first opened in 1914, the Panama Canal has provided the primary shipping conduit linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the Americas. And in that time, it has also represented U.S. dominance in the region. Even after the canal passed entirely into Panama’s control in 1999, the United States has maintained a strong military presence in the region, establishing its continuity as the region’s key economic and political player.

All that is about to change.

Nicaragua and China have come to an agreement allowing the construction of a new inter-oceanic canal in Nicaragua, connecting China with the Caribbean and its Atlantic-American trade partners. This won’t just increase the flow of goods between China and the Americas. It will also usher China into the region as a major political force—something that is likely to raise alarm in Washington, which will regard any Nicaragua-China alliance as a destabilizing influence in the hemisphere.

China’s role in the development of this canal is partly about expanding its global trade. But it’s also a way for China to push back against Washington’s militarized “Pacific Pivot,” as well as the U.S. drive to establish a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (commonly shortened to Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP) that seeks to contain China’s global economic growth.

Rival Alliances

The TPP is a U.S.-led free trade agreement—a partial draft version of which WikiLeaks recently exposed to the public—that is being devised in secret by 12 Pacific Rim governments and 600 of the world’s largest corporations. It seeks to define the rules for investment and trade in the 21^st century.

Unless China is willing to adopt rules that will rewrite its regulatory and investment laws to conform to the standard of this agreement—for example, by curtailing its state-owned investments and opening its state-owned enterprises to Wall Street investment rules—China will remain outside the TPP.

This is not to say that China needs to submit to this bullying. For example, China has capitalized its own development fund with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) association, and organized its own economic partnership with ASEAN member countries in Southeast Asia (many of which are also involved with TPP negotiations) under the auspices of the Regional Economic Comprehensive Partnership (RCEP).

China’s FDI strategies have surpassed analysts’ expectations, and last year China became the third largest investor country, behind the United States and Japan. According to a recent press release by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, China’s tremendous investment in many African countries has driven up FDI in Africa, defying the global trend. In Nigeria alone, China’s investment rose from $75 million to $1.2 billion between 2004 and 2010. The United States, while still a much larger investor, has been unable to match the growth of China’s investment in resource-rich developing countries.

Due to its increased shipping of resources and goods, China has emerged as the new center not only for global manufacturing but for investment as well. To put this in perspective, China’s container traffic measures over 5,000 transits a year, with hauls exceeding 10,000 gross tonnage per ship. According to a World Bank Data chart, China’s container traffic surpasses that of the United States by a ratio of nearly three to one.

The TPP—with its current 12-nation membership, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam—has a combined GDP of more than $27 trillion, representing over a third of global GDP.

Yet despite its economic power and its military influence throughout the region, the United States has not been able to conclude this agreement. There has been focused criticism nationally and internationally against the TPP, as it is seen as an undemocratic agreement primarily written by corporations for the benefit of corporations. Additionally, for the TPP to conclude, it still needs congressional approval. The push to “fast-track” Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority is likely to meet further resistance from lawmakers.

China’s success in regional and global trade, meanwhile, has given it the economic and fraternal clout to partner with the other ex-colonial—or ex-socialist—emerging economies to provide an alternative model to the neoliberal TPP. It is therefore no coincidence that none of the BRICS countries participates in the TPP.

What BRICS offers is a new reserve currency that helps stabilize economies in developing markets, thereby providing greater access for development and trade, as well as a less draconian debt structure, compared to Wall Street investments.

Of course these competing systems are not mutually exclusive—after all, China and the United States have a symbiotic and integrated economic relationship with each other. However, the TPP and the BRICS economies are competing over the trade and investment rules for the 21^st century—and the neoliberal model no longer gets the last word.

Global South Benefits

The proposed Nicaraguan canal is a tangible symbol of this emerging multipolarity.

The canal would bypass not only the already congested Panama Canal, but also the strong U.S. military presence patrolling the area. The access provided by Nicaragua’s canal would be a welcome and long-sought opportunity for Global South economies—especially for regional economic and political trading blocs like the South American Common Market called Mercosur, and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).

As we unpeel the geographical layer of the TPP, we find that the TPP countries form an integrated wall separating the Mercosur and ALBA economies under Brazil’s economic influence from the Asia-Pacific economies under China’s regional influence—in effect turning the west coast of South America into a barrier between two of the BRICS charter members. A Nicaraguan canal not only provides the maritime access that streamlines the supply chain between China and Brazil, but it also provides new trade advantages to the Global South.

This does not necessarily alienate the United States, but it does have the potential impact of reducing U.S. economic and military hegemony in the region.

In a 2008 hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on “The New Challenge: China in the Western Hemisphere,” U.S. representatives expressed concerns that Latin American countries were beginning to turn away from U.S. investment in favor of China. Latin America expert Daniel Erikson testified that “the pace of trade between China and the region has skyrocketed from $10 billion in 2000 to over $100 billion in 2007.” In 2012, China surpassed $200 billion in trade, doubling the 2007 figure, and supplanted the EU as Latin America’s second-largest trading partner after the United States.

The Nicaragua canal would be yet another blow to U.S. influence in the region. Although the United States relinquished its official sovereignty over the Panama Canal in 1999, it continues to have a strong military presence in the region, maintains first rights for the passage of military ships, and cooperates with Panama to patrol and check ships without warrant. At this time, the United States does not have such an agreement with Nicaragua.

“Containerment”

Both the TPP and the U.S. “Pacific Pivot” have been framed as a kind of “China containment strategy.”

This is not to say that the United States is practicing the same kind of containment strategy it has towards North Korea. For one thing, as long as China’s trading partnerships remain productive, any suggestion of containing China would likely be seen as a deluded conceit.

Perhaps a better description is that the United States is practicing a “containerment” strategy with China—a policy that seeks to assert greater control over China’s overseas investment by controlling the shipping lanes that move the bulk of resources and manufactured goods to and from China. If China gets a new route to the Atlantic, this strategy may wither on the vine.

A China-led Nicaragua Canal challenges Washington’s 150-year-old claim of military and economic hegemony in the Western Hemisphere as outlined in the Monroe Doctrine. The rise of the trans-global BRICS economy, coupled with a new inter-oceanic canal that the United States has no jurisdiction over, means that the United States has been, at this moment, out-maneuvered by China.

Whether Washington attempts to reassert its hemispheric dominance remains to be seen. It will certainly be a challenge, since blowback from the United States’ historically brutal policies in Latin America could very well strengthen economic ties among the developing economies represented by China and their BRICS partners.

Although the completion of a Nicaragua Canal will likely be fraught with difficulties, this China-Nicaragua partnership demonstrates that China will not be container-ed.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Arnie Saiki is the coordinator for Moana Nui Action Alliance, which focuses on Pacific Island political and economic justice issues.

The article The New Nicaragua Canal: China Barges In – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOA

In Pakistan, some 10,000 or more people protesting U.S. drone strikes blocked a NATO supply route into Afghanistan Saturday.

Pakistani cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan led the demonstration, threatening to block supply lines through his region indefinitely if the drone attacks do not end.

Khan’s political party runs the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan’s northwest, bordering Afghanistan.

Saturday’s protest comes just two days after a suspected U.S. drone strike on an Islamic seminary in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa killed at least six people. The seminary is known to be visited by members of the Afghan Haqqani network — one of the most feared groups battling foreign troops in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban.

