Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Fitch Ratings Affirms Turkey At ‘BBB-’

0
0

By Öznur Keleş

Fitch Ratings has not changed Turkey’s credit rating and outlook. The credit rating agency Fitch has affirmed its long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) for Turkey at ‘BBB-’ and ‘BBB’, respectively, with a stable outlook.

According to Fitch, a stable outlook means “upside and downside risks to the rating are balanced.”

“Its upgrade to investment grade in November 2012 (BBB-/Stable) owed much to a demonstrable track record of fiscal consolidation since 2002 and a relatively strong banking system. These rating attributes remain intact for the most part and serve as a strong bulwark against external weaknesses,” said Fitch.

Fitch underlined that although the public finance and banking sector in Turkey are resistant to external shocks, in the run-up to the upcoming two pre-elections, political activities may overshadow the economic outlook. Fitch drew attention to Turkey’s political risk and also lowered its growth forecasts for 2014 and 2015. It has cut its growth forecast from 3.2% to 2.5% for this year and set it between 3.2% and 3.8% for 2015.

Moreover, Fitch said that strong revenue growth in 2013 led to better central government fiscal outcomes than expected. The general government deficit (GGD) is estimated to have remained virtually unchanged from 2012 at 1.6% of GDP. According to Fitch, the GGD will widen to about 2%-3% of GDP in 2014-15.

Fitch also added that the credit rating will improve in case of a substantial and durable reduction in the current account deficit, lower and more stable inflation, and structural reforms that raise gross domestic savings and attract greater foreign direct investment.


Is Turkey ‘Gravitating’ Toward China? – Analysis

0
0

By Emre Tunç Sakaoğlu

Top Turkish authorities, Prime Minister Erdogan first and foremost, have been voicing their eagerness to join China and Russia in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) on various platforms in recent years. Ankara recently became an SCO “dialogue partner”, and stated its willingness to participate more actively within the SCO as the single NATO member in such a position. Ankara has been demonstrating its will to increase mutual ties with Beijing through several important projects—and not only in economic terms but in the fields of defense, aviation, high-speed railroad infrastructure, nuclear energy, and high-technological cooperation as well. Such an effort to draw closer to China was reinforced by five top-level visits between China and Turkey from 2009 and 2012, including PM Erdogan’s visit to China in April 2012—the first such visit in 27 years.

It is clear that cooperation between the two countries has been flourishing especially in the last couple of years. A major step in this vein was taken through the joint military exercises held in Konya between September 20th and October 4th, 2010 that were organized by the Turkish Armed Forces with the participation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA, i.e. the Chinese military). Iran and Pakistan also supported these exercises by providing border clearance and air-refueling when four Sukhoi-27 (SU-27) fighter jets from China were making direct flights to Turkey, and when they were flying back to China. In response, Washington expressed its concern and reservations regarding the participation of Turkish F-16s (imported from the U.S.) in the military exercises, both because of political reasons and its urge to preserve the technological and strategic secrets of the military aircraft for the sake of NATO’s integrity. Therefore instead of F-16s, older F-4 fighter jets were used by the Turkish military during the exercises.

According to military officials involved in this bilateral exchange, the negotiations to carry out the joint exercise took two years; which means that since 2008 the Turkish government has been gravitating in a coordinated manner towards in-depth military cooperation with China, albeit behind the scenes. Moreover, the military exercises coincided with the former Chinese Prime Minister’s (Wen Jiabao’s) official visit to Turkey. During the meeting it was decided that the next joint exercises would take place in China in the coming years. The meeting also saw the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Establishment and Development of the Strategic Relationship of Cooperation by Turkish PM Erdogan and Chinese PM Wen Jiabao.

Finally on 26 September 2013, three years after the aforementioned joint military exercises, the Turkish government agreed to develop a missile defense system (Fáng dùn 2000, or simply FD-2000) within Turkish borders in cooperation with the controversial Chinese China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC). The deal involves Turkey acquiring long-range ballistic missiles for the first time in the country’s history. The decision to acquire such technology from China was made by the Defense Industry Executive Committee, which convened under Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s guidance. European, Russian, and American firms (Raytheon-Lockheed Martin of the U.S. and French-Italian Eurosam SAMP/T, for instance) were also bidding to supply Turkey with missiles of their own. But, as the Turkish government explained, the Chinese firm’s bid was cheaper and involved a complete technology transfer to Turkey.

A deal between Turkey and CPIMEC is indeed a problem from NATO’s perspective. The real reason why CPMIEC has a negative reputation is that it had previously provided arms to Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and as a result was blacklisted by the U.S. for contributing to arms proliferation with “rogue” states. The same firm is accused of conducting military espionage in order to acquire Western technology illegally. Also, the FD-2000 is a system which will most likely not be interoperable with NATO equipment. If the missile system is acquired by a NATO member like Turkey or even by others in the near future, there will be a weak point in NATO’s military intelligence, as these systems and the Chinese experts involved in operating these systems will gain access to NATO’s strategic backyard.

Since the Chinese won the missile defense bid in September 2013, the Turkish government and the bureaucratic authorities involved in Turkey’s accelerating military build-up policies have begun to articulate that Turkey needs to build its own capacity and technology in the military-industrial sector in order to attain greater elbow-room in its foreign policy. Nevertheless, Turkey did listen to some Western criticism regarding the risks and repercussions of such a move for Turkey’s long-term interests, and moderated its stance up to a certain extent. In response to increasing pressure from the U.S., Merill Lynch’s and Western investors’ reactions, and further offers from other bidders, Turkey finally extended the bidding period from 31 January to 31 April 2014. However, considering that officials claim that Western parties’ latest bids still can’t compete with the Chinese bid, Ankara cannot be expected to agree with a Western partner and turn its back on Beijing on in such a short while.

The latest instance demonstrating Turkish authorities’ slight change in attitude is that Murad Bayar, who had been serving as the Undersecretary of Defense Industry since 2004, was removed from his post on 28 March 2014—only one month before the extended bidding period ends. Mr. Bayar was known to be influential in the deal with the Chinese, and he was specially invited to leave his job in the United States and come back to Turkey to serve as the head of Turkey’s defense industry decision-making mechanism by Prime Minister Erdogan himself. After his dismissal from his former post though, he was immediately appointed as Principal Advisor to the Prime Ministry, which is a highly prominent position close to domestic politics and the current government. Therefore, it is still not yet certain whether the Turkish government will comply with NATO’s norms in this matter, or insist on moving in the opposite direction.

At the end of the day, Turkey’s recent trend toward cooperation with China in various vital projects and the repercussions of such a policy perspective on the domestic and international stage do not necessarily hint at a political realignment with a “rival camp”. Nevertheless, Turkish foreign policy used to cherish the principle of prioritizing NATO, as a member state should, while keeping a certain distance from its “rivals”; but now its focus has clearly shifted. Today, we see concrete actions exemplifying how the Turkish authorities of today consider NATO’s “unofficial rivals” to be “alternative strategic partners”. And in light of the conviction and recent statements by high-level figures that are gradually distancing Ankara from its long-standing allies, such a trend cannot be reversed easily.

Abbas, Netanyahu Commentary May Undermine Crumbling Peace Talks

0
0

A spokesperson for Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel on Sunday of undermining the peace process first, minutes after Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Palestinians of making “unilateral moves” that had harmed the talks.

Nabil Abu Rdeina told Ma’an on Sunday that “it was Israel who took unilateral steps to thwart the peace process,” pointing out that Israel precipitated the current impasse in the talks by refusing to release the fourth batch of veteran Palestinian prisoners jailed before the Oslo Accords as had been previously agreed upon.

Abu Rdeina added that Israel has continued to expand settlements in the West Bank throughout the peace process, which also constitutes a unilateral move to undermine hopes for peace.

The statements came immediately after Israeli prime minister Netanyahu responded to the growing negotiations crisis on Sunday, accusing Palestinians of undermining the talks through “empty declarations” and “unilateral actions” at the beginning of the weekly government cabinet meeting according to Israeli media.

Other Israeli officials also denounced the moves, with strategic affairs minister Yuval Steinitz going so far as to say that Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas was “spitting” in Israelis’ faces by trying to join international rights conventions.

“Unilateral steps by the Palestinians will be answered with unilateral steps on our part,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying by Israeli news site Ynet, in his first public comments on the deterioration of talks in recent days.

“The Palestinians will get a state only though direct negotiations, and not through empty declarations, nor through unilateral actions that will only keep the peace agreement further away,” he added during the meeting.

The comments come after the Palestinian Authority submitted letters to accede to a number of international conventions after Israel failed to release a group of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails for more than two decades. Israeli leaders condemned the move, decrying Palestinian attempts at international recognition and potential intervention.

“Throughout these talks, we have taken tough steps and demonstrated willingness to continue executing difficult in the upcoming months as well to create a framework to allow ending the conflict.”

“Unfortunately, as we approached the talks’ deadline, the Palestinian leadership rushed to unilaterally join 14 international treaties. Thus the Palestinians significantly violated the agreements that were achieved. The threats to turn to the UN do not affect us. The Palestinians have plenty to lose in a unilateral step.”

‘Mahmoud Abbas is spitting in our faces’

Netanyahu’s comments followed remarks from other top Israeli politicians slamming the Palestinian Authority’s move.

Economy Minister and right-wing Jewish Home party chairman Naftali Bennett was quoted by Ynet as saying that the Palestinians “shut down the negotiations by unilaterally going to the UN against all agreements. This is a flagrant violation of the accords, including the Oslo Accords. The negotiations with the Palestinians, even though they only turned unilaterally to the UN, makes the State of Israel a shelter for extortion.”

“If the seller runs off with the merchandise, you don’t need to chase him — cash in hand — begging to buy his goods. In short, if they retract the UN application we’ll negotiate, and if they don’t the negotiations must stop.”

Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz joined the critical remarks against the Palestinians, and said: “Truth be told, (Palestinian President) Mahmoud Abbas is spitting in our faces, he tells us he is not interested in peace, he is willing to recognize the existence of the Jewish people and its right to its own state, and now he shuts down the negotiations,” according to Ynet.

“This Palestinian Authority exists thanks to us. No only because of the Oslo Accords, but because of the funds we transfer them, and the security we give them. Otherwise, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as they control Gaza, would also taken down Abbas and take over Ramallah.”

The statements come amid a wider breakdown in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that followed Israel’s refusal to release the fourth batch of veteran Palestinian prisoners as promised as part of a trust-building measure to restart US-backed peace talks.

Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians were relaunched in July under the auspices of the United States after nearly three years of impasse, but over the course of the talks Israel has announced plans to build thousands of homes in illegal settlements across the West Bank, angering Palestinian and US officials.

Israeli officials now fear that the Palestinian Authority may attempt to appeal to international bodies against Israeli policies.

The internationally recognized Palestinian territories of which the West Bank and East Jerusalem form a part have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.

Nuclear Iran: Will Obama Succeed? – OpEd

0
0

By Ranjit Gupta

Even though Iran had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1967, it had been pursuing a clandestine nuclear programme since the mid-1980s, which became public knowledge in 2002 through defectors. The program was put on fast forward during President Ahmedinejad’s period.

On-off negotiations with the IAEA and Western countries, an escalating sanctions regime particularly since 2006, Iran’s economy sliding into deep depression rapidly, rising possibilities of Israeli military action, etc., failed to persuade the contending parties to reach any solution. A progressively deteriorating security scenario – post Arab Spring – in West Asia seemed poised to worsen further.

Oman as a Mediator

Oman has traditionally had a close relationship with Iran both during the Shah’s time and after the 1979 Revolution and has acted as a conduit between the US and Iran. According to well founded speculation Oman had been mediating secret interaction between the US and Iran for several months before Rouhani’s presidency. Sultan Qaboos visited Iran during 25-27 August 2013, three weeks after Rouhani became the President adding credence to reports that he had carried a communication from President Obama to Rouhani.

Developments under Rouhani

A moderate cleric, a quintessential insider and personally close to Supreme Leader Khamanei, Dr.Hassan Rouhani, with a more conciliatory approach to the world and greater transparency on the nuclear program, was elected Iran’s President in June 2013 by an absolute majority after a 72% turnout.

Providing further reassurance to the US, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who spent 12 years studying in the US and is well known and liked in the West, was appointed Foreign Minister; he was made responsible for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The choice of new incumbents for the Head of the Atomic Energy Commission, Ambassador to the IAEA and to the UN reinforced the positive message.

Syria, US and Russia: The Iran Angle

Despite intense criticism both domestically and internationally, Obama held back from military intervention after the August 21, 2013 chemicals weapons attack in Syria. On 9 September 2013 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proposed that Syria should agree to place its chemical weapons under international control, dismantle them, and agree to the destruction of the entire stockpile. Syria immediately accepted the proposal and acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention on 12 September.

On 14 September, the US and Russia reached an agreement relating to the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The implementation of the agreement is underway under the auspices of OPCW and monitoring of the United Nations. Since Syria is Iran’s closest ally, Obama’s commendable restraint was the absolutely essential reassurance that Iran needed at a critical juncture that the US is sincere in the overtures being made to reach a solution to the nuclear issue.

