Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live

FBI Investigates Private Prison Company’s Oversight Of Idaho’s ‘Gladiator School’

$
0
0

By RT

The FBI has begun an investigation of Corrections Corporation of America for the private prison company’s maintenance of Idaho’s largest prison. The company was found to have severely understaffed the violent prison dubbed “Gladiator School.”

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) acknowledged last year that it had violated its $29 million contract with the state by understaffing the Idaho Correctional Center by thousands of hours. An external audit showed CCA fell short of full staffing at the prison by 26,000 hours in 2012 alone. CCA admitted after an AP investigation that employees falsified staffing reports, sometimes claiming guards worked for 48 straight hours.

Reversing his earlier position, Idaho Republican Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter finally ordered last month that Idaho State Police investigate CCA, though Democratic lawmakers requested the FBI take the case.

Idaho Department of Corrections spokesman Jeff Ray confirmed to AP on Friday that the FBI informed department director Brent Reinke on Thursday that the federal agency was investigating CCA.

Idaho State Police spokeswoman Teresa Baker said state police were no longer involved in a CCA probe.

“They [the FBI] have other cases that are tied to this one so it worked out better for them to handle it from here,” Baker said.

AP could not reach CCA on Friday, though the news agency reported that CCA spokesman Steve Owen had previously vowed that the company would cooperate with any investigation into its practices.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued CCA on behalf of inmates of the correctional center in 2010, claiming the violence in the prison – due in part to understaffing – was so bad, it was called “Gladiator School.”

In 2012, a Boise, Idaho law firm also sued the prison on inmates’ behalf, claiming CCA’s money-saving understaffing at the Idaho Correctional Center led to gang control of the facility. The law firm said the lack of guard supervision led to an attack by one gang against another group, leaving some of them severely injured.

The audit, performed by forensic auditing firm KPMG, done for the Idaho Department of Corrections early this year found that CCA fell 26,000 hours short in 2012. CCA contested the results, as Owen has said the audit overstates the understaffing by over a third.

The article FBI Investigates Private Prison Company’s Oversight Of Idaho’s ‘Gladiator School’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Al Saadi Al Qaddafi Trial Likely To Shed Light On Dark History Of Libyan Soccer – Analysis

$
0
0

By James M. Dorsey

It was only a matter of time before Al Saadi Al Qaddafi, the notorious, soccer-obsessed third son of toppled Libyan leader Col. Moammar Qaddafi would be extradited to Libya by Niger, one of the world’s poorest countries that plays a key role in Western efforts to defeat Al Qaeda affiliates in the Sahel and North and West Africa. His trial is likely to shed light on a dark and brutal era in the history of Libyan football.

Al Saadi was living on borrowed time in Niger to where he fled after the elite troops he commanded failed in 2011 to foil the popular revolt that overthrew the Qaddafi regime. Al Saadi’s continued presence in Niger after a planned exile in Mexico was frustrated was an irritant in its increasingly close alliance with the United States and France in the struggle against Islamic militancy in the region.

Niger which justified the granting of asylum to Al Saadi on “humanitarian” grounds saying it had insufficient guarantees that he would get a fair trial extradited him despite the fact that the Libya’s transitional government has been unable to build a credible, independent judiciary or create a professional military, police force and prison system.

The Libyan attorney general’s office said 41-year old Al Saadi would faces several charges, including “crimes to keep his father in power;” involvement in the 2005 murder of national team player and Tripoli soccer club coach Bashir Al-Ryani, a prominent Qaddafi critic; and “seizing goods by force and intimidation when he headed the Libyan Football Federation,” language Interpol used when it issued at the request of Libya a “Red Notice” shortly after the fall of the Qaddafi regime for Al Saadi.

Mr. Ryani was known as player “number nine” because the Qaddafi regime banned the publishing of players’ names in a bid to ensure that they did not become better known than Al Saadi or Col. Qaddafi himself.

“Two years before he was killed he told Saadi he was part of a dictatorship and had corrupted Libya. After that he was beaten and left outside his house,” said Hussein Rammali, a former Ryani team mate, at a post-revolt memorial for the Mr. Ryani. Mr. Ryani is said to have made his remark at a time that he coached Tripoli’s Al Ahli club, which was owned and captained by Saadi.

The killing of Mr. Ryani was but one of a series of soccer-related atrocities during the Qaddafi regime. In a country in which the mosque and the soccer pitch were the only release valves for pent-up anger and frustration prior to popular revolt that led to the downfall of the regime, Al Saadi’s association with both the national team and Tripoli’s Al Ahli meant that the prestige of the regime was on the line whenever the team played.

As a result, soccer was as much a political match as it was a sports competition in which politics rather than performance dictated the outcome.

League matches were fixed to ensure that Al Ahli, which Al Saadi owned, remained on top to prevent a defeat on the pitch from being viewed as a defeat of the regime.

A penalty in an Al Ahli Benghazi match against a team from Al-Baydah, the home town of Al Saadi’s mother and the place where the first anti-government demonstrations against corruption in public housing were staged in 2011 so outraged Benghazi fans that they invaded the pitch, forcing the game to be abandoned.

A pile of rubble in the eastern city of Benghazi stands as a sad memorial to the abuse and manipulation of soccer by Middle Eastern and North Africa autocrats like Al Saadi whom the US embassy described in 2009 in a leaked cable described as “notoriously ill-behaved.”

The rubble is what is left of Al Saadi’s efforts to bury the historic club lock, stock and barrel. Its red and white colours were banned from public display. Scores of its supporters were imprisoned, some of whom were sentenced to death for attempting to subvert the Qaddafis’ rule.

The story of Al Ahi Benghazi stands out as a perverted twist of efforts by Middle Eastern leaders like former Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the ousted presidents of Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt, Ali Abdullah Saleh, Zine el Abeidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, to identify with their national soccer teams in a bid to boost their lingering popularity.

Backed by Al Saadi, Al Ahli Tripoli blossomed with its financial muscle that allowed it to buy the best players and bribe bully referees and linesmen to rule in its favour.

A little more than a decade ago, Al Ahli fans had enough of Al Saadi’s subversion of the game. They booed him and his team during a national cup final in front of visiting African dignitaries and dressed up a donkey in the colours of Al Ahli Tripoli. Al Saadi went ballistic.

“I will destroy your club! I will turn it into an owl’s nest!” The Los Angeles times quoted Khalifa Binsraiti, then Al Ahli Benghazi’s chairman, who was imprisoned in the subsequent crackdown, as being told by an irate Al Saadi immediately after the match.

Al Saadi kept his word. He engineered Al Ahli Benghazi’s relegation to the second division. A referee in a match against Libyan premier league team Al Akhdar sought to further ensure Al Ahli’s humiliation by calling a questionable penalty that would have sealed Al Ahli’s disgrace.

In response, Al Ahli’s coach confronted the referee, allegedly shoving him. Militant fans stormed the pitch. The game was suspended and Al Ahli’s fate was sealed.

Al Ahli fans didn’t leave it at that. They headed to downtown Benghazi shouting slogans against Al Saadi, burnt a likeness of his father and set fire to the local branch of his national soccer federation.

“I was ready to die that day, I was so frustrated,” The Los Angeles Times quotes 48-year old businessman Ali Ali, who was among the enraged crowd, as saying. “We were all ready to die.”

It did not take long for Libyan plainclothes security men to respond. Al Ahli’s 37-hectare clubhouse and facilities were raised to the ground as plainclothesmen visited the homes of protesting soccer fans. Some 80 were arrested of whom 30 for trial to Tripoli on charges of vandalism, destruction of public property and having contacts with Libyan dissidents abroad, a capital offense in Libya.

Three people were sentenced to death, but their penalties were converted to life in prison by the Libyan ruler. The three were released after serving five years in prison.

Al Ahli Benghazi was resurrected in 2004, initially as a second-division squad, but later graduated back to the country’s premier league.

The story of Al Ahli is a study in the use of soccer by authoritarian Arab regimes to distract attention from economic and political problems and of Arab autocrats’ divide and rule approach to governance. Al Saadi’s story like that of the brutal Iraqi sports czar and son of Saddam Hussein constitute extreme examples of political abuse of the game but also shed a light on what is mostly a less cruelly executed approach across the Middle East and North Africa.

It is also the untold story of soccer in a swath of land stretching from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Gulf as a platform of resistance against repression, nepotism and corruption whose fighters graduated to the front lines in mass anti-government protests that swept the Middle East and North Africa and continue to press for political change.

The article Al Saadi Al Qaddafi Trial Likely To Shed Light On Dark History Of Libyan Soccer – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Changing Times And The Emergence Of The New – OpEd

$
0
0

By Graham Peebles

A Tale of Hope and Wonder

There is a controversial story abroad, which says that in our midst lives a great and wise teacher, a Self-realised man of infinite love, intelligence and wisdom. His name is Maitreya, he is the World Teacher for the New Age or cosmic cycle we are now entering into, the ‘age of Aquarius’. It is a story circulated far and wide over the last thirty-five years or so by the British artist and writer Benjamin Crème. It is a story I first heard in October 1987, which for me had the ring of truth; it is an extraordinary tale of hope and wonder that if true, must be the single most important event of our time.

The Coming One

The coming of a Guide, or Teacher, sits within a long-held tradition that recognizes the cyclical pattern of such momentous events, known in the East as ‘The Doctrine of Avatars’, in the West as ‘The Doctrine of The Coming One’. “Whenever there is a withering of the law and an uprising of lawlessness on all sides, then I manifest Myself. For the salvation of the righteous and the destruction of such as do evil, for the firm establishing of the Law, I come to birth age after age” [Bhagavad Gita (Book iv, sutra 7 & 8)]. The ‘I’ refers to Krishna, a manifestation of Vishnu, or Love – the Christ-consciousness or principle of the Christian theologian. The ‘age’ alludes to the particular astronomical conjunction brought about through the movement of the sun around the heavens in relation to the 12 signs of the zodiac: the precession of the equinoxes, a journey from one constellation to another, which takes around 2,200 years.

In every age Teachers have come forth; we know these Great Lives historically as Christ, the Buddha, Krishna, Sankaracharya, Vyasa, Mithra, Rama amongst others. They set the tone of their time and revealed some new aspect of reality. They are the perfected men from whom millions of people throughout the world seek comfort, guidance and peace. Maitreya, it is said, is one such man. According to Benjamin Creme [editor of Share International (SI)], Maitreya is the Coming One, awaited by Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus: the World Teacher for the age. Not a religious leader, but a guide for all of humanity, religious and non-religious alike, and, Creme states, He has been in the world since 1977, quietly going about His work of inspiring and guiding outer events from behind the scenes.

Signs of the Time

It is an extraordinary story with a certain arguable logic, and looking at recent world events it seems clear that something unusual is taking place. Perhaps there is a connection, a relationship between the Maitreya story and the tumultuous events witnessed in many parts of the world. The worldwide protest movement (of which the Arab Spring has to be the greatest example), which has seen millions take to the streets demanding social justice, greater levels of equality, an end to corruption and freedom from repressive levels of government control; the repeated collapse of what many of us see as a defunct, unjust economic system; a growing environmental awareness; and the rise of the Occupy Movement. Key happenings in what appears to be a world undergoing accelerated change. In many cases, state violence and social turmoil has been the result of the people’s call for change, as the reactionary, conservative forces, fearful of losing power, resist.

It is a world in transition, moving (let us hope) from an outdated model of civilization based on competition and division, which has failed the majority and poisoned the planet, to a new fairer way of living, in which sharing, cooperation, justice and freedom are the guiding principles. Such ideals of brotherhood and justice have of course been banded around for some time – two thousand years or so, when the previous World Teacher in the form of Christ came. He laid out a set of common-sense guidelines for human affairs; don’t kill, practice honesty, avoid materialism and greed, love thy enemy, do unto others, as ye would have others do unto you, cultivate forgiveness and live in peace. All great ideals, that have remained largely unexpressed, un-manifest and therefore of little (if any) value.

Alongside unprecedented worldwide social movements for change, a plethora of miraculous ‘signs’ have been recorded over the last 30 years or so, which also suggest something is afoot.

In July 1991 Life magazine’s cover story asked: ‘do you believe in miracles’ – apparently most people do. They reported that, “thousands of unexplained miraculous phenomena [are] occurring worldwide,” and in 1995, Time Magazine devoted eight pages to its cover story on miracles, and concluded: “People are hungry for signs.” Miraculous crosses of light have been springing up in homes in America, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Philippines, Britain and Germany. Unexplained healings have been attributed to these crosses of light; mysterious and beautiful patterns of light have been photographed on buildings and pavements all over the world, throughout Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada; icons of the Madonna, Jesus, and the Buddha are discovered weeping – water, oil or blood; and in what is perhaps the most widespread example of an unexplained phenomenal event, The Hindu ‘Milk Miracle’ on 21 September 1995, in which millions testified that Hindu deities around the world drank milk offered in worship.

On Saturday 11 June 1988 a man miraculously appeared at an open-air prayer/healing meeting on the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya. Many of the 6,000 assembled cried out ‘Jesus, Jesus’. Job Mutungi, editor of The Kenya Times, witnessed the event and wrote: “The tall figure of a bare-footed, white-robed and bearded man appeared from nowhere and stood in the middle of the crowd.” He disappeared, literally, into thin air: “several people who witnessed this were astonished by his mysterious disappearance.” According to Benjamin Creme the ‘tall figure’ was Maitreya.

Such events and there are lots, have convinced large numbers of people from varying backgrounds that the appearance of the ‘Coming One’ is imminent. Many people of different religious backgrounds “now expect the return of their awaited Teacher,” states Crème. Indeed in the US alone, a staggering “79% of Christians say they believe that Jesus Christ will return” [Pew Research Center]. And interestingly 50% of those polled believe that “people and nations can affect when Christ returns”.

A new Civilization

We are living through times of tremendous opportunity and, as the forces of the past resist the demands of millions for a new and just way of living, times of great tension. “The outer signs of turmoil and violence, of hatred and fear, are but the death-throes of a dying civilization under the impact of the new” [Share International/A Master Speaks]. Which is emerging, slowly and surely.

With increasing momentum, ideas of the new time – tolerance, cooperation, unity and sharing – are colouring thinking, generating alternative ways of working and living and challenging the existing outdated methods. The repressive pillars of civilization though – the decaying, albeit revived and growing, economic system of market fundamentalism; corporate influenced/controlled state Government and a value system rooted firmly in materialism, which sees everything and everyone as a commodity and has created a civilization in which competition saturates every area of our lives causing division and conflict – remain largely intact.

