By Parasaran Rangarajan

The United States is reported to have requested a military installation in Sri Lanka as part of its “Pivot Towards Asia” where the Pentagon has stated that approximately 60% of U.S. Navy assets will be in the Asia Pacific region including Oceania, South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean by 2020^[1] .

Sri Lanka is currently under increasing international pressure for violations of international law and views the continued U.S. sponsored resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) against the island nation as interference in its domestic affairs in a larger attempt to bring about regime change under the guise of human rights.

While there is no doubt that justice cannot be delayed in regards to the events which took place in 2009, U.N. resolutions have been regarded as pre-texts for other actions as of late since the UNHRC cannot refer cases directly to the International Criminal Court (ICC) although this is within the scope of its mandate if both bodies decide to work together in the future. Citing this reason, some of the anti-western nations have denied support for this resolution seeking justice under international law. Hence, we must review the justifications the actions of the UNHRC establishing an international investigation into Sri Lanka emulating the North Korean structure or similar actions by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR)alongside the de-militarisation aspect.

The current outgoing Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has been criticized by opposition parties for being weak and not taking stronger stands in foreign policy issues including those related to the increasing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean among other matters. In his last official trip overseas to the BIMSTEC conference in Myanmar where he met Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he has sought de-militarisation of the Northern Provinces of Sri Lanka as there are reported to be nearly 175,000 troops stationed conducting illegal land grabs, human rights violations, and interfering in daily normal civilian life[2]. While de-militarisation may be difficult under the Constitution of Sri Lanka as noted by senior government of India advisers, this must be looked at seriously in relation to human rights and strategic gains for India[3]. Many of these troops and its commanders have been implicated in allegations of violations of international law and denied visas to the U.S for training as under U.S. law; those alleged for war crimes cannot be given training.

Some Sri Lankan Army (SLA) personnel such as General Sarath Fonseka have openly come out and stated that if there is an international investigation into war crimes, the responsibility and chain of causation for these heinous crimes will lead to him as he oversaw much of the last phases of the Eelam War between the government of Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) but this can be viewed as an attempt to shield the Rajapaksa administration and executive branches[4]. We will not know the details of this matter until an international investigation is completed because diplomatic communications from the U.S. as found on WikiLeaks have shown information that the orders to shell the “No Fire Zones” came from none other than the Rajapaksa family[5]. This has been echoed by others in the international community including Tamil Diaspora organisations as well who have been campaigning for an international investigation.

Whether or not the UNHRC resolution on accountability in Sri Lanka will be used for pretext for sanctions or other measures should not be of concern as the international community should first realise that the current Rajapaksa administration has proved that it has no intention of delivering justice for the families nearly five years after this tragic event. The outcome of the resolution is something that the government of Sri Lanka will have to face as a consequence of failure to implement its own domestic solutions in a timely manner after repeated calls and resolutions by the international community allowing for time over and again. For a country to vote against this resolution would send a message that it is not interested in justice for alleged violations of international law and furthermore; it is not the way forward in the civilised world we live in today where countries must work with each other to assist the victims of human rights violations and war when time has elapsed for domestic solutions.

The issue of de-militarisation is very closely intertwined with the latest resolution on accountability of violations of international law in Sri Lanka this year as it is mentioned in the draft since the OHCHR has also noted the need for de-militarisation of the Northern Provinces[6]. One of the reasons behind this is very simple as an Army under international investigation for various war crimes cannot remain in the area it has allegedly victimised as it will perpetuate more human rights violations, violence, and radicalisation of the population. Furthermore, five years after the end of the war, the Sri Lankan military has failed to de-mine civilian areas and has requested another two years to complete this task. It should be noted that in 2012, Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had mentioned all de-mining activities in 1-2 months to obtain the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees (UNHCR) Clearance Certificate for resettlement of Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP’s) and there were absolutely no Army installations along the A9 highway which runs from Colombo to Jaffna. He also invited people to take pictures to prove him otherwise[7]. In late 2013, an Indian student from Tamil Nadu had done exactly that and was arrested and detained for taking pictures of Sri Lankan military installations[8]. Two years later, Sri Lanka has requested another two years to complete de-mining activities despite earlier guarantees in order to justify its military presence who have also been alleged to been engaging in coercive population control as noted by the Population Research Institute[9]. Furthermore, maps highlighting the military presence in Sri Lanka show an unnecessary amount of Army installations along the A9 highway[10].

Nevertheless, we should not look past the legitimate defence concerns of the government of Sri Lanka in the Palk Strait, Bay of Bengal, and Indian Ocean; major shipping channels which hold strategic importance as well as reports Sri Lanka has put on the table that the LTTE will re-emerge. The latter can be viewed as rhetoric as the re-emergence of the LTTE is not possible according to many experts who knew them well since it took nearly five decades and support of many international players to form such a militant group. The high number of military installations in Jaffna or Mannar to protect the Palk Strait shipping channels cannot be justified when the neighboring superpower itself has requested to scale down the presence since there needs to be cooperation between the two nations on this matter. For Sri Lanka to act otherwise would be acting against the interests of India and possibly posing a threat to Indian security.

The unique scenario in the Indian Ocean has taken an even more interesting twist with Mauritius and Seychelles joining the Indian Ocean Maritime Security Alliance with Maldives and Sri Lanka with approval of India much to the opposition of Sri Lanka as Mauritius has co-sponsored the resolution for an international investigation against the island nation this year[11].A key issue for India is to manage the expansion of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean where Sri Lanka has not been willing to compromise to move closer to India. Forming closer security ties with Seychelles and Mauritius allows India greater leverage in dealing with Sri Lanka as now, all nations in the Indian Ocean Maritime Security Alliance are closer to India than China so India can rely less on Sri Lanka to secure the region. In fact, forgoing Indian interests for foreign players has been the case for decades in Sri Lanka as in the Indo-Pak Wars, Sri Lanka allowed the Pakistani Air Force to refuel in Sri Lanka when No Fly Zones were created over India in the 16 day liberation war of Bangladesh or East Pakistan as it was known at the time. China has built several ports and has invested a large amount of money in development efforts in Sri Lanka where India has been a spectator.

China has invested largely in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure ranging from transportation, communications, development, and has forged close defence ties. Therefore, it is in India’s interests to expedite de-militarisation of the Sri Lankan Army in the proximal areas to the Indian border and take a strong stand against Chinese influence in Sri Lanka in the changing dynamics of the Indian Ocean. Another issue for India is the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement (ISLA) calling to not only implement the 13^th amendment by merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces, devolving the adequate powers from the central government to the provincial administration including land and police powers, management of public services, but to go beyond the 13^th amendment to honor the late Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. If Sri Lanka is not able to honor this agreement, other options for a political solution must be looked at in the interests of the local population who have close ties with the second largest ethnic group in India; Tamils.

On March 19^th, 2013; U.S. Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs Chairman Mendez wrote a letter to the U.N. Human Rights High Commissioner that time had run out for Sri Lanka to implement the 13^th amendment and demilitarisation is angering the local population who view it as an occupation force[12]. This reinforces the case on why deadlines should be put by the government of India or international community on implementing both. This would not be dictating internal affairs of state but sending a clear message that Sri Lanka must honor international agreements and respect the values of democracy it has subscribed to. While the 13^th amendment may not be a permanent political solution for those seeking a separate state of Tamil Eelam, it will give the appropriate platform for Tamils to choose their political status without interference; the definition of self-determination which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Charter.

If there a role for the U.S. to play in Sri Lanka beyond addressing accountability and human rights is a question to be answered as well and as previously mentioned, it is a reason why some nations have strayed from voting in favor of justice in Sri Lanka. At the moment, it would be premature to critically assess if India would be able to exert pressure on Sri Lanka to clear a presence for a U.S. base in Sri Lanka as it has requested despite mutual Indian and U.S. interests in countering China. Whether it is in India’s interests to have a U.S. military base in Vanni or Killinochi or close to the shores of Rameswaramis also a question of relevance. However, looking at the overall presence of the U.S. in the Indian Ocean and the inevitable need for the U.S. and India to work closer together, one U.S. base in Sri Lankais not likely to pose security threat to India and could possibly help deter China who has built several ports publically while reports have emerged that Chinese vessels have been spotted in the Palk Strait.

For the most part, India has given up the idea of direct intervention in foreign nations after its deployment of the Indian Peacekeeping Forces (IPKF) in Sri Lanka nearly two decades ago where it lost many soldiers. However, if she is to play the role of a superpower and become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, preventing foreign interventions (both direct and in-direct)in South Asia through strategic planning cannot be ruled out using the Monroe Doctrine as a foreign policy instrument which has been mentioned by former External Affairs Minister of India Yashwant Sinha[13]. For now, India itself will not establish a base in a foreign nation even if it is offered one due to its policy of non-intervention but could use the support of its western ally to set up a proxy base.  The U.S. will gladly take up this offer to establish a stronghold in the Indian Ocean, either temporary or joint, for mutual interests of countering China and to keep a check on India.     The growth of China in the Indian Ocean in relation to the re-positioning of the U.S. Navy to the Asia-Pacific region will have to be dealt with seriously by the next government in India where such options cannot be overlooked.

Setting a deadline for gradual phasing of de-militarisation of non-static Sri Lankan military installations in the Northern Province is not only in the interests of the regional superpower India but in the interests of the international community as it is a human rights issue as an accused Army cannot genuinely stand before the population it has victimized without resentment from the local Tamil civilians. To this effect, the Northern Provincial Council has passed a resolution calling for the eviction of the Sri Lankan Army from civil activities in the North which is in its power to do so as a legislative body[14]. The re-stationing of these forces will ultimately lie with the President of Sri Lanka but the international community has a role to play in listening to the voices of the victims on the ground represented by newly elected officials after 30 years of war.

This balancing act of managing legitimate security concerns of Sri Lanka with human rights and interests of India can be complex. However, if there is to be lasting peace on the island; it must begin with justice for the victims through the most efficient international investigation mechanism possible taking into account the mandate of the UNHRC, implementing resolutions by the local Northern Provincial Council, and restoration of a civil environment in the Northern Province by de-militarisation of a significant number of military installations and Army personnel under investigation for violations of international law.

(The writer is currently the editor of the international Law Journal of London and this paper was written after attend the current UNHRC session.  He may be reached at parasaran@gmail.com)

By Fatma Yilmaz Elmas

Though the Ukraine crisis started with protests within the country, it turned into an international problem with the West and Russia getting involved and finally Russia annexing Crimea. There are some analyses that compare the power struggle over Ukraine between the West and Russia to the Cold War. News agencies and newspapers like Reuters, the Telegraph and the Guardian feature commentary about how the military seizure and subsequent annexation of Crimea has rejuvenated the fears, plans and reflexes which had all but faded since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.[1]

Russia’s indifferent and adamant attitude to the West’s rejection of Crimea’s annexation indicates a security crisis right next to Europe, and the EU’s current and future role within the process has become ever more important. In this context, it bears discussing whether the EU’s foreign policy is effective as it balances the political and economic interests of its member states. Because in this crisis, which began on November 21st when the Association Agreement’s preparation process was suspended, the decisive factors seem to be geopolitics, energy, and trade policies.

The grounds for an EU-Ukraine partnership

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of the Eastern European countries the EU made an effort to pursue faster Western-oriented political and economic transformations in some Eastern Bloc countries by offering the prospect of membership. It was relatively successful. Change came to Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania incrementally, particularly in the fields of creating a free market, removing barriers to fundamental rights and freedoms, and institutionalizing democracy. Enlarging the EU through the “conditionality” principle can be assessed as an effort to reinforce the EU’s security and economic interests with “soft power”. However, whether the enlargement policy would work without the prospect of membership is a subject of debate. Indeed, the EU developed the European Neighborhood Policy after seeing that economic assistance and cooperation is ineffective without the prospect of membership. EU aims to create a periphery which contains friendly, well-managed countries with prosperous populations and also to prevent sharp and divisive lines from forming between it and its neighbors.

It is possible to evaluate the EU-Ukraine relations in this framework. Indeed, on the March 18th, 2014 fact sheet describing EU-Ukraine relations, Brussels once again defined Ukraine as a “a priority partner country within the framework of the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and the Eastern Partnership (EaP)”.[2] This relationship -established by the 1998 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement providing a comprehensive framework for cooperation in key reform areas- continued after a four year negotiation process in 2012 with the Association Agreement which includes a deeper and more comprehensive free trade area. At least that was the state of affairs until November 21st, when the Agreement’s preparation process was suspended.

The messages being given by the EU are that the relationship should get back on track again. Indeed, the EU signed the political provisions of the Association Agreement on March 21st in Brussels. Concerning the signature and conclusion of remaining parts of the Agreement, the EU also indicates that it will make an effort to effect some progress. For the EU, “these steps will confirm Ukraine’s free and sovereign decision to pursue Ukraine’s political association and economic integration with the EU”.

