As India becomes a more powerful player in the global hierarchy and strengthens ties with the United States—despite occasional setbacks—China construes that it is in its best interest to turn towards Pakistan to fend off the Indo-U.S. alliance in South and East Asia.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani traveled to China in May 2011 to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Described as “higher than mountains and deeper than oceans”, these bilateral relations are crucial to both Beijing and Islamabad. At a time when Central and South Asia, particularly Pakistan, are under intense scrutiny for their contribution to the fight against extremism and terrorism, the great powers have been keeping a close eye on evolving Pakistani-Chinese relations.

After Bin Laden’s assassination, China was perhaps the only powerful country that openly expressed its support for Pakistan for having its territorial integrity violated. During his visit to Pakistan in December 2010, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (2003-2013) stated,“Pakistan has made huge sacrifices and an important contribution to the international fight against terrorism, that its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be respected, and that the international community should understand and support Pakistan’s efforts to maintain domestic stability and to realize economic and social development.” Wen added that China wishes to be an “all-weather strategic partner” and is “ready to assist Pakistan and its population to weather their political and economic troubles.’”

China moved quickly from mere rhetoric to action by immediately delivering 50 new JF-17 Thunder multi-functional fighter jets and a promise to provide Pakistan with combat aircrafts with stealth technology. In addition, the state-owned Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea west of Karachi, in which the Chinese have invested heavily in recent years, is now operated by China and serves to enhance China’s naval projection capabilities in South Asia. In Pakistan-China talks, Islamabad has offered Beijing to convert the Gwadar port into a naval base for Chinese use. Beijing’s response, however, came quickly. Fearful of antagonizing Washington and New Delhi, it rejected the offer of formally establishing a military base in Pakistan.

Why this relationship?

Pakistan’s relationship with China can be characterized as deep and multi-faceted, buttressed by mutual trust and confidence. Islamabad’s priority has been to maintain close ties with China. In return it benefited from China’s extensive provision of economic, military and technical aid over the years. Moreover, Pakistan was instrumental in China’s cultivation of relations with the U.S.—and the West more generally—in the early 1970s. It acted as a behind-the-scene mediator prior to the secret trip of then-U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger to China in July 1971 and enabled China to develop closer ties the larger Muslim world.

For a number of years now, China has proved to be Pakistan’s largest weapons supplier. The two countries are engaged large joint projects to produce, among other armaments, fighter jets and guided-missile frigates. China is a reliable supplier of military hardware to the corrupt-stricken Pakistani army. It has actively shared in the development of Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure and helped Pakistan acquire equipments and technology at a time when protectionism was on the rise in Western countries.

In this sense, the Pakistani nuclear weapons program is highly dependent on the Chinese one. China is possibly the first country which broke the pledge to the 1967 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by declared nuclear states (including the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, and more recently India and Pakistan) not to export to non-nuclear states either weapons-grade fissile material or nuclear weapons components or technologies.

On the economic front, bilateral trade between China and Pakistan amounted to $12 billion in 2012. Pakistan appreciates China’s economic aid more than what it receives from the U.S., since the latter always attaches “strings” to its assistance programs. Calls are being heard in Pakistan to make China, not the U.S., the strongest ally in its foreign policy, especially in the context of intense U.S. pressure on the civilian government of President Mamnoon Hussain to increase efforts in fighting local and international terrorism.

Two factors have helped these calls gain traction and become popular: 1) China’s recent ascendance to the stratus of a leading global economic power; and 2) the increased cooperation between India and the U.S. Many Pakistani observers accuse Washington of using Pakistan to defend its selfish interests and achieve its larger strategic agenda. China, on the contrary, is viewed as a dependable ally that has rarely hesitated to offer help to Pakistan when India showed signs of aggressiveness or toughness. That explains Pakistan’s readiness to give China ‘carte blanche’ in India-Pakistani peace talks or in the negotiation over the status of Kashmir.

As India makes quick strides in the global political hierarchy and strengthens its ties with the U.S., the role of Pakistan in China’s foreign policy is likely to grow. An emerging India enhances Pakistan’s importance in China’s strategy towards the subcontinent. No one is expecting a change in the China-Pakistan partnership, as it serves the interests of both countries. In particular, India is confronted with the prospect of a two-front war should a breakdown in its relations with either China or Pakistan occur. Beijing’s good chemistry with Islamabad reached its zenith in the wake of Bin Laden’s death and the uproar in Washington to deal firmly with Pakistan.

For China, Pakistan is an increasingly important country in addressing the challenge posed by the U.S. and India. South Asia is being transformed into an essential new front in the strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China, as well as between China and India, and the region’s weigh in global politics is likely to increase in coming years.

Richard Rousseau is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the American University of Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. His research, teaching and consulting interests include Russian politics, Eurasian geopolitics, international political economy and globalization.

This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier’s May/June 2014 print edition. This article appeared at Diplomatic Courier and is reprinted with permission.

The post How China And Pakistan Shift The Balance Of Power In South Asia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Journalist and activist Wu Wei, a former Beijing-based reporter for the South China Morning Post, reportedly arrested by Beijing police, has not been heard from by family or friends for several days.

Several Hong Kong media outlets reported the arrest, based on messages published on the Weibo social network, then relayed by journalist and blogger Wen Yunchao. No information has been released on why she would have been arrested. But the action may stem from her support for the release of human rights advocate Pu Zhiqiang.

Reporters Without Borders demands an immediate explanation from the Beijing government.

The news followed by one day the arrest of Xiang Nanfu, a regular contributor to the Boxun news website. Several days before that came an official announcement that journalist Gao Yu had been placed in criminal detention. She has not been heard from for more than one week.

“As in the case of Gao Yu, the fact that a committed journalist such as Wu Wei has not been heard from is of the utmost concern,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, head of the press freedom organization’s Asia-Pacific desk. “All the more so because the police are stepping up the pace of kidnap-style arrests as the anniversary of the Tienanmin Square events approaches.”

Ismaïl added: “In the absence of charges against her, we demand that Wu Wei be released immediately.”

Information concerning the journalist’s arrest had circulated on 13 May on Weibo. But, at her family’s request, word of the detention did not immediately circulate more widely.

In the run-up to the 25-year anniversary of the Tian’anmen massacre,arrests of dissidents and censorship operations are on the increase in China. The country is ranked 175th out of 180 countries in the 2014 Reporters Without Borders World press freedom index.

The post Chinese Journalist Still Held After One Week appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Monish Tourangbam

Although the US government has tried to soften the China element in its rebalancing strategy, it remains ubiquitous, with Beijing undoubtedly seeing it as a ‘China containment’ policy. The centrality of India’s role in this strategy and its approach to this strategy is still debated and remains ambiguous; however, India’s rising strategic capabilities and aspirations make it a protagonist in the changing dynamics of the Asia-Pacific.

The rebalancing strategy accords particular significance to the evolving strategic partnership with India. A more pragmatic India-US relationship based on shared interests and not mere shared values will be germane to mapping out the future of this partnership and its impact in the Asia-Pacific.

However, given the checkered history of the India-US relationship, a lingering sense of mistrust still hinders the relationship to some extent, with India often being seen as a reluctant partner and the US as an unreliable power. The document Non-Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First Century pointed out that maintaining strategic autonomy is germane to India’s foreign policy. It emphasised that many Asian powers were “looking to hedge their bets against excessive dependence on a major power.” Indians remember how the US during the Cold War, in regular fashion, offered rhetorical flourishes on how it had discernible stakes in the success of India as a democratic counterweight against a Communist China. But, the same US later courted the Chinese through rapprochement, offering a red carpet welcome to ‘red China’ to the UN Security Council.

US’ complex tango with China certainly leaves India nervous and concerned about the prospects of a power condominium between a power in relative decline and a power seeing an undoubted rise. India is wary that China’s relatively increasing power vis-à-vis the US could lead to the US accommodating China to the detriment of India’s interests in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, domestic opposition to an overt alliance with the US also accounts for India’s cautious and ambivalent approach to the rebalancing strategy.

Hence, the strategic imperatives of the India-US relationship need to be nurtured and cannot be left on auto-pilot. One of the most salient areas of convergence is the one perceived between US’ rebalancing strategy and India’s Look East Policy (LEP). Both of these are broad-based policies that see each country’s national interests through a more stable and secure Asia with interdependent economies built on the principle of mutualism. But, at the same time, both also aim at precluding the rise of an uncertain Asia with an aggressive power free to resort to unilateral moves in the region.

The string of relationships that the US has formed with Southeast Asian countries is in strategic unison with the kind of relationships that India has been building with its Southeast Asian partners through the LEP. The management of China’s rise is rendered more complex by the increasing economic interdependence that exists between China and these countries, that has nevertheless failed to translate into greater strategic trust. In other words, despite the economic content of the relationship, there is also enough clarity that India, the US and most of the Southeast Asian countries do not want to see the rise of a China that could destabilise Asia. Reports have fairly concluded that the rise of India’s capabilities and aspirations in Asia and at the global level is in the interest of the US, and that the sustenance of US’ power and influence in Asia and globally is in the interest of India.

The future of the ‘strategic partnership’ between the two countries clearly lies in a pragmatic and nuanced understanding of why India and the US need each other, what the US expects India to do, what India can and is willing to do, what India expects the US to do, and what the US is capable of and willing to do. A 21st century partnership between the two countries based on shared interests necessitates a more honest understanding and acceptance of differences, rather than harbouring utopian ideas of commonalities.

The rebalancing strategy undoubtedly presents both opportunities and challenges for India. New Delhi is not blind to the strategic logic that guides the rebalancing strategy and the role that India could play in it as an emerging power of regional and global reckoning. But at the same time, the emerging geopolitics and geoeconomics of Asia-Pacific are both too intertwined and interdependent for politics of ‘curtains’ and ‘walls’ to be played à la the Cold War. Every country gives primacy to the management of China’s rise, and China is itself very much involved in managing its own rise in the international system. A globalised world demands a more shrewd game of maneouvering amidst dangerous minefields of regional and global politics. Hence, while Washington needs to more seriously factor in India’s strategic autonomy, New Delhi needs to take due cognizance of the deterrent capability that a well-managed rebalancing strategy could have in the region.

Monish Tourangbam
Assistant Professor, Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University

The post Rebalancing: Where Does India Figure? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Republican Party establishment – read the corporatist U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their incumbent toadies controlling the Party in Congress – is in the process of vanquishing the Tea Party. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, predicted as much when he told the New York Times in March that his brand of corporate Republicanism is going to “crush” challengers that Republican incumbents will face in their primaries.

The plan to “crush” the Tea Party candidates is detailed, very well-funded and working. During the early primaries in North Carolina, big Republican money gave state legislator, Thom Tillis, a big victory over his Tea Party opponent, Greg Bannon. Other Tea Party challengers in Kentucky and South Carolina have since withered, although, this Tuesday, the Nebraska U.S. Senate Republican Primary was won by a Tea Party-backed candidate.

The establishment GOPers and their strategist, George W. Bush’s Karl Rove, want to win. They want no more candidates like Sharron Angle (Nevada) or Christine O’Donnell (Delaware) winning Senate primaries only to self-destruct in the general election with Democrats. They want to avoid a repeat of the 2010 now-self-described nightmare.

