By RT

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has announced his company plans to use ‘octocopter’ mini-drones to deliver goods for US customers – in just 30 minutes.

The ‘Prime Air’ system is set to start running in four or five years. It requires additional safety testing and federal approval.

“I know this looks like science fiction. It’s not,” Bezos told CBS television’s 60 Minutes program.

The technology is “very green,” he indicated. “It’s better than driving trucks around.”

The drones are set to be able to deliver packages that weigh up to 5lbs (2.3kg), which represents roughly 86 percent of packages that Amazon delivers, Bezos told, as quoted by Reuters.

The drones will be powered by electric motors, and are set to cover an area of 16km in radius. Their operations will be carried out autonomously, with GPS transmitted to the devices.

Amazon said the octocopters would be “ready to enter commercial operations as soon as the necessary regulations are in place.” The Federal Aviation is currently developing rules for unmanned vehicles.

The company in fact projected a more optimistic timeline than Bezos himself for the project to be activated, saying drones could commence deliveries as early as 2015.

The Amazon CEO’s statement comes about a month after the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revealed a detailed scheme for drones to roam across American skies within the next two years.

The plan set September 2015 as a deadline for integrating UAVs into US airspace, and six possible drone test sites will be selected out of 26 proposed ones by the end of 2013.

The article Amazon Plans Drone Delivery To US Customers – Video appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By PanArmenian

Russia and the United States will hold a joint military exercise next July, a spokesman for Russia’s Central Military District said Monday, December 2, according to RIA Novosti.

Col. Yaroslav Roshchupkin said the drill, dubbed Atlas Vision 2014, will be held in the Chelyabinsk Region in the Urals.

Central Military District troops will also participate in a joint command post exercise with peacekeeping forces of a regional security bloc – the Collective Security Treaty Organization – in Kyrgyzstan in July, and in a similar drill with Chinese troops in China in August.

The military district’s troops have held over 100 drills at various levels during 2013, including Russian-Chinese command post exercise Peace Mission 2013, Roshchupkin said.

The article Russia, US To Hold Joint Military Drill appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By PanArmenian

Iran said on Sunday, December 1 it wanted stronger cooperation with U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, as it seeks to ease concerns among Gulf Arab neighbors about a potential resurgence in its influence following a nuclear deal with world powers, Reuters reported.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, on a tour of Gulf Arab states, said after talks in Kuwait that no date had been set for an expected visit to Sunni Muslim power Saudi Arabia, Shi’ite Iran’s main regional rival.

But he suggested the nuclear deal reached in Geneva on November 24 should not be seen as a threat.

“This agreement cannot be at the expense of any country in the region,” Zarif, speaking through an interpreter, told reporters at a news conference after discussions with his Kuwaiti counterpart, Sheikh Sabah al-Hamad al-Sabah.

Asked about reports he also planned to visit Riyadh, Zarif said: “We look at Saudi Arabia as an important and influential regional country and we are working to strengthen cooperation with it for the benefit of the region.” He did not elaborate on how this might be done.

U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states cautiously welcomed the nuclear accord reached last month, but some officials have demanded assurances that the deal would contribute to their security.

Following his visit to Kuwait, Zarif headed to Oman, where he met with his counterpart and Sultan Qaboos, and said he was ready to expand cooperation between the two countries “as much as possible”, Iranian state news agency IRNA reported.

Qaboos was the first foreign leader to visit Iranian President Hassan Rouhani after his election in June, and U.S. officials said Oman was the location of secret nuclear talks that helped bring about the nuclear deal last month. Iran has denied the negotiations took place.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are wary of Iranian influence in the Middle East, fearing the Shi’ite Muslim-led country is seeking regional dominance and stirring sectarian tensions.

They worry Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at producing a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran has constantly denied.

UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed called for a partnership with Iran last week when he became the first Gulf Arab official to visit Tehran since the agreement was signed.

Improving relations with regional countries is a central plank of Iran’s diplomatic policy under its new president, Hassan Rouhani, and Zarif was due to travel to Oman, another member of the GCC, after Kuwait.

Asked about three disputed Gulf islands held by Iran but claimed by the United Arab Emirates, Zarif said Tehran was ready to talk about one of the islands, Abu Musa.

Rouhani and Zarif have stressed greater regional stability as a priority, possibly an attempt to blunt the opposition of Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, to Tehran’s newly minted nuclear deal with world powers.

The article Iran Says Wants Stronger Cooperation With Saudi Arabia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Arab News

Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers on Monday defended its ongoing campaign against undocumented foreign workers, saying it is being carried out after giving them enough time to correct their status.

“We’ll continue this campaign without fail,” the Cabinet said, adding that measures have been taken to protect the rights of foreign workers in accordance with international agreements.

The article Saudi Arabia: Cabinet Backs Campaign Against Illegal Workers appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SETimes

By Drazen Remikovic

The release of 10 war crime convicts due to an EU legal ruling overturning the basis of their original convictions rekindled a debate on the reform of the judicial sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

On November 18th, the state court announced that the 10 are no longer convicted persons but have newly indicted status after the Constitutional Court adopted their appeals. They will be retried in mid-December in a shortened procedure that will apply the previous criminal code, which will be more favourable to them.

“The Constitutional Court has brought a decision which is in accordance with European practice and that represents a significant shift. This is a clear signal to all courts in BiH that they must stop applying the wrong laws,” BiH’s Deputy Minister of Justice Srdjan Radulj told SETimes.

The 10 men, six of whom were convicted in the Srebrenica massacre, were previously sentenced to between 14 and 33 years in prison. Their release outraged survivors and families of the victims.

“This is a disgrace of justice. We have been victims of those war criminals who were released and now we are victims of the system. I don’t know what to say anymore,” Munira Subasic, president of an association of Srebrenica survivors, told SETimes.

The ruling followed an appeal by two other war crimes convicts, Abduladhim Maktouf, an Iraqi national, and Goran Damjanovic, a BiH citizen, who were sentenced for war crimes committed from 1991 to 1995, whose retrial began in November.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on July 18th that the men’s rights were violated.

In its ruling, the court said that the two could have been given shorter sentences if the 1976 former Yugoslav criminal code was applied in their trials instead of the 2003 BiH Criminal Code, which was adopted after the crimes were committed in the 1990s.

Adil Lozo, Maktouf’s attorney, said that the BiH court erroneously applied the law, and that in these cases judges should apply the law that is more favourable to the defendant.

“Maktouf already served a sentence of five years, after which he was expelled from BiH and his passport was seized. The whole process needs to be repeated now. All cases like this will require a revision, and it requires time and taxpayers’ money,” Lozo told SETimes.

BiH Court President Meddzida Kreso declined SETimes’s request for comment.

Experts said that the court had to bear the consequences of the erroneous application of law that caused misunderstandings in BiH’s judicial system.

“In the old law there is a section on the death penalty, therefore the court applied the new law where there is no death penalty. However, the death penalty from the old criminal law, even in Yugoslavia, was never performed. Therefore, the court should review all the judgments made in this way, and not wait for the appeals. People will complain and seek compensation. We are talking about millions here,” Ljiljana Mijovic, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, told SETimes.

According to the BiH Ministry of Justice, there are more than 100 such judgments in the country.

“We will try to resolve the issue within the country in order to avoid the situation that Strasbourg finds hundreds of BiH’s appeals. The domestic judiciary must work by European practice,” Radulj told SETimes.

In the past eight years, BiH courts have closed 206 war crimes cases and sentenced 229 people to a total of 2,224 years in prison, but 1,300 cases are still pending.

The article BiH Releases More War Crime Convicts Based On EU Ruling appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said Sunday she was deeply worried by the rising levels of political violence in Bangladesh as the major parties fail to resolve their differences over the conduct of elections.

In recent weeks, supporters of both parties have been clashing with each other and with the security forces. Scores of people have been killed, hundreds injured, and there has been extensive destruction of property.

“In the past week, we have seen acts as extreme as protestors throwing molotov cocktails onto public buses without allowing the occupants to escape, leaving women and children with horrific burns,” the High Commissioner said. “Such levels of violence are deeply shocking for the Bangladeshi people, the vast majority of whom want — and deserve — a peaceful and inclusive election.”

The High Commissioner also expressed concern about the on-going arrest and detention of key opposition leaders by the law enforcement agencies. “This can further inflame the situation and rule out any possibility for engagement and dialogue between the main political parties,” she said.

“Whatever their differences, political leaders on both sides must halt their destructive brinkmanship, which is pushing Bangladesh dangerously close to a major crisis. Instead, they must fulfil their responsibility and use their influence to bring this violence to an immediate halt and seek a solution to this crisis through dialogue,” Pillay said.

The High Commissioner pointed out that Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

“In other situations, we have seen cases of political or election related violence where the perpetrators of such acts – including political leadership – have faced prosecution,” she said.