The EU’s role in the crisis

The EU faces criticisms that it forced Ukraine to make a choice between the West and Russia. The most concrete reason for this is that the EU’s Association Agreement and Russia’s Customs Union are mutually exclusive. At the beginning of the crisis, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt’s statements that “Kiev should make a choice between Moscow and Brussels” reflected the general opinion of European leaders. Linas Linkevicius, the foreign minister of Lithuania serving as the EU’s term president of the second part of 2013, had disallowed Ukraine from negotiating with both the EU and Russia at the same time and expressed that a tripartite dialogue “is not an option and has no precedent.” In response, Putin stated that if Ukraine signs the Association Agreement with the EU the tariff walls would rise and Ukraine-Russia trade would definitely be negatively affected. Additionally, in a Moscow meeting with Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn on February 25th, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized Western countries’ postures, saying that Russia and the West should not “seek to achieve unilateral advantages at a time when national dialogue is needed.”

Former Ukrainian President Yanukovych showed his preference for Russia by meeting with Putin and signing an agreement including $15 billion in economic assistance and discounted natural gas on December 17th. In this context, Yanukovych would not risk opposing Russia for an agreement which would bring burdens in the short term and economic development and technological modernization over the medium term.[3] Considering Ukraine’s economic relationship and energy ties with Russia, the EU’s assistance did not seem like a feasible choice for the short term. “European values” -the main reason people spilled into the streets- plays second fiddle to the economy. At the start of the crisis, Michael Leigh from the German Marshall Fund drew attention to this imbalanced situation: “Brussels set too high requirements for partners to adopt EU standards of business regulation, governance and human rights in return for too small financial and political rewards.”[4]

EU activism during the crisis

Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, through visits with state leaders, public statements, and the March 6th EU Summit has shown a more active presence, and has endeavored to keep the EU’s attentive about the issue. In this context, from the beginning of the protests until Crimea’s annexation by Russia, the EU worked to announce its position at every step of the way.

For this reason, when the police raised the level of violence on February 19-21st and 25 people lost their lives, both EU officials and heads of member states issued strident warnings and reprimands. Following the violence in Ukraine UK Prime Minister David Cameron said, “I am deeply concerned by the scenes we are witnessing in Ukraine. The violence on all sides is completely unacceptable.” The foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Poland went to Kiev. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for calm between the government and the opposition and threatened sanctions. The EU members agreed on sanctions and decided to freeze the assets of those responsible for the violence and impose travel bans. This shared posture stiffened after Russia deployed troops to Crimea and the referendum was held. Following these developments, the EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs decided to levy sanctions on 21 people. Due to this attempt to threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the EU will begin to freeze the assets of the listed people and ban them from travelling to EU countries. The EU also cancelled the EU-Russia Summit scheduled for June 2014. The new sanctions decision entered into force at the EU Summit on March 20-21st. These sanctions are the first sanctions applied to Russia since the end of Cold War, however it is remarkable that neither Putin nor his circle are included in the list. The fact that the list -which was a product of compromise- does not include the CEOs of two energy giants (Alexei Miller, Gazprom and Igor Schin, Rosneft) is also significant.[5]

The EU’s (in)effectiveness: The interdependency factor

A majority of analysts see Ukraine as a real strategic “test” for EU foreign policy. According to Director of Carnegie Europe Jan Techau, “never before has the EU been forced to operate on the high seas of crisis management, on a potentially existential question, and without a process to guide it or the United States to cajole it.”[6] The inability of EU member states to demonstrate a common will in several crisis has shown that the EU’s vision of itself of as a global actor is a blatant delusion. The EU’s foreign policy’s greatest weaknesses are the ineffective link between policy and instruments and the “expectation-capability gap” which is mostly driven by decision-making processes and institutional mechanisms. For this reason, some academics argue that the EU’s claims of being an effective actor in foreign policy “need to be based on factual reality rather than discourse.”[7]

The EU’s hand in managing the Ukrainian Crisis is manifestly weak. For the EU can only respond to military operations by implementing economic sanctions. As the crisis seriously escalated in March the EU decided to impose a three-stage sanction on Russia. Considering the difficulties of formulating a common foreign policy, Techau evaluates the EU’s unity on Ukraine as “a victory for long-term over short-term thinking”. However, Stefan Meister doesn’t agree. He thinks that the EU should send clearer messages to Russia; he emphasizes “it is important that these sanctions really bite [Russia]”.[8] Indeed, in a March 20th interview, Ukrainian Ambassador to the EU Kostiantyn Yelisieiev described the sanctions so far as a “mosquito bite”.[9]

The EU’s ineffectiveness on issues that pit it directly against Russia can mostly be explained by the interdependency in EU-Russia relations. The clearest indicators are statistics in the field of energy and economic cooperation. The trade volume in the EU-Russia relationship favors Russia. In the import-export balance between Russia and many EU countries Russia is at an advantage. According to 2012 Eurostat data, the EU-27 carries out 11.9% of its exports and 7.9% of its imports with Russia. Russia ranks third after the U.S. and China in the EU’s total foreign trade.[10]

The most important pillar of EU-Russia relations is energy imported from Russia. Russia sells 30 percent of its gas to Europe. Europe also purchases one third of Russian Gazprom’s gas. In this scope Moscow distributes six million barrels of crude oil and one million barrels of oil products to Europe every day. Half of the Russian government’s budget comprises of oil and gas revenues, so Russia and Europe are mutually dependent on each other. Ukraine is in the middle of this energy tie as Russia exports 175 million cubic meter gas via Ukrainian pipelines daily.[11] Of course, the degree of dependence on Russian gas differs from country to country.

The current situation shows how important it is for the EU to achieve energy diversity. Regardless of years of meetings between EU officials and leaders on a common energy policy, the primacy of national interests constitutes a barrier to a holistic vision. The goals the Council of Europe agreed on regarding energy policy in 2007 -competitiveness, sustainability and supply security – are still waiting to transcend the negotiation phase. Even if they frequent the EU’s agenda, projects like the Visegrad entity, the LGN alternative, or importing U.S. gas are not feasible steps in the short term due to infrastructural problems. Therefore the Ukrainian crisis that started with protests and extended to Crimea has once again demonstrated the Union’s “unity” problem with many factors that threaten EU activism.

The “whose interest?” problematic

In the words of Meister, for the Ukrainian crisis “the EU must find a compromise between its economic interests and political interests.” The role of Germany is crucial here. German firms and lobbying organizations have pressed politicians about not being strict about the Russian sanctions. Interestingly, Russia is Germany’s 11th largest trading partner but Germany is Russia’s 3rd largest. For this reason, rather than German trade dependency on Russia, the reality is the exact opposite.[12] Indeed, Germany supports imposing sanctions on Russia. Some analysts even evaluate the claim of the famously cautious German chancellor that “Germany could tolerate the costs that EU sanctions against Moscow would likely inflict on the country’s own economy” as a new policy vision.[13] However, time will tell to what degree Germany will push the politically risky leadership role on behalf of the EU’s political interests and its role as a global actor.

Considering that in the ongoing economic crisis in Europe Germany was reluctant (and ultimately compelled) to take on the role of “hegemon” role, it is questionable how willing Germany will be to take on this role during a crisis centered on Russia -with whom it has mutual interests- and how it can find a middle way between its interests.

*With thanks to Öznur Akcalı, research assistant at USAK’s Center for European Union Studies, for her contribution.

Fatma Yilmaz Elmas, USAK Center for EU Studies

[1] For details, see: Paul Taylor, “Cold War reflexes return to Europe over Ukraine”, Reuters, 17 Mach 2014. & Bruno Waterfield, “Ukraine crisis: EU warns of new cold war if Russia grabs Crimea”, The Telegraph, 17 March 2014. & Patrick Wintour, “Russian actions over Ukraine may create new cold war”, The Guardian, 17 March 2014. – See more at: http://www.usak.org.tr/kose_yazilari_det.php?id=2269&cat=410#.Uy2JoWJ_v9h

[2] EU-Ukraine Relations, European Union External Action, Fact sheet, Brussels, 18 March 2014, 140318/02. – See more at: http://www.usak.org.tr/kose_yazilari_det.php?id=2269&cat=410#.Uy2JoWJ_v9h

[3] For detailed analysis taking Russia and EU as international parties in the Ukrainian crisis, see: Habibe Özdal, “Ukrayna’da Son Perdenin Üç Boyutlu Analizi”, Analist, Sayı 37, Mart 2014. – See more at: http://www.usak.org.tr/kose_yazilari_det.php?id=2269&cat=410#.Uy2JoWJ_v9h

[4] Paul Taylor, “Ukraine fiasco raises doubts about EU neighborhood policy”, Reuters, November 29, 2013.

[5] “EU, US sanctions fail to impress Putin”, Euractiv, 18 March 2014.

[6] Jan Techau, “Ukraine, the Birthplace of Strategic Europe?”, Carnegie Europe, March 18, 2014.

[7] J. R. Nunes, D. Pineu and I. Xavier, “Problematizing the EU as a Global Actor: The Role of Identity and Security in European Foregin Policy”, içinde A. Barrinha (ed.), Towards a Global Dimension: EU’s Conflict Management in the Neighborhood and Beyond, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung: Lisbon, 2008, s. 18-19.

[8] Stefan Meister, “The lessons of Crimea”, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2014.

[9] “Ukranian ambassador: EU sanction so far are a ‘mosquito bite’”, Euractiv, 20 March 2014.

[10] For detailed data, see:. Habibe Özdal ve diğerleri, “Ukrayna Siyasi Krizinde Rusya ve Batı’nın Tutumu”, USAK Analiz, No. 28, Mart 2014.

[11] “Crimea: Catapulting Europe back into geopolitics?”, ECR Research, March 17, 2014.

[12] Stefan Meister, op. cit.

[13] Jan Techau, op. cit.

By Alexander Boehm

Much of the world has been paying close attention to the unfolding crisis in Ukraine and dedicating a considerable amount of time dissecting the geopolitical implications the crisis has with respect to Russian-Ukrainian relations and Russian-Western relations. But what implications does the crisis have for Ukraine’s neighbors, particularly those in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)? The Ukrainian crisis and the challenges faced by its fledgling government have begun to make other CIS member states worried. And nowhere is this more apparent than in Moldova.

Russia’s push for a referendum and subsequent desire to annex the Crimean region of Ukraine could have reverberations across the CIS. While Russia’s intervention has occurred under the auspices of protecting ethnic Russians who comprise a majority of the Crimea’s population, it is important to note that Russia’s incursion into sovereign territory, in what the Kremlin refers to as its “near abroad,” is not unprecedented in the post-Soviet era. Russia legitimized its invasion of Georgia in 2008 under the pretense of protecting ethnic Russians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If Russia manages to yet again wrestle territory from a former Soviet satellite, it may embolden Putin to try his luck elsewhere in the region. Should Putin want to issue a real statement to the likes of the EU, he may turn to Moldova, particularly the region of Transnistria, as a means of escalating an already dangerous situation. Transnistria, which straddles Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine, is among one of the few post-Soviet “frozen conflict” zones. Approximately 30 percent of Transnistria considers itself ethnic Russian and following a brief war between Moldova and Transnistrian separatists in 1992, the Russian military has maintained a sizable contingent in the territory despite opposition from the international community.

Much like Ukraine, Moldova finds itself in a precarious situation, torn between pursuing closer ties with the EU and maintaining its traditional economic relationship with Russia. Both Moldova and Ukraine were scheduled to initiate an association agreement with the EU but unlike Ukraine, Moldova did not succumb to pressure from Moscow and began the process of officially signing the agreement in November of last year. Moldova’s decision, however, did not stop Russia’s deputy prime minister from visiting Moldova and threatening economic sanctions. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was quoted as saying: “Energy is important, the cold season is near, winter on its way. We hope that you will not freeze this winter.” Rogozin went on to say that measures taken to “hinder the communications of Transnistria with the rest of the world will be a direct threat to the security and constitutional freedom of 200,000 citizens of Russia permanently living in Transnistria.” Rogozin later remarked that Russia views itself as “the guarantor of constitutional rights of its citizens.”

Moldova’s governing pro-European coalition intends to officially sign the association agreement with the EU by August of this year. Fears of Russian reprisals, however, through both economic and political coercion are real. The Kremlin employed similar tactics with Ukraine and Armenia, resulting in both abandoning the agreement. As Europe’s poorest state, relying heavily on agriculture and remittances from abroad, Moldova is especially susceptible to Russian coercion. A recently introduced Russian ban on Moldovan wine, in particular, is having a significant effect on Moldova’s economy. Should Russia wish to make life more difficult for Moldova, it will likely target Moldovan migrant workers in Russia and introduce repressive measures that will make remittances more difficult.