As Eisenhower after Korea and Nixon after Vietnam had done, Obama in his second term is determined to avoid new military engagements abroad and focus on rebuilding the nation’s economy and international esteem. All American troops are likely to be withdrawn from Afghanistan before the end of this year. In his 2014 State of the Union address he said “In a world of complex threats, our security depends on all elements of our power …including strong and principled diplomacy”. The Obama Doctrine according priority to diplomacy bodes well for a troubled world and is also in sync with the American people’s views.

Towards a geopolitical breakthrough?

All the above factors have made a substantive thaw between Iran and the West. There has been an unprecedented meaningful interaction between the two sides. On 26 September 2013, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif met the Foreign Ministers of the P-5+1 on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. On 27 September, President Obama spoke on the phone with President Rouhani and discussed Iran’s nuclear program and said that he was persuaded there was a basis for an agreement.

Significantly choosing to speak in English, Iran’s Foreign Minister outlined a detailed proposal to representatives of the P 5 +1 on Oct 15-16 at Geneva. All parties declared they were very satisfied with these first formal negotiations since the Rouhani’s election. After intense 4 day negotiations, on Nov 24th morning agreement on an interim framework toward reaching a long-term comprehensive solution to Iran’s nuclear program was announced. This came into effect from 20 January and is valid for six months. Under this deal, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran began curbing uranium enrichment, suspended its most sensitive nuclear development work, and placed its nuclear sector under heretofore unprecedented international scrutiny.

In return the EU and the US have eased some sanctions allowing limited increases in exports of oil and petrochemicals and released $4.20 billion of Iran’s frozen oil assets. The atmospherics of negotiations during January-March have remained very positive. In the meantime the Iranian Foreign Minister had a rare and encouraging one-to-one meeting with the US Secretary of State and similar meetings with the other five Foreign Ministers at Munich on the sidelines of the annual Security Conference in early February. The UK has posted a CDA in Tehran; Foreign Ministers of Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the EU Foreign Policy chief Katherine Ashton have visited Iran.

Negotiations are going to be difficult and challenging and success cannot be assumed but the world is on the anvil of a spectacular geopolitical breakthrough.

Ranjit Gupta
Distinguished Fellow, IPCS and Former Indian Ambassador to Yemen and Oman

Search And Rescue At Sea: Maritime Challenges And Chinese Capabilities – Analysis

0
0

By Vijay Sakhuja

The international search and rescue effort to locate the voice and data recorder referred as the ‘black box’, and debris of the Malaysian Airlines MH 370 have continued relentlessly for nearly four weeks now. The satellite data provided by the British company and inputs from the US Transportation Safety Board and the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch indicated that MH 370 was last known to have been somewhere in the Indian Ocean. This led the Malaysian Prime Minister to announce that ‘MH 370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean’.

Soon after the announcement of the disappearance of the MH 370, nearly two dozen countries dispatched their naval and coast guard ships and aircraft to South China Sea to locate the aircraft. Currently, 14 aircraft, nearly a dozen ships and one nuclear submarine from Australia, China, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States are deployed in the southern Indian Ocean for air-sea search and are scouring nearly 223,000 square nautical miles to locate the debris and the ‘black box’ of the aircraft.

The search and rescue aircraft are staged from Perth in Australia and according to the Australian navy chief, “We are not searching for a needle in a haystack but still trying to define where the haystack is.” It is also important to point out that the southern Indian Ocean is a very inhospitable and experiences bad weather, poor visibility, etc. The sailors refer to it as the ‘Roaring Forties’

It was quite natural for China to dispatch its naval and maritime assets for search and rescue since majority of the 217 passengers onboard the MH 370 were Chinese. Soon after the incident, China deployed 14 ships, six marine police ships, and two aircraft in the South China Sea. This included destroyer Haikou, amphibious landing ship Jinggangshan which has a big flight deck and is capable of carrying several helicopters, and the amphibious assault ship Kunlunshan.

Currently, there are seven Chinese ships deployed west of Perth in the Southern Indian Ocean. The Jinggangshan has been on deployment for over three weeks now and has clocked over 7,500 nautical miles. The other ships of the PLA Navy include Dong Hai Jiu, China’s largest patrol ship Hai Xun and Nan Hai Jiu. The PLA Navy has also redeployed its Task Force 525 from the Gulf of Aden to south of Australia’s Christmas Island. Meanwhile, China has marshaled the services of its icebreaker Xue Long (Snow Dragon), which was in the Antarctica a few months ago and was in the news for the rescue of the Russian icebreaker Akademik Shokalskiy, is operating in the southern Indian Ocean.

As far as air and space assets are concerned, two Chinese IL-76 planes are deployed from Perth and they carry out regular air searches. Further, a number of Chinese satellites have supported search operations and Gaofen-1 has beamed high-resolution images that have been ‘valuable and helpful in narrowing down the search area’.

Although the search and rescue operations have showcased China’s maritime capability, it has also exposed several limitations. Does China lacks technology to carry out deep sea underwater operations? Only a few Chinese ships possess proper equipment and can conduct deep sea rescue. There is limited ‘sea-probing equipment and telecommunications’ available with the PLA Navy. Likewise, the IL-76 is a transport plane and lacks necessary equipment to conduct sub-surface operations. Also, Chinese satellites did not receive any signals from MH 370 unlike the western satellites. Interestingly, it has been noted that the Chinese media relied on Western sources and shared broken news with the Chinese public and for that China ‘urgently needs to boost its international soft power’.

The tragic loss of MH 370 is a humanitarian issue and precious lives have been lost. Countries have set aside rivalries and differences and joined international efforts to search the missing plane. For instance, Vietnam allowed two PLA Navy ships to enter its waters and conduct search and rescue operations. This is a great gesture from Vietnam with whom China has consistently adopted an assertive stance. Likewise, the US and the historical foe Japan have set aside the diplomatic and military sensitivities, and are cooperating with the Chinese for rescue operations.

It is hoped that the unfortunate MH 370 incident would pave the way for future cooperation among the Asia Pacific countries that would be critically required to address similar challenges arising from natural calamities and disasters. Also, saber rattling by China against the claimants over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea may prove to be counterproductive; after all there is lot more beyond nationalism and sovereignty.

Vijay Sakhuja
Director (Research) Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi

Circumcision After Age 35 May Prevent Prostate Cancer?

0
0

Researchers at the University of Montreal and the INRS-Institut-Armand-Frappier have shown that men circumcised after the age of 35 were 45% less at risk of later developing prostate cancer than uncircumcised men.

This is one of the findings that resulted from a study undertaken by Andrea Spence and her research directors Marie-Élise Parent and Marie-Claude Rousseau. The researchers interviewed 2,114 men living on the Island of Montreal. Half of them had been diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2009, while the others participated in the study as the control group. The questions covered their lifestyle and medical history, if they were circumcised, and if so, the age at which the operation had been performed.

Greater benefit for Black men

Across the board, the participants who were circumcised were 11% less likely to later develop a prostate cancer compared to those who weren’t. The size of the reduction is not statistically significant.

“This proportion reflects what has been shown in other studies,” Parent explained. However, babies who were circumcised before the age of one were 14% less likely to develop prostate cancer.

Moreover, the removal of the foreskin at a young age provides protection, over the long term, against the most aggressive forms of cancer.

Prostate cancer is rare amongst Jewish or Muslim men, the majority of whom are circumcised. While the specific causes of this cancer remain unknown, three risk factors have been identified: aging, a family history of this cancer, and Black African ethnic origins.

Amongst the 178 Blacks who took part in the study – of whom 78% were of Haitian origin – the risk of prostate cancer was 1.4 times higher than amongst Whites. 30% of the Black men were circumcised compared to 40% of the White men. Interestingly, the protective effect of the circumcision was limited to the Black men, whose risk of developing prostate cancer was decreased by 60%, with a very significant statistical effect.

Circumscribing the discovery

Researchers do not know what mechanism enables circumcision to protect men from prostate cancer. However, many studies have shown that this operation reduces the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted infection (STI).

“Unlike the skin that covers our bodies, the inner surface of the foreskin is composed of mostly non-keratinized mucosal epithelium, which is more easily penetrated by microbes that cause infections,” Parent explained.

Removing the foreskin could therefore reduce the risk of an infection that might be associated with prostate cancer. In any case, the protective effect of circumcision (in particular the effect observed in the Black population) must be confirmed by other studies, especially in consideration of the relatively few Black men who participated in research.

Smoking Visibility Mapped For The First Time

0
0

The visibility of smoking in city streets has for the first time anywhere been mapped, in new research from the University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

The research found that up to 116 smokers outside bars/cafés could be seen from any one location in the outdoor public areas of downtown Wellington (e.g. on a footpath).

Of 2,600 people observed in the outdoor areas of bars and cafés, 16% were smoking, with a higher proportion than this in evenings.

Caption: The visibility of smoking in city streets has for the first time anywhere been mapped, in new research from the University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. Data from observations across the downtown area were mapped by the researchers, producing a record of the street areas where the most smokers could be seen. They used mapping methods previously used for landscape ecology and archeology.  Credit: University of Otago, Wellington  Usage Restrictions: None

Caption: The visibility of smoking in city streets has for the first time anywhere been mapped, in new research from the University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. Data from observations across the downtown area were mapped by the researchers, producing a record of the street areas where the most smokers could be seen. They used mapping methods previously used for landscape ecology and archeology.
Credit: University of Otago, Wellington

Data from observations across the downtown area were mapped by the researchers, producing a record of the street areas where the most smokers could be seen. They used mapping methods previously used for landscape ecology and archeology.

Lead researcher Dr Amber Pearson says that the methods developed through this research will help policymakers demonstrate the visibility of smoking in different areas, and provide scientific evidence for local authorities to advance smokefree outdoor policies.

Another of the researchers, Associate Professor George Thomson, says the results show the need for policies to reduce the normality of smoking:

“Smokefree outdoor areas help smokers to quit, help those who have quit to stick with it, and reduce the normalisation of smoking for children and youth. They also reduce litter, water pollution and cleaning costs for local authorities and ratepayers,” Thomson says.

In Australia, North America and other places, local authorities are increasingly creating smokefree streets and promoting smokefree al fresco dining and drinking, he says.

Earthquake In Chile: No All-Clear

0
0

After the strong earthquake that struck Chile on April 2 (CEST), numerous aftershocks, some of them of a considerable magnitude, have struck the region around Iquique. Seismologists from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences doubt that the strong earthquake closed the local seismic gap and decreased the risk of a large earthquake. On the contrary, initial studies of the rupture process and the aftershocks show that only about a third of the vulnerable zone broke.

This vulnerable area is referred to as the seismic gap of Iquique and a strong earthquake is expected to strike here. The Pacific Nazca plate meets the South American plate at South America’s west coast. „In a subsea trench along the coast, the Pacific Ocean floor submerges beneath the continent building up tension that is released in earthquakes,“ explains Professor Onno Oncken of the GFZ. „In the course of about 150 years the entire plate boundary from Patagonia in the South to Panama in the North breaks completely with a segmented series of strong earthquakes.“ This cycle has been completed except for a last segment west of Iquique in northern Chile. As expected, the strong earthquake of April 2 took place exactly at this seismic gap.

No All-Clear

Initial analyses conducted by GFZ seismologists have shown that there is no sign that tension in the earth’ crust has significantly decreased: „So far tension has been released only in the central section of this vulnerable zone,“ Oncken further explains. The series of earthquakes began on March 16 with a 6.7-magnitude earthquake. Although the main earthquake with a magnitude of 8.1 broke the central section of the seismic gap of a length of some 100 kilometres, two large segments further north and south remain intact, and these segments are able to cause strong earthquakes with a high risk of ground shaking and tsunamis. Oncken: „This means that the risk of one or even several earthquakes with a magnitude clearly above 8 still exists.“ Furthermore, the location and magnitude of the aftershocks suggest such a scenario.

Since the main quake struck, hundreds of aftershocks have been registered, the strongest that of April 2 (CEST) of a magnitude of 7.6. This earthquake struck about 100 kilometres south of the main earthquake’s epicentre. Together with the its associated aftershocks, it forms a second rupture zone.

Scientists getting ready for a field trip

For such extreme events, the GFZ has a task force called HART (Hazard and Risk Team) that will travel to the area affected to conduct further studies. The assignment aims at gaining a better and more detailed understanding of the rupture process based on the aftershocks, and defining the rupture surface more precisely based on the distribution of the aftershocks. Currently 25 seismometers are being prepared for air transport. Early next week a team of eight GFZ scientists will fly to Chile. The 25 portable seismometers will be used to expand the existing observatory network IPOC (Integrated Plate Boundary Observatory Chile) in order to be able to determine the earthquake epicentres more precisely. In addition highly precise surface displacements will be measured at 50 GPS measuring points. Two new additional continuous GPS stations will be installed to determine how the earthquake has deformed the earth’ crust.

The Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Geomar in Kiel intends to support the measuring campaign. Ocean floor seismometers will supplement land-based seismic data by providing measurements of the aftershocks on the seafloor.