The article Political Brinkmanship Driving Bangladesh To The Edge: UN Human Rights Chief appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Iran Review

Iran Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham says the European Union decision to maintain sanctions against Iranian firms is a “one-sided and politically-motivated” move which lacks necessary legal basis.

“This move is questionable and surprising, particularly considering the Geneva negotiations and joint efforts made to take the first steps towards its implementation,” Afkham added.

“We strongly reject this issue and recommend the European Union to align itself with the Geneva deal and tread the path of strengthening mutual confidence,” the Iranian spokesperson stated.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has also voiced concern over the recent unrest in Thailand, urging all parties to the conflict to peacefully resolve their differences.

Marzieh Afkham expressed hope that the warring sides would refrain from tension and violence, and put an end to the ongoing turmoil through “peaceful means.”

”Thailand is a key country in East Asia and a member of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and tranquility and stability in that country is important for that region,” said the spokeswoman.

The article Iran Says EU Decision To Maintain Sanctions Lacks Legal Basis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Iran Review

By Said Khaloozadeh

The signing of a recent agreement [on Iran's nuclear energy program] between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the member states of the P5+1 group of world powers, first of all scored a victory for a negotiated and diplomatic approach over the policy of sanctions and mounting pressure. Foreign ministers from six major world powers – the US, the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia – and Iran reached the conclusion in the morning of November 24, 2013, that it was better for everybody to sign an agreement, which would put an end to ten years of difficult diplomatic confrontation between the two sides. It seemed that everybody had won. On the one hand, some analysts believe that all the countries involved in contentions over Iran’s nuclear energy program were really fed-up with the case and were quite ready to get rid of it once and for good. Now, suitable conditions have been provided and all the involved players have set their eyes on an extended perspective which is now visible in relations between the two sides. The European countries, with no doubt, enjoy a special status in this regard.

It seems that as of now, the member states of the European Union as well as major European companies are ready to travel to Iran in order to hold negotiations with the Iranian officials for the conclusion of a great number of investment contracts and taking part in Iran’s major development projects. The Islamic Republic of Iran, after more than a decade of conflicting relations with many countries, is now offered with a good opportunity to open up its economy through improvement of its foreign relations with other countries. It seems that in the near future, we will witness the presence of many big and creditable companies from all over the world, especially from Europe, in the vast Iranian market through conclusion of very important contracts. The Iranian market has a potential customer base of over 77 million people which can offer great opportunities for investment and trade to interested companies. Major projects that Iran envisages in such economic fields as auto making as well as oil and gas industry provide very good grounds for the conclusion of major trade contracts with the world’s biggest companies.

Under these conditions, which have come about just 100 days following the onset of [the new Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani’s administration, circumstances in Iran’s relations with the world have greatly changed. The recent nuclear agreement in Geneva will lead to the creation of many economic and trade opportunities for both the Islamic Republic of Iran and major European countries.

When regulating Iran’s trade ties with the European Union, every effort should be made to get rid of the existing differences by identification of those differences and finding applied solutions to them. The European countries have no major problem for the extension of their trade relations with Iran because finding new markets for their products has been a regular concern on their part. In the meantime, joint chambers of commerce between Iran and individual European countries, can play a very effective role in this regard. These chambers have been very active in the European countries and seeing the slightest sign of improvement is enough to make them interested in uplifting their trade ties with the Islamic Republic.

The new Iranian administration should first identify damages done to its trade relations with the European countries. In the second step, it should launch an all-out study of those relations and finally come up with a well-defined strategy toward the European Union, which would be based on realistic viewpoints and aimed at recognizing Europe’s economic capacities, problems and changing capabilities. In that case, the future outlook for further development of economic relations with Europe would be more promising and taking better advantage of huge existing capacities in bilateral relations will become more possible.

At a time that diplomacy is facing certain limitations for the normalization of political and economic relations between countries, it would be advisable to act through public diplomacy and the potentialities of the civil society. In the modern world, public diplomacy is a focus of attention for many countries. As a result, in many cases it can play an effective role in the foreign policy of countries more easily, more rapidly, and at a lower cost compared to traditional diplomacy. Trade companies belonging to the private sector, chambers of commerce, credit institutions, as well as trade experts each play their own effective roles in this regard. Also of special import is to hold specialized gatherings and seminars in order to introduce the available grounds for cooperation and investment, new economic opportunities as well as the extensive grounds that exist for further development of cooperation on the basis of the common interests of Iran and Europe. Such events can be effectively organized by private sectors from both sides.

The election victory of Dr. Hassan Rouhani has created a new atmosphere in international relations and has led to new speculations – most of which is positive – about basic changes in the foreign relations of Iran. The administration of Dr. Rouhani is able to create huge capacities for the promotion of constructive negotiations and interaction with the European countries. This is while most Western countries are currently more interested in exchange of viewpoints and dialogue with Iran as well as presence in Iran’s big 77-million-strong market.

In any future relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the European Union, efforts should be made to promote bilateral relations through conclusion of a trade cooperation agreement in order to establish contractual relations between Tehran and Brussels. Conclusion of an economic and trade agreement will provide a strong bedrock for further development of all kinds of political and economic relations between the two sides. Such an agreement will also offer both sides with very extensive opportunities for economic and trade exchanges. As a result, other kinds of relations between Tehran and Brussels will not easily falter as a result of possible challenges and problems. Even if there is a problem, it would be rapidly resolved through mechanisms envisaged by that agreement. Today, only those countries have extensive trade relations with the EU that have been already successful in signing a comprehensive agreement for the promotion of cooperation and trade with the member states of the Union.

In the next step, reciprocal measures should be taken by both sides to open representative offices or even embassies in Tehran and Brussels to which independent envoys would be assigned to head respective diplomatic missions in the two capitals. Establishing such a high level of relations will not only lead to qualitative promotion of bilateral relations, but also make way for any possible differences and problems in bilateral relations to be solved more easily and under a better atmosphere of interaction. The existing conditions in the country are more apt than any time before for the establishment of an independent diplomatic mission at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, in return for the EU to establish its mission in Tehran.

It seems that the European Union and its big member states, especially Germany, France and Britain, which have also played an important part in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, are getting ready for a new era of cooperation with the Islamic Republic and are willing to end the current period of downturn in relations between the two sides. At present, the relations between Iran and the European Union stand at their lowest in the past years and this situation of frozen ties encompasses all kinds of political, economic, trade and other forms of exchanges. The three aforesaid countries have been instrumental in bringing about the existing situation of stale relations between Iran and the EU. Now, following the conclusion of the Geneva agreement, a tangible change can be expected to take place in the positions and the viewpoints of these countries and the entire European Union toward Iran and we must actually witness the beginning of a new era of all-out relations and cooperation with the member states of the EU. By promoting economic diplomacy with the European Union, suitable grounds could be provided for further development of bilateral cooperation and the presence of the European investors and industries in Iran.

Due to its position in the heartland of the world energy (including oil and gas) resources, the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys high strategic and geo-economic significance among the international community. By possessing about 11 percent of the world’s known oil reserves and 16 percent of its known gas reserves, the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys a special status as the country having the third biggest oil reserves and the second biggest gas reserves in the world. Since the known energy resources are dwindling across the globe and due to the European countries’ increasing dependence on and need to hydrocarbon energy resources (including oil and gas reserves), the importance of Iran as a source of energy supply to the world, especially to the European countries, is expected to increase. For Iran, as a country with huge oil and gas reserves both within its borders and in areas shared with the neighboring countries, energy can be used as a means to help the country make the most of the benefits of being a member of the world’s political and economic system. This is why a decision to engage in dialogue and cooperation with the European Union and its member states should be taken quite seriously by Tehran. Consequently, taking good advantage of energy diplomacy, as a good means of development, will help Iran to not only to avail itself of the benefits of investment by the European countries and companies, but also make the most of their credit and financial capacities.

Under these circumstances, it would be logical to look forward to seeing more opening in Iran’s foreign relations and foreign trade with various countries of the world. On the other hand, lifting of certain sanctions imposed against Iran in addition to reduction of political and psychological pressures that result from those sanctions, will offer the Islamic Republic of Iran with myriad opportunities. Such opportunities are sure to pave the way for new interactions between Iran and Europe in all political, economic and trade fields. They can be also taken as a good omen for development of new diplomatic relations between Iran and the European countries. On the whole, one may daresay a new chapter is opening in Iran’s foreign policy in which dialogue, negotiations and presentation of new economic and investment plans can be used as means of providing new grounds for development of Iran’s economic and trade ties with the world. In doing so, the European countries will enjoy a special status and they should be able to take the best advantage of new conditions in their relations with Iran within framework of common interests of the two sides.