For its part, the European Commission has expressed its hope that Moldova will be free to decide its own future without any interference from Moscow. At a mid-February meeting between EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Romanian President Traian Basescu, Barroso said the EU intends to work closely with Romania to create more electricity, rail and road connections between Moldova and the rest of the EU. According to Barroso, funds have been already been allocated for this specific purpose.

Given the resurgence of Cold War era hostility between Russia and the West, one would expect the EU to do more to win over Moldova and expedite its goal of EU integration. If the Kremlin is intent on redrawing the postwar map of Eastern Europe, than the EU must do all it can to ensure that it is not caught flat footed. In the event that Russia uses economic coercion to strangle Moldova’s fragile economy, the EU should ready an aid or rescue package similar to the one the United States Congress is expected to approve for Ukraine. The EU has, thus far, been an economic and trading power, shying away from geopolitics and collective action on key strategic issues. In the wake of Ukraine, this may be destined to change. The EU has an enormous opportunity to shake its mantle of being a union largely concerned with economic self-interest and assume a new identity as a union willing to stand up to strategic threats in its own backyard.

Alexander Boehm is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com, and this article was published here.

By Ömer Faruk Topal

During Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani’s rule Qatar became more visible in world politics. With its natural gas-derived wealth Qatar had invested billions of dollars around the world and made deals with famous finance and industry giants. Several prestigious diplomatic and sporting events took place in Qatar or were scheduled to be held. As a small country with a tiny population Qatar surprised many analysts with its foreign policy activism. Qatar has the ability to mold public opinion via media instruments like Al Jazeera and was very active in some regional issues including a peace deal in Lebanon, arming opposition forces in Syria and Libya, and reconciliation efforts to alleviate the HAMAS-FATAH dispute.

However, this activism and Qatar’s tactic of aligning with moderate Islamists irritated its neighbors in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia was one of the most fervent supporters of the coup d’état in Egypt and perceived the Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology to pose a dire threat to its regime’s security and regional stability, and labeled it a terrorist organization. Bahrain’s Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al Khalifa also stated that “Bahrain will deal with any threat from the Muslim Brotherhood group in Bahrain in the same way it deals with any other potential threat to its security and stability.”

Moreover Qatar hosts Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a famous intellectual of the Brotherhood who often criticizes Gulf States and even accuses them of being against Islamic rule. Qatar and Saudi Arabia also have different views on Iran. While the former sees Iran as an actor which should not be ignored, the latter sees Iran as an existential threat.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain accused Qatar of damaging the security and stability of the Gulf States by supporting the Brotherhood and its allies. Qatar was Egypt’s number one donor after Morsi’s victory—a position taken up by Saudi Arabia since the coup. On the other hand, Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiya said “our policy is based on openness towards all, and we do not want to exclude anyone.”

A March 2014 report published by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, a Doha based think-tank, claims that “from the beginning, Saudi Arabia, the most conservative state in the region, viewed the Arab Spring, as a threat, prompting it to lead the counter-revolutionary axis. With the help of the UAE, Riyadh did all it could to abort these revolutions, such as hosting the first deposed Arab president, Zine El- Abidine Ben Ali”. The report also states that “both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are playing an active role in de-stabilizing the post-revolution regimes in Tunisia and Yemen, as Saudi Arabia remains uninterested in the success of any pluralistic political experiment that involves an alternation of power.”

This crisis is neither the only dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar nor the first time ambassadors have been withdrawn. However, this is the biggest crisis the GCC has experienced. Qatari media and officials often emphasize that Qatar is an independent state and has the right to follow its policies in Egypt, Palestine, and other areas. Saudi Arabia and its allies, for their part, perceive Qatar’s policy as a threat to their security and stability, and demand that Qatar stop supporting the Brotherhood and shut down Al Jazeera network and some think tanks. Both sides are using every instrument they have to show their rightfulness and it seems that this dispute will require time to resolve.

The Yakama Nation tribe of Native Americans is ramping up its efforts to ensure a new law legalizing recreational marijuana in Washington state won’t apply on ancestral land.

Voters in 2012 elected to abolish the prohibition against pot in both Colorado and Washington states, but the latter is only this month issuing its first legal weed licenses to dispensaries that will grow and process marijuana. If the Yakama Nation has its say, however, then a large chunk of Washington will reject the new state law.

The 10,000-member Yakama Nation has already said pot will stay illegal on around 1.2 million acres of reservation in central Washington where state law is trumped by local rules, but Reuters reported this week that the tribe is considering “a bold move that could test the limits of tribal sovereignty” by seeking to keep weed outlawed on another 10.8 million acres of ancestral land.

According to Reuters journalist Jonathan Kaminsky, the Yakama want to make sure the cultivation and selling of marijuana remains against the law on a huge stretch of Washington that was ceded to the United States government through an 1855 treaty, but where the tribe members maintain hunting, food-gathering and fishing rights.

The Yakama has previously won similar legal battles, Kaminsky wrote, including one in which it successfully fought off efforts to put a landfill on the ceded land. This time, however, the tribe wants to make sure marijuana remains outlawed on a chunk of land that now includes parts of 10 counties across the state.

Already, Kaminsky acknowledged, the Yakama have filed challenges to roughly 1,300 pending marijuana licenses being considered in that part of the state. If the tribe’s efforts fail, he added, then the Yakama may file suit.

In an editorial published by the Seattle PI newspaper last year, Nation Chairman Harry Smiskin said “The citizens of the state of Washington do not have the authority to vote what happens on Yakama lands.”

“It is that simple,” Smiskin said. “The Yakama Law and Order Code prohibit the sale, use or production of marijuana on the lands we control. We are constantly finding very sophisticated grows and ending them. Our police have won federal awards for this work. We are proud of our efforts. We do not want our people, or anyone else, to use, grow or sell marijuana on our lands.”

“We have had a long and unpleasant history with marijuana — just as we have had with alcohol,” Smiskin added. “We fight them both on our lands.”

“We’re merely exercising what the treaty allows us to do, and that is prevent marijuana grows (and sales) on those lands,” he told the Yakima Herald-Republic back in January. Since then, the Yakama have filed around 1,000 additional objections with state and federal governments against marijuana license applicants, indicating that the tribe has without a doubt refused to relinquish its fight.

According to some, though, those challenges won’t end up the way the Yakama want them to.

“I think they run into the issue of not having standing to, in essence, bring suit on behalf of the federal government,” American Civil Liberties Union Washington criminal justice director Alison Holcomb Holcomb told the Associated Press earlier this year. “The federal government at this time has shown it has no intention of trying to stop the law.”

Yakima, WA Councilman Bill Lover, who opposes pot businesses, told Reuters for this week’s report that the Yakama’s plan could put a lot of other issues at stake.

“When they start talking about ceded land, there’s a lot of other things involved other than marijuana, like water rights,” he told Kaminsky.

“It’s a steep hill they’re trying to climb,” added Ron Allen, the chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in western Washington where pot use remains banned on reservation land. “But I recognize their right to try to control the environment their community lives within.”

The Washington state Liquor Control Board has previously ruled that no marijuana licenses will be issued to business on federal land, including Indian reservations, but did not address ceded grounds like the 10-million acres now being discussed. Meanwhile, the first recreational marijuana dispensaries became licensed by Washington state on March 6, and retail stores are expected to open in late June.

In Colorado, where the nation’s first legal weed shops opened on January 1, the state managed to collect around $ 2 million in taxes within the first four weeks of operation.

Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws.

They’re also entitled to their own right-wing political views. It’s a free country.

But in using their vast wealth to change those rules and laws in order to fit their political views, the Koch brothers are undermining our democracy. That’s a betrayal of the most precious thing Americans share.

The Kochs exemplify a new reality that strikes at the heart of America. The vast wealth that has accumulated at the top of the American economy is not itself the problem. The problem is that political power tends to rise to where the money is. And this combination of great wealth with political power leads to greater and greater accumulations and concentrations of both — tilting the playing field in favor of the Kochs and their ilk, and against the rest of us.

America is not yet an oligarchy, but that’s where the Koch’s and a few other billionaires are taking us.

American democracy used to depend on political parties that more or less represented most of us. Political scientists of the 1950s and 1960s marveled at American “pluralism,” by which they meant the capacities of parties and other membership groups to reflect the preferences of the vast majority of citizens.

Then around a quarter century ago, as income and wealth began concentrating at the top, the Republican and Democratic Parties started to morph into mechanisms for extracting money, mostly from wealthy people.

Finally, after the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision in 2010, billionaires began creating their own political mechanisms, separate from the political parties. They started providing big money directly to political candidates of their choice, and creating their own media campaigns to sway public opinion toward their own views.

So far in the 2014 election cycle, “Americans for Prosperity,” the Koch brother’s political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.

“Americans for Prosperity” has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races the difference in total spending is at least two-to-one and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.

The Kochs have spawned several imitators. Through the end of February, four of the top five contributors to 2014 super-PACs are now giving money to political operations they themselves created, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

For example, billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called “Ending Spending.” The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Representative Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary (they blame Jones for too often voting with Obama).

Their ad attacking Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Koch’s “Americans for Prosperity” in Senate races across the country.

When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.

At this very moment, Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) is busy interviewing potential Republican candidates whom he might fund, in what’s being called the “Sheldon Primary.”

“Certainly the ‘Sheldon Primary’ is an important primary for any Republican running for president,” says Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush. “It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.”

The new billionaire political bosses aren’t limited to Republicans. Democratic-leaning billionaires Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also created their own political groups. But even if the two sides were equal, billionaires squaring off against each other isn’t remotely a democracy.

In his much-talked-about new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” economist Thomas Piketty explains why the rich have become steadily richer while the share of national income going to wages continues to drop. He shows that when wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands, and the income generated by that wealth grows more rapidly than the overall economy – as has been the case in the United States and many other advanced economies for years – the richest receive almost all the income growth.

Logically, this leads to greater and greater concentrations of income and wealth in the future – dynastic fortunes that are handed down from generation to generation, as they were prior to the twentieth century in much of the world.

The trend was reversed temporarily in the twentieth century by the Great Depression, two terrible wars, the development of the modern welfare state, and strong labor unions. But Piketty is justifiably concerned about the future.

A new gilded age is starting to look a lot like the old one. The only way to stop this is through concerted political action. Yet the only large-scale political action we’re witnessing is that of Charles and David Koch, and their billionaire imitators.

Efforts by Egypt’s military-backed government to clean the country not only of its political critics but also of businessmen with close ties to ousted President Hosni Mubarak extended into soccer this week with the arrest on corruption charges of Hassan Hamdi, the longstanding chairman of. Al Ahli’s SC, Africa’s most crowned and popular club.

The arrest of Mr. Hamdi, who has long denied charges of wrongdoing, were first levied against him during the reign of President Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brother toppled by the military last year. It came amid an apparent power vacuum in advance of presidential elections in which various institutions, including the security forces and the judiciary, are jockeying for position. A date for the registration of presidential candidates is expected to be announced this weekend.

That vacuum is a reflection of a backroom tug of war between the military and former business associates of the Mubarak regime that was toppled in a popular revolt in 2011. The military is seeking to prevent the re-emergence of neo-liberals close to Mr. Mubarak’s jailed businessman-cum politician son Gamal who posed a threat to the armed forces’ vast commercial interests.

Mr. Mubarak, his sons and their neo-liberal business associates, including steel magnate Ahmed Ezz, were among the first to be put on trial by the military regime that replaced the ousted president three years ago. A court announced this week that a retrial of Mr. Ezz and six others on charges of profiteering and squandering public funds would begin on April 12.

The military since the fall of Mr. Morsi has been selective in choosing which of the major Mubarak-era businessmen it was willing to rehabilitate. “The NDP neglected society. Their corruption is the reason people are still suffering. They will never come back and the Mubarak era will never come back. A new era is coming, “a senior military officer told The Guardian.

The vacuum has allowed independent judges in a rare disciplining this month of members of the security forces to convict police officers in two separate cases for the deaths of an icon of the revolt against Mr. Mubarak, Khaled Said, whose killing in 2010 became a protest rallying point, and 37 prisoners detained after the toppling of Mr. Morsi.

The relatively light ten-year sentences for two officers accused of killing Mr. Said and a police captain responsible for the death of the prisoners were magnified by the sentencing to death on Monday of 529 defendants for the slaying of a police officer, the largest group convicted to death by a court in recent memory.

The mass sentencing, by a judge who on Tuesday opened proceedings against 682 people including Mohammed Badie, the spiritual guide of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, appeared to have been sparked the judge’s anger and reflect agreement among many in the judiciary with the government’s stepped up repression in the last eight months.

More than a 1,000 people have been killed and 16,000 other incarcerated since the ousting of Mr. Morsi. The judiciary is believed to be keen to prevent a repeat of Mr. Morsi’s efforts supported by demands by the revolutionaries who ousted Mr. Mubarak that their ranks be cleansed of supporters of the ancien regime.

