By William A. Collins

Smoking isn’t in the news much these days, but maybe it should be. Nearly half a million Americans still die from it each year. As the leading preventable cause of death in our country, tobacco kills way more people than guns, car accidents, and drug overdoses combined.

And sure, smoking is gradually declining, but powerful players are fighting mightily to sustain its deadly impact on the world.

This is no shock because there’s a ton of money in nicotine, whether consumers get their fix in cigarettes, pipes, cigars, battery-powered electronic cigarettes, or chewing tobacco. Many folks pay truly amazing prices for a pack and put up with draconian restrictions on where they may puff.

Nicotine, after all, is just a legal and addictive drug.

Due to tobacco’s gratifying profit margins, purveyors have become remarkably adept at finding new promotion angles and playing vigorous legal defense. For years, the homegrown industry has staved off tougher warning labels such as those seen in Europe and Australia.

Big tobacco lost another round of its fight against graphic labels in a federal appeals court in 2012. But you can bet you won’t see photos of diseased lungs on retail packs anytime soon around this country. While the Supreme Court refused to hear the case last year, other obstacles remain in the way.

Meanwhile, e-cigarettes are booming. They deliver nicotine to hungry lungs without tobacco’s fatal tars and resins.

That’s good for competition, perhaps. But who needs more addicts? Well, the manufacturers do. Several boast that their smokes deliver more nicotine than their competitors. Thanks, guys, for that solid contribution to society.

Then there are those cutesy bidi cigarettes. The hand-rolled fad aims to hook modern youth with sundry yummy flavors. Luckily, the FDA recently gained greater regulatory powers over health risks, and it has just ordered four varieties of this malevolent product off the market altogether.

But U.S. adventures with tobacco aren’t limited to our own borders. The crop has wormed its way into international trade agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of President Barack Obama’s big priorities, may give new spark to tobacco companies. It could make it easier for companies in the cigarette business to sue whole nations that have had the temerity to impose annoying restrictions.

And do you recall that landmark national tobacco settlement back in 1998? It required tobacco companies to fork over billions to the states to use in anti-smoking programs and efforts to cope with health problems caused by smoking. Well, the companies have indeed been paying, but the states have been chiseling.

By and large, they plunk all but a trifle of that money into their general funds to hold down taxes. In 2014, the states will spend less than 2 percent of the $25 billion in settlement money they’ll pull in to prevent kids from becoming smokers and to help adults who smoke quit.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the whole tobacco epic is that so many people — including about one in five Americans — still smoke the stuff. Why on Earth is that?

Researchers at Hebrew University have concluded that many smokers simply suffer from a lack of self-control. Well, if that’s all there is to it, the war on tobacco may never end.

OtherWords columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut. OtherWords.org

The post Meanwhile, The War On Tobacco Limps Ahead – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ahmed Meiloud

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad tells the West that his regime is essential to their survival, while telling the Arab world that he’s the victim of a Western conspiracy

It is clear why Iran and Hezbollah came to the rescue of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – their alliances with the Alawite regime stretch back decades. What is less known is why the Saudis and the Israelis appear so invested in Assad staying in power.

When speaking to an Arabic audience, Syrian officials decry a conspiracy against their country by Israel, the Americans and regressive Arab states. All these actors, according to the official narrative, are displeased with Syria’s “principled stance” in support of the Palestinians.

When addressing a Western audience, however, Syrian officials plead with the West to save the regime. They argue that Damascus is a safeguard for the West, and especially for Israel, against the rise of uncompromising fundamentalist forces which are bound to come to power should Alawite rule fall.

The two messages are contradictory, but that is not that unusual in the Middle East. The late king of African kings, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, built his profile around fighting imperialism and defending the right of the people from the south, yet he was also quick to warn the West in general and Europeans in particular of a flood of hungry Africans and angry Muslim militants should his rule falter. Syria, however, remains a more complex case.

In the early days of the Syrians uprising, when the momentum of the “Arab Spring” was in favor of the revolution and when Assad’s camp was severely shaken by the possibility of losing their grip on power (there was a continuous hemorrhaging of the Syrian army defectors, and many key towns appeared outside the government control), Assad’s rich cousin, Rami Makhlouf, told the New York Times that the stability of Israel was closely tied to that of his country.

As expected, the interview quickly generated debate in the Arab world about a topic that has always been rumored about but never substantiated. Was there an understanding between the Assad’s family and the Israelis which guarantees the security of the country and the survival of his regime? Was the rhetoric of resistance simply rhetoric and no more?

Sensing the damage that this interview could do, the Syrian regime went quickly on a damage-control campaign. Two lines of defense were pursued. First, the Syrian government, represented by its embassy in the US and also through its other organs, quickly issued statements proclaiming that Makhlouf’s views don’t represent those of the government.

Secondly and in a less formal manner, Syria has asserted that it considers the ongoing insurrection to be an international conspiracy led by the US, Israel and regressive Arab regimes to bring down a progressive anti-colonial regime. Those comments, therefore, should not be read as a link between the Syrian government and Israel, but rather a message that Syria knows who is behind the unrest and that it would retaliate should pressure continued to mount.

The Quiet Americans

Any independent observer knows that neither of these explanations is valid. To be sure, there were precedents that justify Syria’s fear of US meddling in its affairs, the current situation is, however, different.

Back in April 2003 when the Americans entered Baghdad with a relative ease and “shock and awe” seemed to go as planned, then US secretary of defense Donald H Rumsfeld warned that Syria should heed the lesson of its neighbor. A week earlier, Rumsfeld had accused the Syrians of supplying Iraq with night goggles and other military equipment.

Syria was also named as part of former US president George W Bush’s “Axis of Evil” in 2002. At the time, Assad took the threat seriously and judged – rightly perhaps – that his stay in power was contingent on keeping the Americans busy in Baghdad.

To that end, he played a complex game. His intelligence services turned blind eyes to the trafficking on the border, especially the movement of insurgents from and into Iraq. His embassies abroad welcomed thousands of Arab volunteers from across the Arab world who weren’t particularly gleeful at the sight of the US Marines marching through what was once the glorious capital of Harun al-Rashid.

Although the regime in Syria despises the motives of these insurgents and its laws incriminate their ideological inclinations, these men found their trip to Iraq’s triangle of death through Damascus a stress-free one.

The wrong conclusion to draw here is to assume that the Syrians wanted to liberate Iraq or save its Baath party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Syria has never missed a chance to try to undermine the Baath regime in Iraq, taking the side of Iran in the deadly Iran-Iraq war of 1980s and siding again with America itself in Operation Desert Storm. The Syrian objective was limited to making sure the Americans don’t feel too comfortable in Iraq. A family regime with a record of survival in a colonial crossroad knew quite well that a colonial power with too much free time at one’s borders is never good.

But as history has proven time and again, Arab jihadists are an extremely liquid asset. One can use them to undermine an enemy and one could also sell them-as a gesture of goodwill- to the same adversary once a rapprochement seems possible.

That’s precisely what the Syrians did. When the time seemed ripe, they traded their record with these jihadists to the Americans, who were bogged down in Iraq while conducting an international war on ghosts. Victory in this war-elusive as it was- depended on the willful and coerced cooperation of Arab intelligence services whose citizens constituted the lion’s share of America’s most wanted targets. Much like their American counterparts, the Syrians would also learn-tardily one must say-the inconvenient cost of providing assistance to these insurgents.

It should be kept in mind that while this background of hostility existed, the days when America wanted go to war with Syria had long gone by the time the 2011 revolution started. The atmosphere of hostility in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion was replaced by one of intelligence sharing and an increase in bilateral trade. In 2010 – mere months before the start of the revolution – US exports to Syria had reached a record high of a half billion dollars. The preceding years (2009 and 2008) had also seen a rise in US exports to Syria and a trade surplus in the former’s favor.

Moreover, there was no sign that Syria was “misbehaving”. Despite Israel’s unprovoked raid in 2007, Israeli interests and security, which are key to US Middle East policy, didn’t seem to be in any danger.

Since the end of the 2006 failed Israeli campaign in Lebanon, the Lebanese borders have been calm. Syria’s own borders had also been quiet since 1973 until the civil war. In short, the Americans have had no incentive to seek to destabilize the regime in Damascus. For them and their Israeli allies, Assad was not only the devil they know but the one they had partnered with. That partnership included outsourcing detainees’ torture to the Syrian regime, which is notorious for its brutality.

Furthermore, Makhlouf was not just a Syrian expressing his views. Makhlouf is a close confidant of Assad, and runs a massive financial empire which both depends on, and contributes to, the corrupt and corrupting power of Assad. Makhlouf himself was pressed then by the New York Times to clarify whether his statement meant a threat of war against Israel. His response was more of a plea, not a menace: “I didn’t say war,” he said. “What I’m saying is don’t let us suffer, don’t put a lot of pressure on the president, don’t push Syria to do anything it is not happy to do.”

That reply has little to do with the rhetoric at home about countering the imperial design, which the Syrian official media and a plethora of writers-for-hire across the Arab world never cease to invoke. This is not a representative of Assad (the lion), issuing a threat to protect a country. This is a dictator’s spokesperson appealing to the West to save the dictator’s seat, reminding it of something that is so dear to it: the safety and security of Israel. This is a constant of the regime’s foreign policy, no matter what variables changed in the region.

Whenever the Israelis want to send a strong message to the ruling family in Damascus, the threat was never about attacking Syria itself – Israel does without warning – but rather a threat of bringing the regime down. And that was indeed the part that the Assads heeded. Although officially at war with Israel, no single bullet was fired from the Syrian territory toward the country, which Assad’s regime describes as a Zionist enemy that has occupied an important Syrian territory since 1973.

The Other Camp David Accords

The state of no peace, no war, where Israel keeps the strategic Golan Heights and bombs Syrian targets at will fearing no response, not even a complaint sometimes – and where the Assads deploys the rhetoric of bravado in an imaginary war with Israel – was the magical formula that ensured the security of Israel and the continuity of the Assad family. This was a “Camp David Accord” without long meetings and without signatures, a relationship of clientelism without the costly and meaningless formalities of paperwork.

Such accord was good for everyone. The Americans did not have to bribe the Arab side in this accord, as they did in the Egyptian and Jordanian cases. Similarly, this unspoken accord offers the Israelis guarantees of calm on one border, with an open chance to humiliate, but not weaken Assad, even if this humiliation is not set in public record as was the case with Sadat.

For Assad, this is the best possible deal for an Arab dictator to protect his seat in a time of Arab defeat. Unlike Sadat and Mubarak after him, the Assads did not have to go through the public humiliation of surrendering to Israel, nor did they have to surrender control over their army, increasing the chance of engineering change during periods of hormonal surges in DC before and after elections. Under this arrangement, they could still play the victim-hero card (recto and verso) before the Syrians. The reason is simple: “Since the threat from Israel has been the essential and necessary myth for retaining the authoritarian grip of the Alawite minority in Damascus, losing it would eliminate the al-Assad regime’s raison d’etre.”

Now with the Syrian war raging for the third year, it is clear that Makhlouf’s threat was not meant to deter an Israeli aggression against his country or its military capabilities, but rather against toppling the regime itself. The Israelis have ever since carried out at least two aerial raids in Syria, one time was so close to Assad’s home that the entire neighborhood was shaken. Whatever the Israeli targets may have been (long range missiles, advanced anti-tank or anti-ships guided missiles), the Israelis did not target Bashar al-Assad. For abiding by that unspoken rule, Bashar gratefully did what he always did in such circumstances: kept silent. The Israelis were the ones who leaked the news to the international press, mostly to boast about their capabilities and to try to regain some of the deterrence they had lost during their earlier disastrous shows in Lebanon and Gaza.