Said Khaloozadeh
Ph.D. in Political Science from University of Paris, Senior Expert in European Studies & University Professor

The article Iran Viewpoint: Some Practical Notes On Improvement Of Trade Ties With Europe – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Balkan Insight

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

The erection of a statue of the Serbian Tsar Dusan in the Macedonian capital of Skopje has angered some representatives of the country’s sizeable Albanian minority.

An ethnic Albanian NGO in Macedonia called “Wake Up” has indeed woken up after the authorities put up a statue in Skopje of a medieval Serbian emperor.

According to historical records, Dusan was crowned Serbian Tsar in Skopje in 1346.

While Serbs honour Tsar Dushan as a national hero, the far-from-impressed NGO calls him an “occupier of the Western Balkans” who has no place in Skopje.

“Erecting a monument to a Serbian occupier speaks of an identity crisis, or of the Serbophilia of those who put it there,” the NGO said in a press release.

The statue was put up this week on the new “Bridge of Civilizations” in central Skopje, as part of the government-sponsored revamp of the capital known as “Skopje 2014”.

It stands among some 30 other statues representing historical figures from the region, from ancient to medieval times.

Dusan was one of Serbia’s most successful rulers and under his reign Serbia became the paramount state in the region.

In Skopje in 1349 he promulgated a constitution for the Serbian Empire, known as Dusan’s Code, seen as one of the most important acts of medieval Serbia. Dusan also ensured the promotion of the Serbian Orthodox Church from an archbishopric to a patriarchate.

Albanians in the Balkans, however, do not recall Serbian rulers with nostalgia or sympathy, largely because the Kingdom of Serbia made off with significant amounts of territory in which Albanians were the majority community following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Europe in 1912.

“Wake up” said the monument to Dusan, paid for by the government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski and commissioned by the former leaders of Skopje’s municipality of Centar, confirmed the anti-Albanian character of the “Skopje 2014” project.

In October, the new head of the Centar municipality, Andrej Zernovski, agreed to the installation of monuments to well-known Albanians on the municipal territory in a bid to defuse tensions with the country’s large Albanian minority.

The mayor who took power six months ago said he would not obstruct the installation of three monuments of Albanians despite the fact that he opposes further work on “Skopje 2014” in general.

However, the statues of Albanian writer Pjetr Bogdani, writer Josif Bageri and Nexhat Agoli, a minister in the first Macedonian government in 1945, have yet to arrive on their pedestals, which have already been erected.

The article Bronze Serbian Tsar Upsets Macedonia Albanians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

Israel’s security is a top priority in talks with Iran on its controversial nuclear program, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during his Jerusalem visit Thursday.

“I can’t emphasize enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda,” Agence France-Presse quoted Kerry as telling reporters after a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He added: “And the United States will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program of weaponization possibilities is terminated.”

When meeting with Netanyahu, Kerry assured him that the core sanctions against Iran would remain in place despite its interim nuclear deal with world powers.

The sanctions were eased after the deal struck in Geneva last month, to which Israel strongly objected.

“The fundamental sanctions regime of oil and banking remains absolutely in place. It is not changed. And we will be stepping up our effort of enforcement through the Treasury Department and through the appropriate agencies of the United States,” Reuters quoted Kerry as saying.

Speaking earlier, Netanyahu told Kerry “steps must be taken to prevent a further erosion of sanctions.”

Kerry’s remarks were aimed at calming tensions with Israel over the interim deal reached in Geneva on November 24, which saw Iran agree to roll back parts of its nuclear program in return for limited relief from Western sanctions.

The deal was roundly condemned by Netanyahu, who called it a “historic mistake.”

Kerry landed in Israel late on Wednesday for a trip aimed at giving momentum to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which have made little apparent headway since they began under his patronage in late July.

Original article

The article Kerry: Israel’s Security Is A Top Priority In Talks With Iran appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By The Center for Constitutional Rights

Today, US-based civil rights and human rights groups signed an open letter to President Obama urging the administration to make good on its stated commitment to be more transparent and accountable for its “targeted killing” program and holding the administration to task for continuing to withhold basic information.

In particular, the letter raises questions about President’s Obama’s May 23rd speech at the National Defense University, during which he outlined new policy criteria for these operations and suggested a scaling back of U.S. strikes. The letter follows a prior statement of concerns issued by the rights groups last April. Pardiss Kebriaei, a senior attorney working on the issue of targeted killing at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a signatory of today’s letter, made the following statement:

While the Obama administration has yet to disclose any of its own data, credible non-governmental sources have documented as many as 4,000 or more deaths from U.S. targeted killing operations outside of the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq – in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and perhaps elsewhere. The administration justifies these operations on a dangerous and legally tenuous premise that we reject – that the United States is in an ongoing war, 12 years and counting, with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and unspecified “associated forces,” and that it may kill suspects as it would in wartime, worldwide, based on its own say-so. Moreover, of the thousands killed, the administration has openly acknowledged responsibility for exactly four, all US citizens.

Outside of battlefields – contexts that are and should remain exceptional – killing is generally prohibited. Outside of battlefields, the resort to armed force by states is generally prohibited. Under all circumstances, the law requires accountability. The U.S. targeted killing program has turned those fundamental principles on their head.

In 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the federal lawsuit Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, which challenged the constitutionality of the killings of three U.S. citizens – Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi – in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011. The district court’s decision on the government’s motion to dismiss could come any day.

In 2010, CCR and the ACLU brought the first legal challenge to the U.S. targeted killing program, in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, which challenged the Obama administration’s authorization to kill U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi in Yemen.

Read a copy of the open letter to President Obama from civil and human rights groups here.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

The article Rights Groups Issue Open Letter To Obama appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

In a remarkable interfaith gesture, Christian-Buddhist-Jewish leaders have backed Hindus upset over Indian Pale Ale beer brewed in Asheville, North Carolina carrying the name-image of Hindu deity Lord Shiva.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, taking up this issue, has earlier stressed that Lord Shiva was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile greed.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, has urged Asheville Brewing Co. to apologize and withdraw its Indian Pale Ale beer bearing the image of Lord Shiva, calling it highly inappropriate.

This beer, named as “Shiva”, displays the image of Hindu Lord Shiva in Nataraja form.

Father Stephen R. Karcher, prominent Greek Orthodox Christian clergyman in Nevada and adjoining California, in a statement today, stressed: I sympathize with our Hindu friends who are distressed to see their revered Shiva portrayed on the side of a beer can. This shows a complete absence of cultural sensitivity and religious awareness, and is degrading not only to Hindu people but to all who take faith seriously and practice it freely in our great nation.”

Richard L. Smith, a highly respected United Church of Christ pastor, in a statement today, noted: I support the protests of Hindus who are offended by the name and image of the god Shiva being used to sell ale, just as I would be if a winery decided to name one of its products “Sangre de Christo.” I urge the Asheville Brewing to find another approach.

Well known Buddhist minister Jikai’ Phil Bryan, in a note to Rajan Zed, said: I agree completely with your objection to the use of Lord Shiva as the name of a beer…It will be to the great credit of the brewing company to honor your request and change the name of the beer. I trust they will hear your message and respond sensitively to it.

Rabbi ElizaBeth W. Beyer, Jewish leader in Nevada and California, argues that inappropriate placing of a religious group’s deity is a serious affront to the many Hindus who worship Shiva. We fully back Hindu statesman Zed’s initiative on this issue.

Luther James DuPree Junior, a Bishop in the Church of God in Christ, has also supported Hindus disturbed over the trivialization of their revered deity.

Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed points out.

In Hinduism, Lord Shiva, along with Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu, forms the great triad of Hindu deities. Moksh (liberation) is the ultimate goal of Hinduism. There are about three million Hindus in USA.

The article Christian-Buddhist-Jewish Leaders Support Hindus Upset Over Lord Shiva Beer appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By COHA

By Keith Bolender

President Obama, who has been consistently inconsistent in his dealings with Cuba, demonstrated once again his mastery of the mixed message.

The president was in Miami on November 8th for an important fundraising event. There he met with the head of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) Jorge Mas Santos, as well as a number of pro-embargo Cuban dissidents including Guillermo Farinas. This informal gathering in the house of Santos resulted in a lengthy debate on the current state of affairs in Cuba and the impact of Obama’s policies since his election in 2008. The president’s comments elicited positive reaction from both sides of the Cuban question — from the pro-embargo proponents who took his words to mean a commitment to stay the course, and from those who claimed Obama indicated a desire to change American strategy, to possibly accelerate a process of engagement. And there were many who observed it was exactly what Obama wanted to accomplish — giving hope to all.

