By Rajaram Panda

The forthcoming four-day visit of President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang to Japan beginning 16 March 2014 is the latest development in Vietnam’s foreign policy activism with a view to deepen diplomatic relations. Sang will be accompanied by his spouse Madam Mai Thi Hanh. The visit is at the invitation of the Emperor of Japan.

Coming in the wake of China’s increased maritime assertiveness and its territorial disputes in the East and South China Sea, Sang’s visit assumes added significance. Security issues in Asia, China’s assertiveness on regional issues as well as nuclear and missile development by North Korea are likely to be high on the agenda of the summit meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Sang and Abe are expected to agree on enhanced bilateral cooperation in areas such as agriculture, education and healthcare. Both the leaders are also expected to sign deals for yen loans from Japan to finance development projects in Vietnam. North Korea’s past abduction of Japanese citizens has prevented Tokyo and Pyongyang from normalising relations. During the election campaign, Abe had promised the families of the abductees that his government would spare no effort to get those nationals abducted by North Korea released. Since Vietnam has diplomatic ties with North Korea, Abe is expected to seek Vietnam’s help on this.

During their stay in Japan, Sang and Hanh will make a State Call on Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan. Their Majesties the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko will host a State Banquet in honour of the President and his souse. Abe will host a dinner for the President. A press release by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the President’s visit “will further strengthen the friendly relations between Japan and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam”.

Both Abe and Sang last met in October in Indonesia on the sidelines of an international conference. During that time, both the leaders agreed to promote maritime security cooperation and to encourage Japanese companies to invest more in Vietnam. Sang will also deliver a speech at the Diet on 18 March and the following day will meet with Japanese business leaders before departing on 19 March.

Economic Ties

Vietnam and Japan established diplomatic relations on 21 September 1973. Since then, bilateral ties have undergone some historical ups and downs until Japan resumed its ODA provisions to Vietnam in 1992. Japan is Vietnam’s biggest development assistance donor and investor. From 1992 to 2003, Japan has provided $21 billion ODA to Vietnam, making the country’s leading ODA donor.

Vietnam-Japan bilateral trade turnover reached over $25.6 billion in 2013 and the figure is expected to double by 2020. During the year, Japan invested $5.7 billion in Vietnam, accounting for 26.6 per cent of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Vietnam.

Until 2002, economic cooperation remained the brightest spot in the bilateral ties. Subsequently, bilateral relations have assumed multilateral dimension as mutual understanding and trust have been consolidated. Bilateral ties were elevated into a strategic partnership in 2009. In 2011, Japan was the first G-7 country to recognise Vietnam as a market economy. Currently, the two countries are working together in negotiations on the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

During Vietnam Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh’s visit to Japan in September 2013, Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida pledged roughly 54 billion Yen in loans to Vietnam for infrastructure projects. The loan offer was aimed at a highway project and an airport terminal project, both in Hanoi, and a hydroelectric power project in southern Vietnam.

Why Japan and Vietnam?

Japan and Vietnam might sound two different worlds. The world’s third largest economy and Northeast Asia’s newly emerging economy differ on many fronts – broadly in their systems of government. How can they come together, one might ask? The ready answer could be that their pass may never cross. But this geo-economic logic has been disproved by history. Why is this so? This is because if one goes by the theory that relations between the two countries have been greatly influenced by outside powers, one notices a striking example how Japan-Vietnam relations have evolved in recent times. Though the economies of the two countries are deepening in recent years, it is the strategic dimension of the relationship that provides solidity in their bilateral ties.

In the late nineteenth century, confronted by Western colonialism, Vietnamese’s nationalists took refuge in Japan and sought inspiration from Japan’s economic development and resistance to the West. Following the occupation of Vietnam by the imperial army during the Pacific War and the utilization of the Okinawa base by the American B-52′s bombers during the Vietnam war, Tokyo has been perceived as an enemy. Today the story is different. Rapprochement between the two countries and a convergence of their interests make the Japan-Vietnam partnerships an ideal model for bilateral relationship in Asia and marks a significant landmark in the emergence of a new Asia. And, what is that driving this new orientation in the Japan-Vietnam relationship? As China threatens Asia by its aggressive postures, a new balance of power in Asia is emerging and leading to reorienting relationships between adversaries. The evolving contours of Japan-Vietnam ties should be seen from this perspective.

Defence cooperation

The single most important factor that seems to be drawing both Japan and Vietnam closer seems to be their territorial disputes with China in the East and South China Seas. The China factor is also leading both the countries to strengthen the ongoing bilateral dialogue between defence and foreign affairs officials. Japan is determined to deal with the Senkaku Islands dispute “calmly and resolutely but without escalating” tensions and Vietnam endorses Japan’s views that the dispute should be resolved in line with international law. Similarly, Vietnam’s position on its territorial dispute in the South China Sea remains unchanged. Japan endorses Vietnam’s approach as a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations that the dispute should be addressed by working out a regional code of maritime conduct.

In fact, the defence cooperation between the two countries is not sudden. On 24 October 2011, Japanese Defence Minister of Japan Yasuo Ichikawa and his Vietnamese counterpart Phung Quang Thanh signed a memorandum on defence cooperation and exchange in Tokyo. This agreement to cooperate was in the light of China’s increasing influence in the South China Sea, where Hanoi is locked in a territorial dispute with Beijing.

Under the memorandum on defense cooperation and exchange, vice defense minister-level officials from Japan and Vietnam will hold regular dialogue. The Self-Defense Forces and the Vietnamese military will visit each other’s country. The document also said the two countries will cooperate in rescue efforts in the event of a disaster in Southeast Asia or elsewhere. The defense cooperation memorandum is Japan’s second with a Southeast Asian country following the one with Singapore, concluded in December 2009.

Thanh’s visit to Japan was the first for a Vietnamese defence minister in 13 years. At that time, Ichikawa had observed: “The relationship between Japan and Vietnam has entered a new stage of development”. He further observed: “Vietnam is our strategic partner for peace and stability in Asia, and we want to deepen our partnership.” From his side, Phanh had observed: “The relationship between the two countries is extremely important”.

From Vietnam’s perspective, its plan to reinforce its relationship with Japan is to counter China’s growing military might in the South China Sea and Japan supports a peaceful resolution. At that time, Japan’s Foreign Minister Koichiro Genba too had remarked that the seas are public goods and that a broad range of issues should be discussed in an open forum.

Beijing’s assertive claims to maritime boundaries in the South China Sea have rattled America’s regional partners. This too has led Washington to deepen its security cooperation with Vietnam, the Philippines and other states whose territorial claims China disputes.

It is interesting to note here that China even sees Russia as rivals than allies on this issue. To Beijing’s dismay, Moscow has remained silent on the territorial disputes. Even Russian energy companies have signed deals with Vietnam to develop oil and gas resources in the South China Sea – in waters claimed by China. Beijing also feels uncomfortable as Russia’s defense industry is expanding its weapons sales throughout Southeast Asia, including selling advanced attack submarines to the Vietnamese Navy. By its own aggressive posturing, Beijing is getting isolated in Asia without friends, except probably North Korea and to some extent Pakistan.

Dr. Rajaram Panda is The Japan Foundation Fellow at Reitaku University, Japan. E-mail: rajaram.panda@gmail.com

The article Truong Tan Sang’s Visit To Japan: Deepening Bilateral Ties – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IPCS

By Manpreet Sethi

In just a few days, heads of governments of about four dozen nations would assemble in the Hague, Netherlands, for the third Nuclear Security Summit. An initiative started by President Obama in 2010 in Washington, the Summit travelled to Seoul in 2012 and Obama will host the next one again in 2016. What is the significance of this Summit process and has it been of any specific benefit to India?

The most important gain from these Summits is that they have brought global attention to nuclear terrorism. President Obama initiated the effort after having realized that the risk of nuclear terrorism was real and urgent. However, India’s experience with cross-border terrorism well predates the US awakening to the threat. Since the end of 1990s, India has faced terrorism, sponsored and executed from Pakistan. Obviously, the threat of nuclear terrorism has been of utmost concern given that nuclear weapons (and an increasing stockpile of highly enriched uranium and plutonium) and terrorism co-exist in Pakistan.

Given this threat perception, a Summit process that demands national action and responsibility for securing nuclear and radiological materials has universalized a threat that India was fighting a lonely battle against. Attention to these issues at the highest political level has ensured their inclusion in national priorities and the accordance of necessary resources to turn commitments into reality. Heads of governments at the Summits have individually and collectively committed to taking measures to secure nuclear material on their territory according to accepted international benchmarks.

Amongst the international agreements that are relevant to this subject, two are worthy of mention. The Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) was crafted to regulate international transportation of nuclear material. It came into force in 1987. However, through an amendment in 2005, its ambit was expanded to protection of nuclear material in domestic use, storage and transport too. It enhanced mechanisms for cooperation to locate and recover stolen/smuggled nuclear material and to mitigate radiological consequences of sabotage. However, the amendment is not yet operative since it awaits ratification by 2/3d of the member states. The other instrument, the International Convention on Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT), meanwhile, came into force in 2007 mandating national laws for imposition of punitive action on those involved in nuclear terrorism. Unfortunately, neither of these instruments is universal and in fact, many of the countries that are known to harbor terrorists have not joined in, including Pakistan. However, the presence of political leaders at the Summit does exert political and moral pressure on outliers. Indeed, the number of countries joining the two Conventions has increased over the last six years, and a few more are expected to bring their decision to join in as a ‘house gift’ in 2014 too.

Some positive results notwithstanding, the Summit process does suffer from the shortcoming that it cannot impose uniformity in recognition of threat, or the same rigour in implementation of national efforts. Nations do perceive the threat differently. In any case, there is no punishment for non-compliance and many smaller nations have railed against the increase in need for reporting as burdensome and distracting from other national priorities.

In order to maintain the momentum on nuclear security and get nations to recognize the enormity of the risk, and hence the responsibility they share, it is necessary that a sense of stake-hood be felt by all. One way of doing so would be to foster greater sharing in two dimensions. The first would be information on best practices, for instance, on how countries practice enforcement such as training of security guards, crafting of personnel reliability programmes, tools used for data storage and mining, including on tracking of orphaned radiological sources, etc. The second would be the sharing of technologies, for instance, on manufacture of detection equipment such as scanners at ports, decontamination materials, medical countermeasures etc. Transfer of such technologies to countries where these could be manufactured at relatively lesser cost would not only make the manufacturing hubs a stakeholder in nuclear security but also make the detection equipment available at low prices thereby relieving nations of burdensome expenditure to deploy expensive machinery or systems.