For two election cycles – 2010 and 2012 – the GOP recognized and welcomed the energy that the Tea Partiers brought to the Republican Party and tried, with some success, to ride these dynamics backed by daily Fox News reporting. The loss to Obama in 2012 and the final straw – the unpopular government shutdown in 2013 driven by Senator Ted Cruz– convinced the GOP bosses to give up on assimilation or compromise with Tea Partiers, whether back home or in the Congress.

Finally a frustrated Speaker John Boehner smacked them down, joining Senator McConnell and the Wall Street money men in an undeclared war against the hard-core Tea Partiers who refused to compromise their beliefs. What the National Journal calls “the scorched-earth primary strategy” by the GOP is more than heavy TV advertising. It includes “opposition research” against the challengers and other heavy assaults that are usually reserved for November battles against Democrats.

The next month of state primaries will likely register GOP victories against Tea Party candidates, deploying the usual mantras of “less government, lower taxes and deregulation” to show their voters that the members of the GOP establishment are conservative and not RINOS (Republicans in Name Only).

Of course, rebellious Republicans have heard these mantras before only to see the GOP revert back to Wall Street over Main Street, global corporations over small businesses, and ever bigger government contracts and crony capitalism, with lower taxes for the rich and powerful and more burdens on the struggling majority of workers, regardless of their political labels.

After being knocked out in the primaries of 2014, will the Tea Partiers give up and go back into the fold, disrespected and marginalized? Will they do as many of the progressive left have done, which is to signal that they have nowhere to go, lose their bargaining power and choose to accept the “least worst” candidate on Tea Party issues between the GOP and the Democrats?

If they do that, they will fade into history. On the other hand, they can pursue an agenda that distinguishes “conservatism” from “corporatism.” They can oppose crony capitalism and its corporate state, slam sovereignty-shredding and job-destroying managed trade agreements, and press for more civil liberties with less government and corporate snooping.

They can push for breaking up the giant “too big to fail” banks, to prevent another economic crash, and support community-owned and controlled businesses. They can oppose unconstitutional wars and Empire. In short, these redirections mirror a Ron Paul political philosophy that has significant public support.

The Tea Party already has some formidable assets; widespread mass media name recognition, proven human energy, voter turnout skills, fundraising capabilities, supportive conservative think tank support and, unfortunately, little electoral competition for the above-mentioned objectives. And Tea Partiers show up! They are not prone to being armchair advocates.

The Tea Party even has nationally known candidates, sympathetic Senators and Governors, who, if amenable, could be their standard-bearers.

On the downside, the Tea Party’s positions on many health and safety regulatory issues and social services are not shared by a majority of the electorate. Also their preferred candidates for the White House are not likely to bolt the GOP. Rand Paul, for example, may try for more than one election cycle to show he can appeal to mainstream Republicans.

Nonetheless, the possibility of the Tea Partiers getting at least five to ten percent of the total vote in 2016 may be enough to attract leveraged politics against a two-party tyranny.

In our decaying, monetized self-seeking political auctions, it would be refreshing were authentic libertarian conservatives to take on the imperious corporatists who have such minimal allegiances to our country and its people.

The post Ralph Nader: Time For A Real Tea Party In 2016 – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Because of American intervention, Ukraine is embroiled in what can only be described as a civil war. For the past two weeks, the Ukrainians coupists supported by the United States and NATO have openly massacred their fellow citizens with the tacit approval of the White House and without exposure from the American corporate media.

The United States behaves like a caricature of action movie villains, an evil empire which foments violence around the world in order to have its way. Yet there is nothing cartoonish about the dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia and Syria and now Ukraine. There is no great mystery to America’s awful but very simple motive.

The United States wants to maintain its status as the world’s only superpower and makes the rest of humanity its enemy in the process. If the United States controls the world the dollar will remain the world’s reserve currency. In order for this to happen the upstart BRIC nations have to remain upstarts and that means that they must be destabilized whenever and wherever possible. The project for a new American century can be realized and every nation will have to bow to America’s whims. That is the nightmarish vision of this president and of anyone who yearns to capture that position after him. The feverish pace of the Asia pivot meant to encircle China is matched only by the plan to dispatch Russia economically – and ultimately, militarily. American imperialism is on the march.

The Ukrainian catastrophe was unknown to most Americans until this February, when the elected prime minister was forced to step down by a mob financed and directed by the United States. But the chaos had been conducted in secret for a long time, part of a plan by a succession of American presidents from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama to expand NATO and surround Russia with unfriendly nations.

On May 2, 2014, Americans would have been shocked to see what their government had wrought, but one can’t be outraged if information is hidden. On that date, opponents of the newly installed government were attacked by neo-nazi gangs in Odessa. They were peacefully protesting when their encampment was attacked and burned down. They fought back before seeking refuge in a trades union hall where estimates of between 50 and 100 died. Some were shot and some burned to death when the building was set on fire by the mob. Euromaidan PR even posted gruesome footage of the inferno victims and labeled the dead as “terrorists,” making no effort to hide their role in the massacre.Those acts were repeated one week later on May 9^th in the city of Mariupol where a police station was set on fire and more deaths and injuries occurred.

The United States and its media allies are repeating the proven plan of attack which has worked so well in the past. Their propaganda ceaselessly demonizes the next target, in this case Russian president Vladimir Putin. Putin did not overthrow the Ukrainian elected government and light the stick of dynamite. The United States and the rest of NATO did that. Yet media outlets ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to MSNBC ceaselessly repeat the Putin as villain canard.

Putin even tried to dissuade the eastern Ukrainian regions from holding referendums which would allow them to become part of Russia. He moved his troops away from the Ukrainian border and presented his own peace proposal but none of these actions made a difference to the people determined to destabilize his government or to the media who follow them compliantly and repeat their lies.

“If there were questions about the legitimacy of the separatist referendums in eastern Ukraine, the farcical names of the entities on which people were asked to vote — the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk or Luhansk — surely answered them.” This juvenile mockery from the New York Times is a sorry substitute for journalism. Instead of examining why large segments of the Ukrainian population want no part of the west’s puppet government, they sneer at the call for self-determination.

The blame for this crisis can be placed squarely with the western nations and blame will also be placed on them if hostilities become more widespread. Obama and his cohorts in all likelihood don’t want a war, but may stumble onto one because of their desperation. It wouldn’t be the first time in history that unintended consequences brought ruin to millions of people.

The CIA director thought he was sneaking into Kiev covertly, as if no one knows what he looks like. Diplomat Victoria Nuland was caught speaking on an unsecure line clearly admitting that the United States was choosing the new Ukrainian leadership. Obama and his team are not as smart as they think and that makes it likely that they will make decisions that are costly to the entire world.

But it is important to remember that the rest of the world hasn’t acquiesced completely. Russia’s Gazprom handed Ukraine a $1.6 billion bill to continue supplying natural gas and China and Russia will soon sign their own 30-year energy agreement. While Russia makes the best of a bad situation, Vice President Biden’s son takes a position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. The gangsterism is all too blatant.

The American plan for domination doesn’t just assume coups and interventions but also its own invincibility. The road to hell isn’t just paved with good intentions but with arrogance and stupidity and America has an excess of both.

The post America Brings Hell To Ukraine – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the latest MSCI semi-annual review certain Pakistani scrips were added to or removed from the MSCI Frontier Market 100 Index and MSCI FM Small Cap Index. In this article an effort has been made to analyze the likely impact of this review on Pakistani market and the upgrading of Pakistan State Oil Company (PSO) from MSCI FM Small Cap Index to MSCI FM 100 Index along with an outlook and recommendation on the scrip.

Qatar and UAE witnessed a one notch jump in the MSCI announcement and upgraded to MSCI Emerging Market Index from MSCI Frontier Index, resulting in 23 deletions from the Frontier Index. The sizeable deletions allowed new inclusions and weight increase of existing constituents.

As a result, Pakistan’s weight in the MSCI FM Index is expected to double to approximately 9.5%. The inclusions from Pakistan in MSCI FM 100 Index are PSO, LUCK, KEL, and PAKT while the deletion includes HUBCO. Moreover, certain additions and deletions of Pakistani stocks in the MSCI FM Small Cap index was also evident.  Analysts expect, the foreign inflows to grow as foreign funds track the respective indices as they become effective thus boost activity at the local bourse.

PSO regained its position in the MSCI FM Index review while the same was dropped from MSCI FM Index in May 2013. The inclusion in MSCI FM Index is likely to bring more foreign investment in the Company as tracking funds rebalance their holdings.

In addition to this news, PSO’s strong fundamentals further justify ‘buy’ instance on the scrip. However, PSO’s share price witnessed a significant drop from its recent high of Rs454 per share on account of liquidity crunch and resultant default on its international payments. Further, as per latest media reports, the Government of Pakistan (GoP) is planning to issue term finance certificates (TFCs) amounting Rs31 billion in coming week along with cash injection of Rs25 billion to provide liquidity relief to the Company.

PSO is currently trading at FY14E P/E of 5.5X based on normalized earnings and DY of 3.5%. We recommend ‘Buy’ on the stock with Jun’14 TP of Rs480/share providing an upside of 25% from current levels.

** One US Dollar is equal to Rs100

The post Pakistan: PSO Included In MSCI FM Index – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The approval rating of Russian President Vladimir Putin has reached 85.9 percent, a six-year high, according to polling data by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM).

“The approval of the actions of the President of the Russian Federation has been growing for five consecutive months already. Since April, Putin’s rating rose from 82.2 percent to 85.9 percent, and since the beginning of the year – by more than a third,” the pollster said.

“Thus, this figure is virtually identical to the one recorded six years ago,” the statement said, adding that the figure had only been higher once, in April 2008.

The high level of approval of the president is closely connected to the difficult situation in Ukraine, with some 52 percent of the respondents in the last week calling the events a major factor, as well as the Victory Day holiday (34 percent).

Support of the United Russia party has grown significantly over the past few months – from 41.7 percent in January to 60.4 percent in early May, also a six-year high, according to VTsIOM.

The opinion poll was conducted by VTsIOM May 10-11 across Russia. Some 1,600 people in 42 Russian regions participated in the survey.

The post Putin’s Approval Rating Reaches Six-Year High appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Last year was the third year in a row that North American refineries showed considerably higher profitability than European refineries as measured by earnings per barrel processed.

While many factors contribute to refinery profitability, lower North American crude oil prices compared with world prices have been a key factor driving this outcome. North American refiners’ earnings per barrel processed were more than $7 per barrel (bbl) higher than their European competitors in 2013, based on an analysis of 26 energy companies with refinery operations that submit financial and operating information by segment in annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Financial data by segment allow comparisons of just the refining business of global integrated companies—those that explore and drill for oil as well as refine it—with those that only refine crude oil into products. Earnings per barrel processed (Figure 1) takes a company’s earnings from its refining and marketing segment and divides it by its annual refinery runs, which is a useful measure for comparing large companies with smaller ones.

In this analysis, EIA compared 13 companies based in North America and 13 in Europe. Ten of these companies have nearly all their refinery throughput in North America, 10 others have nearly all their throughput in Europe, and 6 have refineries throughout the world. Total earnings in the refining segment for each grouping was divided by its total annual refinery runs to estimate earnings per barrel processed as shown in Figure 1. The scale of refinery runs varied widely across the companies in the sample selected, with 59,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) being the smallest and 4.6 million bbl/d being the largest in 2013. Earnings in the refining segment ranged from a loss of almost $2 billion for one company to a profit of $4.3 billion for another. Total refinery throughput for these companies averaged 25.6 million bbl/d in 2013, approximately 56% of total OECD liquid fuels consumption.