In a rare admission that the economic reforms now unfurling in Cuba are being noticed in Washington, President Obama commented:

“And we’ve started to see changes on the island. Now, I think we all understand that, ultimately, freedom in Cuba will come because of extraordinary activists and the incredible courage of folks like we see here today. But the United States can help. And we have to be creative. And we have to be thoughtful. And we have to continue to update our policies. Keep in mind that when Castro came to power, I was just born. So the notion that the same policies that we put in place in 1961 would somehow still be as effective as they are today in the age of the Internet and Google and world travel doesn’t make sense.” [1]

In those short few sentences, the president was able to provide encouragement to both sides of the embargo divide. He signalled that the US would continue to define political concepts such as “freedom in Cuba” through those who are in support of Washington’s policy of regime change. Imposing ambiguous terminology such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ have been the foundations for justifying American hostility against the Cuban revolution; aggression expressed through Washington’s economic blockade, propaganda, terrorism, and prohibiting its citizens from travelling to the island. In that sense Obama is simply backing the continuation of established US strategy.

However, he then introduced the concept that a new approach might be in order, implying US policy has been less than successful for the past 50 years. That’s where the anti-embargo advocates have taken a certain amount of reassurance, claiming that Obama is preparing a shift in strategy that would increase engagement with Havana, and that “an update in policy” might lead to the ending of travel restrictions, a movement towards shutting down the embargo, and normalization. [2]

It is vintage Obama, cleverly constructed verbiage designed to keep all options open, to appeal to both sides through rationality, compassion and skilled diplomacy. It has led those who support the continued punishment of Cuba to believe that the president may now be on their side, as expressed by Farinas who said, “The most important thing here was the recognition by the president of the United States, the most powerful democracy in the world.” [3] Just as significant was the reaction from the anti-embargo voices, led by the head of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, John McAuliff, who suggested, “It would not be a surprise if President Obama laid groundwork for a significant improvement in US policy toward Cuba in Miami and with prominent dissidents in the room.” [4]

So everyone has reason to be optimistic regarding Obama’s future treatment of Cuba, a classic example of the president’s desire to be “inclusive”. Interestingly, prior to his election, Obama had little trouble expressing what side of the Cuba policy fence he sat on. As a presidential candidate, the then-young senator from Illinois stated clearly on his website and on the campaign trail that the embargo was a ‘failure’ and that it was time to change policy and not to be afraid to talk directly with Havana. When he gained control of the White House, his stance altered substantially as he succumbed to the anti-Castro lobby. Obama publicly proclaimed his support for the continuation of embargo along its current lines until the Cubans acquiesced to American standards of ‘capitalist democracy’ – the same refrain from every president since the revolution triumphed in 1959. To make it clear Obama is not the only one affected by the lack of a generosity of spirit when it comes to a post-election Cuba-syndrome; Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a prior advocate of a more rational treatment of Cuba, just last week declared that despite all the reforms taking place, Havana still needs to do more if the US was going to consider a move towards normalization. [5]

After winning the White House, the president did follow up on a promise he made to his Cuban-American constituents, allowing them to visit their homeland without restrictions, a change that has had a positive impact on Cuba’s economy through an influx of material goods and financial remittances. He also expanded certain levels of highly-regulated licensed travel for American citizens. This enabled Kerry to stress in his OAS speech that Cuba must do more to gain a negotiated settlement of the ongoing dispute between Havana and Washington. But Obama has maintained the embargo and the regulations preventing US tourists from travelling to the island. In addition he continues to keep Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and annually signs the continuation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which provided the legislative justification for the embargo and travel restrictions.

Cuban officials constantly complain that Obama has in fact tightened certain aspects of the embargo, making it harder for Havana to conduct normal international banking transactions, and has increased the amount and frequency of fining international banks that do business with Cuba. As one Cuban foreign affairs diplomat noted, “[Obama] puts on a face of easing restrictions against us, but behind the scenes he is making things much worse. And look at who he met in Miami — the head of the CANF, one of the strongest proponents of the embargo and of the aggression against our country, including involvement with terrorism.” [6] In the past few years the stance of CANF has actually softened somewhat, with Mas Santos stating that a less antagonistic approach to Cuba might be more effective in promoting change.

While Obama’s statements may contain enough meat for both sides to chew on, it should be understood that the president’s core belief remains that Cuba has to install a political/economic system conforming to US standards in order for normalization to begin.

President Obama made it clear in his statement in Miami to the pro-embargo audience, “And I think that partly because we’re of the same generation, we recognize that the aims are always going to be the same. And what we have to do is to continually find new mechanisms and new tools to speak out on behalf of the issues that we care so deeply about.” [7]

This likely means that while he is fully behind the strategy of regime change, he just might want to achieve it with a velvet glove instead of the iron fist. If Obama did utilize his presidential authority to ease aspects of the embargo and circumvent much of the existing travel restrictions, it would be from his perspective that flooding American tourists into Cuba with all their money and high-tech gadgets, as well as permitting U.S. businesses onto the island would be the post-modern method of ending the regime. The theory is that the Cuban government would not be able to control the political or economic influences of the American influx and the socialist experiment might very well collapse upon itself. This would lead to the United States re-establishing its interests on the island, and the abrupt end of the revolution.

The president’s comments in Miami indicate he may be leaning towards that strategy, that he believes his policy of increased licensed travel and ending all restrictions for Cuban-Americans to visit the island has been the impetus for the economic reforms taking place in Cuba. He is sorely mistaken if that is the case, as the various changes under Raul Castro were implemented in order to achieve a more adaptive socialist model, and not to return to a system of American-style unregulated capitalism. The reforms have included a number of concessions to market influenced economics, instituted in an attempt to fix the shortcomings in the Cuban economy, as well as to address new formulations to streamline the country’s political structure. They were accomplished in the face of growing American hostility, not because the Havana government bowed to it. New Cuban leadership, including high-ranking officials Miguel Diaz-Canal and Marino Murillo, may combine their generational influences and perspectives with the support of the majority of Cuban people to continue along a 21st Century socialist path regardless of whether or not U.S. hostility remains.

For years, Cubans have been ready to normalize relations with the United States, fully understanding the complications and pressures that that would bring. The revolutionary government has long dealt with Washington’s chronic aggression and its repeated attempts to destroy the system – having the US no longer the enemy would be a much preferred condition. It would be far easier to confront the social difficulties and economic inequalities that might ensue from normalization, than it has been to overcome the hardships of America’s unending siege. It would also allow the two countries to fully engage on a number of issues, besides the few items currently being discussed such as postal services and immigration matters. So much else needs to be addressed, including environmental and security concerns, and the long-standing controversies over the Cuban intelligence officers known as the “Cuban 5” held in U.S. jails, and Cuba’s continued incarceration of American Alan Gross, convicted of bringing into Cuba illegal high-tech communication equipment. There is, however, a political element that seems to get lost whenever the president speaks of Cuba. Obama does have in his power the ability to take certain discretionary measures that would allow him to signal a willingness to shift the outdated Cold War dynamics: he can increase licensed travel, remove Cuba from the list of States that Sponsor Terrorism, permit increased exceptions for economic exchanges, free the Cuban Five and refuse to sign the extension of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Those actions would lessen the effects of the embargo and lower US hostility. But the president does not have the authority to end the embargo nor the travel restrictions. That lies in the hands of Congress, which was granted control by President Clinton in the mid-1990s with the signing of the Helms-Burton Act.

So while Obama is the technical voice of Cuban policy, the heart and soul now is in Congress with the Cuban-American members who regulate it; such as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio. Only with an ending of their reign as gatekeepers of Cuban strategy will Congress have a chance to successfully formulate and pass laws ending the travel restrictions and embargo. Moderate Cuban-American voices are needed, and one was elected in 2012 with the upset victory of Democrat Joe Garcia (former head of CANF) over fellow Cuban-American David Rivera, an extreme hard-right Republican. Garcia’s new voice is offering at least a more temperate sound, demonstrated recently when he came out in favor of the United States testing the Cuban diabetes drug Herberprot. [8] His fellow Cuban-American congressmen predictably opposed the possibility, condemning Garcia as not being sufficiently intransigent against the Castro government.

Garcia’s position, however, was well received in the Cuban community in Florida, and if the newer generation of Cuban-American immigrants become politically active they could soon vote in more moderate voices, which would give legislation that ends the travel restrictions and embargo a better chance to pass through Congress. They, along with recently formed anti-embargo organizations such as Foundation for Normalization of U.S./Cuba Relations (FORNORM) and Cuban Americans for Engagement (CAFE) could have a considerable and even more constructive bearing on Cuban policy in the near future. As with most things in the United States, congressional politics hold the key to change. When it comes to Cuba, it is the only place where the embargo and travel restrictions will end, no matter what Obama says or where he says it.

