By RFE RL

By Antoine Blua

(RFE/RL) — With shale gas production in the United States booming, Russia’s intervention in Crimea has given a boost to those calling for the United States to expedite natural gas exports to Europe to help it cut its reliance on Russian energy. But how realistic is this idea?

Why all the talk about the United States exporting natural gas to Europe?

Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas and Moscow has not been shy about using this as a political weapon. With Russia supplying Europe with approximately 40 percent of its energy, and with the main natural gas pipelines running through Ukraine, the potential for new disruptions — and political blackmail — are very real.

This has led to calls for Europe to seek alternative sources of energy. And one key source could be across the Atlantic Ocean, in the United States.

Ukraine Unspun: Uncovering The Truth

Thanks to breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, known as fracking, and the subsequent “shale gas revolution,” the United States has in recent years become the world’s largest natural gas producer.

Since there are no natural gas pipelines running across the Atlantic, in order to export to Europe, the United States would need to convert its natural gas to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and ship it in tankers.

Who is calling for U.S. gas exports?

Top U.S. lawmakers and European politicians have pounced on the crisis in Ukraine to urge the administration of President Barack Obama to speed up the process of approving exports of LNG.

Writing in “The Wall Street Journal” on March 6, John Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, called for Washington to “liberate” its “natural energy” as a weapon against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The ambassadors of countries in the Visegrad Group — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary — also wrote a letter urging the U.S. Congress to remove bureaucratic hurdles to exporting gas. Such a move, the ambassadors argued, would reduce their dependence on supplies from Russia.

Likewise, Polish Prime Minister Doland Tusk darkly warned on March 10 that “Germany’s dependence on Russian gas may effectively decrease Europe’s sovereignty.”

Could the United States export gas to Europe in the volumes required?

Jennifer DeLay, the editor of the weekly publication “FSU Oil and Gas Monitor,” says that theoretically, yes, it is possible.

“The gas supply in the U.S. is sufficient to support exports and its production is growing. However, it is not something that could be done immediately. If the exports open up, then I expect that the U.S. would be able to provide significant volumes of gas to Europe. It probably would be enough to take some of the pressure off,” DeLay says.

Jonathan Stern of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies says Europe has the capacity to receive a large number of LNG tankers — more so in Great Britain and southern Europe than in central Europe.

Poland is building an import terminal on the Baltic coast for LNG, expected to be completed at the end of this year.

How soon could the United States begin exporting natural gas to Europe?

The United States is not currently a major exporter of natural gas. What it does export, goes mostly to Canada and Mexico by pipeline.

The U.S. Energy Department has approved six LNG export terminals to export liquefied natural gas by tanker, and more projects are in the works.

Stern says the United States won’t have its first LNG export terminal in operation until the end of 2015 at the very earliest, and the big volumes won’t be available until at least 2019.

“I’m afraid this is not very realistic, and it’s not going to happen any time soon. This is typical political discussion from people who don’t really understand the situation,” Stern says. “We should not really expect that U.S. gas exports will in some way reduce our dependence on Russian gas even in five or six years time. Certainly not before that.”

In a recent interview with “The New York Times,” Carlos Pascual, who heads the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources, said that although the prospective American exports would not immediately solve the problems in Europe, “it sends a clear signal that the global gas market is changing, that there is the prospect of much greater supply coming from other parts of the world.”

Would it be profitable for U.S. companies to sell gas to Europe?

According to Stern, natural gas suppliers will sell LNG to buyers willing to pay the highest price — and those buyers may not necessarily be in Europe.

Currently, he says, Europe is not buying much LNG because Asian buyers pay a higher price.

Stern says that if U.S. gas prices go up dramatically — as they did for a short period in February because of very cold weather — then U.S. gas could not compete in Europe at current prices.

Stern adds that Moscow could easily cut its prices, so that their gas would be more attractive than importing LNG.

“The prices change all the time. This is becoming a very dynamic global market, and it’s very difficult to say when U.S. gas will be available, what the price will be in the U.S. and in Europe in order to allow that to compete,” Stern says.

“It’s also difficult to say what’s going to be happening in Asia, and whether Asian countries like China or India will want more LNG and be prepared to pay higher prices than Europe.”

DeLay also notes that opposition in the United States to the controversial fracking process and to the construction of LNG terminals for exports is likely to play a factor in public discussions of the issue.

The article Could US Gas Boom Loosen Europe’s Energy Dependence On Russia? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By James Petras

In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev.[1]

In response the citizens of the autonomous Crimean region, fearing the onslaught of cultural and political repression, organized self-defense militia and pressured the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin to help protect them from armed incursions by the NATO-backed coup regime in Kiev.[2] Russia responded to the Crimean appeal with promises of military assistance – effectively halting further Western absorption of the entire region.

Immediately following the proxy putsch the entire US-EU propaganda machine spun into high gear.[3] The nature of the Western power grab of the Ukraine was ignored. Russia’s defensive action in Crimea became the focus of media and Western government attacks. Unconditional support for the for the violent seizure of the Ukraine by the US and EU-backed coup was broadcast by the West’s entire stable of journalistic hacks and accompanied by screeds calling for measures to destabilize the Russian Federation itself through a full-scale economic and diplomatic war. The US and EU convoked meetings and press conferences calling for trade and investment sanctions. Threats emerged from the White House and Brussels calling for a “freeze of Russian assets” in Western banks, if Moscow did not hand over the Crimea to the coup regime in Kiev. Russian capitulation became the price of mending East-West ties.

The Obama regime and a host of US Congress people, media pundits and policy advisers called for, or engaged in, imposing sanctions on strategic sectors of the Russian economy, including its financial assets in the West. Opinions in Europe divided over this issue: England, France and the rabidly anti-Russian regimes of Central Europe (especially Poland and the Czech Republic) pushed for harsh sanctions, while Germany, Italy and the Netherlands were more measured in their response (Financial Times, 3/5/14, p. 2).

The Washington-based advocates for imposing sanctions against Russia view this as an opportunity to: (1) punish Russia for acceding to the Crimean autonomous government’s call for defense against the Kiev putsch by activating Russian troops stationed in the region; (2) weaken Russia’s economy and isolate it politically from its major Western trading and investment partners; (3) legitimatize the violent seizure of power by neo-liberal and neo-Nazi clients of the US; and (4) promote destabilization within the borders of the Russian Federation. At a minimum, economic sanctions have become an aggressive tool for energizing the corrupt pro-Western elites and oligarchs in Russia to influence the Putin government to accept the de-facto regime in Kiev and deliver the autonomous Crimean nation into their hands.

“Sanctions” are seen by the White House advisers as: (1) projecting US power, (2) securing the Ukraine as a strategic new base for NATO, (3) ethnically cleansing this diverse and complicated region of its Russian-speaking minority and (4) opening the Ukraine for the whole-sale plunder of its economic and natural resources by Western multinational corporations.

The Obama regime cites the “success” of the financial and economic sanctions against Iran as a ‘model’ for what can be achieved with Russia: A weakened economy, diminution of its trade, destabilizing its currency and provoking consumer scarcities and mass unrest. (FT 03/05/2014 p.2) Secretary of US State John Kerry is pushing for more extreme forms of economic reprisals: trade and investment sanctions, which obviously could lead to a break in diplomatic relations.(FT 03/05/2014 p.1)

Impact of Sanctions on Russia, the US and EU

Energy and financial sanctions on Russia, assuming that they can be imposed, would have a severe impact on Russian energy companies, its oligarchs and bankers. Trade and investment agreements would have to be abrogated. As a result Europe, which relies on Russian oil and gas imports for 30% of its energy needs, would slip back into an economic recession (FT 03/05/2014 p.2). The US is in no position to replace these energy shortfalls. In other words, trade and investment sanctions against the Russian Federation would have a ‘boomerang effect’ – especially against Germany, the economic ‘locomotor’ of the European Union.