Mr. Hamdi, a former soccer player and Al Ahli captain, has headed the club, whose supporters played a key role in toppling Mr. Mubarak and have clashed repeatedly in recent months with security forces, for 12 years. He was for much of that time also head of the advertising agency of Al Ahram, Egypt’s influential state-owned newspaper. Al Ahram chairman Mamdouh al-Wali was banned from travel in February pending an investigation into possible corruption.

A judge banned Mr. Hamdi and several senior Al Ahram executives and editors from travel earlier this month. It was the second time Mr. Hamdi’s movements were curtailed. The Illegal Gains Authority banned him from travel and froze his assets in 2012 after fans repeatedly stormed Al Ahli headquarters demanding his resignation. Mr. Hamdi was released from prison at the time on a bail of two million Egyptian pounds ($330,000). He was questioned before his release about the accumulation of his wealth estimated at 500 million pounds $ 82 million).

Military police were reported months after Mr. Mubarak’s fall in 2011 to have seized three boxes of documents that Mr. Hamdi and then Al Ahram editor-in-chief Osama Saraya had allegedly attempted to smuggle out of the editor’s office. They were confronted by publishing house employees who suspected that the boxes contained documents that would prove the two men’s involvement in corruption.

Mr, Hamdi was due to step down this month in advance of new club board elections after the government adopted a new law that limits the tenure of sports club board members. World soccer body FIFA, concerned about government interference in club elections in Egypt, said it was sending a mission to investigate.

The arrest of Mr. Hamdi coincided with efforts by Al Ahli and its Cairo arch rival Al Zamalek SC to persuade security forces to allow them to play this weekend two African championship matches in Cairo rather than in Gouna, a town 450 kilometres from the Egyptian capital. The interior ministry ordered the matches to be played in Gouna to prevent a repeat of clashes with militant soccer fans in and around stadia in recent months.

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy

The upcoming months hold several changes for Afghanistan. They can be categorised under politics, security and economics, with implication for both the country, and the region. This article assesses the political aspects of the transition, and answers the following questions:

What are the potential trends that can be expected in the country? Will the elections be free, fair and inclusive? How stable will the Afghan parliament be after the elections?

Electoral Process: Conjectures

Ethnic identities play a huge role in the social and political governance in Afghanistan. Hence, an election in this country, where there are seven major ethnic groups and many other ethnicities that collectively make a considerable chunk of the population, dominance by one ethnic group on another in the overall national governance will not be viable. Although the ethnic groups in the country will team up to fight outsiders, the infighting among them in the absence of an external threat/enemy is a well-known fact.

Afghan identity politics is somewhat like that of India’s, where every group has to be substantially represented. The upcoming presidential election, hence, is a manifestation of how well this reality is understood among those in the country and those aspiring to govern the nation. All presidential candidates have chosen their two vice-presidential candidates from different ethnic backgrounds. While, interestingly, all the presidential candidates are Pashtuns, the running mates all come from varied backgrounds. This essentially means that there cannot be any region that can be completely in favour of one candidate alone. Votes from every region will be split between different candidates, given the diversity in the choice of running mates – who hold sway on regions.

Resultantly, predicting the outcome of the polls is not an easy task. However, given the attrition rate among the presidential candidates, the latest withdrawal being from former Afghan Defence Minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak, it is likely that the 5 April election will lead to a run-off and the final results will not be out until May.
Among the leading candidates, technocrat Ashraf Ghani has good prospects of winning. Although one of his running mates is former warlord Rashid Dostum, his leadership abilities and track record in his roles in governance structures posit him a likely winner, and a worthy leader the country needs today. Furthermore, his campaign is based on detailed plans to weed out corruption and nepotism, and bringing in a culture of accountability in the government.

Qayum Karzai’s withdrawal of candidacy from the presidential race to endorse incumbent President Hamid Karzai-backed fellow candidate and former Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul, also hints at the complexities of pre-planned back-door dealings for alliances.

However, the Afghans are well aware of what their nation needs, and it is they who will decide what kind of leadership they want for their nation. It is best not to tell them what to do or whom to vote for.

That does not discount the delicacy of this particular election for the future of the country. Whether the elections will be free, fair and inclusive cannot be answered in a simple yes or no. While there will be effort to keep the polls free, fair and inclusive, the lack of the necessary level of capacity will mean there will foul play at all levels. However, the chances of foul play on the scale of the presidential elections of 2009 might not be the case.

Given the delicate security situation in the country, especially in the South, some challenges can be expected on the election day. The inability of the security forces to provide optimum and adequate security to the voters as well as the polling booths could lead to instances of ballot-stuffing, and/or the resultant but mostly unintentional denial of legitimate voting rights to the Pashtun ethnic groups residing there. This could lead to some tensions.

And the level of stability in the Afghan parliament can be assessed only after the results of the presidential elections are out.

Democratic Processes: An Assessment

At present, in most cases, it is the politicians who are identified with and not the political party itself. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. These representations, identifications, and discourses over politicians and their agendas – and the evolution of the new form of politics in the country – are taking place in an organic manner, which epitomise some of the very principles that define democracy.

Hope for the country lies in the very fact that the practises of discourse and debate are becoming are common thing among the citizens. The televised presidential debates – where candidates running for office shared the same stage and addressed the audiences on their positions over several pressing issues is a sign of healthy progress. Change cannot be expected immediately, or in as short a span as a decade. However, Afghanistan has undergone rapid change, and pressurising the nation to change at a pace higher than what it can perform at is not advisable.

Of course, ethnic politics and alliances between several factions have the potential to frustrate the democratisation process, given that historically, Afghanistan has found ethnic allegiances more dependable, but it is too early and cynical to assume that this particular election will be doomed. Scepticism, not cynicism would be preferable, if anything.

As far as democracy as a concept is concerned, a lot of evolution still remains to happen in the country. While of course the basic principles will remain the same, eventually, the ideology of democracy will take on a unique character tailor-made for the country, as it does in most cases.

It would be wise to stay calm and patient, and of course, prepare for all potential scenarios that can become a reality.

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

Moroccan King Mohammad VI called Tuesday for an honest and genuine collective Arab action to overcome differences and to boost solidarity.

Prime Minister Abdelillah Benkirane, in a speech on behalf of the Monarch before the 25th Arab Summit, said the Palestinian issue witnessed a major development when the UN recognized Palestine as a non-Member Observor State and the UNESCO approved its membership as a country.

He commended the US endeavors to resume peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, which should be based on UN resolutions and Arab peace initiative.

The King reiterated Morocco’s full support of the Palestinian people to regain their legitimate rights, as timetable of negotiations which would expire by end of next month was approaching.

He meanwhile said the crisis in Syria was “dangerous and unacceptable,” calling upon the international community to live up to its responsibility to end the bloody conflict and alleviate suffering of the Syrian people.

He also calls on Arab countries and especially GCC to preserve its unity and deploy more efforts to reinforce its economic integration and overcome its political differences in order to remain a model of Arab regional integration.

Here follows the full text of the speech read out by head of government Abdelilah Benkirane:

“Praise be to God; May peace and blessings be upon the Prophet, His Kith and Kin

Your Highness Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al -Sabah, Emir of the State of Kuwait, Chairman of the Summit,

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to extend my sincere thanks to my brother, His Highness Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al -Sabah, the Emir of the State of Kuwait and to the Kuwaiti people for hosting this Summit. I would like to congratulate His Highness on the excellent preparation for this important meeting.

I also wish to commend my brother the Emir of the State of Qatar, Chairman of our previous Summit session, for his efforts to promote joint Arab action.

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,

Amid the swift regional and international changes affecting the world, there have been important developments with regard to the Palestinian cause, particularly the recognition by the United Nations Organization of the State of Palestine, granting it non-Member Observer State status, as well as Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as a full-fledged member.

Furthermore, thanks to the untiring efforts of the U.S. Administration, the Palestinian and the Israeli sides have returned to the negotiating table with a view to reaching an agreement that covers all final status issues.

In this respect, I should like to emphasize that the Arab Peace Initiative remains a realistic proposal for the achievement of comprehensive peace, which would benefit the region and the world.

Our strong commitment to support the United States’ efforts and ensure the success of the negotiations, together with the keenness of the Arab delegation from the follow-up committee to the Arab Peace Initiative to closely follow the negotiations and support the Palestinian position in these negotiations clearly show how committed we are not only to the option of peace, but also to its process which guarantees the right of the Palestinian people to establish their own independent, viable and geographically contiguous state, with Al-Qods al-Sharif as its capital, living side by side with Israel, in peace and security.

As Chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Al-Qods al-Sharif Committee, I was keen to convene the twentieth session of the Al-Qods Committee, which was held in Marrakech and which I chaired in person. For the first time ever, the Committee meeting was attended by a fine group of eminent representatives of the UN Secretary-General, the five permanent members of the Security Council, the European Union and the Vatican.

The meeting provided a suitable opportunity to emphasize, once more, that there can be no peace without determining the final status of East Jerusalem – the core issue of the conflict in the region – and that the responsibility for achieving the desired peace lies with the entire international community.

I also underscored the importance of acting on the ground, through the Bayt Mal Al Quds Al Sharif Agency, in order to support the steadfastness of the inhabitants of Al-Qods on their own land, and to oppose the Judaization policy applied by Israel in the holy city.
However, given Israel’s continuing aggressive policies, I call for full and close coordination between the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our initiatives and endeavors, in addition to increasing our ability to muster our energies and resources with a view to upholding this just cause.

Just as I insist on closing Arab and Muslim ranks, I call on our Palestinian brothers to rise above their differences and to achieve genuine national reconciliation that strengthens the Palestinian negotiating hand. I wish to reiterate my continuing support for the efforts exerted in this regard by my brother Mahmoud Abbas, President of the State of Palestine and President of the Palestinian National Authority.

As we are nearing the agreed end-of-April deadline for reaching a final status agreement, I should like to insist that any extension of the negotiation period should lead to the formulation of a new approach that puts an end to the occupation, results in to the establishment of the independent Palestinian state and comes up with consensus-based solutions to all issues, using a specific timetable.

In this regards, we utterly refuse that Israel should be allowed to use the extension to buy time, change things on the ground or impose a fait accompli.

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,

The Arab world has seen far-reaching developments which have led, in some countries, to changes of varying degrees.

In other countries, because the spirit of dialogue and compromise was not embraced, because narrow considerations were permitted to prevail over higher national interests and because sectarianism was allowed to expand and grow, peoples’ hopes and aspirations for freedom, dignity, progress and democracy have, regrettably, been thwarted.

I wish to refer, in particular, to the tragic situation experienced by our brothers in Syria. The humanitarian tragedy gripping them is calling out to our conscience as Arabs and Muslims, and, beyond that, to the conscience of the international community as a whole.
In this regard, the first thing to keep in mind is what the UN Secretary General said when he indicated that what is happening in Syria is the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the world.

It is truly a humanitarian tragedy, a dark, shameful chapter in the history of mankind. It is also a dangerous, unacceptable situation which the international community should address and in which it is called upon to bear its responsibility in full.

In this regard, I wish to stress the need for the Security Council to continue to work effectively for the implementation of the first Geneva Conference declaration, to put an end to the suffering of the valiant Syrian people and to enable them to achieve their legitimate aspirations for unity, democracy, development and dignity.

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,

The Arab world is currently going through a sensitive stage, with heightened political tensions, worsening economic and social conditions, growing sectarian strife and a tendency towards extremism and terrorism. All of these are testing our will to promote joint Arab action.

It has become imperative that Arab countries turn our organization into a more effective bloc that is able to keep up with those changes and developments. We therefore need to adopt a new approach in our joint action based on trust, dialogue, good neighborliness, responsibility and a will to put our inter-Arab differences – the real ones as well as the fabricated ones – behind us and look to the future when dealing with Arab issues.

Our best course of action, in this respect, is to make the most of the tremendous potential for unity and complementarity, and to avoid divisions and disagreements.

We also should be more aware of our own resources and boost our self-confidence in order to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of our peoples. This can be achieved provided we believe in the common good and serve Arab citizens, particularly young people, and uphold their right to development, democracy, security, serenity and stability.

Such lofty objectives can only be attained by our Arab countries through the integration of Arab nations into strong regional blocs which command respect for their legitimate interests at the regional and the international levels.

In the Maghreb region, we still have not achieved the integration we yearn for. The regrettable hurdles faced constitute an unjustifiable squandering of development opportunities for the five Maghreb countries. By contrast, I see the Gulf Cooperation Council as an example of successful regional integration. I therefore call for the GCC to be further protected and to enable it to rise to the temporary challenges it may be faced with.

The Kingdom of Morocco, which concluded a multidimensional strategic partnership with this major Arab bloc in 2011, is keen to ensure it remains a model of Arab regional integration, given the achievements made through a commitment to common denominators shared by its Member States, and the respect for its founding principles and values, particularly when it comes to safeguarding the security and unity of its members and combating external interferences that seek to undermine its stability.