Obama can continue to make statements where hope is gained by the two sides of the embargo spectrum. It is in his political nature to keep all options open, and it is encouraging to see that the president recognizes some of the changes taking place in Cuba. But those seeking to take too much out of that must tread with care, because it cannot be forgotten that as a U.S. president, Obama will continue to work towards his stated goal of regime change, which has been a staple of past U.S. administrations for decades. If he supports traditional methods of hostility, the Cubans have more than enough experience to manage. If he moves towards a modern strategy of easing elements of the travel restrictions and the decades-old embargo, then the Cubans are ready and waiting. Either way, Cuba will remain committed to bring its brand of socialism into modernity, while Obama continues to work both sides of the aisle.

Keith Bolender, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References

[1] Felsenthal, Mark. “Obama says U.S. needs to update policies on Cuba” Reuters. November 8, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/09/us-usa-obama-cuba-idUSBRE9A802620131109

[2] McAuliff, John. “A further step” The Havana Note. November 16, 2013. http://thehavananote.com/node/1081#disqus_thread

[3] Tamayo, Juan O. ”‘Incredible night’ as Obama meets Cuban dissidents in Miami” Miami Herald. November 8, 2013. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/08/3740537/incredible-night-as-obama-meets.html

[4] Mcauliff, John. “A Further Step.” The Havana Note. November 16, 2013. http://thehavananote.com/node/1081#disqus_thread

[5] Wyss, Jim. “Kerry Harps on Cuban Democracy, Climate Change in OAS Speech.” Miami Herald. November 18 ,2013. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/18/3762874/kerry-harps-on-cuban-democracy.html

[6] Interview with author, official asked for anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

[7] Tamayo, Juan O. “‘Incredible night’ as Obama meets Cuban dissidents in Miami” Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/08/3740537/incredible-night-as-obama-meets.html November 8, 2013

[8] Caputo, Marc. “Rep. Garcia’s push for Cuba drug trial tests support for embargo” Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/07/3676239/rep-garcias-push-for-cuba-drug.html October 7, 2013

The article Obama’s Meeting In Miami: What It All Means – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MINA

Microsoft has pledged to fight in court any snooping into its foreign customers’ sensitive data by US surveillance agencies, as it compared government surveillance to hi-tech cyber-attacks and malware.

The software giant was quick to point out Wednesday on its blog that it had never shared such information with US clandestine agencies under the Foreign Service Intelligence Act. According to Microsoft, authorities should not have casual access to information stored on foreign computers anyway.

The company’s general counsel, Brad Smith, told Reuters that Microsoft is “committing contractually to not turning it over without litigating that issue,” also promising to provide additional computer safeguards in the form of the encryption of its internal traffic.

The news also comes on the heels of revelations by The Washington Post and other newspapers detailing how the NSA had tapped into foreign fiber-optic cables to snoop on Yahoo and Google’s traffic, while also undermining their encryption and sabotaging their code with so-called “back doors.”

Reports that the NSA had strayed outside the framework set by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had Google and Yahoo ringing the alarm and acting quickly – but not Microsoft, which was criticized at the time for not providing enough safeguards.

Smith confessed that Microsoft had been caught off guard by the recent Washington Post revelations, explaining that any prior talk of intelligence at Microsoft focused on how the company could best follow the intelligence law, and not on how it could protect itself from “technological brute force,” so “that really was like an earthquake sending shock waves through our industry,” Smith said.

Now the company will be “taking steps to ensure governments use legal process rather than technological brute force to access customer data,” Smith said, adding: “Government snooping potentially now constitutes an ‘advanced persistent threat’ alongside sophisticated malware and cyber-attacks.”

The company believes intelligence agencies cannot compel it to install spyware on user machines, and vowed to fight such requests in court.

Microsoft also promised to encrypt user data and promised to cooperate with other companies’ e-mail services to ensure that the stream of data stays secure when a user chooses to switch over from the company’s own Outlook.com (formerly Hotmail) to other services, such as Yahoo or Google.

In another step to tackle the issue, Microssoft promised to take care of the back doors that foreign governments worry about when installing Microsoft products. To do this, the company will work more closely with its regional centers.

Some experts believe that the time for Microsoft to step up its game and join the ranks of other tech heavyweights security-wise is long overdue.

The article Microsoft Acuses NSA Of Malware appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MINA

Wouldn’t everyone want to call Iceland their home?

Iceland’s government has announced that it will be writing off up to 24,000 euros ($32,600) of every household’s mortgage, fulfilling its election promise, despite overwhelming criticism from international financial institutions.

The measure was introduced by the country’s prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, the leader of the Progressive Party which won the late-April elections on a promise of household debt relief.

According to the government’s website the household debt will be reduced by 13 percent on average.

Citizens of Iceland have been suffering from debt since the 2008 financial crisis, which led to high borrowing costs after the collapse of the krona against other currencies.

“Currently, household debt is equivalent to 108 percent of GDP, which is high by international comparison,” highlighted a government statement, according to AFP. “The action will boost household disposable income and encourage savings.”

The government said that the debt relief will begin by mid-2014 and according to estimates the measure is set to cost $1.2 billion in total. It will be spread out over four years.

The financing plan for the program has not yet been laid out. However, Gunnlaugsson has promised that public finances will not be put at risk. It was initially proposed that the foreign creditors of Icelandic banks would pay for the measure.

International organizations have confronted the idea with criticism. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have advised against it, citing economic concerns.

Iceland has “little fiscal space for additional household debt relief” according to the IMF, while the OECD stated that Iceland should limit its mortgage relief to low-income households.

In the meantime, ratings service, Standard & Poor’s, cut back on its outlook for Iceland’s long-term credit rating to negative from stable, stating that the economic measure could affect the confidence of foreign investors if it ends up being paid for by the existing creditors of Icelandic banks.

The article Iceland: Government To Forgive Each Household $32,600 Worth Of Debt appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Trend News Agency

By Abbas Akhundov – Trend:

Turkey supports full realization of the Caspian Sea basin’s full potential, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said in his message to the participants of the 3rd Caspian Forum, which kicked off on Dec. 5 in Istanbul.

“The existing cooperation mechanisms should be worked out and activity models capable of bringing mutual benefit should be studied in order to realize the Caspian region’s economic potential,” the president said.

“Important economic projects have been realized from 1990 to up to date in order to implement economic potential of the Caspian Sea basin. During its implementation, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars project was evaluated as the project of the century. Along with this, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline is an integral part of Southern Corridor,” the Turkish president said.

In his message, Abdullah Gul called on to speed up the measures taken for settlement of the frozen conflicts in the region.

“The continuation of cooperation of all international forces on securing of peace is one of our major goals,” the president noted.

Turkish president highlighted the existence of great opportunities for work in a number of areas, particularly in the fields of energy, trade and transport.

“The TANAP project, which is currently being implemented by Azerbaijan, is one of the major projects, which will ensure the transit transportation of gas from Shah Deniz field to Europe,” Gul said.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway project, which is planned to be commissioned next year, is the region’s another important project, according to the Turkish president’s message.

The article President Gul: Turkey Supports Realization Of Caspian Sea Basin’s Full Potential appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Murray Hunter

The Malaysia franchise Association vetting system lets down unsuspecting potential franchisees. It’s really buyer beware in the franchise market.

By Murray Hunter and David Teoh

The possibility of becoming a successful entrepreneur in Malaysia is a dream shared by many. This avenue was widened through encouraging the formation of franchises where potential entrepreneurs could easily purchase a ‘proven’ business model and benefit from that successful business concept.

In the mid 1990s the Malaysian Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs was given the responsibility under the Franchise Act 1998 to develop and regulate the industry.

Singer was the first company to introduce franchising to Malaysia in the 1940s. The first F&B successful franchise in Malaysia was the US A&W, which opened its first outlet in Petaling Jaya in 1963. Very soon afterwards many other successful outlets were opened all around Klang Valley. In the following decades, MacDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, and Kenny Rogers were established in Malaysia.

The concept of franchising was soon seen as a means of creating new Bumiputera entrepreneurs. Under the then Mahathir Government, retired public servants were encouraged to become entrepreneurs through buying into a franchise. The then deputy domestic trade minister Abdul Kadir bin Sheikh Fadzir became the public proponent of franchising, organizing seminars and workshops on the concept all over the country.

Franchising in Malaysia became a massive growth industry with the setting up of the Malaysian Franchise Association in 1994, attracting a number of consultants and brokers into the action. A screening and selection system, as well as a number of bureaucratic requirements were enacted, making the procedure to become either a franchisor or franchisee very cumbersome. Consequently, after a very hopeful beginning, the combination of bureaucracy, regulation, procedure, and plain dishonesty among some franchisors has brought misery and suffering to many unsuspecting franchisees. Franchising was seen by some as a means to make quick money.