Thursday’s strike was the first such attack since November 1, when a suspected U.S. drone strike killed Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud in the North Waziristan tribal area.

But Imran Khan said this most recent attack occurred in a settled area, not a tribal area. Pakistan’s government denounced the attack, as it regularly does in the case of drone strikes, publicly calling them a sovereignty violation, even though it is known to have supported them in the past. The U.S. considers the strikes an important tool in the fight against terrorists.

The drone issue has become a growing source of tension between the U.S. and Pakistani governments.

The article Pakistan: Imran Khan Leads Anti-Drone Protest Blocking NATO Supply Route appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Following a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, the Russian Foreign Minister pledged to urge all sides to strike a deal latest round of talks in Geneva. Chinese diplomats also believe that nuclear talks with Iran have come into the closing phase.

Russia’s FM Sergey Lavrov told his colleague, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that, “Russian side will continue to contribute in every possible way to the achievement of the agreement, which will serve the interests of all parties involved in negotiations and will contribute to strengthening stability and security in the world,” Lavrov said.

The Iranian and Russian foreign ministers met in Geneva on Friday evening to compare notes on the upcoming talks. The ministers specifically discussed in detail potential stumbling blocks to reaching an agreement.

“Lavrov specifically stressed that for the first time in many years the six world powers and Iran have a real opportunity to reach an agreement. It is in the common interest to make this happen,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The foreign ministers of the P5+1 group (the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany) are flying in to Geneva to attend a historic gathering that might put an end to decades-long sanctions against Iran, in return for putting country’s nuclear program under full international control.

Russia’s FM Sergey Lavrov has already held talks with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and is expected to meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who are both in Geneva now.

US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said that John Kerry has come to Geneva to “help narrow the differences.”

The meeting between Lavrov and Kerry is planned for Saturday. It is possible that the UN-Arab League envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi , will join them later, Interfax cited a source in the Russian delegation as saying.

Diplomatic leaks damaging Iranian nuclear talks – Russia’s deputy FM

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has lashed out at the western media for presenting “rather one-legged comments” on the Geneva talks and attempting to blame the Iranian delegation for the lack of a breakthrough.

“The impression is that anonymous sources in several delegations are doing much to lay the responsibility for a lack of progress on the Iranian side,” Itar-Tass quoted Ryabkov as saying. He added that the diplomats organizing leaks and revealing information about the talks could ruin the diplomatic negotiations altogether.

Ryabkov described this situation as unfair and called for a complete media blackout during the talks.

Any negotiations, especially on such a sensitive issue as settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program, require silence from the media,” Ryabkov said, adding that the situation could change and those who were previously holding up a deal could make a step forward.

The Geneva talks have been progressing for three days now and some of the detailed suggestions made by the Russian delegation have found their way into the wording of the document being drafted by the P5+1 and Iranian delegations, Ryabkov said.

“We confirm with satisfaction that several of Russian approaches, including the principal one, which have been expressed by the Russian president and foreign minister at various stages, as well as certain variants of the text, which we are suggesting now, are finding support,” Ryabkov said, adding that these proposals were “balanced, reasonable and fair”.

Though the P5+1 group and Iran still have some unsettled issues to be agreed upon, “these issues can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” Ryabkov said.

The major stumbling block remains the fate of the heavy water nuclear facility in Arak, which is “among the most significant ones,” Ryabkov said.

Ryabkov confirmed that the talks on Iran’s nuclear program were close to a breakthrough, but he added that he was not certain a deal would definitely happen, because the remaining questions are of principal importance for the participants of the talks.

Today we’ll see to what extent the sides are ready to make steps toward each other,” he said, specifying that the essence of the issues discussed has not changed, though the parties are like never before close to a deal.

“Political will and determination not to lose such a chance will play a decisive role in the talks,” Ryabkov said.

‘Just 2 or 3 issues separate us from a deal’ – Iranian deputy FM

A consensus in the Geneva talks can be reached if the parties can overcome disagreements on two or three outstanding issues, AFP reported Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyid Abbas Eraqchi as saying.

“We’re still disputing two or three issues. But both sides are moving toward signing an agreement,” he said.

When the previous round of talks ended in Geneva on November 10, it was the first time that the negotiators believed that a deal could be possible. It is believed that France’s objections then, calling the deal premature and ill-conceived, prevented a breakthrough at those talks.

For years, Iran has consistently denied that its nuclear program has a military component, insisting that its program is entirely peaceful and aimed at developing nuclear power. Iran has always insisted that it is entitled to enrich uranium ore, which is needed to make fuel assemblies to be used in nuclear reactors.

The article Russia’s Lavrov Positive Iran Agreement May Be Reached appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — An influential Afghan politician says he opposes President Hamid Karzai’s proposal to postpone signing a security pact with the United States.

Former Afghan President and parliament speaker Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, who is presiding over a Loya Jirga, or Grand Assembly, of thousands of tribal and political leaders taking place in Kabul, told Radio Free Afghanistan on November 23 that Karzai has no right to ask the delegates to approve a delay in the pact’s signing.

“It is a mistake and a blunder because the United States has consented to everything — the preconditions that President Karzai asked for — but he is still keen on delaying the deal?” Mojaddedi said. “A delay will be a loss and misfortune for Afghanistan. Such proposals are against Afghanistan’s interest and unacceptable.”

Karzai told the Loya Jirga delegates on November 21 that the agreement might have to wait to be signed until after Afghanistan’s presidential election in April.

In response, U.S. officials said the deal must be finalized by the start of 2014, but Karzai’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, said on November 22 that Afghanistan does not recognize U.S. “deadlines.”

The Bilateral Security Agreement could clear the way for the United States to keep thousands of troops in Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw at the end of 2014.

A statement by Karzai’s office on November 23 said that the president held a long telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry late the previous evening.

The statement said that, in response to Kerry’s insistence that Afghanistan sign the security pact before the end of the current year, Karzai told Kerry that Kabul will sign the pact after international troops cease attacking Afghan homes, back the Afghan peace process wholeheartedly, and guarantee a free and fair presidential election in April.

Faizi said that, in his farewell speech to the Loya Jirga expected on November 24, Karzai will explain his “reasons” for insisting to postpone signing the agreement until after the presidential vote.

The disagreements over the signing of the pact have overshadowed the four-day Loya Jirga, which is widely expected to reflect Karzai’s wishes in its final vote.

The article Afghan Grand Council Leader Opposes Delaying Signing Of Security Pact With US appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Kouri

One of Mexico’s top drug kingpins, known as “Taliban,” and leader of its most deadly and violent crime gang faces a life sentence in the United States, according to the Justice Department on Friday.

Ivan Velasquez-Caballero, a/k/a “Taliban” and “50,” was extradited to the United States on Thursday and made his initial appearance on Friday in federal court in Laredo, Texas, according to United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson.

The 43-year-old ranking member of Los Zetas Drug Cartel is set for an arraignment and a detention hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker on Dec. 3, 2013.

Velasquez-Caballero, a native of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, had been in Mexican law enforcement custody since Sept. 26, 2012, when he was arrested in San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

The charges against him stem from a Feb. 17, 2010 superseding indictment charging Velasquez-Caballero and 33 other Los Zetas members with 47 counts alleging drug conspiracy, kidnapping conspiracy, firearms conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to kidnap and murder U.S. citizens in a foreign country, use of juveniles to commit a violent crime, accessory after the fact, and solicitation, as well as money laundering, drug trafficking, and racketeering charges.