The crisis facing humanity is a spiritual crisis, albeit one that is focused in the political and economic sphere and it is here that it must be resolved. It is a crisis of ideas and values. A new imagination is required to transform the existing economic and social structures; an imagination which recognizes the inherent unity of humanity, understands that social justice and freedom are human rights and that with freedom goes responsibility – for one another and for the natural environment. Principles of Goodness, which every great Teacher throughout the ages has articulated, including Maitreya, whose commonsense, dogma-free message extolling “the need for sharing and right relationships [and] the oneness of humanity” [SI], many of us would agree with. We are indeed living in extraordinary times, and for a new civilization to emerge we must build it, if indeed the ’Coming One’ is in our midst, and there are certainly signs that support what is a story of great hope and if His role is in keeping with the Teachers of old, He will offer guidance only. It is for us to throw off the shackles of the past and together create a new and glorious civilization, allowing people everywhere to live happy and dignified lives, “a simpler life” as Maitreya puts it, “where no man lacks, where no two days are alike, where the Joy of Brotherhood manifests through all men.”

The article Changing Times And The Emergence Of The New – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Warning Shots Fired As OSCE Mission Denied Entry To Crimea

$
0
0

By Ria Novosti

A mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was denied entry to Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea on Saturday.

Warning shots were fired after the military assessment team from OSCE states neared the checkpoint in the city of Armyansk, according to OSCE’s official Twitter account.

No injuries were reported. The observers returned to the nearby city of Kherson, the OSCE said.

This was the third attempt by the 54-strong OSCE mission to enter Crimea since Thursday.

The mission was invited by the central government in Kiev, installed last month after ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych following a protracted and bloody standoff between police and the opposition, including armed far-right groups.

Crimean authorities refused to recognize the new pro-Western government and announced plans to secede and join Russia, with a referendum on the matter set for March 16.

The autonomous, largely pro-Russian republic was taken over by thousands of troops without insignia widely believed to be the Russian military, though official Moscow denied involvement.

The article Warning Shots Fired As OSCE Mission Denied Entry To Crimea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Directing War Strategies From The Shadows – OpEd

$
0
0

By Mike Whitney

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”

- Stephen Kinzer, “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle”, Boston Globe

“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007

The Obama administration’s rationale for supporting the fascist-led coup in Ukraine collapsed on Wednesday when a “hacked” phone call between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet revealed that the snipers who fired on protestors in Maidan Square in Kiev were not aligned with President Viktor Yanukovych, but with the protest leaders themselves. The significance of the discovery cannot be overstated since the Obama team has used the killing of protestors to justify its support for the new imposter government. Now it appears that members of the new government may be implicated in the killing of innocent civilians. This new information could force Obama to withdraw his support for the coup plotters in Kiev, which would derail the administration’s plan to remove Russia from the Crimea and expand NATO into Ukraine. Here’s a short recap of the details from an article in Russia Today:

“Estonian foreign ministry has confirmed the recording of his conversation with EU foreign policy chief is authentic. Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.

During the conversation, Paet stressed that “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”….

The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on its website, saying that the recording of the leaked telephone conversation between Paet and Ashton is “authentic.” (“Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers“, Russia Today)

To its credit, the UK Guardian published an article reporting the basic facts, but there’s been no coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the major TV News networks. America’s elite media are engaged in a coordinated news blackout to keep people from seeing that the Obama administration and their EU collaborators are supporting a group of far-right extremists who were directly involved in the killing of civilians in order to topple a democratically-elected government. Here’s more from the same article:

“…there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet says…the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (“Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers“, Guardian)

There won’t be an investigation because an investigation would reveal the truth, and the truth would undermine Obama’s plan to install a puppet regime in Kiev. The new government has already shown that it is more than willing to do Washington’s bidding, that is, to impose austerity measures on the working people of Ukraine, to pay off fatcat bondholders in Berlin and Brussels via more extortionist IMF loans, to extend NATO to Russia’s border in contravention of agreements made with Bush the Elder following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and to pursue the crackpot dreams of global hegemony laid out in “The Grand Chessboard” by New World Order fantasist Zbigniew Brzezinski. These are the primary objectives of the present policy which could be upended by the allegations of foul play.

The smoking gun revelations of the hacked phone call came just hours before US officials indicated they were planning to increase their military footprint in Eastern Europe. According to the World Socialist Web Site:

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon will boost joint training of NATO forces in Poland and step up NATO air patrols in the Baltics…US military officials said they were deploying six F-15 fighter jets and KC-135 transport planes. ….One guided-missile frigate, the USS Taylor, is still in a Black Sea port in Turkey after patrolling the region during the Sochi Olympics…

Turkish officials confirmed that they had given a US Navy warship permission to pass through the Bosphorus straits into the Black Sea, which borders Ukraine.” (“Amid Ukraine crisis, US launches military escalation in Eastern Europe”, World Socialist Web Site)

Also Russia Today reports that: “The guided missile destroyer, the USS Truxton, is heading to the Black Sea, for what the US military said is a “routine” deployment…The ship has a crew of about 300 and is part of an aircraft carrier strike group that left the US in mid-February.” (“US navy confirms missile destroyer USS Truxton approaching the Black Sea”, RT)

“Routine deployment”? So provoking a war with Russia is “routine”? Talk about understatement.

The military escalation occurs in an atmosphere of heightened tension between the two nuclear-armed powers and will certainly add to their mutual distrust. Hagel’s deployment is consistent with a plan for antagonizing Moscow that was proposed just days earlier in the Washington Post by the Obama administration’s ideological godfather, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here’s a bit of what Brzezinski had to say in the article titled “What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”:

“…the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade…

“…the West should convey.. that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.” (“What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”, Washington Post)

“Adventurist”? Dr. Strangelove is calling the Kremlin adventurist when his recommendations would put NATO, the US and Moscow on hairtrigger alert increasing the chances of an error in judgment that could lead to thermonuclear war. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

But listen to the tone of Brzezinski’s op-ed. In just a few short paragraphs, the author–who many respect as a restrained and brilliant global strategist–refers to Putin as a thug, a Mafia gangster, Mussolini, and Hitler. I imagine if he had another paragraph to work with, he would have added Beelzebub Satan to the list.

This isn’t politics; it’s hysterics. It’s incendiary, jingoistic mumbo-jumbo intended to rouse the public and fan the flames of nationalism. It’s the same kind of self-righteous raving that precipitated the invasion of Iraq.

And what is Brzezinski saying?

Is he saying that events in the Crimea are a threat to US national security? Is he saying that the US should now feel free to apply the Monroe Doctrine everywhere across the planet, sticking our big nose wherever the president sees fit?

The trouble in the Crimea has nothing to do with the United States. We have no dog in this fight. This is about military expansion into Eurasia, this is about pipeline corridors and oil fields, this is about dismantling the Russian Federation and positioning multinational corporations and Wall Street investment banks in Asia for the new century. And, finally, this is an ego-driven crusade by an old man who wants to see his looneybin NWO global hegemony vision enacted before they cart him off on a marble slab. That’s what this is really about; the glorious new world disorder, the dystopian wetdream of thinktank patricians everywhere whose only purpose in life is to initiate wars that other-peoples-sons will have to fight.

Entering Ukraine into the corporate-western alliance is a critical part of Brzezinski’s masterplan. The basic strategy has been underway since the fall of the Berlin Wall when neoliberal carpetbaggers from the US assisted in the looting of the former Soviet state leaving Russia politically broken and economically destitute. Since then, US policy towards Russia has been overtly hostile, making every effort to encircle the oil-rich nation while positioning nuclear missile installations on its perimeter. Now Washington is using its fascist-backed coup in Ukraine to force Moscow to relinquish its grip on a region that is vital to its national security.

Here’s a brief excerpt from an interview with Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and history emeritus at New York University on Monday on PBS Newshour. Cohen helps to clarify what is really going on viv a vis the US and Russia:

“What we’re watching today is the worst kind of history being made, the descent of a new Cold War divide between West and East in Europe, this time not in faraway Berlin, but right on Russia’s borders through Ukraine. That will be instability and the prospect of war for decades to come for our kids and our grandchildren. The official version is that Putin is to blame; he did this. But it simply isn’t true. This began 20 years ago when Clinton began the movement of NATO toward Russia, a movement that’s continued.

…the fundamental issue here is that, three or four years ago, Putin made absolutely clear he had two red lines…One was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (Putin would not allow NATO in Georgia) The other was in Ukraine. We crossed both. You got a war in Georgia in 2008, and you have got today in Ukraine because we, the United States and Europe, crossed Putin’s red line.” (PBS News Hour)

There’s no doubt who is to blame for the present conflict in Cohen’s mind. It’s Washington.

So, here we are, between a rock and a hard place: Putin cannot back down on an issue that’s crucial to national security, and Washington is more determined than ever to pull Ukraine into –what Henry Kissinger calls–”a cooperative international system.” (aka–global capitalist rule) That means there’s going to be a war.

On Thursday, Crimea MPs voted unanimously to hold a referendum on whether the region should become a part of Russia or not. The balloting will take place in 10 days although Obama has already said that he will not honor the results. Apparently, other countries need to get the green-light from Washington before they conduct their elections now. This is how ridiculous things have gotten.

In 2008, Brzezinski revealed the real motives behind US aggression in Central Asia in an article that appeared in the Huffington Post that dealt primarily with the dust up in Georgia. (where Putin deployed Russian troops to defend Russian speaking civilians in South Ossetia.) Here’s what Brzezinski had to say:

“The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin’s control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.” (“Brzezinski: Russia’s invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin’s attack on Finland”; Huffington Post)

Huh? It sounds a lot like Brzezinski thinks that oil should be his. Or maybe he thinks it belongs to the western oil giants; is that it?

So we’re not dealing with national security, sovereignty or spheres of influence here. What we’re really talking about is “access to oil.” Not only that, but Brzezinski is being quite blunt in his assertion that “the West” –as he calls it–has a legitimate claim to the resources on other people’s land. Where’d he come up with that one?

In another interview on Kavkacenter.com, in 2008, Brzezinski sounded the same alarm with a slightly different twist. Here’s an excerpt from the article titled ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia”:

“Brzezinski said the United States witnessed “cases of possible threats by Russia… motivated not by some territorial disputes….but caused by intention to take control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline”.

“If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited”, said Brzezinski …. he stated that Russia will try to consolidate its monopoly on these markets and will use all existing political and economic levers, including “politically motivated cessation of energy supplies” in Europe and Baltic states.

“Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies”, considers the political scientist.” (“Zbigniew Brzezinski: ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia” kavkacenter.com)

Putin is not isolating anyone and he’s certainly not taking over anyone’s damned pipeline. He’s the president of Russia. He sells oil and makes money, that’s how the system works. It’s called capitalism. But the oil is theirs. The natural gas is theirs. The pipelines are theirs. Not ours. Get over it!

Don’t kid yourself, it’s all about oil. Oil and power. The United States imperial ambitions are thoroughly marinated in oil, access to oil, and control of oil. Without oil, there’s no empire, no dollar hegemony, no overbloated, bullyboy military throwing weaker countries against the wall and extorting tribute. Oil is the coin of the realm, the path to global domination.

Putin has audacity to think that the oil beneath Russian soil belongs to Russia. Washington wants to change his mind about that. And that’s why the situation in Ukraine is so dangerous, because the voracious thirst for oil is pushing us all towards another world war.

The article Directing War Strategies From The Shadows – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Canada: Parliament Panel Fails Indigenous Women, Says HRW

$
0
0

By Eurasia Review

A landmark Canadian parliamentary report released on March 7, 2014, failed to recommend needed steps to stem violence against indigenous women, Human Rights Watch said today. The committee did not recommend either an independent national inquiry or a comprehensive national action plan on the violence, and made no recommendations to address accountability for police misconduct.

The House of Commons Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women presented its report after a year of hearings on the high levels of violence experienced by indigenous women and girls across Canada.

“The committee’s weak recommendations represent an acceptance of the shocking status quo of violence against indigenous women and girls, even by the very people who are supposed to protect them,” said Meghan Rhoad, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The status quo is a state of constant insecurity for the indigenous women and girls who face threats to their lives and feel they have nowhere reliable to turn for protection.”

Human Rights Watch research published in February 2013 documented the failure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in northern British Columbia to protect indigenous women and girls from violence. Human Rights Watch also documented abusive police behavior against indigenous women and girls, including excessive use of force, and physical and sexual assault. British Colombia has inadequate police complaint mechanisms and oversight procedures, and there is no national requirement for independent civilian investigations into all reported incidents of serious police misconduct.

Parliament established the special all-party committee in February 2013 to hold hearings on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and to propose solutions to address root causes of the violence against indigenous women. Human Rights Watch said that creating a parliamentary committee was a positive move but was no substitute for a politically independent national commission of inquiry into the violence.

On January 30, 2014, Human Rights Watch representatives testified before the committee regarding the importance of a national inquiry and the need for greater accountability for police misconduct.

The official committee report contains 16 recommendations, including calls for a public awareness campaign, “appropriate” sentences for offenders, and a DNA database for missing persons, which had already been announced in the government’s budget. Instead of recommending the development of a comprehensive national action plan, the committee called for an “action plan” to implement their recommendations. The committee’s recommendations for a victim’s bill of rights and for government authorities to consider improving data collection on violence against indigenous women are important steps, but the recommendations as a whole are insufficient to address the scope of the problem, Human Rights Watch said.

The committee membership reflected the political balance in Parliament, in which the Conservative Party holds the majority of seats. The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party each released dissenting reports on March 7, both of which recommend a national inquiry and action plan. In explaining the party’s dissent, the NDP said the official committee report “does not convey that there is a public safety emergency unfolding in every corner of the country and that a co-ordinated response is needed to address the high rates of violence against Indigenous women and girls.” The Liberal Party dissenting report stated thatthe official committee report “does not recommend any concrete actions but instead makes a series of stay-the-course, exploratory recommendations.”

The Native Women’s Association of Canada has collected data showing that nationally, between the 1960s and 2010, 582 Aboriginal women and girls were reported missing or were murdered in Canada. Thirty-nine percent of those cases occurred after 2000. Comprehensive data is no longer available since the government cut funding for the organization’s database, and police forces in Canada do not consistently collect race and ethnicity data.

More than a dozen countries raised the issue during the periodic review of Canada’s human rights record by the United Nations Human Rights Council in April. Both the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sent delegations to Canada to investigate.

After a visit in October 2013 the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, endorsed the call for a national inquiry. Canada’s provinces and territories, the Assembly of First Nations, and many organizations have made similar calls. Public national inquiries allow for an impartial investigation into issues of national importance.