Nuclear security is not the requirement or demand of one nation. The fact that a country as militarily capable as the USA has felt the need for collective effort in this direction proves that it is a shared risk and hence a shared responsibility that must be carried by all if we are to minimize, if not obviate, an unfortunate act of nuclear terrorism. India’s participation in the Nuclear Security Summit is indeed an opportunity to seek a collective redressal of a threat it faces, and also a contribution to international security – a win-win proposition either way.

Manpreet Sethi
ICSSR Senior Fellow affiliated with the Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS)

The article Nuclear Security Summit: Shared Risk, Shared Responsibility – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Averko

From the position of his country’s best interests, ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had valid reasons for not signing the European Union Association Agreement (EU AA). One need not be a Yanukovych supporter to see the reasoning behind this opinion. This last thought relates to Yanukovych’s shortcomings as a democratically elected president. At the same time, legitimate issue can be taken with how some of the opposition to him have carried on, before and after he left Kiev.

In the lead up to Yanukovych not signing the EU AA, he did not do an effective job in communicating the reservations over that accord, from the perspective of Ukraine’s best interests. The $15 billion dollar Russian aid offer to Ukraine came around the time that Yanukovych began to increasingly hedge on the EU AA.

The robust offer from Russia was something that Yanukovych could not so easily reject. From the position of its interests, the Kremlin wants to be assured as much as possible that any assistance it gives to Ukraine is not counterproductive. The EU has revealed a similar mindset from its vantage point. Prior to the escalated violence in Kiev, Yanukovych and the Russian government supported three way (Russian, Ukrainian and EU) talks, for the purpose of reaching a mutually agreed regimen for improving Ukraine’s economy. With a zero sum game attitude, the EU rejected this proposal.

The EU and American government made it a point to underscore their preference for Ukraine to sign the EU AA. A good portion of Ukraine’s population was disenchanted with Yanukovych, regardless of whether or not he signed that accord.

The full text of the EU AA with Ukraine is not so readily accessible. An online version has this disclaimer: “Please note that the documents published on this website are only for information purposes. The official version of the Association Agreement – once signed – will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The texts are capable of neither conferring any rights nor creating any legally binding obligations of public international law.”

After his ouster, Yanukovych noted the EU AA would have required Ukraine to change the width of its railroad tracks to conform with Western standards – an aspect that was previously mentioned by some other sources I came across. The EU AA presented to Yanukovych, put the onus on Ukraine to undergo a series of sharp changes, with no specified aid package and date for when that nation could expect full EU membership. There is also the question mark of how willing that organization wants to actually take in Ukraine?

Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the EU AA did not see him pledge a move towards joining the Customs Union, involving Russia and some other former Soviet republics. He ideally sought a renegotiated arrangement with the EU, when he accepted the generous Russian aid package, which Brussels did not match.

Yanukovych did not violate the February 21 accord, which had him in a coalition government, with his opposition until an election this coming December. Events show that he had good reason to flee Kiev. The group now influencing Kiev’s Rada declared that he is wanted for mass murder. In contrast, little, if any effort is made to seek justice against those who engaged in fatal violence from the anti-Yanukovych side. There is a reasoned basis to question the legitimacy of the group in the Rada who have gone against Yanukovych – a point which serves to offset the second guessing of the changed political process in Crimea.

The public showing of Yanukovych’s lavish mansion is done to highlight corruption in a country where many struggle economically. What would a similar display reveal of the oligarchs, who have since been appointed to head some areas in Ukraine?

In a not so distant PBS NewsHour segment, Adrian Karatnycky said that high level political success in Ukraine is greatly determined by the support and influence of the country’s oligarchs. Agree, disagree, or partially agree, Sergey Glazyev’s National Interest article of this past December 29-30 “The Mania of Ukraine’s Euromaidan“, delves into the balancing act that the Ukrainian oligarchs at large play between their interests with Russia and the EU. As a follow-up, Peter Lee’s February 25 Counterpunch piece “The EU Played Hardball Against Ukraine…and the EU“, discusses (among other things) how a noticeable and influential number in Yanukovych’s Party of Regions dropped their support of him, in a getting flipped kind of way.

Yanukovych faced a tough situation in Ukraine. The people who have put themselves in Yanukovych’s role are now faced with his problems. Under difficult circumstances, it is supremely imprudent to engage (in one form or the other) in behavior which unnecessarily alienates a good portion of the population.

In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, at a time when the two republics were part of the same nation. This changeover was officially done to highlight the signing of a treaty in 1654 which (at the time) reunited Russia with much of Ukraine. (Modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are descended from Rus.) Upon the Soviet breakup, there have been periodic rumblings in Crimea to seek independence from Ukraine. This desire was offset with that territory having a degree of autonomy, while feeling a relative enough ease with the Ukrainian government.

At a press conference after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed support for Ukraine maintaining its Communist drawn boundaries as an independent state. The Kremlin’s seeming drift from this position seems to be the result of further thinking about what has become  evident in Kiev’s Rada (action that has been characterized as extra constitutional and coup like), Ukraine’s overall situation and the popular sentiment in Crimea. As a matter of precedent, Putin has referred to the way Kosovo’s separation from Serbia is advocated. There is also Turkey’s ongoing military presence in northern Cyprus, inclusive of Turkish recognition of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.

Reasonable concern has been raised over what has happened in Ukraine since Yanukovych’s ouster. The majority of people who protested in Kiev are not extreme nationalists. Yet, the clout of the nationalist anti-Russian leaning Svoboda and Right Sector parties is disproportionate. Justin Raimondo’s March 5 Antiwar.com article “A Monster Reawakens: The Rise of Ukrainian Fascism” and Gary Leupp’s March 10 Counterpunch piece “Ukraine: The Sovereignty Argument, and the Real Problem of Fascism“, mention the appointments given to Svoboda and Right Sector representatives. (Respectfully put and without meaning to digress, the referencing of these two articles does not necessarily reflect a complete agreement with everything said in them.)

Another opinion claims that the Svoboda and Right Sector presence have a limited influence. Following Yanukovych’s ouster, there are conflicting realities to that view. These instances include the scrapping of a law safeguarding  Russian and other minority language rights (later reversed, after events in Crimea unfolded), the destruction of a monument, honoring Russian General Mikhail Kutuzov and the armed policing position of individuals associated with the minority extremists.

I recently noted that the removal of the Kutuzov monument is something which has been advocated by the Svoboda party. Kutuzov defeated Napoleon’s forces, at a time when the ancestors of present day Ukrainians (Habsburg ruled western Ukrainians included) were mostly supportive of Russia, in its war with France and its allies.

Preventive measures have been undertaken in Crimea to better ensure against the kind of fatal violence that occurred in Kiev. For now, it remains unclear whether Russia will definitely approve taking in Crimea. If not, the northern Cyprus situation will appear as being especially similar (though by no means exact), when comparing other contemporary territorial disagreements.

The leading Western nations have pointedly expressed disapproval with Crimea becoming reunited with Russia. This opposition has included an emphasis that a changed territorial status should be done gradually. The Kremlin can delay a decision on taking in Crimea. This stance serves to quite possibly decrease Western opposition to Russia.

Of some relationship, Pridnestrovie (also known as Transdnestr and closely related spellings) and South Ossetia held referendums, favoring the idea of rejoining Russia. To date, Moscow recognizes South Ossetia’s independence, as a territory which is not a part of Russia. The Kremlin gives assistance to Pridnestrovie, without having formally recognized its declared independence.

Within the Western mass media commentariat, there is the perception that a Crimea cutoff from Ukraine will serve to limit pro-Russian sentiment in that former Soviet republic. Contrary to that thought, the enhanced pro-Russian activism in Crimea, might encourage a bolder activity, among the other Russian speaking/pro-Russian elements in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

In turn, some Ukrainians who are not necessarily such great Russophiles might come around to realizing the limits of Western assistance, the Russian option as a workable course and the practicality of limiting the preferences of Svoboda and the Right Sector. As has been stated in Western mass media, Ukraine means more to Russia than the West.

There is also the possibility that the zero sum game thinking, which has been evident in the West, might eventually decrease, in a more pragmatic and less confrontational manner, towards Russia and its constructively critical supporters, whose views have been underrepresented in English language mass media.

The article Blame Game Over Ukraine And Crimea’s Status – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOA

Announcing that the U.S. and its allies are mobilizing to isolate Russia, President Barack Obama has imposed sanctions on key individuals Washington deems responsible for the current crisis in Ukraine following a Moscow-backed referendum in Crimea on the peninsula’s secession from the country.

Speaking at the White House, Obama announced that he ordered sanctions against 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials, including two top advisers to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, in addition to ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. All will be subject to asset freezes.

In an executive order issued earlier, Obama said that the policies and actions of the Russian Federation have been found to “undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

He said Washington stands ready to impose further sanctions if necessary, if Russia chooses to escalate the situation.

Obama also pledged “unwavering” U.S. support for Ukraine, following Crimea’s moves toward joining the Russian Federation.

Obama said Vice President Joe Biden leaves for Europe later Monday to discuss the situation with NATO allies. The president himself is slated to to go Europe next week.

EU measures

Separately, European Union foreign ministers have agreed to impose sanctions including travel bans and asset freezes on 21 officals from Russia and Ukraine, Lithuania’s foreign minister said on Monday.

After a meeting lasting around three hours, the EU’s 28 foreign ministers quickly reached agreement on the list of those to be sanctioned for their part in Russia’s seizure of Crimea and Sunday’s referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.

The EU Foreign Affairs Council just agreed on sanctions – travel restrictions & assets freezes against 21 officials from Ukraine & Russia, Linan Linkevicius wrote in a message on Twitter.

He added that more measures would follow in a few days, when EU leaders meet for a summit in Brussels. They are expected to expand the list to include more senior figures closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In addition to responses from the U.S. and the EU, NATO released a statement Monday calling the Crimea referendum “illegal and illegitimate.” It said the vote violates the Ukrainian constitution and international law, and added that the circumstances under which the referendum was held were “deeply flawed and therefore unacceptable.”