Refining profitability across the three groupings tended to move together during the 2004-10 period. European and North American refineries benefitted from a broad increase in gasoline and distillate prices from 2004 to 2006, with profitability falling during the 2008-09 financial crisis. However, as the global economy recovered after 2010, many North American refineries benefited from relatively lower prices for two key inputs, crude oil and natural gas. Increasing production of both crude oil and natural gas contributed to lower feedstock costs in North America compared to international prices.

As North American crude oil production increased from new tight oil plays, U.S. imports of crude oil steadily decreased. Production increases since 2011 led to bottlenecks in the Midcontinent, depressing U.S. average refiner acquisition costs compared with Brent (North Sea), with discounts averaging more than $9/bbl from 2011 to 2013 (Figure 2). This crude discount tended to benefit companies with refineries in the interior of the United States and Canada.

In 2013, Gulf Coast refiners began to see increased earnings because of lower crude costs after some of the infrastructure bottlenecks to move crude oil to the Gulf Coast were removed and prices of Light Louisiana Sweet (LLS) crude began to trade at a discount to Brent. Product prices in North America, however, continued to be driven by international crude oil prices and petroleum product markets. Crack spreads, the difference between the purchase price of crude oil and the wholesale selling price of refined products, on the Gulf Coast increased in late 2013, and have remained high in 2014.

North American refineries have been able to run at relatively high rates because their crude oil and natural gas costs were low and global product prices remained high. Refinery runs for North American companies rose 27% from 2010 to 2013, while the European companies’ refinery runs declined 11%. The result was an increase in product exports, particularly from the U.S. Gulf Coast. As U.S. refineries increased runs to produce distillate, they also produced more gasoline and have taken some market share from Europe in Latin American and West African markets.

In 2014, U.S. crude prices remain discounted to Brent. Additionally, relatively cheaper natural gas prices in North America continue to provide U.S. and Canadian refineries with further energy feedstock price advantages compared with refineries in other parts of the world. Preliminary financial results from the first quarter suggest that North American refiners are maintaining higher profitability than their European rivals.

May Drilling Productivity Report indicates continuing oil production growth with upward revision in the Permian Basin
The May update to the Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) indicates continuing oil production growth in the key oil-producing regions. Cumulatively, in the Bakken, Niobrara, Permian, and Eagle Ford, oil production is expected to increase by 74,000 bbl/d in June 2014. The monthly growth rate is 4,000 bbl/d more than in May 2014. With new data from the Railroad Commission of Texas, the Permian region new-well oil production per rig was revised up to 132 bbl/d. EIA expects the Permian region to reach 1.535 million bbl/d of oil production in June 2014 as the rig count in the region reaches record highs.

Gasoline prices mostly decrease, diesel fuel prices down nationwide

The U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline decreased by two cents this week to $3.67 per gallon as of May 14, 2014, up seven cents from this time last year. Prices decreased in all regions except the Rocky Mountains, where the average rose one cent to $3.51 per gallon, and the Midwest, which increased by less than a penny to remain at $3.60 per gallon. The West Coast and Gulf Coast prices each decreased by three cents, to $4.02 and $3.44 per gallon respectively. The East Coast price is now $3.68 per gallon, down two cents from last week.

The national average diesel fuel price decreased two cents to $3.95 per gallon, up eight cents from the same time last year. Prices declined in all regions of the nation, led by a two-cent drop in the Gulf Coast to $3.80 per gallon. The East Coast, Midwest, West Coast, and Rocky Mountains each decreased one cent, to $4.04, $3.92, $4.04, and $3.97 per gallon respectively.

Propane inventories gain

U.S. propane stocks increased by 2.5 million barrels last week to 37.7 million barrels as of May 9, 2014, 4.1 million barrels (9.7%) lower than a year ago. Gulf Coast inventories increased by 1.4 million barrels and Midwest inventories increased by 0.8 million barrels. East Coast inventories increased by 0.2 million barrels and Rocky Mountain/ West Coast inventories increased by 0.1 million barrels. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 9.5% of total propane inventories.

The post Lower Crude Feedstock Costs Contribute To North American Refinery Profitability – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mahima Kaul

A friend recently blogged about the Indian elections and wrote in his post about a tweet from the Aam Admi Party’s Somnath Bharti, in frustration as he wasn’t able to upload a video of his party workers being beaten up in Amethi, that he would have done so if the broadband would have been better. It struck my friend as funny, at the time, but it struck me as very telling. Amethi could be considered one of India’s VIP constituencies, a stronghold of the Gandhi family. Even an offhand comment about the inadequacy of the quality of broadband exposes how far away India really is from not just proving the internet to its people, but providing quality access. It also made me wonder how governments of the day blame YouTube for their communal law and order problems, given that YouTube is painfully slow to load in New Delhi itself most of the time – but I digress.

If TV adverts were anything to go by, India is nodding along to “what an Idea sirjee” and a plethora of celebrities are using 3G to post silly videos of each other. Urban youth have no concerns outside Facebook and Twitter, and everyone seems to have only content to create, with the speed of broadband a given.

And then there is the mainstream media which reports on what “Twitter” is saying about any given subject, and either feeds off gossip and opinions on the social media platform or then tries to lead the discussion over there by asking its patrons to tweet using hashtags. Just to put it in context, India’s Twitter base is roughly 33 million, which is 2.75% of India’s entire population.

And, as far as the two national parties go, the BJP manifesto speaks of an innovative and technology driven society that is globally competitive. It mentions e-government at some length. The Congress manifesto too, talks of connecting every village in India with broadband in three years to open ‘vast new opportunities’, but no specific employment opportunities in urban and sei-urban areas. Currently, Karnataka, which boasts of India’s IT hub Bangalore, is under a Congress government. On another note, the Aam Aadmi Party, India’s first urban underdog political party talks about using information technology to promote transparency and reduce corruption in government. There is no other specific reference to the potential of the internet in India.

In fact, outside official lines in party mandates (and the most in the BJP’s), this election season has slowly seen the campaigns devolve from talk of development to the usual caste and communal equations. Therefore, it might be pertinent for them to be reminded about what is at stake right for the country in the coming years.

The numbers speak for themselves, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. As of February 2014, the number of broadband subscribers in India was 14.80 million, about 1.71% up from the previous month. Growing even more rapidly are the number of users access the internet through their mobiles or dongles, which stood at 42.81 million in February 2014, a growth of 2.05% from January 2014. The top five wired broadband providers in India are BSNL (9.98 million), Bharti (1.39 million), MTNL (1.10 million), YOU Broadband (0.37 million) and Beam Telecom (0.37 million). As for the top wireless broadband service providers, there is Bharti (10.60 million), Reliance (6.98 million), Idea (6.50 million), BSNL (6.38 million) and Vodafone (6.14 million).

Studies analyze the potential of the internet not just in social terms, but economic. A McKinsey report published in December 2013 called “Online and Upcoming: The Internet’s Impact on India” reveals that the Internet contributes 1.6% of India’s GDP, roughly $30 billion. The report says this could grow to 2.8 to 3.3% by 2015 if India achieves its potential for growth with respect to the number of Internet users and Internet technology-related consumption and investment. However, according to a joint report by KPMG and ASSOCHAM, India is currently losing about 70% of its new business in the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry to competitors like Philippines and Eastern Europe. This is in part because of rising costs in bigger metros, and the lack of English speaking employees. The solution lies not just in vocational training schemes but also in moving these offices to tier 2 and tier 3 cities. Not taking swift action could cost approximately $30 billion in foreign exchange earnings.

In country that ranks 123 in the world when it comes to average broadband connection speed and 125 in average peak connection speed, according to the ‘State of the Internet’ report by Akamai, this is a serious challenge. For example, in India, a broadband leader like Airtel offers speeds from 1 Mbps up to a maximum of 100 Mbps (on fiber based broadband network in urban Delhi) while in Guna,(a small town in MP), the range of offered broadband speed is from 512 kbps to 2 Mbps. In rural areas, BSNL offers speeds of 512 kbps to 2 mbps. However, experts say that the difference between actual and promised speed varies a lot from place to place. The actual speed could range from 90% but go as low was 20% of what is advertised. This is dependent on the network and the customer premise equipment. For all this to improve, a sense of urgency needs to enter the Indian market. As Rajan Anandan, Managing Director of Google India, said in a recent interview, “nobody in the world except India defines 512 kbps as broadband.” Late in 2013, the government of India cleared a proposal to provide three internet connections and one wi-fi hotspot in each of the 2.5 lakh gram panchayats spread across the country. The project should be completed by March 2016. The plan is to provide 100 Mbps broadband speeds to all the gram panchayats in the country.

In terms of mobile broadband, ‘the next big thing’ according to numbers, there is still a while to go. Telecom providers are aggressively offering 3G services and the use of smartphone in India is on the rise. However, following complaints about the quality of service, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has started a consultation process for setting minimum download speeds of 1Mbps for 3G connections and 56Kbps for 2G connections.

Ultimately, both the spread and speed of the internet in India will have a direct impact on India’s economy. But that’s not all. Somnath Bharti and million others will be able to upload videos and tweet – be they of political relevance or not. India’s e-government schemes will find faster delivery of services. Sectors like e-commerce will be able to grow. And India’s IT and ITES sectors, which contribute up to 9% of the country’s GDP, will also remain in the race to be a sure avenue for employment and income generation.

That certainly deserves a mention in a campaign speech!

(The writer is a Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

Courtesy: Internet Rights, Digital Empowement Foundation

The post The Need For Internet Speed – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

E-cigarettes are gaining mainstream attention as a competitor to traditional cigarettes. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign wanted to examine changes in e-cigarette awareness, how harmful people believe them to be, and if those attitudes have any connection to smoking cessation attempts.

They found that while awareness of e-cigarettes has increased significantly, smokers are less inclined to consider them safer than cigarettes. Also, investigators discovered that awareness did not show evidence of promoting smoking cessation. Their findings are published in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

It is predicted that e-cigarette sales will soon reach 1.7 billion dollars, which represents roughly 1% of current regular cigarette sales in the U.S. This is due in part to the surge in marketing and increasing availability of e-cigarette products in the last few years. E-cigarettes are perceived as an invention that competes with tobacco cigarettes. While some people and advertisements even go so far as to refer to them as cessation aids, they are not currently approved by the FDA for that purpose.

In this new study, researchers set out to examine the prevalence of e-cigarette awareness and perceived harmfulness. Using data collected from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), they discovered that national awareness of e-cigarettes has risen from 16.4% in 2009 to 77.1% in 2013. Young people, more educated respondents, and current and former smokers were more likely to be aware of e-cigarettes, while Hispanics and older survey participants were less likely to be aware of e-cigarettes.

“Compared with earlier national surveys among U.S. adults, this study found a notable increase in public awareness of e-cigarettes since 2009,” explains co-investigator Andy Tan, MBBS, MPH, MBA, PhD, Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. “In the beginning of 2013, more than three in four respondents were aware of this novel product. The rise in awareness of e-cigarettes could reflect sharp increases in advertising expenditures by manufacturers, availability in retail stores across the country, and presence in popular media.”