Financial sanctions would hurt the corrupt Russian oligarchs who have stashed away tens of billions of Euros and Pounds in European real estate, business investments, sport teams and financial institutions. Sanctions and a real freeze on the overseas assets of the Russian billionaires would curtail all those profitable transactions for major Western financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase and other “giants of Wall Street” as well as in the ‘City of London’. (FT 03/05/2014 p.2) In “punishing” Putin, the EU would also be “spiting on itself”. Sanctions might weaken Russia but they would also precipitate an economic crisis in the EU and end its fragile recovery.

Russia’s Response to Sanctions

Essentially the Putin Administration can take one of two polar responses to the US-EU sanctions: It can capitulate and withdraw from Crimea, sign an agreement on its military base (knowing full well that NATO will not comply), and accepts its own international status as a quasi-vassal state incapable of defending its allies and borders; or the Putin Administration can prepare a reciprocal set of counter-sanctions, confiscate Western investments, freeze financial assets, renege on debt payments and re-nationalize major industries. The Russian state would be strengthened at the expense of the neo-liberal and pro-Western oligarchical sectors of Russia’s policy elite. Russia could terminate its transport and base agreements with the US, cut off the Pentagon’s Central Asian supply routes to Afghanistan. President Putin could end sanctions with Iran, weakening Washington’s negotiating position. Finally, Russia could actively support dissident anti-imperialist movements in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America while strengthening its support for the Syrian government as it defends itself from US-supported violent jihadists.

In other words, US-EU sanctions while attempting to undermine Russia could actually radicalize Moscow’s domestic and foreign policy and marginalize the currently pro-Western oligarchs who had influenced the heretofore conciliatory policies of the Putin and Medvedev Administrations.

The EU and Obama might consolidate their hold over the Ukraine but they have plenty to lose on a global scale. Moreover, the Ukraine will likely turn into a highly unstable vassal state for the NATO planners. EU, US and IMF loans for the bankrupt regime are conditional on (1) 40% cutbacks on energy and gas subsidies, (2) 50% cuts in public sector pension payments, (3) major increases in consumer prices and (4) the privatization (plunder) of public firms. The result will be large-scale job loss and a huge jump in unemployment. Neo-liberal austerity programs will further erode the living standards of most wage and salaried workers and likely antagonize the neo-Nazi ‘popular base’ provoking new rounds of violent mass protests. The West would move forward with ‘agreements’ with their Ukraine clients ‘at the top’ but face bitter conflicts ‘below’. The prospect of Brussels and the IMF dictating devastating economic policies as part of an austerity program on the masses of Ukrainian citizens will make a mockery of the puffed-up nationalist slogans of the far Right putschists. Economic collapse, political chaos and a new round of social upheaval will erode the political gains assumed in the power grab of February 2014.

Conclusion

The unfolding of the US-EU-Russian conflict over the Ukraine has far-reaching consequences, which will define the global configuration of power and foster new ideological alignments

Western sanctions will directly hit Russian capitalists and strengthen a ‘collectivist turn’. The Western power grab of the ‘soft underbelly of Russia’ could provoke greater Russian support for insurgent movements challenging Western hegemony. Sanctions could hasten greater Sino-Russian trade and investment ties, as well as military cooperation agreement.

Much depends on Obama and the EU’s calculation of another weak and pusillanimous response from the Russian government. They are confidant that the Russian Federation will once again, as in the past, ‘bluster and object’ to Western expansionist moves but will ultimately capitulate. If these calculations are wrong, if the West goes through with financial and energy sanctions and President Putin makes a robust riposte, we are heading into the eye of a new political storm in which a polarized world will witness new class, national and regional conflicts.

[1] The pro EU-US putsch regime in Kiev is a product of nearly 25 years of planning and enormous funding by political agencies of the US government. According to William Blum (Anti-Empire Report#126, 03/07/2014), the self-styled National Endowment for Democracy bankrolled 65 projects involving political indoctrination and the formation of political action groups. Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted that the US government had spent over $5 billion dollars preparing the ground for the putsch in Kiev.

[2] The Crimean people had excellent reasons for organizing self –defense militias and calling for Russian military aid. According to analyst Brian Becker(“Who’s Who in Ukraine’s New Semi-Fascist Government”, Global Research 05/09/2014), prominent neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists occupy key positions in the Kiev junta. Fascists hold the two top positions in the National Defense Council (controlling the army, police, intelligence and the judiciary); head the Ministry of Defense; control the Prosecutor General; and include one of the Vice Presidents. The Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (‘Yats’), was ‘hand-picked’ by Washington, (as revealed by a secretly recorded conversation between US Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Kiev). He is the ‘front man’ of Ukrainian fascism and NATO penetration.

[3] ’News’ reporting became indistinguishable from editorials in all the major media outlets. The corporate and state media’s rabid support of the violent seizure of power in Kiev by US-funded clients was equaled by their hysterical claims of a Russian “take-over” of Crimea. See the coverage from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Washington Post, BBC News and CNN from 03/01/014 to 03/10/2014.

The article Obama’s Ukrainian Power Grab, Sanctions And The Boomerang Effect – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOR

A Twitter account behind a string of leaks in a Turkish corruption scandal posted late on Thursday what it presented as police files detailing graft allegations against four former ministers, dealing a further blow to Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan weeks before elections.

The Twitter account using the pseudonym @HARAMZADELER333 posted links to a 299-page document and a 32-page document presented as police files from an investigation that became public on December 17 with a series of dawn raids.

The former ministers have denied any wrongdoing.

Former interior minister Muammer Guler, former economy minister Zafer Caglayan and former environment minister Erdogan Bayraktar each saw a son detained on December 17 as police went public with their long-running corruption inquiry. All three resigned just over a week later.

Former EU minister Egemen Bagis was replaced in a reshuffle.

The corruption scandal has grown into one of the biggest challenges of Erdogan’s 11-year rule and comes as his AK Party is campaigning for pivotal municipal elections on March 30.

His government has reassigned thousands of police officers and hundreds of prosecutors, including some of those involved in the December 17 investigation, moves which his opponents say are aimed at blocking the inquiry.

Erdogan’s aides have dismissed such claims, saying the new prosecutors would carry out their own investigations, draw up their own arguments and push ahead with the cases.

One of those new prosecutors has completed an indictment regarding the Dec. 17 case, according to Hasan Sozen, a deputy chief prosecutor in Istanbul. Sozen told Reuters it would be sent to the relevant court once it had been formally approved.

The article Turkish Corruption Scandal Mounting As New Leaks Posted On Twitter appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RFE RL

By Maryana Torocheshnikova and Claire Bigg

(RFE/RL) — “Dear users! We apologize, but access to the requested site is restricted.”

This is the message some readers were dismayed to find on the evening of March 13 when they tried to access Grani.ru, a popular opposition news portal.

Grani.ru is one of three websites banned by Russian authorities under a new law that critics say aims to silence independent media and particularly the Internet, one of the last platforms for free speech in Russia.

In addition to blocking Grani.ru, the government communications regulator, Roskomnadzor, has ordered Russian providers to block access to ej.ru, the site of the online magazine “Yezhednevny zhurnal,” and Kasparov.ru, a website run by opposition figure and former chess champion Garry Kasparov.

All three sites carried scathing criticism of the Kremlin’s policies, including the occupation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula by Russian troops.

The blog of Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny was also briefly blocked — on the grounds that he had violated his house arrest — but later unblocked.

“This time, authorities didn’t even bother keeping up appearances and making these claims directly to us,” said Aleksandr Ryklin, the editor of “Yezhednevny zhurnal.” “They just instantly shut down almost all leading websites that convey opinions more or less independent from their own.”

The Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office ordered the other sites banned on charges of “calling for unlawful activity and taking part in mass events held with breaches of public order.”

The Ekho Mosvky radio station was also asked to remove a blog by Navalny from its website, causing some providers to block the radio’s entire website.

Navalny’s spokeswoman, Anna Veduta, described the move as part of a Kremlin campaign to “cleanse the media space.”

The crackdown comes days after the editor of Lenta.ru was summarily dismissed over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis, sparking an exodus of journalists from the top independent news site.

Lenta.ru had previously received a formal warning for publishing a link to remarks by the leader of Ukraine’s ultranationalist, anti-Russian group Right Sector.