Despite objections from the international community, a delegation of Crimean lawmakers is traveling to Moscow Monday to discuss additional procedures required to become part of the Russian Federation. There is broad speculation that President Putin will deliver a formal speech Tuesday on Crimea’s annexation to Russia, Reuters quoted a U.S. official as saying.

Secession vote

Earlier Monday, Crimea’s regional assembly declared independence from Ukraine and applied to become part of Russia, a day after a controversial referendum in Crimea overwhelmingly supported joining the Russian Federation.

A delegation of Crimean lawmakers is set to travel to Moscow Monday to discuss additional procedures required to become part of the Federation.

​President Barack Obama told his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin Sunday that Washington and its “European partners are prepared to impose additional costs” on Moscow for backing the secession referendum in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

A White House statement called Sunday’s referendum illegal and said it violates Ukraine’s constitution. It also said the vote will “never be recognized by the United States and the international community.”

Crimea’s election chief announced Monday that nearly 97 percent of voters cast ballots supporting secession and a move to join Russia.

In Kyiv, Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk – speaking at an emergency cabinet meeting – called the Moscow-backed Crimea vote “a circus spectacle” directed at gunpoint by Russia.

Ukraine’s parliament endorsed on Monday a plan to mobilize 40,000 reservists to counter Russia’s “blatant aggression” in Crimea. Some 20,000 of the country’s national guard troops have also been mobilized.

Also on Monday, Ukraine recalled its ambassador to Russia for consultations.

”In connection with the situation in Crimea and the necessity of discussing some of its international aspects, the Ukrainian side is recalling its ambassador to the Russian Federation, Volodymyr Yelchenko,” the Foreign Ministry in Kyiv said.

Russian Duma set to act

Meanwhile, Russia’s lower house of parliament will pass legislation allowing Ukraine’s Crimea region to join Russia “in the very near future”, Interfax news agency quoted the chamber’s deputy speaker as saying on Monday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he will respect the will of the people in Crimea, ignoring Western leaders who say the referendum was illegal because Russian forces have seized the southern region.

“The results of the referendum in Crimea clearly showed that residents of Crimea see their future only as part of Russia,” the deputy speaker of the State Duma, Sergei Neverov, was quoted as saying.

Duma officials claim the Black Sea peninsula can become a member of the Russian Federation under current legislation, specifically under a law “On the procedure for the adoption into the Russian Federation and education of new subjects of the Russian Federation” that was passed in 2001, Interfax said.

Russia rejects UN report

Russia rejected as biased on Monday an assessment by a United Nations official who questioned accusations that Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population faced systematic human rights abuses.

The Russian Foreign Ministry statement criticized U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic who said last week there had been violations against ethnic Russians in Ukraine but said there was no evidence they were “widespread or systematic.”

The biased, prejudiced and unobjective assessment of I. Simonovic on the human rights situation in the country calls forth surprise and confusion,” said the ministry in a statement.

Russia has effectively seized control of Ukraine’s broadly Russian-speaking Crimea region. There are also large Russian-speaking populations in the east of the country.

The statement also criticized Simonovic for a statement of concern over the state of human rights for ethnic Tatars in Crimea.

Russia has been justifying its incursion into Crimea as necessary to protect the rights of ethnic Russians living on the peninsula.

Reactions in Kyiv

Thousands of Ukrainians gathered in central Kyiv Sunday to voice opposition to the referendum and what the perceive as Moscow’s moves to divide the Ukraine.

But the mood was somber as many Ukrainians feel helpless against Russia’s might and military superiority, many fearing a further escalation of tensions.

Irina, a restaurant manager who only gave her first name, said Crimea’s fate likely was already decided in Moscow.

She said none of this was right. This could have been done in a nice way, in an honest way, she said. This could have been done in a constitutionally correct way. And it seems to me, she said, everyone would have agreed to that.

Moscow claims it is protecting ethnic Russians from persecution by Ukrainian “extremists” who it says illegitimately came to power after months of anti-government protests.

Another Kyiv resident, Ira, who also only gave her first name, said she had nothing against Russians.

She said she loves and respects the Russian people as much as Ukrainians, but not their government. She expressed hope that everything ends well, everyone becomes united, and that Crimea remains with Ukraine.

VOA’s Daniel Schearf contributed to this report from Kyiv.

The article Obama Announces Sanctions Over Crimea Vote appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RSIS

The mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 over the South China Sea remains unexplained, though speculation abounds. Whatever the cause, the incident has precipitated cooperation among countries locked in maritime disputes.

By Sukjoon Yoon

SINCE THE mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines MH370 on 8 March 2014, several countries have been participating in extensive Search and Rescue (SAR) and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations in the South China Sea and beyond.

This provides a welcome contrast to the heated rhetoric of the past few years and may generate enough goodwill for the nations of the region to reconsider how they use their maritime security forces, paving the way for a fresh approach to the resolution of maritime conflicts and confrontations.

The Search for MH370

Prior to the MH370 issue, the regional media was preoccupied with the deployment of Chinese maritime security forces in disputed waters in the South China Sea, which tended to thwart rather than foster regional maritime peace and stability: For example, during the Chinese navy’s largest-ever joint fleet exercise last November, a vessel escorting the refurbished aircraft carrier Liaoning was involved in a near collision with the Aegis cruiser USS Cowpens. Another example was the harassment of the USNS Impeccable by Chinese Maritime Surveillance vessels in international waters last July.

Significantly, the missing Malaysian airliner has led to maritime security assets being engaged in SAR and HADR operations in waters with overlapping jurisdictional claims: there are disputes between Vietnam and Malaysia and between China, Vietnam and Malaysia in the areas being searched. Overcoming their reluctance to work together, these rival claimants have managed to set aside their quarrels, with the tragedy apparently facilitating genuine maritime cooperation amongst them.

The number of countries involved in the search and rescue operation has increased from 14 to 25 as of 16 March 2014, including Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam. The Chinese contingent comprises four naval vessels (including two large amphibious ships), four maritime patrol craft, six coastguard vessels and 14 rescue ships, with 10 Chinese satellites also joining the search.

Arguments over territorial claims in the South China Sea have been put on hold, and instead there is bilateral and multilateral cooperation aimed at rescuing the victims and recovering the wreckage of the aircraft from waters that have been a major bone of contention between China and ASEAN.

Role of maritime security forces

This is an appropriate moment for the Asia-Pacific region to take a fresh look at the role of its maritime security forces. They have undergone significant changes in recent years, with an expansion of inventories and improved capabilities, but their ultimate raison d’être has remained national defence.

The growth of non-military threats has, however, significantly broadened the function of maritime security forces. They are no longer concerned only with the protection of resources within their 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones, but must also undertake law enforcement tasks to counter maritime terrorism, piracy, and armed robbery, for which they must project force well beyond their territorial waters.

The protection of sea routes, which are vital economic lifelines, especially for energy supplies, is an essential aspect of this broader role, and the prevailing mistrust among the nations of the region has inevitably made such tasks more difficult and complex.

Unfortunately, in this climate of suspicion, there is an increasing risk of prolonged stand-offs between maritime forces giving rise to serious incidents. Even minor altercations can rapidly escalate into military conflict, because many regional security forces are now adopting proactive or even offensive postures.

This problem is aggravated by the close geographical proximity of potential adversaries, and constrained sea space in which their operations take place in disputed waters. Nevertheless, the established diplomatic and benign role of the maritime security forces in the furtherance of peace and stability has expanded considerably.

Improving maritime crisis management

Maritime cooperation comprises more than just the use of maritime security forces. To maintain stability, a crisis management framework between disputing parties is essential to prevent miscalculations and misunderstandings escalating into serious incidents. Perhaps the most sensitive issue demanding such cooperation concerns preserving the freedom of the skies over areas where maritime jurisdictional rights and interests are contested. Specifically, the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea is particularly perilous.

The Chinese government has unilaterally declared an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) which includes coverage of these islands; and maritime patrol surveillance aircraft from these countries continue to monitor one another closely, with frequent dangerous interceptions.

Thus, the possibility of severe clashes, at sea or in the air above the South and East China seas remains unacceptably high, and these risks can only be mitigated by improved maritime crisis management mechanisms like hotlines, policy channels, and strategic dialogues. Seen in this light, the disappearance of flight MH370 offers an opportunity for various parties who are deeply mistrustful of one another to engage with potential opponents in a constructive manner.

For example, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Obama have spoken by telephone to coordinate SAR and HADR operations between their maritime security forces and to avoid clashes in the disputed areas of the South China Sea.

To build upon this new spirit of cooperation, some helpful maritime crisis management measures may be identified:

• Enhance maritime security and confidence-building measures, without undermining national maritime rights and interests;

• Make use of strategic dialogues and hotlines, and conduct exercises and operations only after giving prior information; establish protocols similar to the Incident at Sea (INCSEA) or the Code for Unalerted Encounters between Ships (CUES);

• Agree a common understanding of the law of the sea; and

• Encourage information sharing of “actionable intelligence” to facilitate maritime cooperation.

Fresh start for maritime security?

Although the disappearance of MH370 is undeniably tragic, something positive may come out of it. Regional maritime security forces are involved simultaneously in SAR and HADR operations, and the cooperation which this obliges presents a useful opportunity to build confidence, and thus to make unwanted maritime confrontations less likely in the future.

By allowing a fresh start, this tragedy should contribute to ensuring peace and good order at sea by helping to alleviate the widespread distrust which so bedevils the security of the Asia-Pacific region.

Captain (ROK Navy Ret.) Sukjoon Yoon is a Senior Research Fellow at the Korea Institute for Maritime Strategy and visiting professor with the Department of Defence Systems Engineering in Sejong University, Seoul.

The article MH370 And Maritime Security: Fresh Start For Cooperation? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

The Republic of Crimea has addressed the UN seeking recognition as a sovereign state and called on Russia to integrate it into the Russian Federation. 96.77 percent of the Crimean population voted ‘for’ the integration in a referendum.

“The Republic of Crimea intends to build its relations with other states on the basis of equality, peace, mutual neighborly cooperation, and other generally agreed principles of political, economic and cultural cooperation between states,” the legislation says.

Crimea was declared an independent sovereign state, the Republic of Crimea, on Monday, the autonomous Ukrainian regional parliament’s website stated. The Supreme Council of Crimea unanimously voted to integrate of the region into Russia.