The study also looked at the perceived harmfulness of e-cigarettes among current smokers. In 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65%.

“This apparent decline in smokers’ beliefs about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes is perplexing against the background of advertising and media messages touting e-cigarettes as safer alternatives and cessation aids,” adds co-investigator Cabral Bigman, PhD, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “One possible explanation is that the increased media attention over the lack of FDA approval and regulation of this emerging tobacco product, injuries arising from e-cigarette-induced fires, and health concerns from toxic chemicals in e-cigarettes in recent years may have conveyed conflicting information about the relative safety of e-cigarette use.”

Another important aspect of the new study was to examine if there are possible links between e-cigarette awareness or beliefs they are less harmful and current smokers’ quit attempts. After data analysis, investigators found no association between increased awareness or perceptions of lower harms and smokers’ attempts to quit. There was also no evidence at the population level that widespread knowledge about e-cigarettes or beliefs they are less harmful is associated with current smokers being more likely to think about quitting.

“The current analyses showed that there were no significant associations between e-cigarette awareness or perceived harmfulness and smokers’ intentions to quit or past-year quit attempts,” comments Dr. Tan. “One potential interpretation is that adult smokers have not yet accepted e-cigarettes as a means to quit smoking.”

While levels of awareness have increased rapidly, use percentage is still very low with only 6% of U.S. adults reporting ever using e-cigarettes. This small number means that e-cigarettes may not yet be a threat to tobacco control programs, but at the same time, means any claim that e-cigarettes are helping to reduce the harm done by regular cigarettes is probably premature.

“There is an ongoing debate within the public health community about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction and whether smokers are merely supplementing or truly replacing their smoking with e-cigarettes and achieving smoking cessation,” concludes Dr. Tan. “It is uncertain whether increased population e-cigarette awareness and perceptions about reduced harm might play a role in encouraging smoking-cessation behaviors. However, public health professionals should systematically scrutinize the nature of marketing activities and media coverage of e-cigarettes, their impact on population awareness and perceptions of e-cigarettes, and how these factors may influence e-cigarette use and smoking prevalence in the U.S. population.”

The post Fewer Smokers Believe E-Cigarettes Are Safer Alternative To Cigarettes appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Meditation is more than just a way to calm our thoughts and lower stress levels: our brain processes more thoughts and feelings during meditation than when you are simply relaxing, a coalition of researchers from Norway and Australia has found.

Mindfulness. Zen. Acem. Meditation drumming. Chakra. Buddhist and transcendental meditation. There are countless ways of meditating, but the purpose behind them all remains basically the same: more peace, less stress, better concentration, greater self-awareness and better processing of thoughts and feelings.

But which of these techniques should a poor stressed-out wretch choose? What does the research say? Very little – at least until now.

A team of researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), the University of Oslo and the University of Sydney is now working to determine how the brain works during different kinds of meditation. Their most recent results were published in the journal “Frontiers in Human Neuroscience”.

Different meditation techniques can actually be divided into two main groups. One type is concentrative meditation, where the meditating person focuses attention on his or her breathing or on specific thoughts, and in doing so, suppresses other thoughts.

The other type may be called nondirective meditation, where the person who is meditating effortlessly focuses on his or her breathing or on a meditation sound, but beyond that the mind is allowed to wander as it pleases. Some modern meditation methods are of this nondirective kind.

“No one knows how the brain works when you meditate. That is why I’d like to study it,” says Jian Xu, who is a physician at St. Olavs Hospital in Trondheim, Norway and a researcher at the Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging at NTNU.

Fourteen people who had extensive experience with the Norwegian technique Acem meditation were tested in an MRI machine. In addition to simple resting, they undertook two different mental meditation activities, nondirective meditation and a more concentrative meditation task.

The research team wanted to test people who were used to meditation because it meant fewer misunderstandings about what the subjects should actually be doing while they lay in the MRI machine.

Nondirective meditation led to higher activity than during rest in the part of the brain dedicated to processing self-related thoughts and feelings. When test subjects performed concentrative meditation, the activity in this part of the brain was almost the same as when they were just resting.

“I was surprised that the activity of the brain was greatest when the person’s thoughts wandered freely on their own, rather than when the brain worked to be more strongly focused,” said Xu. “When the subjects stopped doing a specific task and were not really doing anything special, there was an increase in activity in the area of the brain where we process thoughts and feelings. It is described as a kind of resting network. And it was this area that was most active during nondirective meditation.”

“The study indicates that nondirective meditation allows for more room to process memories and emotions than during concentrated meditation,” says Svend Davanger, a neuroscientist at the University of Oslo, and co-author of the study.

“This area of the brain has its highest activity when we rest. It represents a kind of basic operating system, a resting network that takes over when external tasks do not require our attention. It is remarkable that a mental task like nondirective meditation results in even higher activity in this network than regular rest,” says Davanger.

Most of the research team behind the study does not practice meditation, although three do: Professors Are Holen and Øyvind Ellingsen from NTNU and Professor Svend Davanger from the University of Oslo.

Acem meditation is a technique that falls under the category of nondirective meditation. Davanger believes that good research depends on having a team that can combine personal experience with meditation with a critical attitude towards results.

“Meditation is an activity that is practiced by millions of people. It is important that we find out how this really works. In recent years there has been a sharp increase in international research on meditation. Several prestigious universities in the US spend a great deal of money to research in the field. So I think it is important that we are also active,” says Davanger.

The post This Is Your Brain On Meditation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The death toll at the Soma coal mine has increased to 282. With 120 workers still trapped inside the mine, it remains unknown whether they are alive or not.

For the past 12 hours, no one has been evacuated from the mine alive, says Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yıldız who has been putting out regular press releases in order to inform people of the death toll, rescue operations and the state of injured miners.

Yıldız’s latest report, released early this morning, stated “282 miners were killed in the accident as of 8:00.”

In a statement released early May 14, Yıldız expressed concerns that the death toll could rise to over 300 hundred workers.

After short breaks, rescue teams continue their efforts to rescue workers trapped inside the mine.

However, another fire broke out in the mine at 11:00 a.m. For this reason, it is reported that the rescue teams were forced to take a break from its rescue efforts. Hopes for the safety of those who remain in the mine are diminishing.

The coal mine disaster took place in the western province of Manisa’s Soma district after a fire broke out following an explosion in a power distribution unit on May 13.

According to initial reports, the victims were thought to have died due to carbon monoxide poisoning. 787 workers were inside the mine at the time the fire broke out. It is argued that the occurrence of the accident during a shift rotation has increased the death toll.

The deadliest coal mine accident in Turkey

The disaster in Soma is recorded as the deadliest coal mine accident in the history of Turkey. In Turkey, mine accidents have been responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 miners since 1941, mostly due to fires, collapses or explosions. Up until the disaster in Soma, the largest mine explosion occurred in the northern city of Zonguldak, where 263 miners lost their lives.

The accident in Soma with its massive death toll has sparked widespread outrage as many point to insufficient safety measures, accusing the government and mining companies of “negligence.” In big cities such as Istanbul and Ankara, masses gathered to protest the government and mining companies they thought had played a part in the accident.

Turkish PM Erdoğan’s arrival in Soma

In the aftermath of the disaster, Turkey’s PM Erdoğan visited Soma yesterday. At the site of the accident, Erdoğan held a press conference in which he referred to century-old mining accidents with high death tolls in the USA and UK. Erdoğan described the disaster in Soma as typical and defended the AKP government on its mining record.

He said, “I went back in British history. Some 204 people died there after a mine collapse in 1838. In 1866, 361 miners died in Britain. In an explosion in 1894, 290 people died there.”

After the PM’s statements, many people questioned how 19th century disasters could be compared with a disaster occurring in the 21st century’s age of technology. During his visit to Soma, Erdoğan faced protests by a number of people who chanted against the government.

Additionally, a great amount of debate has surfaced as to why the Minister of Work and Social Security, Faruk Çelik, has not yet been to Soma. Çelik cited health problems as the reason for his absence.

Turkish standards are a far cry from world standards

Experts have stated that mine safety and precaution measures in Turkey do not meet international standards. Many workers have lost their lives due to this lack of precaution. In China on average, 1 worker loses their life per 1 million tons of coal produced but in Turkey 7 deaths are recorded per 1 million tons of coal produced. Moreover, Turkish legislation only weakly accounts for workers’ safety.

Turkey’s legislative base is not mature, enforcement mechanisms don’t work

The Turkish Labour Law which includes several articles on health and safety at the workplace was enacted in 2003. However, the scope and effect of these articles are quite narrow. The Directive for Health and Safety of mine workers is dated 1984 and the more general Directive for Health and Safety at the workplace is dated 1974. The turning point for new legislation came with the worst mining disaster of Turkey in 1994 in Zonguldak. Since then, public opinion has shifted toward the creation of a new and separate law about health and safety at the workplace.

After almost a decade, in 2012 the Turkish Law on Work Health and Safety ushered in a new era for employers and employees. The main purpose of the law is to prevent work accidents and injuries and to bring work-related risks to a minimum.

“The mining accident that we have seen at this private facility today is truly a work-related murder of the highest degree. We are currently facing the worst work-related murder in the country’s history,” said Çetin Uygur, former head of miners’ union Maden-İş.

The head of the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions (DİSK), Kani Beko, stated that there were a large number of subcontractors present in the mine. “There are second- and third-tier subcontractors working in this mine. I hope that the death toll will not further climb, but I am not optimistic. There is a massacre that happened following the explosion inside,” Beko said.

AKP MPs rejected CHP’s proposal to investigate work-related accidents at Soma mine

On April 29, the CHP reportedly submitted a motion to Parliament to investigate work-related accidents at the mine in Soma, only for the proposal to be rejected by MPs from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

The CHP, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) have all dispatched delegations to the mine site.

The post Death Toll Of Soma Coal Mine Disaster Rises To 282 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Perry Munzwembiri

Recently, there have been amplified calls by government authorities in appealing for Foreign Direct Investment. The importance of foreign investment cannot be over-emphasised, especially for an economy at a precipice like ours. In Mozambique for instance, during the past year, the country registered a 30 percent increase in its FDI flows to $7, 1 billion.

It is no coincidence that the International Monetary Fund forecasts its economy to grow by as much as 8 percent this year alone, making it one of the leading ‘frontier market’ economies. What is clear from this example is the crucial role that capital accumulation can play in fuelling economic growth.

The Zimbabwean government`s economic blueprint (Zim Asset) which is a set of policies meant to induce economic recovery requires at least US$10 billion for its successful implementation. In the policy document, the government emphasises on mobilising funding for the programme from within through leveraging mineral resources. Present economic realities however show that the local economy is no state to provide capital of this stature. Zimbabwe largely remains a consumptive economy, with little income set aside for investment spending thereby undermining the country`s ability to raise capital domestically. FDI is thus essential to the turnaround of the country`s economy.

In today`s world, capital flows have no borders and are very fluid in nature. Essentially, capital follows the path of least resistance, and gravitates towards areas with the best risk-return profiles. For instance, a Bank of America report earlier this year indicated that investors withdrew over $6, 4 billion in one week from emerging market stock funds following economic vulnerabilities in the ‘fragile five’ emerging market economies, reinvesting their money elsewhere in the quest for better returns. Evidently, investors foreign or otherwise invest their money in enterprises that can yield positive returns for them.