Makhlouf’s statement may well have achieved its goal as his message seemed to have resonated with the Israelis, who are convinced that Assad (embattled but in power) is better for their strategic goals. Until the summer of last year, Israel had pressured and pleaded with Western powers not to arm the Syrian repels, preferring that the war would drag further, with Assad maintaining the upper hands. This was a plea most Western powers were happy to heed. However, starting from June of 2o13, the Israelis slightly shifted their position, at least publicly. The change was not in favor of game-changing armament deals for the Syrian rebels but for some military assistance that would inflict heavy losses on its archenemy Hezbollah who is playing an increasing role in the conflict.

The Arab Monarchs

That change of perspective was made in part also because of some novel developments in another crucial story for the Israelis. In the latter part of spring, there were clear signs that a broad coalition to topple the Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi was forming. A group of Egyptian liberals, including the Nobel Prize Winner Mohamed ElBaradei, the academic Sa‘d Din Ibrahim, and the businessman Naguib Sawiris, was holding meetings with Western diplomats trying to obtain their support for a military overthrow of the regime.

Another diplomat, the former head of the Arab League Amr Mosa, was secretly leading a parallel effort, carrying messages between the UAE, Egyptian army and Israel.  As the deadline of the overthrow seemed near, the coup appeared to have the backing of key players including the Saudis, who were radically redefining their strategic objectives.

Although suspicious of the long-term objectives of the Muslim Brothers and of the Arab spring in general, they had no active plan to remove them from power. The UAE persuaded the Saudis that a window of opportunity existed and that they must seize it. The planning to overthrow the Muslim Brothers brought the Israelis, the Emiratis and the Saudis together.

In regards to Syria, this new shift meant that the Saudis would invest less in support of the Syrian uprising and more in the Egyptian putsch. The Saudis already share, inadvertently perhaps, with the Israelis the desire to maintain a stalemate in Syria. A war with no victors in Syria serves three Saudi objectives. First, such war would keep the Iranian economy bleeding. Second, a bloody and messy war will slow the drive for regime change in the Arab world. And finally, the sectarian dimension of the war gives the Saudis the chance to send thousands of their energetic youth to be the fodder of the Syrian artillery, thus preempting calls for change home.

This last objective remained, however, problematic. Instead of being incinerated en masse, Syria became a ground in which these Saudi youth created bases and gained military skills that could potentially be used to militate against the royal family should hostilities in cease.

The fresh recruits from Saudi Arabia met with their war-hardened brethren who have now become their mentors. These mentors not only have a greater military experience, having fought in Iraq and other areas of the world, but also despise the Saudi regime. Their success in Syria would mean a considerable expansion of the reach of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The re-assessment of the Syrian debacle constituted the background, not only of the shift to focus on the Egyptian scene, but the recent terrorism laws enacted by the Saudi monarchy, targeting – along with the Muslim Brothers – most of the Islamist groups currently active in Syria.

With that development it was clear that the Assads will gain a considerable edge over the forces of the opposition, who will not be squeezed from all sides. This meant that the Israeli opposition to the calls to arm the Syrian rebels, which falls always on deaf ears, are not necessary. The devil the Israelis know and partner with will remain in power even over the rubble of what was once the Arabic Republic of Syria.

The US policy is vastly influenced by this Israeli creed, and it is all the better that the other important American ally in the region, the Saudis, is not particularly invested in a regime-change project in Syria. Despite Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of Syrians using conventional and not so conventional weapons, the American pressure which accumulated over the past summer, as a result of the global outrage, stopped short of taking measures to soften Assad’s crip on power. When he handed over what could potentially threaten the Israelis, he was spared military intervention. He could now continue incinerating his citizens with crude bomb barrels as the US enthusiasm to help the Syrian rebels started to faint.

Assad’s ability to withstand the last three years of insurrection, which had left the county’s economy in ruin, and the recent advances of forces loyal to him in Homs, while remain small and reversible, are all made possible but a confluence of geopolitical factors, and aren’t simply products of power distribution in Syria. While forces loyal to Assad have always enjoyed a qualitative edge over their adversaries combined, the Assad trust only limited divisions of the army. And although these divisions are heavily armed, they are poorly trained. Syria has never had historically any solid professional army and its poor performance whether in Lebanon or on the border with Israel was a testimony to that facts.

Rather than surviving a global conspiracy as Syrian official rhetoric proclaims, Assad’s owes his continuity in power to the vested interests of multiple regional and global players to maintain the status quo in Syria. The focal point of this is the convergence of the interests of the Saudis, traditional Gulf States and the Israelis who would like to keep the old arrangements and stem change in the region. Ironically, in the Syria context the interests of all presumed enemies meet. Iran and Hezbollah defend the same regime, which Israel and Saudi Arabia prefer to remain, even if bleeding. The American and the Russian positions on Syria weren’t particularly far off from each other from the beginning, and were eventually bridged with the chemical weapons’ deal. Makhlouf’s statement may not after all be misplaced.  Syria maybe facing a global conspiracy, but that Syria isn’t the Syria of Assads.

- Ahmed Meiloud is a PhD student at the School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Arizona. His research interests include studying the various movements of political Islam across the Arab World, with special focus on the works of the thinkers, jurists and public intellectuals who shape the moderate strands of Islamism. (This article was originally published in Middle East Eye – www.middleeasteye.net – and is republished here with permission from the author.)

The post Assad Plays Arab, Western Worlds Against Each Other – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has called on Muslims to kidnap westerners, particularly Americans, who could then be exchanged for jailed jihadists including a blind Egyptian cleric convicted in 1995 of conspiring to attack the United Nations and other New York landmarks, Reuters reported.

In a wide ranging audio interview, the al Qaeda leader expressed solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood which is facing a violent crackdown by the army-backed government in Egypt and urged unity among rebels in their fight against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Reuters said it could not verify the authenticity of the Zawahiri tape, but the voice resembled that of the al Qaeda leader.

“I ask Allah the Glorious to help us set free Dr. Omar Abdel-Rahman and the rest of the captive Muslims, and I ask Allah to help us capture from among the Americans and the Westerners to enable us to exchange them for our captives,” said Zawahiri, according to the SITE website monitoring service.

Abdel-Rahman is serving a life term in the United States for a 1993 attack on New York’s World Trade Center.

Zawahiri also urged “jihad and overthrowing the criminal al-Assad regime” in Syria and renewed his call to end infighting among jihadists that increased this year, pitting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) against rival rebels including other hardline Islamists.

“The Ummah (Muslim world) must support this jihad with all that it can, and the mujahideen (Islamist militants) must unite around the word of Tawhid (unity),” said Zawahiri, an Egyptian-born doctor. “So everyone should prioritize the interest of Islam and the Ummah over his organizational or partisans interest, even if he gives up for his brothers what he sees as right.”

The infighting between the different rebel factions has hindered the battle against Assad and pushed rival rebel groups to consolidate power in their respective areas of control.

Al Qaeda said it was breaking with ISIL in February after disputes over the group’s refusal to limit itself to fighting in Iraq rather than in Syria, where the Nusra Front is al Qaeda’s affiliate.

Asked about the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Zawahiri answered: “the duty on Muslims is to deter the aggressor by any means, and especially the oppressed Muslims.”

Security forces have killed hundreds of Brotherhood supporters and arrested thousands, including most of its leaders, since the army toppled Islamist President Mohammed Morsi on July 3 following mass protests against his rule.

Egypt designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization last year.

The post Al Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri Calls On Muslims To Kidnap Westerners appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The death toll from the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in the Kingdom reached 102 on Sunday with 10 new deaths during the past 24 hours as authorities scrambled to reassure an increasingly edgy population.

Public fears have been fueled by a rapid rise in the number of fatalities from the deadly coronavirus, with 39 people dying this month, almost a third of the 102 deaths registered since the virus emerged in April 2012.

The Health Ministry said 10 new deaths occurred during the past 24 hours while 16 new confirmed cases have been reported in Jeddah (8), Tabuk (6) and Riyadh (2).

The new fatalities included a nine-month-old Saudi child Riyadh, a 65-year-old Saudi woman, a 61-year-old Indonesian woman, and a 55-year-old Saudi man in Jeddah in addition to three new deaths (all Saudis) in Riyadh and one (an expat) in Jeddah.

Newly confirmed cases include three doctors (Saudi, Egyptian and Syrian) and six Filipino nurses.

A 63-year-old woman, who had also suffered chronic illness, died of MERS on Saturday in Jeddah, and a 78-year-old man died in Riyadh, the Health Ministry said.

It said the total number of cases diagnosed since the virus was first recorded in the Kingdom has reached 339, representing the bulk of infections registered globally.

The ministry has set up fourth specialized medical center in Najran following three in Jeddah, Riyadh and Dammam.

Labor Minister and Acting Health Minister Adel Fakeih has instructed the health departments in the Kingdom to allocate one hospital for the treatment of MERS cases. In Najran, they have identified King Khaled Hospital for the purpose.

Meanwhile, Education Minister Khaled Al-Faisal urged school authorities to take precautionary measures to prevent the virus from spreading. He said no MERS cases have been reported among schools across the Kingdom.

The number of Saudis and expats visiting hospitals has declined, following reports of MERS deaths among doctors and nurses.

“I’ve decided to keep my six-year-old daughter at home and not send her to school,” said Umm Muntaha. “Prevention is better than cure,” she maintained.

A. Aziz, an Indian expat, has also stopped sending his son to school. “It’s safe this way. I don’t want to take any chances,” he said.

Schools remain open despite rumors of possible closures, but many have asked parents to equip their children with masks and disinfectants.

The ministry has not taken any “additional precautions” at airports apart from the “usual preventive measures,” a ministry official said.

The post Saudi Arabia: MERS Death Toll Increases, Passes 102 Mark appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Igor Jovanovic

Under its incoming government, Serbia will continue on the path of European integration, but will have to face tough reforms to get there, said Aleksandar Vucic, who is slated to become prime minister.

Vucic, president of the Serbian Progressive Party that scored a landslide victory in the March parliamentary elections, received the mandate from President Tomislav Nikolic on Tuesday (April 22nd) to form a new government.

“The fairy tale is over. We’ll have to work more and spend what we earn,” Vucic said. “I hope that the citizens are capable and ready and that they will, no matter how they may vote in the next elections, be able after several years to appreciate our work and the fact that they will live at least a little better, because we have now done something good.”

He said the reforms in Serbia will be similar to those in Estonia and other Baltic states, which took two years.

At a meeting with former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on April 10th, Vucic said the most important tasks for Serbia are “the EU and reforms.”

“Serbia will do all it can to wrap up the negotiations with the EU by 2019,” Vucic said.

Dejan Vuk Stankovic, a University of Belgrade professor, agreed that EU membership must be a priority for Serbia.

“Through the talks with the EU, Serbia will also carry out internal reforms and become a more organised society,” Stankovic told SETimes.

Economic reforms have to be implemented, he added, one of which may be the unpopular reduction of pensions.

Trade and Telecommunications Minister Rasim Ljajic agreed, telling SETimes that the success of the new government would be measured by the number of new jobs created.

“If we reduce unemployment and create new jobs, we will have done a good chunk of the work,” Ljajic said.