“The committee’s report confirms the concern expressed by skeptics about setting up a committee at the outset – that the government would use it to avoid taking decisive action on the issue,” Rhoad said. “With what we have learned about violence against Canada’s indigenous women, never has the need for a politically independent national inquiry been clearer.”

The article Canada: Parliament Panel Fails Indigenous Women, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Assessing Japan-India Relations: A Japanese Perspective – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Tomoko Kiyota

Since the Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori visited New Delhi in August 2000, Japan-India relations have changed dramatically. While only four Japanese Prime Ministers visited India from 1957 till 1999, six Japanese Prime Ministers and over forty other ministers have visited India since 2000. Remarkably, beyond mere economic or cultural cooperation, the two governments have also enlarged bilateral activities in the domain of security. In October 2008, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso signed the ‘Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation between Japan and India’. Tokyo and New Delhi also held the Subcabinet/Senior Officials-level 2 plus 2 dialogues in July 2010 and October 2012. In July 2012, the first Japan-India naval exercise ‘JIMEX 12’ was held in the Bay of Sagami, followed by the second ‘JIMEX’ in the Bay of Bengal in December 2013. Although there is no doubt that the rise of China is one of the push factors for this honeymoon between Tokyo and New Delhi, it should not be forgetten that this would have not happened without the reform of Japan’s security policy and the expansion its Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF)’ sphere of activities. By focusing only on the China factor, what Tokyo expects from Japan-India security cooperation will be misunderstood.

After World War II, Japan adhered to the Yoshida Doctrine, which relied upon the American security guarantee, permitting the country to have a minimal defense capability and to concentrate on economic development. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which bans Japan from using its military forces, has been a convinent excuse to avoid such burdens. The trigger for the drastic change in Japanese security policy was the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Minesweepers were dispatched to the Persian Gulf in April 1991; this was the first overseas operation of the SDF. Since then, the SDF has participated in over thirty peace-keeping and humanitarian missions and a number of bilateral/multilateral joint excercises. The security cooperation between New Delhi and Tokyo can be seen as a continuation of this activism and expansion of the SDF.

The same school of Japanese strategic thought seems to have promoted the activism of SDF and Japan-India security cooperation. According to Mike Mochizuki, there are four schools of strategic thought in Japan: political realist, unarmed neutralist, Japanese gaullist, and military realist. The differences between political realism and military realism are the motives and approaches to expand the SDF’s activities. The political realists are concerned with the political and diplomatic implications of Japan’s security policy, so they stress that Japan’s contribution to international security should be commensurate with its economic strength. On the other hand, the military realists promote a strategy that would address the most likely military threat and advocate closer military cooperation between Japan and the US. They differ from the Gaullists which are call for an independent policy from Washington.

Although the expansion of the SDF’s capability and sphere of activities is often seen as the rise of Japanese gaullism, the mainstream of Japanese politics is still political realism which is not comfortable with a rapid military rise. However, due to North Korean missile and nuclear developments, Chinese assertive actions and some other domestic issues such as the Tokyo Metro Sarin gas terror attack, military realism is gradually catching up with political realism today. It could be concluded that the military realists, such as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, are promoting the SDF’s overseas activities and security cooperation with India. Political realists were reluctant to accept the opinions of military realists who insist that Japan should take more responsibility to contribute to international security, and hope that this will enhance the US-Japan alliance.

While military realists believe that Japan still needs the US to meet its military threats, they also find merit in the Japan-India security cooperation. First, it enhances the US-Japan alliance in a multi-layered way. Second, it provides Tokyo the ability to show Washington that it has other options. Third, bilateral exercises with India will help the SDF (especially the Maritime Self-Defense Force) officers to gather more expertise. Fourth, it will also help to increase Japanese diplomatic influence to dispatch the SDF abroad. Although military realists do not expect that the MSDF will fight with the Indian Navy against China in the near future, they tend to emphasise the achievements of the Japan-India security cooperation to cover the SDF’s limitations.

Japan cannot rely upon the US-Japan alliance forever, Indian strategists might say. However, the Japanese political mainstream is still populated by political realists who believe that the US-Japan alliance could be enough to counter military threats. The more China builds up its military capability and acts aggressively, the more military realists will rise. Although they will not abandon the alliance, military realists have been trying to adjust Japanese capability both militarily and legally in light of the evolving security environment. When the time comes, military realists will strengthen and utilise India-Japan strategic ties more flexibly.

Tomoko Kiyota
Visiting Fellow, Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University

The article Assessing Japan-India Relations: A Japanese Perspective – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

First Ukraine-Russia Talks As EU Floats ‘Immediate’ Accord

$
0
0

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — Russia and Ukraine have had the first diplomatic contacts since the start of the Crimean crisis, while the European Union has said it will sign a political agreement with Kyiv “immediately.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin held a meeting in Moscow with Ukrainian Ambassador in Moscow Volodymyr Yelchenko.

It said the diplomats “discussed Russian-Ukrainian relations in a frank atmosphere,” without giving any details.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia is open to having an “honest, equal” dialogue with foreign states on the crisis in Ukraine but insisted that Moscow bore no responsibility for the situation.

Also earlier on March 8, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the European Union had decided to sign “immediately” the political chapters of an Association Agreement with Ukraine, amid heightened tensions over Russia’s involvement in Crimea.

Barroso, speaking at a summit of European regions and cities in Athens on March 8, said the EU has a “debt, a duty of solidarity” with Ukraine.

In a reference to an official crackdown against the so-called Euromaidan protests and related unrest sparked by ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to turn his back on an Association Agreement in November, Barroso said that “more than 100 people [have] already died for these values in Europe, in Ukraine [wanting] to follow the values of Europe.”

“I think we have debt, a duty of solidarity with that country, and we will work to have them as close as possible to us,” Barroso said. “We have decided also, immediately to sign — because it was requested by the prime minister of Ukraine [Arseniy Yatsenyuk] — sign the political chapters of the Association Agreement. Which means that Ukraine will seal its association with the European Union. That’s I think we can do and should do now, but of course we’ll do it in a way, we are trying to do it in a way that is peaceful.”

The Yanukovych government’s decision to suspend signing the agreement sparked massive protests that led to the Yanukovych regime’s departure to Russian exile and the occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea by pro-Russian forces.

The head of the EU executive body added that Ukraine’s association with the 28-nation bloc must be done “in a way that is peaceful.”

Barroso’s statement came as a group of monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) tried unsuccessfully for a third straight day to enter Crimea. Pro-Russian gunmen manning roadblocks fired warning shots into the air as the OSCE delegation approached.

The OSCE mission was said to be returning to the Ukrainian city of Kherson.

RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service reported that Russia continued to ferry troops and equipment to Crimea.

A large Russian military convoy of dozens of troop carriers drove to a base near the Crimean capital, Simferopol. And a Ukrainian military spokesman said a large number of troops had been ferried across the Strait of Kerch during the night from Russia.

The OSCE said on April 8 that non-Russian media in Crimea are facing severe restrictions, including blocked television signals. Dunja Mijatovic, the OSCE representative on freedom of the media, warned in a statement issued in Vienna that “Extreme censorship, shutting down media outlets and press hubs and attacks and intimidation of journalists must stop immediately.”

The terrestrial signals of several Ukrainian television channels have been cut over the past few days. The OSCE said the channels include major private broadcaster “Inter,” independent “Channel 5,” and state-owned “First National.”

The Ukrainian broadcasters have been replaced by a series of Russian channels such as the state-owned Rossiya 24 and army broadcaster Zvezda.

Mijatovic also said that journalists from Ukrainian and international media organizations including the BBC and CNN have been assaulted or threatened.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on March 8 that Warsaw is evacuating the Polish consulate in Sevastopol, Crimea, because of the “continuing disturbances by Russian forces.” Poland urged its citizens to leave Crimea and eastern Ukraine as well.

Ukrainian acting Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsya said Ukraine will never give up Crimea and that Kyiv is doing everything it can to resolve the crisis there peacefully.

He emphasized that Ukraine’s government — like its U.S. counterpart and EU officials — does not consider a referendum on joining Russia that has been set for March 16 in Crimea legal.

Deshchytsya also stressed the need for a diplomatic solution.

“The Ukrainian government and I think the Ukrainian people also perfectly understand that good neighborhood relations are key for the security in the region,” Deshchytsya said. “And we would like to keep such good neighborhood relations with all of our neighbors including Russia. That’s the reason why we still keep an option for diplomatic dialogue.”

He contrasted the situation with that of Abkhazia, a breakaway Georgian republic that along with South Ossetia was at the center of a brutal five-day war between Georgia and Russia in 2008, saying the current efforts were aimed at “preventing bloodshed,” according to RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow on March 8 that Russia is open to having an “honest, equal” dialogue with foreign states on the crisis in Ukraine, but he insisted that Moscow bears no responsibility for the situation.

“They are trying to represent us as a participant in the conflict, which we are not,” Lavrov said. “This conflict is of an inner-Ukrainian nature, inspired from outside, and not by us. The so-called interim government is not independent — to our huge regret, it is dependent on the radical nationalists who seized power in an armed attack.”

Lavrov also criticized the government in Kyiv for allegedly barring Russian journalists from entering the country, saying it was an assault on freedom of information.

Russian news agencies have quoted an unnamed Defense Ministry source as saying Moscow is considering a freeze on U.S. military inspections under the START nuclear arms treaty and the 2011 Vienna agreement on confidence-building measures with NATO.

Gazrpom has threatened to cut gas supplies to Ukraine if Kyiv fails to pay its gas bill soon, reportedly nearly $2 billion.

The Russian occupation has been in place since February 28.

Ukraine says there are 30,000 Russians in Crimea. The Pentagon estimates their number at around 20,000.

In eastern Ukraine, thousands of pro-Russian activists rallied in Donetsk and Kharkiv on March 8.

The United States has imposed visa bans and asset freezes against so far unidentified people — reportedly from Russia and Ukraine — deemed responsible for threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The European Union, Russia’s biggest economic partner and energy customer, has adopted a three-stage plan to try to force a negotiated solution but stopped short of immediate sanctions.

Early on March 8, a spokesman for Vladimir Putin said Russia’s president had “not yet exercised” his “right” to use military force in Ukraine.

The article First Ukraine-Russia Talks As EU Floats ‘Immediate’ Accord appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Understanding Africa’s Global Relations – Analysis

$
0
0

By Geopolitical Monitor

By Will Sapp

Africa’s global relationships are complex. They reflect historical, geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity and can be understood against a backdrop of imperialism and its sister, global capitalism. Consequently, there is no master narrative for understanding Africa’s global relationships – both past and present.

Africa on the Margins of the World Constitutive Process

It is still helpful, however, to contextualize Africa’s global relationships into broad, artificial time periods – artificial, much like the nation-states in Africa themselves: 1) the Scramble for Africa and consolidation of colonial power vis-à-vis the creation of nation-states from 1879-1905; 2) the interwar years to the emergence of national movements and decolonization 1906-1961; 3) Africa as Cold War proxy, independence and civil wars 1961-1991; 4) post-Cold War state reconfiguration and regional conflict and; 5) the second scramble for Africa and the construction of the contemporary African state.

European imperial leaders at the Conference of Berlin (1884-85) – led by the UK, France, Portugal, Belgium and Germany – partitioned Africa as arbitrarily as the above historical divisions. Borders were drawn with little to no regard for socio-cultural reality. Unsurprisingly, European leaders claimed that the partition of Africa was largely an altruistic enterprise to improve the welfare of people on the continent. However, like schoolboys with shiny new sneakers, European nations were more concerned with flaunting their colonial trophies to each other than developing infrastructure and economic markets for the future.

King Leopold II was likely the most egregious of European leaders during this period. Leopold, blinded by the mythology of rubber abundance in the Congo basin, effectively turned the region into a corporation ironically labelled the Congo Free State. As rubber and ivory resources dwindled and profit margins fell, Leopold – who had never visited the Congo basin himself – instituted horrifically violent means of extraction. Although the term “resource curse” was not coined until 1993, during this period it certainly applied to the Congo basin and other African nations that were blessed with an abundance of natural resources yet trapped in the tragic irony of poverty and forced labour as a result. It is likely that Leopold’s influence in the Belgian Congo set in motion patterns of practice that would be repeated in many other African countries over the next century – by nations and multinationals alike.

Between the two World Wars, Africa reflected global politics on a regional scale. At the end of the First World War, France and the UK carved mandate states out of the former Ottoman Empire that were not unlike the fictitious nation-states created in Africa only decades earlier. By 1922, almost a quarter of the world was subject to the British crown. The world was largely governed by empires with Africa, Latin America, and most of Asia on the margins.

Western European global dominance was short-lived. The First World War stretched the UK and France beyond their means. As France felt its geopolitical power slipping in the 1930s it increased its investments in North Africa by building infrastructure and training military. The Popular Front government, economic depression, and the onset of the Spanish Civil War informed colonial policy in North Africa. Increased militarization in North and West Africa was also a response to emerging nationalist movements, for example, the creation of one of the earliest nationalist independence parties, Parti du Peuple Algérien in Algeria in 1937.

It was clear by the end of the Second World War that the British Empire had reached its pinnacle. The toll of the war extended the UK beyond its means. The independence of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 represented the tipping point for the collapse of 19th century conceptions of empire. The monopoly of trade from India, up the Eastern coast of Africa and through the Suez Canal was now a fading dream. Riddled with debt, the UK’s presence in Africa slowly dwindled. Western imperial powers were further weakened and fractured as their priorities shifted around the ideological divisions of the Cold War.

Unlike the UK, France viewed its colonies, particularly those in North Africa, as an extension of France itself. Independence movements were met with military suppression and protracted wars – the Algerian conflict (1945-1962) being the most violent example. Britain, in contrast, generally relinquished control of its colonies peacefully (Kenya being an exception) – largely in response to its own economic fragility and dwindled resources.

Prior to the rise of nationalist movements, most African economies were based on artificially low-wages and resource exploitation that fuelled Western growth at the expense of domestic prosperity. The colonial export-based primary commodity economies led to the stagnation of economic growth in the post-colonial context. Britain and France failed to build requisite infrastructure to support economic sustainability.

Postcolonial Regional Politics

From 1956 to 1968, thirty-seven African countries declared independence from colonial rule. Regional African cooperation formally began in 1963 with the creation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) – since 2002 the African Union. As the name indicates, the organization was designed to promote African integration and unity as countries embarked upon self-determination. Concurrently, regional organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC) also emerged to encourage regional trade and fiscal cooperation.

African democratic movements were often marked by single-party dominance. Ebullient heads of state such as Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Sekou Touré and Habib Bourguiba captured the imagination of the world as representatives of African self-determination on the global stage. The future was certain to hold promise internationally and domestically.