Ukrainian military units on Crimean territory are to be disbanded, with the military personnel allowed to stay and live on the peninsula, Interfax reported Crimean Supreme Council chairman Vladimir Konstantinov as saying.

“Those who, according to their beliefs, don’t accept the Crimean independence and stay true to the Ukrainian state won’t be persecuted,” the head of Crimea’s parliament Vladimir Konstantinov said, as quoted by ITAR-TASS. He added that the same principle will apply to government employees and security workers who took the oath of allegiance to Ukraine.

His comments came after more than 500 troops left Sevastopol to register at temporary checkpoints.

The Crimean Parliament also ruled that Ukrainian state property in the peninsula will become the property of the Republic of Crimea, Kryminform news agency reported.

The Crimean Parliament will remain the supreme legislative body of the republic until September 2015, or until a decision is made to integrate Crimea into the Russian Federation.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s coup-imposed President Aleksandr Turchinov called the referendum “a great farce,” saying it will never be recognized either by Ukraine or by the civilized world,” AFP reported.

It’s after the announcement of the official results: 96.77 percent of the Crimean population has voted ‘for’ integration of the region into the Russian Federation. The turnout was 83.1 per cent.

The referendum saw a massive turnout, with 81.3 percent of the eligible voting population participating, the head of the Crimean parliament’s commission on the referendum, Mikhail Malyshev, said.

There were 1,233,002 votes ‘for’ integration, with the total number of those who voted standing at 1,274,096 people.

The referendum commission has not received any complaints, Malyshev stressed.

Next week, Crimea will officially introduce the ruble as a second official currency along with Ukrainian hryvna, Crimea’s Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov told Interfax. The dual currency is to be established in about six months.

Overall, the republic’s integration into Russia will take up to a year, the premier said. However, it wants to maintain relations with “economic entities, including Ukraine,” rather than burn bridges.

The article Crimea Declares Independence, Seeks UN Recognition appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — The United States and European Union have announced sanctions aimed at punishing a handful of Russians and Ukrainians for their roles in destabilizing Ukraine, where a weekend referendum in Crimea endorsed a plan by breakaway officials there to join the Russian Federation.

President Barack Obama said the U.S. sanctions targeted 11 individuals, seven Russians and four Ukrainians, responsible for “undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine” and violating its territorial integrity.

Obama said Crimea’s referendum violated Ukraine’s constitution and international law. He said any moves by Russia to annex Crimea will not be recognized by the international community. Obama also threatened additional measures if the Kremlin made “further provocations” in Ukraine.

“Now, I believe there is still a path to resolve this situation diplomatically, in a way that it addresses the interest of both Russia and Ukraine,” Obama said.

“That includes Russia pulling its forces in Crimea back to their bases, supporting the deployment of additional international monitors in Ukraine, and engaging in dialogue with the Ukrainian government, which has indicated its openness to pursuing constitutional reform as they move forward towards elections this spring.”

The U.S. sanctions list includes Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin; the head of the Federation Council upper house of parliament, Valentina Matviyenko; and two of President Vladimir Putin’s aides, Vladislav Surkov and Sergei Glazyev.

It also includes State Duma lower-house Deputies Leonid Slutsky and Yelena Mizulina, and Federation Council member Andrei Klishas.

Ukrainians on the U.S. sanctions list include ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, the head of the pro-Russian Ukrainian Choice political organization, Viktor Medvedchuk; and two pro-Russian Crimean political leaders — Sergei Aksyonov, who claims to be Crimean prime minister, and Vladimir Konstantinov, the speaker of Crimea’s parliament.

EU Sanctions

Earlier, the European Union announced travel bans and asset freezes on 21 Russians and Ukrainians.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said on Twitter that more measures were likely in the coming days.

RFE/RL’s correspondent in Brussels says the EU sanctions target 13 Russians and eight Crimeans.

Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, the EU’s former chief negotiator with Ukraine on an Association Agreement, told RFE/RL that neither Putin nor Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were on the initial EU sanctions list.

“The European Union decided to introduce sanctions against individuals — from Crimea and from Russia — who are responsible for the violation of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty; people who have undertaken concrete actions and measures [leading to] deterioration [of] the situation on the ground,” Lajcak said.

“At the same time, this list of people, of course, remains open. This means in case of the continuation of the negative developments on the ground there is readiness to expand this [list].”

NATO also warned Russia against taking any steps to annex Crimea. The alliance called the March 16 referendum in Crimea on joining Russia “both illegal and illegitimate.”

The republican assembly in Crimea earlier in the day applied to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation after a March 16 referendum, conducted with heavily armed Russian troops and self-styled “self-defense” forces patrolling the streets in Crimea, suggested nearly 97 percent support for the move.

The political provisions of an Association Agreement between the EU and the new government in Kyiv are also expected to be signed on March 21 in Brussels.

The Crimea referendum has been rejected as illegal by both Ukraine’s government and Western states.

On the eve of the referendum, Ukraine disbanded the Crimean parliament.

Russia says the referendum complies with international law, and President Vladimir Putin will address a joint session of parliament on Crimea on March 18.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she believed Russia has isolated itself in its recognition of the “so-called referendum.”

“Russia is isolated to a large degree in its recognition of this so-called referendum,” German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said.

“In the UN Security Council, there was a resolution which condemned the fact that this referendum goes against international law and is unconstitutional, with 13 countries in favor of it, China abstaining, and Russia using its power of veto. The chancellor once again communicated yesterday by telephone this clear position with President Putin.”

Crimean lawmakers on March 17 also declared a series of measures aimed at propping up the region. They announced that all Ukrainian state property would become the property of the Crimean Republic. Energy companies Chornomornaftohaz and Ukrtransgaz will be “nationalized.”

The Russian ruble was introduced as a second official currency alongside the Ukrainian hryvnya, with the hryvnya to be phased out by 2016.

The setting up of a central bank with Russian funding was announced.

Crimea’s 2014 budget was revised and would include Russian aid worth more than $409 billion.

The parliament speaker said Ukrainian military units in the region would be disbanded.

Ukraine’s parliament, meanwhile, on March 17 endorsed a presidential decree to carry out a partial mobilization involving 40,000 reservists.

Ukraine’s interim Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsya met with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Brussels to ask for “more technical military equipment.”

NATO said in a statement the alliance was determined to boost cooperation, including “increased ties with Ukraine’s political and military leadership, strengthening efforts to build the capacity of the Ukrainian military, and more joint training and exercises.”

With reporting by RFE/RL Brussels correspondent Rikard Jozwiak, Reuters, AFP, AP, and Interfax

The article EU, US Agree Sanctions Against Russians, Ukrainians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IPCS

By PR Chari

Nuclear Terrorism: Is the threat exaggerated?

To play the Devil’s Advocate, it is not easy for unauthorized persons to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. Being crown jewels, they would be closely guarded by trusted cohorts. Even if they are subverted, the terrorists would have to overcome many other problems. Nuclear warheads are maintained in an unarmed state, and armed using electronic codes to ensure against accidental detonation. These codes are kept secret by the ‘release authority’, obviously the Chief Executive in the nation. Further, in the case of India and Pakistan, nuclear cores are kept separate from the warheads and delivery vehicles; hence several steps have to be taken by different bodies to arm these weapons. Could all these hurdles be surmounted by a terrorist group?

Second, the problems faced to acquire nuclear materials is no less acute. Arrangements for their protection would be equally stringent. Should a terrorist group somehow gain access to weapons-usable nuclear materials, fashioning it into a deliverable nuclear weapon is not a trivial task.

Third, scenario builders have also visualized terrorist organizations gaining control over the nation, and accessing its military nuclear program and nuclear weapons. But the probability of all these events occurring must be rated low.

Nuclear Terrorism: Low Probability, but High Consequence

Despite the above, it is known that senior Pakistani scientists were in touch with Osama bin Laden. The CIA has highlighted al Qaeda’s general interest in weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda’s branches and franchisees span the world. Moreover, several instances are known of missing nuclear materials being recovered. More alarmingly, nuclear materials have been found to be missing after they were recovered. Nuclear terrorism remains a discrete possibility; hence it should be designated a low probability high consequence event.

An imperative need consequently for the upcoming Netherlands Nuclear Security Summit to work towards establishing tighter international controls over nuclear materials; seeking greater transparency on national measures to enhance nuclear security; gaining more adherents for international agreements pertaining to the physical protection of nuclear materials; reducing the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium in national nuclear programs; registering the sources of radioactive materials that have extensive medical, educational and research applications; and strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

India and Nuclear Security

India’s contribution to these objectives has been considerable. It has joined the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, with its 2005 Amendment, and the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Further, India’s execution of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (April 2004) has been exemplary; it casts a legally binding obligation on UN Member States to enforce effective measures against the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (WMDs), and their delivery systems. It is especially intended to prevent terrorists and criminal organizations from obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapons. Towards this end States need to prohibit support to non-state actors seeking WMDs; adopt effective laws prohibiting activities involving the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors; and, enforce effective measures to reduce the vulnerability of many legitimate activities to misuse and the proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors. These are essentially reactive measures.

Meeting the threat of nuclear terrorism proactively, however, requires a holistic program that can be framed within a matrix of four ‘Ds’ viz. Detection, Deterrence, Defense and Disaster Management. Clearly, Detection is an intelligence function, which requires high level attention, constant vigilance, technical competence and so on. The Deterrence option requires the country sheltering potential nuclear terrorists to be placed on notice, and threatened with condign punishment if any act of nuclear terrorism is perpetrated by its terrorists-in-residence. The problem here is that an organization like al Qaeda has branches in several countries. How can a deterrent relationship be established vis-à-vis such an organization? Defense against a nuclear attack is not feasible. hence it must be sought within the Defense and Deterrence matrix. Finally, Disaster Management in the post-attack aftermath must comprise a mix of immediate and longer-term relief, medical assistance, evacuation and rehabilitation measures. Special measures would be needed to deal with radiation casualties. There are many grey areas here such as the first responders getting incapacitated, and the sociological impact on affected societies, of which we have no knowledge or previous experience.

India, Nuclear Security and the NSS 2014

There is much that India can contribute to the Netherlands Security Summit. It could do more to meet the criticism that its nuclear program is opaque, and become more forthcoming about its emergency response systems It must also explain why it has not been able to fulfill its earlier commitments to establish an independent nuclear regulatory authority and a Centre of Excellence to train personnel in nuclear safety and security matters. It had contributed $ 1 million to strengthen the IAEA as the focal entity to ensure nuclear security. India could add to this contribution, and offer training facilities to IAEA personnel in its Centre of Excellence.