Miodrag Zec, an economics professor at Belgrade University, warned that there are no easy solutions or shortcuts.

“The authorities have admitted that the state has fallen apart, that it is expensive, that the labour law is no good. But we have no solutions,” Zec said. “There is no answer to the question of whether we want Serbia to be a liberal or a social state. We want a liberal state when we pay taxes, and a social one when we get medical treatment.”

One of the new government’s priorities will be judicial reforms, according to outgoing Justice Minister Nikola Selakovic. The outgoing cabinet drew up a National Judicial Reform Strategy for 2013-2018, but certain deadlines were extended due to the March 16th snap elections.

“Only the deadlines have been extended. Updating the action plan does not pertain to our competent decisions due to be carried out, nor to the essence of the acts and activities that are to stem from the implementation of the plan,” Selakovic said.

Judge Ljubica Milutinovic, a member of the Judges’ Association of Serbia, said numerous reforms are behind schedule. The Association “is worriedly watching the delay in amendments to the necessary laws and their harmonisation with European standards.”

Some said that the reforms are Belgrade’s last opportunity to rebuild the economy.

“Since 2000, we’ve been hearing how we must join the EU, must reform the economy and judiciary, and that still hasn’t happened,” Miroslav Davidovic, a Belgrade salesman, told SETimes. “Perhaps now it will be done, because I think this is our last chance, otherwise we’ll go bankrupt.”

The post Serbia To Focus On EU And Reforms appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Amit Cowshish

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has released the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy for 20141 . It is effective from 17th April 2014. There is nothing new in the policy for the defence sector, if one takes into account DIPP’s Press Note 6 of 2013, issued on 22nd August 20132 .

Needless to say, ‘Defence’ continues to figure in the list of the sectors in which FDI is allowed to the extent specified in Chapter 6 of the policy, subject to the applicable laws, regulations and other conditionalities.

The policy had been to allow FDI up to 26 per cent through the ‘Government route’3 till DIPP’s Press Note altered the status quo by permitting FDI beyond that limit with the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on a case-to-case basis, wherever it is likely to result in access (whatever that might mean) to ‘modern’ and ‘state-of-art’ technology in the country. The 2014 policy merely reiterates this.

While the change brought about by the Press Note was in keeping with what MoD had been saying for a long time, neither the MoD nor the consolidated policy has addressed the issues associated with the decision to selectively relax the FDI limit. It is a bit disappointing as there was plenty of time to do so between the release of the Press Note and the consolidated FDI policy.

The primary issue, of course, is as to what does the term ‘state-of-art’ mean and what will be the process of determining whether an FDI proposal meets this requirement.

According to the procedure introduced through the aforesaid Press Note and reproduced in the 2014 policy, applications seeking permission for FDI beyond 26 per cent will, in all cases, be examined additionally by the Department of Defence Production (DoDP) in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from the point of view particularly of access to the ‘modern’ and ‘state-of-art’ technology.

With no internal guidelines for processing the requests and no transparent yardstick for assessing whether the offered technology is ‘modern’ and ‘state-of-art’, it might take DoDP for ever to take a decision on such requests. In the areas in which technology keeps changing very fast, what is ‘state-of-art’ today may not remain so by the time the investment starts showing results. Therefore, those assigned the responsibility of making the assessment may find it difficult to take a decision for fear of being unfairly blamed subsequently for not taking a correct view as regards the state of the technology. There would inevitably be an element of subjectivity in making the assessment of the state of technology.

This arrangement also leaves the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) – arguably a better judge of the state of the offered technology – out in the cold. It may be recalled that the offset guidelines of 2012 attach a great importance to acquisition of technology by DRDO. The guidelines even specify the critical technologies and offer a multiplier of 3 for transfer to such technologies to DRDO. But with DoDP now being made responsible for assessing whether the technology being offered is ‘modern’ and ‘state-of-art’, MoD will face the challenge of ensuring coordination between these two departments, for coordination with DRDO, and perhaps even with the services, will be inevitable.

All this could make it difficult to adhere to the stipulation in the policy that the government decision on applications to FIPB for FDI in the defence industry sector will normally be communicated within a time frame of 10 weeks from the date of the acknowledgement.

Secondly, the aforesaid Press Note did not indicate the upper limit on FDI in cases where it is accompanied by access to modern and the state-of-art technology in the country. This led to speculation in some circles that there was to be no cap on FDI if it resulted in access to ‘modern’ and ‘state-of-art’ technology. The 2014 policy does not clarify the position in this regard, though, when seen its entirety, the policy does not support such speculation.

One of the provisions in the policy – not a new one, though – is that in the Information & Broadcasting and the Defence sectors, where the sectoral cap is less than 49 per cent, the company (the obvious reference is to the entity receiving the FDI) would need to be ‘owned and controlled’ by resident Indian citizens and Indian companies, which, in turn, are owned and controlled by resident Indian citizens – a virtual impossibility anyway.

This seems to effectively cap FDI in defence, even in those cases where it might potentially result in access to modern and state-of-art technology, to 49 per cent. If this understanding is correct, it is doubtful that the foreign companies would be queuing up to bring in FDI in the defence sector in India as it does not make much of a difference in terms of control on the management of the Indian entity. It would be desirable for MoD and/or the DIPP to review this entire imbroglio and make the position clear.

An important highlight of the 2014 policy is reiteration of the ban, imposed through the aforesaid Press Note, on investment by the Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) and Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) (through portfolio investment). Apparently, there had been some cases in the past in which such investment was allowed. The 2014 policy protects the past investment as it provides that FPI/FII (through portfolio investment) investment in companies holding defence licence as on 22nd August 2013, i.e. the date on which the aforesaid Press Release was issued, will remain capped at the level existing as on that date.

But it also adds that no fresh FPI/FII (through portfolio investment) will be permitted even if the level of such investment falls below the capped level subsequently. While this will assuage the anxiety of the entities that had received such investments in the past to some extent, the question is whether the stipulation that no fresh FPI/FII will be permitted is implementable. How will the companies ensure this? And, most importantly, what is sought to be achieved by this?

Judging by the way Press Note 6 has been mechanically incorporated in the consolidated FDI Policy of 2014, it seems the FDI policy is destined to remain quiescent for a long time to come in so far as the defence sector is concerned, unless there is an immediate realization that there are a number of issues – some of which are highlighted above – that come in the way of its potential, although rather limited, being

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

1. Accessible at http://dipp.nic.in/English/Policies/FDI_Circular_2014.pdf
2. Accessible at http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Notes/pn6_2013.pdf
3. According to the definition given in the policy, ‘Government route’ means that investment in the capital of resident entities by non-resident entities can be made only with the prior approval of the Government [Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), Ministry of Finance (MoF) or the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), as the case may be].

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/ForeignDirectInvestmentPolicy2014_acowshish_230414

The post India’s Foreign Direct Investment Policy 2014: Status Quo For The Defence Sector – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A major security flaw affecting several versions of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer web browser was discovered over the weekend, and the percentage of computer users that could be compromised by the exploit is absolutely staggering.

Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corp. announced on Saturday that Internet Explorer versions 6 through 11 are all vulnerable to a glitch that when properly exploited can give hackers remote access to a victim’s computer.

When combined, versions nine through 11 of the browser accounted for 26.25 percent of all web traffic in 2013, security firm FireEye claimed over the weekend. If all vulnerable versions are accounted for, however, then upwards of 56 percent of the browsers currently in use around the world are reportedly in danger of being exploited.

A person with knowledge of the vulnerability may create a fake website that, when visited, allows the hacker to exploit the bug and break into their target’s machine, Microsoft warned.

“An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights,” the company advised.

According to FireEye spokesman Vitor De Souza, hackers had already taken advantage of the exploit by targeting unnamed US-based firms that are tied to the defense and financial sectors.

“It’s unclear what the motives of this attack group are, at this point,” De Souza told Reuters on Sunday. “It appears to be broad-spectrum intel gathering.”

On the official FireEye blog, security experts said that the hacking campaign has been dubbed “Operation Clandestine Fox,” and is consistent with other attacks linked to an advanced persistent threat group that has previously attracted the attention of investigators.

The unknown APT group has had access to “a select number of browser-based 0-day exploits in the past,” FireEye stated, but declined to publish further details.

Microsoft was unable to patch the vulnerability by the time the weekend was over, and the United States government’s Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) issued an alert warning computer users to “consider employing an alternative web browser.”

“We are currently unaware of a practical solution to this problem,” Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute warned in an advisory of its own.

Additionally, news of the vulnerability surfaced only weeks after Microsoft officially retired from offering security patches to its highly popular XP operating system.

“XP users are not safe anymore and this is the first vulnerability that will be not patched for their system,” Symantec researcher Christian Tripputi warned.

The post Internet Explorer Users Risk Having Their Computers Taken Over appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The popular network Al Jazeera served Egypt with a $150 million compensation claim on Monday, Reuters reports.

The network claims that Cairo’s military rulers have damaged its business and that Egypt has waged a campaign against the news organization and its journalists since President Morsi was overthrown last year.

“Al Jazeera invested substantial sums in Egypt. The effect of this recent campaign by the military government is that this investment has been expropriated. Egypt is bound by international law to pay Al Jazeera just and effective compensation,” said Cameron Doley, a lawyer at Carter-Ruck.

Al Jazeera’s lawyers said Cairo has six months to settle the claim, according to Reuters.

Three Al Jazeera journalists are currently being held in Egypt and tried on charges of aiding members of a terrorist organization. Human rights groups have condemned the trial, saying Egyptian authorities are restricting free speech.

Original article

The post Al Jazeera Files $150 Million Claim Against Egypt appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mustafa Kutlay

In his book, Inventing Europe, Gerard Delanty meticulously discusses how the idea of “Europe” and “Europeanness” has been reinvented throughout history. According to Delanty, Europe is more of a concept than a reality—a concept that has been envisioned several times throughout history. For instance, today, the Iberian Peninsula is seen as an inseparable part of Europe, whilst according to Napoleon “Europe begins at the Pyrenees.” For renowned historians like Halil İnalcık, Turkey is a founding actor of Europe. Yet Valery Giscard D’Estaing claims that “only five percent of Turkey” is part of Europe. These examples and many others indicate that rather than being an essential geographical or cultural entity, Europe exists mainly in the imagination, with its boundaries drawn according to perceptions. Unsurprisingly, as a result it has been “reinvented” throughout history.

The position of Muslims in Europe, one of the most discussed topics in terms of Europe and Europeanness, should also be viewed from this angle.

Europe’s collective imagination is now most preoccupied with the “immigration” phenomenon. The Muslim population’s increased visibility, combined with economic and social triggering factors, has sparked a wave of xenophobia based on the “Muslim Europe” rhetoric. The right-wing Norwegian extremist Breivik even killed 77 people in Norway in July 2011, in a massacre that won’t soon be forgotten in order to “create a consciousness to clean Europe of Muslims.”

During the investigation it came to light that Breivik had written a 1,500-page manifesto. The title of the manifesto was quite striking: 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. The Norwegian terrorist, projecting 400 years after the Ottoman Empire’s Siege of Vienna in 1683, states in his manifesto that his intention is to completely cleanse Europe of Muslims and thereby turn it back into a “Christian continent.” It is certain that Breivik committed a crime against humanity and his opinions are outliers among European thought: the overwhelming majority in Europe and the rest of the world strongly condemned his brutality. However, myths about the Muslim presence in Europe are part of a general phenomenon. And two of them deserve particular attention.