Africa’s newly independent nations often formed their international relationships in the ideological context of the Cold War and faced post-colonial depression as a result. Portugal’s rapid collapse after the death of Salazar led to overnight decolonization in Angola and Mozambique. Transit, trade and industry suffered. Cold War ideologies flourished. Rapid decolonization and relocation of Portuguese settlers opened political vacuums leading to civil war. Those states became proxy conflicts for Cold War politics with Cuba and the USSR supplying capital and material for the socialist-led MPLA and the United States and Western European nations funding the FNLA. These conflicts also had regional ramifications involving countries as far away as Tanzania (in the case of Mozambique) as well as proximate nations such as South Africa (supporting UNITA), Zaire, Zimbabwe and Malawi.

Global economic recession and widespread drought compounded Africa’s problems in the 1970s. Energy-poor, import-dependent nations such as those in the Sahel, reliant on the sustainability of global oil prices, were adversely affected by the two oil crises of 1973-74 and 1979-80. Oil exporters such as Angola and Nigeria were equally affected. Many nations therefore resorted to external borrowing and liquidation of resources to multinational corporations.

Corporations, mirroring the behavior of imperial nations in the first half of the 20th century, acquired and implemented many of the exploitative practices derived from state instruments. The deleterious effect of the new “multinational colonialism” was felt in state treasuries and the working poor. In 1970, Africa’s external debt burden was just over $11 billion. By 1995, Africa’s external debt had ballooned to $340 billion while per capital incomes in sub-Saharan Africa decreased by 14% between 1980 and 1987.

A wave of democratization in most of Africa occurred with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of Apartheid, and the fall of dictatorial regimes (Sudan and Libya the exception). Notorious dictators such as Mobutu Sese Seko and Idi Amin, who had capitalized on Cold War political divisions to secure international aid money to fund their corrupt and oppressive regimes, were dramatically overthrown by latent opposition.

In Western Africa, the post-Cold War fallout resulted in violent and protracted civil war in countries such as Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire and Liberia. Across the continent, other nations such as Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Malawi, Somalia, and Burundi similarly fell subject to devastating civil wars resulting from latent tribal and religious divisions that were exacerbated by artificial borders, widespread poverty, multinational exploitation, and macroeconomic mismanagement in the post-independence years.

The 1990s marked a general decline in Africa’s global relations. The widespread negative perception was that of a continent stricken with conflict, entrenched political corruption, resource wars and poverty.

The Rise of Africa

Over the last decade, Africa has rebounded greatly in terms of global perception and economic reality. Continental economic growth has tripled since 2002 with the continent averaging 5% GDP growth annually over that period. Intercontinental cooperation has also been integral to growth. According to the IMF, from 2001-2010, six of the ten fastest-growing economies in the world were in Africa. The IMF also forecasts that by 2017, eleven of the world’s twenty fastest-growing economies will be in Africa. Countries as diverse as Botswana, Nigeria, Zambia, and Sudan have transitioned into middle-income nations in two short decades. Pundits have highlighted the parallels between Africa’s GDP growth over the last decade and the rise of the Asian Tigers in the 1990s. This comparison is not entirely erroneous but only captures a snapshot of the renewed promise, innovation, and diversity of international relationships that have developed between Africa and the global community in recent years.

BRICS Investment and Africa’s Century

Africa’s global relationships are increasingly collaborative thanks in large part to the development of commodity and manufacturing sectors on the continent. FDI from BRICS has spurred this development. BRICS investments in greenfield projects look to surpass those of developing countries as the top investors in Africa by the end of the decade. By 2010, BRICS represented 14% and 25% in flows and stock FDI investment in Africa respectively. Nevertheless, traditional Western powers – France, the United States, and the United Kingdom – still dominate FDI stock on the African continent.

According to a 2013 report co-authored by the World Bank and the Brazilian Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brazil’s trade with Southern Africa has increased from $2 billion (US) in 2000 to $12 billion (US) in 2010. Brazil has natural linguistic ties with the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique, and possesses geographic similarities with sub-Saharan countries. To further encourage cross-Atlantic investments, the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) has offered incentives for potential investors. Sub-Saharan African countries have discussed cooperative partnerships in terms of tropical agriculture, tropical medicine, vocational training, energy and social protection.

China’s financial influence in sub-Saharan Africa has increased dramatically over the last decade. Some have dubbed Chinese interests in the continent as neo-colonial – designed to expropriate African resources to fuel Chinese growth. African leaders such as Zimbabwe’s Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara recently expressed such concern:

The Chinese must come to Africa on African terms. The terms that will allow the Chinese to make money but the terms that will also allow Africa to develop, win-win.

However, other African leaders such as Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete have been less wary, welcoming Chinese investment by citing economic growth and development as the overarching priority in terms of international partnerships:

Why when we have relations with the others there is no problem? But when we have relations with China, oh boy! So many questions! Tanzania looks for investments, technology, markets, and development assistance. This is all we are getting from China. Our relationship with China is about that, with the U.S. is about that, with Europe is about that, with Japan is about that, with India is about that. So if the issue is neo-colonialism then it is with everybody.

Tracking real Chinese investment numbers is problematic and inaccurate due to China’s lack of fiscal transparency. Nevertheless, it is clear from both official and unofficial data that from 2000 to 200 6, China has quintupled in terms of the number of projects on the continent. At the end of 2011, Chinese investment stock in Africa stood at $16 billion with South Africa its leading recipient.

Although many regions of Africa still face widespread poverty, civil and military conflict, political corruption and a perceived lack of organization within the African Union, it is hard not to be struck by the optimistic prospects of what may turn out to be Africa’s century. African nations must allow the past to inform the present and proceed with cautious optimism as countries around the world vie for strategic economic position on the world’s fastest-growing continent.

Will Sapp is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com

The article Understanding Africa’s Global Relations – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran: Geostrategic Calculations Vis-A-Vis Afghanistan – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy

With a landmark Afghan presidential election fast approaching, soon to be followed by the Western military withdrawal from the country, Tehran has stepped up efforts towards securing a stable and favourable government in Kabul. Iran’s interests in Afghanistan are many and wide-ranged.

Geostrategic Calculations

Iran’s interests in Afghanistan can be categorised into economy, strategy, and its larger agenda vis-à-vis South and Central Asia developments – positive or negative – on any of these fronts holds implications for the others.

Assuming that Afghanistan will not entirely de-stabilise after 2014, greater Iranian investment in and spreading outwards from central Afghanistan can be expected. Iranian influence in Afghanistan’s Herat province is already tremendous, with several million dollars’ worth investment and robust cross-border trade; and Tehran definitely wants to make more inroads – although they are not the most favoured, if not disapproved of, by the Afghans.

Afghanistan is Iran’s gateway to the larger Central Asian region and China. It is already working towards instituting a North-South corridor between the Central Asian States, Afghanistan, China, and the greater West Asia and North Africa, using Chabahar Port on its southern border – thereby luring these countries away from their dependence on Pakistan’s restive South for their access to sea lanes.

At present, there are over 7,80,000 Afghan refugees living in Iran. Eventually, some of them will return to their homeland, and they will take with them the education, experience and other such soft-power baggage that they would have gained during their time in Iran. Tehran already has an upper hand owing to linguistic proximity between Dari and Persian. Furthermore, a considerable number of Afghans – 19 per cent of the total population – are Shia Muslims, and Iran is a pre-eminent Shia State – easing Iran’s inroads into Afghanistan.

Among the several outstanding issues that it would want resolved are: consensus on water-sharing; return of Afghan refugees; an end to cross-border drugs and arms smuggling in its southern borders.

Linear Algebra, Not Quadratic Equations

Tehran’s Afghan calculations will not be a simple exercise to conduct. The region is not presenting a simple quadratic equation. On the contrary, the complex array of factors operational in the region is somewhat like linear algebra: i.e. involving several unknowns. Many of Iran’s subsequent moves will depend on the fate of: the US-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA); Saudi Arabian manoeuvres in Pakistan and the region; Pakistan’s dealings with home-grown terrorism; and most importantly, the results of the upcoming Afghan presidential elections.

Most Afghans want to sign the BSA for the security of their nation, but for Iran, it would spell a constant US presence in their immediate neighbourhood. Unsurprisingly, given its suspicions of Washington’s motives, it does not support the signing of the agreement.

The increasing proximity between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, evident from but not limited to the Riyadh-Islamabad bilateral exchanges in the past few weeks, could lead to Iran upping its ante in its efforts towards bringing Afghanistan under its influence, and it could lead to some tensions between Washington and Tehran. However, although Iran, in a play of realpolitik and keeping aside ideology, will be willing to ally with an ideologically opposed and Saudi-sponsored Taliban and/or another extremist groups to an extent, to supply irritants for the US, it most definitely will not let the situation escalate beyond what it can control. While the US should only be relieved that Iran would not let the situation spiral out of control, Washington’s inherent paranoia – coupled with the knowledge that the BSA will be signed after the Afghan presidential elections – will not let it relax. The post-BSA state-of-affairs will yet again be a complex unknown; especially with the potential of Russia’s role in the Ukraine crisis to complicate the US withdrawal.

For Tehran, the Taliban is an expendable pawn in the context of its security interest. Hence, although it might become flexible for a while, that flexibility will only be temporary, and will wither away soon after the withdrawal of international forces. That juncture is when the difference in the ideologies of the Shia-majority Iran and the Sunni/Wahabi Saudi-backed-Taliban will again take precedence.

The temporariness and selectiveness of support to militant Islamists has been made evident in Iranian Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli’s hard talk addressed to Pakistan over Jaish-ul-Adl’s kidnapping of Iranian border guards in its Sistan Baluchestan province bordering Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

Iran’s Sunni-majority Sistan Baluchestan province borders Pakistan’s restive Balochistan province that in turn borders Afghanistan’s most turbulent provinces, Kandahar and Helmand. Instability in Pakistan’s internal security vis-à-vis this tri-national border region and the associated illicit cross-border arms and drugs trade is a major irritant for Iran. With a Saudi-influenced government in Pakistan being an undependable option for Tehran to negotiate with – given that Islamabad does not crack down on those militant groups funded and supported by Riyadh in return for political and economic favours – Iran’s only hope is a favourable government in Afghanistan.

Expect a lot of drama in the region – Iran, Af-Pak, and Central Asia – over the next three months, and hopefully, the bands of militiamen running amok in the region will not be the ones to make the most of it.

Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy
Research Officer, IReS
Email: rajeshwari@ipcs.org

The article Iran: Geostrategic Calculations Vis-A-Vis Afghanistan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukraine Needs A West-Russia Deal For Stability – Analysis

$
0
0

By Observer Research Foundation

By Nidhi Sinha

Russia and the West have been at loggerheads over the recent developments in Ukraine. Russian troops have seized Crimea — a Ukrainian peninsula located on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Earlier, the upper house of the parliament in Russia approved deployment of troops in the Ukraine. The West has not taken very well the actions of Russia and has threatened it with economic sanctions and expulsion from the G8.

Kiev, having requested NATO to protect its territorial integrity and sovereignty, seeks security assistance from the US and the UK as per the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. This treaty was signed in 1994 by the Russian Federation, the US and the UK affirming “their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.

Since November last year, Ukraine has witnessed waves of anti-government protests, marred by the loss of lives of many civilians and police personnel. The anti-government protests were sparked off after the former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, decided not to sign the association agreement with European Union and instead opted to take an economic bailout package from Russia. Yanukovych in a bid to calm the crisis signed a deal with the opposition countersigned by three EU foreign ministers to reduce his powers, form a new government and hold an early election. This was not signed by Russia. However, the deal was not acceptable to the protesters who wanted the ouster of the president. The parliament (Verkhovana Rada) dismissed Yanukovych after he fled the capital. Oleksandr Turchynov was appointed the interim president until elections are held on May 25.

However, as Konstantin Zatulin, the Director of the Institute of CIS Countries, recently said: “I can hardly imagine how, in such circumstances, the winner of an early presidential election will be recognised throughout the country. If he is a representative of the East, the West will not accept him, and vice versa.”

The events in Crimea appear to support this view. Crimea does not recognize the legitimacy of the new power in Ukraine and in recent weeks has witnessed a surge of pro-Russian demonstrations. The Crimean Parliament has also voted to become part of the Russian Federation. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had gifted Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Its population comprises of ethnic Russian (58%), Ukrainian (24%), and Tatars (12%).

West and Russia have been accusing each other of interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs. Both blame each other for causing the crisis and disagree on who is the legitimate authority in Ukraine. For the Western powers, it is the new interim government in Kiev, authorised by the Ukrainian parliament. Moscow has been questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s interim leaders. Russia believes that a legally elected leader (Yanukovych) was removed in a coup d’etat and the current leadership in Kiev is in the hands of far-right extremists.

Russian officials have accused the Western authorities in Ukraine of exacerbating anti-Russian sentiment. Alexei Pushkov, head of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, warned the opposition leaders in Ukraine not to “impose their views and approaches on all of the Ukraine, especially given that these approaches are often based on de-Russification and on openly anti-Russian moods”. Russia’s action in the Ukraine situation is demonstrative of the fact that it wants to protect its own interest and does not want Kiev to slip fully into the Western sphere.

Ukraine forms an important component of Putin’s vision of Eurasian Economic Union — a common trade and political block for Eurasia. Ukraine has a population of around 45 million, with a current GDP of US$ 176 billion. In 2012, 26 per cent (about $17.6 billion) of its exports went to Russia. Ukraine is also a key transit route for Russian energy supplies to Europe. For Western powers, the situation in Ukraine also holds military significance as it is taking place on Europe’s and NATO’s border.

The West as of now has not been able to develop a cohesive policy to deal with Moscow. The US had proposed economic sanctions, but many European powers are divided on this. This is partly because Russia is intertwined economically with Europe, which gets about 30% of its natural gas requirements from Russia.

Ukraine’s heterogeneity creates a situation in which any attempt by the government to support a particular external actor leads to a sharp increase in internal tensions and in the long run may lead to division of the country.

What Ukraine really needs at this point is for both the West and Russia to work towards Ukraine’s political and economic stability. The solution should see the territorial integrity of Ukraine being upheld and a common solution acceptable to all the sections of that country.

(The writer is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The article Ukraine Needs A West-Russia Deal For Stability – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ailing And Failing Democracies – Analysis

$
0
0

By Keshav Prasad Bhattarai

“United States now borrows about $4 billion per day, nearly half of that from China”,  — Ian Bremmer has stated in one of his book in 2012.