Velasquez-Caballero himself is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, according to the U.S. Attorney.

If convicted, he faces a maximum of life imprisonment and a $4 million fine for the drug conspiracy, as well as a $250,000 fine and up to 20 years for the money laundering conspiracy charges.

Of the Los Zetas members originally charged in the case, 15 were convicted and sentenced with two receiving life sentences. In addition, four cartel members have also been convicted in separate indictments resulting from the same investigation.

The article Los Zetas Boss ‘Taliban’ Extradited From Mexico To US‏ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission

Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank you all for your gracious welcome in this most beautiful and vibrant city. I very much enjoyed all my previous and numerous visits to Macao, including as President of the European Commission in July 2005, and I have looked forward to returning.

Let me tell you also what a personal pleasure it is for me to be back to Macao today. Obviously, Macao retains close links with the Portuguese culture and has a special resonance to me as a Portuguese.

We share a lot, not least a language, which is by the way spoken by 280 million people all over the world. And I appreciate that Macao’s role as a platform and a bridge between China and Portuguese speaking countries was underlined in China’s 12th Five-Year Plan. Early this month, Macao was host to the 4thMinisterial Conference of the “Economic Co-operation Forum between China and Portuguese-speaking Countries”.

We are also linked by special bonds of history and family. And as you may know our Portuguese National Day is the day of the death of Luis de Camões, the greatest name in our literature – and indeed one of the greatest poets of the history of mankind – who lived in Macao for a couple of years in the 16thcentury.

A substantial part of his epic poem “Os Lusíadas” was written here. Today his bust can be seen in a city garden at the entrance of the grotto where legend tells us he lived. Camões journeyed widely from Africa to South East Asia. Through all seasons the weather of Macau was closer to that of his native Lisbon than any other he found in his travels.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, in this tower, we are meeting at a very privileged place to embrace and grasp Macao’s impressive diversity and dynamism from its historic heart with its many UNESCO heritage sites and from its thriving leisure and tourism hub with its world class hotels and integrated resorts to the brand new campus of the University of Macao and the future industrial development on Hengqin Island.

This is indeed the perfect place for a very special day in our bilateral relationship as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between Macao and the EU. This agreement was signed in 1993, during the transition period after the Joint Declaration was agreed by China and Portugal in 1987 and the hand-over to China in 1999. This demonstrates that we in the European Union were partners since the very first hour, and partners not just in good weather, but partners for all seasons.

This celebration is an opportunity to take a step back while also looking ahead with the aim to broaden and deepen our partnership. An eye on the past, a foot in the future.

Since we signed this Agreement, our growing economic ties have added an important dimension to our already old and rich relationship. The numbers tell a significant story. Our trade relations have been growing steadily and smoothly. They have shown record volumes year after year and stood at 511 million euros in 2012. For Macao, the EU is now the second largest source of imports after mainland China and its 4th largest export market.

For years to come, I believe we still need to further strengthen this very productive relationship and fully exploit all the potential for greater mutual investment, trade, cooperation and growth. Let’s look at the facts.

No doubt that the EU’s internal market is important for Asia’s future growth. Indeed, despite the crisis the EU remains the world’s largest single market with 500 million affluent consumers, 23 million Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, a GDP of 12.7 trillion euro and a 20% share of world export. The EU is also the largest source and recipient of foreign direct investment. And we are working on exploiting the full untapped potential of our internal market and on promoting a more business and innovation-friendly environment to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as sketched out in our European blueprint for growth and job creation, the Europe 2020 strategy.

And no doubt either that Macao is a key hub between Asia and Europe. Macao benefits from a robust economy. This year, you have achieved a double-digit growth. Investment spending has also showed solid expansion. Riding on your strong tourism base, you are now looking at economic diversification.

All this means that there is room to work even more closely together in order to better translate our common interests in common actions and successfully confront new challenges.

The EU wants to be on your side as Macao seeks to further build on its strengths and branch out to new economic activities. With greater regional integration within the Pearl River Delta, with Macao, Guangzhou and Hong Kong, I am confident that European businesses will be able to contribute to your success including in turning an already successful leisure hub into an exemplary low-carbon leisure hub.

The inauguration of the EU-Macao Chamber of Commerce later today as well as our on-going cooperation with the Institute for Promotion of Investment in Macao (IPIM) should be instrumental in that respect.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We certainly share the same objective: to keep markets open, to respect the rules of fair competition and resist protectionist tendencies so as to boost growth at regional and global level. We know that it is essential for the prosperity and stability of the regional and world economy. And it is ultimately about the difference we can make in our citizens’ life and well-being. But clearly our citizens’ well-being depends not only on economics. This is why our relationship is much deeper.

Europe’s relations with Macao draw on deep historic and cultural roots. They are based on common values and wide ranging shared interests.

And in this regard, I would like to recall that the EU strongly supports the “one country, two systems” principle and in particular the respect for human rights and individual freedom enshrined in the Basic Laws which should be enjoyed by the citizens.

Therefore I warmly welcome the successful functioning of this principle as well as the progress achieved towards a greater degree of democracy in the electoral system. Indeed, we strongly believe that the spread and fostering of democracy throughout the world is the best means of creating legitimate, stable, accountable and transparent government protecting rights and freedom and upholding the rule of law.

And at the risk of pointing to the obvious, let me add that we do also share the same planet and the same responsibility towards its sustainable future. Whatever our domestic problems might be, we cannot turn our back to this global responsibility.

It is no secret to any of you that Europe went through some difficult times recently. Let me tell you that I am confident that we will come out of this crisis with a more competitive and resilient economy, but also with an even stronger and more united Europe.

Indeed Europe is seriously fighting back. Together we are creating a more sustainable future for the euro. We are completing our Economic and Monetary Union. We are tackling the lack of competitiveness in parts of our Union. We are correcting the economic imbalances and developing deeper economic governance. And we are on the right track, our efforts are now bearing their first fruits and we must pursue them with determination.

But we are fully aware that our efforts must not end at home because what is at stake is not limited to our European interdependence, it is about our global interdependence. And being interdependent means acting as a responsible stakeholder. This is one of the lessons of globalisation. In the end, there is no such thing as a free ride.

It is in this spirit that the EU is taking a leading role on global challenges, such as climate change and green growth. And the EU-Macao annual high level political dialogue is a welcome and fruitful forum not only to take stock of our on-going bilateral cooperation but also to update each other about relevant developments on these key issues in our respective regions.

Ladies and gentlemen

Our comprehensive relationship also aims at fostering mutual understanding, stimulating exchange of ideas, and strengthening links between our people. Together we certainly wish to fully reap the benefits of our respective cultural diversity.

Our excellent cooperation in support of multilingualism – particularly through our bilateral cooperation on training of interpreters and translators – and the EU Academic Program, which will further promote educational and cultural exchanges for the young generation, are good illustrations, among many others, of this shared willingness.

I am also pleased to announce that we have agreed with the Macao SAR Government to continue cooperation in the legal field. We have worked together in this area ever since 2002, under two successive phases of the EU-Macao Legal Cooperation Programme. This Programme has been successful in allowing a concrete and hands-on exchange of legal experience in areas of priority to the Macao Government. For that reason we are keen to continue the cooperation in the years to come.