Beyond myths and exaggerations

The first myth about the Muslim presence in Europe is the proposition that Europe has been a “Christian continent” throughout history. However, as Şener Aktürk indicates, this argument is not supported by history. If fact, Muslims have been in Europe for a long time. For instance, in the Iberian Peninsula, especially in Spain, Muslims were constitutive elements of administrative and social life from the eighth century until they were driven from the continent in 1492. Even today, Spain features deep traces of the Andalusian civilization. The same holds true for the Balkans. The Muslim presence in the Balkans has been an integral part of the region for centuries.

Similarly, the Jews, another one of Europe’s established heterodox religious groups, were collectively driven into exile from Europe at least four times; particularly in the age of industrialization, when the nation-state building and homogenization policies intensified. Of course, these cleansing practices were not particular to Europe. Yet, this does not undermine the point that depicting Europe as a “Christian continent” does injustice to the historical richness and diversity of the “old continent.”

The second myth, which has been linked to the first, is the argument that the Muslim population in Europe is increasing quickly and that Europe “will be invaded by Muslims” in the near future. In fact, Muslims—except for those in the Balkan countries—form a very small portion of the population in most European countries. Even in France, which has the highest proportion of Muslims, Muslims constitute only seven percent of the total population.

It is true that the number of Muslims in Europe is on the rise. As the native European fertility rate is lower compared to those who immigrate to the continent, the population ratio may change over the long term. Nevertheless, this trend should not also be over-exaggerated. According to PEW Research Center data, except for the Balkans, in 2030 the Muslim population will exceed 10 percent of the total population in only two European countries: France (10.3 per cent) and Belgium (10.2 per cent). Therefore, the “Muslim invasion of Europe” is not an accurate projection corroborated by robust empirical evidence but instead is a scapegoating tool exploited by far-right parties.

In summary, the claim that Europe has been historically Christian and will be exposed to a Muslim invasion in the future is not a reality but a myth. Europe’s real challenge for the 21st century is to strengthen multiculturalism. Europe owes its well-deserved success to the creation of a pluralist polity. Hence, she should maintain a hope for peaceful co-existence, not despair and alienation. As Patrick McCarthy puts it in a rather different context, for Europe, “the real goal is to live with and talk to, not about, Islam.”

Mustafa Kutlay, USAK Center for EU Studies

The post Muslim Presence In Europe: ‘Talking To, Not About, Islam’ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aryati Dewi Hadin

The relationship between Indonesia and Australia has not always been smooth. From President Sukarno’s era until the beginning of Suharto’s administration, their relationship had been uncomfortable. Suharto’s foreign policy was much more cautious and constructive, for he fostered regional links through ASEAN and encouraged a cordial relationship with Australia, but both had their relations downgraded during the disintegration of East Timor (now Timor Leste) in 1999. Last year, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa asked for Canberra’s apology after their intelligences were proven spying the telephone conversation belonging to Indonesian president, and his member of inner circle in 2009.

Jakarta then applied pressure on trade relations with Australia. Despite of the threat, Abbott’s administration refused to apologize. Meanwhile, another tension occurred after Australian border patrol boats entered Indonesia’s water without permission as a part of their attempt to stop asylum seekers. For this case, Australia finally expressed their apology although border issue between the two countries always remains vulnerable. In short, relationship between the two countries has always been covered with ego.

However, the rise of Asian economy has shifted the regional structure. US influence in Asia Pacific is now greatly challenged by China, since China’s economy and military are becoming stronger. Even ASEAN countries are likely to be polarized among the two major powers. Although geographically being sandwiched between the two elephants, Indonesia keeps playing an important part in the region as one of the players.

The ASEAN-6 fastest growing economy

Asian economies are expected to grow by 6.9% per annum in 2014-18, and the real GDP growth rate in the Southeast Asian region is projected to average 5.4% per annum at the same period, according to OECD Development Centre’s Medium-Term Projection Framework for 2014 edition of Economic Outlook for South East Asia, China and India. The revival of democracy in 1998 has given lesson to Indonesia to bounce back from its collapsed economy.

The Diplomat (2014) reported that starting from 2001, the country has averaged 5.4 percent growth, far faster than the global average. The growth has helped lowering the gross governmental debt from 95.1 percent of GDP in 2000 to around 26 per cent. Such an impressive leap in just fifteen years. Indonesia is projected to be the fastest-growing economy within the ASEAN-6 (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, and Thailand) with an average annual growth rate of 6.0% in 2014-18. Not to mention that she already overtook Australia’s GDP based on purchasing power parity in 2004 and is thirty per cent bigger as per today. McKinsey Global Institute (2012) predicted Indonesia to become the world’s 7th largest economy by 2030, surpassing Germany and UK.

Growing population and workforce

Population growth will be the one of supporting factor for Indonesian economic outlook. According to Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia (Indonesian Agent of Statistic Center) in 2010, Indonesian population is projected to increase 28.6 % to be 305.6 million people by 2035 with 68.1 % workforce. The World Bank remarked Indonesian total labor force 118,378,606 between 2009-2013, showing up a huge gap with Australia who has only 12,026,320 people in the same period.

This growing population is also followed by the growing middle class. The Boston Consulting Group predicted that Indonesia will have approximately 141 million people of middle-class in 2020. The buying power will increase along with the growing domestic demand.

Gate to Asian market and investment destination

A research by Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science in 2012 stated that the most of the world’s projected agrifood demand in 2050 will be from Asia. This is supported by the growing population and buying power. Having a comparative advantage in the agricultural production and geographical location, Australia is in a good position to meet some of this higher demand.

The Asian financial crisis in 1997 might made Australia look down on Indonesia as a strategic partner, but today they should think the other way around. Geographically located down in the corner from the southeast Asia, Australia cannot ignore Indonesia’s importance as a gate to Asian growing market.

Indonesia has four freeports (Batam, Bintan, Tanjung Balai Karimun and Sabang) which support free trade. The most strategic freeport, Sabang, which is located at the western part of Malaka straits and facing toward the Indian Ocean and Andaman Sea, had been considered by the late Dutch Colonial as the gate to access Asian, European, and African market.

OECD also remarked that investment growth is projected to remain strong in Asia, supported by government infrastructure spending to drive long-term development plans. Indonesia has set up a plan of acceleration and expansion of economic development in all of its regions. In 2011, Indonesian government launched the Master Plan of Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development 2011-2025 (MP3EI). The project aims at maximizing all region’s economic potentials, both as supplier and as market. The integrated plan includes improvement on distribution network, production efficiency, and innovation. The key factors that support Indonesia’s economic expansion are their demographic potentials, the abundance of its natural resources, and
its geographical advantages.

Rising defense budget

The economic growth has facilitated a sharp annual defense budget for Indonesia such as 9 per cent increase as announced by the president Yudhoyono in August 2013, or USD 7.91 billion which is equal to about 0.9 per cent of the GDP for 2014. Indonesia’s Defense Plan in 2010 announced $15 billion kit for a modernization and equipment procurement, including a navy of 274 ships and 12 submarines, a modernized air force including 10 fighter squadrons and a more agile army with tanks and attack helicopters – all by 2024. Not to mention the purchase of six Sukhoi Su-30MK2s which completed a squadron of advanced air-superiority fighters consisting of sixteen Su-27 SKM and Su-30 MK2 jets, dozens of F-16 and Su-35 fighters, advanced air defense systems from Thales, Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow gunship helicopters and more than hundred world-renowned German Leopard tanks. Although the spending remains modest, it is still possible for Indonesia to improve its military capacity in the following years as long as the economic growth remains positive.

China’s Indo-Pacific move and Indonesia’s leadership in ASEAN

China’s economic power is inevitable, and its assertiveness toward Asian countries’ natural resources has created problem, especially to the preserve of natural gas in the South China Sea. There has been a security issue in the South China Sea involving China and the southeast Asian countries (Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia) after China claimed these countries’ water as its territory. The Philippines has protested China’s claim over Spratly islands. Indonesia seek for clarity on China’s intention after her water territory appeared to surpass the Natuna Island waters on China’s passport.

ASEAN countries are likely to be polarized in this issue. Vietnam has little defense since it has economic dependence with China, while the Philippines (that has little economic tie with China) refused to accept China’s win-win gas exploration solution.

However, Indonesia’s leadership is still prominent amongst ASEAN members, especially as a role model in the practice of democracy. Many disputes between the members have been mediated by Indonesia through ASEAN dialogs, including the one between the Philippines and China.

Conclusion

In the years where the Western countries are trying to overcome their economic crisis, many are looking for alliance with countries that offer economic advantages. Indonesia is just a fellow next door for Australia. Its demographic advantages, its abundance of natural resources and its geographic position are the keys for foreign investments and market access.

In terms of defense, Indonesia’s rising economy will allow it to spend more on its armed forces, especially on
aircraft, ships and submarines, which might slowly release its dependency from the major power. As it strengthened its military, Indonesia’s role in the balance of power of the region is becoming more appealing for the US to strengthen a coalition to counter China’s assertiveness. Australia should begin to view its neighbor differently.

Indonesia, whoever the next president will be, is challenged to develop a better foreign policy in the region. Of course Indonesia’s ‘free and active’ policy will always be the principle, but it must be able to gain a better bargaining power on the Indonesia-Australia relations.

The post Redefining Indonesia-Australia Relations Within Jakarta’s East Asian Approach – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Japan today has a troubled security environment with China having lately indulged in conflict-escalation and political coercion in claiming sovereignty over the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

In this context, Japan gained a significant strategic pledge from the United States during President Obama’s visit to Tokyo last week that security of the Senkaku Islands too is covered under Article 5 of the Japan-US Mutual Security Treaty.

It needs to be recalled that when tensions arose between China and Japan two years back, the United States was diffident and hesitant in conceding that the United States under its Treaty commitments was treaty-bound to assist Japan against any aggression by China against the Senkaku Islands. United States’ ambiguity then was not only causing security concerns but also affecting the credibility of US security commitments not only in Japan but also in the Philippines similarly affected by China’s conflict escalation against it over its South China Sea islands.

The ongoing tour of President Obama to its three military allies in East Asia i.e. Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and also Malaysia was intended to ‘rebalance’ the US Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific’ and further provide security reassurances to these nations against the backdrop of China’s unceasing military aggressive provocations in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

Japan has been a reliable and long-standing ally of the United States and can be said to be the lynch-pin of the United States security architecture in the Asia Pacific. As explained in my last Paper this trip was to be a big strategic challenge for President Obama as the United States could ill-afford to ignore the security concerns of its major military ally in the region and a contending Asian power against Chinese hegemonistic impulses and that the United States could not subordinate this strategic reality to United States illogical ‘China-Hedging Strategy’

In the same context it was brought out earlier too that United States’ credibility was at stake in Asian capitals when it exhibited diffidence in standing up to China’s rising military adventurism in the Asia Pacific when the United States as the global superpower with substantial stakes in the Asia Pacific was found wanting in firmness.

Significant it therefore becomes, and a big strategic gain for Japan, when after hard negotiations, President Obama asserted: “Our commitment to Japan’s security is absolute and Article Five (of the Security Treaty) covers all territories under Japan’s administration including the Senkaku Islands”.