The Plate Boundary Observatory IPOC in Chile

The GFZ initiated the setup of an observatory directly within the seismic gap in northern Chile in order to be able to precisely measure and capture tectonic processes before, during and after the expected strong earthquake. The observatory called Integrated Plate Boundary Observatory Chile (IPOC) is a European-American network of institutions and scientists. Together with several Chilean and German universities, German, French, Chilean and American non-university research institutions operate a decentralized instrumentation system located at Chile’s convergent plate boundary to gather data on earthquakes, deformations, magmatism, and surface processes.

The mission succeeded in the case of the April 2 earthquake: „All our instruments survived the quake and aftershocks unscathed. We now have a set of data that is unique in the world,“ says GFZ seismologist Günter Asch with a smile, who was responsible for checking the instruments on site right after the earthquake and who is once again on his way to the region. „We believe that these data will help us understand the entire earthquake process – from the phase that tension builds up to the actual rupture, and also during the post-seismic phase.“ This understanding will provide insights into earthquake risks in this part of the world as well as elsewhere.

The IPOC will further expand. To this day more than 20 multi-parameter stations have been set up. They comprise broadband seismographs, accelerometers, continuous GPS receivers, magneto-telluric probes, expansion measuring devices and climate sensors. Their data is transferred to Potsdam in real time. The European Southern Observatory on Cerro Paranal is now also part of the observatory network.


New Study On Crime Risk On London Underground

0
0

A University of Huddersfield criminologist who has been working closely with authorities in London to cut crime on one of the world’s busiest transport systems will appear before a House of Commons select committee to describe his findings. Dr Andrew Newton is also forming links with overseas experts so that their research can make public transport systems around the world safer places to travel.

By analysing crime patterns on the London Underground, which carries more than one billion passengers a year, Dr Newton is able to draw conclusions about the environment of stations and how they can help or hinder crime, such as pickpocketing. There are also important lessons to be learned about the policing of the Tube system and the areas that surround stations.

Dr Newton is one of five experts invited to give evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee during a special session on Monday 7 April. A panel of 11 cross-party MPs – including the Colne Valley’s Jason McCartney – will gather information on wide-ranging aspects of security on the railways.

Just published is Dr Newton’s co-authored article Above and below: measuring crime risk in and round underground mass transit systems, in the journal Crime Science. It reports on unique research into theft below ground, during Tube journeys. Key findings include the fact that below ground offences are concentrated at particular stations, with the risk being highest during morning and late afternoon peak travel periods, when there is also a greater risk of theft above ground in the nearby environs of the stations.

“The findings suggest that offenders who operate below ground may also operate above ground on major transit systems,” writes Dr Newton. “This has clear policy implications for policing these settings and highlights the importance of joint operations and information-sharing between transit agencies and local police forces.”

Algorithm to calculate the probability of where theft is most likely

Dr Newton, who is a member of the University of Huddersfield’s Applied Criminology Centre, has been researching transit crime since 1999. Two years ago, he was approached by the British Transport Police (BTP) and Transport for London (TfL) – which runs the London Underground – to collaborate on a new crime reduction project. Although crime on the network is incredibly low, with less than 10 crimes per million passenger journeys, TfL and BTP were keen to find new ways to tackle pickpocketing, which accounts for about half of all recorded crime on the London Underground.

“By its nature you don’t know when and where you are pickpocketed,” said Dr Newton. “You get on at the start of the journey and you might change to a different line. It might not be until the end of the journey that you realise you have been a victim.”

This factor creates difficulties for research into the hot spots for theft below ground on the Tube system. Therefore, Dr Newton worked with Transport for London in developing and adapting research methodologies that have helped to identify the locations on the network where there is the greatest likelihood of crime. The research develops upon and uses data from an analytical tool built by the BTP in collaboration with TfL. The tool uses an algorithm to calculate the probability of where theft is most likely to be occurring and help the BTP to target resources more effectively.

Andy Gill, Performance Manager for TfL Enforcement and On Street Operations said: “At TfL, we always want to be at the forefront of ways to tackle crime, especially developing the evidence base for effective solutions for crime reduction, and for that reason we were delighted to be involved in this research. We enabled access to the necessary crime information from the BTP, the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police Forces, plus passenger journey information to test the model and develop greater understanding of crime interactions between Tube stations and the surrounding environs. Our partnership has shown how research can be practically applied to operational policing, and we are confident this model will help our BTP colleagues maintain low crime upon the London Underground.”

Streets, Transport and Crime

Dr Newton will continue his research and to disseminate his findings. He has just spoken at a major seminar organised by University College London in collaboration with TfL, entitled Streets, Transport and Crime. Towards the end of 2013, he delivered an address at a conference in Stockholm on the subject of public transport safety and he discussed his London Underground research at the American Society of Criminology in Atlanta and at an international seminar at California State University San Bernardino, where he is now collaborating with its Center for Criminal Justice, aiming to contribute to a project on safety on the California transit line.

“I would like to develop an international network and I am talking to colleagues in Sweden, North America, and Australia looking at best practice and deciding if the tool we have developed with Transport for London can be rolled out to other areas,” said Dr Newton.

He is currently working on a co-authored edited book dealing with crime and mass transit, due to be published in 2015, and has contributed an entry on crime and public transport to the new Encyclopaedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Springer).

A Balanced Carbon Footprint For The Amazon

0
0

Considered, until now, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, capturing the CO2 fixed by the tropical forest through the soils of the watershed to release it into the atmosphere, the Amazon River actually has a balanced carbon footprint.

In fact, a new study shows that the CO2 outgassed by the river is only drawn from the river system itself, by the semi-aquatic vegetation on the flood plains. Therefore, the Amazon recycles the CO2 from its own river system, and not that fixed by the tropical forest, releasing as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as it absorbs. This study, coordinated by researchers from the GET (IRD, OMP, CNRS, CNES, UPS) and EPOC laboratories (OASU, CNRS, Université Bordeaux 1) and published in the journal Nature, changes the order for global carbon footprints.

The Amazon recycles its own CO2

The study contributes a new conception of the carbon cycle in the Amazon, and more generally on the continents. Until now, researchers thought that rivers were supplied with carbon by trees and other land plants through the soils of the watershed. This carbon was then transformed into CO2 and released by outgassing into the atmosphere.

Watercourses, and in particular the giant Amazon, were thus considered as net sources of emissions, releasing more CO2 than they absorbed. Now, researchers have just shown that the CO2 outgassed by the waters of the Amazon is in reality only drawn from the river system itself. This CO2 comes from the decomposition of the organic matter produced by semi-aquatic vegetation in the Amazon wetlands. Conversely to what we thought, the river thus acts as a “CO2 pump”.

The link between aquatic vegetation and CO2emission

Ten French and Brazilian teams within the framework of the ANR-CARBAMA project and the HYBAM environmental research observatory conducted many field-studies in the Amazon region and analysed satellite images.

The measurements of CO2 concentrations dissolved in the water compared to the satellite map of vegetation showed a very strong correlation between the intensity of CO2 outgassing and the area of flooded vegetation and floating aquatic plants. This proportional relationship can be verified at two levels: over time, as the water level varies during the year; and in space, as the proportion of vegetation diminishes from upstream of the study area, where flooded forests dominate, to downstream, where the majority of the lakes are found.

All emissions covered by the wetlands

The Amazon emits some 200,000 tons of carbon per year through outgassing. According to the researcher’s estimates, the majority of these emissions come from the respiration of the roots and the fall and decay of the semi-aquatic vegetation in the flood plains. In fact, the researchers showed a very high export ratio toward the aquatic environment of the gross primary production of the Amazon wetlands: half of this carbon, in the form of dissolved CO2 and biodegradable organic matter, is transferred directly to the river.

This quantity of CO2 is equivalent to the 200,000 tons of carbon outgassed annually. Therefore, the carbon footprint of the river system in the central Amazon region is close to equilibrium: its waters release the same quantity of carbon into the atmosphere as is fixed by its vegetation.

Nevertheless, this study highlights the very heavy contribution of inland waters to CO2 emissions. It sheds light on the need to consider the specific properties of wetlands in global carbon footprints.

The Indian Cousin Of El Niño: The 2nd Climatic Problem Child

0
0

Floods in East Africa and India, as well as drought and fires in Australia, are periodic catastrophes caused by a second climate disruptor less well known than its cousin El Niño: the Indian Ocean Dipole.

A new study that made the cover of Nature Geoscience, involving a researcher from the LOCEAN laboratory (IRD, UPMC, CNRS, MNHN) and various partners, shows that this recently developed phenomenon affects the climate in this part of the world. The researchers also show that the phenomenon has been occurring more frequently over the past 30 years. The number of extreme meteorological events that it causes should continue to increase in the coming years due to climate change.

A climate disruptor that is still misunderstood

Highlighted several years ago, the phenomenon called “the Indian Ocean Dipole” is a difference in temperatures between the surface waters in the West and East of this ocean. Like “El Niño” and its colder twin “La Niña” in the Pacific ocean, the Indian ocean dipole fluctuates every 3 to 8 years between “negative”, “positive”, and “neutral” phases. The new study shows that the oceanic anomalies induced, like those in the Pacific, periodically disrupt the climate in the Indian Ocean region by promoting extreme meteorological events.

Droughts in the East and Floods in the West

During the positive phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole, the western part of the ocean is colder than normal, while the eastern part is warmer. This surface water temperature anomaly changes atmospheric circulation. In the east, it reduces atmospheric convection (the rise of hot, humid air) and reduces precipitation. In the west, conversely, it increases convection.

Moreover, this change in convection accelerates the trade winds along the equator, which causes colder deep water to rise and reinforces the temperature contrast between the two sides of the ocean. The positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole thus tends to cause droughts in East Asia and Australia, and, on the contrary, floods in some parts of the Indian subcontinent and East Africa.

Increasingly frequent events

Through the analysis of oceanic and climatic observations and to complex computer simulations on data going back to the middle of the 19th century, the researchers also showed that the positive phases have been increasingly frequent over the past 30 years.

According to the study, this increased frequency is due to warming of the tropical zone of the Indian Ocean that occurs more rapidly in the west than in the east, in part due to the greenhouse effect or to the rising atmospheric temperature. The researchers identified a record number of eleven positive dipolar events since the 1980s. This frequency is predicted to increase further in the decades to come with the constant rise in surface temperature of the Earth.

This work will help better predict the extreme climatic events that occur in this part of the world and to better anticipate their consequences. It will thus help governments and populations to better prevent collateral damage such as major forest fires in Southern Australia, the deterioration of the coral reefs west of the island of Sumatra, or even the increase in floods and malaria epidemics in East Africa.

Which Path Will Brazil Choose? – OpEd

0
0

By Jaime Daremblum

When Latin America’s most-populous nation was awarded the 2014 World Cup back in 2007, it was enjoying strong economic growth and being celebrated as a potential superpower. Brazil grew by 6.1 percent that year and by 5.2 percent the following year, and it suffered only a mild recession after the global financial crisis. In April 2009, Newsweek discussed its progress below the eye-catching headline “How Brazil Became a Superpower.” Later that year, Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, prompting then-President Lula da Silva to declare, “I’ve never felt more pride in Brazil. Now, we are going to show the world we can be a great country.” The Brazilian economy went on to expand by 7.5 percent in 2010, its highest annual growth rate since the 1980s.

Today, with the World Cup just a few months away, the euphoria of the Lula years seems a distant memory, as Brazil is mired in turmoil and stagnation.

For starters, Standard & Poor’s just slashed its credit rating, bringing it down to “BBB minus,” which, Reuters notes, is “the agency’s lowest investment-grade rating.” Economic growth slowed to a dismal one percent in 2012 before increasing to a mediocre 2.3 percent in 2013. Most experts are projecting that it will slow again in 2014. One reason is that rising inflation has spurred the central bank to raise interest rates. Explaining its downgrade of Brazilian debt, S&P pointed to “the combination of fiscal slippage, the prospect that fiscal execution will remain weak amid subdued growth in the coming years, a constrained ability to adjust policy ahead of the October presidential elections and some weakening in Brazil’s external accounts.”

Meanwhile, World Cup stadium construction has been plagued by delays, deadly accidents and wasteful spending. In December, the death of a laborer in Manaus (in northwestern Brazil) led to a strike, with union members protesting the dangerous working conditions. “Among all 12 of Brazil’s World Cup stadiums,” the Los Angeles Times reported in January, “construction or repair costs have exceeded initial estimates, and work was either completed late or is still underway on all but two.”

Widespread anger over the costs of staging the quadrennial soccer tournament has fueled social unrest, which exploded into massive protests last June. The immediate trigger was a hike in bus fares, but the rallies quickly became a vehicle for broader anti-government demonstrations, with Brazilians marching through the streets to express their frustration with inflation, crime, corruption and shoddy public services.

In a way, the protests signaled just how much Brazilian society has changed, because they appeared to be driven largely by members of the country’s growing middle class. Indeed, according to a survey cited by CNN back in July, “79 percent of the protesters earn more than twice the minimum wage, and 76 percent are employed.” Like middle class protesters in other developing countries, the Brazilian protesters were affirming that they have rising expectations of their government. What was considered acceptable in the past is no longer tolerated today. For example, even though inflation is less of a problem now than in previous years, Brazilians expect their government to keep it lower.