And I am looking forward with great interest to the Model European Council that you will host in mid-December as part of the 20thanniversary celebrations. I have been explained that young Macao students will step in the shoes of EU Heads of State and Government, the Council President and also in mine. I would like to warn them: they better prepare for a long day because at times we debate until late at night to find a satisfactory compromise at 28!

I think that such an experience is also a good opportunity to realize how much at national, European, or global level, foresight, political will and the power of persuasion contribute to make the difference between shaping our future and letting it be shaped by others, between using new opportunities and having to pay the price of inaction.

This is in fact what the EU-Macao relationship is fundamentally about: how do we face the future together in an ever changing world to leave a better world to the next generations.

Let me conclude by saying how proud the EU is of its relationship with Macao and the many ties that connect the people of Macao and the people of Europe. This is what makes Macao special. This is what makes you different. Your openness to others is your greatest asset.

I look forward to a continued and enhanced partnership that will reinforce the unique nature of Macao and contribute to the prosperity of its people.

I thank you for your attention.

The article Barroso: EU-Macao: An Eye On The Past, A Foot In The Future – Speech appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

The European Commission has allocated an additional €3 million in humanitarian aid to help those affected by conflict and communal violence in Myanmar/Burma. This brings the total humanitarian assistance to €48.6 m for 2012-2013.

Fighting between the national army and the Kachin Independence Army has left thousands displaced in the northeast, while continued sporadic communal violence in Rakhine State has led to further displacements. New funds will be used to bring food, nutrition and livelihood support to the most vulnerable of the affected people in Rakhine, Kachin and Northern Shan states.

“We remain extremely concerned. Thousands of people have lost their homes and are living in dire conditions. After several disrupted harvests and prohibition of access to markets in areas affected by violence, the survival of displaced families has been put at risk. We will strive to ensure that food and livelihood support reach those most in need through our partner organizations on the ground,” said Kristalina Georgieva, EU Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response.

Claus Sørensen, Director-General of the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department, ECHO, is currently on mission to the country to assess the humanitarian situation and to advocate with regional and Government authorities for increased and unhindered assistance to the victims.

Myanmar/Burma has experienced internal conflicts along its border regions for over four decades, involving fighting between ethnic groups and the army in different locations. While the on-going peace process is paving the way for possible future return of displaced persons and refugees to the South-East, the conflict in Kachin, which erupted in 2011, has caused massive displacements. Inter-communal violence between the Muslim minorities and the Buddhist communities in Rakhine State has also resulted in the displacement of thousands. At present more than 140 000 people have been internally displaced and 800 000 are deprived of their civic rights. An estimated 3 million people from Myanmar/Burma live in Thailand as economic migrants, while 127 000 reside in nine refugee camps along the border between the two countries.

The European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department ECHO has released €179 million in relief assistance for Myanmar/Burma over the last 20 years, and maintains an office in Yangon since 2005 to facilitate the delivery of aid.

The article EU To Provide Additional EUR3 Million Humanitarian Aid To Burma appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By The Heritage Foundation

By Romina Boccia

As the House and Senate budget conference meets to decide the fiscal course of the United States, lawmakers should focus on reducing federal spending. Federal spending is growing rapidly and will accelerate outside the 10-year budget window. Even though tax revenues are projected to grow faster than spending over the next decade, the nation faces chronic and increasing deficits. Research finds that high spending, high debt, and tax increases are harming economic growth and prosperity. Putting the budget on a path to balance with spending cuts would spur economic growth by reducing uncertainty and freeing up resources for investment and job creation. As the European crisis demonstrates, the option of making gradual changes will expire, and Americans and the U.S. economy will suffer a self-inflicted wound from unavoidable austerity measures if lawmakers continue to procrastinate the inevitable.

Austerity is the result of countries’ democratic decisions to wait until the last minute before acting, under the pressure of the markets, mainly by raising taxes rather than implementing long-waited reforms.

—Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, former member of the executive board of the European Central Bank.[1]

Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives have convened the first budget conference in four years. With the deadline of December 13 for the conference report, lawmakers have little time to agree on a budget plan for fiscal year 2014 and beyond, and yet so much depends on their succeeding.

Excessive federal spending and high debt slow economic growth. Despite a broad consensus that the U.S. fiscal path is unsustainable without significant reductions in spending—especially in the growing spending on entitlements—many policymakers are hesitant to embrace large-scale budget cuts for fear of slowing the economy. This fear is misplaced because significant budget cuts today would enable stronger economic growth tomorrow. If lawmakers neglect entitlement reform and further spending reductions, growing spending and high debt will significantly depress U.S. economic growth.

The Budget Situation

Federal spending is taking an increasing share of the productive resources in the economy. At well above one-fifth of gross domestic product (GDP), federal spending is too high, and chronic deficits are quickly driving publicly held debt above three-fourths of GDP.

The federal government has used borrowing to finance much of the spending growth over the past two decades. For the past four years, low tax revenues due to the recession and temporary government spending measures—such as the stimulus, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and assistance programs—have resulted in consecutive trillion-dollar annual deficits.

Despite expiration of these temporary spending measures, sequestration, and a surge in revenues, annual deficits remain staggeringly high at $700 billion for fiscal year 2013 and will surge beyond $1 trillion before the end of the decade.[2] Growing federal spending, especially on health care and retirement entitlements, will drive deficits and debt to even higher levels after 2023. Tax revenues are quickly growing to beyond their historical average of about 18 percent of GDP. With the $3.2 trillion in tax increases over the decade enacted under President Barack Obama, tax revenues are now growing faster than spending, but not enough to curb the growth in deficits and debt.[3]

Spending will remain well above the historical average of 20.2 percent in the near term and will dramatically surge after the end of the decade as entitlement programs, including the Medicaid expansion and health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), overwhelm the federal budget.

Sequestration

Much of the budget conference debate is focused on undoing sequestration, a 2.5 percent reduction of projected spending over 10 years that went into effect on March 1, 2013. This demonstrates the extent to which policymakers are willing to drag their feet on even moderate spending reductions.

When Congress and the President negotiated over increasing the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, they agreed to raise the debt limit in three installments for a total increase of $2.1 trillion. To offset this increase, they enacted caps to limit the growth in discretionary spending to save $917 billion over 10 years. To achieve at least $1.2 trillion in additional spending reductions, Congress established a “super committee” to identify specific cuts. Sequestration, an idea originally proposed by the Obama Administration,[4] was intended as a mechanism to force cuts by threatening automatic spending cuts if the super committee failed, which it ultimately did.[5]

These automatic spending reductions demonstrate Washington dysfunction. Rather than deliberately identifying waste and inappropriate federal spending, the President and Congress relinquished their responsibility to govern to a blunt instrument that barely even slows the growth in total federal spending. Even with sequestration, nominal federal spending is projected to grow by 69 percent in 10 years. Lawmakers should deliberately budget within sequestration spending levels and do much more to slow the explosion in spending and debt.

High Stakes

Academic research shows that economic growth slows significantly at high levels of public debt.The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates in its alternative fiscal scenario that publicly held debt will rise to 87 percent within the decade, assuming only moderate increases in net interest costs.[6] According to the CBO, “Such a large amount of federal debt will reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the debt was smaller, and it raises the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates).”[7]

Spending on interest on the debt is already the sixth-largest budget item at today’s historically low interest rates, and interest payments are projected to double in only five years. If interest rates rise higher or sooner, U.S. federal debt will reach economically damaging levels even faster.