But, India should also suggest the extension of nuclear security measures by promoting pro-active measures to ensure nuclear security through a four ‘Ds’ program.

PR Chari
Visiting Professor, IPCS

The article India And Nuclear Terrorism: Meeting The Threat – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By JTW

By Emre Tunç Sakaoğlu

Indian Election Commission recently declared that the 16th parliamentary elections in the modern history of India will take place between April 7th and May 22th through nine phases, due to security and logistic reasons. Also in several states, legislative elections will take place concurrently. The votes to be given under the scope of the parliamentary elections nation-wide will be counted on May 16th. The new parliament is going to be convened by May 31st.

Around 15,000 candidates and 500 political parties are registered to compete in April according to official estimates. Moreover, around 150 million new voters will participate in the upcoming elections on the national level. In total, with 814 million registered voters to gather in 930,000 polling booths, the Indian electorate is the largest in the World.

After the most recent parliamentary elections (held in 2009), Indian National Congress (Congress Party), which is one of the oldest political parties in the world and center-left oriented, won the largest number of seats among all the competing parties (206 seats out of 543) in the lower house of the parliament (Lok Sabha).

Today, the Chairman of the Congress Party is Sonia Gandhi, while the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, is the leader of the Congress Party in the upper house of the parliament (Rajya Sabha). On the other hand, the electoral campaign of the Congress Party is led by young Rahul Gandhi, a dynamic but controversial figure and the youngest member of the Nehru-Gandhi tradition. The Congress Party is today leading the current coalition government – United Progressive Alliance (UPA) – with a majority of seats under the coalition’s control with the support of several smaller regional parties.

Three rising trends in Indian politics

Under current circumstances, three major trends are expected to leave their mark on the upcoming electoral process: the downtrend in the Congress Party’s validity and popularity, increasing appeal of authoritarian capitalism, and the rise of local figures as well as minor parties and leaders.

First of all, despite the democratic reforms the Congress Party had realized and the government’s successful endeavor to increase social welfare provisions for the poor in its ongoing term, the current political leadership is not as popular as it used to be among the masses. It is indirectly because of the fact that the socialist tradition dating back to the Cold War era under famous figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indra Gandhi still dominates the economic mentality of the party’s MPs and ministers.

Indeed, prominent figures within the Congress Party had controversially inhibited large-scale development projects with their disputed policy preferences since 2004 due to their obsession with social spending and populist redistribution (instead of supporting investors and capitalists at large). It is widely believed that the Congress Party can neither expand the manifacturing base and control inflation thereby, nor exhibit sustainable economic growth by putting an end to rampant corruption.

The Congress Party is also commonly associated with the “Licence Raj”, the massive and unwieldy red-tape mechanism inherited from British colonial rule which the Congress Party was finally able to abolish only partially especially due to its ideological reservation on loosening the labor law. Nevertheless, widespread corruption, which has its origins in the loose central goverrnmental authority over localities and in coordinating the management of the country’s unevenly-distributed resources, is pointed out as the Congress Party’s major achilles heel at this juncture.

The rise of BJP

The Congress Party’s major rival is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is a center-right Hindu nationalist entity led by Narendra Modi, the current leader of the main opposition. Mr. Modi is the current prime-ministerial candidate proposed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Hindu nationalist BJP. BJP promises creating more jobs for India’s under-25 population which constitutes half of the total, and it is popularly identified with efficient but oppressive government in localities where it previously ruled. Nevertheless, BJP has the backing of strong regional leaders seeking new opportunities with the elections to take place in April.

Mr. Modi was previously the chief minister ruling over the western coastal state of Gujarat, where he single-handedly created an economic miracle. Today, Gujarat attracts a huge amount of banking finance, foreign investment and trade income when compared with the rest of India, including the richest states. It has succeeded in maintaining growth rates over 10% since 1990s (also under BJP), and since 2001, it is mostly referred as India’s industrial engine.

Mr. Modi and his party are well-known all over India also with their nationalist discourse, authoritarian but highly-trusted image, and economic promise. Therefore Mr. Modi, an experienced strongman but a polarizing leader with a harsh tone as well, has a great chance to win the upcoming elections in April with a landslide together with his coalition partners who also emerged out of localities as strong figures promising economic rejuvenation.

Local leaders at the forefront

Among the local leaders who take place in the two major coalitions are figures such as Jayalalithaa Jayaram, chief minister of the southern Tamil Nadu state and Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal. Another assertive figure who is expected to be influential over the election results and attracts nation-wide support is Mrs. Mayawati. Mrs. Mayawati is a lady who had dedicated her political carreer to struggle for the rights and welfare of the lowest “caste” in India’s traditional social hierarchy.

Individual figures have been influential over India’s national politics since 1989, because not a single party was able to gain majority (272 seats out of 543 in the lower house sufficient to form a government) without appealing for the support of prominent local figures, popular individuals such as Mrs. Mayawati, and minor parties. The first-past-the-post system leading to the political context described above is still in effect, therefore the trend is expected to continue.

There is also a third organized alternative to the BJP-led coalition and the Congress Party-led coalition, which will play a crucial rule in determining the final balance between the percentage of votes gained by the two major coalitions as mentioned above. This alternative political movement is led by Aam Aadmi Party – AAP (or ‘Common Man Party’), which grounds all its electoral promise on anti-corruption and motivates its grasroots with a discourse built around the purification of politics all over India. Nevertheless, a coalition independent of the two major parties (the Congress Party and the BJP) is not expected to overwhelm the upcoming election results on its own.

The article World’s Biggest Democratic Exercise: Indian Elections In April – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By EurActiv

(EurActiv) — Western countries that supported Ukraine’s 1994 nuclear disarmament agreement should provide more effective help against Russia, or Kyiv will re-start building up a nuclear arsenal, said Vladimir Ogryzko, a former Ukrainian foreign minister.

The only measure that could ensure Ukraine’s security is to abandon the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNPNW), said Ogryzko, who served as foreign minister in the government of Yulia Tymoshenko in 2007-2009.

Ukraine renounced its nuclear arsenal in 1994, when it signed the Treaty for the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TNPNW) with Russia, the USA and the UK, relinquishing weapons inherited from the former USSR.

Through the so-called Budapest Memorandum, these countries, which later included China and France, gave national security assurances to Ukraine, and also Belarus and Kazakhstan, where Soviet weapons were stationed. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of 4 December 2009 confirmed their commitment.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in return for those “security assurances”.

According to the Budapest memorandum, the Russian Federation, Great Britain and the United States reaffirmed their commitment to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.

But the Budapest Memorandum has proved of little use in the context of the ongoing crisis in Crimea. Russia has been unimpressed by warnings that its actions in Crimea violate this international treaty.

Ogryzko said that if the West doesn’t get serious about helping Ukraine following the Crimea annexation, he would advise the country’s leadership to exit the TNPNW and start the production of nuclear weapons.

The former foreign minister said this would be “the only measure which could secure [Ukraine’s] security”.

“This is not a joke, this is a serious thing… And if we keep acting as we did in the previous few weeks, the next landing of Russian paratroopers will be in Kyiv,” Ogryzko said.

It can be assumed that Ukraine has the know-how for building nuclear weapons, Ukrainian experts told EurActiv, But this is a long process, that takes time and money. During the Cold War, nuclear weapons served as a deterrent for conventional military attacks between Western nations, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries.

The article Ukraine Should Rebuild Its Nuclear Arsenal, Says Former Minister appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Neville Teller

To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain Jews…
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak:
I have become all things to all men… — St Paul, 1 Corinthians

Politicians certainly aren’t saints, but they do have this in common.

On February 7, 2014 David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, delivered a rousing speech on the subject of the forthcoming referendum in which the Scots are to be offered the option of renouncing their union with the rest of the United Kingdom and becoming an independent nation. He did not presume to advise the Scots on how to vote, but addressed himself to the rest of the UK – the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish – urging them to use their influence with their Scottish relatives and friends in favour of preserving the Union.

In proof of the inextricable bonds that have developed over the centuries between the Scots and the rest of the UK, Cameron pointed to his own surname and origins. Cameron is an undoubted Scottish name.

“Such is the fusion of our bloodlines,” he declared, “that my surname goes back to the West Highlands and, by the way, I am as proud of my Scottish heritage as I am of my English heritage. The name Cameron might mean ‘crooked nose’ but the clan motto is “Let us unite” – and that’s exactly what we in these islands have done.”

On March 12, 2014, David Cameron was in Israel. Addressing the Knesset, he augmented his English-Scottish origins.

“My Jewish ancestry,” he informed the assembled MKs, and through them the rest of the Jewish people, in both Israel and the diaspora, “is relatively limited, but I do feel just some sense of connection – from the lexicon of my great-great-grandfather, Emile Levita, a Jewish man who came from Germany to Britain 150 years ago, to the story of my forefather Elijah Levita, who wrote what is thought to have been the first ever Yiddish novel.”

Cameron’s Jewish heritage was first revealed in 2009, when one of Britain’s leading rabbinical authorities, Yaakov Wise, of Manchester University’s Centre for Jewish Studies, traced his family tree back to the 16th-century Jewish scholar Elijah Levita.

Levita, who was responsible for the first dictionary of the Targums, or Aramaic commentaries on the Hebrew Bible, wrote his novel, “The Bove-Bukh”, in about 1507. It was published in 1541, the first non-religious book to be printed in Yiddish. A high popular chivalric romance, it went through at least 40 editions over the next five centuries. The Bove-Bukh became known in the late-18th century as the Bove-mayse or “Bovo’s tale” – and this title was in turn corrupted, and passed into the Yiddish language as bubbe meise (literally “grandmother’s tale”).

Britain’s prime minister was bold enough not only to declare his one-sixteeenth connection to the Jewish people, but to pledge himself to oppose the boycott of Israel, because the main purpose of his visit was to enhance UK-Israeli trade. His plane to Israel was full of the men and women whose businesses are contributing to what has recently turned into a bilateral trade bonanza. That is the reality of the British-Israeli relationship – which is why attempts to destroy it via the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement are doomed to irrelevance. As Cameron himself said, back in December 2012: “We are going to keep on working with Israel, doing business with Israel, trading with Israel.”