The controversial new law allows prosecutors to ban websites without court orders if these are deemed to have published calls for participation in mass protests planned without the government’s authorization.

Yulia Berezovskaya, Grani.ru’s general director, says she had been expecting trouble since the legislation took effect on February 1.

“Grani.ru announces and covers various rallies, both big and small, in depth,” she said. “We will continue doing this. It’s the actions of the regulator that are illegal, not our journalistic activities.”

Grani.ru has filed a lawsuit over the blockage.

All three websites, however, can be accessed through Internet providers based outside Russia. For unclear reasons, Grani.ru is still available on several Russian providers.

Technical instructions on how to get around the ban are also making the rounds online.

Despite growing uncertainty over its future, Ryklin says ej.ru will try to operate as usual. He urges readers to support the website by continuing to visit it in defiance of the ban.

“I would be grateful if people supported Yezhednevny zhurnal simply by finding a way to continue reading it,” Ryklin said. “A sustained traffic will serve us as proof. A big thanks to everyone in advance.”

Written by Claire Bigg in Prague based on reporting in Moscow by Maryana Torocheshnikova

The article Russia Blocks Websites Critical Of Kremlin appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Members of the Ukrainian far-right parties, including Maidan leaders Oleg Tyagnibok and Dmitry Yarosh, are to be added to the wanted list for participation in hostilities against Russian soldiers in Chechnya, Russia’s Investigative Committee says.

Russia intends to prosecute members of the UNA-UNSO ultranationalist party for being part of the gang that fought alongside militant leaders Shamil Basayev and Arab mercenary Emir Khattab [Thamir Saleh Abdullah Suwailem] in the North Caucasus in 1994-95, said Vladimir Markin, the spokesman for the Investigative Committee.

“There has been enough evidence collected to take the decision and bring them in as defendants in absentia within the nearest time for preventive detention and put them on the wanted list,” he said.

The UNSO participants in the battles include Ukraine’s nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party leader Oleg Tyagnibok and leader of the Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) Dmitry Yarosh – as well as Vladimir Mamalyga, Igor Mazur, Valery Bobrovich, Dmitry Korchinsky, Andrey Tyagnibok and other members not yet identified, Markin said.

Tyagnibok and Yarosh came to international attention during the anti-government rallies in Ukraine, commonly known as the Maidan protests. In 2010, Tyagnibok stood in the presidential election, receiving only 1.43 percent of the vote. In 2012, he was elected leader of the Svoboda (Freedom) party. Throughout his political career he has regarded Russia as the biggest threat to Ukraine. Yarosh has headed an ultra-right Stepan Bandera All-Ukrainian Organization ″Tryzub″ since 2005. During the Maidan protests, the organization became the base of the Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) movement. The movement was reportedly very active in the violence that led to the deposition of President Viktor Yanukovich.

A criminal investigation has been opened, and Markin said that UNA-UNSO members will be prosecuted depending on the role each of them played in the hostilities.

“They are suspected of committing crimes under parts 1 and 2 of Article 209 of the Russian Criminal Code,” he said. This article deals with penalties for creating an armed group or gang with the purpose of attacking citizens, leading such a group and participating in attacks committed by the group.

On March 5, Russia put Yarosh on an international wanted list and charged him with inciting terrorism. The far-right leader called for Russia’s most wanted terrorist, Doku Umarov, to act against the country according to an address posted on the Right Sector’s page in the Russian VKontakte social network. Yarosh later claimed the message was faked and that his blog had been hacked.The central Russian district court has sanctioned Yarosh’s arrest in absentia on March 12.

On Saturday, Yarosh confirmed that he intends to run for president of Ukraine while transforming his movement into a political party.

According to a recent poll conducted by Ukrainian research group SOCIS about preferences for the presidential election, Tyagnibok and Yarosh have low ratings. Among the respondents who intend to take part in the upcoming elections only 1.6 percent are ready to vote for Yarosh and 2.5 percent for Tyagnibok. The most popular party among the respondents was the Batkivshchina (Fatherland) Party, led by Arseny Yatsenyuk. About 30 percent of voters say they do not know for which party to vote for if the elections took place shortly.

The article Russia To Add 2 Maidan Leaders To International Wanted List Over Chechen Militant Links appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By JTW

By Ihsan Bal

The events in Ukraine contain many lessons for foreign policy and security experts. I think Russia is the first actor that needs to take lessons from it. The “strong Putin, strong Russia” image which has been forming for many years was tested in Ukraine. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for Putin as it was for many other Russians. In his own words, “the collapse of Soviet Union was the biggest catastrophe of 20th century.” Russia’s transformation from a superpower to a country that can hardly even sustain its economy was a big humiliation. Boris Yeltsin’s term was an era of uncertainty and instability in Russia. The Moscow government was unable to solve the Chechnya problem, restore the economy, and realize administrative reforms.

Russia rises from the ashes

A former intelligence officer, Putin had witnessed this situation and gained popular support with his promise of a manageable, powerful Russia. The Putin-Medvedev administrations straightened up Russia’s house. Russia was able to resolve the Chechnya problem through a muscular approach. The economy was growing, military investments were impressive, and Russia was becoming more visible in world politics.

Putin’s Russia did not have big achievements in R & D or education but it did get rid of its leadership weakness. The notion of a “strong Putin, strong Russia” came to enjoy prestige.

As Russia was feeling more confident, it became more visible in world politics. Its war with Georgia and its Syria policy are very clear indicators of this. At Geneva I and Geneva II Putin played a global role rather than regional, and according to some more extreme commentators he gained the upper hand over Obama by taking initiative.

Considering the foreign policy of Putin’s Russia the Ukrainian crisis has reflections that go beyond Ukraine. “Putinism” is known in domestic politics, but its foreign policy equivalent is still being formulated from the predictions of experts. The most extreme of these predictions see the revival of the Soviet Union and Russian expansionism, and have thus brought the term “new Cold War” into circulation. There are some people who interpret Putin’s references to 19th century Russian nationalist thinkers like Berdyaev, Solovyov, and Ilyin, as a reflection of his foreign policy understanding and historical romanticism.

Russia’s Achilles’ heel

It seems there are few ways to resolve the Ukraine crisis. Economic diplomacy is being focused on as a counter to Russia’s military presence. In other words, both EU and the U.S. are trying to build their policies through economic and political instruments rather than militaries. This is the first time that economics and trade are considered the best way to solve this kind of problem. As Director of European Leadership Network Ian Kearns puts it, “you can convince Russia with its weakest side.” One of the supporters of this idea is Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He said that the only way to prevent Putin from reviving the Soviet Union is through economic measures that badly hurt the Russian economy. The West will most likely try to leverage the Russian economy’s dependency on natural resources. Therefore the soundness of the financial structure and the diversity of the economy will attract more attention in the coming days. The tension between the West and Russia is the latest example of the struggle between smart power and hard power. The damage that the parties will face will be shined out by how they set their power parameters in accordance with requirements of the time.

Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK Academic Council

This article was first published in Habertürk Newspaper on 10 March 2014.

The article Who Will Survive The Ukrainian Earthquake? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

Tensions continue to flare between Qatar and other Gulf countries, with Saudi Arabia demanding that Qatar shut down Al-Jazeera, a source told AFP on Friday.

The demand came during a Gulf Cooperation Counil meeting on March 5th. After the meeting, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia withdraw their ambassadors from Qatar.

Riyadh also demanded that Qatar close the Brookings Doha Center and the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, the same source told AFP.

The source told AFP that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Fiasal sought three things of Doha: “to close the (Qatari-owned) Al-Jazeera network, which stirs sedition; close the research centres in Doha, and turn over all outlaws” in its country.