This principle lies at the crux of free market capitalism, widely lauded as the best economic system that has ever existed. Even where this economic system is varied; as in the case of China`s state-led capitalist system, investors look at the potential risks and rewards in determining where to invest.

Given all this, it is necessary that Zimbabwe eliminates obstacles to the free flow of capital into the economy. Guaranteeing of property rights and assurances of implementing existing legislation in keeping with economic and business law are both elemental preconditions for attracting FDI. When International Best Practice with regards, to basic international economic and business law is followed, then the risk attached to that particular country is greatly reduced. To put it into context, if foreign investors are not convinced that Zimbabwe will be able to protect property rights constitutionally, these investors can always find recourse in expropriation insurance provided by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) a division of the World Bank. Yet this hinges upon Zimbabwe`s successful re-engagements with these international financial institutions, such that they are in a position to guarantee such with international investors.

The International Finance Corporation and World Bank`s ‘Ease of Doing Business Report ‘plays an important function in pointing out foreign investors to economies with business friendly regulations.

Among other things, this report measures the basic steps and amount of time it takes for a business to be registered, access to credit information in an economy, and the amount of time a business takes to file a case in a court of law and get a court decision to enforce a contract. Frankly, these are areas that Zimbabwe fares poorly at, and its rank at 170 out of a pool of 189 in the latest doing business report asserts this point. The obvious implications being that the country`s regulatory environment does not favour private enterprise, and assuming the earlier supposition that capital or investments follows the path of least resistance, Zimbabwe`s access to the much needed foreign investment will be negatively affected.

Conversely, Rwanda which ranks at 32 on the same index has a regulatory environment which encourages businesses and the country has been attracting major investments and in 2013, even successfully issued a $400 million Eurobond.

At a broader level, there must be coherence and consistency at the national government planning level to assure potential investors that there will not be any marked gyrations in policy. The harsh realities of the ‘winner takes all’ capitalist system is that rational investment decisions are made to achieve positive returns for the investor. Hence the notion of ‘all weather friends’ is a mirage that is as inconsequential as it is implausible in my mind. Investors will only make rational economic decisions in their pursuit of self-interest, as mainstream economics presupposes.

Interestingly, the amount of the FDI going into Africa`s greenfield projects is ever increasing. Mineral exploration of the country`s economic reserves could lure potential investors to invest into Zimbabwe`s own greenfield projects. This and a lot more can be done to make the country an attractive investment option.

Fundamentally, the argument is that unless the structural features of the local economy that inhibit a business friendly economic, political and regulatory atmosphere continue to exist, the country will be deprived of any meaningful FDI.

The post FDI Follows Path Of Least Resistance, But Is Zimbabwe Such A Path? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Satish Chandra

In determining whether or not it is necessary to revisit India’s nuclear doctrine it would be relevant to examine how it evolved, its main features, the reasons behind the calls to revisit it and the factors, which militate against so doing.

India’s nuclear doctrine was first enunciated following a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting in January 2003 – over four and a half years after the May 1998 tests. It contained few surprises being largely built around the pronouncements made by Atal Bihari Vajpayee following the tests to the effect that India’s nuclear weapons were meant only for self defence, that India was not interested in arms racing, and encapsulating concepts such as “no first use” of nuclear weapons and their “non use” against non nuclear weapon states.

Apart from these pronouncements, several entities, notably the Armed Forces, the National Security Council Secretariat and the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), made detailed contributions to the Government, on the nuclear doctrine, through 1999 and 2000, which were considered by it in firming up its views on the subject.

Main Features

The main features of India’s nuclear doctrine were summarized as follows in the CCS press release of January 4, 2003:

• Building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent;

• A “No First Use” posture; nuclear weapons to be used only “in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere”;

• Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be “massive” and designed to inflict “unacceptable damage”.

• Nuclear retaliatory attacks to be authorized only by civilian political leadership through the Nuclear Command Authority.

• Non use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear weapon states.

• India to retain option of retaliating with nuclear weapons in the event of a major attack against it with biological or chemical weapons;

• Continuance of strict controls on export of nuclear and missile related materials and technologies, participation in FMCT negotiations, continued moratorium on testing;

• Continued commitment to goal of nuclear weapon free world, through global, verifiable and non discriminatory disarmament.

“Credible Minimum Deterrent”

The concept of “credible minimum deterrence” is the cornerstone of India’s nuclear doctrine. It, used in conjunction with the concepts of “No First Use” (NFU) and “Non Use” against nuclear weapon states, clearly indicates that India envisages its nuclear weapons as only a deterrent merely for defensive purposes and not as a means to threaten others, that it is not in the business of building up a huge arsenal and that it will not engage in arms racing.

The concept, however, also recognizes that for deterrence to be effective it must be “credible”.

The prerequisites for the credibility of our deterrent in the context of our nuclear doctrine may be listed as follows:

• Sufficient and Survivable nuclear forces both in terms of warheads and means of delivery able to inflict unacceptable damage;

• Nuclear Forces must be operationally prepared at all times;

• Effective Intelligence and Early Warning Capabilities;

• A Robust Command and Control System;

• The Will to Employ Nuclear Forces;

• Communication of Deterrence Capability.

The size and nature of India’s nuclear arsenal would essentially have to be a function of its threat perceptions, its being able to absorb a first strike (on account of its no first use commitment) and thereafter retaining the capability of inflicting “unacceptable damage”. India’s current security environment is by no means rosy.

Accordingly, a sizeable nuclear weapons arsenal is essential as we need to factor in the possibility that the same would undergo a substantial degradation, despite all precautions, in a first strike, that some of our own attacks could be negated by defensive measures and above all what we have to inflict is “massive” and “unacceptable damage”.

The survivability of our nuclear forces would need to be ensured by a combination of multiple redundant systems, mobility, dispersion, and deception. This also requires that India’s nuclear forces are based on a triad of aircraft, mobile land based missiles and sea based assets.

The need for operational preparedness at all times of the nuclear forces in order for our nuclear deterrent to be credible is self-evident. It has been ensured by the creation of a C-in-C Strategic Forces Command to manage and administer our Strategic Forces. He functions under the overall control of the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee who is the channel of communication between him and the Government.

Effective Intelligence and Early Warning Capabilities always important in any conflict are critical in the context of a nuclear attack not merely as a means to counter it but also for purposes of retaliation. An apex techint organization notably the NTRO has been set up which would inter alia provide the required intelligence for this purpose.

Robust Command and Control System is essential for the credibility of deterrence. India has for this purpose established a Nuclear Command Authority comprising a Political Council chaired by the Prime Minister and an Executive Council chaired by the National Security Advisor. In keeping with the stipulation in our Nuclear Doctrine the Political Council is the sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

The role of the Executive Council is to provide inputs for decision making by the Nuclear Command Authority and to execute the directives given to it by the Political Council. The fact that the survivability of the command and control system has not been lost sight of is reflected in the press release of January 4th 2003 which indicated that the CCS “reviewed and approved the arrangements for alternate chains of command for retaliatory strikes in all eventualities”.

The demands on India’s Command and Control system as indeed on its Strategic Forces Command have been simplified due to the nature of its nuclear doctrine. Whereas most nuclear weapon states contemplate the possibility of escalatory nuclear war fighting scenarios the Indian doctrine essentially caters for massive Indian nuclear retaliation in the eventuality of a nuclear attack on it or on its forces. In essence, as per the Indian doctrine, if India or its forces are attacked with nuclear weapons it would more or less automatically unleash a devastating nuclear attack in retaliation. No prolonged nuclear war fighting scenarios are envisaged. This enormously eases the task of the Indian nuclear command, control and communications systems and greatly reduces the costs incurred thereon.

It is not sufficient to have a deterrence capability but also be perceived to have it as well as the will to use nuclear weapons if required to do so. In other words one must communicate or project the same to all concerned. Regrettably, insufficient attention has been paid to this aspect of establishing the credibility of our nuclear deterrent.

Why revisit the nuclear doctrine

The major factor behind the questioning of the Nuclear Doctrine stems from concerns about NFU. Dissatisfaction with our NFU posture is not new. Ab initio, in discussions on this in the NSAB a case against it was made out on the grounds that such an approach unnecessarily kept us on the back foot and on the defensive and made it axiomatic that we would have to face the consequences of a first strike before being able to respond. Moreover, it prevented us from keeping a potential adversary off balance. This view did not, however, prevail in the subsequent discussions in the matter.

What is new about the increased opposition to the NFU posture is that it arises in part from increasing evidence of Pakistan’s proclivity to use tactical nuclear weapons against us, and in part from scepticism about our deterrent capability and about our willingness to respond to a tactical strike with a “massive” retaliatory attack. Advocates of a change in our NFU policy would like our nuclear doctrine mimic those of most of the established Nuclear Weapon States which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons even in sub nuclear conflicts.

Since an important element behind the call for revisiting our nuclear doctrine emanates from a lack of confidence in our deterrent and in our willingness to resort to the use of nuclear weapons in a massive second strike in response to an attack on us with tactical weapons the same needs to be addressed by much more effective signaling and a demonstration that the government will do what it says and will not shy from making a robust response when necessary. The following could be some moves in this direction:

• Government must restore faith in itself by doing what it says and not shying from biting the bullet. Firmness must be shown in all its actions, for instance, on issues of law and order, terrorism and addressing difficult neighbours.

• Periodic statements about the nurturing and upgradation of our nuclear arsenal and systems including alternate command structure.

• An indication that our nuclear arsenal will be large enough to take care of all adversaries and will have to be in the mid triple digits.

• Appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff and upgradation of the NTRO as a capable apex techint organization which would in a fool proof manner provide indicators of any attack on us and ensure swift and massive nuclear retaliation inflicting unacceptable damage.

• An indication that we have in place multiple, well camouflaged and well secured vectors which are constantly being further refined in order to enable the country to inflict unacceptable damage even after absorbing a first strike by its adversaries

Factors militating against revisiting nuclear doctrine

There are many factors, which militate against revisiting our nuclear doctrine and sacrificing the restraint it encapsulates by for instance abandoning NFU some of which are enumerated below:

• All the gains enjoyed by us in the international community by the restraint of our nuclear posture would be frittered away. These do not merely constitute intangibles but entailed the termination of sanctions, support for our entry into the multilateral nuclear export control regimes as well as our civil nuclear cooperation agreements.

• It would enormously complicate and increase the expenditure incurred by us in regard to our command and control mechanisms which would have to be reconfigured to engage in calibrated nuclear war fighting.

• It would weaken the possibility of our engaging in conventional warfare insulated from the nuclear overhang.

• It would encourage the use of tactical nuclear weapons against us under the illusion of no massive response.

• It would facilitate the painting of South Asia as a nuclear flashpoint and thereby encourage foreign meddling.

Satish Chandra is the former Deputy to the National Security Adviser, Government of India. Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. This article originally appeared on IDSA with the headline Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Is it necessary? http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/RevisitingIndiasNuclearDoctrine_schandra_300414 on April 30, 2014.

The post Revisiting India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Is It Necessary? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Licinia Simao

This article focuses on the political narratives of the Ukrainian crisis. In Ukraine, the escalating media wars, harsh political rhetoric, and use of historically-powerful images and language to describe and prescribe courses of action need to be understood as fundamental elements in the management of the crisis and of our understanding of what is at stake. This is not to say that the presence of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is not real, or that the violence on the streets of Ukraine is not important; rather it is to underline that a strict focus on the ‘facts’ of the crisis fails to address the deep connections between the emotional, discursive and ideological dimensions on the one hand and, on the other, the political, military and economic decisions, which they entail.