While the above assertion is unambiguous in terms of coming to the assistance of Japan against any Chinese aggression on the Senkaku Islands, the United States however refused to be drawn-in on the question of sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands when it was added that “We don’t take a position on final sovereignty on the Senkaku Islands but historically they’ve been administered by Japan and should not be subject to change unilaterally”. In this assertion also despite skirting judgement on sovereignty of Senkaku Islands it is implicit that the United States is messaging China that any ‘unilateral” action by China meaning ‘use of force’ would be ill-advised and in the spirit of the assertion above would involve the United States in intervention in Japanese favour.

Continuing in the same vein, it needs to be brought out that preceding President Obama’s visit to Tokyo last week, US Defense Secretary Hagel also paid a visit to Tokyo in the first week of April 2014 for security talks before proceeding to China for a similar visit. In a very strong message directed at China (but with a tail end footnote mentioning Russia so as to provide a sense of balance for Chinese sensitivities), Secretary Hagel minced no words when he asserted “Coercion and intimidation is a deadly thing. You cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion or intimidation, whether it’s small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe”.

China expectedly came out with strong responses to President Obama’s assertions on the Senkaku Islands both through its Foreign Ministry spokespersons and its various media organs. The repetitive themes in Chinese responses were that China’s sovereignty on the Senkaku Islands was indisputable and warning the Japan-US combines not to impinge on Chinese sovereignty and that both these nations would fail to “cage the rapidly developing Asian Giant”. Another thread running in Chinese response was that while the United States may make any noises in Tokyo and Manila, the reality is that the United States “ had also sought to avoid irritating China” due to economic compulsions.

China also has now sought to make bold its new assertions that China can never be ‘contained’. When US Defense Secretary Hagel was conducted on board China’s first Aircraft Carrier the Chinese General accompanying him asserted that “With the latest developments, China can never be contained.”

Cutting through the above Chinese ripostes to President Obama’s strategic assertions and the warning implicit in US Defense Secretary’s strong statements, the analysis begs answers to two questions. “Is the United States President indulging in mere rhetoric in deference to Japan’s strategic concerns when he asserted that the United States is committed to Japan’s security including the Senkaku Islands or is it a significant course correction by the United States in its China policy formulations”? Secondly, “Would the United States also issue similar bold declarations on the South China Sea conflicts in favour of its military ally ,the Philippines and countries like Vietnam similarly victims of Chinese aggression and brinkmanship.”?

The United States has been under dual pressures from its traditional allies and also domestic political pressures to “Draw Red Lines” in the Asia Pacific for China which it must not cross or else risk United States intervention, in the interests of regional security and stability. If that be so the President Obama may have signalled China that United States would not hesitate to deter China from any military adventurism against Japan.

The South China Sea conflict escalation by China at the expense of the Philippines and other AEAN disputants should normally call for similar declaration of ‘Red Lines’ for China not to cross. But in this case the United States may not be that much categorical except in the case of the Philippines with which it has a bilateral security assistance treaty. The South China Sea conflicts already stand “internationalised” and the United States may opt for international processes to take the lead. However, here too the United States, the West and other Asian powers have reiterated that the principles of freedom of navigation and access to global commons cannot be subjected to country laws. Would China be deterred by such declarations? Rather unlikely when China is in a military adventurist mode stands stiffened by its burgeoning military capabilities.

Concluding, one would like to observe that Japan has gained a significant strategic pledge from the United States for military assistance to withstand aggression in term of China’s confrontation with Japan on the Senkaku Island. Significant in terms of United States China-policy is the new development that President Obama has finally broken, hopefully, the United States self-imposed shell of “China Hedging Strategy” and drawn ‘Red Lines’ for China over any possible aggression against the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

Asia Pacific security and stability would be greatly enhanced to the United States advantage if the United States could issue similar deterrent declarations on the South China Sea. Asian capitals logically and expectantly would await such a development.

The post Japan Gains Significant Strategic Pledge From United States – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

During his six-day Asian tour to Asia-Pacific region, his sixth as US President, US President Barack Obama visited first Japan on 23 April 2014 on the first leg that also took him to South Korea on 25th, Malaysia on 26th and the Philippines on 28th, before departing for Washington on 29th.

As a state guest in Japan, Obama held a summit meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on 24th and an audience with Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko. The visit underscores Obama administration’s continued focus on the world’s largest emerging region. Obama had visited Japan twice since becoming President in 2009, but this was his first since March 2011.

Besides East Asia where the US has two allies in Japan and South Korea, Southeast Asia has also emerged as another cornerstone of the US administration’s strategy because of the region’s rapid economic growth and political clout. In fact, Obama’s visit to Malaysia was indeed historic as no other American president visited this country since Lyndon Baines Johnson’s visit in 1966.

Normally when on a state guest, the First Lady accompanies the head of the state but Obama was not accompanied by his spouse, leading to media speculation that Obama is having marital discord with his wife. This speculation was further reinforced when Michelle visited China alone last month. It is further rumoured that the couple will divorce after Obama’s term as President ends. Such rumours have, however, no bearing on US policy towards the region.

While in South Korea, Obama met with President Park Geun-hye and discussed such issues as North Korea’s nuclear threat and implementation of a bilateral free trade pact. His visits to Malaysia and the Philippines came after he canceled a trip to the two Southeast Asian countries — as well as Indonesia and Brunei — planned for 1-16 October 2013 to deal with a partial government shutdown over budget issues at home.

Why does the US put so much importance to Asia? Apart from the security and strategic considerations, the US believes that over the next five years, nearly half of all growth outside the US is expected to come from Asia. The US also has several important allies such as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, besides developing democracies and emerging powers and therefore sees the US’ top priorities as tied to Asia, for reasons of accessing new markets, promoting exports, protecting its own security interests and promoting core values. No wonder, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines intersect with the US administration’s priorities, which include modernizing alliances, supporting democratic development, advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and commercial ties, investing in regional institutions such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, and deepening cultural and people-to-people exchanges.

Obama’s trip to Asia was to convey the message to the American allies in the region that the US is committed to stand by with its allies and partners to defend from threats and respond to disasters with humanitarian assistance when needed. The trip was also meant to reaffirm the US commitment to peaceful resolution to maritime and territorial disputes consistent with international law. The US is endowed with significant and unique capabilities and technical expertise, which it has deployed to address human sufferings from tragedies in the past. It has lent prompt and effective support to its friends and partners in Asia in times of distress such as during the earthquake in Japan in March 2011 (Operation Tomodachi), the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, the Malaysian Air flight 370 tragedy, and latest being the ferry disaster in South Korea in April 2014 that killed many innocent school children.

Hagel’s visit in April

This was also the focus of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel when he made his fourth visit in less than 12 months on 1-10 April 2014 to the Asia-Pacific region. During that time, Hagel began his trip first with a meeting in Hawaii where he initiated and hosted a meeting with defence ministers of the 10 member countries of ASEAN – Myanmar, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Hagel had extended the invitation during the Shangri-La Dialogue of 2013 and this was the first ASEAN defence ministers’ meeting held on American soil.

The meeting was useful in more than one way. The ministers shared their opinions and their respective countries preparedness to tackle natural disasters when they hit the region and how to coordinate policies in such emergencies. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the Commerce Department of the US with an office in Honolulu, presented a simulation of the March 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake near the east coast of Honshu, Japan, and the resulting tsunami that killed nearly 16,000 people and injured more than 6,000, besides causing incalculable damage to property. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Asia-Pacific region is hit by more than 70 percent of the world’s natural disasters. Therefore, the idea of using the ASEAN Defense Forum to build greater cooperation across the range of issues and to bring the region together as a community was laudable.

Among other issues, the ministers discussed on military-to-military relationships and joint exercises that secure and stabilize the region. Hagel assured the ministers that all nations have commercial options, and on regional security issues. The first such exercise would strengthen friendships among nations and increased partnership opportunities will help everyone in the region to deal with new and enduring security challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. After the meeting at Hawaii, Hagel also visited Japan, China and Mongolia, where he met the defence and government officials.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

The US has been promoting the TPP agreement to foster economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region. The TPP is a proposed trade agreement under negotiation by Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam. The agreement seeks to enhance trade and investment among TPP partner countries; promote innovation, economic growth and development; and support job creation and retention.

The US believes that if it is able to expand trade and investment links with Asia, it will enable to have access to new markets to export more goods and also create more jobs. This was a priority issue for discussion for Obama during the entire trip. Therefore, Obama took time to meet also with business leaders and promote initiatives like SelectUSA that highlights advantages the US offers as a location for business and support investment. As the National Security Advisor Susan Rice said, for the US, the TPP is a focal point of America’s “effort to establish high standards for trade across the Asia Pacific and ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses and workers”.

Japan and Malaysia are two of the 12 key TPP partners. While in Japan, therefore, Obama discussed with Abe the means to strengthen the security alliance against the backdrop of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions as well as prolonged negotiations on the TPP free trade pact. In a statement jointly released by both the countries at the conclusion of talks, both the countries agreed to coordinate closely in multilateral financial and economic fora to advance trade liberalization and promote economic growth. They reiterated that their efforts are grounded in support for an international system that is free, open, and transparent, and embraces innovation. Though the statement committed steps necessary to complete a high-standard, ambitious comprehensive TPP agreement with a view to enhance economic growth, expand regional trade and investment and strengthen the rules-based trading system, the agreement could not be reached as several issues remained unresolved.

As it transpired at the end of Obama’s visit, which Abe and Obama insisted was “historic”, Obama had to leave empty-handed due to failure to reach the TPP deal. The release of the joint statement was inordinately delayed as the US officials demanded more concessions from Japan on TPP issues during the negotiations. Akira Amari, the economic and fiscal policy minister who represented Japan in the TPP talks was so frustrated that he made the remarks “If I was asked to serve a minister in charge of (the TPP talks) again, now I would say I don’t want to”. The cause of the failure was the Japanese side was unwilling to concede the US demand to abolish or drastically reduce its tariffs on US beef and pork and ease safety regulations on US automobiles exported to Japan.

Though the joint statement committed both “to taking the bold steps necessary to complete a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive TPP agreement”, the joint statement failed to include any specific agreement on the TPP talks. The Japanese perspective was articulated by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso when he said Obama was lacking political clout at home to make substantial concessions, at least until after US mid-term elections in November 2014. Even if an agreement on the TPP would have been reached, it was not sure if the US Congress would have approved it.

Obama does not enjoy the trade promotion authority delegated by the Congress. Without this special negotiating power to promote trade talks and without approval of the legislature, the TPP talks were destined to fail. Without the fast-track authority, it was difficult for Obama to strike an easy compromise with Japan on trade. It seems, therefore, the whole TPP process involving other countries could stagnate until the US mid-term elections are over.

There are politically sensitivities in any kind of trade discussions and both the leaders have to contend with this. Abe’s LDP had pledged in the elections that if elected to power, his government will maintain tariffs on five products areas, namely beef and pork, dairy products, rice, wheat and sugar. Agreement could not be reached over these five trade categories that Japan demanded to be treated as exceptions to tariff abolition.

Regional Security Issues

Obama’s visit to Asia took place at a time when tensions have heightened over territorial disputes between US allies as well as China’s expansionist behavior. While Japan and China are locked in territorial disputes over Senkaku/Daioyu islands, Japan and South Korea are claiming the Takeshima/Dokdo island chains in the East China Sea. The shadow of history also continues to affect Japan’s relations with China and South Korea. Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine on 26 December marking the first anniversary of his second term as Prime Minister evoked criticism both in China and South Korea. The Comfort Women issue continues to remain as an irritant between Japan and South Korea as well. The relations between Japan and South Korea have deteriorated to such an extent that no summit meeting could be held between the leaders of both the countries. The US can ill afford to have two of its allies in Asia to remain at loggerheads and therefore brokered a meeting at The Hague in March during the third Nuclear Security Summit meeting. Even that has not helped much. South Korea was not initially listed in Obama’s itinerary but had to be added lest South Korea would have felt left out from America’s Asia strategy.