In 2007, the United States’ economy was four times bigger than that of China, but in 2013, the gap is less than double. Today China is the world’s largest lender and the US – the largest borrower. The US debt has reached the size of its economy.

When President Obama resumed office in 2009, its debt was some $9 trillion, but by the end of his first term, it had reached $15 trillion. By now, it is more than $17 trillion. Federal Reserve data has admitted that the current economic recovery is the slowest since World War II.

This tells a harsh reality – the United States, the beacon of democracy and freedom for the people around the world, has become a hostage of its under-performing economy led by a government that is the greatest spender in history. The money it borrows to run its economy is mainly from a country that it defines as a communist authoritarian country – China.

Moreover, China has earned its ability in taking the reins of US and European economy with a reserve of foreign exchange amounting some $3.8 trillion – bigger than the economy of Europe’s first and the world’s fifth largest economy, Germany.

Failing or under–performing economies in world’s most powerful democracies in Europe and America, has lured the authoritarian rulers – discard democracy, distance with the US and European countries and move closer to China. With its huge economic advantage, China on the other hand, has increased its political influence in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The logic is simple – an ailing economy is also an ailing democracy. Such democracies can hardly serve the economic stakes of its people and inspire those who put their faith in democracy.

In the same way, when people are in trouble they cannot support the cause of their government engaged in economic and defense diplomacy.

Therefore, countries that have had better political and defense relations with the US and Western Europe are finding ways in mending differences with China and looking for support to meet their long-term economic and defense needs.

According to a research undertaken by the Financial Times newspaper, the China Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank offered loans of at least $110 billion to other developing country governments and companies in 2009 and 2010, while during the same period the loan commitments made by the World Bank was just some $100.3 billion.

All this has led Chinese media and intellectuals to claim that the economic and political model they followed is superior to those developed by the western countries and adopted by many developing countries.

Experiences of the World’s Largest and the most Successful Democracies

Democracy in the size of a country like India and its complexities, is nothing more than a political miracle. The impressive economic achievement in its account is similarly astounding and exciting. However, when compared to China it has fared worst, although India’s geo-political location gives it far more strategic and economic advantage than China.

In economic and quality of life indicators, there is no match between India and China. By 2015, for example, China is going to eradicate extreme poverty from its territory, while India may take at least another 15 years for this to happen.

Humphrey Hawksley, a leading BBC foreign policy correspondent and author, states that the development achievement of India “is at least a generation behind that of non democratic China, a neighboring country of comparable size and population.”

Hawksley also reminds us that China began its modern journey two years later than India., neverthless the size of Chinese economy is nearly five times bigger than that of India.

There are only two assets that India can take pride in with respect to China. The first one is its young and dynamic population – well educated and versatile to work and prosper in any situation. The next is its democracy, but unfortunately – the largest democracy of the world and on that account the greatest pride to the democratic world is itself crippled with the infiltration of crime and corruption.

Take the case of crime, in 2004 while one in five members of the Indian parliament had criminal cases pending in the courts, by 2009, about one third of them had such charges. If put into numbers, 128 of the 545 members of India’s 14th parliament, but in an election held five years later it reached 162. The greatest irony of Indian democracy in the words of former Chief Election Commissioner of India S.Y Quraishi, as quoted in the Washington Post is that – Those with criminal charges “are popular with voters”. Quraishi added, “I call it the Robin Hood syndrome. They take care to use their corrupt money, money that they get through illegal means, to give to the poor.”

Surprisingly, corruption is not limited to developing countries; it has succeeded in occupying bigger space even in the world’ most successful democracies. On the beginning of last month, while introducing the – EU anti -corruption Report, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European commissioner for the home affairs admitted that corruption has hurt the European economy, “undermines citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law”.

Malmstrom further presenting the most conservative estimate claimed that corruption annually costs Europe roughly some $162 billion. The majority of European believes that corruption has increased in their countries, Malmstrom admitted.

On December 2013, across the Atlantic, Francis Fukuyama has written a comprehensive essay in The American Interest magazine on  The Decay of American Political Institutions. In his essay, Fukuyama has plainly said, “The American political system has decayed over time” has failed to represent the interests of the majority but offers undue weights to interests group and “gives excessive representation to the views of interest groups and activist organizations that collectively do not add up to a sovereign American people”.

Fukuyama has elaborated the astonishing explosion of interest groups and lobbying in Washington that just numbered 175 registered lobbying firms in 1971 but reached 2,500 ten years later. By 2009, the number of such bodies reached 13,700 – spending more than $3.5 billion annually.

Fukuyama further quotes E.E. Schattschneider, arguing that the actual practice of democracy in America has nothing to do with its popular image as government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Not surprisingly, this leads to political outcomes failing to correspond with popular preferences but catering the interests of much smaller groups of organized interests.

Whatever may be his logic and compulsion, but US president Barack Obama’s speech in the State of Union Address this year, was appallingly disquieting. We can note some of them – “threaten the full faith and credit of the United States”, “wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation . . . that’s what I’m going to do”, “there are millions of Americans outside Washington who are tired of stale political arguments” and “if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it”.

The contexts and the words Obama used, has verified what Fukuyama concluded.

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself”

Two hundred years ago, in a letter to the noted political theorist, reformer, and three-time senator John Taylor, the second US president John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Many countries, including Adam’s own, proved him wrong, but many nations in Asia, Africa, Central, and Latin America have also validated him.

The last quarter of 20th Century was the heyday for global democracy. According to the Human Development Report 2002, in the 1980s and 1990s, the world made dramatic progress in opening up political system and expanding political freedoms. Some 81 countries took significant steps towards democracy and by the end of the Century; some 140 countries of the world’s 200 countries held multi-party elections. But, the democratic euphoria did not last long. The poverty in developing countries mocked their democracies.

Adam Przeworski, the New York University scholar, has presented a relevant scenario. He says that survival of democracy depends upon the income level of the people. According to the findings of his research based on the period between 1950 and 1999, democracy would die any time in countries with per capita income under $1000.

Such probability narrows down with incomes between $1,001 and $3,000. The risk to democratic failure lessens more, if the income level reaches between $3,001 and $6,055. In addition, his findings say, “no democracy ever fell in a country with per capita income higher than $6,055.”

A recent report released by Society for International Development has stated that the income per capita of East African countries varies “between Burundi’s per capita income of $271 and Kenya’s $808”. So is the case of democracy there. In the light of these, we will have either to face many more odds for global peace and democracy or find some revolutionary solutions to ensure it.

In 2005, former US Secretary of State and Chairman of the National Democratic Institute Madeleine K. Albright, proudly announced, “During the past decade, for the first time in history, more than half the world’s population came to live under elected governments. The rising tide of democracy has been global. From Central America and Central Europe to Central Asia, people have been demanding and obtaining the right to participate in choosing their own leaders and shaping their own laws.”

However, her elation did not last long as Adams said. After 2005, the global enthusiasm in favor of democracy began to crumble and the annual report released by the Freedom House in early this year claimed, “The state of freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2013” starting from 2006.

Two acclaimed books, Bottom Billion and Wars, Guns and Votes, written by Paul Collier have vividly explained why democracy fails in poor countries. Failures to deliver security, commitment to rule of law and assured public trusts upon the elected officials and absence of fair distribution of opportunities among people, have weakened many democracies. Elections in these countries are a way to capture state power and through it steal as much as public wealth the elected people can.

Because of this, ordinary people feel the government they elected no longer reflects their interests. Collier, without any reservations admits that elections without strong institutions for promoting accountability and impartiality are means to the ethnic rivalry, insurgencies, and civil wars.

Failed Reason: Failed Democracy

Former US vice president and a tireless environment activist, Al Gore in his book, The Assault on Reason, has quoted the longest serving senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, looking at the empty chairs while the Senate was taking decisions on Iraq War in 2003 asked, “Why do reason, logic, and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way Americans make important decisions?”

Gore agrees with Byrd and argues that American public discourses have become less reasoned, while faith on the power of reason that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly – has been the central premise of American democracy – has gone under assault. He has also admitted that in American democracy consent of the governed has become a commodity open for the highest bidder.

Further, he adds, money and clever use of electronic media could be used to manipulate the outcomes of the elections and the role of reason has gone diminished.

Besides, when analysts have begun to say that money talks louder and matters more even in American politics, it can be imagined how it might have decayed democracy in developing countries.

In all countries whether it is the US, India or Nepal, there are organized interests groups with massive funds. They work as “micro states”. However their ability in imposing their will upon the legal state in fragile democracies like Nepal and impeding the country from performing its legal duties to serve the people to whom it represent, is alarmingly high. Besides, these “micro states” representing no body, accountable to none, are found engaged in fanning conflict and tensions among people in the name of their language, culture, and ethnicity. Such bodies with abundance of foreign funds have contributed to worsen Nepal’s state fragility and disrupt the political environment that ultimately forced its first Constituent Assembly to fail to promulgate a constitution in due course.

Recently, The Economist published a comprehensive and thought provoking essay entitled, What has gone wrong with democracy? It argued, while the “autocrats have been driven out of office, their opponents have mostly failed to create viable democratic regimes”. Even in established democracies, serious flaws in the total system have become worryingly visible, and peoples’ disillusion with politics is rife, it says.

Limitations imposed by globalization upon national politics, the persistent expansion of government, increased number and influence of interests groups, reduced freedom of the common people and political party’s as well as government’s habit of making promises and creating entitlements that it cannot fulfill and waging wars that it cannot win, have ailed democracy everywhere, The Economist has stated.

Earlier we have mentioned the role of lobbying firms in United States and their role in distancing the government from addressing the interests of the majority. If such is the case of the United States, it is easy to presume how such lobbying firms- in the name of NGOs and INGOs, are fanning ethnic animosities among people and rupturing fragile democratic environment prevailing there.

When ethnicity is encouraged and mounted in politics, leaders lose incentive to perform well – as people vote on ethnic loyalty rather than their honesty and competence. This ultimately causes national identity replaced by ethnic identity; countries are cursed with bitter ethnic divisions and patronizing instability, corruption and democratic failures.

Combination of all these developments have caused the overall erosion of democratic stability and freedom of the people, giving much fertile ground for authoritarian powers build their active resistance to democratic change and manipulate the crisis of confidence among people and their elected representatives.

The Idea of Democracy tops all Human Achievements, but it ails if Reason Fails

In the words of Roger Osborne, “democracy is humanity’s finest achievement.” Further he continues, “Championed, idealized, misused, abused, distorted, parodied and ridiculed it may be; courted by unfaithful lovers, glad handed by false friends and skinned by unscrupulous allies it undoubtedly has been; but democracy as a way of living and a system of government is the avenue by which modern humans can fulfill their need to construct lives of real meaning.” Democracy as a continued collective enterprise binds people together while allowing them to live individually, Osborne has added. More than any other human achievements – in literature, arts, science, and technology put together; democracy is humanity’s most creative innovation, he has rightly remarked.

Democracy survives among common people. People have weaknesses and this is liable to be reflected in its functioning. When millions are engaged in democratic practices, there might be millions of lapses and imperfections. But, when millions move together with their energy, strengths, and enthusiasm to attain their common goal, then such lapses and imperfections too, help democracy work better and grow better. To read Osborne again, democracy is a continued collective enterprise of the people –binding them together while allowing them to live individually with their own hope.

When democracy works with millions – it is open to be attacked more than any other political system. However brutal and unjustified such attack might be, democracy cannot retaliate in a similar way. Every decision and actions in a democracy, has to follow the rules and reason while its opponents can resort to any means. It has an inborn obligation – even to defend those who are its harsh critics and opponents. This at times works as limitations to democracy; become cause of its failures and defeats too. However, democracy has to live and function within these constraints. The day democracy rejects to defend those – who oppose it, democracy cease to exist.

Similarly, the day democracy claims it is complete and perfect; the day it claims that it has some standardized set of rules and regulations to work as Gita, Bible or Koran of the statecraft – it hastens the process of rush to ruin.

Democracy as an idea, ensures sense of accountability and impartiality in governance, and creates a law-abiding society. In this respect, it is as old as human civilization. However, it lacked a common system and defined procedures to represent people’s aspirations and work for them. This left discrepancies in running the state in accordance with the will of the people. Above all, they lacked institutions where people can put their trusts, withdraw it and change people leading in those institutions at regular intervals.

Obviously, politics is a power game. It is a practice of acquiring power, expanding power and using power, but a democracy promotes and maintains discipline in this power game, rationalizes the game and adds its beauty. Otherwise, the game turns into farce and go brutal. How to discipline the game to gain power was the biggest challenge the statecrafts faced.

Fortunately, the industrial revolution in Great Britain, American War of Independence, and the French Revolution initiated the democratic regulation of the state activities. Events that led the World War II and the emergence of the new world order thereafter, has given democracy a sound foundation – although with many limitations.

Any political system that cannot give its people a strong and sound economy – with capacity to advance the economic stakes of its people and provide security from possible socio-economic catastrophes, cannot claim that it works for the people and represent them – politically and morally.

A democracy enthuse people while leading their strengths, hopes, and trusts. It energizes its economy by making the best use of its people’s talents skills and trusts. Democracy has so many formal political structures to help people represent and reflect those concerns. People enjoy freedoms and security with such structures. Ultimately, freedom helps them fight all those odds impeding their advancements.

A sound democracy creates a sound economy. The economy in turn recharges democracy that again rejuvenates the economy. This way, they work in tandem and invigorate each other. If a democracy fails to offer a sound economy for the people then indubitably, they might have borne some serious lapses in its running. A stronger economy even under an authoritarian regime creates bigger space for democracy, whereas a poor economy not only forces democracy go poorer but compel it turn into a chain of chaos and anarchy – a challenge to the human dignity and slur on all the human sacrifices that have been made in centuries.

Rule of Law backed by Collective Reason can best answer the Democratic Decay

For ages, humans and their relations with the state have remained at the core of all our civilizations and at the centre of our learning in the field of knowledge, arts, and science, whether in East or West. Democracy, above all, in a most descent and meaningful way has defined these relations. This has significantly enriched our socio-political culture and economic progress.

When democracy ails or fails, we may blame someone responsible for this and try to make us free from any of its responsibility. Nevertheless, a democracy does not give us this right. If few people with power and affluence can buy democracy from us and molest it, how should we as common people, deserve democracy?

When we are prepared to sell democracy for some minor gains – can we claim to be the sovereign people of a country and play sovereign role ? Surely not, but it is happening. Therefore, it is quite true that – the biggest challenge to democracy, however, comes neither from above nor from below but from within ourselves. When sovereign people prefer to work as slaves, who are there to be blamed?
Values like freedom and sovereignty are not cheap. We have to pay for it. When we are not ready to pay in maintaining and strengthening our freedom and sovereignty, then these values will not remain with us.