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,

In previous Arab Summits, we made a number of important decisions aimed at serving Arab citizens. With the profound changes affecting the Arab world, we need to adopt innovative ideas and appropriate mechanisms to meet our peoples’ aspirations for further progress and prosperity.

In this regard, I have always firmly believed that homogenous, integrated regional blocs within the larger Arab family can make the Arab house even stronger and further enhance its solidarity and efficiency.

While Arab endeavors in the past laid special emphasis on strengthening political relations between Arab countries, today we know for sure that cooperation with countries from the South, on the basis of efficiency, productivity and credibility, is one of the best means for achieving economic growth and sustainable human development, both from the human perspective as well as from the economic and investment angle.

In this respect, I call for capitalizing on the human, spiritual and historical bonds between the Arab world and Sub-Saharan African countries, in order to establish economic cooperation relations with African regional groupings. Morocco is keen to build on its experience and special relations with these countries to forge effective solidarity-based partnerships.

Your Majesties,
Your Highnesses,
Your Excellencies,

The Kingdom of Morocco, which believes in all the factors Arab countries have in common, which is convinced that we share a common destiny and which is keen to lay the foundations for effective and innovative Arab cooperation, has spared no effort to serve common Arab interests.

Given the tremendous human and material potential available to Arab countries, I think it is imperative to embark on a sincere collective effort to build a solid, cohesive Arab space, where there is no room for disputes and dissension – an Arab platform for the promotion of trust, solidarity, mutual assistance and shared interests, for the well-being of our peoples.

To conclude, I pray that Almighty God grant us success and guide us for the benefit of our Ummah, its unity and dignity.

“And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love”.

True is the Word of God.”

The installation of a 400-kilometre security fence along the Georgian-South Ossetian border has had a huge impact on the lives of local people.

By Mikel Venhovens

After the South Ossetia war of 2008, a process started at the administrative borderline between Georgia and South Ossetia which, while being relatively simple, has had an immense impact on the population living in the border region. Russian and South Ossetian border guard troops started installing fences along the 400 kilometre administrative border line (ABL) between Georgia and South Ossetia. The borderization process involves the installation of fence and barbed wire along the ABL, frequently cutting across communities. While the borderization processes between Israel and the Palestine territories have gained widespread attention in both the journalistic and academic world, the process going on in the South Caucasus has gone relatively unnoticed.

After the South Ossetia war of 2008, the small de facto state of South Ossetia was recognised by its Northern neighbour Russia, as well as Nicaragua, Venezuela and a couple of Pacific island states. Since then, the Russian Federation has significantly intensified its support on a diplomatic and practical level. The International Crisis Group (ICG) stated in its 2010 report on South Ossetia that the Russian Federation is responsible for staffing “over half the government, donates 99 per cent of its budget and provides security”. While these aspects are maybe not visible for the local population, other forms of influence are significantly more visible on the ground such as the borderization process at the ABL.

Borders and boundaries are of significant importance as the border landscapes of states are the areas in which political processes receive their most concrete territorial and/or geographical expression. This is because borderlands are the geographical areas where political entities come into direct contact with each other. By enforcing divisions and borders, physical facts are created as ‘facts on the ground’. Therefore, the installation of fences is also a form of ordering, as it is a distinct indicator of where ‘something’ begins and where ‘something else’ ends. This bordering process therefore attempts to define the organisation and limits of a place, as well as the group who claim it. Put simply, by bordering a certain area, authorities are able to establish control over who belongs where and who does not.

Borderization is therefore an obvious step in the nation building process, and causes significantly more problems in cases with disputed or unrecognised entities. This is clearly the case in South Ossetia, where the South Ossetian government does not have the manpower and logistics to conduct such an operation – hence the involvement of Russian military personnel. This of course raises questions concerning the sovereignty and independence of South Ossetia and the question of whether the de facto state is actually able to survive on its own.

But instead of focussing on the geo-political triangle between Tshkinvali, Moscow and Tbilisi, let us have a closer look at the local implications of the borderization. The ICG has highlighted many of the difficulties and frustrations of the local population. People were detained for unknowingly crossing the ABL while attending their farmlands, gardens or visiting neighbours in the same villages in which they lived. A farmer bitterly complained: “If my cow runs across the boundary, I have to show my international passport to get it back” Another example ICG gives are Georgian woodcutters who crossed the ABL unintentionally while working in the woods. Actions that were legal before, and had been for decades, have suddenly become illegal, and punishable by imprisonment or fines.

The installation of fences also has an immense impact on the people living in the border region. The borderization process significantly affects the livelihood of the population living near the border, as it disrupts the everyday life of the local population and restricts their freedom of movement, with fences “cutting off local communities from their farm land, keeping children from attending school and blocking access to cemeteries.” The Georgian elderly also receive their pension in Georgian Lari, which they have to collect on the Georgian side of the ABL. Once they have collected their pension, they are confronted with the problem that Georgian Lari is not an accepted currency on the South Ossetian side of the ABL, as the Russian Ruble is the used currency in South Ossetia.

The European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) is the international organisation that is currently responsible for checking up on the situation in the borderlands on the Georgian side of the administrative border line. Since 1 October 2008, the EUMM has been “been patrolling day and night, particularly in the areas adjacent to the South Ossetian and Abkhazian Administrative Boundary Lines.” Examples of activities conducted by the EUMM, besides patrolling of the ABL, are the installation of an emergency hotline and organising meetings in order to address and update people on the local situation.

While the EUMM has acted as a facilitator in preventing violence and grievances by organising meetings and patrolling the Georgian side of the administrative border line, the question of whether the mission has significant influence needs to be asked. The EUMM still has not received any access into Abkhazia and South Ossetia which significantly undermines its efforts and efficiency. The Russian Federation has been very consistent regarding its policies towards the two regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Since 2008, the international involvement in these two regions has diminished with the withdrawal of the UN observer mission (UNOMIG) in Abkhazia in 2008 after a Russian veto concerning the extension of the mission and therefore ending the presence of the United Nations in the region.

The installations of fences are therefore not only physical facts that are being installed, but also present us with a symbolic notion of the current situation. The bordering up of South Ossetia is also an effort to break with the assumption that South Ossetia might be brought back under the wings of Tbilisi. It has been no secret that, in contrast to Abkhazia where Abkhazian independence is the foremost driving force, South Ossetia wants to be “‘re-united’ with its northern counterpart of North Ossetia which is situated in the Russian Federation. The fact that most South Ossetians also hold Russian passports is not encouraging for Georgia.

The above problems are only a fraction of the dilemmas and disputes that are taking place in the borderlands between Georgia and South Ossetia. The borderization process, a striking example of the impact of geopolitics on a local situation, is not helping the reconciliation process after the short but far reaching conflict of August 2008.

Mikel Venhovens has a Master’s degree in Conflict Studies & Human Rights from Utrecht University. He is a specialist in conflict in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet union, and has conducted research in Latvia, Georgia and Abkhazia.

This article was originally published by Insight on Conflict and is available by clicking here.

By Menekse Tokyay

Following the recent resumption of political dialogue between officials from both portions of Cyprus, religious leaders gathered last month to lend their support to the start of new talks on the island.

The February 26th meeting was the latest in a series of discussions facilitated since 2009 by the Swedish Embassy in South Nicosia. The gathering included Mufti of Cyprus Talip Atalay, Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus Chrysostomos II, Maronite Archbishop Youssef Soueif, Armenian Archbishop Varoujan Herkelian, Latin Catholic Priest George Kraj, and Lisa Buttenheim, the UN secretary general’s special representative to Cyprus.

A joint declaration released after the meeting highlighted the island’s history of Christians and Muslims living, working and worshipping side-by-side. Cyprus has been divided into the Greek Cypriot south and Turkish north for 40 years.

“Religion was and still is a victim of the protracted conflict. For too many decades we were not able to meet, to listen and to understand each other,” the declaration reads.

“For the last years we have agreed to meet regularly, openly express our respect and listen to one another. Our encounters have helped us to get to know each other and understand the other’s needs. Together we have tried to find practical solutions, build trust and confidence and succeeded.

“We see our responsibility to ensure that the political conflict is resolved and we believe that there is no alternative to communication, co-operation and co-existence. Working together, seeking to overcome differences and supporting each other are obligations for people of faith and tools to promote faith when there is doubt, love where there is hatred and hope to overcome despair.”

Atalay and Bishop Portfyrios of Neapolis, director of the Representation of the Church of Cyprus to the EU, attended the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva earlier this month. Their joint presence marked the first-ever participation of religious leaders from the two main ethnic communities of the island in UN human rights meetings.

Porfyrios told SETimes that the on-going dialogue between the religious communities aims to protect human rights and religious freedom on the island. He added that if the efforts of religious leaders are taken seriously by political officials during negotiations “it could substantially help for a quicker, fair and sustainable solution of the Cyprus problem.”

Porfyrios also said that respecting religious freedom and all other human rights is crucial to reaching a solution that citizens will find acceptable.

Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, Ankara office director of German Marshall Fund, said the goal of the Cyprus negotiations is not only political reunification of the island, it is also the reunification of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot societies.

“It is important that different actors in each society play a constructive role in this process,” Unluhisarcikli told SETimes. “In this regard, engaging them as active stakeholders rather than passive observers is very important. Within this framework, engaging religious leaders on both sides of the island is a step in the right direction.”

“The Directorate of Religious Affairs in the Turkish part of the island does not really have an autonomous political power, but it can still have an impact on how the Turkish Cypriots approach the idea of reunification. The Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus is a political power in its own right and can have a profound impact on the direction of a possible referendum on a settlement plan,” he added.

The primary facilitators of the dialogue, Salpy Eskidjian and Peter Weiderud, working under the auspices of the Swedish Embassy, told SETimes that by speaking the same language and working together the religious leaders can give hope that Cypriots can live together and share the island.

“Studies have shown that religious people on both sides are more occupied with violence than in the past, more reluctant to interact with the other side and to dialogue. Religion could play a much more constructive role in the Cyprus peace process,” Eskidjian and Weiderud said.

“Interreligious communication invests in trust building based on universal respect for human dignity,” they added.

Heiner Bielefeldt, the UN Special Rapporteur on religious freedom or belief, issued a report to the UN Human Rights Council in December showing the importance of inter-faith dialogue for the resolution of political problems.

“Regular communication across religious boundaries is the most important precondition for fostering understanding and preventing or overcoming mistrust between religious or belief groups,” the report said. “When conducted on an equal footing and in a sustained manner, that is, in ways that go beyond mere superficial brief encounters, interreligious communication can help replace stereotypes and prejudices by real experiences.”

Eskidjian said religious leaders have a common interest to ensure human rights and religious freedom on the island, and their success depends on mutual respect for human rights law.

Eskidjian added that although the Cyprus conflict is a political issue about land, governance and power, religion plays a determining role in the island’s politics by providing a conduit for healing, forgiveness and reconciliation.

“Cyprus is the only country in the European Union where Christians and Muslims have lived together for centuries in what can be described as co-existence, co-operation or even harmony. But for the last half-century the experience has been the opposite,” she said.

“Religious rights are one of the obvious victims in the Cyprus conflict. Places of worship are left to perish, turned into other uses, the right of worship is not fully respected, the rightful owners have limited or no access to them. The political solution cannot ignore these rights. They are violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The religious leaders agree on this together, and if they continue in this path together they can make a positive contribution,” she added.

Eskidjian also said the international community has not always understood how to best relate religion and its role in the Cyprus conflict. She said during the period that led to the Annan Plan, a UN proposal to create a united Cyprus with two federations, the international community didn’t do enough to foster communication with and between all the main actors. A 2004 referendum on the plan failed, as 66.7 percent of voters rejected it.

“The Annan plan, which was a sophisticated document on legal matters and federal solutions, looked at reconciliation in a rather static way, as a fruit that should come at the end of process, rather than looking at interaction and dialogue for reconciliation as an instrument for peace building,” she said. “The strong and very different reaction to the Annan plan from the religious communities in Cyprus was a reason why we wanted to look closer into these issues.”

“We were shocked to find out that the religious leaders had never met in the last five decades in any formal way. The level of mistrust, misunderstanding, stereotyping and fear was detrimental to a final solution of the Cyprus conflict,” she added.

Unluhisarcikli agreed.

“Inter-societal dialogue is very important for the peace negotiations in Cyprus to reach a successful conclusion and for the two societies on the island to live harmoniously once again,” he said. “In this regard enhanced dialogue between different sectors of the two societies, including inter-faith dialogue, is needed. While grievances based on religious differences can cause political violence, interfaith dialogue can support peace processes.”

Atalay said religious leaders should speak with a language different than that of politicians, and that language should promote universal peace, which would in turn provide a peaceful environment for politics to operate.