They also expect public officials to make greater progress on reducing violent crime and curbing police brutality. A 2013 report by Brazilian sociologist Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz offered some shocking figures: Between 1980 and 2011, the country’s overall murder rate increased by 132 percent, rising from 11.7 per 100,000 to 27.1 per 100,000, and the murder rate among Brazilian youths more than tripled, going from 17.2 per 100,000 to 53.4 per 100,000. The overall murder rate has fallen a bit since peaking in 2003, but it has gone up since 2007 and is still much higher than it was in the mid-1990s. While Brazil’s two biggest cities, São Paulo and Rio, have seen a long-term decline in homicide levels, other cities have seen a huge jump. In 2011, for example, the city of Maceió — the capital of Alagoas state, which sits along the Atlantic coast in northeastern Brazil — had a murder rate (111.1 per 100,000) more than nine times higher than that of São Paulo (11.9 per 100,000). In addition to being a social crisis, the persistence of such high crime levels is obviously a substantial drag on Brazil’s economy.

Amid the country’s prolonged stagnation, a clear divide has emerged in Latin America between the four members of the Pacific Alliance trade group — Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile — and the three biggest members of Mercosur — Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. The Pacific Alliance members have liberalized their economies and signed free-trade deals with nations around the world, while the Mercosur members have remained stubbornly protectionist and statist, with much lower levels of economic freedom. “If Mercosur represents 21st Century socialism, the Pacific Alliance represents 21st Century capitalism,” Peterson Institute economist Barbara Kotschwar recently told the Financial Times. “It takes a pragmatic approach toward development, incorporating elements of social inclusion as well as liberal economic policies.”

To be sure, Brazil is in far better shape than Cristina Kirchner’s Argentina or Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela. But it won’t return to strong, sustainable economic growth without major supply-side reforms, and it has thus far resisted such reforms. “Last year,” writes Wall Street Journal Latin America editor David Luhnow, “one Brazilian summed up the Atlantic bloc harshly: ‘Brazil is becoming Argentina, Argentina is becoming Venezuela and Venezuela is becoming Zimbabwe.’”

A comprehensive Brazilian reform agenda should start with fiscal policy. The nation imposes European levels of taxation and disburses European-level pensions, but it does not offer anything close to European-quality public services. Taxes amount to 36 percent of GDP, which is higher than the OECD average, and the system is ridiculously complex. Brazil has consistently ranked dead last in the Latin Business Chronicle’s Latin Tax Index, and the World Bank ranks it 159th out of 189 countries and territories for the ease of paying business taxes.

As for public pensions, the Economist notes that “[t]he average Brazilian can look forward to a pension of 70 percent of final pay at 54. Despite being a young country, Brazil spends as big a share of national income on pensions as southern Europe, where the proportion of old people is three times as big.” Not surprisingly, pension spending crowds out spending on urgent national priorities, such as infrastructure. Countries around the world spend an average of 3.8 percent of GDP on infrastructure, but Brazil spends only 1.5 percent, despite its glaring need for better roads, railways, airports and seaports.

“The Brazilian ‘infrastructure gap’ plays a big role in slowing growth that would be much greater, given Brazil’s resources, but for shortfalls, especially in transportation infrastructure and logistics,” noted a 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report. To give you some perspective: The PwC report cited an estimate by Brazilian analyst Paulo Resende that “the logistics costs of poor infrastructure amount to an average economic drag on the Brazilian economy of 12 percent of GDP, compared to 8 percent for the United States, and 6 percent for Europe.”

President Dilma Rousseff, who succeeded Lula in 2011, has begun to tackle the infrastructure problem through a series of auctions aimed at luring private investment. The auctions have mostly been a success, for which Rousseff deserves credit. She also deserves credit for taking a stand against government corruption. (Unfortunately, corruption remains deeply embedded in Brazilian politics and society. According to a Financial Times report published in December, the U.S. hedge fund Platinum Partners considers Brazilian fraud such a potential “boom industry” that it will “invest in the recovery of Brazilian fraud claims” worth more than $5 billion.)

Yet Rousseff’s heavy-handed, interventionist economic management has largely been a disappointment. “The government’s economic policies have only hurt, not helped the economy,” wrote Joachim Bamrud, editor of the online business journal Latinvex, during the 2013 street protests. While the Brazilian president is currently favored to win reelection later this year — partly because unemployment, for now, remains relatively low — that could easily change if 2013-style protests erupted during the World Cup.

Over the long term, there are two paths Brazil can choose. The Pacific Alliance countries have demonstrated the benefits of free trade and liberalization, while Argentina and Venezuela have demonstrated the folly of autocratic populism. Brazil is currently somewhere in the middle, committed to democracy but unwilling to embrace the reforms necessary to open its economy and boost its long-term growth potential. The challenge for President Rousseff — or her successor — is to build a political coalition in favor of those reforms. Easier said than done.

Jaime Daremblum
Director, Center for Latin American Studies

This article appeared at Real Clear World and reprinted with permission.

The Crimean Crisis And Disempowerment Of The West – OpEd

0
0

By Serafettin Yilmaz

Apart from the troubling reality that international law has been reduced into a weak fish net where the powerful could comfortably pierce through while the weak are caught, and perhaps more importantly, the ongoing crisis in Crimea suggests a gradual but precise decline of the West. The picture is clear: The West failed to pull together a unified international community and to force Russia to a change of behavior. What has really happened?

It is probably too early to read too much into the developments in Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula although the Crimean part of the crisis seems to be over. Nonetheless one still cannot fail to see the oddity in the Western eagerness to invoke international law and responsible behavior when its own track record is less than enviable in that regard. Indeed, what is new for the West is an old game for the non-Western bloc, including Russia and China, which in the past attempted to dissuade the West from taking unilateral action by stretching and twisting the same international law that the US and EU now invoke. Apparently, the game of international law has now been carried to a new level and it is surprising to see how the West looked surprised at President Putin’s razor sharp annexation strategy in Crimea.

The truth of the matter is that international law is amazing when it comes to how many interpretations one can make according to one’s private interests. Take for example the notion of preemptive war. Does a state have the right to carry out a preemptive first strike against potential threats that do not constitute a de facto armed aggression? Historical evidence suggests that, depending on nations’ particular interests, it is possible to present arguments that are categorically opposite.

Therefore, as a community of nations, let’s not waste time with the idealist narrative of international rules and norms. Rather than pondering about the question “how,” it is time to figure out “why.” Notwithstanding all the frantic diplomacy effort, pressure and threats of sanctions on Russia, why did the West fail to achieve the stated objectives and suffer a defeat? What went wrong? Indeed, in spite of all the rhetoric and unlike the many precedents, no tomahawk was fired and no stealth fighter was dispatched over Russia. The US aircraft battle group was nowhere to be seen as Moscow annexed Crimea.

Now it is better understood that it is all about power and its distribution in any strategic equation. But we are not talking about soft power here but crude, destructive, hard power. The sheer MAD capability seems to be at work once again, regulating great power behavior and ensuring cold peace. Drawing on an analogy to the classical definition of power as “a relation among social actors in which one actor A, can get another social actor B, to do something that B would not otherwise have done,” it may be said that the West failed to get Russia to recognize Ukraine’s territorial integrity because it did not have adequate coercive power to force Moscow into a change of behavior. This means one thing only: power has not been preponderant to the favor of the West in this particular situation. Thus the reality the West has to face today is an indubious state of disempowerment such that it has to content itself with a set of petty retributions against Russia.

What are the signs of disempowerment and what would be the implications of it? One important sign is the apparent inability of the US and the EU to rally the international public opinion on the Ukrainian Crisis. Quite the contrary, apart from a general silence of the larger international community, global heavyweights such as China and India have voiced sympathy with Russia and underlined the unique nature of the present crisis, calling on the West to not become ahistorical and, rather, remember its own practice in Kosovo, South Sudan and other places.

Besides an apparent inability to bring together a broad coalition against Russia, the West did not seem uniform in itself, as well. For instance, France is still undecided whether to deliver the two Mistral class helicopter carriers that Russia ordered in 2009. Public opinion within the countries directly involved in the crisis also remains divided. According to a Pew survey, 56% of the US public prefer the Obama administration “not to get involved in the situation with Russia and Ukraine” whereas only 29% want a firm stand against Russia. Another poll found that most Germans did not think “Russia’s actions in the Crimea could not be so easily condemned” because the US violated international law in the past.

Perhaps the most telling sign of disempowerment is the fact that the West has been forced to only react to each step Russia took (rather than preempt them) throughout the crisis. The demilitarized tone of the Western strategy constituted a stark contrast to the previous experience such as Yugoslavia. Not only the likelihood of any resolution to pass the Security Council had to be ruled out, but also military wing of the West, the NATO, was greatly sidelined as it had to settle with making ineffective political statements with no real biting power. Then, in the face of all these, what would be the implications of such political and military disempowerment?

Beyond the conjectural debate on who is right and who is wrong, it may be said that the world has taken a firm stride toward multipolarity. Others had already pointed out a movement toward such historical direction, especially toward an economic multipolarity, and the recent crisis in Ukraine demonstrated that, even in a realm where the West is considered strongest, there is a tendency to pull away from unipolarity.

What would be the next best instrument for the West to turn to if/when the most viable one, that is military, proved to be ineffective? This question is likely to linger in the minds of the Western political elite, including its security leadership. Obviously, there exists no instrument more effective and feasible than military in present day international relations. Besides, another burning question is whether the West, as addicted as it is to resorting to coercive methods in resolving international crises, would be able to use existing political and economic arsenal effectively and efficiently.

The truth is that the threat of use of these economic and political tools did not bar Moscow from achieving its stated goals in Ukraine, a fait accompli that will further embolden other sidelined heavyweights such as China, India and Brazil to ignore and defy the Western pressure on Russia. And this would be the second outcome of Western disempowerment. As mentioned, non-Western countries have already expressed support, albeit tactfully, toward the Russian strategy in the Crimean Peninsula, rather than getting into line with the West.

Granted, the Ukrainian game is far from over. But what has recently happened cannot be taken lightly since the big picture refers precisely to a reconfiguration of international relations to the disfavor of the West. The limits of international law under a unipolar world order are now clearer. We have just revisited the Cold War game where military diplomacy no longer serves the purpose between thermonuclear power centers holding permanent seats at the UNSC. The shift from unipolarity seems to have gained speed and the Western political and military supremacy have been compromised. And the disempowerment seems to be just the beginning.

Serafettin Yilmaz received his MA in the US in Political Science and PhD in Asia-Pacific Studies. He currently works as a researcher in Academia Sinica and also is a member in Energy Security Study Group in Institute of International Relations, Taiwan. His research interests include Critical Social Theory and Critical International Relations Theory, Comparative Regional Development and China’s Foreign Policy. Yilmaz has published extensively in the Strategic Vision, a monthly foreign policy journal published by Center for Security Studies in Taipei. His two research articles, accepted for publication by Global Review and International Journal of China Studies, are to appear shortly.

Pro-Russia Protesters Storm Government Buildings In Eastern Ukrainian Cities

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Ukraine’s acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, has cancelled a trip to Lithuania scheduled for April 7 to deal with pro-Russia protests in eastern Ukraine.

Turchynov also held an emergency meeting with the heads of law enforcement agencies after protesters seized government buildings in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and a state security office in Luhansk on April 6.

Pro-Russia protesters also stormed the regional government building in Kharkiv later on the same day.

In Donetsk, a group of protesters barricaded themselves inside the regional administration building.

They threatened to set up a “people’s council” and demanded that a referendum like the one organized in Crimea be held in the Donetsk region over whether it should join Russia.

Earlier in the day, some 2,000 protesters had rallied outside the regional administration building before a group of protesters broke into the facility and raised the Russian flag.

“I came to support my people,” Lyubov, a female protester, told the Reuters news agency. “We are against that gang [in Kyiv], we are against fascism. I want Customs Union [with Russia]. Kyiv is not listening to us, the European Union is not listening to us. I would be happy for talks with the EU — let them come to Donetsk, to Donbas, and listen to us. No, they are only listening to those in Kyiv instead.”

Reports from the scene said police did not take action against the protesters.

Ukraine’s independent UNIAN news agency says a female protester and a law enforcement officer were hurt during the storming of the security service’s headquarters in Luhansk.

Pro-Russia rallies were also held in Kharkiv on April 6, yet another eastern city. As was the case in Donetsk, protesters called for an independence referendum like the one that led to the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea by Russia last month.

Later that night, several dozen protesters broke through police lines and entered the city’s regional administration building. Police did not use force against the protesters, who raised a Russian flag over the building.

A rally against separatist tendencies and in support of preserving Ukraine’s unity was also held in Kharkiv earlier on April 6.

Ukrainian media reported scuffles between pro-Russia demonstrators and a group of pro-European protesters, with police trying to keep the two groups apart.

Ukraine’s Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovych of “ordering and paying for the separatist turmoil” in the east of the country.

The president of the Czech President has suggested the West should take strong measures if Russia tries to annex the eastern part of Ukraine.

Milos Zeman told Czech public radio on April 6 that such options should possibly include sending NATO forces to Ukraine.

Ukraine’s mostly Russian-speaking southern and eastern regions have been hit by protests following the ouster of Moscow-backed President Viktor Yanukovych in February.

The pro-Russia protests come with Russian troops massed near Ukraine’s eastern border.