Cheap populist entitlements that the national economy cannot pay and the easily available aided money from foreign countries have soaked the national capacity of many countries to collect taxes and follow stiff economic austerity measures.

People care less about corrupt state practices among politicians and bureaucrats if that do not cost their pockets. It leads the people in power to a heaven of corruption. Extended entitlements without ability to pay or such entitlements bought with borrowings from international funding agencies, has killed the national economy of many countries.

In the process between borrowing and lending, there remains a huge grey area where corruption flourishes- benefiting all the parties involved. Besides, as the Economist says when people stand impotently when governments bail out bankers with taxpayer’s money or borrowed money giving a golden opportunities to bankers and financers – with huge amount and pay themselves huge bonuses – democracy inevitably deteriorates and invites its sudden demises. People become disillusioned with governments, but they cannot stand firm as they lack moral authority to oppose it.

Therefore, to address the challenges mentioned above, the first thing urgently needed is building ability and capacity to prepare democratic leadership – from village level to top decision making echelon.

Consequently, education and training programs at all level for building national capacity to pay democracy and development with high morale, works. Every organization in the country – from primary schools to political parties and state bodies should have continued programs to improve democratic quality at their working areas to ensure democratic stability and economic progress.

In every human community, there existed some kind of accountability mechanism and indigenous democratic practices. They are rooted in their culture, but with our over ambitious endeavor, we ignored them; instead we imported and adopted democratic practices that was alien to the people.

If we can organize huge research initiatives in all human societies, in every continent on such indigenous democratic practices, and find ways to modernize them with democratic tools and procedures developed by western democracies, a new democratic wave can be created around the world. This may also enrich western model democracies with new insights to solve problems they are facing now.

Sustainable and effective democracy can be developed in all countries, if we can find a beautiful correlation between culture of the nation and societies with the democratic culture to abide by the rule of law backed by collective reason. People with the power of knowledge and skill to build their own democracy rooted in their culture will also ensure stable democracy and economy. This can initiate quality of change and adapt change by which it can award the humanity with new vistas of global peace and prosperity.

The Democratic world must cease to launch just rhetorical advocacy of democracy and condemning only those autocracies – that do not promote their strategic interests. It does not build global trust in their favor. Democracy is to begin from every household and blossom in global bodies like the UN, where democratic, and economic giants like India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan do have no meaningful role to play.

Unforgettably, accommodative adaptability to learn from all societies can build a new democratic dynamism with capacity to serve our 21st Century people demanding a better quality of life through strong and sustained national institutional capacity – to run better results-oriented policies.

The article Ailing And Failing Democracies – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran’s Rohani To Visit Saudi Arabia

$
0
0

By Al Bawaba News

Saudi Arabia has officially invited Iranian President Hassan Rohani to visit the kingdom, diplomatic and political sources in Beirut said Friday, a development that is likely to help defuse sectarian tensions in the region.

Rohani has accepted the invitation and officials in Tehran have begun making preparations for the visit, the sources told The Daily Star. His visit is expected to take place following U.S. President Barack Obama’s trip to Riyadh in the last week of March, they added.

Relations between heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Iran have been strained by policy differences, particularly over the 3-year-old war in Syria, where the two countries support opposing sides.

Speaker Nabih Berri and other Lebanese politicians have said that improved Iranian-Saudi relations would result in breakthroughs in the Syria crisis as well as in Lebanon and Iraq.

Following his election as Iran’s president in June 2013, Rohani had declared that he sought to improve ties with Saudi Arabia. He was originally scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia to perform the hajj last year and meet with King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz. But the visit had been delayed for unknown reasons.

Original article

The article Iran’s Rohani To Visit Saudi Arabia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Reveals Ukraine Regime Illegitimate – OpEd

$
0
0

By William Dunkerley

Amidst widespread news reports that Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych was impeached, the U.S. “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty” has revealed that he was not. In a story titled “Was Yanukovych’s Ouster Constitutional?” the U.S. international broadcaster documented that the efforts to impeach him fell short of the constitutionally required vote.

The RFE/RL story reports that “A majority of 328 lawmakers of the 450-seat parliament voted on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from power.” It goes on to observe that the constitution calls for “a review of the case by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada — i.e., 338 lawmakers.” That vote margin didn’t materialize, and the required court review never took place.

That didn’t stop world media outlets from reporting on Yanukovych’s impeachment, though. Al Jazeera reported unequivocally, “Ukraine President Yanukovych impeached.” The Toronto Star wrote, “Ukraine’s future hangs in the balance as Yanukovych is impeached…” Even the Kyiv Post claimed, “Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych…”

Fox News wrapped it all up with this: “Yanukovych, who fled Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, Saturday after being impeached by the country’s parliament, defiantly insisted that he remains the legitimate leader of Ukraine.”

But there was no impeachment. The constitutional threshold for impeachment clearly was not met. Didn’t any of these news organizations check their facts? Aren’t they concerned about misleading their audiences?

To attempt clearing up all this misinformation, I called the Ukrainian mission to the United Nations for an answer. I talked to spokesperson Yegor Pyvovarov. He affirmed that Yanukovych was not impeached. Couldn’t the news organizations have sought confirmation from Pyvovarov or his colleagues, too? What’s wrong with these so-called news outlets?

But if Yanukovych was not impeached, what happened to him?

I asked Pyvovarov that question, too. He explained that the constitutional procedure for impeachment is quite onerous. Instead, he said, Yanukovych was removed because he “left his constitutional duties.” That notion was backed up by Olexandr Motsyk, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. In a letter to the U.S. Congress, he said, “Yanukovych fled the capital and de facto removed himself from his constitutional authority.”

Does that mean Yanukovych quit? The Fox News report has Yanukovych claiming he’s still president. Many other outlets carried the same message. Were those reports as inaccurate as the ones about the alleged impeachment?

It turns out it doesn’t really matter whether or not Yanukovych abandoned his post. I found that the only way he can relinquish his office on his own would be if he “personally announces the statement of resignation at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine,” according to the constitution. The Verkhovna Rada is the country’s parliament. Yanukovych never appeared before that body to resign. Yet the credentialed ambassador of Ukraine tried to tell the American Congress that Yanukovych left office through his own doing. What a lot of bunkum! I wonder how many naive Congress members were sucked in by his misrepresentations?

The unconstitutional presidential switcheroo is not the only unconstitutional action of the new Ukrainian regime. Not only did it throw out Yanukovych, it also threw out the constitution. According to Ambassador Motsyk’s letter to Congress, the Verkhovna Rada “restored” the 2004 constitution.

From what I can see, the extant constitution had no provision for “restoration” to a previous version. Indeed, the amendments that brought about the 2004 version of the constitution were subsequently declared unconstitutional by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court. So the new regime has unconstitutionally reverted to a version of the constitution that has already been declared unconstitutional. This all seems quite chaotic.

There is a procedure for amendment of the constitution, however. If the regime believed it necessary to change the constitution, couldn’t it have followed the prescribed procedure? Actually, it couldn’t have. You see, the constitution says, “The Constitution of Ukraine shall not be amended in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.” There’s little to refute that the country has been in a state of emergency. That means no constitutional amendments for now.

This leaves little for the new regime to hang its hat on, constitutionally, that is. Does that make the leaders criminals who should be punished? Or is there a point to the regime change idea?

I’ve talked with a number of Ukrainians who believe that it was indeed time for Yanukovych to go. There are stories of pre-election promises that were grossly not lived up to. And rhetoric abounds about monumental corruption and personal enrichment by Yanukovych and his family and associates. And the country suffers under terrible economic conditions.

So there very well may be a mandate for change. And constitutional remedies may have been inadequate. It’s said that Yanukovych’s hold on the Verkhovna Rada stood in the way. Other countries facing a similar dilemma have indeed chosen a revolutionary path. I’m talking about a real revolution, not a trumped up constitutional transition that relies on falsehoods and trickery.

The American revolution formally started off with a declaration of independence. It begins with the words, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” Instead of the clumsy trickery of the new regime, perhaps the leaders simply could have come clean and produced their own declaration of a revolution.

A lot of observers already consider what happened in Ukraine to be a revolution. Isn’t it about time that the regime owned up to it, and sought recognition of their revolutionary leadership by other countries and international organizations?

However, there may be a problem in gaining recognition. That’s because there are some recognized unsavory characters and organizations within the revolutionary movement. Dr. Nicolai Petro, a University of Rhode Island professor now on research assignment in Ukraine, says that the new regime relies upon a coalition that includes the Svoboda party. Petro explains, “On December 13, 2012, the EU Parliament passed a resolution that called the Svoboda party xenophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic, and called for all of the parties in the Ukrainian parliament not to associate with Svoboda. Petro goes on, “This Svoboda party has been rewarded instead of being marginalized. It was given four ministerial portfolios and several governorships as well as the prosecutor general’s office.”

BBC produced a documentary titled “Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine” Its narrator explains the bulk of Ukrainian demonstrators have been ordinary citizens, “people who simply refused to back down.” However, “the most organized and perhaps the most effective are a small number of far right groups,” the narrator asserts. Scenes are shown with participants marching through Maidan Square displaying Hitler-era Nazi symbols.

One faction carrying baseball bats and guns is identified as “The Right Sector,” perhaps the largest of the groups. The BBC reporter asked one member about his group’s political beliefs. He answered, “National Socialist themes are popular amongst some of us. The idea of one nation. Not everyone in our organization shares this idea, but some people do believe in it.” The interview subject admitted that personally he liked the idea. He explained that it means “a clean nation … not like under Hitler … but in our own way, a little bit like that.”

Another well-informed expert observer told me, “It was clear at the start that from mid December, Maidan was hijacked by well organized ‘lads in masks.’ It was also clear that in order for the opposition to seize power blood had to be spilled.”

On March 4, the Guardian published an expose titled, “Who exactly is governing Ukraine?” One of the new leaders, the report claims, destroyed documents in 2004 that allegedly suggested that Orange Revolution leader Julia Tymoshenko had links with organized crime. Another is widely believed to be behind “much of the protester-led violence — including throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks at the police.” And still another is described a “an anti-abortion activist [who] once publicly suggested that women should ‘lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company.’”

Also conspicuous among the leadership is the person who was in charge of the widely-reported protest camp at Maidan Square. An Estonian report still awaiting investigation alleges that the snipers that killed and injured so many had been hired not by the Yanukovych allies, but by the protest movement itself. Perhaps the shooting, characterized as a Yanukovych initiative, had been intended as a provocation for deposing Yanukovych.

Before the release of the Estonian report, the regime had been content with the widespread presumption that Yanukovych supporters were behind the sniper shootings. Afterward, however, regime officials floated the notion that Russia is to blame. The timing of the regime’s reattribution seems to belie a new-found need to shed blame.

Not all of the leaders reported in the Guardian story have questionable pasts. But the existence of radicals in their midst may offer obstacles to international acceptance.

Throughout all the tumult and chaos in Ukraine, there has been a persistent and prominent collateral storyline. It centers on a strong implication that Russia is to blame. Western media from the start have characterized Ukraine’s dilemma as a struggle to break free of Russian domination and to seek freedom and prosperity through association with Western Europe.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, the stories suggest, is a tyrant seeking to over-run not only Ukraine, but also surrounding countries. Senator John McCain alleges that Putin is “bent on restoration of the Soviet empire.” The Washington Post ran the headline, “Hillary Clinton says Putin’s actions are like ‘what Hitler did back in the 30s.’”

The McCains and Clintons, and the media who parrot their fanciful and misleading allegations, seem to avoid mentioning the infiltration of the demonstrations by neo-Nazis who have now become participants in the new government. Instead, they just focus on their fanciful stories of Putin’s alleged hunger for conquest.

A more reality-based perspective was enunciated by journalist Mary Dejevsky. In the Independent (London) she wrote, “Amid the many dangers inherent in the crisis that has erupted over Ukraine, one of the greatest, and least recognized, is that of misreading Russia. Already a Western consensus has gained hold, according to which Vladimir Putin has spent his 14 years in power just waiting for the chance to rebuild the Soviet empire, and here he is now, gleefully seizing it with both bloodied hands.”

From my own personal experience, I agree and can attest that much of what has been reported about Putin in the West lacks a factual basis. The International Federation of Journalists commissioned me in 2007 to investigate the news coverage of Alexander Litvinenko’s death in London. He was the reputed former KGB spy that news reports claimed was murdered by polonium poisoning on orders of Putin. My extensive research found that this entire story of incrimination was concocted and publicized by a wealthy political enemy of Putin’s. It was a vicious hoax. The media reports had no factual basis. I’ve observed that many other media accusations of Putin misdeeds fit that same pattern exactly.

It is befuddling how the Kremlin could have been so ineffective at counteracting the incessant attacks waged via the media. It pays dearly for Western PR assistance. A recent CNBC story details how the American PR firm Ketchum has received $40 million from 2006 to 2012 for Kremlin-related work. It seems that Putin was fleeced in that deal. Clearly there has been a massive failure to protect the international reputation of Russia and its leaders. That leaves the country vulnerable to all the McCain-Clintonesque smear campaigns that inevitably pop up.

Ukraine’s new leaders should take note and learn from Putin’s PR mistakes. The image and reputation of the new Ukraine and its leaders require careful management, lest opportunists gain advantage from any missteps. Candor is a cornerstone of any relationship management effort. By misrepresenting their revolutionary accession to leadership as a constitutional transition, the new regime is already starting out on the wrong foot.

Greater candor is needed. The new Ukraine and its leaders need real legitimacy, not the pretense of legitimacy. Achieving real legitimacy will also require that the new government will be populated by patriots and competent leaders, not thugs with antisocial agendas.

Many Ukrainians have shown great courage in ousting the former government, which they believed was propelling their country along a negative trajectory. Now it remains to be seen if they will have the courage to clean their own house and function with transparency and an absence of deception.

The article US Reveals Ukraine Regime Illegitimate – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Snowden: NSA Pressured EU To Create ‘European Bazaar’ Of Spy Networks

$
0
0

By MINA

National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden answered questions before the European Parliament on Friday, saying that the United States spy agency pressures its allies to take steps towards further enabling widespread and indiscriminate surveillance.

“One of the foremost activities of the NSA’s FAD, or Foreign Affairs Division, is to pressure or incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance,” Snowden said in a testimony delivered remotely from Russia. “Lawyers from the NSA, as well as the UK’s GCHQ, work very hard to search for loopholes in laws and constitutional protections that they can use to justify indiscriminate, dragnet surveillance operations that were at best unwittingly authorized by lawmakers.”