“Many problems in Cyprus are mainly rooted in psychological barriers, thereby preventing any opportunities to discuss the real problems of the island by convening both communities’ representatives. Religious leaders will play a very important role at this stage because all religions preach peace and brotherhood,” Atalay told SETimes.

Atalay added that the on-going dialogue enabled both communities to get to know each other and build confidence.

“Among Greek Cypriots, the church has a psychological upper hand over the community. A peace agreement that is vetoed by the Church cannot be approved by their people. The Church is also providing significant financial support to the island residents over the last two years, so it is really a key actor,” he said.

“Islam preaches that people should speak with their neighbours whatever their religion is, and neighbours have numerous rights like treating the neighbour well, refraining from harming your neighbour, and co-operating with your neighbours,” Atalay added.

President Barack Obama should raise human rights issues during his visit to Saudi Arabia on March 28-30, 2014. His visit comes as Saudi authorities are clamping down on civil society activists and peaceful dissidents, and have arrested and deported at least 250,000 foreign workers since November, according to the Interior Ministry.

Saudi Arabia’s new terrorism law and a series of related royal decrees, all issued since January, create a legal framework that appears to criminalize virtually all dissident thought or expression as terrorism.

“President Obama shouldn’t let the opportunity pass to raise important human rights issues with King Abdullah, including the new counterterrorism law, women’s rights, and mass deportations,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. “He should make clear that Saudi authorities shouldn’t be using the new, broadly worded terrorism law to restrict further the already restricted space for free expression.”

The foreign workers Saudi Arabia has been expelling en masse include many who have lived for years in the kingdom. None of the 51 expelled workers Human Rights Watch interviewed recently in Somalia and Yemen had an opportunity to challenge their deportations. Most of them reported terrible conditions when they were detained before being deported, including lack of food and water, and beatings by guards.

Human Rights Watch sent a letter to President Obama on February 27 listing specific recommendations he should make to Saudi authorities to improve the kingdom’s human rights record, in particular for women, migrant workers, and peaceful activists and dissidents.

By Iryna Shtogrin and Ron Synovitz

(RFE/RL) — Olha’s husband was a Ukrainian military specialist at the Belbek base near Sevastopol, Ukraine’s main air base in Crimea, until it was stormed by Russian troops on March 22.

Now Crimea’s crisis is forcing the couple to choose the least bad option for their future.

They, like the families of thousands of other Ukrainian military personnel who’ve lived their entire lives in Crimea, are trapped in a no-man’s land.

Ukraine’s acting President Oleksandr Turchnyov on March 24 ordered Kyiv’s Defense Ministry to withdraw all Ukrainian troops from Crimea.

But many soldiers and their families have no place to go on the mainland unless Kyiv provides support. But if they stay, they face pressure to swear loyalty to Moscow and, according to new legislation, will automatically be made Russian nationals unless they declare their desire to retain Ukrainian citizenship — which they fear could lead to reprisals.

Meanwhile, defense officials in Kyiv are still wrestling with how to transport other loyal Ukrainian soldiers — like Olha’s husband — out of a territory annexed by Russia and overrun with Russian troops.

Kyiv wants them to travel in their military vehicles. But there is no agreement with Russia allowing the overland withdrawal of Ukrainian military convoys.

The 22-year-old Olha — who asked that her husband not be named out of fear of attacks from pro-Russian Crimeans — tells RFE/RL they can only wait in their rented Sevastopol apartment to see what happens. “We need something concrete. Some orders. Some clarity,” she says. “Some assurances about what we can expect tomorrow.”

Troop Movements

Turchnyov announced the need for a withdrawal after Russian forces seized military installations across the peninsula. He said it was necessary because of Russian military threats to the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and their families.

A brigade of Ukrainian marines was evacuated by sea after their Black Sea naval base at Feodosiya was overrun by Russian forces on March 24.

The Defense Ministry would not reveal their new location. But according to media reports the brigade has been moved to a southeastern base in the Henichesk region, on the Ukrainian mainland adjacent to Crimea.

The Defense Ministry has also formed a commission to determine where to relocate soldiers who have not yet withdrawn. But their deliberations about troop movements are a closely kept military secret amid the heightened alert over Russian forces massed on Ukraine’s eastern borders.

On March 25, with growing public anger about the handling of the Crimean crisis and the dilemma for loyal Ukrainian soldiers, the country’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, dismissed acting Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh.

Fearing Retribution

Olha says she hopes Kyiv’s political leadership will announce a decision soon about future jobs, housing, and other support for troops who remain loyal to Ukraine. So far, soldiers and families have been told only that they will have temporary hotel accommodations and medical benefits.

“Now, apart from the people’s support, they don’t have any support. Apart from the [Ukrainian] people who believe in them, they have nothing left,” Olha says.

Both Olha and her husband are from the Black Sea resort town of Alushta on Crimea’s southern coast. They have lived all their lives in Crimea. Olha’s mother-in-law still lives in Alushta and refuses to leave. The couple worries they will never see her again if they leave.

If they stay, they fear ominous signs about the treatment of soldiers who’ve refused to renounce their loyalty to Ukraine. The fate of six loyal Ukrainian military officers remains unknown after they were captured during the takeover of their bases by Russian forces in recent days.

Colonel Yuliy Mamchur, the commander at Belbek, is among them. Mamchur’s wife, Larisa, says that pro-Russian Crimeans have been mistreating their family.

Their daughter was a top student at Crimea State Medical University in Simferopol before Russian troops were deployed on February 28. A week later, on March 7, Larisa says a pro-Russian professor flunked her daughter because her well-known father was a “bad Crimean.” Since then, the daughter has moved to Vinnytsa National Medical University, where she was accepted on the basis of her earlier grades.

Olha says the wives of loyal Ukrainian soldiers now receive anonymous, threatening phone calls from Russian-speaking men telling them to convince their husbands to renounce their loyalty oaths to Ukraine. Olha refuses to do so.

“As the wife of a military man, as a civilian person, I’m just very afraid that in five or 10 years the situation will change. History moves on. And I am very much afraid that my husband will be branded as a traitor for the rest of his life,” Olha says. “That’s the last thing I want for him.”

Written by Ron Synovitz in Prague based in reporting by Irena Shtogrin in Kyiv and RFE/RL’s Ukrainian service correspondents in Sevastopol

By Kayhan Barzegar

(Al-Monitor) – As a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine, dubbed rightly as a geostrategic rivalry between Russia (East) and the West (America) for defining their regional and global role and influence, the traditional debate of looking to the East or the West has once again become an issue in Iran’s intellectual and policy circle, and this has provoked the question of what actually should be Iran’s policy in dealing with such a crisis.

The crisis itself is not an urgent foreign policy matter for Iran. Because Iran doesn’t have joint borders with Ukraine, the issue doesn’t have a regional nature; rather, it is a great powers rivalry and the volumes of economic exchanges between the two countries are not that great. But since the two main sides of the crisis, namely Russia and the West (America), are directly involved with the two urgent foreign policy matters of Iran, i.e., the nuclear negotiations and the Syrian crisis, the issue becomes significant for Iran.

Russia is in a way Iran’s partner and international ally in the Iran-P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany) nuclear negotiations and the main supporter of Iran in the Syria crisis. At the same time, Iran is on the path of détente and confidence-building with the West, and especially with the European Union, to lift the international economic sanctions against Iran. In such circumstances, how should Iran behave?

One perspective inside the country believes that Iran should naturally take the side of its friend, Russia. This of course doesn’t mean that Iran approves of Russia’s sending troops to Crimea. Rather, the main argument here is that Iran has common interests with Russia in containing the extension of Western influence in the region.

Accordingly, the current increased relations between the two countries are based on a strategic logic and on preserving the states’ security and interests, as well as expanding regional cooperation. Meanwhile, any signs from Iran’s side showing that the country is orienting toward the West might persuade the Russians to change the current position in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran, which is to reach to a comprehensive deal. In other words, it is not in Iran’s interests that Russia perceive that improved Iran-West relations in any matter, i.e., the Ukrainian crisis, will be at the expense of Russia.

Yet another perspective believes that Iran’s policy in Ukraine should not be such that it sends the wrong message to the West on the verge of the current détente attempts. Iran should instead focus on the existing political-societal and economic realities, on good governance matters in Ukraine, and should oppose Russian military actions in Crimea, which can endanger the country’s territorial integrity.

Subsequently, Iran can take advantage of the emerged opportunity to institutionalize its relations with the EU in areas such as energy transfer and regional political-security cooperation, taking some steps toward establishing confidence-building which are necessary for lifting sanctions.

Looking to East or West is rather a myth

But looking to the East or the West is rather a myth in Iran’s foreign policy orientation and doesn’t match the political-security and economic realities of the state in Iran. It is mostly related to the traditional intellectual-ideological debate in Iranian society to criticize the state’s actions. The reality is that Iran is an independent country and a rising regional power which gives most importance and attention to establishing close and strengthening relations with its “near-abroad” areas in the Persian Gulf, the Levant and Iraq, Afghanistan and South and Central Asia and the Caspian and the Caucasus. In this respect, the degree of propensity towards the Eastern or the Western blocs depends on the degree of the role and influence of these two blocs shedding weight in these regions, whether for containing the threats perceived to Iran’s security or increasing its role in preserving the country’s national interests.

In this context, Iran’s policy in the Ukrainian crisis should be such that it prevents any increased tensions between Russia and the West in its “near-abroad” regions. This policy should be based on “active neutrality,” according to which the prospective tensions and rivalries between major powers involved in the crisis are equated in favor of Iran’s relative security and national interests.

Such a policy should have three dimensions: First, following an independent trend and avoiding entering any East-West blocization. Indeed, Iran’s sources of power, such as its unique geopolitics, its ideology, its rich energy sources, cultural and civilizational characteristics, etc., force the country to follow independent political-security trends in the regional and global scenes.

Second, playing a constructive role: Iran knows well that it is situated in an insecure geopolitical area. To bring stability which is necessary for its advancement and for decreasing the role of a foreign actor, i.e., America, which could be a source of political rivalry between regional states, Iran should play a constructive role in any regional crisis. And third, acting pragmatic, which means that Iran should follow polices that primarily preserve the state’s geopolitical interests and ideological values.

Previously and in the course of the 1990-91 Iraqi crisis, Iran followed an active neutrality policy when it contained the US threat by not taking the side of the Iraqi regime in its war with America. Iran also followed this policy in the 2001 Afghan crisis, when it helped the US forces, providing them intelligence to remove the Taliban regime, but not cooperating with the United States in the post-Taliban Afghanistan, trying to equate America’s threat. And again in the 2003 Iraqi crisis, Iran acted in a way to remove the Baathist regime, simultaneously containing the US security threat in the post-Saddam era.

Following active neutrality in the Ukrainian crisis will send the message to Russia and the West that Iran is an independent player that only involves itself in crises that endanger the country’s national and security interests in an actual way. This policy is matched with President Hassan Rouhani‘s pragmatic foreign policy approach, which primarily advocates a multilateral diplomacy and interaction with the international community. Focusing on an independent and strengthening regional role will also provide a better position for Iran in the course of a comprehensive nuclear deal.

Kayhan Barzegar is the director of the Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran and a former research fellow at Harvard University. He also chairs the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Islamic Azad University in Tehran. This article originally appeared in Al-Monitor on March 14, 2014 with the headline Iran weighs ‘active neutrality’ in Ukraine.

Three U.S. Secret Service agents responsible for President Barack Obama’s security during his trip to Europe have been sent home after one was caught intoxicated in the Netherlands.

U.S. news outlets say the agent was discovered passed out in the hallway of an Amsterdam hotel Sunday, a day before President Obama arrived for the start of a global nuclear summit. The hotel staff alerted the U.S. Embassy about the incident, which then informed the Secret Service.

A Secret Service spokesman says the three agents have been placed on administrative leave.

The trio are members of the agency’s Counter Assault Team, which defends the president if he comes under attack.

The Secret Service issued a set of guidelines governing agents’ behavior after a 2012 incident involving a group of agents who had brought prostitutes back to their hotel rooms in Cartagena, Colombia before Mr. Obama’s arrival for an economic summit.

Under the new guidelines, agents are prohibited from from drinking 10 hours before officially going on duty.

An internal investigation conducted by the Homeland Security department, which oversees the Secret Service, concluded there was no widespread misconduct within the agency.

On March 18, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a historic speech about the reunification of Crimea and Russia.  A referendum held in Crimea two days before in full compliance with standard democratic procedures and the rules of international law, shocked many by it’s results: there was an 82% turnout rate, with almost 97% of those casting their ballots in favor of reunification with Russia.  These numbers were so astonishing that there still seem to be many people in the West who cannot bring themselves to believe how much the Crimeans truly longed to return home.  And indeed, without an awareness of this land’s heroic history that has been so liberally washed in Russian blood, this public enthusiasm might seem irrational, or even artificial.