Therefore, Obama’s trip was the ideal opportunity to affirm US commitment to a rules-based order in the region at a time of ongoing regional tensions, particularly with regard to North Korea and regional territorial disputes. The Obama administration recognises that there is a significant demand for US leadership in the region, and therefore calibrated its strategy of rebalancing to Asia that also includes economic, political, security and cultural interests in Northeast and Southeast Asia. The network of alliances and partnerships that are already in place forms the foundation of US strategy in Asia. For the US to modernise these alliances to make them more relevant to the 21st century and to security challenges, and binding them into platforms for cooperation on regional and global challenges are priorities for the Asia-Pacific.

While in Japan, Obama expressed concern over the Chinese actions to declare an Air Defence Identification Zone in November 2013 in the East China Sea. Both called on countries to clarify the basis of their maritime claims in accordance with international law. In a statement issued after the meeting between Obama and Abe, the leaders opposed any attempt by any country to assert territorial or maritime claims through the use of intimidation, coercion or force and therefore urged the establishment of confidence-building measures among governments to address these tensions. In particular, because of territorial claims by almost a dozen of countries to parts of the South China Sea and China’s claims to the whole of it, the area has emerged as a major flashpoint. The Obama-Abe joint statement, therefore, called upon to clarify the basis of their maritime claims and the establishment of an effective Code of Conduct as a way to reduce the risk of an unintended incident. Both also reaffirmed their support for the use of diplomatic and legal means, including international arbitration, to settle maritime disputes in the South China Sea.

The most significant message that was delivered to Beijing was in the joint statement. Titled “The United States and Japan: Shaping the Future of the Asia-Pacific and Beyond”, the joint statement said the Japan-US Security Treaty “extend to all the territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands”. The joint statement made clear Japan and the United States share the same recognition – Article 5 of the Japan-US Security Treaty, which states the US defense obligations to Japan, applies to the Senkaku Islands in case of an armed attack on the islets. Even during the joint press conference, Obama reiterated that the US “commitment to Japan’s security is absolute and Article 5 covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands”. The joint statement also said “the United States opposes any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands”.

Referring to Abe Cabinet’s efforts to allow the country to exercise the right to collective self-defense, the joint statement also states, “The United States welcomes and supports Japan’s consideration of the matters of exercising the right of collective self-defense”.

Obama’s endorsement is likely to give momentum to Abe’s push for revising the long-standing interpretation of the Pacifist Constitution, which would allow Japan to provide more military support for the US forces. At the same time, during the joint press conference, Obama warned both Beijing and Tokyo that “it would be a profound mistake to continue to see escalation around this issue rather than dialogue and confidence-building measures between Japan and China”. In other words, Obama wants territorial dispute must be settled through dialogue. This must have been reassuring to Tokyo should China follow Russia’s Ukraine example and try to seize the disputed islands in the East China Sea by the use of force. This was important because of the view espoused by some of the Japanese media that a “weak” US response to Russian actions in Ukraine could portend and equally docile response in the event of Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. This worry by some regional experts was dissipated by the mention of Senkaku in the joint statement.

Assessment

Abe may have achieved his objective of obtaining US reiteration for a strong and robust Japan-US alliance with a view to check an ambitious China but the latter is not easily to yield space. No sooner the joint statement was issued, Chinese foreign ministry summoned the ambassadors of the US and Japan to protest the mention in the joint statement of Senkaku within the ambit of Article 5 of the security treaty and that China would not tolerate any violation of its territorial sovereignty. With the intention to demonstrate US support for its allies as part of his strategic “pivot” towards the Asia-Pacific, a region overshadowed by territorial spats and resentments stretching back to World War II, and with a view to calm a nervous Japan and easing strained ties with Abe, it is not clear if Obama crossed the “red-line” in Washington’s relationship with Beijing and thereby annoyed Beijing.

It is equally not clear how serious is Beijing in its reaction or what its next steps would be. According to Jun Okumura, a visiting scholar at the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs in Tokyo, Japan and the US should not read too much into China’s response or its attempts to downplay the importance of the Japan-US security treaty. China condemns Obama’s statement on the Senkaku as third party interference and is unlikely to stop deploying its surveillance ships to the area, making occasional trips into Japan’s territorial waters and offer protection to Chinese fishing boats nearby.

The second and third largest economies of the world are in a bitter spat over Senkaku since 2012, when Japan effectively nationalised the islands, sparking protests in Chinese cities and attacks on Japanese exp businesses. Obama has tried to assuage the Chinese feelings in the past by describing China as a “critical country not just to the region but to the world” and committed to support its “continued peaceful rise”. Beijing also must be aware that Japan-US relationships have experience occasional hiccups in the recent past, and noticed the element of fragility (perceived, though), despite the public show of solidarity at the press conference in Tokyo. When Abe visited Yasukuni, a controversial shrine in Tokyo that honours Japan’s war dead, on 26 December 2013 despite against US advice, Washington expressed “disappointment”. Abe also caused unease in China and South Korea when he indicated revising official apologies (the famous Kono statement of 1993) over Japan’s wartime conduct, including its use of tens of thousands of mainly Korean women as sex slaves in frontline brothels. Washington is clearly not happy with Abe’s conduct of dealing with Japan’s neighbours this way.

Though Abe has admitted that Japan inflicted grave damage and pain on many people, particularly in Asia, during the war, the potential for discord between Tokyo and Seoul over historical issues are unlikely go away. Notwithstanding the US treaty commitment, Obama is sceptical of Abe’s known nationalism and views of wartime history. Despite best efforts to get Abe and President Park Geun-hye to share the same dais at The Hague in March, thereby breaking the ice, mutual distrusts continue. Now that Obama has given assurance that Japan sought over the Senkaku Islands, the least that he would expect that Abe now start mending fences with its other ally in the region, South Korea. Obama is also worried that South Korea is leaning more towards China and drifting away from Japan. That is not a good sign for the American rebalancing strategy in Asia. It is not clear if Obama will be willing again, after The Hague, to actively and officially intervene between Japan and Korea in order to reconcile their relationships.

Dr. Rajaram Panda, a leading expert on Japan and East Asia from India, is currently The Japan Foundation Fellow at Reitaku University, Chiba, JAPAN. E-mail: rajaram.panda@gmail.com

The post Obama’s Visit To Japan: Security Ties Strengthened; Agreement On TPP Eluded – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

BG Group said Monday that the company’s Board has accepted Chris Finlayson’s resignation as Chief Executive and as an Executive Director of the Board with immediate effect, for personal reasons.

The company said that until a permanent replacement is appointed, Andrew Gould, BG Group’s Non-Executive Chairman, will take over as interim Executive Chairman. A recruitment process to find an external successor to Chris is now underway. Andrew will revert to the role of Non-Executive Chairman once the new Chief Executive is appointed.

Andrew Gould said:,”I would like to thank Chris for his contribution to the Group over the past four years and we wish him well for the future. The Board of Directors is fully committed to the Group’s strategy, which is built upon a portfolio of high-quality assets. The Company must accelerate the creation and delivery of the longer-term value for our shareholders, while delivering the Group’s business plans. The Board felt that it was in the best interests of the Group to accept Chris’ resignation and seek fresh leadership to deliver both of these priorities.”

Finlayson will not receive any payment beyond his contractual entitlement, details of which will be available on the Group’s website, the company said,

Business update and outlook

BG Group will announce its first quarter results on 1 May, including an update on the Group’s key projects which remain on schedule.

In Australia, good progress continues, with the start-up of the Ruby Jo central processing plant and in Brazil, all four buoyancy supported risers are in position on FPSOs 2 and 3, with two new permanent wells connected. Commissioning of Bongkot South Phase 4b, the Group’s other first quarter milestone, was completed in February.

Egypt remains challenging, with volumes in the first quarter declining 35% from the fourth quarter of 2013 to 66 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (kboed). This is a result of deteriorating reservoir performance and the high level of diversions to the domestic market, where the Group is entitled to a lower share of production.

The Group’s 2014 production guidance remains unchanged at 590 – 630 kboed*, although production is now expected to be at the lower end of the range given the issues in Egypt. The deterioration in Egypt will similarly impact 2015 production.

The Group is reviewing its operational, investment and portfolio management plans and will not provide 2015 guidance until its full year results in February 2015.

AGM Notice

The resolution to re-elect Chris Finlayson as a Director of the Company at its 2014 Annual General Meeting, as set out in the notice of that meeting, will be withdrawn.

The post Chris Finlayson Resigns As BG Group Chief Executive appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — A new poll suggests that the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) will beat mainstream parties in the upcoming European elections, despite leading a ‘racist’ campaign.

The YouGov poll showed the party has overtaken Labour on voting intentions, with 31% up from 23% in March. Labour have consistently polled first. However, they now move into second position on 28%, down from 32% over the same period.

The Conservatives trail behind with 19%, down from 24%, according to the poll.

Last week, UKIP launched its campaign for the EU elections with posters slammed by opponents as “racist”, fear-mongering and inaccurate.

One of the four posters depicts a construction worker sitting on a sidewalk and begging for money, accompanied by the text “EU policy at work – British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap labour.”

Another poster states that “26 million people in Europe are looking for work – and whose job are they after?”

A third poster, depicting a torn UK flag with an EU flag underneath, says “Who really runs this country? 76% of our laws are now made in Brussels.”

The fourth poster depicts passengers sitting inside a London bus, with the text “Your daily grind…”, continued onto another photo, on the right, with a gentleman sitting in the back seat of a limousine, with an EU flag, stating “…funds his celebrity lifestyle”. “The UK pays £55 million a day to the EU and its Eurocrats,” the message concludes.

Over the weekend, William Henwood, a local election candidate for the party in Enfield, north London, had said Lenny Henry should emigrate to a “black country” after the comedian and actor suggested ethnic minorities were poorly represented on British television.

Despite all this, UKIP seems immune to criticism, and mainstream politicians are finding it difficult to acknowledge the gains being made by the extremist party in the polls.

Peter Hain, the former Labour cabinet minister, said UKIP seemed to be resistant to attacks, and that he expected the party to beat Labour, the Guardian reported.

Lord Tebbit, the former Tory chairman, also said he expected UKIP to make history, by becoming the first party other than Labour or the Conservatives to win a UK-wide election since the First World War.

Tebbit said his party was still paying the price for David Cameron’s decision to brand UKIP supporters “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” eight years ago.

Hain said the mainstream political parties had to recognise that UKIP’s success was symptomatic of a wider loss of trust in politics. “The political class needs to wake up, because UKIP are capitalising on the big anti-politics sentiment that is out there,” he told the Guardian.

“Despite the fact that their candidates have blamed flooding on gay marriage, called women sluts, and expressed openly racist and Islamophobic prejudice – some really nasty stuff – and Nigel Farage has been accused of all sorts of allegations, all of it just seems to wash off, just like water off a duck’s back, because they are the expression of a deep antagonism to the political class.

“It is really disturbing that they seem to have developed an immunity to the truth. It’s for that reason that I expect them to be in the lead on 22 May.”