The Franchise Development Program (FDP) requires franchisors to undertake a number of steps and procedures before they can be registered under Section 6 of the Franchise Act. Registration enables a company to be eligible for a grant, RM 100% for Bumiputera companies, and RM50% for non-Bumiputera companies. The catch here is ministry officials require franchisors to employ a consultant, usually of their choosing to aid the process, where fees may be as high as 40% of the total grant available. Many unhappy franchisors have suggested to the authors that some collusion exists in this process between consultants and officials.

Most consultants are not registered with the US based and internationally recognized International Franchise Association (IFA). These consultants commonly approach potential franchise businesses promising to expand their businesses through franchising. They arrange for grants without much scrutiny over the franchising viability of the businesses they have been engaged to develop franchise models. Consequently the market is full of many dubious business models.

This results in franchises that have little real potential for franchisees to make a go of it. Successful SMEs that go down this track are poorly advised and often fall into financial difficulties. Franchisees who sign up with them don’t last long in business. The only group who has profited out of this process is the consultant.

The problem today is there are so many franchises up for sale, some bona fide and some non-bona fide, the quality on offer varies widely. Nascent entrepreneurs with little or no experience make the assumption that regulated franchises have been screened for business model viability. What more, some franchises like TuitionMall.com or Pusat Bahasa Titian Jaya imply that the company has a connection with Cambridge, when this is not the case.

The Malaysia franchise Association vetting system lets down unsuspecting potential franchisees. It’s really buyer beware in the franchise market.

A number of franchisors see franchising as a means to extract money from franchisees, rather than a means to develop a brand and business. For example two Kuala Lumpur entrepreneurs signed a franchising agreement with an F&B franchisor based in Johor. The franchisor encouraged the franchisee to install a music box and have a band at the venue for extra franchisee costs outside the royalty agreement based on sales turnover. As a result the franchisee business became commercially unviable and the franchisor insisted on a legal remedy which cost the two entrepreneurs their full investment of over RM600K. This appears totally irresponsible for any franchisor who is interested in nurturing its brand and business, but rather only interested in extracting as much as it can through franchise fees without concern for long term viability.

Most franchise agreements have been drawn up in favor of franchisors and when a business becomes unviable, franchisor requirements put the business into financial trouble.

A litigation lawyer disclosed to the authors that due to the unfairness of the Franchise Act in its favoritism towards franchisors, very few franchisees have been successful in gaining any legal remedy from unscrupulous franchisors. Most court decisions have been made in favor of franchisors.

The franchise industry has made many successful consultants like Abdul Malik Abdullah of D’Tandoori fame, but unfortunately there are a large number of local franchise failures, that are tend to be hidden with all the hype about the success of the industry. Even though the industry can point to the success of many local franchises like Nelson’s and Marrybrown, the vulnerability of any successful branded franchise can be seen in Secret Recipe going into receivership in Australia.

There has also been criticism of the Malaysian Franchise Association‘s lack of effort in promoting ethics within the industry by its membership.

Part of the problem may appear to be in the way the Perbadanan Nasional Bhd (PNS) is promoting grants and start-up loan packages to businesses. The question is whether this is encouraging predator consulting practices within the industry.

The industry is full of consultants and brokers, who conduct courses and workshops which may encourage the vulnerable into inappropriate products and businesses. Many franchisors are reckless and over sell their ideas to gullible people who lack any sense about doing due diligence on a business concept.

Some consultants are charging up to RM160K to secure company registration as an approved franchisor.

The onus is on the Malaysian Franchise Association, as many within its membership desire, to do its part in cleaning up the industry. One of the franchise traps that is bringing many small franchisees undone, are the extra charges over and above royalties that crafty franchisors are demanding from franchisees.

Potential franchisees need to look very closely at any franchise they may consider signing up to. This will require a review of how the business model works and scrutiny about both how much the business would cost to operate on a monthly basis, the potential revenue, and total payments required to be paid to the franchisor through the agreement. Is the planned location suitable for this franchise? Potential franchisees should go and look at the operations of other franchisees and talk to them about the franchise business, focusing particularly on the relationship between franchisor and franchisee.

Potential franchisees should look at what they are getting for the fees they pay. How much is the franchisor putting back into brand support and promotion? They should ask who is the franchisor and do they really have the affiliations they claim to have? Is the franchisee entitled to new products? If so, are there any extra, one up fees besides royalty payments? In the event of financial difficulties or the need to close down for any reason, can the franchise agreement be easily terminated? Does the franchisee have the necessary skills and knowledge to run the business and what sort and duration of training is offered by the franchisor? Most importantly, does the franchisee have sufficient financial backing to undergo this venture?

Surprisingly, these types of questions are rarely asked by new entrepreneurs.

Finally what should also be considered from the national perspective, is the affect on national creativity and innovation from the franchising phenomenon. Although, the thinking behind franchising is that those who engage in franchising are less likely to fail in a new business, the framework of franchising itself frowns upon franchisees who themselves innovate. Thus franchising on a wide scale may have the effect of suppressing entrepreneurial creativity. Franchising kills creativity.

The article Buyer Beware In The Malaysian Franchise Industry – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Andy Worthington

On Monday and Tuesday, an important step took place in the quest for those who ordered and undertook torture in the Bush administration’s “war on terror” to be held accountable for their actions, when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held a hearing to examine the role of the Polish authorities in the extraordinary rendition, secret detention and torture of two men currently held in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Both men are amongst the 14 “high-value detainees” who arrived at Guantánamo in September 2006 after years of incommunicado detention and torture in a variety of CIA “black sites,” one of which was in Poland, and as Interights, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights, explained in a news release, “This historic court hearing [is] the first time a European country has been taken to court for allowing the CIA to run a torture site on its territory and comes after years of silence from the Polish government about the CIA’s prison there.”

The cases of these two men are enormously significant for everyone seeking accountability, as they are two of only three prisoners whom the US had admitted were subjected to waterboarding, the ancient torture technique that involves controlled drowning. With another “high-value detainee,” Ramzi bin al-Shibh, they were the only men held at a CIA “black site” in Thailand prior to their transfer to Poland in December 2002. In October 203, they were moved to a secret “black site” within Guantánamo, identified as Strawberry Fields, and were then moved around a number of other CIA “black sites” in Romania, Lithuania and Morocco until their eventual return to Guantánamo in 2006.

The Bush administration’s torture program was initially designed for Abu Zubaydah, a stateless Palestinian seized in Faisalabad, Pakistan, in March 2002. He was initially touted as al-Qaeda’s number 3, although in reality he was nothing more than the gatekeeper for a training camp that was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. He is apparently in dreadful shape, and suffers regular seizures, although, as befits his downgraded status, he has never been charged. Jason Leopold of Al-Jazeera recently obtained his diaries, which reveal in detail his mental state and confirm that he was never a member of al-Qaeda (please also read this powerful article about him by one of his lawyers, Brent Mickum, written nearly five years ago).

Al-Nashiri, who was seized in the United Arab Emirates in October 2002, has been charged with being the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and has been put forward for a trial by military commission, in which he faces the death penalty if convicted. However, in March 2007, at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal in Guantánamo, his military-appointed personal representative told the tribunal, “The detainee states that he was tortured into confession and once he made a confession his captors were happy and they stopped torturing him. Also, the detainee states that he made up stories during the torture in order to get it to stop.”

Interights is just one of a number of organizations and individuals representing Abu Zubaydah, the others being Joseph Margulies of the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University Law School, Jankowski & Co. in Poland (where Bartlomiej Jankowski is Abu Zubaydah’s counsel), Reprieve, the London-based legal action charity, and Helsińka Fundacja Praw Człowieka, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland. Al-Nashiri is represented by the Open Society Justice Initiative.

Describing the case before the ECHR, Interights stated, “Poland stands accused of facilitating Abu Zubaydah’s extraordinary rendition onto its territory, being complicit in his incommunicado detention, and subjecting him to torture and ill-treatment. Poland is also accused of complicity in his transfer to another state despite being aware Abu Zubaydah was at substantial risk of further torture and ill treatment. A pre-trial criminal investigation initiated by Polish prosecutors in 2008 purporting to examine these events has proven to be ineffective and as a consequence Poland is accused of breaching its legal obligation to properly and promptly investigate the claims made against it.”

Describing al-Nashiri’s case, the Open Society Justice Initiative stated that al-Nashiri “accuses Poland of allowing him to be held incommunicado and tortured at a secret CIA base at Stare Kiejkuty in the northeast of the country,” and argues that Poland violated his rights under European law, and also “by allowing his transfer out of the country despite the risk of further ill-treatment,” and, after his transfer to Guantánamo, “an unfair trial and possible death sentence.” The complaint “also accuses Poland of failing in its duty to properly investigate what happened, as required by European law.”