On April 5, Ukraine’s SBU security service said it had detained 15 people on suspicion of plotting to overthrow authorities in the Luhansk region.

In a statement, the SBU said the group “planned to carry out an armed seizure of power on April 10 in the Luhansk region through the intimidation of the peaceful population and the use of weapons and explosives.”

It said a large cache of weapons was seized. No names or additional details about the alleged plot were provided.

The announcement came after Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said earlier this week that it had detained 25 Ukrainians on suspicion of planning attacks in Russia.

Also on April 5, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused Russia of “economic aggression” following recent price hikes for natural-gas supplies.

Russia twice this last week raised the price of gas for Kyiv, taking the cost for Ukraine from $285.5 per 1,000 cubic meters at the start of last week to $485.5 by the end of the week.

Syria: Explosions In Homs Kill Over 50 Rebel Fighters

0
0

An explosion in a rebel-held area of Homs killed over 50 Syrian opposition fighters Sunday, including dozens of senior officers, Hezbollah sources and Al Arabiya reported.

It was initially unclear whether the explosion was the result of devices previously planted in the Jourat Al Shayya area, if it was an accident, or if it was an ambush by regime forces.

Some reports said up to 75 rebel fighters had been killed.

Original article


US Provides Anti-Tank Weaponry Supplies To Syria Rebels – Report

0
0

Rebels embattled against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad have reportedly come into possession of high-powered anti-tank weaponry, the likes of which may have been supplied by the United States, according to RT.

Images of rebels equipped with heavy arms have begun to circulate in recent days, and at least one news site has claimed that the source responsible is the US government.

On Monday, April 7 Israel’s Debkafile website reported that two moderate Syrian rebel militias — the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Revolutionary Front — have been supplied with advanced US weapons, including armor-piercing, optically-guided BGM-71 TOW missiles, thanks to the Pentagon.

According to Debkafile’s report, US Gen. Martin Dempsey — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs — asked officials in Israel last week to help get Saudi Arabian fighter jets stationed at the kingdom’s Faisal Air Base at Tabuk near Jordan positioned in a manner that would provide air cover as American forces moved the weapons into southern Syria. Debkafile attributed the claims to unnamed military sources.

Late last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that US President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah “appeared to narrow their disagreement on assisting Syrian rebels” amidst a meeting between the two. According to the Journal’s report, Obama administration officials said the meeting ended with the White House agreeing to increase its level of assistance to Syrian rebels.

“Senior US officials said their goal is to provide assistance to moderate Syrian rebels not just as a ‘counterweight’ to the Assad regime, but also to extremist elements of the opposition,” Carol Lee and Ellen Knickmeyer wrote for the paper.

At the same time, however, the Journal reporters said that the White House made it clear to the Saudis — who reportedly asked for America’s assistance — that Washington was not comfortable supplying certain weapons, including hand-held anti-aircraft missile launchers known as manpads, due to the “proliferation risk” involved with introducing those types of arms into the heart of Syria. The South China Morning Post also cited US officials as saying the Obama administration was considering supplying weapons and has recently “been able to develop deeper relations with the opposition.”

Then over the weekend, a blog that specializes in covering the Syrian conflict published screenshots from just-uploaded YouTube videos alleged to show rebels using the US-made tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided anti-tank missiles.

“Until more photos or videos of the missile and possible other locations pop up, it’s hard to tell who might have been the supplier. But most likely, the TOWs were indeed foreign-supplied to the rebels,” one blogger wrote. “Since the TOW missiles are made in the US such a transfer likely needs permission from the Obama administration.”

Iran’s Fars News agency also reported on Monday that their sources said the US has supplied the anti-tank missiles to the militants fighting against Assad.

According to Debkafile, the report – if true – marks “the first advanced US weapon to be deployed in more than three years of civil war.”

“Our military sources report that Syrian tank armor is not thick enough to withstand the BGM-71 TOW rockets. To save his tanks, Assad has shifted the brunt of his anti-rebel operation to heavy air force bombardments, which claim a heavy toll among civilians,” Debkafile continued. “Washington is therefore confronted with its next decision about whether to give the rebels sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons as well.”

On Monday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “We are going to continue to press in every way we can to assist the Syrian people.”

“We are constantly doing is reviewing and assessing what else we can do,” Carney said. “These kinds of discussions, when bad things continued o happen in a place like Syria, always can be reduced to the question of: is the US going to use its military forces to try and do something?” Carney said the administration will assess all options before making a decision based on what the White House believes is the right course of action to take in support of the Syrian people and in support of the United States’ own national security interests.

American Proxy Wars In Africa – OpEd

0
0

By Nick Turse

Lion Forward Teams? Echo Casemate? Juniper Micron?

You could be forgiven if this jumble of words looks like nonsense to you. It isn’t. It’s the language of the U.S. military’s simmering African interventions; the patois that goes with a set of missions carried out in countries most Americans couldn’t locate on a map; the argot of conflicts now primarily fought by proxies and a former colonial power on a continent that the U.S. military views as a hotbed of instability and that hawkish pundits increasingly see as a growth area for future armed interventions.

Since 9/11, the U.S. military has been making inroads in Africa, building alliances, facilities, and a sophisticated logistics network. Despite repeated assurances by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) that military activities on the continent were minuscule, a 2013 investigation by TomDispatch exposed surprisingly large and expanding U.S. operations — including recent military involvement with no fewer than 49 of 54 nations on the continent. Washington’s goal continues to be building these nations into stable partners with robust, capable militaries, as well as creating regional bulwarks favorable to its strategic interests in Africa. Yet over the last years, the results have often confounded the planning — with American operations serving as a catalyst for blowback (to use a term of CIA tradecraft).

A U.S.-backed uprising in Libya, for instance, helped spawn hundreds of militias that have increasingly caused chaos in that country, leading to repeated attacks on Western interests and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. [url=]Tunisia[/url] has become ever more destabilized, according to a top U.S. commander in the region. Kenya and Algeria were hit by spectacular, large-scale terrorist attacks that left Americans dead or wounded. South Sudan, a fledgling nation Washington recently midwifed into being that has been slipping into civil war, now has more than 870,000 displaced persons, is facing an imminent hunger crisis, and has recently been the site of mass atrocities, including rapes and killings. Meanwhile, the U.S.-backed military of Mali was repeatedly defeated by insurgent forces after managing to overthrow the elected government, and the U.S.-supported forces of the Central African Republic (CAR) failed to stop a ragtag rebel group from ousting the president.

In an effort to staunch the bleeding in those two countries, the U.S. has been developing a back-to-the-future military policy in Africa — making common cause with one of the continent’s former European colonial powers in a set of wars that seem to be spreading, not staunching violence and instability in the region.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION

After establishing a trading post in present-day Senegal in 1659, France gradually undertook a conquest of West Africa that, by the early twentieth century, left it with a vast colonial domain encompassing present-day Burkina Faso, Benin, Chad, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, and Senegal, among other places. In the process, the French used Foreign Legionnaires from Algeria, Goumiers from Morocco, and Tirailleurs from Senegal, among other African troops, to bolster its ranks. Today, the U.S. is pioneering a twenty-first-century brand of expeditionary warfare that involves backing both France and the armies of its former colonial charges as Washington tries to accomplish its policy aims in Africa with a limited expenditure of blood and treasure.

In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, President Barack Obama and French President François Hollande outlined their efforts in glowing terms:

“In Mali, French and African Union forces — with U.S. logistical and information support — have pushed back al-Qaeda-linked insurgents, allowing the people of Mali to pursue a democratic future. Across the Sahel, we are partnering with countries to prevent al-Qaeda from gaining new footholds. In the Central African Republic, French and African Union soldiers — backed by American airlift and support — are working to stem violence and create space for dialogue, reconciliation, and swift progress to transitional elections.”

Missing from their joint piece, however, was any hint of the Western failures that helped facilitate the debacles in Mali and the Central African Republic, the continued crises plaguing those nations, or the potential for mission creep, unintended consequences, and future blowback from this new brand of coalition warfare. The U.S. military, for its part, isn’t saying much about current efforts in these two African nations, but official documents obtained by TomDispatch through the Freedom of Information Act offer telling details, while experts are sounding alarms about the ways in which these military interventions have already fallen short or failed.

OPERATION JUNIPER MICRON

After 9/11, through programs like the Pan-Sahel Initiative and the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership, the U.S. has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into training and arming the militaries of Mali, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in order to promote “stability.” In 2013, Captain J. Dane Thorleifson, the outgoing commander of an elite, quick-response force known as Naval Special Warfare Unit 10, described such efforts as training “proxy” forces in order to build “critical host nation security capacity; enabling, advising, and assisting our African CT [counterterror] partner forces so they can swiftly counter and destroy al-Shabab, AQIM [Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb], and Boko Haram.” In other words, the U.S. military is in the business of training African armies as the primary tactical forces combatting local Islamic militant groups.

The first returns on Washington’s new and developing form of “light footprint” warfare in Africa have hardly been stellar. After U.S. and French forces helped to topple Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, neighboring Mali went from bulwark to basket case. Nomadic Tuareg fighters looted the weapons stores of the Gaddafi regime they had previously served, crossed the border, and began taking over northern Mali. This, in turn, prompted a U.S.-trained officer — a product of the Pan-Sahel Initiative — to stage a military coup in the Malian capital, Bamako, and oust the democratically elected president of that country. Soon after, the Tuareg rebels were muscled aside by heavily-armed Islamist rebels from the homegrown Ansar al-Dine movement as well as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libya’s Ansar al-Shariah, and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, who instituted a harsh brand of Shariah law, creating a humanitarian crisis that caused widespread suffering and sent refugees streaming from their homes.

In January 2013, former colonial power France launched a military intervention, code-named Operation Serval, to push back and defeat the Islamists. At its peak, 4,500 French troops were fighting alongside West African forces, known as the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA), later subsumed into a U.N.-mandated Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). The AFISMA force, as detailed in an official U.S. Army Africa briefing on training missions obtained by TomDispatch, reads like a who’s who of American proxy forces in West Africa: Niger, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Senegal, Benin, Liberia, Chad, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, and Sierra Leone.

Under the moniker Juniper Micron, the U.S. military supported France’s effort, airlifting its soldiers and materiel into Mali, flying refueling missions in support of its airpower, and providing “intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance” (ISR) through drone operations out of Base Aerienne 101 at Diori Hamani International Airport in Niamey, the capital of neighboring Niger. The U.S. Army Africa AFISMA document also makes reference to the deployment to Chad of an ISR liaison team with communications support. Despite repeated pledges that it would put no boots on the ground in troubled Mali, in the spring of 2013, the Pentagon sent a small contingent to the U.S. Embassy in Bamako and others to support French and MINUSMA troops.

After issuing five media releases between January and March of 2013 about efforts to aid the military mission in Mali, AFRICOM simply stopped talking about it. With rare exceptions, media coverage of the operation also dried up. In June, at a joint press conference with President Obama, Senegal’s President Macky Sall did let slip that the U.S. was providing “almost all the food and fuel used by MINUSMA” as well as “intervening to assist us with the logistics after the French response.”

A January 2014 Stars and Stripes article mentioned that the U.S. air refueling mission supporting the French, run from a U.S. airbase in Spain, had already “distributed 15.6 million gallons of fuel, logging more than 3,400 flying hours” and that the effort would continue. In February, according to military reports, elements of the Air Force’s 351st Expeditionary Refueling Squadron delivered their one millionth pound of fuel to French fighter aircraft conducting operations over Mali. A December 2013 briefing document obtained by TomDispatch also mentions 181 U.S. troops, the majority of them Air Force personnel, supporting Operation Juniper Micron.

Eager to learn where things stood today, I asked AFRICOM spokesman Benjamin Benson about the operation. “We’re continuing to support and enable the French and international partners to confront AQIM and its affiliates in Mali,” he told me. He then mentioned four key current mission sets being carried out by U.S. forces: information-sharing, intelligence and reconnaissance, planning and liaison teams, and aerial refueling and the airlifting of allied African troops.

U.S. Army Africa documents obtained by TomDispatch offer further detail about Operation Juniper Micron, including the use of Lion Forward Teams in support of that mission. I asked Benson for information about these small detachments that aided the French effort from Chad and from within Mali itself. “I don’t have anything on that,” was all he would say. A separate briefing slide, produced for an Army official last year, noted that the U.S. military provided support for the French mission from Rota and Moron, Spain; Ramstein, Germany; Sigonella, Italy; Kidal and Bamako, Mali; Niamey, Niger; Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; and N’Djamena, Chad. Benson refused to offer information about specific activities conducted from these locations, preferring to speak about air operations from unspecified locations and only in generalities.

Official military documents obtained by TomDispatch detail several U.S. missions in support of proxy forces from the Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, including a scheduled eight weeks of pre-deployment training for troops from Niger in the summer of 2013, five weeks for Chadian forces in the autumn, and eight weeks in the autumn as well for Guinean soldiers, who would be sent into the Malian war zone. I asked Benson about plans for the training of African forces designated for MINUSMA in 2014. “In terms of the future on that… I don’t know,” was all he would say.