Qatar is currently embroiled in a diplomatic row with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries over the country’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Earlier last week, Saudi Arabia declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Original article

The article Saudi Arabia Tells Qatar To Close Al-Jazeera appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Monish Gulati

Introduction

The Pakistan government approved the National Internal Security Policy (NISP) 2014-2018 on 25 Feb14. In his statement, after tabling the policy before the cabinet for approval, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar indicated that the NISP has three parts; operational, strategic and day to day government actions that would remain secret. The draft of the counter terrorism policy had earlier been presented to Nawaz Sharif on 13 August 2013. The draft policy had advocated a five pronged approach of dismantle, contain, prevent, educate and reintegrate to curb terror, which was distinct from the 3-D (Deterrence, Development and Dialogue) approach of the previous Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government. The Pakistani government had evolved a tentative political consensus on the draft policy through an All-Party Parliamentary Conference (APC) before finalizing the policy.

The 100-odd page document, which is Pakistan’s first-ever national internal security policy, states that close to 50,000 people have been killed in Pakistan including over 5000 personnel of the law-enforcement agencies since the country joined the US-led war on terror after 9/11 attacks in 2001. The policy document goes on to estimate the total loss to the Pakistani economy in the last ten years due to terrorism, at $78 billion. This article examines the key constructs of the NISP to arrive at the challenges and pitfalls the policy would have to contend in changing the way Pakistan has been combating its internal strife.

Present Counter-terrorism Mechanism

According to the Constitution of Pakistan, maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the country’s provinces. Policing is a provincial matter, with each province maintaining its own police force. The federal government provides additional support to provincial governments when requested. The federal government has its own law enforcement agency, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which is governed by an Act of parliament and investigates offenses mentioned therein.

The Pakistan federal government in 2003 had assigned counter-terrorism role to FIA and the Special Investigation Group (SIG) was formally established in May 2003 within the FIA to combat terrorism. The SIG had been modelled on a similarly tasked cell of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first batch of SIG recruits were drawn from the Police Service of Pakistan, Intelligence Bureau (IB), FIA and direct recruitment through the Federal Public Service Commission. SIG Officers were provided extensive training and some equipment by US government’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program, in the area of crime scene analysis, computer forensic analysis, cyber terrorism, terrorist financing investigations and post blast explosives analysis etc¹. The SIG was tasked with identifying and investigating terrorists and terrorist activities, bank frauds and informal money transaction systems. It was the only civilian agency dedicated to countering terrorism”² and had regional offices in all the four provinces under the administrative command of Director, FIA. All civil and military intelligence agencies were required to share their information on terrorism with the SIG at the FIA level. Later SIG was re-designated as Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW). The other federal-level agency – the IB also has a counter terrorism responsibility. Intelligence Bureau (IB) is Pakistan’s main domestic/internal intelligence and espionage agency. It functions under direct control of Chief Executive of Pakistan – either the Prime Minister or the President.

National Counter-Terrorism Authority

As the fight against domestic terrorism has grown in size and intensity, it had become clear to the Pakistani establishment that there was a dire need to create a structure to manage and coordinate the competing demands for security resources and to come up with an implementable strategy to meet this ever increasing threat. NISP to this end states that “integrated efforts through an institutionalised monitoring framework under democratic leadership to elicit support and cooperation of local and international stakeholders” would be required to achieve its objectives. The NISP designated the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA) as the focal organisation for national security.³ The Pakistani cabinet has also agreed that all decisions pertaining to anti-terror measures would be taken at the highest level of authority and the Ministry of Interior (MoI) will be the lead Ministry for implementation of the NISP.

The NACTA had been set up in December 2009, with the aim to overcome the governance deficit in Pakistan’s security framework left by the abolition of the National Security Council. In November 2012, the Pakistani cabinet approved the draft NACTA Bill, which had been introduced in 2009. The NACTA Bill (2013) was finally promulgated on 11 April 2013. The Bill provided a legal basis to the NACTA which had become redundant due to lack of clarity about its status since its establishment in December 2009. Initially it was proposed to be placed under the MoI but certain stakeholders had opposed the arrangement and wanted to see it directly controlled by the Prime Minister. Between the NACTA Bill and the NISP, these jurisdictional issues appear to have been addressed and the head of the NACTA would be the “National Coordinator” tasked with execution and monitoring of the new policy.

NISP

The NISP policy framework is based on soft and hard interventions and attempts to address the entire spectrum of issues impinging on the internal security environment in Pakistan. The soft component, which reposes faith in the political process, details a Comprehensive Response Plan (CRP) which is grounded in a process of research and coordination on key issues influencing internal security. CRP is focused on winning over trust and confidence of general public to combat terrorism and includes infrastructure development, rehabilitation of terror victims, shaping of the national narrative, reconciliation, reintegration and related legal reforms. The hard component of NISP comprises of the Composite Deterrence Plan (CDP), which seeks to complement the existing National Internal Security Apparatus (NISA) to combat terrorism. CDP aims to change the posture of the NISA from reactive to proactive.

The organisational restructuring and creation under the NISP will see the establishment of a Directorate of Internal Security (DIS) under the NACTA where 33 civilian and military intelligence and operational agencies will be represented to integrate tactical, operational and strategic ‘levels’ of civil and military ‘verticals’. In addition to an Air Wing, a well equipped Federal Rapid Response Force (RRF) with nationwide reach and capability drawn from Counter-Terrorism Departments (CTD) and police would be created. The RRF would interface and operate in close coordination with police, CAFs and Pakistan Armed Forces. The CTDs within police organisation of all the provinces would themselves be reorganised and strengthened ideally with uniform structures and unified command at provincial, region and field level. All CTDs will comprise of intelligence, operations, investigation, the provincial RRF and other technical sections to tackle the entire spectrum of internal security threats. At the federal level, a dedicated CAF Headquarter would be established under the MoI.⁴

The NACTA under the NISP will coordinate the efforts of relevant agencies to obtain a fair assessment of losses due to internal disturbances and recommend plans for renewal of impacted infrastructure. It will oversee the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of the terror affected people. NACTA will liaise with international actors for fostering cooperation on counter-terrorism and in the process synergise the public and international support available. It will also in consultation with other institutions supporting NISP develop a National De-Radicalisation Programme.

Financing

The NISP 2014-18 is initially expected to cost the Pakistani exchequer Rs32 billion for setting up the proposed institutions and strengthen the existing ones.⁵ Notwithstanding the fact that the internal disturbances in Pakistan have been a drag on the country’s finances and they have also set back the country’s development and economy, Pakistan’s efforts to institutionalise counter terrorism have been driven to a large extent by external funding. While FBI experts were actively involved in training the SIG/CTW both in Pakistan and the US, NACTA received funding support from the EU. According to an April 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the Obama Administration in 2013 earmarked $800m for Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capacity Fund.

In budgeting for the fiscal year 2015 beginning in October 2014, the US under the foreign military financing category, has earmarked $280 million in military aid to Pakistan. According to the US State Department, the $280 million is expected to enhance the Pakistan Army, Frontier Corps, the air force, and the navy’s ability to conduct counter insurgency and counter terrorism operations against militants and improve Pakistan’s ability to deter threats emanating from those areas, and encourage continued US-Pakistan military-to-military engagement.⁶

Assessment

Pakistan’s counter terror policy has been comprehensive enough to cover a wide spectrum of issues ranging from police reforms to loopholes in Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and yet pragmatic enough to recognise the importance of factors such as poverty, meagre land holdings, the lack of government writ, rehabilitation of surrendered militants etc for its success.

Yet, the NISP has faced challenges in its formulation, evident from NACTA’s birth pangs. The basic issue was the designation of the primary supervising agency- whether it would be the Prime Minister’s office or the MoI. Though the Federal government’s role and its conflict with a provincial government is inherent in a federal structure, it is the degree of trust deficit that defines the problem. The test in this case has been (is likely to be for some years) to resolve coordination and jurisdictional issues between the security and intelligence organisations operating at the federal and provincial levels. It would be interesting to see if organisational restructuring under the NISP leads to operational efficiency.

The second issue arises from the fact that insurgency in Pakistan has reached such intensity that active employment of the army and the air force to tackle it is the new normal. Civilian authorities have outsourced internal security to the military, losing both control and legitimacy. Further, the civil and military hierarchies tend to work in silos, lacking mechanisms for frequent consultation and collaboration. The shift in focus of internal security from the military to the civilian government and from being reactive to proactive is going to be extremely challenging.