Academic research by a number of economists finds that countries with high debt levels experience lower economic growth. Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff found that debt levels between 90 percent and 120 percent of GDP correlate with slower growth of 1.2 percentage points.[8] Similarly, Manmohan S. Kumar and Jaejoon Woo report that advanced economies with high levels of debt grew 1.3 percentage points slower annually than their low-debt (below 30 percent) counterparts. Kumar and Woo additionally emphasize that the negative effects of debt increase as debt grows from 30 percent to 90 percent.[9] Finally, Stephen Cecchetti, Madhusudan Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli identified 84 percent of GDP as the point at which high debt becomes most harmful.[10] The U.S. is on track to exceed this level before the end of the decade.

Slower growth directly affects American families. As Heritage Foundation economist Salim Furth calculated, a decade of debt drag would reduce the income of the typical American family by $11,000.[11] Moreover, lower growth means fewer available jobs and fewer opportunities for Americans to improve their economic circumstances.[12]

Budget Cuts Today, Economic Growth Tomorrow

Lawmakers face a choice of either confronting the nation’s spending crisis head-on by reforming entitlement and other structural spending or continuing to operate with their heads in the sand, waiting for a spending and debt tsunami to wash over the nation and drown economic growth.

Research shows that reductions in government spending free resources in the economy for investment and job creation, thus spurring economic growth. For example, the CBO assessed three different deficit scenarios and their impact on the economy: a $2 trillion increase in primary deficits, a $2 trillion decrease in primary deficits, and a $4 trillion decrease in primary deficits. The CBO’s results show that any short-term boost in gross national product (GNP)[13] from higher deficit spending in the short term would be more than offset by the long-term reduction in economic growth from higher interest rates and a crowding-out effect of private investment. Equally, any short-term dip in GNP from additional deficit reduction would be followed by stronger economic growth over the long term.[14]

Government spending changes the composition of total demand, such as by increasing consumption at the expense of investment. Poorly targeted deficit spending would boost GNP in the short term, but leave less available for productive investments in the future. Deficit spending shifts economic resources from the future to the present, leaving younger generations with a larger tax burden and fewer resources to invest. In reverse, lower government spending frees economic resources for investment in the private sector, which improves consumer wealth. In sum, additional government spending today harms economic growth in the long term, while budget cuts today would enable the economy to grow much faster tomorrow.

The CBO scenario does not specify how deficit reduction would be accomplished—whether through entitlement reforms or by raising taxes. However, the mechanism is important. If the President and Congress raised taxes further, they would reduce the incentives to work, save, and invest, consequently lowering economic growth. Higher taxes would also mean that fewer resources would be available in the economy to build businesses and hire workers. Balancing the budget with a massive tax increase rather than by limiting spending is a recipe for economic stagnation. The long-term health of the economy depends less on a balanced budget than on limiting the size and scope of the government.

An in-depth Heritage Foundation report reveals lessons from Europe’s exercise in austerity. The authors reached the overwhelming conclusion that the method of austerity matters: Increasing taxes was more damaging to the economy and less effective in reducing deficits than spending cuts. Moreover, reducing spending brings the added benefit of stronger economic growth over time.[15]

In a paper that analyzes the effects of fiscal policy on investment in 18 member countries for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Alberto Alesina and other economists found that higher government spending is associated with less business investment. However, when governments cut spending, private investment surges.[16] More recent research by Alesina and others concluded that a mild dip in GDP from spending reductions is a temporary effect that quickly gives way to growth. As Salim Furth summarized the research, “Alesina, Favero, and Giavazzi’s results imply that the void left by decreased government spending is filled within a year by increased investment and consumption, and the economy continues growing.”[17]

Another factor warranting further research consideration is that large deficit spending depresses growth by increasing uncertainty over a country’s future fiscal health. Major U.S. credit rating agencies continue to stress the need for additional deficit reduction over the long term. Moody’s recently emphasized that the U.S. economy “has demonstrated a degree of resilience to major reductions in the growth of government spending.”[18] Lawmakers should feel emboldened to enforce sequestration-level spending and slow the growth in entitlement spending, thereby providing certainty on the U.S. fiscal course.

Much Larger Spending Cuts Needed

Despite the hype about sequestration, federal spending will grow rapidly over the next decade and will accelerate beyond the 10-year budget window. In addition to enforcing sequestration, lawmakers should reform entitlement and other structural spending to rein in spending and debt now and not wait until a debt crisis forces severe austerity measures on Americans.

Putting the budget on a path to balance with spending cuts would spur economic growth by reducing uncertainty and by freeing up resources for investment and job creation. As the European crisis demonstrates, the option to make gradual changes will expire, and Americans and the U.S. economy will suffer a self-inflicted wound from unavoidable austerity measures if lawmakers continue to procrastinate the inevitable.

Romina Boccia is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, “Reform Denial Poses Bigger Threat to Italy Than Austerity,” Financial Times, The A-list blog, March 5, 2013, http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2013/03/05/reform-denial-poses-a-bigger-threat-to-italy-than-austerity/ (accessed March 6, 2013; subscription required).

[2] Romina Boccia, Alison Acosta Fraser, and Emily Goff, “Federal Spending by the Numbers 2013,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 140, August 20, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013.

[3] Curtis Dubay and Romina Boccia, “Tax Revenue Rose Five Times Faster Than Spending Fell in 2013,” The Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, October 31, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/31/tax-revenue-rose-five-times-faster-than-spending-fell-in-2013/.

[4] Bob Woodward, “Obama’s Sequester Deal-Changer,” The Washington Post, February 22, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html (accessed April 1, 2013).

[5] Alison Fraser, ed., “Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 121, October 16, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012.

[6] Congressional Budget Office, “How Different Future Interest Rates Would Affect Budget Deficits,” March 27, 2013, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44024 (accessed on April 3, 2013).

[7] Congressional Budget Office, “Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,” February 5, 2013, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43769 (accessed on April 3, 2013).

[8] Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff, “Public Debt Overhangs: Advanced-Economy Episodes Since 1800,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Summer 2012), pp. 69–86, http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69 (accessed February 6, 2013). The authors analyze central government gross debt, excluding debt by states and municipalities. For most of the countries analyzed, gross debt does not include significant amounts of intragovernmental debt and is a roughly equivalent measure to debt held by the public in the U.S. In the U.S., however, gross debt includes significant amounts of intragovernmental debt such as money the government borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. For the United States, publicly held debt is the more economically relevant debt measure. A measure that combines publicly held debt with state and local debt shows the combined U.S. debt at 84 percent of GDP. See Salim Furth, “High Debt Is a Real Drag,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3859, February 22, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-a-high-national-debt-impacts-the-economy.

[9] Manmohan S. Kumar and Jaejoon Woo, “Public Debt and Growth,” International Monetary Fund Working Paper, July 2010, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10174.pdf (accessed November, 5 2013).

[10] Stephen Cecchetti, Madhusudan Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli, “The Real Effects of Debt,” Bank for International Settlements Working Paper No. 352, September 2011, http://www.bis.org/publ/work352.pdf (accessed February 22, 2013).