The Historical Narrative: Evoking World War II

One of the central features in the media and in the political discourse during this crisis is the comparison to World War II. Images of President Putin transfigured into Hitler circulated widely in social media, opinion pieces comparing Russia’s imperialist ambitions to Hitler’s appeared in important outlets, and even important politicians, such as the German Minister of Finances Wolfgang Schäuble and former U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton compared President Putin’s annexation of Crimea to Hitler’s 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland. In fact, there are remarkable similarities between President Putin’s argument that ethnic Russians in Crimea required protection and Hitler’s claims to protect ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia. However, one must acknowledge that the choice to use comparisons with World War II and Hitler serve a more immediate purpose: to shock and mobilize Europeans against their worst fears, which remain, as Thomas Diez has argued, “in Europe’s own past”.1 Also important are the reasons why this ethnic discourse has been activated in Moscow. This needs to be understood from the perspective of the changes ongoing in the Russian Federation since the end of the Soviet Union and especially since President Putin’s second term. Igor Torbakov and Lilia Shevtsova both underline the consolidation of a new vision for the Russian regime, named Putinism. Power is personal and highly centralized around a small group of people near President Putin; political and economic power has been merged and protected by the absence of the rule of law; and the statist-militarist view of authority remains in place.2 This process has been accompanied by revisionist state rhetoric, including neo-Stalinist trends (the rehabilitation of the Soviet leader),3 a reconstructed narrative around Russia’s role in the Great Patriotic War (Word War II), and the reintroduction of the Soviet national anthem and of the military parades in the Red Square, all coupled with President Putin’s statement that the end of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.

These trends are a fundamental element to understand the current crisis in Ukraine, since it sets the stage both domestically and abroad for a more relevant and powerful Russia. Domestically, this new discourse has been accompanied by more restrictive laws on demonstrations and protests and by a narrative of the “internal enemy” and “foreign agents”, as the new restrictive laws on NGO funding illustrate. In the current Ukrainian crisis, the fear of the “fascists” in Kiev is also reminiscent of the Great Patriotic War.

Although one can easily justify Russia’s concern with subversive movements funded by external actors – just look at Ukraine and Georgia, for instances, or the Arab Spring – and with the nature of some members of the interim Ukrainian government, the choice to combat and denounce this by resorting to this type of speech further serves the purpose of rallying those longing for the glory days of imperial Russia behind a renovated image. A neo-Soviet identity has been gradually reestablished as an alternative to western promises of democracy and prosperity under liberal democracy, and it has ample appeal throughout the former-Soviet countries.

Thus, we see that both in Western media and in Russia, the evocation of World War II memories and language serves a manipulative purpose more than a guide for action. By demonizing President Putin, the possibilities of dialogue with the West have been severed. By appealing to an imperial image that is linked to an authoritarian past, Russia patches over its weak democratic credentials and proposes an alternative approach to the post- Soviet societies, amply frustrated with western policies.

The Cold War Rhetoric and Proxy Wars

One of the remarkable aspects of the Ukrainian crisis is that it quickly became a crisis of U.S.-Russia relations with increasing similarities to Cold War rhetoric.

The U.S. Propaganda

From Washington, the message to Russia has been a denunciation of the illegal military incursion into a sovereign country and annexation of its territory, against all the principles founding the European security order, including the Helsinki Final Act. President Obama has underlined this, as has Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Samantha Power. Based on this logic, the Obama administration has pursued a strategy of international isolation of Russia in the UN. On March 27, 2014, a resolution was approved at the UN General Assembly supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, with 11 votes against and 58 abstentions out of 168 votes, after a similar resolution was vetoed by Russia on the UN Security Council. Also, the G7 leaders together with the European leaders approved a statement condemning the Crimean referendum and suspending their participation in G8 meetings. The imposition of economic sanctions, in which the United States has closely coordinated with European partners, is a further step in this isolation strategy.

However, the choice of economic instruments is contested inside the U.S. political establishment, and more extreme voices have used this crisis to play domestic politics. Senator John McCain calls President Obama’s policy “feckless”, and says it fails to demonstrate American strength in the face of adversaries.4 Senator McCain and U.S. Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland were in Kiev during demonstrations, and showed their support for the opposition forces, including the Nationalist Svoboda Party. This position seeks to pressure President Obama to act tough and portrays Russia not as a valuable partner to the U.S. – as it was for most of the last 13 years of the War on Terror – but as an adversary, the new enemy. By doing this, the hardline strategy delegitimizes President Obama’s attempts to establish dialogue with Russian authorities, and it facilitates a military escalation to the crisis, especially within the NATO framework.

In a recent op-ed published in the Washington Post, several U.S. Senators further reinforced the idea that European partners are weary of U.S. reluctance to reinforce NATO members’ security. They argue for repositioning the West vis-à-vis this new Russia, which “has taken a dark turn [and with which] there is no resetting [and no] business as usual”.5 These steps include: the expansion of sanctions to “where it hurts”; the development of a “strategic response” to Russia, which would include a refocusing of NATO on “its core missions of deterrence and collective defense”; increasing military investment and reposition of more NATO troops along Russia’s border; the development of a new transatlantic energy partnership to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russia; and new efforts to win the war of ideas among Russian speaking populations of Europe, namely through the “private sector”. These steps spell out where U.S. interests lay in this crisis, in a changing international context. It also reinforces divisions inside Europe, between those defending a more visible U.S. presence in the continent due to perceptions of Russia as an imperialist state with expansionist policies and those willing to develop a more autonomous path for Europe’s security, which requires more constructive and less antagonistic policies towards Russia.

Various media outlets, think tanks and academics have replicated these divisions. Public opinion on the crisis has changed as a result, only adding to pressure on decision-makers. In democratic context, public opinion is fundamental to justify actions, but regrettably it leaves unanswered many of the questions regarding the role of the United States and European countries in the crisis, and it fails to address Russian foreign policy as legitimate, if illegal. Ultimately, official rhetoric serves the purpose of justifying a specific set of actions, rather than shedding light on ongoing dynamics.

The Russian Propaganda

Russia’s rhetoric serves similar objectives. Foremost, the domestic and Russian-speaking populations are the main target of Russian propaganda. The focus on the legality of Russian action in Ukraine is presented side- by-side with the narrative of the threat and illegality of the government in Kiev. This message is declared by all elements of the Russian political establishment, starting with President Putin in several of his speeches and press conferences.6 This approach serves two main goals. The first is the actual contestation of facts and their meaning, namely regarding the agreement reached on February 21, between the Polish, French and German Foreign Ministers, on the one hand and the Ukrainian President and opposition forces, on the other. According to Russian authorities, the Ukrainian opposition breached the agreement when they occupied government buildings and passed illegal laws ousting President Yanukovych. By this logic the current government is illegal because the ouster constitutes a coup d’état. Remarkably, in his March 4 press conference, President Putin suggested that the opposition had used the fact that President Yanukovych left Kiev to attend a conference in Kharkiv (according to Russia Today’s translation) to take over power.7 That the Ukrainian President would leave Kiev at the height of tensions to attend a conference (or even a meeting) is highly unlikely and even disingenuous. The European and U.S. version of events is that the President Yanukovych refused to sign the agreement reestablishing the 2004 constitution and had fled the country to Russia during the night, leaving power.8

Another example of the contestation of crucial facts of this crisis is the situation of the Russian minorities in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, and the threats to their security, following the seizure of power by opposition forces in Kiev. The official discourse in Russia states clearly that an imminent threat was upon these minorities and that an official letter by the legitimate President Yanukovych, requested that Russian troops be deployed to Crimea, “to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order”.9 Not only the work of the OSCE observers was not facilitated, which could serve to prove these charges, it is not clear which Russian minorities Russia will protect.

There is a great deal of confusion over whether Russia is looking to protect Russian citizens (those holding Russian passports), ethnic Russians or Russian-speaking minorities.

Either way, there is large scope for intervention throughout the post-Soviet space, which naturally creates anxiety. This links to the construction of an area of legitimate intervention for Russia, which is designed based on what Gearóid Ó Tuathail calls the “eternal national geo-imaginary”. This is a political and territorial space of the Russian nation that is bound not by legal borders, but by “imaginary affective ones”.10 This includes the territories with historical links to Russia, the places where Russian soldiers have been buried, and where historical injustices have been committed, such as the decision by the Bolsheviks to award Crimea to Ukraine.

The second goal of Russian propaganda, which was particularly strong from February 21 to March 16, day of the referendum in Crimea, is to construct a reality that justifies future Russian action. What this means is that rather than discourse reflecting the reality in Ukraine, discourse is part of the process of constructing a new reality, which will create the conditions for intervention. Timothy Snyder makes this argument brilliantly:

“Propaganda is thus not a flawed description, but a script for action. If we consider Putin’s propaganda in [...] Soviet terms, we see that the invasion of Crimea was not a reaction to an actual threat, but rather an attempt to activate a threat so that violence would erupt that would change the world. Propaganda is part of the action it is meant to justify. From this standpoint, an invasion from Russia would lead to a Ukrainian nationalist backlash that would make the Russian story about fascists, so to speak, retrospectively true. If Ukraine is unable to hold elections, it looks less like a democracy. Elections are scheduled, but cannot be held in regions occupied by a foreign power. In this way, military action can make propaganda seem true”.11

Both goals are equally dangerous. On the one hand, the situation in Ukraine will continue to be destabilized and hard to manage, especially if the May 25 elections fail to provide a legitimate government capable of repositioning the country and managing the challenges it faces. On the other hand, the focus on the Russian intervention and its justification through propaganda also fails to address the shortcomings in EU and U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine and Russia, prior to the crisis, preventing the West from a self-reflective critical analysis.

Conclusion

The current crisis in Ukraine represents simultaneously a continuation of U.S. and EU irresponsible and highly destabilizing policies of regime change and the violation of basic principles of international law by Russia. Both approaches represent a potentially fatal blow to the European security order constructed since the 1970s and a dangerous new contention for influence in the European continent. Understanding the crisis therefore demands clarifying facts, and critical analysis, in order to gain a better grasp of the actors’ underlying motivations and the role of propaganda in the construction of more per- missive contexts. It is not clear who stands to benefit in the current context, considering the heavy sanctions that are being imposed on Russia, the remilitarization of Eu- rope and the breakdown of years of mutual accommodation between the European nations and Russia.

The coming years will see important changes in the current statu quo both in Europe and globally. The financial crisis has underlined the shortcomings of the European integration process and has repositioned the EU globally vis-à-vis other emerging powers. The withdrawal of NATO troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will also demand a new purpose for the Alliance. Russia’s authoritarian turn and the inability to modernize have reduced its interest in closer cooperation with the West. Changes in energy markets will also demand a restructuring of Russia’s economy, which will most likely focus increasingly on Asian markets, whereas Europe might look at the U.S. and new energy sources to limit its dependence on Russia. In these scenarios, the future of Ukraine is but one part of the bigger problem facing decision-makers. What is clear in this crisis, are the fragile foundations of international cooperation, the failures of diplomacy, and the importance of deconstructing propaganda efforts conveyed through mass media, in order to take sound decisions.