Another official briefing slide produced by U.S. Army Africa notes, however, that from January through March 2014, the U.S. planned to send scores of trainers to prepare 1,400 Chadian troops for missions in Mali. Over the same months, other U.S. personnel were to team up with French military trainers to ready an 850-man Guinean infantry force for similar service. Requests for further information from the French military about this and other missions were unanswered before this article went to press.

OPERATION ECHO CASEMATE

Last spring, despite years of U.S. assistance, including support from Special Operations forces advisors, the Central African Republic’s military was swiftly defeated and the country’s president was ousted by Seleka, a mostly Muslim rebel group. Months of violence followed, with Seleka forces involved in widespread looting, rape, and murder. The result was growing sectarian clashes between the country’s Muslim and Christian communities and the rise of Christian “anti-balaka” militias. (“Balaka” means machete in the local Sango language.) These militias have, in turn, engaged in an orgy of atrocities and ethnic cleansing directed against Muslims.

In December, backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution and in a bid to restore order, France sent troops into its former colony to bolster peacekeepers from the African-led International Support Mission in the Central African Republic (MISCA). As with the Mali mission, the U.S. joined the effort, pledging up to $60 million in military aid, pouring money into a trust fund for MISCA, and providing airlift services, as well as training African forces for deployment in the country.

Dubbed Echo Casemate, the operation — staged out of Burundi and Uganda — saw the U.S. military airlift hundreds of Burundian troops, tons of equipment, and more than a dozen military vehicles into that strife-torn land in just the first five days of the operation, according to an AFRICOM media release. In January, at France’s request, the U.S. began airlifting a Rwandan mechanized battalion and 1,000 tons of their gear in from that country’s capital, Kigali, via a staging area in Entebbe, Uganda (where the U.S. maintains a “cooperative security location” and from which U.S. contractors had previously flown secret surveillance missions). The most recent airlift effort took place on February 6th, according to Benson. While he said that no other flights are currently scheduled, he confirmed that Echo Casemate remains an ongoing operation.

Asked about U.S. training efforts, Benson was guarded. “I don’t have that off the top of my head,” he told me. “We do training with a lot of different countries in Africa.” He offered little detail about the size and scope of the U.S. effort, but a December 2013 briefing document obtained by TomDispatch mentions 84 U.S. personnel, the majority of them based in Burundi, supporting Operation Echo Casemate. The New York Times recently reported that the U.S. “refrained from putting American boots on the ground” in the Central African Republic, but the document clearly indicates that a Lion Forward Team of Army personnel was indeed sent there.

Another U.S. Army Africa document produced late last year noted that the U.S. provided military support for the French mission in that country from facilities in Germany, Italy, Uganda, Burundi, and the Central African Republic itself. It mentions plans to detail liaison officers to the MISCA mission and the Centre de planification et de conduite des opérations (the Joint Operations, Planning, and Command and Control Center) in Paris.

As U.S. personnel deploy to Europe as part of Washington’s African wars, additional European troops are heading for Africa. Last month, another of the continent’s former colonial powers, Germany, announced that some of its troops would be sent to Mali as part of a Franco-German brigade under the aegis of the European Union (EU) and would also aid in supporting an EU “peacekeeping mission” in the Central African Republic. Already, a host of other former imperial powers on the continent — including Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom — are part of a European Union training mission to school the Malian military. In January, France announced that it was reorganizing its roughly 3,000 troops in Africa’s Sahel region to reinforce a logistical base in Abidjan, the capital of Côte d’Ivoire, transform N’Djamena, Chad, into a hub for French fighter jets, concentrate special operations forces in Burkina Faso, and run drone missions out of Niamey, Niger (already a U.S. hub for such missions).

SCRAMBLING AFRICA

Operations by French and African forces, bolstered by the U.S. military, beat back the Islamic militants in Mali and allowed presidential elections to be held. At the same time, the intervention caused a veritable terror diaspora that helped lead to attacks in Algeria, Niger, and Libya, without resolving Mali’s underlying instability.

Writing in the most recent issue of the CTC Sentinel, the official publication of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, analyst Bruce Whitehouse points out that the Malian government has yet to reassert its authority in the north of the country, reform its armed forces, tackle graft, or strengthen the rule of law: “Until major progress is made in each of these areas, little can be done to reduce the threat of terrorism… the underlying causes of Mali’s 2012 instability — disaffection in the north, a fractured military, and systemic corruption — have yet to be fully addressed by the Malian government and its international partners.”

The situation may be even worse in the Central African Republic. “When France sent troops to halt violence between Christians and Muslims in Central African Republic,” John Irish and Daniel Flynn of Reuters recently reported, “commanders named the mission Sangaris after a local butterfly to reflect its short life. Three months later, it is clear they badly miscalculated.” Instead, violence has escalated, more than one million people have been displaced, tens of thousands have been killed, looting has occurred on a massive scale, and last month U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper informed Congress that “much of the country has devolved into lawlessness.”

It is also quickly becoming a regional arms-smuggling hot spot. With millions of weapons reportedly unaccounted for as a result of the pillaging of government armories, it’s feared that weaponry will find its way into other continental crisis zones, including Nigeria, Libya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In addition, the coalition operation there has failed to prevent what, after a visit to the largely lawless capital city of Bangui last month, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres called “ethnic-religious cleansing.” Amnesty International found much the same. “Once vibrant Muslim communities in towns and cities throughout the country have been completely destroyed as all Muslim members have either been killed or driven away. Those few left behind live in fear that they will be attacked by anti-balaka groups in their towns or on the roads,” the human rights group reported. “While an African Union peacekeeping force, the African-led International Support Mission to the Central African Republic (MISCA), supported by French troops, has been deployed in the country since early December 2013, they have failed to adequately protect civilians and prevent the current ethnic cleansing from taking place.”

FRENCH WINE IN NEW BOTTLES?

“We’re not involved with the fighting in Mali,” AFRICOM spokesman Benjamin Benson told me, emphasizing that the U.S. military was not engaged in combat there. But Washington is increasingly involved in the growing wars for West and Central Africa. And just about every move it has made in the region thus far has helped spread conflict and chaos, while contributing to African destabilization. Worse yet, no end to this process appears to be in sight. Despite building up the manpower of its African proxies and being backed by the U.S. military’s logistical might, France had not completed its mission in Mali and will be keeping troops there to conduct counterrorism operations for the foreseeable future.

Similarly, the French have also been forced to send reinforcements into the Central African Republic (and the U.N. has called for still more troops), while Chadian MISCA forces have been repeatedly accused of attacking civilians. In a sign that the U.S.-backed French military mission to Africa could spread, the Nigerian government is now requesting French troops to help it halt increasingly deadly attacks by Boko Haram militants who have gained strength and weaponry in the wake of the unrest in Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic (and have reportedly also spread into Niger, Chad, and Cameroon). On top of this, Clapper recently reported that Chad, Niger, Mali, and Mauritania were endangered by their support of the French-led effort in Mali and at risk of increased terror attacks “as retribution.”

Still, this seems to have changed little for the director of national intelligence. “Leveraging and partnering with the French is a way to go,” he told Congress last month. “They have insight and understanding and, importantly, a willingness to use the forces they have there now.”

France has indeed exhibited a longstanding willingness to use military force in Africa, but what “insight and understanding” its officials gleaned from this experience is an open question. One hundred and sixteen years after it completed its conquest of what was then French Sudan, France’s forces are again fighting and dying on the same fields of battle, though today the country is called Mali. Again and again during the early 20th century, France launched military expeditions, including during the 1928-1931 Kongo-Wara rebellion, against indigenous peoples in French Equatorial Africa. Today, France’s soldiers are being killed on the same ground in what’s now known as the Central African Republic. And it looks as if they may be slogging on in these nations, in partnership with the U.S. military, for years to come, with no evident ability to achieve lasting results.

A new type of expeditionary warfare is underway in Africa, but there’s little to suggest that America’s backing of a former colonial power will ultimately yield the long-term successes that years of support for local proxies could not. So far, the U.S. has been willing to let European and African forces do the fighting, but if these interventions drag on and the violence continues to leap from country to country as yet more militant groups morph and multiply, the risk only rises of Washington wading ever deeper into post-colonial wars with an eerily colonial look. “Leveraging and partnering with the French” is the current way to go, according to Washington. Just where it’s going is the real question.

This article was published in [url=]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/22556-american-proxy-wars-in-africa]Reader Supported News

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

What Have We Learned From Crimea? – OpEd

0
0

By Charles Fairbanks

What have we learned from the Russian seizure of Crimea and the Western reaction to it? President Obama seems to have learned nothing; he is more obstinate in pursuing failed policies than Jimmy Carter or Neville Chamberlain. Informed discussion of foreign policy has now expanded to include wide and valuable questioning of Obama’s indecisive, yielding tactics—and his general vision of a world without enemies. But something in the middle is still missing, and that something is important. What have we learned about the former Soviet bloc, and about ourselves?

Like France and Britain in the years between the great wars, 1919-1939, we have committed ourselves to the defense of an international order in Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, that we don’t really have the energy or will to defend. The two epochs are very different, of course. For all Putin’s hostility to the West and its aspirations, and despite his skillful manipulation of Russian populist sympathies, his are nothing like the volcanic energies of a Hitler or Mussolini, and his people are nothing like the eager, war-hungry Germans and Italians of that time.

Nevertheless, there remains an important historical echo of the interwar period: what the West, defender of the status quo, is actually defending, and how we are going about the task. The order that the victorious allies could effortlessly impose at Versailles depended on the temporary disappearance of half the European great powers (who were bound to come back), and on the continued cooperation and sustained will of the victors. But as America and Britain retreated from Europe, responsibility for this effort fell more and more to France—a France that was uncertain and weary deep in its bones. In short, the Great War’s victorious allies genuinely preferred their new order—just as we do the Eastern Europe left by the Soviet Collapse—but they turned out not to care about it as a fundamental matter. As a result, when an aggressor eventually challenged that order, it collapsed with astonishing speed, like a house eaten from within by termites.

In more recent decades, we committed ourselves to defend new arrangements in Eastern Europe because we treated the accidental map of December 1991—deriving from the accident of a single sentence in Josef Stalin’s 1936 Constitution, giving Union Republics the right to secede—as if it were the result of a full-scale, 1815- or 1919-style peace settlement. But the Russian view was very different: that the collapse (and wished-for partial reconstitution) of the Soviet Union was a long, historical process, just beginning in 1991, and that the initial “state-like entities” it produced—and still less the borders—would not be permanent. This Russian view was the more realistic of the two. But as a guide to Western policy it was untenable, for its adoption would have legitimized Russian and Uzbek imperialism; required passive acceptance of frightful and lengthy ethnic-cleansing campaigns; and consigned the East to chaos for decades, opening it to Islamic extremism and other corrosive hatreds.

In the early 1990s there were many establishment Western authorities who preferred that Europe create a sort of Chinese Wall separating the civilized (Protestant and Catholic Europeans) from the barbarians (Orthodox and Muslim Europeans). But we ultimately chose otherwise, expanding NATO and even the EU far to the east, often with Germany in the lead. We imagined that we could maneuver as sentiment and convenience dictated, without ever having to pay very much. And now we are getting the overdue bill, which we don’t want to pay.

In the aftermath of Crimea—and the embarrassment of our supine response—the West is beginning to see the Russian vision of the future unfold: the long historical process of incitement, rebellions real and arranged, threats, secession, recombination in new states, and outright invasions. The international “order” in Eastern Europe after 1991 reflected not what power can achieve—as peace treaties usually do—but accommodation to unforeseen events. Such an order rests very largely on habit: on the kind of action that various leaders consider “thinkable” or “unthinkable.” During the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia (and subsequent Russian recognition of “independent” puppets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both inside Georgia’s internationally recognized borders), the West, surprised, declined to bless the outcome as legitimate—but did nothing to stop or reverse it, either. Absent this historical precedent and example (and the similarly feeble and immediately ignored American “red line” in Syria), Crimea would probably not have been seized. Until 2008, the idea of Russia according formal diplomatic recognition to new states carved from one of its neighbors was “unthinkable” for its leaders and for us. Until earlier this year, the idea of Russia straight-out annexing a bordering nation’s territory was similarly “unthinkable.” What unthinkable thing will Putin do tomorrow? To fully shatter the order we have been defending, Putin needs only to abandon some habits, some diplomatic conventions.

Few people will say so out loud, least of all the Obama administration, but Russia is what used to be called a “revisionist” power—like Germany, Italy, and Hungary in the interwar years—in the sense that it seeks a dramatic alteration of present international arrangements and balances of power. Any careful reading of elite Russian foreign-policy discourse over the past 20 years should drive this reality home with force. And fresh Western understanding of the situation we confront post-Crimea must begin with it.

Crimea is a heady moment of triumph for Russia’s ruling elite, one that may tempt them to act more systematically on a long list of pent-up resentments. To date, there have been occasional acts of aggression but no consistent revisionist strategy. There have always been advocates of such a strategy, however; many Russian foreign policy experts like Andranik Migranyan, for example, have consistently advocated an expansionist, explicitly anti-Western strategy to “reintegrate” the former Soviet Union. Should we passively allow a situation to arise in which this policy alternative becomes more attractive? Unlike interwar Germany, Italy and Hungary, Russia’s current leaders still appear to place their own enrichment above nationalist ambition. Personal sanctions and isolation are therefore tools that have a lot of potential power—if the West applies them seriously, as we have not.