“These efforts to interpret new powers out of vague laws is an intentional strategy to avoid public opposition and lawmakers’ insistence that legal limits be respected,” Snowden added.

The NSA lobbied heavily for leaders in Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Germany to authorize mass surveillance operations, including programs in which intelligence is gathered and then shared across borders with allied nation-states abroad, the former intelligence contractor said.

“Each of these countries received instruction from the NSA, sometimes under the guise of the US Department of Defense and other bodies, on how to degrade the legal protections of their countries’ communications,” he said, including one instance in Germany where officials there were allegedly pressured by the US to modify the country’s G-10 law “to appease the NSA” while at the same time “it eroded the rights of German citizens under their constitution.”

Pressuring those countries to increase their surveillance capabilities and adopt new technology created a “European bazaar” that enabled EU member states to essentially funnel intelligence to spy firms around the globe, Snowden said.

According to Snowden, “an EU member state like Denmark may give the NSA access to a tapping center on the [unenforceable] condition that NSA doesn’t search it for Danes, and Germany may give the NSA access to another on the condition that it doesn’t search for Germans. Yet the two tapping sites may be two points on the same cable, so the NSA simply captures the communications of the German citizens as they transit Denmark, and the Danish citizens as they transit Germany, all the while considering it entirely in accordance with their agreements. Ultimately, each EU national government’s spy services are independently hawking domestic accesses to the NSA, GCHQ, FRA, and the like without having any awareness of how their individual contribution is enabling the greater patchwork of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens as a whole.”

“By the time this general process has occurred, it is very difficult for the citizens of a country to protect the privacy of their communications, and it is very easy for the intelligence services of that country to make those communications available to the NSA — even without having explicitly shared them,” he said.

“The Parliament should ask the NSA and GCHQ to deny that they monitor the communications of EU citizens, and in the absence of an informative response, I would suggest that the current state of affairs is the inevitable result of subordinating the rights of the voting public to the prerogatives of State Security Bureaus,” Snowden added.

Friday’s remarks were published by a website administered by supporters of Snowden, who has been in Russia since June 2013. American authorities revoked his passport last year after he admitted to being the source responsible for a trove of leaked, top-secret NSA documents that have disclosed evidence of several previously unknown US surveillance programs, leaving him confined to the Moscow region.

Snowden cautioned the EU committee that there are “many other undisclosed programs” that will likely impact the rights of citizens there once they are made public, but said he “will leave the public interest determinations as to which of these may be safely disclosed to responsible journalists in coordination with government stakeholders.”

In his statement, Snowden also denounced allegations that he has a relationship with the government of Russia.

“I would also add, for the record, that the United States government has repeatedly acknowledged that there is no evidence at all of any relationship between myself and the Russian intelligence service,” Snowden said.

“For the record, I also repeat my willingness to provide testimony to the United States Congress, should they decide to consider the issue of unconstitutional mass surveillance,” he said.

The article Snowden: NSA Pressured EU To Create ‘European Bazaar’ Of Spy Networks appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Pope Chooses Global Leadership For Vatican Economic Office

$
0
0

By CNA

By Kerri Lenartowick

The Pope has announced the names of eight cardinals and seven lay experts from around the world chosen to serve in the newly-created Vatican Council for the Economy.

“The members appointed to the Council are from various geographical areas, reflecting, as requested by the motu proprio Fidelis dispensator et prudens, the universality of the Church,” explained Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J, director of Holy See’s Press office, in a statement released on March 8.

The Council for the Economy, headed by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia was created by Pope Francis on Feb. 24 in order to provide oversight, evaluation, and advice on Vatican economic affairs: its membership includes representation from Europe, Asia, and North and South America in addition to Australia.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Germany, has been chosen as the Coordinator of the Council for the Economy. Along with Cardinal Pell, he also serves on the council of eight cardinals set up by Pope Francis in 2013 to offer consideration and advice on the governing structures of the Church and possible reforms of the curia.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who has served as the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston since 2006, was the only American to be appointed to the Council.

He is joined by joined by Cardinals Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban, South Africa; Rivera Carrera of Mexico City, Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne of Lima; Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux; John Tong Hon of Hong Kong; and Agostino Vallini of Rome.

Today’s press release explained, “Cardinals Cipriani Thorne, Napier, Rivera Carrera, Hong Ton, and Vallini, along with Cardinal Pell, new Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, were previously all members of the Council for the Study of Organizational and Economic Problems of the Holy See (Council of 15), which has ceased to exist.”

The council’s lay membership includes experts in financial matters from various parts of the globe, including Europe, Canada, and Singapore.

Fr. Lombardi described the new council’s constitution as “ a key step towards the consolidation of the current management structures of the Holy See, with the aim of improving coordination and oversight of economic and administrative matters.”

The first meeting for the council is scheduled for May, although prepatory work will begin immediately.The Pope has announced the names of eight cardinals and seven lay experts from around the world chosen to serve in the newly-created Vatican Council for the Economy.

The article Pope Chooses Global Leadership For Vatican Economic Office appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukraine And The Misunderstood Budapest Memorandum – Analysis

$
0
0

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

By John R. Haines

A friend and Ukrainian patriot who blogs at Rebirth of a Nation: Dispatches from the Free Ukraine suggests that future efforts at nuclear nonproliferation will be compromised by the reluctance of the West (here, read “the United States”) to act on what he argues are security guarantees under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

To answer that claim, it is first necessary to understand what the Budapest Memorandum did, and as important, did not provide. Its context was Ukraine’s inheritance of a sizeable nuclear arsenal upon the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine did not so much surrender a useable asset in the interest of the principle of de-nuclearization as rid itself of a troublesome legacy plagued with technical and safety problems, and of dubious utility.  It also gained valuable international assistance with the problem of “loose nukes,” significant given the reality that nuclear weapons and weapon-usable fissile material within Russia and the former Soviet republics was at risk of diversion to illicit uses.

Is it fair to claim that Ukraine was given “security guarantees” under the Budapest Memorandum?  If so, they were security guarantees of a very particular sort, subject as they were to the restrictive condition (in paragraph 4) “if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” A clear appreciation of what the argued “security guarantees” constituted— “to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”— is important as well.  Russian menacing today has not, so far, extended to nuclear weapons, so it cannot be claimed that the restrictive condition in paragraph 4 is met.

It is worth noting at this point John Mearsheimer’s 1993 argument— made several months prior to the signing of the Budapest Memorandum— that it was unwise for Ukraine to transfer nuclear weapons to Russia and to join the NNPT as a non-nuclear state.[1] He inveighed against assertions Ukraine would be able to defend itself from Russian aggression with conventional arms only; and further, that other signatories, specifically, the United States, would extend a meaningful security guarantee.  Mearsheimer was notably prescient on the likelihood of conflict between Russia and Ukraine, especially as regards Crimea.

The qualifying clause in paragraph 4 of the Budapest Memorandum— “in which nuclear weapons are used” — is precisely the sort of language Mearsheimer admonishes as rendering any associated “security guarantees” meaningless.  Given that Russia has neither used nuclear weapons nor so far threatened to do so, there is no referral to the United National Security Council[2], at least not under the Budapest Memorandum.  All that document does is provide (see paragraph 6) for the signatories to “consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.”  If that constitutes a “security guarantee,” it is a singularly flaccid one.

It is worthwhile to question whether the United States could realistically project and maintain force into the region under some notional security guarantee against the threat (or reality) of Russian territorial aggression, and do so without escalating and/or widening the conflict regionally? The answer seems self-evident given those conditions, as well as limits in international law, for example, to projecting seapower in the Black Sea under the terms of the 1936 Montreux Convention.

Mearsherimer’s argument seems, then, at least half right so far as any argued security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum. To the other half of his argument, however, can anyone reasonably claim a nuclear Ukraine would be better positioned to resist Russian territorial aggression? If so, the case is at best a very weak one.  First, nuclear weapons have no meaningful deterrent effect if the state possessing them is, in fact or perception, unwilling to use them. In the current circumstance, could Ukraine afford to threaten the first-use of nuclear weapons to counter Russian conventional force aggression, let alone Russian belligerence? It is difficult to see how anything short of an abject, existential threat to Ukraine would permit this, and that threshold, one suggests, is several orders of magnitude above the current circumstance, serious as it is. Further, speculate for a moment whether the presence of nuclear weapons within Ukraine would not in fact serve as a pretense for Russian intervention? Would the international community rush to condemn Russia for intervening to “secure” Ukrainian nuclear weapons, say, in the face of widespread civil unrest? Yanukovych himself proposed an Eastern Europe nuclear weapon-free zone as recently as 2011, so it is not at all clear such an intervention might not enjoy at least tacit consent from other states. Nor, finally, is there a good argument that Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal would have acted as an effective balancing force for regional stability of the sort Waltz[3] describes.  In fact, had Ukraine retained its nuclear arsenal, it might well have had the opposite effect since other states with legacy nuclear arsenals (in the case of the former Soviets SSRs) or weapons-usable fissile material (for example, the many HEU-fueled research reactors in the former Warsaw Pact states) might well have resisted relinquishing them.

Back to the original question, will the reluctance of the United States and its allies to extend a meaningful security guarantee— meaningful in the sense of military force— hinder future efforts at nuclear nonproliferation?  Perhaps it is worthwhile first to ask and answer another question: what was the composition of the nuclear arsenal that Ukraine inherited upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union? It is estimated that Ukraine came into possession of some 1,900 strategic warheads and 2,275 tactical warheads.[4] The legacy-targets programmed into Soviet strategic warheads rendered them of little or no use against Russian cross-border aggression.  While tactical warheads might present a different case, these weapons were returned to Russia two years before the Budapest Memorandum was signed, diminishing any argued quid pro quo. And in any case, does anyone argue that Russia would meet Ukraine’s use of tactical nuclear weapons with anything short of a debilitating counterstrike?

The size alone of the Ukraine arsenal circa 1990s makes it a poor analogue to nonproliferation efforts vis-à-vis pre-nuclear or tipping point states, e.g., Iran, even at breakout. One might argue a more likely scenario— where the intent is to mount a battlefield defense of sovereign territory— would involve chemical or biological weapons, which serve much the same role as tactical nuclear weapons and are much easier to acquire. Here, the perception that Western security guarantees (whether or not one in fact existed under the Budapest Memorandum) are hollow might undercut counter-proliferation efforts, or more cynically, provide a pretext to resist entreaties to relinquish these weapons, as in Syria.  In the limited case where a sizeable nuclear arsenal exists today— for example, Indian and Pakistani counterforce arsenals— the analogue of Ukraine circa the early 1990s is a relatively poor fit.

Whether Western, and specifically, American, responses to the current situation in Ukraine will be seen as feckless remains to be seen. But the case for arguing that the Budapest Memorandum contemplated a security guarantee that might apply in the current circumstance is, at best, a weak one. The case for Western obeisance to Russian territorial aggression, if there is one to make, was made in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, with their troubling implications for the Crimea. Nor does Ukraine relinquishing its legacy nuclear arsenal seem likely to have much bearing on future non-proliferation efforts. It is no small irony that other, more commonplace tools of dissuasion—freezing foreign bank accounts— may, in the end, exert greater salience than a threat to use force.  Further, Putin’s seeming intent on self-vilification will, surely and thankfully, dissipate whatever political capital he amassed in some corners of Western public opinion through sheltering Snowden, itself a good thing, though one paid for dearly by the Ukrainian people.

[1] John T. Mearsheimer (1993). “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent.” Foreign Affairs.  72:3, pp. 50-66. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Mearsheimer,%20Case%20for%20Ukrainian%20 Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf Last accessed 6 March 2014.

[2] Any given Russia’s (and China’s) veto, would it matter at the end of the day?

[3] Kenneth N. Waltz (2012). “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” Foreign Affairs. 91:4.  http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb  Last accessed 6 March 2014.

[4] Robert S. Norris (1992). “The Soviet Nuclear Archipelago.” Arms Control Today. 22:1, p. 24. Joseph Cirincione, et al., (2005). Deadly Arsenals. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p. 366.  Cited in “The Lisbon Protocol” (2008). http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3289 Last accessed 6 March 2014.

The article Ukraine And The Misunderstood Budapest Memorandum – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Assessing Japan-India Relations: An Indian Perspective – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Shamshad A Khan

While it would be difficult to not account for the China factor in Indian strategic thinking especially with regard to the 2006 India-Japan global and strategic partnership, to assume that China is the prime reason for India and Japan’s growing relationship is likely to lead to the wrong conclusions. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s India visit in January 2014 was part of a prime ministerial level engagement institutionalised in 2006 in which they agreed to meet annually, alternating between New Delhi and Tokyo. It was not triggered by a Sino-Japanese stand-off over the East China Sea or a ‘rising tension’ in the East Asian region as has been interpreted in certain sections of the media and strategic circles.

Delving a little into the recent history of India-Japan engagement and the evolution of their relationship will help in understanding the circumstances that pushed the two to come closer. Newly liberalised India’s developmental priorities, post 1991, compelled Indian strategic planners to forge ‘complementary’ relations with Japan. China was nowhere in the minds of Indian strategic planners. Also Japan’s interest in India was largely economic. It saw opportunities in India’s liberalisation, a system with which its investors were comfortable with.

JN Dixit, a former Indian Foreign Secretary, who closely worked with the then External Affairs Minister Manmohan Singh, notes in his memoirs that Japan’s interest in India, was “primarily economic.” He observed that “in other spheres, India does not form a primary focus of attention yet.” Dixit’s observations, made in 1996, proved prophetic as till 2006, India-Japan relations were driven by the economic factor alone. The strategic factor appeared when the two countries declared a ‘global and strategic partnership’, combining the politico-economic and security aspects.

However, the agenda of their cooperation has been dominated by economic issues, such as signing a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), currency swap agreements, trade and investment, infrastructure developments, cooperation in the field of energy etc. Though they have cooperated in matters of maritime security and Sea Lanes of Communications, it has been driven more by Japan’s economic interest than traditional security interests. By enhancing maritime cooperation with India, Japan wants to secure the passage of its inbound and outbound goods, which is lifeline of its economy. Yes, India has participated in naval exercises with Japan but the fact that India and China have established military to military cooperation should not be omitted either. As far as the India-Japan naval exercise of June 2012 is concerned, the fact remains that the same Indian naval fleet left for China for another exercise, though the nature of the exercise was different.