About the author:
Licinia Simao, Centre for Social Studies and Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints 146, which may be accessed here.

Notes:
1. Thomas Diez, “Europe’s Others and the Return of Geopolitics” (Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2004), pp. 319 -335.
2. Igor Torbakov, “Insecurity Drives Putin’s Crimea Response” (EurasiaNet.org, 3 March 2014). Lilia Shevtsova, “Implosion, Atrophy, or Revolution?” (Journal of Democracy, No. 23, No. 3, July 2012), pp. 19-32.
3. Emily Whitaker, “Stalin’s Resurrection” (History Today, Vol. 62, No. 9, 2012).
4. Jake Miller, “John McCain blames Obama’s ‘feckless’ foreign policy for Ukraine crisis” (CBS News, 3 March 2014).
5. John McCain, John Barrasso, John Hoeven and Ron Johnson, “It is time for the West to move ahead without Russia” (Washington Post, 26 April 2014).
6. See the press conference on 4 March 2014, and the speech on 18 March 2014.
7. Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_4D_qR18s.
8. See “President Putin’s Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine” (U.S.
Department of State, 5 March 2014).
9. On 3 March, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, presented to the UN Security Council a letter by President Yanukovitch with these requests.
10. Gearóid Ó Tuathail, “Putin’s Annexation of Crimea Speech Annotated” (Critical
Geopolitics, 18 March 2014).
11. Timothy Snyder, “Crimea: Putin vs. Reality” (The New York Review of Books Blog, 7 March 2014).

The post Narratives Of The Ukrainian Crisis: The Power Of Discourse And Media Wars – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Involvement in other states doesn’t benefit the US or help national security, and in the case of Ukraine it doesn’t assist the Ukrainian people, so it would be best if the US stays out, former US congressman Ron Paul said in RT’s Boom Bust show.

The US has neither the authority, nor the right to determine what is best for other people, Ron Paul told Boom Bust host, Erin Ade. Once American people were supposed to know what the government was doing, but now all the efforts in Washington seem to be to make government very secretive, and the fact is that the US is not improving its influence in the word, but causing more harm to the American people, Paul said.

RT: What concerns do you have about American involvement in Ukraine?

Ron Paul: There are several. First, I don’t like our government getting involved into affairs of other people and leading only to trouble. I would have followed the admonition of the early founders of our country that we should not be involved into the entangling alliances throughout the world, nor into internal affairs of other nations. Whether it is the Middle East, Northern Africa or Ukraine, I apply that principle. So I do not believe it is to our benefit, I do not think it helps our national security, I think it hurts our national security. I do not think it helps in this particular instance the Ukrainian people. I think it would be best for everybody for us to just stay out. Besides, we do not have the money. We have to go borrow the money if we decide. And we are already spending money on this effort in Ukraine and I do not think we should be doing it.

RT: I take it you believe the money spent by the US abroad would be better used to shore up our finances here. In your view what role does the US have in terms of projection of power or as a global supercop.

RP: It’s mainly to develop friendly relations with as many people who are open to it. I was delighted with the collapse of the Soviet system and I was delighted with our efforts to end it. A lot of trade is going on not only with former communist nation China, but also with Russia. We have invested 500 billion dollars in Russia and they have invested 400 billion dollars outside. So there is a lot of trade going on.

So it sort of defies this idea that a few people are stirring up enough trouble where they want to ruin all that. So my effort in the world is to promote trade and promote friendship, promote travel, at the same time not be involved in trying to determine what is best for the other people. I do not want to do that in individual lives and I don’t want to do that for other governments and other peoples. In spite of many problems out there, it is just impossible for us to do this and we do not have the authority and we are not going to be welcomed, and we do not have a reason to do that. If things should be done to help people in trouble overseas, it should be done from our viewpoint of liberty, it should be done voluntarily and American people have been very generous in helping people when they are in trouble, but I want our government, our people to stay out of affairs especially when they come to violence and militarism.

RT: Some people believe that US political and military involvement in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine is a bid to maintain US global wealth by maintaining US global domination. What is your view on the subject?

RP: I think there is a lot to that. There are interested countries, whether it is Russia or China, when they invest overseas they go maybe the same, and America goes or used to be there. We are much more likely to have global presence by trading and investments, and having friendly relations. But now we have fallen into the trap of saying “Well, that was not the whole reason we went to the Middle East. Oil was the issue, there were other issues as well.” But China and other countries that are investing overseas, they are investing in oil and different things, and right now we are giving Russia a tremendous incentive to go and do more deals with China, India and other countries where, if the market was working, we might be able to better provide these trade agreements than when we make trouble and people resist what we do. That is why I do not think it is in our best interest.

RT: Inside the US we have a policy whereby the NSA collects data on US citizens en masse allegedly to mine data in order to deter future terrorist attacks. Are you concerned about this data collection and its impact on US citizens and businesses?

RP: There are some whom I don’t understand in our Congress, who say “Oh no, we must do it and this is the way we have safety.” This is more a principle of an authoritarian dictatorship. I am a strong advocate of privacy, I complain so much because our own government is very secretive in a free society. Once we were supposed to know what the government was doing but now all the efforts in Washington seem to be to make government very secretive and we are not allowed to know what is going on. If somebody tells us the truth they are charged with treason. Instead of looking to our Constitution, the 4th amendment protecting our privacy, actually the NSA are doing exactly the opposite. So our government is not acting in the way it was intended to, and some of us are concerned about it. I am very optimistic with a lot of young people, and there are still a lot of Americans who have been complacent, but they do not think, “Oh, I want to give up my freedom because government is going to take care of me.” Quite frankly, right now they are starting to realize that all governments, the more authoritarian they are the more inept they are. And that’s why you see collapses of so many empires around the world. I think right now we are not improving our influence in the word but actually we are causing more harm to the American people.

RT: The US has about 5 percent of the global population, but 35 percent of the global wealth. And this discrepancy seems to be contracting. What should the US do about that contraction?

RP: If you mean the 35 percent is going down, I wouldn’t measure the statistics, I would measure the measurement of freedom. A free society that is productive and has property rights and trade is going to have more wealth because that’s what a free country does. So if there is a discrepancy between the US and a country in Africa which has no property rights and no freedom and no industrialization, what they need is the concept of liberty, free markets and sound money, what the property rights mean and contract rights mean. So you do not want to say, “Well, if there is an imbalance in wealth we have to redistribute wealth” – that is not the answer to the problem. The answer to the problem is how the wealth gets created. We used to know how to do this. Today we think the wealth is created by the Federal Reserve. We are not producing wealth. And foolishly, foreign countries are still taking our dollars. As long as foreigners take our dollars we are going to be doing this, but this is going to diminish our wealth. Statistically, the freer a country is the more wealth it is going to have and they should never be held down for that. They should not be criticized for having wealth if they have earned that wealth.

The post Ron Paul: ‘US Involvement Into Affairs Of Other States Leads Only To Trouble’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Shinzo Abe’s quest to transform Japan into a ‘normal’ sovereign state is a risky and dubious proposition, warns Samir Tata. What he should be focusing on is becoming a better neighbor – i.e., on resolving Tokyo’s ongoing territorial disputes and improving its relations with Indonesia and North Korea.

By Samir Tata

Japan, under the leadership of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is on a quest for a new normal. The ultimate objective is to restore Japan to the status of a normal sovereign state that has “the inherent right of individual and collective self defense” as recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter of 1945. Japan remains the only country to have voluntarily renounced this right pursuant to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution of 1946, drafted under the guidance of the United States.

Abe’s ambition is to amend the Japanese Constitution to effectively repeal Article 9 so that Japan can once again be considered a normal state. Unfortunately the path to achieving this goal risks rekindling aggressive Japanese nationalism by juxtaposing assertive territorial claims to three sets of disputed islands and an ambitious program of military modernization and expansion. It is time then for Tokyo to push the reset button and execute a course correction. A reconfigured Japanese strategy to regain its status as a normal state must incorporate two key elements: (1) resolving territorial disputes, and (2) crafting a “good neighbor” policy that starts with North Korea and Indonesia.

Peace on the Rocks

Currently, Japan’s quest for normalcy risks being wrecked by three sets of disputed islands: the Kuril Islands in the Sea of Okhotsk (occupied by Russia since 1945), the Takeshima/Dokdo Islands in the Sea of Japan (unoccupied but administered by South Korea since 1954), and the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands (unoccupied but administered by Japan since 1971). As a result of these disputes, Japan has been unable to fully normalize relations with Russia, South Korea and China.

Japan and Russia have yet to sign a peace treaty formally ending the Second World War because of the dispute over the Kuril Islands. And while a resolution of the dispute has been on the table since 1956, Japan still refuses bring this matter to a close. It’s time for a change. Indeed, Tokyo can capitalize on the success of signing this treaty by negotiating an oil and gas pipeline deal (bringing Russian oil and gas resources to Japan) that only enhances Japan’s energy security. Moreover, as the Bering Sea becomes navigable year round due to global warming, Japan will be in a favorable position to secure transit rights through Russian waters, significantly reducing shipping time to northwest Europe and northeast America.

Similarly, the dispute over Takeshima/Dokdo Islands in the Sea of Japan remains a major obstacle to closer cooperation between South Korea and Japan. Yet, the chances of Japan ever regaining the islands are nil. Continuing to press its claims has no upside for Tokyo. If anything, it helps to maintain frosty relations between Seoul and Tokyo, encourages further South Korea – China cooperation against Japan and weakens the US effort to counterbalance China. Accordingly, it is in Japan’s interest to unilaterally renounce its claims to Takeshima/Dokdo Islands (which are also claimed by North Korea). Tokyo could couple this renunciation with a reaffirmation of its repentance for its actions during the period Korea was under Japanese rule. Such a move would dramatically transform South Korean-Japanese relations.

Perhaps the single biggest threat to peace in East Asia today is the increasingly strident dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands, a group of 5 barren rocks in the East China Sea. Washington’s position on the dispute is that it is neutral with respect to the question of sovereignty but recognizes that the islands are under Japanese administration. Accordingly, the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands are covered under the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty (1960). In the event of an armed Chinese takeover of the disputed islands, the US would be obligated to take action pursuant to Article V of the treaty, but the nature of its response would be determined independently by the US “in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes”, and could range from a verbal statement deploring the Chinese action to a military intervention. It is highly unlikely that the US would allow itself to be sucked into war by virtue of this dispute.

The risk Japan faces by escalating its rhetorical assertions of sovereignty over Senkaku/Daioyu is that China responds by initiating a series of intrusions (such as the November 2013 declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone) that effectively undermine Tokyo’s claims to sole administrative jurisdiction. The end result of this “salami slicing” tactic could be a physical takeover of the islands by the Chinese. Under the present escalatory dynamic, it is Chinese forbearance and strategic patience that determines when and not if the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands revert to Chinese sovereignty. It is clearly in Japan’s interest to step off the current escalatory ladder.

Indeed, Japan has a unique opportunity to create a new dynamic by selling part of the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands to Taiwan (which has asserted its own claims to the islands). In 2013, Japan and Taiwan signed an agreement sharing fishing rights in the waters surrounding the disputed islands. Japan, which purchased three of the five islands from a private Japanese owner in 2012 for about $ 25 million, could now turn around and sell the three islands to Taiwan for the same price, while retaining the present arrangement with respect to fishing. Again, Tokyo could couple this deal with a reaffirmation of its apology to China and Taiwan for the actions of the Japanese Empire against the Chinese people. Since Japan, China, Taiwan and the US agree on the “One China” policy, these three islands will eventually revert to Chinese sovereignty and administration upon Taiwan’s reunification with China. Tokyo will have demonstrated that it has the wisdom to exchange barren rocks for a mutually beneficial peace.