Russia also differs from the interwar revisionist powers in being very weak relative to its ambitions, or rather resentments. In this sense, it is relatively weaker even than Italy was in 1940. For his own domestic political reasons, President Obama has begun to point this out. But the relevant weakness when cross-border aggression is going on is military weakness. Except for nuclear weaponry, Putin has not greatly modernized Russia’s obsolete, corrupt, and demoralized armed forces; he is afraid of them. A major reorganization began in 2008, but as often when starting with a mess, comprehensive reform schemes have resulted in much disorganization. Russian forces don’t have much recent, major combat experience, even in counterinsurgency. A few quick, successful operations (the beginning of the second Chechnya war, Georgia 2008, Crimea) were carried out by small special forces. It is a big policy mistake to taboo discussion of the vastly different quantity, quality, and experience of Western and Russian military forces during the Ukraine crisis. Better to let the issue hang in the air.

It is already clear that neither the US nor the EU will make Russia pay a major price for invading a sovereign neighbor state. To deter another aggression, they rely on hope, instead. We hope Russia will not invade Donetsk, Kharkov, and Luhansk. But those in the West dissatisfied with this reliance—those who understand that hope alone is far from adequate—can do more than merely roll our eyes and sigh. We can loudly and explicitly identify what it is that’s gone wrong with longer-term American policy toward Eastern Europe and Russia. We can formulate a clear policy agenda to implement when the West’s present wrong one produces its next disaster. And our policy within Ukraine can still become effective.

What is most forgotten in this crisis is the uncertain fate of what we are defending: European-oriented democracy in Ukraine. Recent events should remind us that a deep and recurrent yearning for democracy exists—even in the former Soviet Union. That yearning is not always reflected by the formal political leadership that Western nations are accustomed to dealing with and advocating. Throughout the region, many, many people have learned from the falseness of Soviet public spirit to despise and avoid politics altogether, as I have learned while trying to work with student activists. In Ukraine democratic revolutions happen in the street, but there is no guarantee that the governments they install—like the present one—will turn out to be any less disappointing and divided than the rule of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko that followed the Orange Revolution.

Western efforts to help defend Ukraine’s independence will be in vain if this cycle goes unbroken. We need to give a lot of effort—and a lot of thought—to the development of lasting democracy and free markets in Ukraine. We know how to help financially and organizationally, if we are willing to back our words with money, which is not yet clear. We seem much less sure of ourselves where the effort to turn democratic longings into functioning democratic institutions is concerned. We need to focus much more seriously on that.

About the author:
Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr. was a research professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins/SAIS and a director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. He has served as a deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of State and member of the department’s policy planning staff. He was a foreign policy adviser to the Reagan campaign in 1980 and the Bush campaign in 1988. Fairbanks has served on the political science faculty of both Yale University and the University of Toronto.

Kerry Says ‘Russian Agents’ Behind Crisis In Eastern Ukraine

0
0

By Scott Stearns

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Russia is fueling separatist unrest in Eastern Ukraine that could be a “contrived crisis” to justify military intervention and that Moscow faces tougher banking, mining, and energy sanctions if it does not stop undermining Ukraine.

Kerry said President Barack Obama is preparing a far-tougher series of sanctions if Russia does not step back from what he calls its “clear and unmistakable involvement” in destabilizing Eastern Ukraine.

“So Russia has a choice: to work with the international community to help build an independent Ukraine that could be a bridge between East and West not the object of a tug of war, that could meet the hopes and aspiration of all Ukrainians; or they could face greater isolation and pay the cost for their failure to see that the world is not a zero-sum game,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday.

Pro-Russian separatists in southeastern regions are demanding referenda on splitting with Ukraine, the same kind of vote that took place last month in Crimea after Russian troops took control there.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said those regions should be included in talks next week with the United States, European Union and Ukrainian government.

Secretary Kerry told U.S. lawmakers it is “not a small matter” that Russia has agreed to those talks. But before then, he says Moscow must disavow separatist actions, pull back troops along the border, and demonstrate that they will do what is necessary to de-escalate.

Republican Senator Bob Corker said the Obama administration is inconsistent by criticizing Russian action while agreeing to include them in talks on Ukraine’s future.

“We castigate them on one side. On the other hand we are exchanging paper with them. I am confused about what our policy really is,” he told the secretary.

Kerry responded that Washington’s preference is a negotiated settlement, but it will not hesitate to use “21st century tools to hold Russia accountable for 19th century behavior.”

“These efforts are as ham-handed as they are transparent, frankly,” he said. “And quite simply what we see from Russia is an illegal and illegitimate effort to destabilize a sovereign state and create a contrived crisis with paid operatives across an international boundary.”

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen says Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine would be a “historic mistake” that would further isolate Russia from the world.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry is calling for provisional authorities in Kyiv to halt what it called “military preparations” in southeast regions that could lead to civil war.

Putin Puts In When NATO And EU Move East – OpEd

0
0

“Two millennia of experience and mountains of knowledge have not made us much more capable of managing our affairs than stone age people.”

According to Parag Khanna, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed  said the quote mentioned above.

Unfortunately, the recent crisis in Ukraine, Crimea’s integration with Russia, West’s sanctions against it and further disturbances in Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine, has again validated what Mahathir has said.

The Ukraine crisis and Crimean annexation in Russia has exhibited how powerful countries may intimidate less powerful neighbors at their will and force them to surrender their independence. However, this has raised many questions – that seeks immediate response from the United States, Russia, European Union and from other major powers including China and India.

According to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the crisis in Ukraine is a geo-political “game-changer” for NATO Allies and hence they must strengthen their economic and military ties in wake of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.

Rasmussen, during his tenure as NATO Secretary General has been trying hard in reinventing and repurposing NATO and pleading to reaffirm the Allied commitment to collective defense, and re-strengthening transatlantic bond. Under Rasmussen, NATO has gained a new momentum in advancing his military strategy vis-à-vis Russia and indubitably he has now much more serious subscribers among NATO member countries after Ukraine crisis.

On the other hand, Gordon Adams in Foreign Policy has recently termed American and European policy towards Russia as “an emotional investment in a different answer than reality”.

Adams admits, that there is nothing about democracy, annexation, aggression or a new return to the Cold War but “centuries-old Russian paranoia about the states on its borders and what Moscow think the Europeans, the Chinese, or the Americans are up to in its near abroad.”

As quoted in The Atlantic the eminent Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis says “NATO enlargement as ill conceived, ill-timed, and above all ill-suited to the realities of the post-Cold War world.” Peoples like George H.W. Bush’s national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and Bill Clinton’s defense secretary, William Perry were skeptical of the idea of such expansion.

From the present crisis in Ukraine, one thing is obviously clear- the expansion of NATO and its return to a confrontational and divided European policy further alienating Russia could not bring stability and security in Eastern Europe.

Freedom and Democracy cannot be a Tool to Advance Strategic Interests

Undoubtedly, freedom and democracy are inalienable right of every people in this world, but they have to build it for themselves. They have to develop it to suit to their culture and traditions. In addition, no country in the world has the moral, legal, and political right to prescribe the dose of freedom and democracy while offering tacit support to groups and parties to incite and organize agitations and stage coups against the elected governments – however with dubious record.

The idea of Freedom and Democracy, when used as strategic tools to advance the strategic interests of the bigger, richer, and powerful countries against the less fortunate and weaker of their neighbors – the greatest ideas that have revolutionized people from time memorial, loses its worth and meaning.

Take for example, after World War II, China and Soviet Union used some heavy loaded words, ideas, and principles – as weapons to expand and export their sense human freedom and dignity through communist revolution. Their efforts mocked national independence of the respective countries and all major global treaties, provisions, and reasons. However, when time completely rejected the illogic of their aggressive revolutionary zeal, they suffered the heaviest loss to their political morale and ideology. Millions of people who have sacrificed their blood and energy for their kind of political and socio- economic system, turned into a terrible catastrophe.

Unfortunately, now, the West – in this or that way, is following the footmarks of former Soviet Union and China under Mao. For their role – the undisputed values of freedom and democracy is being mocked in many societies – as the mere propagandistic agendas are moved to advance their strategic interests vis-à-vis other competing powers.

Because of this, the democratic movements whether with open or tacit support of Western countries from Iraq to North Africa and from Thailand to Ukraine, have received heavy setback. The West instead of building, developing and strengthening democracy in these countries, have weakened its roots.

The way a state and group of states control themselves when their stars are high – defines their character — political, moral, and cultural. When the Berlin Wall fell, communism extended from Berlin to the Far East collapsed. Even in the Middle Kingdom, China – representing largest population of the world, adopted western economic model. The values of democracy, freedom, and capitalism soared high in the sky with its inborn human values and moral authority – but with diversities to suit their cultural roots and national experiences, had gained the strength and authority to rule the world and create a stable global order.

But, when democracies in major countries whether the U.S., EU or India could not resist from the temptations to use their over burgeoning political, economic and strategic power to use as a tool to advance their strategic goals, the cause of democracy has suffered in many countries. In the same way, when unilateral perceptions of national interests and self-defense became the law of major powers – democracy in developing countries and in return national interests of powerful countries have gone through heavy losses.

No Peace without Equilibrium and No Justice without Restraint

Relations between and among nations according to a leading American scholar of the 20th Century Hans J. Morgenthau – demands certain amount of rationality that “minimizes risks and maximizes benefits”- complying both with “moral perceptions of prudence and the political requirement of success”.

Morgenthau has also moved a theory of political realism in international relations that seeks convergence between rationalism and realism in defining national interests of any country -“universally valid” but relevance to changing time.

This is the point where major powers when are in high tide, find ease in ignoring..

Prominent personality – no other than Henry A. Kissinger, himself a student of Morgenthau, has stated in his recent article in The Washington Post that says, “I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.” Unfortunately, the US has failed in most of the tests after World War II.

Three and half decades ago, Henry Kissinger in one of his books wrote, “If history teaches anything it is that there can be no peace without equilibrium and no justice without restraint . . . no nation could face or even define its choices without a moral compass that set a course through the ambiguities of reality and thus made sacrifices meaningful. . . History knows no resting places and no plateaus.” Earlier to this he has written, “History is not . . . a cookbook offering pretested recipes it teaches by analogy, not by maxims.”

What Kissinger learned from history and what he accomplished in the making and shaping of American foreign policy – has always stand tall in the annals of world history.

In his books – Ending the Vietnam War and Years of Renewal, Kissinger has vividly described US withdrawal from Vietnam. Recounting, “The Last Day” of that withdrawal, Kissinger has written -“. . . neither Ford nor I could any longer influence the outcome; we had become spectators of the final act. So we each sat in our offices, freed of other duties yet unable to affect the ongoing tragedy, with serenity rarely experienced in high offices.”

As Kissinger noted, many of the top-level people in Ford administration were deeply moved with tears in their eyes – for all the sacrifices American soldiers and their allies made in Vietnam, but all the huge sacrifices made by thousands of Americans were not only ignored but also treated ignominiously.

Robert M Gates – the only person in American history, who has served two presidents, has recently come with a commendable book as his “Memoirs of a Secretary at War”. In his book titled – Duty, Gates admits that – had he been the Defense Secretary during the winter of 2002-2003, he would not have recommended the president to invade Iraq. The Iraq War (2003), not only grinded down the US global credibility, it also eliminated “Iran’s worst enemy and resulted in a significant strengthening of Teheran’s position in the region – and within Iraq itself”. One of the most discredited wars that US fought with “monumental cost” killed the equilibrium in the region and invited a geo-political debacle for American interest in the region.

It is a matter to note that the Iraq War was not an example it was a general trend being adopted by American administrations.

Bigger Country’s Bigger Say but a Weakened Global Justice

There was always some international mechanism created by major powers to maintain status quo – to control the irrational behavior of only smaller power, but unfortunately, no such instrument have been developed to check such activities on the part of major or super powers themselves. They have their privilege to define their national interests in the region they belong to and apply any means in defending them in their own terms – what so ever might be the case of weaker or smaller power and inviolability of their national sovereignty.

A theory has come into existence in international relations termed as “Monroe Doctrine” since 1823, when US president James Monroe in his annual message to Congress warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. This means no other power can extend its political or military influence in a region that is in close proximity to other major power.

Following the Monroe Doctrine, after World War II, United States unilaterally has used force in dozen plus countries: from Mexico to Chile and from Dominican Republic to Haiti. The most recent was in Iraq and Libya.

Similar was the case with former Soviet Union. It had intervened in dozens of countries and the most notable was Czechoslovakia. Central and Eastern Europe suffered ruthless domination and intervention during the Soviet Era. Role of China in annexing Tibet, intervening in Korea, and attacking on Vietnam and exporting communism in many countries of the world during Mao era are known examples. The way India annexed Sikkim as Russia has occupied Crimea and India’s role in the creation of a new independent nation – Bangladesh does not tell some different story.
Undeniably, major global or regional power demands bigger prudence, sincerity, responsibility, rationality and commitment in managing global or regional peace and order. Nevertheless, when power – mainly in terms of military, economic and geostrategic, begin to speak louder and is used as the weapon against the weaker countries and when even some small amount of moral component seems missing in their behavior, ultimately its effects do not get confined in cross border relations, but goes global. Evidences are seen everywhere – from Egypt and Syria to Ukraine. This in turn is reflected in managing the domestic politics of such intervening countries.