China would have been one of, and not the only reason for better Indo-Japanese ties. The joint statement signed during the Abe-Singh summit meeting in Delhi that year stated the “usefulness of having dialogue among India, Japan and other like-minded countries” on the issues of “mutual interest.” This was interpreted as an attempt to create exclusive security architecture in Asia Pacific without China. Talks of a quadrilateral mechanism with the US, Japan, Australia and India emboldened arguments about the four trying to ‘encircle China’. However, India has maintained that it is not bandwagoning with any power to counter-balance any other power.

India has been very cautious not to develop an image of a ‘countervailing force’. When Abe proposed a security framework (consisting of US, Japan, Australia and India) to safeguard ‘maritime commons’, New Delhi said that India and Japan need “an open, rule based international trading system to prosper.” Manmohan Singh’s statement during his Tokyo visit in May 2013 suggests that India is not eager to extend the existing bilateral maritime cooperation into a multilateral arrangement.

An analysis of India-Japan relations should not be delinked from India-China relations. This would help dispel the misperception that India is part of the China containment strategy. If India has identified certain areas in which both India and Japan can complement each other, it has also identified complementarities with China. During his speech at China’s Central Party School in 2013, Manmohan Singh highlighted ‘eight specific areas’ where he saw opportunity of cooperation between India and China including in the field of manufacturing, energy and infrastructure developments.

Interestingly, some of these areas of cooperation overlap with that of ongoing cooperation between India and Japan. Also, he outlined ‘seven practical principles of engagement’. Welcoming the emergence of China, he reiterated that “old theories of alliances and containment are no longer relevant.” From the Japanese perspective, Japan continues to place legally binding restrictions (owing to its pacifist Constitution) on its troops on the exercise of ‘Collective Self-Defense’ or aiding an ally militarily. Given these restrictions, it is unlikely that Tokyo can actually contain an adversary.

Both India and Japan are perturbed with China’s assertive behaviour and its identification of a number of contested areas as ‘core issues’ of national interest. By coming together, Japan and India are trying to seize opportunities at the regional and international levels to impress upon Beijing the importance of adhering to internationally agreed norms and shedding its expansionist attitude, and they have been partly successful in moderating China’s behaviour.

Shamshad A Khan
Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA)

The article Assessing Japan-India Relations: An Indian Perspective – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Angie’s House In Berlin And Her Mobile Phone – OpEd

$
0
0

By Haluk Direskeneli

In the United States, President Barack H. Obama and his family live in the White House in Washington D.C. In France, President Francois Hollande and his girlfriend live at the Elysee Palace in Paris. In England, British Prime Minister David Cameron lives at 10 Downing Street in London.

Where do German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her husband reside? German Chancellor Angela Merkel lives in her own apartment in Berlin with her husband. Her Berlin flat, a penthouse, is located in the pedestrian-only Museum Island zone, close to the Pergamon Museum. The street is closed to vehicle traffic but pedestrians are still allowed through. The only sign of her security is the police officers at the apartment’s entry. Her house is so modest compared to other heads of states. It is amazing.

On the mailbox at the apartment entrance is the name written on the door bell of her apartment: “Professor Sauer”. Prof. Sauer is her husband. He teaches in the Chemistry Department at the nearby Humboldt University. There is certainly an official residential house reserved for the German chancellors and which was occupied by the former prime ministers. But Chancellor Angela Merkel preferred to stay in her own apartment.

We have some similarities in our country. Former President Ismet Inonu used to live in a small house commonly referred to as the “Pink Mansion”. Former Prime Minister and former President Süleyman Demirel still lives in a modest house in Guniz Street in Ankara. Former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit used the ground floor of an apartment in Oran County, Ankara.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s lifestyle may be highly objectionable. She is the leader of one of the world’s few rich and powerful countries, controlling the future of hundreds of millions of people in the European Union. One can argue that she should not choose a lifestyle according to her personal preferences. Regardless, her personal safety must be the top priority.

There were lessons learned from the fate of late Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. He too led a simple life according to personal choices while holding the high office. Although his assassination has not been completely solved, the public has suffered the consequences.

U.S. presidents have had their share of security issues. Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were assassinated. Attempts were made on Ronald Reagan’s life. Which all may go a fair distance to explain the need for heavy-handed security around U.S. presidents.

Other notable world figures got their share too. Mahatma Gandhi, founder of India and then Prime Minister Indra Gandhi were assassinated, so was the Nobel Prize recipient, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

On the other hand, we presume that U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s murder was solved. Even the most protected president—Ronald Reagan, for example— can be attacked. It is a matter of how organized and how determined the attacker is.

After being elected, U.S. President Barack Obama was compelled to abandon his “BlackBerry” smart phone to avoid any security breaches in his telecommunications. He has to talk through secure telephones. He has no personal e-mail address, nor any Facebook or Twitter account. He has neither a personal website nor a blog in the cyber world. Everything is done and run by his staff on his behalf.

Angela Merkel had a mobile phone with a so-called secure connection. It was revealed that her communication had been tapped by U.S. intelligence agencies. It was a very awkward situation for both parties.

German intelligence agencies could not achieve full security. U.S. intelligence agencies were found monitoring all the telecommunication of an ally leader. She expressed her displeasure with a sour facial expression in public. The American agencies stopped monitoring her, but expressed that they would monitor her staff and close colleagues, advising that it was necessary for global security.

We understand that everyone—every phone—could be tapped. Our public leaders, all public administrators could be tapped in spite of all possible security measures. Public leaders are to ensure the personal safety of the people on the street—to allow them to walk freely to speak freely and comfortably without fearing any danger. This is not a luxury, nor is heaven reserved only for leaders. There was a time when leaders could choose to be close to the people on the street. But these were the days of the happy past. Our beloved Ataturk lived all his life intimately with his people. He drank together, ate dinner together, swim together with them in the sea.

On the other hand, Russian leader Lenin was also close to his people but he could not escape multiple assassination attempts with toxic lead bullets. Those poisonous bullets were effective in shortening his life.

Mahatma Gandhi, founder of India, then Prime Minister Mrs. Indra Gandhi, both were assassinated due to the weakness of their personal security. Our late President and Prime Minister Ismet Inonu and our late Prime Minister Turgut Ozal both had close calls with assassination. After his prime ministerial responsibilities Nihat Erim, too, was killed later in his private life.

The best personal policy may be to stay away from politics. No matter how you reach the top, there will be a multitude of personal protections in your private life. You will be at the mercy of your security personnel—their prisoner for life. You will not walk freely on the streets or stroll at the seaside shore. You won’t be able to take a ride on the city bus nor the ferry. The metro will become an impossibility for the rest of your life.

The personal protection and security measures of top positions are almost at a level of paranoia, as demonstrated in their foreign travels. U.S. presidents travel on their “Air Force One” special airplane at full security. In foreign countries they stay in their own hotel owned by American investors. The hotel is reserved completely for the president, his staff and security. All commercial reservations are cancelled during his stay. His fully-secure special car is transported by another cargo plane prior to his arrival to the destination. Most foreign leaders who are visiting our country stay in their own embassy grounds for security purposes.

Angela Merkel’s residence in the Berlin Museum Island is in a pedestrian zone. It is certainly protected by high-level physical and electronic surveillance. We can be sure that the German secret services take no risk in this regard. It is certainly the same case at 10 Downing. The protection of the head of state is the top priority, notwithstanding their own personal preferences. Anyhow, we have many lessons to learn from the lifestyle preferences of foreign leaders. What do you think?

The article Angie’s House In Berlin And Her Mobile Phone – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Netanyahu’s Prayer: God Bless Putin – OpEd

$
0
0

By Uri Avnery

Benjamin Netanyahu is very good at making speeches, especially to Jews, neocons and such, who jump up and applaud wildly at everything he says, including that tomorrow the sun will rise in the west.

The question is: is he good at anything else?

His father, an ultra-ultra-Rightist, once said about him that he is quite unfit to be prime minister, but that he could be a good foreign minister. What he meant was that Benjamin does not have the depth of understanding needed to guide the nation, but that he is good at selling any policy decided upon by a real leader.

(Reminding us of the characterization of Abba Eban by David Ben-Gurion: “He is very good at explaining, but you must tell him what to explain.”)

This week Netanyahu was summoned to Washington. He was supposed to approve John Kerry’s new “framework” agreement, which would serve as a basis for restarting the peace negotiations, which so far have come to naught.

On the eve of the event, President Barack Obama gave an interview to a Jewish journalist, blaming Netanyahu for the stalling of the “peace process” – as if there had ever been a peace process.

Netanyahu arrived with an empty bag – meaning a bag full of empty slogans. The Israeli leadership had striven mightily for peace, but could not progress at all because of the Palestinians. It is Mahmoud Abbas who is to blame, because he refuses to recognize Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.

What…hmm…about the settlements, which have been expanding during the last year at a hectic pace? Why should the Palestinians negotiate endlessly, while at the same time the Israeli government takes more and more of the land which is the substance of the negotiations? (As the classic Palestinian argument goes: “We negotiate about dividing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating the pizza.”)

Obama steeled himself to confront Netanyahu, AIPAC and their congressional stooges. He was about to twist the arms of Netanyahu until he cried “uncle” – the uncle being Kerry’s “framework”, which by now has been watered down to look almost like a Zionist manifesto. Kerry is frantic for an achievement, whatever its contents and discontents.

Netanyahu, looking for an instrument to rebuff the onslaught, was ready to cry as usual “Iran! Iran! Iran!” – when something unforeseen happened.

Napoleon famously exclaimed: ”Give me generals who are lucky!”  He would have loved General Bibi.

Because, on the way to confront a newly invigorated Obama, there was an explosion that shook the world:

Ukraine.

It was like the shots that rang out in Sarajevo a hundred years ago.

The international tranquility was suddenly shattered. The possibility of a major war was in the air.

Netanyahu’s visit disappeared from the news. Obama, occupied with a historic crisis, just wanted to get rid of him as quickly as possible. Instead of the severe admonition of the Israeli leader, he got away with some hollow compliments. All the wonderful speeches Netanyahu had prepared were left unspeeched. Even his usual triumphant speech at AIPAC evoked no interest.

All because of the upheaval in Kiev.

By now, innumerable articles have been written about the crisis. Historical associations abound.

Though Ukraine means “borderland”, it was often at the center of European events. One must pity Ukrainian schoolchildren. The changes in the history of their country were constant and extreme. At different times Ukraine was a European power and a poor downtrodden territory, extremely rich (“the breadbasket of Europe”) or abjectly poor, attacked by neighbors who captured their people to sell them as slaves or attacking their neighbors to enlarge their country.

The Ukraine’s relationship with Russia is even more complex. In a way, the Ukraine is the heartland of Russian culture, religion and orthography. Kiev was far more important than Moscow, before becoming the centerpiece of Muscovite imperialism.

In the Crimean War of the 1850s, Russia fought valiantly against a coalition of Great Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire and Sardinia, and eventually lost. The war broke out over Christian rights in Jerusalem, and included a long siege of Sevastopol. The world remembers the charge of the Light Brigade. A British woman called Florence Nightingale established the first organization to tend the wounded on the battlefield.

In my lifetime, Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians by deliberate starvation. As a result, most Ukrainians welcomed the German Wehrmacht in 1941 as liberators. It could have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship, but unfortunately Hitler was determined to eradicate the Ukrainian “Untermenschen”, in order to integrate the Ukraine into the German Lebensraum.

The Crimea suffered terribly. The Tatar people, who had ruled the peninsula in the past, were deported to Central Asia, then allowed to return decades later. Now they are a small minority, seemingly unsure of where their loyalties lie.

The relationship between Ukraine and the Jews is no less complicated.

Some Jewish writers, like Arthur Koestler and Shlomo Sand, believe that the Khazar empire that ruled the Crimea and neighboring territory a thousand years ago, converted to Judaism, and that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from them. This would turn us all into Ukrainians. (Many early Zionist leaders indeed came from Ukraine.)

When Ukraine was a part of the extensive Polish empire, many Polish noblemen took hold of large estates there. They employed Jews as their managers. Thus the Ukrainian peasants came to look upon the Jews as the agents of their oppressors, and anti-Semitism became part of the national culture of Ukraine.

As we learned in school, at every turn of Ukrainian history, the Jews were slaughtered. The names of most Ukrainian folk-heroes, leaders and rebels who are revered in their homeland are, in Jewish consciousness, connected with awful pogroms.

Cossack Hetman (leader) Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who liberated Ukraine from the Polish yoke, and who is considered by Ukrainians as the father of their nation, was one of the worst mass-murderers in Jewish history. Symon Petliura, who led the Ukrainian war against the Bolsheviks after World War I, was assassinated by a Jewish avenger.

Some elderly Jewish immigrants in Israel must find it hard to decide whom to hate more, the Ukrainians or the Russians (or the Poles, for that matter.)

People around the world find it also hard to choose sides.

The usual Cold-War zealots have it easy – they either hate the Americans or the Russians, out of habit.

As for me, the more I try to study the situation, the more unsure I become. This is not a black-or-white situation.

The first sympathy goes to the Maidan rebels. (Maidan is an Arab word meaning town square. Curious how it travelled to Kiev. Probably via Istanbul.)

They want to join the West, enjoy independence and democracy. What’s wrong with that?

Nothing, except that they have dubious bedfellows. Neo-Nazis in their copycat Nazi uniforms, giving the Hitler salute and mouthing anti-Semitic slogans, are not very attractive. The encouragement they receive from Western allies, including the odious neocons, is off-putting.

On the other side, Vladimir Putin is also not very prepossessing. It’s the old Russian imperialism all over again.

The slogan used by the Russians – the need to protect Russian-speaking people in a neighboring country – sounds eerily familiar. It is an exact copy of Adolf Hitler’s claim in 1938 to protect the Sudeten Germans from the Czech monsters.

But Putin has some logic on his side. Sevastopol – the scene of heroic sieges both in the Crimean War and in World War II, is essential for his naval forces. The association with Ukraine is an important part of Russian world power aspirations.

A cold-blooded, calculating operator, of a kind now rare in the world, Putin uses the strong cards he has, but is very careful not to take too many risks. He is managing the crisis astutely, using Russia’s obvious advantages. Europe needs his oil and gas, he needs Europe’s capital and trade. Russia has a leading role in Syria and Iran. The US suddenly looks like a bystander.

I assume that in the end there will be a compromise. Russia will retain a footing in the coming Ukrainian leadership. Both sides will proclaim victory, as they should.

Where will this leave Netanyahu?

He has gained some months or years without any movement toward peace, and in the meantime can continue with the occupation and build settlements at a frantic pace.

That is the traditional Zionist strategy. Time is everything. Every postponement provides opportunities to create more facts on the ground.

Netanyahu’s prayers have been answered. God bless Putin.

The article Netanyahu’s Prayer: God Bless Putin – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images