In that address, Cameron was fulsome in his admiration for Israeli achievements.

“Israel has got more start-up businesses per head than any other country. How do they do it? It’s about the aspiration and drive of its people. These are people who have innovated around every problem that life has thrown at them. So we want to work much more closely with Israel – on innovation, on technology.”

The success of that policy is clearly apparent in the just-released trade statistics for 2013. Total UK-Israeli bilateral trade rose over those twelve months by 5.7 per cent, or $300 million, to stand at very nearly $5.5 billion in all.

Trading activity is weighted heavily in favour of Israel. Israel imported some $2 billion-worth of goods from the UK, but exported some $3.5 billion-worth. The UK is, except for the US, Israel’s largest export market.

UK demand for Israeli medicines helped take bilateral trade to its record high, as British patients benefited from Israeli pharmaceutical advances, including drugs for Parkinson’s disease, such as Azilect, developed by Technion scientists, and generic versions of drugs produced by Teva. Other Israeli goods popular with Britons included fruit and vegetables, coffee, tea and spices.

“Given Israel’s status as the ‘start-up nation’, consistently developing new technologies across sectors,” said Hugo Bieber, chief executive of UK Israel Business, a leading organization promoting trade relations between the two countries, “we expect to see trade between the UK and Israel continue to increase.”

Economic development is a key plank in the movement towards some sort of Israel-Palestine détente – development, that is, in the moribund Palestinian economy. Early on in his current push towards a peace agreement, US Secretary of State John Kerry wholeheartedly endorsed “Breaking the Impasse”, a new business-led initiative aimed at fostering Israeli-Palestinian peace and prosperity. The project was launched at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Jordan in May 2013, by a group of prominent Israeli and Palestinian businessmen.

Kerry, convinced that fostering economic growth will profoundly improve the chance of the political peace process, clearly sees in “Breaking the Impasse” a valuable instrument for furthering his policy. He has, accordingly, invested the initiative with both US cash and dynamic leadership. He has got Quartet representative, one-time UK prime minister Tony Blair, to head an ambitious plan to develop a healthy, sustainable, private-sector-led Palestinian economy.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Cameron met Blair in East Jerusalem, as the UK prime minister prepared for talks with Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas. The pair discussed Blair’s Palestinian economic initiative, and afterwards Blair gave his backing to Cameron’s drive to boost economic links.
“If we don’t build the Palestinian economy up at the same time as pursuing the political negotiation,” said Blair, “then a state for the Palestinians seems a dream and not a reality.”

In the joint press conference held by Cameron and Abbas after their meeting on March 13, Cameron promised a package of UK support for Palestinian businesses and farming communities, which the World Bank estimates will boost the Palestinian economy by some $700 million.

Cameron stopped short of claiming Canaanite, Arab, or Palestinian lineage – unlike PA’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. “I am the proud son of the Canaanites,” Erekat recently maintained, “who were there 5,500 years before Joshua bin Nun burned down the town of Jericho.” His family tree, posted on Facebook, shows his clan, part of the Huwaitat tribe, descends from Arabia, not Canaan.

The article Cameron, The UK And Israel – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By IPCS

By Salma Malik

The announcement of a drawdown timeline for US troops from Afghanistan predictably garnered mixed reactions. However, most of the issues that brought the US-led ISAF to the region still remain unresolved. Where on one hand Osama bin Laden’s killing is an ace for the US, the al Qaeda as an entity still remains. This leaves the second spoiler, the Afghan Taliban, as well as their faith brothers, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Both of them have the advantage of being sons of the soil. There is no timeline to chase, so they have the luxury to act as spoilers, keep the security profile turbulent in real time and wait for the ‘foreigners’ to exit. Though the Afghan Taliban has suffered significant losses, their structures, ability to recruit, and countrywide operations remain intact with new tactics and means to hold ground.

Afghanistan today is not the one left in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal and the faulty Geneva Accords. This is good news, as even in the worst-case future scenario, one cannot envision the international community leaving Kabul in the lurch. However it correspondingly gives rise to another problem: that too many actors with vested interests will turn Afghanistan into their proxy strategic playfield. For the moment, Afghans are happy with this international focus and seemingly positive attention, but the years to come may change this happy picture. A larger chunk of Afghan civil society, which is highly proactive in democratic nation-building, is drawn from the Afghan diaspora, who despite their best intentions may not be able to withstand a possible surge in militancy and violence in case a situation so arises. The law enforcement and security apparatus, ANSF, though much improved and stronger than before still has a long way to go and its performance post transition would at best remain a mixed bag, which given Afghanistan’s complex security dynamics, is not at all a good news. That leaves the ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’ democratic and nation-building process, which like many of the ‘Made in US’ products leaves much to be desired. In a cross-section of Afghan nationals, there exists deep skepticism about the ‘Afghan-owned’ component largely missing from the frame, thus once again constructing a system that has very weak foundations.

Much depends on the results of the forthcoming elections. With all the presidential candidates and their affiliates minus incumbent president Karzai consenting to the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), Afghanistan requires a strong representative government with indigenous legitimacy and capacity to extend its writ outside Kabul without external props. Will the Taliban be willing to negotiate and agree to some non-violent power-sharing? There are serious doubts. What would be the impact of these developments on Pakistan? Though the Pakistani government is already in talks with the TTP (Pakhtun faction) and there is a temporary respite from the US drones, bombings and civilian killings have not reduced and nor has the US announced a complete termination of its drone attack policy. In fact most of the Taliban high shura has comfortably crossed over into Afghanistan and will remain there for as long as it suits them. Though the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are pursuing their independent agenda, one must not forget their past links and the strength and resilience of their networks. In addition, the history of Pak-US relations is highly checkered, and even after eleven plus years, Pakistani society remains highly divided about whether this has been Pakistan’s war.

In case the talks with the TTP fail and there is a breach in the security framework that would result as a part of the agreement, would post-2014 Afghanistan be able to provide security cooperation to Pakistan, mainly in the shape of border closure, hot pursuit into ‘friendly’ territory to capture militants, intelligence-sharing and perceivable joint operations? With divergent perspectives and a strong sense of the other side being the spoiler, there is doubt that such a cooperative security regime could work. However, for the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, the post 2014 timeline would actually be a welcoming notion. So long as there is an American security interest and presence, there is optimism for a better security framework. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan can conveniently dump their bad diplomacy on the US. It also acts as a balancer against a stronger Indian presence.

Though Pakistani decision-makers have reinforced the point that they have no reservations with New Delhi’s ‘legitimate’ interests in Afghanistan, they would always remain wary of any military or strategic role India has in Afghanistan. Realistically, every country, be it the US (Monroe doctrine) or India (Nepal, Bhutan), has similar concerns when it comes to its strategic interests. Afghanistan of the future holds increased economic and commercial activity and corresponding involvement of the international community, as well as pressure for increased transit and trilateral (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan) trade. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the changing trends and pressures. Ironically, the energy pipelines still remain somewhat elusive; a problematic profile for energy-stressed Pakistan specifically. The coming months are fraught with multiple challenges that need a sustainable, well-articulated and well thought-out approach. The 2014 exit timeline in fact heralds a new chapter in the region’s strategic relations, which would largely shape future dynamics.

Salma Malik
Assistant professor, Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University

The article US Afghan Exit Strategy: Consequences For Pakistan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By William Donohue

Diageo, the parent company of Guinness, and Heineken, have pulled their sponsorship of New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade; the Boston Beer Company, maker of Sam Adams, has withdrawn its sponsorship of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade.

None of these companies believe in diversity. No gay person has ever been barred from marching in any St. Patrick’s Day parade, anymore than the parade bans pro-life Catholics or vegetarian Catholics; they simply cannot march under their own banner. The parade has one cause: honoring St. Patrick. Those who disagree do not have to march—that’s what diversity is all about.

The parade is quintessentially Catholic, beginning with a Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. It is this Catholic element that angers those who are engaged in a bullying campaign against the St. Patrick’s Day parades. The bullies also have nothing but contempt for the constitutional rights of Irish Catholics.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that the First Amendment guarantees the right of private parade organizers to determine its own rules for marching. It is this liberty that the makers of Guinness, Heineken, and Sam Adams want to squash.

I have had my last Guinness and Sam Adams. Heineken was always slop, so there is no sacrifice there. I urge Catholics, and all those who believe in tolerance, diversity, and the First Amendment, to join with me in boycotting these brews.

The article Boycott Guinness, Sam Adams, Heineken – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Al Bawaba News

Egypt’s military-backed government has jailed nearly 16,000 people since July 2013, when President Mohamed Morsi was ousted, a report says.

Citing senior security officials, the report released by the Associated Press said that about 3,000 Muslim Brotherhood members were among the detainees who have been put behind bars since the ouster of Morsi over eight months ago.

Among the detainees are also hundreds of women and minors.

According to the report, many inmates have been held in Egyptian prisons for months without any charges formally brought against them.

Rights activists have already reported abuse in prisons, with some inmates describing systematic torture and miserable conditions.

“My son looks like a caveman now. His hair and nails are long, he has a beard and he is unclean,” Nagham Omar said, describing her 20-year-old son Salahideen Ayman Mohammed.

Omar added that her son and 22 others are packed in a three-by-three meter cell in a police station in the southern city of Assiut.

Last year, the Muslim Brotherhood movement was listed by Egyptian authorities as a terrorist group.

The United Nations Human Rights Council recently expressed concern over the Egyptian security forces’ heavy-handed crackdown and the killing of peaceful anti-government protesters.

According to rights groups, 1,400 people have been killed in the political violence since the ouster of Morsi, “most of them due to excessive force used by security forces.”

Original article

The article Egypt Has Arrested 16,000 People Since Morsi’s Ouster – Report appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By US President Barack Obama

Good morning, everybody. In recent months, as the citizens of Ukraine have made their voices heard, we have been guided by a fundamental principle — the future of Ukraine must be decided by the people of Ukraine. That means Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected, and international law must be upheld.

And so, Russia’s decision to send troops into Crimea has rightly drawn global condemnation. From the start, the United States has mobilized the international community in support of Ukraine to isolate Russia for its actions and to reassure our allies and partners. We saw this international unity again over the weekend, when Russia stood alone in the U.N. Security Council defending its actions in Crimea. And as I told President Putin yesterday, the referendum in Crimea was a clear violation of Ukrainian constitutions and international law, and it will not be recognized by the international community.