A related issue is the availability of fire support for conduct of counter-insurgency operations and targeting of high value targets. Pakistan military in a fine act of duplicity has been relying on US drone operations to aid its efforts to check the insurgency in certain areas of Pakistan. With drones acquiring the psycho-legal-political dimensions, the military has to fall back on the use of air force- which it has resorted to sparingly in the past. The use of air force in own territory against own citizens always sends out uncomfortable signals in a counter-insurgency campaign.

The counterinsurgency environment is further complicated by presence of foreign militants and the more recent foreign-returned jihadis. This brings non-local issues in play which the NISP will struggle to contend with. The presence of state sponsored militias/ terror groups (furthering cross border national interests) will test Pakistan’s ability to let them function within the NISP.

Suicide Attacks

While the use of suicide attacks/bombings have become an integral part of terror campaigns in certain parts of the world, it is still not the norm and merits a discussion simply because the challenge they pose not only to the security forces but the society as a whole. The first suicide bombings in Pakistan were reported in 2002 against foreigners, and were committed by persons of Arab descent. Between 2002 and 2006, at least twenty-five such incidents were documented, including two suicide attacks on former President General Musharraf and one against Shaukat Aziz, the then Prime Minister. Although military action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants had begun after 2002, the real tipping point in increased suicide bombings in Pakistan came after the Lal Masjid operation in July 2007. After this point, suicide attacks became fairly routine in Pakistan.

Increased military offensive in tribal areas has resulted in the terrorists shifting their focus from religious targets to military, law enforcement, and intelligence targets.⁷ It has brought terror strikes to urban and commercial centres, which requires an operational shift in the counter-terror strategy.

Conclusion

It is important to point out that a discussion on security related issues of policy and process always surmises availability of political will, clarity on national interest and an absence of terror-politics nexus. As we see today, terrorism is hardwired into Pakistan’s society and polity and the country is internally divided. No single political force, not even the Army and its conjoin the ISI seem powerful enough to turn the tide. As some analysts have pointed out, the operationalisation of Pakistan’s NISP is not a simple matter of reorienting and restructuring of NACTA and NISA but how Pakistan begins to sees itself in its neighbourhood and the world order.

Endnotes

1. Federal Investigation Agency, Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW).
   http://www.fia.gov.pk/prj_sig.htm
2. Ismail Khan. Pakistan to raise new anti-terrorism force, Dawn, August 21, 2003.
   http://www.dawn.com/news/136033/pakistan-to-raise-new-anti-terrorism-force
3. PM says govt writ to be affirmed as cabinet okays security policy,Dawn.com, February 25,2014. http://www.dawn.com/news/1089371/pm-says-govt-writ-to-be-affirmed-as-cab…
4. Text of National Security Policy 2014-18, The Nation, February 27, 2014.
   http://www.nation.com.pk/islamabad/27-Feb-2014/text-of-national-security…
5. Ansar Abbasi. The new national security plan: What it envisages on paper, The News, February 28, 2014. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-28823-The-new-national-security…
6. Lalit K Jha. US plans 280 mn aid to Pak to encourage counter-terrorism effort, Rediff.com, March 05, 2014.
   http://www.rediff.com/news/report/us-plans-280-mn-aid-to-pak-to-encourag…
7. Abbas Zaidi, Syed Manzar. Demographics of suicide terrorism, Dawn.com, August 5, 2010. http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30744

This article appeared at Vivekananda International Foundation and is reprinted with permission.

The article Pakistan’s New Policy To Counter Terror – An Appraisal appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

The International Paralympic Committee’s (IPC) president, Sir Philip Craven, should clarify his March 11 statement that the organization should focus only on sport in its selection of host cities for the Paralympic Games, Human Rights Watch said today.

The International Paralympic Committee’s president, Sir Philip Craven, made a public statement on March 11 that the IPC, in its selection of countries bidding to host the Olympics and Paralympics, should focus only on sport in its selection of host cities for the Paralympic Games. A large global coalition of rights groups has called for human rights reforms to the Olympic Charter and the Host City Contract process.

According to the Associated Press, Craven said, “There are so many things that could, maybe should be taken into account [regarding the selection of host cities] … I don’t think we necessarily need to emphasize certain different areas, except one and that is sport – the athletes.”

“Craven’s comments seem to totally ignore the IPC’s own principles,” said Andrea Mazzarino, American Council of Learned Societies public fellow and disability rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The IPC must require host cities to work toward an accessible environment. This is a human rights issue that the IPC itself has said should be factored into its selection of host cities.”

Russia is hosting the 2014 Winter Paralympic Games in Sochi, which will wrap up March 16. The IPC has highly praised Russia for its progress in creating a barrier-free environment in Sochi. However, people with disabilities arriving for the Paralympics last week found infrastructural barriers in Sochi, so that wheelchair users – athletes and visitors alike – were not able to navigate Sochi and the Olympic Park without assistance.

Human Rights Watch research and advocacy since 2007 has documented other serious human rights abuses linked to the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi. Abuses included forced evictions without proper compensation, exploitation of workers, including migrant workers, on Olympic sites, and pressure and harassment of activists and journalists who criticized the games’ preparations. Human Rights Watch documented similar abuses linked to preparations for the 2008 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games in Beijing, China.

Human Rights Watch has said that while Russia has taken many steps towards removing various barriers for people with disabilities, such as by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, much more needs to be done to create a barrier-free environment.

The IPC handbook, which among other things lays out rules for the selection of host cities, states that “the host city already from the candidature phase needs to demonstrate a commitment to accessibility and inclusion.” It requires Olympic organizing committees and host cities to foster residents’ and visitors’ full enjoyment of the games, including by removing barriers in and beyond the host city.

“One of the IPC’s core commitments is to leave a positive legacy of inclusion and accessibility in the host country,” Mazzarino said. “This is why human rights issues are also crucial in the selection of a host city.”

The case of Russia is a strong example of why the IPC should emphasize human rights issues throughout the preparations for and during the Paralympic Games, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch called on the IPC to speak out publicly about the shortcomings in Sochi, taking into account the perspectives of independent disability rights activists.

Craven’s March 11 statement is disappointing, given that in November 2013 he encouraged Russia to focus on leaving a lasting legacy of accessibility in Russia, stating that “The success of the games can be judged only by the legacy they leave.”

“The IPC should state clearly that it will consider candidate cities’ readiness to honor basic human rights and develop a barrier-free environment before they award the right to host the Paralympic Games,” said Mazzarino.

The article Paralympics: Leadership Needs To Embrace Rights, Inclusion, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MINA

Military radar data suggests a Malaysia Airlines jetliner missing for nearly a week was deliberately flown hundreds of miles off course, heightening suspicions of foul play among investigators, sources told Reuters on Friday.

Analysis of the Malaysia data suggests the plane, with 239 people on board, diverted from its intended northeast route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and flew west instead, using airline flight corridors normally employed for routes to the Middle East and Europe, said sources familiar with investigations into the Boeing 777′s disappearance.

Two sources said an unidentified aircraft that investigators believe was Flight MH370 was following a route between navigational waypoints when it was last plotted on military radar off the country’s northwest coast.

This indicates that it was either being flown by the pilots or someone with knowledge of those waypoints, the sources said.

The last plot on the military radar’s tracking suggested the plane was flying toward India’s Andaman Islands, a chain of isles between the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal, they said.

Waypoints are geographic locations, worked out by calculating longitude and latitude, that help pilots navigate along established air corridors.

A third source familiar with the investigation said inquiries were focusing increasingly on the theory that someone who knew how to fly a plane deliberately diverted the flight.

“What we can say is we are looking at sabotage, with hijack still on the cards,” said that source, a senior Malaysian police official.

All three sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media and due to the sensitivity of the investigation.

Officials at Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport, the official point of contact for information on the investigation, did not return calls seeking comment.

Malaysian police have previously said they were investigating whether any passengers or crew had personal or psychological problems that might shed light on the mystery, along with the possibility of a hijacking, sabotage or mechanical failure.

As a result of the new evidence, the sources said, multinational search efforts were being stepped up in the Andaman Sea and also the Indian Ocean.