Understanding why they made this choice requires a careful look at what Russia has always meant to Crimea, as well as vice versa. This common history and pride emanates from literally every place and object in Crimea.  The ancient Greek city of Chersonesus, where in 988 AD St. Grand Prince of Kiev Vladimir was baptized, was founded here. It would truly be difficult to overstate the significance this fabled region holds for Russia. The colony was established on the Crimean Peninsula by the ancient Greeks, 500 years before the birth of Christ. The footsteps of St. Andrew, one of Jesus’ original disciples, who is known as ‘the apostle to the southern, eastern, and northern shores of the Black Sea’, are found here. Crimea is the place where the blood of Apostle Peter’s disciple St. Clement was spilled for Christ, consecrating the soon-to-be-Christian Rus’ and here the Slovenian apostles, St. Cyril and Methodius, preached the Gospel.  Prince Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity in the Crimean city of Chersonesus paved the way for the Russian civilization and made an invaluable contribution to world history and culture.

In the tenth century, Russian princes founded the Tmutarakan principality on the shores of the Black and Azov seas, which sat on the Crimean shore on the Kerch Peninsula, along with the city of Korchev (now known as Kerch).  This was the historical period during which the Slavs of Kievan Rus gradually put down roots throughout Crimea.  It was in Old Crimea, Sudak, Mangup, and Chersonesus that the Slavs comprised the most significant part of the population.

Tmutarakan quickly become the world’s second most important port, after Constantinople, through which passed almost all 11th-12th century trade routes that crossed the sea or steppe.  The son of Grand Prince Vladimir, Mstislav, who ruled the principality until 1036, consolidated and expanded its borders.  At the end of the tenth century, the remnants of the restored Byzantine Bosporan Kingdom were incorporated into the principality.  Much later, a marble slab was found on the Taman Peninsula with an inscription dating to 1068:

“In the summer of 6576 [since the creation of the world, which corresponds to the year 1068 - OR] Prince Gleb measured across the frozen sea, from Tmutarakan to Korcheva, 14,000 sazhen” [which is about 28 km - OR].

As the Cuman people increasingly intruded into Rus’ at the end of the 11th century, Tmutarakan was virtually cut off from Kievan Rus’ and lost its independence, by 1094 finding itself under the rule of the Cumans, Byzantium, the Golden Horde, Genoa, and Turkey.

At the end of 18th century, Empress Catherine the Great worked to see Crimea returned to Russia.  It was the Russian Empire’s dominion over Crimea that rescued the ruins of Chersonesus, so sacred to Russian history, from complete oblivion.  The Empress, with the willing assistance of Prince Grigory Potemkin, is remembered for founding a naval base, which was named Sevastopol, in Akhtiar harbor (now known as the Bay of Sevastopol).  The history of Sevastopol tells the remarkable story of Russian military valor and fortitude.

Sevastopol, Balaklava, Kerch, Malakhov Hill, and Sapun Ridge are landmarks that embody Russian military glory and true valor.  Each of them has been bathed in the blood of the soldiers who battled fearlessly there to defend a future of peace.  The 349 days of the heroic defense of Sevastopol during the Crimean War will forever be commemorated in the histories of Russia and of these two kindred peoples, as will the 250-day defense of the city during WWII.

The armies of Britain, France, Turkey, and Sardinia (Italy) invaded the Crimean Peninsula in 1854.  On Sept. 13, this city, which had never before faced aggression from any direction but the sea, found itself under siege.  Fortifications and gun batteries were constructed while under fire from enemies who held an overwhelming advantage in troops and cannons.  The city’s defense was directed by the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Vladimir Kornilov, and his subordinate, Vice Admiral Pavel Nakhimov.  Five battleships were sunk in order to prevent the enemy from gaining entry to Sevastopol Harbor, and naval guns and crews arrived to join the defenders.  The tenacity and patriotic fervor of the Russian soldiers, sailors, and townspeople astonished the world.  On Oct. 5 the invaders began the first bombardment of Sevastopol, during which the city’s defenses suffered no great losses, but Admiral Kornilov was mortally wounded.  The hub of the defense then shifted to Malakhov Hill.  On March 28, 1855 the invaders began a second assault.  Although at the cost of a large number of casualties, they succeeded in pressing our positions.  The third and fourth assault ended in the same way as the previous onslaughts, but on June 28 Vice Admiral Nakhimov was killed during an exchange of gunfire.  The French General Jean-Jacques Pélissier, the commander of the allied forces, was ordered by Napoleon III to capture the fortress, regardless of the toll.   After the fifth (!) and equally unsuccessful (!) attack, the allied forces began to prepare for a decisive strike on the half-destroyed Russian fortifications.  The sixth and final assault on Sevastopol began on Aug. 27.  The barrage involved eight French and five British divisions, plus one brigade from Sardinia – a total of 60,000 combatants – who fought against 40,000 Russians, most of whom had been diverted to the back line of the defense.  The fortunes of the battle shifted back and forth.  The French were able to capture and hold Malakhov Hill.  At the order of the commanding general, Mikhail Gorchakov, the defenders retreated to the southern side of Sevastopol, blowing up the powder magazines and sinking the remaining ships.  This outward defeat at Sevastopol sapped the strength of the invaders’ troops, and they were forced to agree to peace negotiations on conditions that were far different from those they had expected at the beginning of the war.  The defense of Sevastopol – the most vivid page in the history of the Crimean War – demonstrated once again the indefatigable spirit of the Russian soldier and his ability to fight even under the most difficult conditions of siege, when there seemed no chance for deliverance.

After 87 years, a new siege, and again a heroic defense and indefatigable spirit, awaited Sevastopol.  Nazi troops invaded Crimea on Oct. 20, 1941 and within 10 days had reached the outskirts of Sevastopol.  The city was not prepared in advance to defend itself from an approach by land, but the attempt by the Germans and Romanians to take it forthwith did not succeed.  A stubborn defense of Sevastopol began.  Field fortifications were constructed as the fighting raged, and supplies, reinforcements, and evacuations of the wounded and civilians could only be carried out by sea, often under enemy air raids.  On Nov. 4, all the Soviet forces banded together inside the city’s defensive zone.  On Nov. 11, with significant superiority in troops and artillery, the enemy launched an offensive.  After fierce battles and suffering heavy casualties, the Germans ceased their frontal attacks on Nov. 21 and proceeded to lay siege to the city.  On Dec. 17, seven German infantry divisions and two Romanian brigades, far outnumbering the Russian forces, launched a new offensive with tank support.  The attacks were rebuffed with the support of naval artillery fire, and any further incursion was foiled when Russian troops landed in Kerch and Feodosia.  Moreover, by forcing the Germans to divert to Feodosia the 11th Wehrmacht Army that was besieging the city under the command of General Erich von Manstein, the Sevastopol regional defense battalions began a partial offensive and had improved their position by March 1942.

Beginning on May 27, Sevastopol was subjected to incessant shelling and air attacks.  On the morning of June 7, the enemy launched a punishing attack around the entire perimeter of the defensive zone.  After a fierce battle, the Russian troops abandoned Malakhov Hill on June 30.  But resistance continued on the outskirts of the devastated city.  The battle went on until July 4, and even as late as July 9 in some areas.  Most of the city’s defenders were killed or taken prisoner, with only a few managing to make their way to the mountains to join the partisans.  The 250-day defense of Sevastopol, despite its tragic end, showed the world that Russian soldiers and sailors were capable of incredible sacrifices.

In the hearts and minds of the public Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia. This belief, based on truth and justice, has been unwavering. It has been something passed down from generation to generation with no regard for either time or circumstances.  Even the dramatic changes experienced by Russia during the twentieth century were powerless to alter this conviction. It would have been impossible for anyone to imagine how Ukraine and Russia could be two different states. But then the Soviet Union collapsed.  Events progressed so quickly that few at the time grasped the full drama of the unfolding events or their consequences. And when Crimea suddenly became part of another country, Russia felt that she had not just been robbed, but plundered. Millions of Russians went to bed in one country and woke up in another, transformed overnight into minorities within the former Soviet republics. Thus the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest, partitioned nation in the world.  But the populace was unable to stomach this egregious historical injustice.  During those years, both common people as well as many public figures often raised this issue, claiming that Crimea was native Russian soil and Sevastopol was a Russian city.  For 23 years Crimea has retained its Russian soul and every Crimean has spent this time breathlessly waiting for the peninsula to return home to Russia. And now it has happened – to general elation, tears of happiness, and long-awaited joy – a triumph of historical justice!

Afghanistan is on the cusp of its first ever non-violent transition of power in its modern history. On 5 April 2014, the third presidential election since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 will be held. What are the prospects for reconciliation with the Taliban?

By Halimullah Kousary

AFGHANISTAN HAS come a long way politically since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001. It held two presidential elections in 2004 and 2009, and is slated to hold the third on 5 April 2014, which will transfer power to a new president.

Hamid Karzai, after serving his two constitutional terms, is the first elected president to hand over leadership of the state to his successor without being ousted and/or pushed into exile. This shift signifies the growing liberalisation and maturity of the Afghan political elite.

Evolution of political order

In their quest for victory, various political groups have forged alliances beyond ethnicities, regions and political dogmas, forming their presidential teams with the support of former foes. The nine presidential contestants and their teams comprise politicians and power brokers from different backgrounds. They include western-educated technocrats, former Mujahideens and communists. The technocrats with a relatively weak support base have allied with Mujahideens to benefit from their large constituencies across the country.

These alliances are an important sign of the gradual evolution of the current political order in Afghanistan with policies and services taking precedence over personalities and political groups; once male-dominated, they have now become gender-inclusive. One major factor for this has been the growing level of political awareness among Afghan women and youth. Women began voting in the 2004 and 2009 elections and will do likewise in the 2014 election.

Their exposure over the last one decade has rendered their role in the broader political spectrum significant and thus created a need for women participation in elections and their membership in the political groups. Young Afghans, symbolising moderate and pluralistic forces in the country, with many of them educated abroad, constitute the majority of the population. Youth participation in previous elections has driven high voter registration and voter turnout and youths have developed into a core constituency that will be decisive in the 2014 election.

Legitimacy of future government

However, while a milestone in the fledgling democratisation process, the 2014 election could also lead to an unfavourable aftermath that Afghanistan cannot afford at this critical juncture if it is marred by malpractice.

During its two terms since 2004, the incumbent Afghan government no doubt made headway in certain fundamental areas but due to corruption and malpractice in the 2009 election, the government failed to deliver good governance and create a sense of belonging among the population. The chief concern among Afghans about the coming election is not about which team wins or loses, as there is no major difference in the contestants’ positions on principal issues facing Afghanistan today.

They all recognise the need for continued presence of American forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and in the meantime want to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table with or without Pakistan’s support. These are the two issues that Afghans in general expect the future government to work on.

The concern, however, seems to be whether the 2014 election will be free and fair given the existing security landscape in the country and the Taliban’s continued belligerence. The Taliban portrayed the 2014 election as “the latest plot of invaders” to install a “new puppet government”. They have intensified attacks on campaign rallies and distributed letters in provinces warning them against voting. Already, at least 408 of more than 7,000 polling centres remain closed and people in 62 districts of 15 provinces would be unable to vote due to high security risks.

Need for unity

The 2009 election was a precedent. The security threats reduced the voter turnout by more the 50 percent from 2004. This led to the massive ballot box stuffing in the 2009 polls. Given that the 2014 election will be held under a worse security condition than in 2009, it would be unrealistic to expect a 100 percent fraud-free election.

But fraud committed on a massive scale will without a doubt undermine the legitimacy of the new government. It could drive the various political groups into mutual recriminations and disunity at a time when Afghanistan needs a government with a strong mandate and a supportive opposition to fight the hostile and foreign-backed Taliban.

Halimullah Kousary is an Associate Research Fellow with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He was previously with the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS) based in Kabul.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has reached 80 percent, with a majority of Russians saying the country is heading in the right direction, an independent pollster said Wednesday.

A poll by the Levada Center said public support for the Russian leader rose by 8 percent since Putin delivered an address to parliament on Crimea before the predominantly Russian-speaking region rejoined Russia last week.

Levada said Putin’s approval rating peaked at 85 percent in spring 2008, when Dmitry Medvedev, now prime minister, succeeded him as president.

Another poll by Levada last week said a majority of Russians believe their country is a great power and an important player in the international arena.

Some 63 percent of respondents said modern Russia has regained the status of a superpower, the highest level in the history of the poll, conducted by the Levada Center since the 2000s.

Putin was named International Person of the Year by Britain’s The Times newspaper in December, for succeeding in his ambition of reestablishing Moscow as a critical player in solving international problems.

According to the poll released Wednesday, only 18 percent of respondents did not approve of Putin’s performance as president.