Today, I’m announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on Russia and on those responsible for what is happening in Ukraine. First, as authorized by the executive order I signed two weeks ago, we are imposing sanctions on specific individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity and government of Ukraine. We’re making it clear that there are consequences for their actions.

Second, I have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. As an initial step, I’m authorizing sanctions on Russian officials — entities operating in the arms sector in Russia and individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government. And if Russia continues to interfere in Ukraine, we stand ready to impose further sanctions.

Third, we’re continuing our close consultations with our European partners, who today in Brussels moved ahead with their own sanctions against Russia. Tonight, Vice President Biden departs for Europe, where he will meet with the leaders of our NATO allies — Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And I’ll be traveling to Europe next week. Our message will be clear. As NATO allies, we have a solemn commitment to our collective defense, and we will uphold this commitment.

Fourth, we’ll continue to make clear to Russia that further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world. The international community will continue to stand together to oppose any violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and continued Russian military intervention in Ukraine will only deepen Russia’s diplomatic isolation and exact a greater toll on the Russian economy.

Going forward, we can calibrate our response based on whether Russia chooses to escalate or to de-escalate the situation. Now, I believe there’s still a path to resolve this situation diplomatically in a way that addresses the interest of both Russia and Ukraine. That includes Russia pulling its forces in Crimea back to their bases, supporting the deployment of additional international monitors in Ukraine, and engaging in dialogue with the Ukrainian government, which has indicated its openness to pursuing constitutional reform as they move forward towards elections this spring.

But throughout this process, we’re going to stand firm in our unwavering support for Ukraine. As I told Prime Minister Yatsenyuk last week, the United States stands with the people of Ukraine and their right to determine their own destiny. We’re going to keep working with Congress and our international partners to offer Ukraine the economic support that it needs to weather this crisis and to improve the daily lives of the Ukrainian people.

And as we go forward, we’ll continue to look at the range of ways we can help our Ukrainian friends achieve their universal rights and the security, prosperity and dignity that they deserve. Thanks very much. And Jay, I think, will be available for questions. Thank you.

The article Obama Statement On Ukraine appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Civil.Ge

(Civil.Ge) — The leader of Georgia’s breakaway region of Abkhazia, Alexander Ankvab, said that Sokhumi, “respects the will of Crimeans, supports and recognizes their momentous choice.”

The referendum, he told the Russian news agencies on March 16, “reflects the will of multi-national people of the peninsula.”

He also said that this decision is based not only on “historical past, but on modern political realities as well.”

“This is a classical example of supremacy of the will of people,” Ankvab said.

Foreign ministry of Georgia’s another breakaway region, South Ossetia, issued a statement on March 17 saying: “South Ossetia respects the right of population of Crimea to determine independently its fate.”

“It cannot but be noted position of the authorities in Kiev, who have refrained from attempts to forcefully hinder population of Crimea to express its will,” breakaway South Ossetia’s foreign ministry said.

The article Georgia Breakaway Region Abkhazia Recognizes Crimea Vote appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

The arbitrary arrest and detention of prominent human rights defenders is an attempt to silence criticism and divert the spotlight from ongoing abuses, leading global and Asian human rights monitors said today in a joint statement.

The statement was issued by Amnesty International, Forum Asia, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and the International Commission of Jurists.

Ruki Fernando of the Colombo-based INFORM and Father Praveen Mahesan, a Catholic priest, were arrested in Kilinochchi on March 16, and are believed to be detained without formal charges under Sri Lanka’s notoriously draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

“The Sri Lankan authorities need to release Fernando and Father Praveen, and end the ongoing state harassment of human rights defenders,” said David Griffiths, Amnesty International’s deputy director for Asia Pacific. “How can the international community take Sri Lanka’s claims to respect rights seriously when rights defenders continue to face intimidation and criminal charges for demanding accountability and human rights protection?”

The police Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) detained and questioned Ruki Fernando and Father Praveen after they sought to ensure the welfare of 13-year-old Balendran Vithushaini, who had been ordered into probationary care following the arrest of her mother, Balendran Jeyakumari, on March 13. Both mother and daughter are active opponents of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka and have been prominently featured in international media coverage of demonstrations by families of the disappeared, most recently in Jaffna in November 2013 during a visit by British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Fernando and Father Praveen were questioned separately in two different buildings for more than three hours by several TID officers. Lawyers acting on their behalf were given contradictory information about the arrests and the reasons for their detention. The most recent information is that Fernando and Father Praveen have been taken to police Terrorism Investigation Division headquarters in Colombo, and their lawyers are still seeking access to them.

Fernando and Father Praveen have not been charged to date, but according to Sri Lankan Police spokesperson Senior Superintendent Ajith Rohana, they will be charged with “attempting to create instability among communities” and “allegedly promoting separatism” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The PTA has been widely criticized by Sri Lankan civil society, international monitoring organizations, and United Nations bodies. In its report, Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, the International Commission of Jurists documents how provisions of the PTA have resulted in arbitrary detention, contravened suspects’ right to a fair trial and due process, and facilitated torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.

The human rights groups said that the arrests are particularly disturbing since a resolution on Sri Lanka’s failure to address accountability is under discussion and will be voted on soon at the ongoing Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions in Geneva. The international community has long called for Sri Lanka to take meaningful steps to end its culture of impunity.

“This ongoing campaign of reprisals against those speaking out against human rights violations shows the extent of the government’s impunity,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia director at the International Commission of Jurists. “The international community, through its voting at the Human Rights Council, must judge Sri Lanka not by its promises, but by its actions.”

In spite of two prior resolutions by the UNHRC in 2012 and 2013, Sri Lanka has taken no measurable steps towards ensuring justice for the victims of its civil war, and has instead launched an aggressive campaign against those who advocate for accountability. Human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and civil society members who are critical of the government have regularly been threatened and harassed. Those who have an international profile, such as Fernando, face particular government hostility.

“Sri Lankan authorities systematically clamp down on those who seek to reach out to the international community, especially around significant events such as the Human Rights Council sessions or the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting,” said Evelyn Balais-Serrano, the executive director of Forum-Asia. “Instead of protecting human rights defenders, the latest arrests show the Sri Lankan government is stepping up its aggressive stance towards those seeking justice and answers.”

The arrests also call into question the Sri Lankan government’s stated commitment to improving respect for human rights since the end of the armed conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009, the groups said.

“Arresting peaceful activists known for their work with victims of rights violations from all ethnic communities is not a way to build trust and restore relationships damaged by the war,” said Jonathan Prentice, the International Crisis Group’s chief policy officer. “If sustainable peace is to be more than an illusion, the rights of Sri Lanka’s victims and human rights defenders to speak freely and safely must be protected.”

The organizations stressed that Fernando and Father Praveen should be given full rights while they remain in detention. Under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a state party, people deprived of their liberty must be promptly informed of the reasons for their detention, be given prompt and regular access to lawyers, and be promptly brought before a judge or judicial officer.

The rights organizations pointed out that Sri Lanka’s security forces have a well-documented history of custodial torture. Human Rights Watch’s 2013 report, “‘We Will Teach You a Lesson’: Sexual Violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces,” documented sexual violence and other torture by the TID and other security forces.

“Human Rights Council members should demand the immediate release of Fernando and Father Praveen and be clear that this will not deter them from adopting a necessary resolution on Sri Lanka,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The arrest of these human rights defenders shows just how important it is for the international community to stand up for human rights in Sri Lanka.”

Signed by:

• Amnesty International
• FORUM-ASIA
• International Commission of Jurists
• International Crisis Group
• Human Rights Watch

The article Sri Lanka: Free Prominent Rights Defenders, Say Human Rights Groups appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By VOR

Fashion designer L’Wren Scott, the girlfriend of Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger, has been found dead at her apartment in New York, the rocker’s spokesman said Monday. The spokesman said Jagger, 70, was “completely shocked and devastated” by the death of the 49-year-old Scott. US media reported that the former model was found hanged.

Jagger is currently in Australia, where he is touring with the Stones, who were due to perform in Perth on Wednesday.

Scott had dated the Rolling Stones frontman since 2001 following his split from wife Jerry Hall.

There had been no public sign that anything was wrong. The designer’s official Twitter account was last updated with a link to a fashion shoot, after police were called to her apartment.

Jagger’s first wife Bianca tweeted her condolences.

“Heartbroken to learn of the loss of the lovely and talented L’Wren Scott. My thoughts and prayers are with her family. May she rest in peace,” she wrote.

New York police refused to release any name but confirmed that officers found a dead woman at 200 11th Avenue in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood shortly after 10:00 am (1400 GMT).

“Upon arrival, officers discovered a 49-year-old female unconscious and unresponsive,” a police spokeswoman told AFP.

“She was pronounced dead on arrival. The investigation is ongoing. The medical examiners will determine the cause of death.”

A spokesman for the New York Fire Department confirmed only that firefighters had found a dead body when called to the address to respond to a “possible cardiac arrest.”

“We cannot release any more information before any proper family notification,” the police spokeswoman said.

US media reports said the six-foot, four-inch (1.93m) Scott was found with a scarf tied around her neck.

No note was found, local media reported.

Famous for her relationship with Jagger, Scott was also a hugely successful designer whose body-hugging and figure-flattering dresses were loved by Hollywood stars and Michelle Obama alike.

Only last month she had debuted her line at London Fashion Week.

In a relationship for well over a decade with Jagger, she had appeared to give the aging rocker a degree of romantic stability despite the couple’s 21-year age gap.

He has had a multitude of high-profile relationships with models, singers and actresses, and has seven children with four different women.

He twice married models — Bianca and Jerry Hall — while other ex-lovers include singers Marianne Faithfull and Carla Bruni, who is now married to former French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Born in Utah, Scott worked in Paris as a model, before finding herself more interested in dress making than walking the runway.

She moved to Los Angeles, where she began to work as a stylist and a costume designer for film, before launching her own brand, now stocked in some of the world’s most exclusive shops.

Launched in 2006, she called her first collection, Little Black Dress, and then moved into shoes, handbags and eyewear, as well as collaborating on cosemtics with Lancome in 2010.

Most recently, she collaborated with high-street fashion brand Banana Republic on apparel and accessories for women.