The article Reports That Malaysian Plane Was ‘Deliberately’ Diverted appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MINA

Hundreds of people have been flocking to a house in southern Belgium to catch a glimpse of a small statue of the Virgin Mary which reportedly glows in the dark.

Local media reported that on Wednesday, 500 people visited the house in the normally quiet town of Jalhay to witness what is being referred to as “the mysterious glowing Virgin”.

Police have been required to bolster their presence around a pavilion erected by the retired Belgian owners of the statue, which witnesses suggest lets out a dull glow after dark.

The phenomenon was first noticed in mid-January and has gradually attracted larger crowds, with local media reporting that some of those visiting the statue claim to have been cured of a skin condition.

The statue, about 30 centimetres (one foot) in height, represents the “Virgin of Banneux”, from the name of a nearby village where in 1933 a young girl was said to have witnessed an appearance by the Virgin.

The town has since become a pilgrim destination in largely Catholic Belgium, although Catholic authorities from the Banneux sanctuary are expressing caution about the “glowing” Virgin.

“It’s certain that something is going on but I can’t tell you whether there is a natural or a miraculous explanation,” said Father Leo Palm, who was sent to investigate the statue by the bishop of Liege.

The owners of the statue have refused to allow it to be removed for further examination, saying “she is fine where she is”.

The article Belgium: Hundreds Flock To Glowing Virgin Mary Statue appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dave Lindorff

Of all the people to come to the rescue of the Constitution, who would have thought it would be Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

Feinstein, after all, as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee since 2009, has yet to see an NSA violation of the Constitution, an invasive spying program or a creative “re-interpretation” of the law that she hasn’t applauded as being lawful and “needed” to “keep people safe.”

Feinstein, too, was one of the first to fly into paroxysms of outrage at National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, absurdly condemning him for being a “traitor,” though she surely knows that the Constitution very narrowly defines treason as “levying war” against the US, or providing “aid and comfort to the enemy.” As Snowden surely did not “levy war” against anyone but perhaps the NSA, and even according to the government did not provide any information to America’s “enemies” (whoever that may be in today’s unipolar world, while he may have “stolen” NSA information, he didn’t by any stretch, commit “treason.”

Feinstein, lastly, in her position as chair of the Senate Military Construction and Appropriations Subcommittee, grew rich thanks to military contracts directed to her husband [1], private equity and real-estate tycoon Richard Blum. (It wasn’t just military contracts either. He also managed to get to get the contract to manage the private sale of all the Postal Service properties being unloaded in tCongress’s ongoing dismantling of the national mail system.)

That is to say, this is a woman who clearly puts herself and her need for money (she’s reportedly worth over $80 million, though for most of her life she has done nothing but work as a salaried politician) first and the needs of her country somewhere way down near the floor. (Maybe that’s why she can’t understand Snowden, who put his life on the line for a principle, and not for personal gain — something that’s probably beyond Feinstein’s comprehension.)

And yet after years of CIA criminality, including torture of terror suspects, even those against whom there was no evidence, lying to Congress, and manufacturing of evidence that led to the disastrous and criminal invasion of Iraq — for all which there were no consequences in the Congress or in her Senate committee — it was Sen. Feinstein who finally called out the CIA for spying and lying.

The article Sen. Feinstein Goes After The CIA For The Wrong Reasons – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday he continues to follow developments in Ukraine with great concern.

According to Rasmussen, “The so-called referendum in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea planned on 16 March would be a direct violation of the Ukrainian constitution and international law. If held, it would have no legal effect or political legitimacy.”

Rasmussen added that,  “holding this referendum would undermine international efforts to find a peaceful and political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. It would run counter to the principles of the United Nations Charter. It is vital that those principles be upheld.”

Rasmussen said these concerns have been discussed today at a meeting of all 50 members of the Partnership for Peace in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, at the request of our partner Ukraine. Many partners associated themselves with NATO’s concerns.

“The Russian Federation should act responsibly, uphold its obligations under international law and abide by the principle s of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Dialogue and negotiations should be given a chance to succeed in bringing about a de-escalation of the situation and a political solution,” Rasmussen said.

The article NATO’s Rasmussen Says Crimea Referendum In Violation Of International Law appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ria Novosti

Russia has no plans of a military action in southeastern Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday after talks with his US counterpart in London.

“Russia does not and cannot have any plans to invade southeastern Ukraine. There are no reasons that prevent us from showing transparency [on the Ukrainian issue],” he said.

Commenting on his five-hour talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry, Lavrov described the meeting as “productive,” but said that disagreements between Moscow and Washington persist.

The Russian foreign minister said Kerry “made no threats to Russia” during the talks, because Western partners are aware that sanctions against Russia would be counter-productive.

“As far as prospective sanctions are concerned… I assure you that our partners are fully aware that sanctions are a counter-productive measure. They will not benefit our mutual business interests or the development of our partnership in general,” he said.

Kerry, who described talks with Lavrov as frank, fair and constructive, said that his Russian counterpart “made it clear that President Putin is not prepared to make any decision regarding Ukraine until after the referendum on Sunday.”

He warned Russia of “very serious steps” if it goes ahead with its “back-door annexation” of Crimea, an autonomous Ukrainian region with a narrow ethnic Russian majority.

“Our position on the referendum is clear. We believe the referendum is contrary to the constitution of Ukraine,” the US top diplomat said.

Lavrov said that Russia sees no reason for setting up an international contact group for negotiations with Kiev, because Moscow was not to blame for the current Ukrainian crisis.

“We don’t need an international structure of this type to consider Russian-Ukrainian relations,” he said. “Our relationship has never been interrupted.”

He said that diplomats of the two states maintain regular contacts, so “any issues can be raised in direct dialogue.”

Russia and the West have reached a standoff over the fate of Crimea, which has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new central government in Kiev following last month’s revolution.

The Crimean parliament declared independence Tuesday ahead of a popular vote Sunday on seceding from Ukraine and becoming part of Russia.

Authorities in Kiev and international leaders have condemned the referendum as illegitimate and accused Moscow of fomenting unrest in order to annex Crimea.

The article Lavrov Insists Russia Has No Plans Of Invading Southeast Ukraine appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MISNA

Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) yesterday gave Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra another 15 days to defend herself against charges of negligence over a rice subsidy scheme. If the charges should be confirmed, the premier will face an impeachment motion.

The embattled premier’s legal team was supposed to present its case by Friday, but requested a 45-day extension due to the amount of evidence it needed to collect.

The NACC filed the charges in February, following opposition reports that the premier’s rice subsidy scheme was fostering corruption and causing financial losses. The sceme was promoted during her election campaign in 2011 as a means to boost earnings of Thai rice producers guaranteeing the farmers above-market rates for their produce by about 40%, which have instead taken a nose-dive.

The mismanagement and lack of transparency of the scheme has drained public coffers, brought few benefits to the farmers and enriched intermediaries and political clients.

Rice producers have joined mounting protests also in the capital Bangkok, demanding back payment for stocks delivered to the state. The government defends itself with the impossibility of manouvering the necessary funds in the current ‘interim’ situation. The opposition accuses the premier and her Puea Thai Party of populism, lack of foresight in assuring the necessary funds and partial interests in the scheme.

The government has over 18 million tons of rice in warehouses that even lower-cost sales will not significantly dent given to the saturation of the global market and dropping prices also of main competitors Vietnam and China.

Prime Minister Shinawatra also risks another impeachment motion over her $61 billion infrastructure bill, which over seven years aimed to modernize the nation, especially the railways, on a regional level. The bill was annulled two days ago by Constitutional court as illegal. The premier once again must justify her political-economic choices made without an inclusive political process.

The article Thailand: Premier Has Two Weeks To Avoid Impeachment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By MISNA

The sound of explosions and exchanges of fire can be heard since this morning in the city of Maiduguri, in north-east Nigeria, Father Timothy Cosmas Danjuma told MISNA. Danjuma heads the Justice and Peace Commission of the diocese, and claimed that the Islamist Boko Haram group attacked an army base and the University.