His analysis was backed by Matthew Goodwin, an associate professor of politics at Nottingham University and co-author of a new book about UKIP, Revolt on the Right. He said that, until recently, he had expected UKIP to come second in the European elections, but that he had changed his mind.

The post New British Poll Gives UKIP Lead In EU Election appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Earlier this month, CIA-operated drones killed as many as 55 people in Yemen in several separate strikes. Although it was claimed that those killed were “militants,” according to press reports at least three civilians were killed and at least five others wounded. That makes at least 92 US drone attacks against Yemen during the Obama administration, which have killed nearly 1,000 people including many civilians.

The latest strikes seem to contradict President Obama’s revised guidelines for targeted killings, which he announced last May. At the time he claimed that drones would only be used against those who posed a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” that there must be a “near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured,” and that safeguards to prevent civilian casualties were at “the highest standard we can set.”

None of these criteria seem to have been met. In fact, the threshold in Yemen is considerably lower than the president claims. In 2012 President Obama approved “signature strikes” in Yemen, a criteria for attack that is not based on actual or suspected wrongdoing, but rather on a vague set of behaviors that are said to be shared by militants.

This means that the individuals killed in the most recent drone attacks were not necessarily terrorists or even terrorist suspects. They were not proven to have committed any crime, nor were they proven to have been members of al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization. Yet they were nevertheless targeted for attack, and the sovereignty of Yemen was violated in the process.

Some may claim that we need to kill suspected terrorists overseas so that we can be safer at home. But do the drone attacks in places like Yemen really make us safer? Or are they actually counter-productive? One thing we do know is that one of the strongest recruiting tools for al-Qaeda is the US being over there using drones against people or occupying Muslim countries.

How can we get rid of all the people who may seek to do us harm if our drone and occupation policies continually create even more al-Qaeda members? Are we not just creating an endless supply of tomorrow’s terrorists with our foolish policies today? What example does it set for the rest of the world if the US acts as if it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere, based simply on that individual’s behavior?

We should keep all of this in mind when the US administration lectures world leaders about how they should act in the 21st century. Recently, the US administration admonished Russian president Vladimir Putin for his supposed interference in the affairs of Ukraine, saying that violating the sovereignty of another country is not the 21st century way of conducting international relations. I agree that sovereignty must be respected. But what about the US doing the same thing in places like Yemen? What about the hundreds and even thousands killed by US drones not because they were found guilty of a crime, but because they were exhibiting “behaviors” that led a CIA drone operator safely hidden in New Mexico or somewhere to pull the trigger and end their lives?

What about a president who regularly meets in secret with his advisors to determine who is to be placed on a “kill list” and who refuses to even discuss the criteria for placement on that list? Is this considered acceptable 21st century behavior?

The Obama Administration needs to rein in the CIA and its drone attacks overseas. They make a mockery of American values and they may well make us less safe.

The post Ron Paul: Obama’s Drone Wars Undermine American Values – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

The ruling VMRO DPMNE party and its incumbent President Gjorge Ivanov won crushing victories in Sunday’s vote but the opposition alleged violations and refused to recognise the elections

Macedonia’s centre-right VMRO DPMNE comfortably won a fourth term in office and Ivanov secured the presidency for the second time, but the opposition Social Democrats, SDSM, claimed that the snap parliamentary polls and second-round presidential elections were fraudulent, setting the scene for fresh political discord in the country.

The State Electoral Commission said that after almost 100 per cent of ballots were counted, VMRO DPMNE won over 480,000 votes and SDSM won 284,000 – the widest margin in favour of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski’s party since it first came to power in 2006.

But although the ruling party insisted the vote was democratic, the Social Democrats alleged serious violations immediately after polls closed on Sunday evening.

“Macedonian citizens have been duped and the elections have been stolen. The government dared to conduct unfair, non-democratic and uncivilized elections,” SDSM leader Zoran Zaev told a press conference.

Zaev alleged “massive and public buying of votes in the presence and with the assistance of the police”. He said his party wanted a caretaker government to be formed and new presidential and parliamentary elections called.

The ruling party however dismissed reports by local election observers who documented various irregularities as a scenario concocted by the opposition as an ‘alibi’ for their poor results.

“I regret that SDSM has decided to negate the will of the people and work directly against the interests of the country and to benefit those that do not wish this country well,” Gruevski said in his victory speech.

“I hope that they will sleep on it and decide to act in accordance with the interests of this country,” he added.

In the presidential election run-off, incumbent Ivanov won a second term with the support of 534,000 voters, while his SDSM opponent Stevo Pendarovski took 398,000 votes.

The turnout for the early general election was 64 per cent while that for the presidential vote was 54.33 per cent, according to the State Electoral Commission, SEC.

In the ethnic Albanian bloc, the junior partner in the outgoing government, the Democratic Union for Integration, DUI, won most votes as expected and is likely to remain in coalition with VMRO. DUI won some 153,000 votes, trouncing its main rival, the Democratic Party of Albanians, DPA, which won just over 66,000 votes.

Albanians make up a quarter of Macedonia’s population and it has become an unwritten rule that the winner in this bloc is offered a place in the government.

Contradicting the SDSM’s claims, the SEC and the police said that Sunday’s voting passed off in a calm and democratic atmosphere with only minor irregularities reported.

“We have not received reports of any incidents. There are few occasions in which voters complained they were not in the electoral rolls but this is not a massive thing. We have no data about possible family voting, and political propaganda at polling stations may have happened in few places,” said Subhi Jakupi, the vice-president of the SEC.

Gruevski also praised the conduct of the polls.

“So far the elections are ongoing in a peaceful and democratic atmosphere and I hope that it will be like that until the end of the day and that Macedonia will win in these elections,” he told reporters after casting his ballot in Skopje.

But domestic observers from local NGOs MOST and CIVIL said they had registered cases of group and family voting in towns and villages across the country, as well as political propaganda at polling stations and voting by minors.

Among the allegations of suspected violations reported by local observers, monitors from CIVIL said they spotted several cases in which people were brought to polling stations by vans and buses. It said that a number of voters from Pustec in Albania who voted in advance as members of the diaspora had also cast extra ballots on polling day.

CIVIL also said it had seen members of the ruling party and former MPs making public calls to Roma citizens to vote for VMRO DPMNE, and had registered yet more cases of problems with the electoral roll in which people who came to vote were not on the list.

The SDSM accused the ruling party of being responsible for the violations.

“We have photos and videos that people are paid to vote for VMRO-DPMNE, they are pressurising voters, [conducting] family voting, [applying] pressures on the administration and users of social benefits,” Marinela Tuseva of the SDSM told a press conference.

According to the results published so far by the SEC, the ruling party will have 61 legislators in the 123-seat parliament. The coalition it led in the outgoing legislature had 53 MPs.

The opposition led by SDSM is now set to have 34 MPs, fewer than after the 2011 early general election when it won 42 parliamentary seats.

The DUI will have 19 legislators and the DPA seven. The newly-formed Citizen’s Option for Macedonia, GROM, and the National Democratic Party, NDP, will have one MP each.

International observers from the OSCE/ODIHR election monitoring mission will deliver their preliminary assessment of the elections later on Monday.

The post Macedonia Ruling Party Triumphs In Disputed Elections appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Andy Dabilis

Four years after Greece entered the economic crisis, there are signs the reforms sought by the international lenders have begun to pay off, experts said.

The government floated a sovereign bond for the first time since the crisis started, following a report that Greece will achieve a primary surplus of 1.4 billion euros. The EU’s statistics agency Eurostat certified the amount of the surplus last week (April 23rd).

During the crisis, Greece has been unable to borrow in international markets.

“The reception of the five-year bond has exceeded all expectations. International markets have expressed, beyond any possible doubt, their confidence in the Greek economy,” Prime Minister Antonis Samaras said.

The government said it hoped to raise 2.5 billion euros, but raised 3 billion euros at 4.75 percent in an issue that drew 600 bidders, particularly from the US and the UK.

The success comes only two years after investors suffered 74 percent losses as Greece wrote down its debt, which is still 310 billion euros.

“[The] successful bond issuance is a first but clear step in restoring market access for Greece. However, it should also be a reason to stay the course of reforms and strengthen the recovery under way,” said Siim Kallas, vice president of the European Commission.

“This is good news,” Antonis Klapsis, head of research for the Konstantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy in Athens, told SETimes. “After four painful years, Greece is getting back to the markets, which means that the markets are actually trusting Greece again.”

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde described the sale as an indication that Greece is “heading in the right direction and the water testing that the authorities wanted to do is really successful.”

Samaras vowed to allocate 70 percent of the surplus to the most affected austerity victims as a social dividend, although some critics said the offer is being made to bolster support for his coalition government ahead of local elections in May.

Klapsis said the sale is a clear sign the Greek economy is on the upswing.

“In the medium-term that means the people, especially those who were hit by austerity, are going to experience the positive effects of economic growth,” he said.

Experts said many tasks remain in addition to the revenue-related actions. They include implementing stalled privatisation and breaking monopolies on certain professions such as lawyers and pharmacists, along with other deeper structural changes.

A Foundation for Economic & Industrial Research (IOBE) report released this month supported government work on those issues.

“The fiscal results are very satisfactory and Greece has produced results the hard way. The successful bond sale helped, but Greece will not begin to return to even a slight growth until the second half of this year,” Aggelos Tsakanikas, director of research at IOBE, told SETimes.

Tsakanikas said the big question is whether the government will be able to make the achievement sustainable during the next year.

“If the economy recovers, we could see some positive things. But right now, we are creating expectations,” he said.

The post Reforms Push Greece To Economic Recovery appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The escalating crisis in Ukraine is putting journalists and political activists at increasing risk of political-motivated violence, such as unlawful detention, abduction and assaults, Human Rights Watch said today. Steps to address the political crisis should include undertakings to end abuses against perceived opponents, the immediate release of all those held unlawfully, and accountability for criminal acts.

In several towns and cities in eastern Ukraine, anti-Kiev forces and their supporters threatened and harassed journalists, political activists, and others they suspect of supporting the authorities in Kiev. The abuses are most acute in Sloviansk, where armed men who seized control of the city have kidnapped more than two dozen people, including journalists, political activists, international military observers, and those they have accused of being “spies.”

“All politically motivated violence against journalists and activists is unacceptable and has to stop,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Ukrainian authorities need to redouble efforts to protect people of all political stripes. International actors with leverage over the parties should press them to end abuses, release those unlawfully held, and ensure those responsible will be held to account.”

A pro-Kiev politician, Vladimir Rybak, was found dead near Sloviansk on April 19, after he was last seen being pushed into a car by masked men. Found with him was the body of a 19-year-old student, Yuriy Propavko, who had been active in the Maidan protest movement. Journalists in several other cities have received serious threats from anonymous sources.

In Kiev members of the pro-Kiev nationalist political party Svoboda attackedthe director of a television station Channel 1, claiming the station’s reporting was pro-Russian. Mobs in Kiev and Kharkiv have attacked political activists on both sides of the political divide.

Human Rights Watch said authorities throughout Ukraine should thoroughly investigate all incidents of abuse and hold perpetrators to account. Russia pledged to help secure the release of the international observers held in Sloviansk and Human Rights Watch urged Moscow also to press pro-Russian militants to release all those they have captured and to halt abuses.

Human Rights Watch also urged the European Union and the United States to press the interim government in Kiev to ensure that efforts to disarm members of paramilitary groups holding illegal weapons include the extreme nationalist paramilitary group Right Sector. The government should hold Right Sector to account for all criminal acts attributable to its members.