The article Mick Jagger’s Girlfriend L’Wren Scott Found Dead In NYC – Spokesman appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ria Novosti

Leaders of all four factions in the State Duma, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, jointly submitted a draft statement on Ukraine’s breakaway region of Crimea on Monday evening.

The draft resolution welcomes the results of Sunday’s referendum, in which 96.7 percent of voters in the southern Ukrainian region had backed reunification with Russia after 60 years as part of Ukraine.

State Duma lawmakers undertake “to contribute to the social and economic development of Crimea and the prosperity of its population, to maintain peace, calmness and conciliation on this territory during the transition period.”

The chamber’s members also vow to respect legitimate rights of all Crimean residents, “regardless of their citizenship, ethnicity, language and religion.”

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin will address an assembly of both houses of parliament, as well as heads of regions and representatives of public organizations about Crimea’s reunification request.

The referendum in the autonomous republic within Ukraine, which was held on Sunday amid an ongoing political crisis in the country, is at the center of the most serious geopolitical showdown between Russia and the West since the end of the Cold War.

The article Draft Resolution On Crimea Submitted To Russian Parliament appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By John Fitzroy

While in the West World War II turned into the Cold War in the late 1940s and history ended after 1991, across the iron curtain in the Soviet block the period of the Cold War was more akin to an ice age. During this period, communist regimes deftly applied the repressive levers of the one party state to freeze war-time sectarian conflicts and centripetal forces in multinational states, for 45 years justifying their existence with their defeat of fascism in 1945 and the continued struggle against a new foe – Western capitalism.

The thawing of this ice age in the post-Soviet spring of 1989-1991 led to the reactivation of World War II-era sectarian slaughter, triggered by Slobodan Milosevic’s drive to forge a greater Serbia, ostensibly to unite and protect Serb communities in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo by annexing their territories and cleansing them of non-Serbs, even where non-Serbs constituted a majority of the population.

The dissolution of the Soviet empire in the early nineties was relatively bloodless, partly because it had stood largely united during World War II and partly because Boris Yeltsin largely refrained from nationalist politics. The fifteen former republics declared independence during 1991 with apparent relief that the dehumanizing Soviet experiment was finally over and in 1994, Ukraine agreed to hand its formidable nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for guarantees of its sovereignty and territorial integrity from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.

A few localized but nasty conflicts did emerge, however, notably that in Transnistria, a sliver of land between south-western Ukraine and Moldova, which has long been the thin end of Moscow’s wedge in historic Bessarabia. There, in 1992, Russia supported the breakaway ethnic Russian population of Moldova and the territory, with no international recognition but still under Russian protection, has since acted as a source of contraband and instability in the region.

Whetting the appetite

Over the 20 years following the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc, the West ignored the black hole of Transnistria and allowed the non-Baltic former Soviet republics to languish under ever-more corrupt and despotic regimes from Minsk and Moscow to Baku and Tashkent. Emboldened by this disengagement, this perceived weakness of Western leaders, and peeved by Georgia’s pro-Western stance and economic reforms, the Kremlin provided military support to Georgia’s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in August 2008, recognized their independence and continuing to act as their military guarantor. No other UN member has recognized such independence, nor has any action been taken against such aggression.

Most recently, of course, Russia began its occupation of Crimea at the end of February 2014, deploying some 20,000 soldiers (which the Kremlin denies are from Russia) and considerable military hardware. These are supported by Crimean security forces and a fearsome array of irregulars, including disbanded Berkut riot police units, Russian Cossacks, Serb Chetniks from Bosnia and Kosovo and hastily recruited local ‘self-defence’ street thugs. The small peninsula with its sunny beach resorts, is awash with fully armed, masked and apparently unaccountable men.

Under these conditions and following the decision of the Crimean parliament, also taken at gunpoint, Crimea held a referendum on whether to exit Ukraine and join the Russian Federation or to resort to the ambiguous status between Ukrainian authority and independence that it held in 1992, a period best remembered for its lawlessness. The day before the referendum Russia alone vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have declared the referendum illegal. The following day, a showcase vote took place at which the levels of both turnout and support for Russian annexation reflected that the peninsula was reverting to the Soviet past.

Drums of war

Also on the eve of this ‘referendum,’ rival rallies were held in Moscow, where tens of thousands attended on each side, as well as in a number of cities across Russia. Opposition demonstrations supported Ukrainian sovereignty and opposed war, while pro-government rallies called for the annexation of Crimea and a stand against ‘fascism.’ The Moscow pro-government rally was clearly highly organized, with thousands of men and women dressed in uniform red jackets, with caps and red flags, standing in serried ranks, cheering in unison and singing World War II Soviet marches in a choreographed display of unity and aggression that would have impressed even Pyongyang’s Kim Jong Un.

The Putin regime’s ideology borrows heavily from the Soviet Union, using 1945 and continued internal and external threats to justify its existence and to suppress internal dissent. In moves to protect ethnic Russian ‘compatriots’ from Western-backed Ukrainian ‘fascists,’ the Kremlin has not only broken international law by deploying its forces in Crimea and supporting the referendum, but has also deployed far larger forces to the eastern and northern borders of Ukraine, including in Belarus, and has raised the terrifying spectre of conflict between Russians and Ukrainians.

These are acts of cynical revanchist aggression driven by cold fury over the toppling the criminal puppet Yanukovych, blind refusal to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty and gnawing fear that a democratic and prosperous Ukraine would spell not only the end of the Kremlin regime’s political legacy – a customs union of Eurasian autocracies able to negotiate ‘on equal terms’ with the EU and ultimately stretching ‘from Lisbon to Vladivostok’ – but the end of the current regime itself.

And yet these are not the acts of a lunatic, they are the results of the cold calculation and steely brinkmanship that the world has grown to know and loathe.

Next steps?

Crimea is just the tip of the iceberg, a testing ground for Western resolve. Experienced Russian nationalist thugs, Cossacks and special ops have already crossed into north-eastern Ukraine and, posing as ethnic Russian Ukrainian locals, are causing havoc and committing murder in the key eastern regions of Sloboda Ukraine (including the second city of Kharkiv) and the industrial heartland of the Donbass (including its regional capital Donetsk). These are the spoilers, preparing the ground for the next wave of staged secessions and annexations by creating a semblance of harassed ethnic Russian Ukrainian ‘compatriots’ seeking salvation from Moscow. Transnistria is also spewing armed goons and paramilitaries into Odesa, Ukraine’s largest port in the south west.

In the absence of a concerted and highly muscular Western response, after digesting Crimea this week, the Kremlin machine will proceed to devour two to three Ukrainian regions a fortnight, moving like a slow-motion combine harvester across the Ukrainian steppe, until it reaches the Carpathian Mountains and the borders of four EU member states in the west of the country.

Within the bounds of the EU, the Serbian Janus will likely first be drawn from its accession path and encouraged to revert to its role of spoiler of the western Balkans. Among EU members, Bulgaria is already visibly torn between its new Euro-Atlantic commitments and its historic links with Russia. Hungary and Slovakia are also susceptible to manipulation. And perhaps most starkly, the other side of Russian Kaliningrad, the Baltic trio of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, also until recently directly under Moscow, dangle tantalizing ethnic Russian minorities.

The Western response

While one would hope that such predictions are paranoid fantasy, past performance lends at least some credibility, and if even a fraction of this comes to pass, it will pose one of the greatest challenge to Euro-Atlantic security since World War II and prove one of the greatest tests to date of the responsiveness and resilience of institutions such as the EU, NATO and the United Nations. Again, unfortunately, their recent performance is not encouraging.

While the West’s response to the recent Ukrainian revolution has appeared united, actions were poorly coordinated and tragically tardy. Sanctions were imposed by the EU on the Yanukovych clan after he had been deposed and fled the country. The cost of collective inaction was over 100 civilian lives and the downward spiral of events to the current deadly confrontation with Russia.

The ‘first wave’ of Western sanctions against Russia came relatively swiftly last week, with a snubbing of Russian membership by rich world clubs such as the G7 and OECD and the suspension of EU negotiations on issues such as visa access for Russian citizens. But one does not stop a tank by telling it that you won’t be its friend anymore.

The ‘second wave,’ the application visa sanctions and asset freezes of targeted regime personnel were imposed in the last week by Canada and the United States, but as with the Yanukovych regime, the EU continues to dither. And as seen with the deployment of Russian forces in Crimea, tank crews are not known for their observation of immigration niceties.

Further, the motivations and pressure points of the Kremlin are quite different from those of the Yanukovych’s kleptocracy. Indeed it has been argued that visa bans and asset freezes are welcomed by current Kremlin ideologists, who favour the building of a Eurasian empire, crucially including Ukraine and ‘constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy’ represented by Atlanticism, liberal values and the geopolitical control of the USA.

Fortunately, however, despite its extensive borrowings from Soviet heritage, today’s Kremlin is not heading the closed and self-sufficient economic monolith that was the Soviet Bloc. Russia today is integrated into the global economy and dissent, though hamstrung, surprised itself with its own numbers on the streets of Moscow last weekend. The West must therefore move swiftly and decisively to the ‘third wave’ of sanctions – hard hitting and economic and however painful to those countries imposing them.

Wake up, Cameron, and smell the coffee

And the United Kingdom, mindful of its obligations as guarantor of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity must at last take a lead by taking concrete action. The posturing and bluster of Cameron and Hague to date is shameful and will leave an indelible blot on Britain’s credibility in the world security arena. Of course Britain should contribute strongly to joint EU trade sanctions initiatives and to a nuanced but credible threat of force by NATO members, beyond the token US deployment of a single destroyer to the Black Sea and a handful of F-16 aircraft to Poland. The cowardly act of pouring Western arms into Ukraine will only cause a massive loss of life in Ukraine and across the region.

Most importantly, Britain can play a unique and decisive role in de-escalating tension in Ukraine through pressure on the Kremlin by closing London’s financial center and British tax havens around the world to Russian money, if only temporarily. Britain must take the decision to suspend Russian commercial activities, including trading of Russian companies on the London stock exchange, ban Russian commercial activities, and revoke Russian ‘investor visas,’ which it sells for USD 1.6 million. As Ben Judah correctly observes: ‘in the 21st century, what matters are banks, not tanks.’

Act now, Cameron, don’t wait for more facts are on the ground. Ukraine will not forgive, nor the world forget.

John Fitzroy is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article was published.