[11] Salim Furth, “Debt Is a Real Drag in Any Season,” The Heritage Foundation, February 27, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/2/debt-is-a-real-drag-in-any-season.

[12] Romina Boccia, “How the United States’ High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2768, February 12, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-economy-and-hurt-americans.

[13] “Unlike the more commonly cited GDP, GNP excludes foreigners’ earnings on investments in the domestic economy but includes U.S. residents’ earnings overseas; changes in GNP are therefore a better measure of the effects of policies on U.S. residents’ income than are changes in GDP.” Congressional Budget Office, “Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,” p. 3.

[14] The CBO uses a common Solow-type model to consider how different deficit scenarios affect output and income based on changes to the nation’s capital stock and labor wages.

[15] Salim Furth, ed., “Europe’s Fiscal Crisis Revealed: In-Depth Analysis of Spending, Austerity, and Growth,” Heritage Foundation Working Paper No. 10–13, October 24, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/europes-fiscal-crisis-revealed-indepth-analysis-of-spending-austerity-and-growth.

[16] Alberto Alesina et al., “Fiscal Policy, Profits, And Investment,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7207, July 1999, http://www.nber.org/papers/w7207 (accessed February 4, 2013).

[17] Salim Furth, “Research Review: Spending Cuts Are Better Than Tax Increases,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3868, March 5, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/spending-cuts-are-better-than-tax-increases.

[18] Moody’s “Moody’s Changes Outlook on US Aaa Sovereign Rating to Stable from Negative; Rating Affirmed,” July 18, 2013, https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-changes-outlook-on-US-Aaa-sovereign-rating-to-stable–PR_277667 (accessed November 7, 2013).

The article Cutting The US Budget Would Help Economy Grow – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

The US National Security Agency hacked more than 50,000 computer networks worldwide installing malware designated for surveillance operations, Dutch newspaper NRC reports citing documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

The latest round of revelations comes from a document dating from 2012 that shows the extent of the NSA’s worldwide surveillance network.

Published by Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, it points out more than 50,000 locations, where the NSA used ‘Computer Network Exploitation’ (CNE) and implanted malicious software into the networks.

According to the NSA website CNE “includes enabling actions and intelligence collection via computer networks that exploit data gathered from target or enemy information systems or networks.”

Once the computer has been infected, the ‘implants’ act as digital ‘sleeper cells’ that can be remotely turned on or off with a single push of a button, the Dutch paper reported. The malware can remain active for years without being detected, the newspaper added. The malicious operations reportedly were carried out in many countries including China, Russia, Venezuela and Brazil.

The hacking is conducted by the Tailored Access Operations (TAO), a special unit within the NSA tasked with gaining access to foreign computer systems.

According to the Dutch media, one of the examples of the CNE operation is the reported attack against Belgian telecom company Belgacom that was discovered in September 2013. The attack was previously reported to have been carried out by British intelligence agency GCHQ that worked in cooperation with its American counterpart.

GCHQ injected malware in the Belgacom network to tap their customers’ telephone and data traffic. The agency implemented a technique known as Quantum Insert, placing Belgacom’s servers in strategic spots where they could intercept and redirect target traffic to a fake LinkedIn professional social network’s website.

Public sources show that TAO employs more than a thousand hackers. The task force has been active since at least 1998, according to Washington Post.

Documents acquired by the NRC newspaper also reveal that NSA spied on the Netherlands from 1946 to 1968. However the report does not indicate the specific intentions.

Dutch interior affairs minister Ronald Plasterk has recently confirmed that the NSA monitors mail and phone traffic in the Netherlands and exchanges data with Dutch security organization AIVD.

The article NSA Hacked Over 50,000 Computer Networks Worldwide – Report appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Maan

By Alex Shams

An Israeli soldier admitted that she shot and killed unknown numbers of Palestinian people, including children, on a Ukrainian television program that aired in early November.

Elena Zakusilo, a Ukrainian Jewish woman who moved to Israel in order to serve in the Israeli army, revealed on the Nov. 4 episode of the program “Lie Detector” that she had killed Palestinians and had shot at Palestinian children, but was unsure how many she managed to kill.

Zakusilo, who goes by the name Elena Gluzman in Israel, also explained that she trained army dogs to raid Palestinian villages and conduct video surveillance that she monitored from up to 10 kilometers away.

Zakusilo said on the show that one of the times when she shot Palestinians was during protests that broke out after Yasser Arafat died in 2004.

“It’s scary, especially when children run with Molotov cocktails, and they send children, to turn the attention to them, little kid, barely walking, 3-4 years old,” she added, explaining that she was unsure how many Palestinian children she had shot dead.

Although Zakusilo said was “not proud” of these acts, she blamed Palestinian mothers for sending their children to be “suicide bombers” and suggested that they did not care about their children’s lives.

Zakusilo also spoke about her work training dogs for reconnaissance missions into Palestinian villages, which involved placing headphones and cameras on them and directing them to attack Palestinians they encountered until soldiers could arrive.

“The doggy gets a little bag in teeth, it can be a video camera.”

“It has an electronic collar, and a camera that hangs on the collar, and the trainer has the remote control, and he, from a distance up to ten kilometers, can watch and give orders to the dog, to attack or not attack,” she added.

Zakusilo explained that she was a “senior trainer” and trained a total of 150 dogs, and for her work she was promoted to the rank of major.

‘Willing to go back to Israel and continue killing enemies’

Zakusilo’s mother was also present during the show’s filming, and when asked if she knew her daughter had killed people, said, “Of course, how can you be in the military without (killing).”

Zakusilo responded in the affirmative when asked by the game show host if she was “willing to go back to Israel and continue killing enemies” if she had financial difficulties in Ukraine, and said that she was unafraid of potential repercussions for revealing what she had done while in the Israeli forces.

She also explained that she goes by the name of Gluzman in Israel, “so that they won’t hear there our Ukrainian family name, and with the other name (Gluzman), with Jewish roots, they’d treat (me) differently.”

Zakusilo added that while at first she hesitated to kill people, she came to see her fellow soldiers as “family,” and they helped her come to terms with killing Palestinian children and other feelings she had.

Referring to her commander, she said, “He is a general, he tells you to go and shoot like this, so you go. But if you come to him and say, just for example, you know, I was walking down the road, and there was a kitten there, ran over by a car, or a person hit, and I feel bad.”

“He will sit with you for an hour to talk, and try to understand why you feel bad.”

The transcript of the television show was uploaded by Palestinian activist Abir Kopty on her
blog, and although the video is freely available on the television show’s website, the translation could not be independently verified by Ma’an.

‘Because we’re human, we get shocked by people who kill’

Kopty, the Palestinian blogger who found the video and posted it, explained that she was “shocked,” but not surprised by Zakusilo’s comments.

“We see and here this all the time and we know it first hand but it’s always shocking. Because we’re human, we get shocked by people when they talk about killing.”

She also explained that the “case represents a wider phenomenon,” and that it shows what “the military does this to people- it disconnects them from their own humanity, and makes it so easy to kill people and do not even remember the number.”

“The Israeli military will probably either discredit her, or justify her actions or say, as always, it’s an individual case” in order to explain it, she argued.

“This case represents the way they act.”

Kopty said that individual Israelis had responded or commented on the piece repeating the Israeli army’s “mantra” justifying what she says, in order to absolve the Israeli forces as a whole of responsibility.