“Blasts and shooting began at around 7:00am, concentrated around the army headquarters in the Giwa area and the University”,  said Fr. Danjuma.

Also the police chief of Borno State, of which Maiduguri is the capital, reported fighting between the Boko Haram militants and security forces. “We’re trying to contain the situation”, said the officer, without providing further details on the number of attackers or eventual casualties.

Maiduguri is historically a stronghold of the Boko Haram, an Islamist group that claims to be battling for the introduction of the Sharia law in both the Muslim-majority North and largely Christian South. A state of emergency is in force in Borno and other north-eastern states since last year, though so far has failed to reduce the violence and attacks by the armed Islamist group.

The article Nigeria: Blasts And Clashes In Maiduguri appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Observer Research Foundation

By C. Raja Mohan

Saudi Arabia’s decisions last Friday to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group and downgrade diplomatic ties with Qatar to protest Doha’s support for the organization mark an important turning point in the Kingdom’s approach to international terrorism.

In a decision last Friday, Riyadh also designated two Shiite groups-the Saudi branch of Hezbollah and the Houthi movement in Yemen as well as two Sunni formations, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra front.

Many in the region do not believe that a consistent set of objective criteria went into the making of this list. Others in the region will vehemently question the characterization of some of these organizations as terrorist. But few will deny that the House of Saud has entered a new phase in its war against terror.

In the past Saudi Arabia appeared reluctant to embark on a comprehensive counter-terror strategy. After 9/11, the House of Saud went after the al-Qaeda and its support base at home. But it seemed unwilling to deal with the deeper sources of political, ideological and financial support within the Kingdom to extremism and terrorism. Significant changes, however, appear to be at hand.

A more vigorous approach has become necessary with Riyadh’s recognition that a permissive environment for extremism at home has begun to threaten political stability and social cohesion within the Kingdom. Meanwhile, tumult generated by the Arab Spring, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, the civil war in Syria and the internal tensions within Iraq and Bahrain have highlighted the new and existential threats to Saudi Arabia from within the region.

The victory of Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian elections in 2012 created deep anxieties in Riyadh about the challenges from the republican ideology of the movement to the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf. It was a matter of time before Saudi Kingdom extended strong support to the Egyptian military in ousting the Republican Muslim Brotherhood from power in Cairo.

The Saudis saw the Brotherhood as such a danger that it is confronting Qatar’s open support for the organization. Qatar is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia. Along with Abu Dhabi, which has been quite concerned about the Brotherhood’s activity in the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, close ally of the Saudis, Riyadh decided to pull out their ambassadors from Doha. The three countries feel that their requests to Doha to stop interference in their internal affairs have not been addressed.

Besides banning the five organizations, Saudi Arabia has called on all its citizens fighting in foreign wars to come within the next few weeks or face imprisonment up to 20 years. The Kingdom has also approved a new legislation that explicitly criminalizes raising, receiving, offering, holding or transferring money to individuals or groups designated as terrorist organizations. Senior Saudi officials have said that some religious preachers promoting extremism and terrorism have been fired or arrested in the last few weeks.

Over the last few years, Delhi has found Riyadh more forthcoming in tracking down terrorists of concern to India. As the Kingdom enters a more decisive phase in their war against terror, the prospects for security cooperation between India and Saudi Arabia are likely to improve.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a contributing editor for ‘The Indian Express’)

Courtesy: The Indian Express, March 10, 2014

The article Saudi Arabia Steps Up Anti-Terror Fight – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By EurActiv

(EurActiv) — The CEOs of Russia’s two largest firms are on a list of those who may be hit next week with European and US sanctions over the Crimea crisis, a German newspaper said today (14 March), suggesting tougher than expected measures against Russia’s elite.

Moscow shipped more troops and armour into Crimea on Friday and repeated its threat to invade other parts of Ukraine, showing no sign of heeding Western pleas to back off from the worst East-West confrontation since the Cold War.

Russia’s stock markets tumbled, and the cost of insuring its debt soared on the last day of trading before pro-Moscow authorities in Crimea hold a vote to join Russia, a move all but certain to lead to US and European Union sanctions on Monday.

European officials told Reuters the EU was working on a five page list of 120-130 Russians who could be subjected to asset freezes and travel bans. Officials were still debating whether to hit a large number of Russians when the measures take effect at the start of next week, or target a smaller number initially, and expand the list if the crisis continues.

Germany’s Bild newspaper reported that Alexei Miller, boss of natural gas monopoly Gazprom, and Igor Sechin, head of Russia’s biggest oil firm Rosneft, would be among those targeted, along with senior ministers and Kremlin aides.

Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the Bild report. Rosneft spokesman Mikhail Leontyev said sanctions on his firm’s boss would be “stupid, petty and obvious sabotage of themselves most of all. I think it will primarily affect Rosneft’s business partners in the West in an extraordinary way.” Gazprom and the Kremlin declined to comment.

Fellow citizens

The Russian Foreign Ministry, responding to the death of at least one protester in Ukraine’s eastern city of Donetsk, repeated President Vladimir Putin’s declaration of the right to invade to protect Russian citizens and “compatriots”.

“Russia is aware of its responsibility for the lives of compatriots and fellow citizens in Ukraine and reserves the right to take people under its protection,” it said.

Ukrainian health authorities say one 22-year-old man was stabbed to death and at least 15 others were being treated in hospital after clashes in Donetsk, the mainly Russian-speaking home city of Ukraine’s ousted President, Viktor Yanukovich.

Organisers of the anti-Moscow demonstration said the dead man was from their group.

Moscow denies that its forces are intervening in Crimea, an assertion Washington ridicules as “Putin’s fiction”. Journalists have seen Russian forces operating openly in their thousands over the past two weeks, driving in armoured columns of vehicles with Russian licence plates and identifying themselves to besieged Ukrainian troops as members of Russia’s armed forces.

A Reuters reporter watched a Russian warship unload trucks, troops and at least one armoured personnel carrier at Kazachaya Bay, near Sevastopol, on Friday morning. Trucks drove off a ramp from the Yamal 156, a large landing ship that can carry more than 300 troops and up to a dozen APCs.

US Secretary of State John Kerry held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in London in a last-ditch effort to persuade Moscow to call off the referendum in Crimea, now seen as all but inevitable.

Facts on the ground

Russian troops seized the Black Sea peninsula two weeks ago as a pro-Moscow regional government took power there. The new regional authorities intend to secede from Ukraine and join Russia in a vote described in the West as illegal.

“What we would like to see is a commitment to stop putting new facts on the ground and a commitment to engage seriously on ways to de-escalate the conflict, to bring Russian forces back to barracks, to use international observers in place of force,” a US State Department official said ahead of Kerry’s talks.

But Russia has shown no sign of veering from Putin’s plan to annex Crimea.

Putin declared on 1 March that Russia had the right to invade its neighbour, a week after its ally Yanukovich fled the Ukrainian capital following three months of demonstrations that ended with about 100 people killed in the final days.

In further signs of Moscow’s belligerent posture ahead of the Crimea vote, the Defence Ministry announced on Friday it would hold exercises with fighter jets and helicopters over the Mediterranean Sea. On Thursday, it announced artillery drills near Ukraine’s border.

US and EU sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes on Russian officials and their firms, are now seen as inevitable. The only mystery remaining is who will be on the lists of targets when they are agreed at the start of next week.

US and European officials say the targets will not include Putin or Lavrov, but will include senior figures in the government and members of parliament in an effort to impose hardship on Russia’s elite for backing Putin’s policies.

Bild’s list included Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, presidential administration chief Sergei Ivanov and the secretary of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev.

Shares fall, debt insurance costs rise

Russia’s MICEX stock index was down 2.3% at 1330 GMT, having lost more than 16% of its value in the two weeks since Putin declared his right to invade. At one point in the morning, it had fallen 5 percent to its lowest since 2009.

The cost of insuring Russia’s debt against default for five years rose nearly 7%, and is now up by half since the crisis began.

Although Russian public opinion, fed by overwhelmingly state-controlled media, is still solidly behind the plan to annex Crimea, Western countries believe sanctions could undermine support for Putin among the wealthy elite.