Before the hearing, Amrit Singh of the Open Society Justice Initiative said, “Poland must account for its complicity in CIA torture and for rendering Mr. al-Nashiri to face the death penalty after a trial by a Guantánamo military commission that does not meet international standards. In the face of Polish and US efforts to draw a veil over these abuses, the European Court of Human rights now has an opportunity to break this conspiracy of silence and to uphold the rule of law.”

“Overwhelming and uncontested evidence” of the existence of the secret prison in Poland

In a press release following the first day of the hearing, which, unusually and unacceptably, was held in private, Reprieve stated that the ECHR heard “overwhelming and uncontested evidence” of the existence of the “black site” in Poland — at Stare Kiejkuty, in the north east of the country — which explicitly involved the Polish government having knowledge of it.

Reprieve investigator Crofton Black, who has been researching the issue of secret prisons in Europe during the “war on terror,” and was allowed access to the secret session, said, “We have now heard overwhelming and uncontested evidence that the CIA was running a secret torture prison on Polish soil, with the Polish government’s knowledge. Despite being given many opportunities to do so, the Polish government has failed to contest that it knew prisoners were being held beyond the rule of law and tortured by the CIA inside their own country. It has also become clear that the Polish government’s investigation into the issue was in reality nothing more than a smoke-screen, which was neither designed nor intended to get to the truth.”

He added, “European support for the CIA’s torture programme is one of the darkest chapters of our recent history. It is encouraging that the court now looks set to bring it to light, where the government has sought to sweep it under the carpet.”

As the Guardian noted, Amrit Singh added, “The court heard expert testimony [on Monday] confirming how Polish officials filed false flight plans and assisted in the cover-up of CIA operations. In a secluded villa, hidden from sight, CIA interrogators subjected him to torture: to mock executions while he stood naked and hooded before them; to painful stress positions that nearly dislocated his arms from his shoulders; and to threats of bringing in his mother to sexually abuse her in front of him.”

Reporting on the second, open day of the hearing, the Guardian also noted that the court heard a submission from Ben Emmerson QC, the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, who argued that where gross or “systematic human rights violations are alleged to have occurred, the right to know the truth is not only an individual right that belongs to the immediate victim of the violation, but also a collective right that belongs to the whole of society.”

I certainly hope that the European Court of Human Rights will find that the Polish authorities acted unlawfully in hosting a CIA “black site” on its territory, although I am prepared for disappointment. After all, anyone who knows anything about the Bush administration’s torture program knows that the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to shield any Bush administration officials (up to and including the former president, his vice president Dick Cheney and his defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld) from accountability for their actions.

In Poland’s case, this has involved a blanket refusal to cooperate with the Polish prosecutor investigating the cases of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and it is sadly significant that this week’s ECHR hearing had to rely on publicly available information about the two men, in large part because of US obstruction, but also because the men’s lawyers are prevented from divulging any information about their clients’ cases. As the Guardian described Abu Zubaydah’s predicament, “Communication with his lawyers is restricted, making it impossible to pass on information or evidence directly from him to the ECHR. The presentation of his case is principally based on publicly available sources.”

Noticeably, a Polish official also cited problems with the US, telling the court that “his country was the only European state that was ‘conducting a real investigation’ and that the inquiry had been hindered by the fact that it was difficult for the prosecutor to talk to the complainants,” as the Guardian described it. He added that relations between Poland and the US “were subject to secrecy.”

The absolutely unacceptable blanket censorship of the “high-value detainees” in Guantánamo — involving the censorship of every single word that takes place — and has taken place — between the men and their lawyers, since their arrival at Guantánamo in 2006, is, however, essentially unchallenged in the US, where there is also very little outrage — or even commentary — about the fact that, in Europe, mechanisms are underway to try and secure justice for two men tortured by the CIA, while, in Guantánamo, one man is facing a kangaroo court trial and the death penalty, and the other is permanently locked away with no trial in sight.

When this kind of injustice goes unchallenged, it is hard to see that the European Court of Human Rights will be able to land a blow on the US, but a ruling against Poland would be a powerful message to the US, that not everyone is content to “look forwards as opposed to looking backwards,” as President Obama said before taking office in January 2009.

Note: Interights has filed a separate complaint before the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Abu Zubaydah, against Lithuania, where he was also secretly detained and abused at a CIA “black site.” To date, as Interights describe it, “European states alleged to have been involved in the extraordinary rendition programme have failed to properly address allegations relating to their involvement. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to ensure States understand their obligations to the public and to victims in such cases.” The Open Society Justice Initiative has also filed a separate ECHR complaint on al-Nashiri’s behalf against Romania, where he was also secretly detained and abused at another CIA “black site.”

The article European Court Of Human Rights Hears Evidence About CIA Torture Prison In Poland – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SAAG

By Bhaskar Roy

China’s unexpected declaration of its AIR DEFENCE IDENTIFICATION ZONE (ADIZ) on November 23 in the East China Sea may have ramifications beyond intended targets. To a certain degree China cannot be denied its own DIZ. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, to speak of the region concerned, have their AIDZs. But their AIDZs do not over lap each other and leave air corridors unaffected, whereas the Chinese one does not.

The Chinese claim there is nothing wrong with their action, it is non-provocative and underlines normal defensive position of their country. The Chinese declaration demands not only war planes but even civilian passenger aircraft to identify themselves before entering the zone. The US and Japan reached strongly and sent their military aircraft through the zone. Chinese aircraft only trailed their projectory but made no contact. South Korea, Taiwan and Australia have also expressed concern as the Chinese identification zone interferes with free international air corridors.

China may have won the first round. The US has advised its international civilian flights to act in line with the Chinese identification demand, rest there be a mistake and a civilian aircraft brought down by the Chinese could set the region into fire. Such mistakes are not impossible given the training or the lack of it in the operational levels of the Chinese forces in handling sophisticated equipment. The issue was further complicated when a PLA air force major general Qiao Liang told (Nov. 27) in an interview in Beijing that Chinese pilots had he right to shoot down any aircraft that disregarded warnings. Qiao, however, went on to say it would be irrational to fight a war over the ADIZ, and territorial disputes should be resolved through negotiations.

Interestingly, Hu Jixian, editor-in-chief of the daily Global Times, a highly nationalist newspaper, said something different on the Sina Weibo micro blogging site. He said ADIZ was not equal to air space and China could not force US and Japan to inform their flight plane on the AIDZ, and neither will Chinese air planes do so when they enter their ADIZ.

This difference of approach between a senior military officer and the edito-in-chief of an official newspaper which usually supports China’s positions, raises questions. Qiao Liang may be airing some views in the PLA. Hu Jixian could quite possibly be reflecting the views of certain sections in the civilian hierarchy who are against the issue escalating to a military conflict.

In the first place, the ADIZ has been enacted by Beijing to more forcefully position its claims on the Senkaku (Daioyu in Chinese) Islands in the East China Sea. An issue left over from the last world war , the conflict over sovereignty lay dormant till the Japanese government bought these islands from a private Japanese owner. This one act was confirmation to the Chinese leaders that Japan was moving quickly to establish full sovereignty over these islands. Its first concrete response was to submit to the United Nations baselines to demarcate a territorial sea around the Diaoyu islands. Military shadow boxing was resorted to by both sides till it reached serious proportions.

In establishing its ADIZ, China has trespassed on South Korea and its ADIZ. It also includes the Seoul-controlled submerged rock Ieodo which has been disputed by the two countries. The Ieodo is a very sensitive territorial claim and protected by the South Korean naval operations, making it a source for potential conflict. This may cost China politically and may halt the recent closing of China-South Korea relations targetting Japan. The ADIZ has put South Korea and Japan in the same camp. South Korea’s internal politics may witness an important shift towards the US and the presence of the US military in South Korea. The usual anti-US political mindset may be moving towards appreciation of the American protective shield against and increasingly assertive China. If China approaches the Ieodo rock sovereignty issue in the same way as it is dealing with the Diaoyu islands, instability in the region will certainly increase.

The China-Japan political struggle has extended to South East Asia, the ten-member ASEAN countries. With conflict over the sovereignty of South China Sea’s Spratly group of islands at the base, China stands in opposition to Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Claims by China and Taiwan are similar, both claiming the entire group of islands as Vietnam does. The Philippines remains in sharp opposition to Chinese claims some of which are even over islands and reefs within the continental shelf of Manila.

While China has also embarked upon friendly relations with the Spratly co-claimants, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe led the Japanese initiative with these very countries with some success. In fact, some of these countries, especially the Philippines, may be willing to forget Japan’s wartime atrocities to welcome a more powerful Japan discarding its constitutional military restrictions to balance an increasingly aggressive China. The South East Asian countries are, however, not sure how they can depend on the US to balance China. What they want is an ideal situation where the US balances China and they continue to economically derive the benefits. This hope is marred by China’s increasing demand on maritime territories and the South China Sea. These countries have a combined bilateral trade with China crossing $ 400 billion. Their economies are greatly tied to China. A major upheaval will bury the so called Asia-Pacific miracle. If push comes to a shove China may be willing to take a risk which the others cannot unless the US plunges in. But that is a very unlikely scenario.