“The machinery of propaganda always works, and they try to justify everything,” she said.

“I really hope, that one day all these criminals face trial.”

An Israeli army spokeswoman could not immediately confirm whether Zakusilo had served in the Israeli forces when contacted over the weekend.

Amnesty International’s 2013 report on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories highlighted the lack of accountability for Israeli soldiers’ crimes against Palestinian civilians, pointing out that, “The authorities again failed to independently investigate killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza or to prosecute those responsible.”

Israeli organization Breaking the Silence has collected 700 testimonies of Israeli army veterans, documenting a culture of widespread mistreatment and dehumanization of Palestinians among Israeli soldiers.

The internationally recognized Palestinian territories of which the West Bank and East Jerusalem form a part have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.

The article Israeli Admits Shooting At Palestinian Children On TV Game Show appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MNA

Iran’s senior negotiator has said progress in negotiations is modest, and “the fight is over words.”

Mehr News correspondent reported from Geneva that Abbas Araghchi told reporters negotiations were difficult and “still are going on, heated.”

“The progress made is considerable, but the fight over words has made any further progress difficult,” he added, and that “the foreign ministers of powers are to meet, and we would wait till their meeting is over.”

Araghchi said that they would decide on whether negotiations continue after the meeting was over. “Iran’s and Chinese foreign ministers will meet if the opportunity remains,” he added.

The article Nuclear Talks: Iran, Powers Fighting Over Words appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Rob Ford, the embattled mayor of Toronto, notoriously known for his crack-smoking “drunken stupors” and murder threats, has managed to get a 42 percent approval rating from Toronto voters beating Obama’s rating of 40 percent.

Amid the continuing Obamacare disaster, the US President’s approval rating has fallen to 41 percent. In the meantime, Mayor Rob Ford, who recently admitted to smoking crack has seen an increase in the approval of his performance. Ford’s latest rating was in fact even higher than the 39 percent he achieved in October.

In a series of embarrassing press conferences, Ford admitted he “might have tried” the forbidden class A drug during one of his “drunken stupors.” In another leaked video of Ford’s drunken rant he was threatening to kill someone, slapping his hands together aggressively.

The mayor – who has been stripped of most of his powers since then – insists he hasn’t got a problem with substance abuse. But almost 70 percent of Torontonians do not believe him.

According to a Forum Research poll of 1,049 Toronto voters released this week, 60 percent think the mayor should resign, even though they approve of his job performance.

Obama, by contrast, is looking at declining popularity, after an incredibly costly website for his much trumpeted health insurance reform has proved to be effectively unusable because of technical glitches and security holes.

While only 40 percent of Americans said they approved of the President’s performance, 53 percent disapproved, according to the latest Gallup figures, based on a three-day rolling average.

In the meantime, the Congress fared a good deal worse and managed a paltry 7 percent approval rating, according to a poll by the Huffington Post.

The article Crack-Smoking Toronto Mayor Ford More Popular Than Obama appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

The United States is deeply concerned about China’s announcement that they’ve established an “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, according to US Secretary  of State John Kerry in a press statement.

“This unilateral action constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident,” said Kerry in the statement.

According to Kerry, freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific.

“We don’t support efforts by any State to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter its national airspace. The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace,” Kerry said, adding, “We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing.”

Kerry said the US has urged China to exercise caution and restraint, and we are consulting with Japan and other affected parties, throughout the region.

“We remain steadfastly committed to our allies and partners, and hope to see a more collaborative and less confrontational future in the Pacific,” Kerry said in the statement.

The article US Concerned Over China’s Announcement Of Establishing ‘East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Iran Review

By Trita Parsi

Much has been said about the differing views between the U.S. and Iran on the issue of the right to enrich. The Iranians see it as an inalienable sovereign right that precedes the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. doesn’t recognize such a right and believes states only can engage in enrichment if they are in compliance with all articles of the NPT. Accepting such a right for the U.S. is a non-starter.

On the surface, their differences appear irreconcilable.

But they are not.

Reality is that at the last round of talks in Geneva, the U.S. and Iran did find a formulation that both were content with.

Then the French changed it.

Iranian sources here in Geneva tell me only two words were separating the two sides. So why is this issue so important to Iran and what changes did the French make to the original deal?

The Iranians have already benefited from a major shift in the Western position: The West has accepted that at the end of the negotiations, Tehran will have enrichment on its own soil, but with limitations. U.S. officials make this very clear privately.

But the Iranians insist on language that will make sure that once Iran has restored the confidence of the international community, it will not permanently be treated differently from other NPT states.

Just as Iran must accept certain limitations for a period time as a result of their past violations and the breach in trust, the West must accept that once Iran has restored trust, it must enjoy the same benefits that all other NPT states enjoy. Otherwise, Iran will be a party to the NPT in good standing that has less rights than all other NPT as well as all non-NPT states. Such a scenario will strengthen the voices in Iran who prefer leaving the NPT altogether.

The original draft included the term NPT and gave Tehran confidence that there would be a benefit for them to restore the international community’s confidence. The intervention from France eliminated that language, which caused the Iranians to balk. Tehran was not going to sign an agreement that permanently put Iran in an outcast category — even after they had restored confidence and were in complete compliance with the NPT.

Today, this issue was resolved. Both sides won and the French intervention from the last round will become less than a footnote in history.

The two sides are now one step closer to a deal.

Trita Parsi is founder and president of the National Iranian American Council and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is also author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.

This article appeared at Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

The article Enrichment Dispute Between Iran And P5+1 Getting Resolved – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

Syrian opposition fighters, including members of the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front, seized a key oil field considered to be one of the biggest in Syria, a monitor group said on Saturday.

“Fighters from al-Nusra and other groups have taken the Omar oil field in Deir Ezzor province after clashes overnight,” the Observatory director, Rami Abdel Rahman, told Agence France-Presse.

Abdel Rahman said government troops had withdrawn from the field.

A video posted online by opposition activists showed fighters milling around an entrance to the field, as others drove a tank said to have been captured from regime troops after they withdrew.

Speaking directly to the camera, one activist said fighters had captured seven tanks.

The opposition took its first oil field last year. Since then, groups operating in rebel-held territory have begun producing oil for sale on the black market.

The article Syria: Opposition Claims Capture Of Key Oil Field appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton announced an historic agreement has been reached in the Geneva talks between leading world powers and Iran over that country’s disputed nuclear program.

“After intense negotiations, we have reached agreement today on a joint plan of action which sets out an approach toward reaching a long-term, comprehensive solution,” Ashton said, reading a joint statement. “We agreed that the process leading to this comprehensive solution will include a first step of intial, reciprical measures to be taken by both sides for a duration of six months.”

Ashton added in her statement on Novemer 24 that the initial “joint plan of action” will “create the environment for a comprehensive solution.”

Speaking from the White House in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama said the agreement provides Iran with a “dignified path” to rejoin the international community.”

“Today we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement and I believe we must test it,” Obama said. “The first step that we have taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with Iran since I took office. And now we must use the months ahead to pursue a lasting and comprehensive settlement that would resolve an issue that has threatened the our security and the security of our allies for decades.”

Obama added that the United States is committed to Israel’s security.

“As we go forward, the resolve of the United States will remain firm, as will our commitments to our friend and allies — particularly, Israel and our Gulf partners who have good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions,” the president said.
“Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program.”