The survey was conducted March 21-24 among 1,600 respondents across 130 cities in Russia. The statistical margin of error was 3.4 percent.

The leaders of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee,  Sen. Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho),  released a draft bill on Sunday that would provide explicit government guarantees on mortgage-backed securities (MBS) generated by privately-owned banks and financial institutions. The gigantic giveaway to Wall Street would put US taxpayers on the hook for 90 percent of the losses on toxic MBS the likes of which crashed the financial system in 2008 plunging the economy into the deepest slump since the Great Depression. Proponents of the bill say that new rules by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) –which set standards for a “qualified mortgage” (QM)– assure that borrowers will be able to repay their loans thus reducing the chances of a similar meltdown in the future. However, those QE rules were largely shaped by lobbyists and attorneys from the banking industry who eviscerated strict underwriting requirements– like high FICO scores and 20 percent down payments– in order to lend freely to borrowers who may be less able to repay their loans.  Additionally, a particularly lethal clause has been inserted into the bill that would provide blanket coverage for all MBS  (whether they met the CFPB’s QE standard or not) in the event of another financial crisis. Here’s the paragraph:

“Sec.305. Authority to protect taxpayers in unusual and exigent market conditions….

If the Corporation, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, determine that unusual and exigent circumstances threaten mortgage credit availability within the U.S. housing market, FMIC may provide insurance on covered securities that do not meet the requirements under section 302 including those for first loss position of private market holders.” (“Freddie And Fannie Reform – The Monster Has Arrived”, Zero Hedge)

In other words, if the bill passes,  US taxpayers will be responsible for any and all bailouts deemed necessary by the regulators mentioned above.  And, since all of those regulators are in Wall Street’s hip-pocket, there’s no question what they’ll do when the time comes. They’ll bailout they’re fatcat buddies and dump the losses on John Q. Public.

If you can’t believe what you are reading or if you think that the system is so thoroughly corrupt it can’t be fixed; you’re not alone. This latest outrage just confirms that the Congress, the executive and all the chief regulators are mere marionettes performing whatever task is asked of them by their Wall Street paymasters.

The stated goal of the Johnson-Crapo bill is to “overhaul” mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that “private capital can play the central role in home finance.” (That’s how Barack Obama summed it up.) Of course, that’s not really the purpose at all. The real objective is to hand over the profit-generating mechanism to the private banks (Fannie and Freddie have been raking in the dough for the last three years) while the red ink is passed on to the public. That’s what’s really going on.

According to the Wall Street Journal,  the bill will

“construct an elaborate new platform by which a number of private-sector entities, together with a privately held but federally regulated utility, would replace key roles long played by Fannie and Freddie….”

“The legislation replaces the mortgage-finance giants with a new system in which the government would continue to play a potentially significant role insuring U.S. home loans.” (“Plan for Mortgage Giants Takes Shape”, Wall Street Journal) 

“Significant role”? What significant role? (Here’s where it gets interesting.)

The WSJ:

“The Senate bill would repurpose the firms’ existing regulator as a new “Federal Mortgage Insurance Corp.” and charge the agency with approving new firms to pool loans into securities. Those firms could then purchase federal insurance to guarantee payments to investors in those bonds. The FMIC would insure mortgage bonds much the way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. provides bank-deposit insurance.”

Unbelievable. So they want to turn F and F into an insurance company that backs up the garbage mortgages created by the same banks that just ripped us all off for trillions of dollars on the same freaking swindle?

You can’t be serious?

More from the WSJ:  “Mortgage guarantors would be required to maintain a 10% capital buffer against losses and to have that capital extinguished before the federal insurance would be triggered.”

10 percent? What the hell difference does 10 percent make; that’s a drop in the bucket.  If the banks are going to issue mortgages to people who can’t repay the debt, then they need to cover the damn losses themselves, otherwise they shouldn’t be in the banking biz to begin with, right?

This is such an outrageous, in-your-face ripoff, it shouldn’t even require a response. These jokers should be laughed out of the senate. All the same,  the bill is moving forward, and President Twoface has thrown his weigh behind it. Is there sort of illicit, under-the-table, villainous activity this man won’t support?

Not when it comes to his big bank buddies, there isn’t. Now check out this clip from an article by economist Dean Baker. Baker refers to the Corker-Warner bill, but the Crapo-Johnson fiasco is roughly the same deal. Here’s Baker:

“The Corker-Warner bill does much more than just eliminate Fannie and Freddie. In their place, it would establish a system whereby private financial institutions could issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that carry a government guarantee. In the event that a large number of mortgages in the MBS went bad, the investors would be on the hook for losses up to 10 percent of its value, after that point the government gets the tab.

If you think that sounds like a reasonable system, then you must not have been around during the housing crash and ensuing financial crisis. At the peak of the crisis in 2008-2009 the worst subprime MBS were selling at 30-40 cents on the dollar. This means the government would have been picking up a large tab under the Corker-Warner system, even if investors had been forced to eat a loss equal to 10 percent of the MBS price.

The pre-crisis financial structure gave banks an enormous incentive to package low quality and even fraudulent mortgages into MBS. The system laid out in the Corker-Warner bill would make these incentives even larger. The biggest difference is that now the banks can tell investors that their MBS come with a government guarantee, so that they most they stand to lose is 10 percent of the purchase price.” (“The disastrous idea for privatizing Fannie and Freddie”, Dean Baker, Al Jazeera)

Just ponder that last part for a minute: “The bill would make these incentives even larger.”

Do you really think we should create bigger incentives for these dirtbags to rip us off? Does that make sense to you? Here’s more from Baker:

“The changes in financial regulation are also unlikely to provide much protection. In the immediate wake of the crisis there were demands securitizers keep a substantial stake in the mortgages they put into their pools, to ensure that they had an incentive to only securitize good mortgages. Some reformers were demanding as much as a 20 percent stake in every mortgage.

Over the course of the debate on the Dodd-Frank bill and subsequent rules writing this stake got ever smaller. Instead of being 20 percent, it was decided that securitizers only had to keep a 5 percent stake. And for mortgages meeting certain standards they wouldn’t have to keep any stake at all.

Originally only mortgages in which the homeowner had a down payment of 20 percent or more passed this good mortgage standard. That cutoff got lowered to 10 percent and then was lowered further to 5 percent. Even though mortgages with just 5 percent down are four times as likely to default as mortgages with 20 percent or more down, securitizers will not be required to keep any stake in them when they put them into a MBS.”

Hold on there, Dean. You mean Dodd Frank didn’t ”put things right”?  What the heck? I thought that “tough new regulations” assured us that the banks wouldn’t blow up the system again in five years or so. Was that all baloney?

Yep, sure was. 100% baloney. Once the banks unleashed their army of attorneys and lobbyists on Capital Hill,  new regulations didn’t stand a chance. They turned Dodd Frank into mincemeat and now we’re back to square one.

And don’t expect the ratings agencies to help out either because they’re in the same shape they were before the crash. No changes at all.  They still get paid by the guys who issue the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) which is about the same as if you paid the salary of the guy who grades your midterm exam. Do you think that might cloud his judgment a bit? You’re damn right, it would; just like paying the ratings agencies guarantees you’ll get the rating you want. The whole system sucks.

And as far as the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, well, you guessed it. The banks played a role in drafting the new “Qualified Mortgage” standard too, which is really no standard at all, since no self-respecting lender would ever use the same criteria for issuing a loan or mortgage. For example, no banker is going to say, “Heck, Josh, we don’t need your credit scores. We don’t need a down-payment. We’re all friends here, right? So, how much do you need for that mortgage old buddy, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000.  You name it. The sky’s the limit.”

No down payment? No credit scores? And they have the audacity to call this a qualified mortgage?

Qualified for what? Qualified for sticking it to the taxpayers?  The real purpose of the qualified mortgage is to protect the banks from their own shifty deals. That’s what it’s all about. It provides them with “safe harbor” in the event that the borrower defaults. What does that mean?

It means that the government can’t get its money back if the loan blows up.   The qualified mortgage actually protects the banks, not the consumer. That’s why it’s such a farce,  just like Dodd Frank is a farce. Nothing has changed. Nothing. In fact, it’s gotten worse. Now we’re on the hook for whatever losses the banks run up peddling mortgage credit to anyone who can fog a mirror.

We’ll leave the last word for Dean Baker, since he seems like the only guy in America who has figured out what the hell is going on:

“In short, the Corker-Warner plan to privatize Fannie and Freddie is essentially a proposal to reinstitute the structure of incentives that gave us the housing bubble and the financial crisis, but this time with the added fuel of an explicit government guarantee on the subprime MBS. If that doesn’t sound like a great idea to you then you haven’t spent enough time around powerful people in Washington.”

The Johnson-Crapo bill doesn’t have anything to do with “winding down” Fannie and Freddie or “overhauling” the mortgage finance industry. It’s a bald-face ripoff engineered by two chiseling senators who are putting the country at risk to beef up Wall Street’s bottom line.

It’s the scam of the century.

By Eyüp Ersoy

Turkey-Kuwait relations, after years of distant cordiality since their formal inception in 1969, have started to show auspicious signs of reciprocal intimacy in the last decade. 2005, as a milestone in the progress of bilateral relations, witnessed the first high level visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Kuwait after he assumed office in 2003, in addition to the opening of the Kuwaiti Consulate General in Istanbul. Thenceforth, the mutual will to improve underdeveloped relations has manifested itself especially in habitual reciprocal high level visits of senior officials from both states. For example, the Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah visited Turkey twice in 2008 and 2013. Turkish President Abdullah Gül, on the other hand, was decorated with the Mubarak Al-Kabeer medal by Sheikh Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in his visit to Kuwait in December 2009.

The shared vision on the geopolitical developments in the Middle East, including the Arab Spring, mostly based on the shared sense of vulnerability to the repercussions of these troublesome developments, and the absence of matters of contention to constrain the improvement of relations, have facilitated the progress of political relations between Turkey and Kuwait. The two states have displayed convergent attitudes on regional issues in their respective foreign policies, especially on Syria, Palestine, and to some extent Iran, and expressed their reciprocal understanding and support for the end of civil war and a regime change in Syria, the just resolution of the Palestinian Question, and against Iranian interference in the internal affairs of regional countries through sub-national sectarian connections. Nevertheless, on the future of Iraqi political system, namely the centralization/distribution of political power among Iraqi groups, Turkey and Kuwait have quite divergent attitudes, primarily emanating from the Kuwaiti concern for a strong centralized government in Iraq with potential expansionist intentions. Furthermore, Kuwait’s acceptance of NATO’s invitation as the first member state of the Gulf Cooperation Council to join Istanbul Cooperation Initiative in 2005 was an important step for the further institutionalization of political relations between Turkey and Kuwait. The two countries also signed a memorandum of understanding on military cooperation in 2009.

In addition, the strong will, and in a degree the exigency, to seek and capitalize on commercial and financial opportunities have constituted the essential motive for both countries to forge new, more resilient, and more diversified economic relations between each other. In finance, banking, real estate, commerce, privatization, and energy Turkey and Kuwait have started to explore and expand areas of mutually beneficial relationships. While the Joint Economic Commission is regularly meeting, Turkish-Kuwaiti Business Council has also become a significant platform to advance economic cooperation since its first meeting in 2009 during Abdullah Gül’s visit to Kuwait. Besides, Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement was signed in 2010.

Accordingly, while the total volume between Turkey and Kuwait was $ 165 million in 2002, it reached to $ 568 million in 2012, with a trade surplus in favor of Turkey since 2002. While commercial relations have not experienced a strong boost in a decade, mutual foreign direct investment has considerably increased. As of April 2013, Kuwaiti foreign direct investment in Turkey reached to $ 1.1 billion. Turkish private sector, on the other hand, has been involved in construction, transportation, and advanced technology sectors in Kuwait. In possession of the world’s sixth largest oil reserves, Kuwait provides encouraging business opportunities in the energy sector for Turkish entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, this domain remains underdeveloped in bilateral economic relations as well. One outstanding exception was the collaboration of Turkish Petroleum Cooperation and Kuwait Energy Company to explore oil fields in Basra, Iraq; notwithstanding the initial agreement with the Iraqi government in May 2012, the Turkish company was subsequently excluded from the final service contract by the Iraqi government for political reasons. Concomitant with economic relations, social interaction between Turkey and Kuwait has also increased in the last decade, and today, for instance, Turkish Airlines has 35 flights to Kuwait a week, and Turkey has become a popular tourism destination for Kuwaiti nationals.

Despite these promising and noticeable developments in political and economic relations between Turkey and Kuwait, additional endeavors are required for transforming the enduring friendship between the two countries into sustainable partnership. A potent Turkey-Kuwait partnership is certain to have a constructive influence on the stability and prosperity of the Middle East.

Eyüp Ersoy, Center for Security Studies

This article was first published in Daily Sabah, on March 26, 2014.