It is not that the new Chinese leadership of President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang has adopted a new policy. Most China watchers had expected that ofter the third plenum of the 18th party congress (Nov. 9-12) Xi and Li would drive internal development and stability matters and cool down territorial disputes in the interest of a stable neighbourhood. The Xi-Li duo surprised most observers by continuing with the assertive line of their predecessor President Hu Jintao and premier Wen Jiabao. Both Xi and Li were part of that policy and are continuing it to raise a notch higher. They have several things to consider. One is the rising nationalism and anti-Japanese feeling among the Chinese people nurtured by the Communist Party since 1949 through intensive propaganda and brain washing. This must be addressed in the interest of the party’s leadership.

Next, primacy and control over its neighbourhood is very important for internal stability and development. Power ensures peace.

Third, China demands it be recognized as the power next to only the USA in the world, and the unquestioned prime power in Asia. It has reasoned its position well. It is the second biggest economy in the world, only next to the US, and soon to over take the US. Per capita wealth does not matter in this equation. With the power it has forced France to apologize on the Tibet issue, UK is scurrying to appease and partner it, the European Union is fully cognizant of this fact, and only the US remains to be fully harnessed. Internationally, China believer that following its strong position against the US on Syria and the Iran nuclear issue it has vindicated itself as a major international player on its own. Militarily, on paper at least China has advanced substantially to even make the US do a re-think if it wants to interfere in China’s core interests. Here, however, China is not on very firm grounds. The US military is technologically about 50 year ahead of China’s military, and as the PLA plays catch up, the US surges further ahead. The US military is continuously battle tested as its advanced weapons are. The PLA has not fought a single war since the 1979 battle against Vietnam, and hardly glorified itself. Its weapons are not tested in a war theatre, C3I (command, control, computer and intelligence) remain at a nascent stage, and the morale in the PLA is rather low because of corruption and increasing distance between officers and other ranks. Sustainability of war is much higher on the American side for various reasons.

There is an ongoing debate in China over US President Barack Obama’s Asian Pivot, gradually downgraded (?) to rebalancing in Asia. The Chinese were also taken a bit by surprise by USA nomenclature readjust from “Asia Pacific” to “Indo Pacific” region.

When declared in January 2012, the “Asia Pivot” conveyed a more aggressive policy shift from the USA. It has been renamed in a manner to the more passive term “rebalancing” in Asia. There has been an effort to convey to Beijing that the US was not engaged in encircling and containing China. China is paranoid that the US was leading Japan, India, Taiwan and South Korea to contain China’s rise. Most of China’s strategic thinkers believe there is a major conspiracy to counter China’s “peaceful rise”. This is mostly self-created, and a defensive mechanism to shield its own transgressions against other countries.

The term “Indo-Pacific” was long over due. For too long, the other term “Asia Pacific” was used by the west to denote only China, East Asia and South East Asia interfacing the US and the west. India has burst out of the South Asia conundrum, a cage into which India was pushed during the cold war by the US-China axis created by US President Richard Nixon and his henchman Henry Kissinger.

During his last visit to China in November, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh told Chinese leaders that India was not in the game of encircling and containing China, and also politely explained neither country should do that to each other. The message was very clear. India-US, India-Japan and Indian interest in the South East Asian countries were purely bilateral and economic. He left the Chinese to think what they were doing: interfering in India’s neighbourhood, arming many of them, and continue to upgrade Pakistan’s military including its nuclear weapons, which are all targeted against India.

The Chinese assertion that their military sales were “responsible” was always fraudulent and remains one till today. They remain primarily responsible for nuclear and missile proliferation across Asia. Pakistan, a recipient of China’s nuclear largess, is on all counts a secondary proliferator. The recent reports about an agreement under which Pakistan had nuclear weapons to supplied to Saudi Arabia is one case in point. China has already supplied CSS-2 nuclear capable missiles to Riyadh! That was China’s nuclear policy to counter the US influence in the Middle East.

It is known that in recent years strong forces in China especially those connected to the PLA, have been straining to break out of Deng Xiaoping’s advice “hide your strength, bide your time”. This group is of the opinion that China is now strong enough to take over the position of the second super power after the United States.

It is, therefore, quite certain that Beijing may create a new ADIZ over the South China Sea to cover the Spratly Islands and the maritime lines of the sea. This will impact global trade severely. China had earlier tried to get the US nod to declare South China Sea as its “core” iinterest, but failed. It is now moving towards a similar position on the Senkaku Islands.

There is a view in the Chinese official media that China-Russia relations have never been stronger and they both supplement each other against US expansionism. This is correct to an extent only. But Russia is also seeing potential in the Pacific to play its own role. The Putin-Medvedev leadership in Russia is very well aware of China’s fast growing ambition and determination to restrict Russia’s influence not only in the Asia-Pacific region but also in Central Asia, the ex-Soviet states. The contradictions between the two in both regions are related.

Certain Russian actions are reflective of Moscow’s distrust of Beijing. President Putin has expressed his view that the relative importance of Asia Pacific region is rising in Moscow’s foreign policy and specific countries in the region. Although Europe centered, the economic sluggishness of the continent must be supported by the rise in Asia, and provide a market for Russia’s natural resources exports, especially oil and gas. To the end, there has been new emphasis on the development of East Siberia and the Far East regions. It is moving to build a road connection from South Korea through North Korea to Europe, which can give a new boost to transcontinental trade. Joining the East Asia summit in 2011 along with the US, and hosting the Asia Pacific Economic Corporation (APEC) summit in September 2012 boldly spelt out Russia’s vision.

Most shocking to China is Moscow seeking new security cooperation with Japan. The Russia-Jappan Security agreement (without prejudice to US-Japan security treaty), 2+2 (Foreign minister plus Defence Minister) dialogue, search and rescue operation exercise on the seas and anti-drug exercise in Afghanistan have been remarkable.

These rapid developments in the short span of about two years certainly tell a story. The mistrust between Russia and China is further reflected by Russia’s largest ever military exercise earlier this year in the Far East, difference on Russian gas price, and Russian reluctance to sell advance military equipment to China especially aircraft and aircraft engines.

The Russian establishment including the military strongly resent the Chinese pusing them out to create a G-2 world order with the US. A more active Russian diplomacy appears on the horizon in which China will not have a stellar role.

The US is watching these developments quietly, but closely. On the other hand it is also watching quite closely how far China will push its dominance in the East China Sea, south China Sea and the Taiwan strait. It has not fully committed to any clear action in all three areas, but maintained a strategic ambiguity. China is following the old Maoist strategy of “two steps forward, one step backward”, this is, acquire new ground but retreat only half way when there is opposition. But Chinese actions over the Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands gives Japan a perfect alibi not only to further develop its self-defence forces, but to get out of its present constitutional military bounds.

Where does China’s new foreign policy go from here? The new leadership seemed to have been seeking stable constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with its neighbours. It focussed on repairing relationship with its South East Asian neighbours, advocating putting away differences and building on common grounds. Having spoken thus, it is loathe to walk the talk.

India still seems to be near the periphery of China’s new assertiveness in its sea boundary. China’s reaction to Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh (November 29-30) was comparatively softer than before. But it made the point that the Indian state was Chinese territory and suggested India follow China on border talks and bilateral relations. Interpreted, China was busy now with more imminent challenges, and the border issue may rest at the moment undisturbed under Chinese terms. Some in the Indian media wrongly see this as real softening of the Chinese stand. It is nothing of the kind and Beijing will take up with vigour at a time of its choosing. Rest remains unchanged..

Note: The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst and can be reached at grouchoart@yahoo.com

The article China: ADIZ May Not Be Brilliant Tactics – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOA

The chief executives of many of the largest U.S. companies predict a steady, modest economic recovery in the first half of 2014.

Participants in Wednesday’s Business Roundtable survey expect improvements in sales, investment and hiring, but say economic growth will still be slower than it should be.

These chief executives say their businesses are hurt by higher wages, the costs of complying with regulations along with worries about the costs of health care.

A separate report from the Commerce Department showed a 25 percent rise in new home purchases in October. Economists say the increase was driven by rising stock prices and improving employment, which apparently outweighed rising home prices and interest rates.

Still another report, this one from a business group, says the U.S. service sector grew at a slower pace in November. This non-manufacturing area covers everything from hotels to haircuts and makes up the largest segment of the economy.

The article CEOs Slightly More Optimistic About US Economy appeared first on Eurasia Review.