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle described the November 24 agreement as “a turning point.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif described the agreement as “an important achievement, but it is a first step.” He said it includes “a clear reference that (uranium) enrichment will continue.”

According to a U.S. government press release, Iran has agreed to halt all uranium enrichment above 5 percent and to neutralize its existing stockpile of near-20 percent enriched uranium below 5 percent within six months.

Iran has also agreed not install any new centrifuges for enrichment and not to commission the disputed Arak heavy-water reactor. Tehran has also agreed to “unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring” of its nuclear program.

In return, the P5+1 countries have agreed to suspend most sanctoin on gold and precious metals and on Iran’s petrochemical exports. They will also allow safety-related repairs of Iranian civilian airliners.

In all, the package includes an estimated $7.2 billion in relief from sanctions for Iran.

The talks in Geneva, which entered their fifth day on November 24, were stalled over Iran’s insistence that any agreement acknowledge its “right” to enrich uranium.

The article Iran, World Powers Reach ‘Historic’ Nuclear Agreement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOR

Iran will halt the enrichment of uranium to a level of 20 per cent for six months, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says. However, Tehran would be allowed to continue other parts of its enrichment programme, he says.

In return, the six world powers negotiating the deal pledged to not impose additional sanctions against Iran during that time and would suspend some existing punitive measures.

Measures to be suspended include parts of the oil embargo, as well as sanctions against Iran’s petrochemical industry, car production, insurances and trade with precious metals, the minister says.

Separately, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said that the interim deal struck by Iran and six major powers would provide the time and space to try to reach a comprehensive solution to the decade-long nuclear standoff between Tehran and the West.

President Barack Obama said on Saturday that a deal between Iran and six major powers was an important first step toward a comprehensive solution to Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama, in a late-night appearance at the White House, said that if Iran did not meet its commitments during a six-month period, the United States would turn off sanctions relief and “ratchet up the pressure.”

Obama said Iran could not use its next-generation centrifuges under the deal and that the substantial limitations under the agreement “cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb.”

With Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid warning that the Senate will seek additional sanctions on Iran, Obama said his administration would consult closely with Congress, but “now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions.”

Iran to get access to $4.2 billion in nuclear deal

Iran will get access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange as part of an agreement under which it will curb its nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, a Western diplomat said on Sunday.

Iran is expected to get limited sanctions relief on gold, petrochemicals and autos as part of an agreement under which it will curb its atomic program, a Western diplomat said on Sunday.

The diplomat provided no further details of the agreement, which was struck after four days of negotiations between Iran and six major powers: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

The article Iran Agrees To Halt Expansion Of High-Level Uranium Enrichment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By Barack Obama, US President

Good evening. Today, the United States — together with our close allies and partners — took an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.

Since I took office, I’ve made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I’ve said many times, my strong preference is to resolve this issue peacefully, and we’ve extended the hand of diplomacy. Yet for many years, Iran has been unwilling to meet its obligations to the international community. So my administration worked with Congress, the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world to impose unprecedented sanctions on the Iranian government.

These sanctions have had a substantial impact on the Iranian economy, and with the election of a new Iranian President earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged. I spoke personally with President Rouhani of Iran earlier this fall. Secretary Kerry has met multiple times with Iran’s Foreign Minister. And we have pursued intensive diplomacy — bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5-plus-1 partners — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.

Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure — a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

While today’s announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back. Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium. Iran cannot install or start up new centrifuges, and its production of centrifuges will be limited. Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran’s nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments.

These are substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Simply put, they cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb. Meanwhile, this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the Iranian program. And because of this agreement, Iran cannot use negotiations as cover to advance its program.

On our side, the United States and our friends and allies have agreed to provide Iran with modest relief, while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions. We will refrain from imposing new sanctions, and we will allow the Iranian government access to a portion of the revenue that they have been denied through sanctions. But the broader architecture of sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to enforce them vigorously. And if Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure.

Over the next six months, we will work to negotiate a comprehensive solution. We approach these negotiations with a basic understanding: Iran, like any nation, should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. But because of its record of violating its obligations, Iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program that make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon.

In these negotiations, nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes.

If Iran seizes this opportunity, the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. If, on the other hand, Iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation.

Over the last few years, Congress has been a key partner in imposing sanctions on the Iranian government, and that bipartisan effort made possible the progress that was achieved today. Going forward, we will continue to work closely with Congress. However, now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions -– because doing so would derail this promising first step, alienate us from our allies and risk unraveling the coalition that enabled our sanctions to be enforced in the first place.

That international unity is on display today. The world is united in support of our determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran must know that security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons — it must be reached through fully verifiable agreements that make Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible.

As we go forward, the resolve of the United States will remain firm, as will our commitments to our friends and allies –- particularly Israel and our Gulf partners, who have good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.

Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict. Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.

The first step that we’ve taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we’ve made with Iran since I took office. And now we must use the months ahead to pursue a lasting and comprehensive settlement that would resolve an issue that has threatened our security — and the security of our allies — for decades. It won’t be easy, and huge challenges remain ahead. But through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do our part on behalf of a world of greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

Thank you very much.

The article Obama Statement First Step Agreement On Iran’s Nuclear Program appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By PanArmenian

Bulgaria and Serbia have pulled out of next year’s Eurovision Song Contest because they cannot afford it, Sky News reported.

The countries have joined a list of former contestants who have withdrawn from the contest in Copenhagen due to economic hardship.

Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Andorra have also decided not to participate.

Bulgarian National Television (BNT) said the cost of taking part in the contest -including the entry fee and special effects – had grown steadily since 2005.

“Given the cost of this project and pending budget cuts next year, BNT decided to withdraw from Eurovision Song Contest as a first step in the financial constraints the television will have to take,” a BNT statement, in the Sophia Globe, said.

Meanwhile media in Serbia reported a statement by the Serbian Broadcasting Corporation announcing its withdrawal.

“The continuity of participation of Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest is terminated due to financial reasons,” the statement read.

Although Bulgaria has competed in the contest since 2005, it has rarely reached the final stage. Its best position was in 2007, when drumming duo Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov came fifth with their song Voda.

Serbia won the contest in 2007 with it debut entry – the ballad Molitva by Marija Šerifović. Serbia did not qualify for the contest in 2013.

Last year’s winner was Denmark’s Emmelie de Forest with the song Teardrops. The performance was watched by an estimated international audience of 125 million people.

The contest has been broadcast every year since 1956 and is one of the longest-running television programmes in the world.

The article Bulgaria, Serbia Pull Out Of Eurovision 2014 Over Financial Constraints appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Trend News Agency

By Rahim Zamanov

The U.S. President Barack Obama said that the deal reach in Geneva is an important first step toward comprehensive solution to Iran’s nuclear program.

He said that now is not the time for U.S. to impose new sanctions on Iran, adding that no new sanctions would be imposed on Iran for 6 months if the deal is honored.

Obama also warned that new sanctions could ‘derail’ Iran deal.

The US president further said that the country wants to resolve Iran nuclear dispute peacefully rather than engage in a rush to conflict.

According to Obama, Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges under nuclear deal.

He said that the burden is on Iran to prove that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes.

The article Obama: Nuclear Deal With Iran Important First Step Toward Comprehensive Solution appeared first on Eurasia Review.