Therefore, what have failed in international politics are – diplomacy, dialogue, and the delivery of justice. It is reason that must prevail in relations between and among the major powers including the United States and Russia. Equally, they have failed in respecting geo-politics in managing conflicts among nations in the recent past. This has caused the present standoff between the West and Russia on Ukrainian crisis.

Western Democracies: Failing to Learn from the Failures of Communism

The usurping political bureaucracy of the monolithic communist party, run in the name of poor and deprived but working in contrast to their dignity and long-term security, could not compete with the values of individual freedom, representative democracy, and state accountability. Therefore, western political model gained high tide – unprecedented in human history. The leader of this greatest historic event was the United States. The world with their political values, most innovative ideas, and economic principles was mainly Americanized and Europeanized.

At no time in history, any country had succeeded in building the greatest moral empire with values of freedom and human dignity. Indubitably, it was “The End of History”.

Undoubtedly, the communist world could not prove its moral superiority against western democracy. It might have studied the hundreds years of human history and drew its conclusion – but it failed to read the basic nature of human beings, their inner drive for freedom and the socio-economic and political system that can address their natural inclination.

Failures to prove moral superiority caused the collapse of Communist World. It was one of the greatest achievements in its account. But, unfortunately, America – the undisputed moral leader of democratic world carrying the values of freedom and democracy as tools to expand itd strategic interests, has turned out to be a trader than a leader of the greater democratic world.

Thereafter, the uncontested global leader of freedom, democracy, and human dignity followed a path to collect strategic benefits as much it can, after the collapse of communism.

What was more painful for Russian people was that throughout the communist rule – America had stood as their moral leader in their fights for freedom and democracy. After the demise of Soviet Union, they looked at the United States with the high hopes and regards as their savior. The Russians had a huge reservoir of goodwill and trust for the American government and people. Flowingly, Russia discarded communism, dissolved Warsaw Pact, and played rather a facilitating role in the independence of Eastern European and Central Asian countries.

But, but, but, America failed to return the good will exhibited by the Russian people. The great country with ancient civilization, a country that had always played a crucial role in shaping the course of world history and had helped Europe remain safe from almost all imperial wars fought to dominate Europe, suffered untold humiliation at the hands of America and its European allies.

America preoccupied with anti- Soviet mentality of the Cold War, did make every effort to humiliate the national pride of the Russian people. They did not help Russia in a substantial way to emerge as a fully democratic country – that was much eager to adopt western values. Had America and NATO family been some more cautious and sympathetic to Russian national pride and refrain from extending NATO and its military installation eastward to the Russian border, Russians by now could have developed a vibrant democracy friendlier to America and Western Europe.

The behavior Russians received at the hands of American and NATO strategists forced Russians become nostalgic to old Soviet days. The result of this has been power, and prominence that Vladimir Putin has earned in Russia today.

Putin Puts in following the Shared Hopes and Pride of Russian People

States as a certain territory do not exist with national and international laws or negotiations with national and international parties – but they survive with shared hopes and shared efforts of its people to create a nation for them with a shared history with their shared sacrifice for the nation hood. If such territory has number of honest, visionary and competent political leaders that can translate peoples’ hope and inspiration into effective national policies and programs through a government elected by fairly and commonly accepted democratic values and procedures, then states as nations exists and prosper.

Moreover, with the existence of a sound international system that can effectively protect them against any geo- strategic, political or military interests of nations or group of nations and with the independence of its actions inside its territory, a nation survives and thrives.

But, if states within a defined territory do not have the terms and conditions as mentioned above- there will be many Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Although they cannot exist successfully as a national unit, they can pose threat to major powers for their security and other vital national interests.

Geostrategic interests always clashes among nations and are confined to some geographical periphery of some major countries – including Russia. Victor Sebestyen in The New York Times says Ukrainian Crisis is not the beginning of a new Cold War, or any global military challenge, clash of civilizations or ideological threat to western democracies.

After Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was in urgent need of a strong leader – with vision, courage, and conviction with ability to offer them a nation with honor. In this endeavor, Russian people invented Vladimir Putin – probably fitting well in their mind. He has a unique opportunity to deal with three American presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and as a KGB officer has seen how the mighty Soviet empire collapsed under the pressure of its internal weakness – an unaccountable government followed by its inevitable outcomes: economic failures and people’s ire against an unrepresentative monolithic communist state.

If he can manage the political course of his country, Vladimir Putin will be presiding the world’s largest country with massive nuclear capacity only next to the United States – for about a quarter of this Century.

However demonized by Western media for his role in knocking down political dissent and annexing Crimea, all the three US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barrack Obama have found some outstanding qualities in him. For example, former US president Bill Clinton in his book MY Life (2005) has admitted that Putin “had the skills and capacity for hard work necessary to manage the turbulent political and economic life” and “tough enough to hold Russia together”. Similarly, Clinton’s successor President George W. Bush in his book – Decisions Points, while answering a question if “Putin was a man that Americans can trust”, he answered “Yes” and further elaborated “I looked the man in the eyes . . . was able to get a sense of his soul.” Bush has further acknowledged, “Putin was the first leader to call the White House on September 11” and in a rare gesture of solidarity Putin agreed, “To open Russian airspace to American military planes and use his influence with the former Soviet republics to help get our troops into Afghanistan. Putin even ordered Russian Generals “to brief their American counterparts on their experience during their Afghanistan invasion in the 1980”.
Even President Obama in a press conference in August last year said that Putin was blunt, candid, and often constructive.

Over Ambitious NATO Cool and Cautious Putin

Had the NATO and EU realized the moral strength of freedom and democracy and could have resisted themselves from the temptation of collecting the narrow-minded strategic advantage from the collapse of communism, and had they allowed democracy run its course in the Eastern Europe – the whole Eurasian region would have turned their moral empire. A new face of socio-political and economic culture could have emerged that could ultimately validate Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”.

Clearly, the West could not honor with this excellent opportunity. Spiegal, a German online newspaper and The Atlantic , an American magazine has recalled an event that will continue to define future course of European history. According to Spiegel, on February 9, 1990, in St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin, during the negotiations over German reunification – the US secretary of state James A Baker made a promise with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if the Soviets allowed Germany to reunify, NATO would not even move “one inch” further east and not even into the former East Germany itself.

Next day in a similar a meeting between Gorbachev and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor also assured the Soviet leader that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. In a parallel meeting between West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Genscher reassured Shevardnadze that they stand firm – “NATO will not expand to the East.”

However, none of the assurances were in written form and as the Soviet Union began to implode, the agreement was ignored and NATO forces moved into the old East Germany. Russian President Boris Yeltsin complained that NATO’s eastward march had violated the assurances given by the American and German leaders, but a weakened Russia was in no position to do anything about it.

There are claims and counter claims about it. Spiegel says the documents have proved the Russian position. James A Baker denies of any such deal between him and Gorbachev but the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow during that time – Jack Matlock admits that the U.S. had made a clear commitment of this kind.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO extended its membership to former Soviet bloc countries bordering the Soviet Union – Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, in 1999. In 2004, it extended its membership to seven other countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia and among them Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were part of former Soviet Union. Again, in 2009 Albania and Croatia were admitted as NATO member countries. During the Soviet Era when Moscow was more than 2700 kilometers away from a NATO country, today it is just about 800 kilometers away. Moreover, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have developed close military relations with NATO and among them; Georgia and now Ukraine are two aspiring NATO member countries with chilling relations Russia. This way Russia has found itself surrounded by a group of countries hostile to its interests.

According to Russian analyst, these countries are heavily provoked by the United States and Europe against Russia. In Central Asia too, Russia has a feeling of a strategic encirclement by the United States and to some extents by China.

Respect to Balance of Power: Respect to Global Peace and Prosperity

In principle, any sovereign country deserves the right to join any political or military groupings. Nevertheless, the question remains – while the United States has denied such rights to any country in Western Hemisphere – throughout history, how can it claim such rights extended to the Russian border?

The Russians had compromised with the fate of their country and had accepted all this as helpless spectator. It emboldened the NATO to move further eastwards. Naturally, Russians considered this as a part of the comprehensive strategy of the West to ignore and humiliate Russian national honor and undermine their vital security interests – even to destabilize Russian Federation. The move to award NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine has the ended Russian patience and the present crisis emerged.

Undoubtedly, if countries like the United States and powerful European countries are tempted to encourage dissatisfactions against governments anywhere from Egypt and Syria and from to Ukraine and Russia, it is hard for any country to maintain law and order within its territory. The governments naturally use security forces to control them and if foreign powers are engaged in supplying even arms and ammunition against an elected government – even under a controversial situation- it will only open Pandora’s Box and then only chaos rules.

Without any love for communism, similar to Vladimir Putin, huge majority of Russians seems to have common feelings that fall of Soviet Union was a great geo-political disaster of history. However, the analysts say that they do have no ambition to reestablish old Soviet order and they clearly know it is against the basic rationale of 21st Century statecraft. But, as a proud nation from the ancient time, they want to live within a secured border – with peace and stability of their socio-political system.

In history, Russians fought many wars. They were also attacked by European powers like France and Germany under Napoleon and Hitler. They had fought against the powerful Ottoman Empire that was in alliance with major European powers like France and Great Britain known as Crimea War (1853-56). It was also assaulted by Japan and China.

Russia considers the West wants to encircle it and break into pieces. It also fears China in its South that had seceded the territory left of bank of Amur River from Russia in 1858. Russia still has some territorial disputes with Japan. It knows it cannot fight with NATO and other European powers and therefore will not confront them directly – unless threatened against its vital security. Russia as well as the West also know that there remains no permanent hurdle between Russia and the West that could not be mended.

Similarly, Peace with Russia is in the best interests of Central and East European countries from Poland and Czech Republic to Georgia and Ukraine. Likewise, it is in the best interests of major West European powers like Germany, France, and Britain. Even to fight with the army of a minor power Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, France and Britain were in urgent need of American backup – while Russia is the second most powerful country in terms of military power after the United States – especially in nuclear arsenals. Therefore, to win in an all-out war between the West and Russia for the countries east of Poland is next to impossible.
But, this does not mean that Russia is major power that can decide the course of events in Eastern Europe. Its economy and defense capabilities are no match with that of NATO and other European powers. A major conflict between Russia and NATO may bring devastating results for Europe, but undoubtedly, it will force Russia to see more dreadful days than the fall of Soviet Union.

The U.S. has a Lead role to Play but with Improved Image

It is harder for America to get involved in any other major conflict in Europe after Iraq and Afghanistan. America knows it much better than any country that Russia is not Iraq, Libya, or Syria. With Russia, it does have no ideological, religious or cultural differences. It also needs Russian help to resolve the Syrian crisis and nuclear build up of Iran.

European Union needs Russia for its huge oil and gas reserve and Russian market for its productions. Partnership with Russia in trade and defense will be highly beneficial for its crisis torn economy. Russia will also be a huge job market for EU. Therefore, any strategic ploy to beat Russia, air geopolitical rivalry and destabilize it may backfire EU – with the emergence of extremist power in Russia – that have not yet reconciled with the fall of Soviet Empire.

Therefore, taking confidence of Russia by respecting its national concerns in promoting internal cohesion in Eastern European countries, and deepening trust between Russia and former Soviet Union and Soviet bloc countries will have tremendous positive impacts in building democracy and building nations in the region. Russia in return will also be heavily benefitted by the multiple economic opportunities available for it in Eastern and Western Europe.

The United States has to play a lead role here. More conflicts and more U.S. involvement will not only erase its defense power capability, its economic cost will be execrably high and beyond its national capacity. It will also weaken its lead role on global affairs –it has been playing for more than six decades. The worst sufferer will become the values of freedom and democracy and its supporters worldwide. With a weakened America, they will have to live with weakened morale.

Here it becomes worthwhile to share an interesting meeting between newly elected French President Nicholas Sarkozy and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as reported by Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker on August 2007. Besides other things, Gopanik has said that Sarkozy was among the few people in Élysée Palace with deep regards for America. Encouraged with Sarkozy coming to power, and to exhibit a gesture of good will – U.S. President George W. Bush immediately sent Secretary Rice to France.

According to Gopanik, when Sarkozy met Condoleezza Rice, she asked, “What can I do for you?” And Sarkozy replied, bluntly, “Improve your image in the world. It’s difficult when the country that is the most powerful, the most successful-that is, of necessity, the leader of our side-is one of the most unpopular countries in the world. It presents overwhelming problems for you and overwhelming problems for your allies. So do everything you can to improve the way you’re perceived-that’s what you can do for me. I think it’s entirely possible; the reservoir of good will has been drained somewhat, but it is far from dry. Look how much the image of France has changed in the United States in eight weeks.”

Sarkozy was speaking not only his mind but he was representing all those who love America and want America remain strong, powerful but also highly popular so that the baton of freedom and democracy stand tall and go taller. And perhaps Sarkozy was speaking for Russian people and its leader Vladimir Putin too.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images