Human Rights Watch researchers in eastern Ukraine documented abuses committed by non-state actors in Sloviansk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, and Konstantinovka. The situation was most acute in Sloviansk, where on April 25 armed militants kidnapped eight military observers with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), together with five Ukrainian military escorts. One of the observers was released on April 27 on medical grounds. Others being unlawfully held include Serhiy Lefter, a 24-year old Ukrainian freelance journalist whose last contact with his family or friends was April 15; a computer programmer, Artem Deyneha; a deputy in Sloviansk city council, Vadim Sukhonos; a journalist and Kiev-based Euromaidan activist, Irma Krat.

On April 20, anti-Kiev forces seized control of the Sloviansk television transmitter and forced off the air two local stations, CTV and CTV+, which were replaced with Russian channels. Two days later, armed men stopped and threatened at gunpoint local journalists who wanted to get their equipment from the transmitter building, searched their car and forced them to leave.

On April 16, 10 men, some armed, broke into the dormitory room of Roman Guba, 20, a journalist who is openly pro-united Ukraine in his reporting. They waited for him for an hour and left, taking his identity documents and computer and other equipment. Guba later left Sloviansk for safety reasons.

On April 6, in Kharkiv a large, anti-Kiev mob attacked about 20 people who had participated in a pro-Ukraine unity concert that day. The police had tried to create a security corridor to facilitate the concert participants’ escape, but the anti-Kiev mob reached the participants, beating them for over an hour as they tried to move along the corridor. One of the victims, Viktor Ryabko, lost seven teeth and sustained multiple injuries, including a broken finger, cuts, bruising and internal injuries. On April 14 in Kiev, an angry mob of about 150 attacked Oleg Tsarev, an anti-Kiev presidential candidate, as he was leaving a television studio, pelting him with eggs and screaming, “Kill him!”

Human Rights Watch also received information about other human rights abuses connected to the political conflict. A lawyer for a pro-federation political leader, Pavel Gubarev, told Human Rights Watch that Gubarev was denied access to a lawyer for 16 hours after he was detained in Donetsk and transferred to Kiev overnight on April 6. The lawyer also told Human Rights Watch that she was aware of several cases in which anti-Kiev activists were arrested in Donetsk and transferred to Kiev with what she alleged were due process violations under Ukrainian law, such as not informing the detainees’ relatives about their arrest or whereabouts.

“Many people in Ukraine, on both sides of the political divide, have deep grievances that derive from human rights abuses, impunity, corruption and distrust in authorities,” said Williamson. “To end the violence the authorities need to address grievances in a manner that is meaningful and based on rule of law.”

In the current environment of politically motivated violence, it is critical that the OSCE and the United Nations continue their independent, impartial, timely and public human rights reporting. Human Rights Watch urged both bodies to provide spot reports focused on human rights developments, and where possible identify those considered responsible for violations.

The post Ukraine: End Politically Motivated Abuses, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Commenting on the April 29 bungled execution of a death row inmate at the state penitentiary, Oklahoma City’s archbishop has called for a reconsideration of capital punishment.

“We certainly need to administer justice with due consideration for the victims of crime, but we must find a way of doing so that does not contribute to the culture of death, which threatens to completely erode our sense of the innate dignity of the human person and of the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death,” Archbishop Paul Coakley said April 30.

Inmate Clayton Lockett was administered a sedative at 6:23 p.m., according to the BBC. Ten minutes later, he was said to be unconscious and was given lethal injection, but soon began to writhe and breathe heavily.

Cary Aspinwall, a journalist with the Tulsa World, was covering the execution, and tweeted that at 6:37, “Lockett was not unconscious and said something is wrong,” and that two minutes later, he was lifting his head and that officials “closed curtain and stopped it.”

It was announced that Lockett did not die until 7:06, of a massive heart attack.

Robert Patton, Oklahoma’s corrections director, stated that Lockett’s vein failed during the execution, preventing the lethal drugs from working as they were intended.

“The execution of Clayton Lockett really highlights the brutality of the death penalty,” Archbishop Coakley reflected. “And I hope it leads us to consider whether we should adopt a moratorium on the death penalty or even abolish it altogether.”

“How we treat criminals says a lot about us as a society.”

“Once we recover our understanding that life is a gift from our Creator, wholly unearned and wholly unmerited by any of us, we will begin to recognize that there are and ought to be very strict limits to the legitimate use of the death penalty,” the archbishop continued.

“It should never be used, for example, to exact vengeance, nor should it be allowed simply as a deterrent. In general, there are others ways to administer just punishment without resorting to lethal measures.”

Lockett had been convicted of shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman in 1999, and watching as two accomplices buried her alive.

Following the failed execution, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin issued a 14-day stay on the execution of death row inmate Charles Warner, who had been scheduled for lethal injection following that of Lockett.

Warner’s attorney, Madeline Cohen, commented that “after weeks of Oklahoma refusing to disclose basic information about the drugs for tonight’s lethal injection procedures, tonight, Clayton Lockett was tortured to death. Until much more is known about tonight’s failed experiment of an execution, no execution can be permitted in Oklahoma.”

Several states have moved away from capital punishment in recent years. Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper granted a “temporary reprieve” from execution to inmate Nathan Dunlap in May 2013, saying, “Colorado’s system of capital punishment is imperfect and inherently inequitable. Such a level of punishment really does demand perfection.”

And in February, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington announced a moratorium on the death penalty, noting that “there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system” and that there are “too many flaws in this system today.”

In total, 18 U.S. states have abolished capital punishment.

Archbishop Coakley’s statement concluded urging prayer “for peace for all those affected by or involved in last night’s execution in any way – including Lockett himself, his family, prison officials and others who witnessed the event.”

“My compassion and prayers go out especially to the family of Stephanie Neiman.”

The post Botched Execution Shows Death Penalty’s Brutality, Bishop Says appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Receipts of domestic crude oil at East Coast (PADD 1) refineries in January were approximately equal to receipts of foreign crude oil (Figure 1), reflecting a very significant change from recent experience. In January 2013, domestic crude oil was only 18% of total PADD 1 crude receipts, and in January 2012 domestic crude accounted for just 5% of PADD 1 receipts.

Rising U.S. crude oil production in the Bakken formation in North Dakota combined with the expansion of crude-by-rail infrastructure, which has facilitated movement of Bakken crude to PADD 1, have contributed to the increase in domestic crude oil supply to East Coast refineries.

Bakken crude oil is a good fit for most East Coast refineries, which generally favor a light sweet crude slate. As previously discussed in TWIP, there has been substantial investment in crude-by-rail infrastructure on the East Coast to accommodate receipts of Bakken crude at PADD 1 refineries and many crude-by-rail unloading facilities are now operational. Merchant terminal operators Global Partners LP and Buckeye Partners LP own storage terminals in Albany, New York, into which crude is delivered by rail and from which crude is shipped out by barge, down the Hudson River to refineries in New York Harbor and Philadelphia. PBF Energy Inc., which owns and operates two refineries on the East Coast, in Delaware City, Delaware, and Paulsboro, New Jersey, built a crude-by-rail unloading facility at its Delaware City refinery that has an estimated capacity of 120,000 barrels per day (bbl/d). Additionally, Sunoco Logistics owns a 40,000-bbl/d rail unloading facility in New Jersey, near the Philadelphia refining center.

The lower cost of Bakken crude oil compared to imported crude oil has provided the impetus for investing in the crude-by-rail facilities that enable PADD 1 refiners to receive more domestic crude. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects data from refiners on the acquisition cost of both domestic and imported crude oil. The refiner acquisition cost of crude oil (RAC) is the weighted average cost of crude oil, including transportation and other fees paid by the refiner. From 2004 through 2008, East Coast RAC for domestic crude oil averaged $2.30 per barrel (bbl) more than for imported crude oil and was higher than imported RAC in 80% of months during that 5-year range. Since 2009, the opposite has been true. Domestic RAC has averaged $5.80/bbl below imported RAC. As the discount for domestic RAC increased to nearly $15/bbl in 2011, reflecting the changing relationship of U.S. and global crude oil prices, investment in rail unloading facilities increased. In 2012 the domestic RAC discount narrowed to less than $8/bbl and in 2013 domestic and imported RACs converged as the cost to acquire and move Bakken crude oil to the East Coast reached parity with the cost to import waterborne crude oil from the Atlantic Basin.

Although EIA does not collect monthly crude-by-rail statistics, it is possible to estimate crude-by-rail movements to PADD 1 by subtracting regional crude production and PADD-to-PADD crude oil movements via pipeline, tanker, and barge from the region’s total domestic crude receipts. This calculation indicates that East Coast refinery receipts of domestic crude oil by rail were roughly 400,000 bbl/d in January and February 2014.

Total East Coast receipts of domestic crude oil have increased significantly in recent years. After averaging less than 80,000 bbl/d in 2012, PADD 1 domestic crude receipts rose to more than 290,000 bbl/d in 2013 and reached nearly 490,000 bbl/d in January 2014. Production in PADD 1 is limited, having averaged 31,000 bbl/d in 2013 and in January 2014. Crude oil movements from PADDs 2 (Midwest) and 3 (Gulf Coast) to PADD 1 via pipeline, tanker, and barge averaged less than 50,000 bbl/d in 2013 and were just under 40,000 bbl/d in January 2014. Because PADD 1 refinery receipts of domestic crude oil have consistently exceeded the sum of regional production and pipeline and marine movements from adjacent PADDs, it suggests that crude oil is entering the area by modes of transportation for which EIA does not collect data, primarily rail.

As East Coast refineries have increased receipts of domestic crude oil, imports to the region have steadily declined. East Coast imports of crude oil, which averaged 1.1 million bbl/d from 2008 to 2012, reached a record low of 775,000 bbl/d in 2013 and were just 524,000 bbl/d in January 2014.

Access to Bakken crude oil has provided PADD 1 refiners with crude selection flexibility, but refinery crude slates will continue to be a function of relative crude prices. In February 2014 (the latest month for which data are available), East Coast receipts of imported crude oil were slightly higher than domestic receipts, suggesting that refiners in the region can react to price movements in their crude sourcing decision.

Gasoline and diesel fuel prices increase

The U.S. average retail gasoline price increased three cents this week to $3.71 per gallon as of April 28, 2014, 19 cents more than the same time last year. The West Coast price rose five cents to $4.07 per gallon, while the East Coast and Rocky Mountain prices both increased four cents, to $3.71 per gallon and $3.48 per gallon respectively. The Midwest price rose two cents to $3.66 per gallon, and Gulf Coast prices were unchanged at $3.49 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price rose by less than a penny to $3.98 per gallon, 12 cents more than the same time last year. The West Coast price increased three cents to $4.06 per gallon. The Rocky Mountain price rose by less than a penny to remain at $3.98 per gallon, while Gulf Coast and Midwest prices remained flat, at $3.82 per gallon and $3.95 per gallon respectively. Prices on the East Coast showed the only decline, falling half a cent to remain at $4.07 per gallon.

Propane inventories gain

U.S. propane stocks increased by 2.0 million barrels last week to 31.5 million barrels as of April 25, 2014, 8.9 million barrels (22.1%) lower than a year ago. Midwest and Gulf Coast inventories both increased by 0.8 million barrels. East Coast inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels, while Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories remained unchanged. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 10.1% of total propane inventories.

The post Domestic Crude Makes Up Half Of US East Coast Refinery Receipts In January 2014 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.