Goldman Sachs lowered its prediction for Russian economic growth for this year to 1% from 3% on Thursday, blaming the Ukraine crisis for sparking capital flight that will destroy investment.

Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin told Russian media that the threat of Western sanctions was already imposing higher borrowing costs on Russian businesses and that further sanctions would push capital flight to €36 billion a quarter.

Renaissance Capital estimated capital outflow in the first quarter would exceed €40 billion, compared with €45 billion for the whole of 2013.

The rouble has declined only slightly despite the fall in share prices, held aloft by a central bank that raised its lending rates on 3 March and has been spending reserves to keep the currency from falling.

Russia’s strong words over the violence in Donetsk again raised the prospect of a wider invasion beyond Crimea, a risk that had seemed to ease after the first few days of the crisis, when Putin called an end to war games involving 150,000 troops.

The party of Estonia’s outgoing defence minister said it believed Putin was preparing an invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The article Ukraine Fallout: Gazprom, Rosneft CEOs On EU Sanction List: Reports appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Pambazuka News

By Rudo Sanyanga

Citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo may wake up one morning in the future to find that, while $12 billion was spent to construct the largest hydropower project, Inga 3, they still live in darkness while power lines bypass them- sending power to far off urban cities in South Africa and mining industries in Katanga. Or find that they have drained the Inga Falls, destroyed the gigantic carbon sink of the ‘Congo Plume’, the estuary, the protected mangrove forests and lost aquatic biodiversity, but have nothing to show for it, just the giant infrastructure that is the Grand Inga Dams – developed for others to benefit. This gloomy picture would pass for a bad dream, except it is a very likely reality, given the recent chain of events surrounding the development of the Inga 3 Hydropower project.

Since 19 May 2013 when DRC announced its deal with South Africa for the latter to be the principal purchaser of the Inga 3 power (taking 2500 MW of the 4800MW), the rush to get the project started has never been greater. Shortcuts have been taken to speed up the process and to meet the ground-breaking target scheduled for October 2015. The feasibility study that was supposed to be published and presented to the public in Kinshasa in June 2013 was only presented in September, and to date the full document remains confidential. In July 2013 the terms of reference for the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment studies for Inga 3 where presented to the public by Cellule d’Appui Technique a’ l’Energie (CATE) for comment. To our knowledge this and the presentation of the feasibility studies are the only two opportunities that the public have been invited to participate in and to comment and ask questions.

The saga does not end there. In November 2013 the African Development Bank (AfDB) approved $68 million in support for Inga 3. In December 2013 the USAID also expressed interest in providing support for Inga 3, justifying this as a response to the Electrify Africa Act. The Act encourages the USAID to prioritize ‘the deployment of technology and grants to expand electricity access for the poorest segments of the population.’ However, the project model for Inga 3 in no way prioritizes access to electricity for the poor, especially considering that the bulk of the power has already been committed for export.

On 11 February 2014 the World Bank Board of Executive Directors was supposed to sit to consider an application for a technical assistance grant of $73.1 million to carry out technical, social and environmental studies for Inga 3 and a communication strategy for the project. Instead the meeting was postponed indefinitely and it is rumored that the project will be considered under the IFC – a private arm of the World Bank. If this is true it spells disaster for the project especially on issues of social responsibility. The IFC does not have the expertise or capacity to deal with such complex projects.

The key concerns with this project remain that the energy poverty of DRC is not addressed and that the social and environmental issues are being minimized. Instead the DRC government and the World Bank have been dodgy with this development. In its documents on the Inga 3 technical assistance, the World Bank gives the impression that the impacts are insignificant and treats the Inga 3 as a separate project from Grand Inga, referring to it as a ‘stand-alone development.’ Yet within the same documents the Inga 3 is acknowledged as the first of the 6 development stages of Grand Inga. The only separation is with the power stations. The reservoir’s area will expand at each stage as more dams are built, for more river flow will be diverted as the stages proceed, thus adding to the overall impact. Only a cumulative impact assessment would be able to address the impacts that will build up as each stage is added. Once Inga 3 has been constructed, some irreversible negative social and environmental impacts are set in motion and they sadly escalate as the project is ramped up from Inga 3 to the Grand Inga.

Further in the technical assistance documents for the project, the DRC government clearly states: ‘Allocation of most of the power produced by Inga 3 Basse Chute to the public power grid would be the preferred option from a social point of view, since the proportion of our population with access to electricity is three times lower than the Sub-Saharan average. However, such an allocation would result in a low bankability of the Inga 3 Basse Chute for the private sector, given the current very weak financial situation of SNEL.’ This statement clearly shows that there is no intention to address poor access to electricity using the power generated at Inga 3. It would make the project not bankable!

Those without electricity will certainly not be in the priority for benefits. The same technical assistance document allocates power from Inga as follows: – 2500MW for ESKOM South Africa, 1300 for Katanga mines, 1000MW for Kinshasa. Of the 1000MW for Kinshasa only 600MW is firm power. It is these issues that caused the DRC civil society coalition to write to the World Bank executive directors. The coalition is concerned about the impacts of this huge dam and the deliberate avoidance of following implementation of international standards for public participation, information sharing and making an inadequate provision of a share of the power the local people and for addressing energy poverty. The local civil society asked to have at least 50% of power reserved for the DRC people if the project goes ahead. This would mean 2400MW for the DRC people but, the government has already said providing for the nation will not produce bankable results

The Inga 3 project, as currently constituted, has many serious flaws that need to be addressed, primarily requiring genuine extensive consultations with the Congolese. It is regrettable that to date, there has been little effort on the part of the DRC government to constructively engage its citizens’ involvement. So far, the only positive development has been the decision made on January 2014 by the United States of America Congress, instructing the USA government to oppose funding for large dams, and to oppose the same in US funded international financial institutions. We were further pleased to note that this decision was predicated on a desire for justice for the victims of human rights abuse on these projects (www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/17-6). It is not clear yet whether the USA government will comply with this directive.

The negative social impacts of numerous large dam projects in the past have been well researched and documented, but there appears to be some unwillingness by both the USA government and the World Bank to learn from these experiences. Instead one sees what appear to be attempts to circumvent their own publicly stated policies and principles.

As International Rivers we continue to be concerned about the lack of accountability of international institutions when it comes to infrastructure development and lending to developing countries. We are concerned especially with the developments that continue to harm our vital rivers, our lifelines. The development of Inga 3 project, as the first phase of an even larger, 40 000MW Grand Inga, on the Congo River is a classic case of the failure to protect our rivers and to safeguard the rights of defenseless communities; and it demonstrates so many flaws in decision making at all stages of the project development cycle.

Rudo Sanyanga is Africa Program Director, International Rivers, Pretoria office, South Africa.

THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

The article New Twists In DR Congo’s Inga 3 Dam Saga – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Maan

Israeli forces bombed a target in southern Lebanon on Friday hours after an explosive device was detonated on the border, the Israeli military said.

Israeli forces reported that they fired towards Hizbullah “terror infrastructure” in southern Lebanon and confirmed a hit on Friday around 8 p.m.

The strike comes just over an hour after Israeli forces said a “concealed explosive device” was activated against Israeli forces who were on the border.

It was not immediately clear why Israeli soldiers had approached the border fence.

Hizbullah-affiliated Lebanese television channel Al-Manar reported that Israeli shells had hit an area near Shuva village in southern Lebanon, while Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar cited a Lebanese security source as saying that 10 shells had hit Lebanon.

Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post said that the original explosion had occurred in the area of Har Dov.

Israeli news website Ynet reported that three soldiers “who were in the humvee targeted by an explosive device near the border with Lebanon have been evacuated to the Ziv Medical Center in Safed,” and would be “screened for injuries related to the blast.”

The site quoted a senior military official as saying that “Hezbollah was involved and Hezbollah will be hurt.”

The site also added that Israeli forces had “rejected the possibility that the incident was a kidnapping attempt.”

The article Israel Bombs Hizbullah Site In Southern Lebanon appeared first on Eurasia Review.