Crafting a “Good Neighbor” Policy

By resolving its territorial disputes with Russia, South Korea and China, Tokyo will have laid the foundation for a mutually beneficial “good neighbor” policy. Japan can leverage its success by normalizing its relationship with North Korea, and establishing a new anchor relationship with Indonesia.

North Korea is the only member state of the United Nations with which Japan has no diplomatic relations. By contrast, Japan normalized its relations with South Korea in 1965. It is high time, therefore, for Tokyo to do the same with the North. Then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (Shinzo Abe was then Deputy Cabinet Secretary) took the first step towards rapprochement when he visited Pyongyang on September 17, 2002. At that time, Koizumi apologized for Imperial Japan’s rule over Korea, with Kim Jong-Il apologizing for the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korean intelligence services in the 1970s.

Unfortunately, further progress on normalization foundered on Japan’s displeasure over what it considered unsatisfactory explanations of the deaths of eight of the abductees. Japan should separate and compartmentalize this issue so that it does not become an obstacle to establishing diplomatic relations with North Korea. Additionally, Japan should unilaterally make a significant down payment on a reparations package to be negotiated with North Korea. As part of this reparations package, Tokyo should propose the establishment of a North Korean special economic zone within which Japanese companies could have assembly and manufacturing facilities, thereby providing North Koreans with badly needed employment opportunities. It will be essential to delink the intermittent six-party talks regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program from any bilateral Japan-North Korea discussions with respect to the establishment of diplomatic relations or reparations. Both reparations and diplomatic relations are quintessentially bilateral issues that have no intrinsic relationship to the multilateral discussions on the North Korean nuclear program. Reparations arise from Imperial Japan’s occupation and annexation of Korea.

From both a strategic and economic perspective, it is also vital for Japan to have friendly and mutually beneficial relations with Indonesia. As an island nation with virtually no resources, Japan needs to have secure sea lines of communication (SLOCs) to sustain its trade. The SLOCs linking the western Pacific Ocean to the eastern Indian Ocean have four critical chokepoints – Malacca, Lambok, Sunda and Makassar straits – that pass through Indonesia. Safe passage through these waterways is vitally important to Japan as virtually all of its trade with Australia, South Asia, Middle East, Africa and Europe flows through at least one of these chokepoints. From Tokyo’s perspective, strengthening relations with Jakarta is a necessity and not a choice.

Japan also needs to reduce its reliance on China as a low cost manufacturing base for products that are then exported (primarily to Europe and the United States). Indonesia, an emerging democracy with the largest population in Southeast Asia, can serve as an alternative low cost manufacturing base that will help Japan reduce its economic dependency on China. While Japan already has an important presence in Indonesia, Tokyo’s objective should be to diversify and expand its manufacturing activities in the country so that it becomes the single largest foreign investor and manufacturer in Indonesia. Japan’s economic and maritime security will be enhanced if it can build an anchor relationship with Indonesia.

Germany successfully carved a path to a new normal and so can Japan. Resolving territorial disputes over barren rocks, reaffirming the remorse and repentance for the excesses of Imperial Japan, and forging mutually beneficial political and economic relationships with its neighbors will do more to restore Japan’s role in Asia than assertive nationalism. With a prudent and pragmatic course correction to avoid a setback, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s slogan “Japan is back” can be transformed from rhetoric to reality.

Samir Tata is a foreign policy analyst. He previously served as an intelligence analyst with the National-Geospatial Intelligence Agency, a staff assistant to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and a researcher with Middle East Institute, Atlantic Council and National Defense University.

The post Japan’s Quest For A New Normal – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As there is no indication that any EU member will block Serbia from getting into the EU without recognizing Kosova, Kosova’s—and Washington’s—main goal should be to lead to the condition that neither contestant can get into the club unless they both do.

By David B. Kanin

The agreement between Belgrade and Pristina is working well—for the Serbs.

The firm of Dacic & Vucic, now renamed Vucic & Dacic, continues to run rings around the less well managed operation in Kosova and the musty brokerage house in Brussels. With the election season over and such unimpressive opponents as Boris Tadic nudged into well-deserved obscurity, Vucic has lowered the volume of his campaign against corruption and veered what is left of it away from Dacic (what’s up with Darko Saric these days?).

Whatever Serbia’s two principals think of each other personally, they continue to cooperate in their well-crafted script regarding the Lost Province. Their rhetoric about Serbia’s progress toward EU membership includes pointed denials that their country will ever recognize Kosovar independence.  These are not just ritual nods to nationalist constituents, but rather public reaffirmations of Belgrade’s bedrock position that it will get into Europe without having to sacrifice a territorial claim it one day will make good.

The Europeans continue to cooperate with Serbian strategy.  In Belgrade, EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele praised Serbia’s approach to its European calling and said he “shares the same goal” with Vucic.  The next day Fuele, now in Pristina, took a less positive stance on Kosova’s candidacy, warning that it “has more work to do” on reforms.  The EU continues to encourage Serbia to believe recognition of Kosova’s independence is not necessary for Belgrade to join the club, which removes any pressure Belgrade might feel to rein in the Serbs living north of the Ibar.  The latters’ efforts to forestall any indication of Kosovar sovereignty on their turf has set a gold standard now being adapted so successfully by separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Let’s review the bidding.  On the day the Ashton-mediated agreement was signed in 2013, I was at a conference in New York, along with a fair number of academic Balkanists.  One of them convened an ad hoc plenum in which we all gave our first-blush reaction to the deal.  When the question came up of the five members of the EU who so far do not recognize Kosova’s independence, some in the group pointed to hopeful noises out of Bratislava and Bucharest as indicating the agreement would generate movement toward the universal recognition Pristina needs before it can hope to have an equal footing with Belgrade.  The general mood—as I remember it—was a sense that the agreement was a breakthrough, not the end of problems but a major step in the right direction.

So far, that is not how things are turning out.  None of the five had budged toward recognition of Kosova.  Slovak Foreign Minister Lajcak (who was the UN viceroy for Kosova before taking his current position), recently went to Belgrade, praised Serbia’s “right tack” toward the EU, and dodged the Kosova issue.  Romania, the other one of the five considered likely to change its stance, still shows no sign of doing so.  Neither does Greece or Cyprus.  Scotland’s independence referendum has the attention of Spain (and Cataluña), reinforcing Madrid’s consistent denial of the US position that Kosovar independence cannot possibly be considered a precedent for other secession problems.

The status issue is the only issue.  The belief some hold that administrative and technical agreements will lead to some sort of normal relationship, and that this normalcy eventually will create the basis for a resolution of the status dispute is—in my view—naïve.

In short, the basic situation remains as it has been since the April deal was put in place.  Serbia retains its status as a universally recognized state (and one that is moving skillfully toward EU membership).  The promised creation of a Serbian Municipality inside Kosova rewards local Serbs who successfully repelling all efforts to establish Kosovar sovereignty north of the Ibar with their own international legal status.  They can take their time creating the Municipality and crafting strategies to extend their challenge south of the river using the Municipality as an umbrella.  Kosova, meanwhile, stands out as lacking the same legal/political status, due to the stance of the EU-5.  The United States, Kosova’s patron, not only remains unable to force through universal recognition of the Kosova it created through a fitful series of tacking and talking between 2006 and 2008, but—given developments in Syria, Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, Africa, and east Asia—seems unable to accomplish much of anything.

Even those Serbs who “cooperate” with Kosovar institutions are pressing their envelope.  Kosova wants to establish an army—a basic security instrument for any entity that wants to call itself a state.  It cannot do this, given the refusal of those Serbs who agree to take seats in Kosova’s parliament to go along with such a clear statement of sovereignty.  Kosova’s government has toyed with changing its rules so minorities no longer would be guaranteed seats, but both the minorities and the internationals decry this idea and so things remain deadlocked.

The 2013 agreement and its aftermath have put Kosova in the unenviable position of having only one road to the EU—the one through Belgrade.  Vucic, Dacic and their colleagues can keep their approach to the Lost Province on cruise control, making technical arrangements as necessary with Pristina while walling off the status issue from the more difficult economic decisions that will determine how long and how effectively the government can hold power.

Various Serbs have set up 2020 as the target date for Belgrade’s admission to the EU.  The EU makes no promises, of course, but the friendly relations between the Europeans and the firm of Vucic & Dacic are a testament to the skill with which Serbia’s formidable leadership team—who have pedigrees going back to the firm of Milosevic & Seselj, let us remember– has remade their country’s image from 1990s villain to regional adult.  This accomplishment is even more impressive in the context of Belgrade’s skill in maintaining equally good relations with a resurgent Russia.  Vucic & Dacic are handling the Ukrainian problem as skillfully as they are managing Kosova.

So far, there is no indication any EU member will block Serbia from getting into the EU without recognizing Kosova.  A few German legislators appear to favor imposing this condition; Kosova’s—and Washington’s—main goal should be finding ways of nurturing that feeling, leading to the condition that neither contestant can get into the club unless they both do.  At the moment, this seems unlikely to happen, in large part because the performance of Vucic & Dacic stands heads above that of anyone else.

David B. Kanin is an adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The post Kosova/o: Uneven Competition – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Anjana Pasricha

The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party is headed for India’s biggest election victory in the last 30 years, clearing the way for its prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, to take charge of the world’s largest democracy.

The right-wing Hindu nationalist party will return to its leadership role after 10 years, as the ruling Congress Party conceded defeat Friday.

At a news conference, party chief Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul — who led campaigning — personally took responsibility for the loss.

The Congress party has been hit by a series of high-profile corruption scandals, high inflation and lagging economic growth.

The five-week election wrapped up Monday, with the final polls closing in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh and the eastern states of West Bengal and Bihar. Early results show the BJP winning the first one-party parliamentary majority in 30 years. That would mean it could create a government without forming a coalition with regional leaders.

In preliminary results, the United Progressive Alliance led by the Gandhi family’s Congress party, which has ruled India for the last decade, was leading in just 67 seats, its worst showing ever.

BJP supporters celebrate

Outside the BJP headquarters here, the street resembled a carnival. Jubilant supporters danced, set off firecrackers and distributed sweets.

Modi, the future prime minister, tweeted, “India has won. Good times ahead.”

That was the centerpiece of the regional leader’s appeal to the country. Modi, who has headed western Gujarat state, led an unprecedented presidential-style campaign and won over voters with his mantra of development, strong leadership and cleaner government.

Rajnath Singh, BJP president, called the vote the beginning of a new era. He said all sections of society had supported the party’s positive agenda.

“It is people’s mandate for change,” Singh said. “Time(s) has now come to rewrite the Indian success story.”

The scale of the victory gives India a strong government with a clear parliamentary majority, ending the dependency of successive coalition governments on regional allies. Stock markets soared at the prospect of stability and a business-friendly administration.

In a country restless for economic revival and better governance, BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad says economic growth will be his party’s first priority.

“I have rarely seen this overwhelming desire for change in the persona of Narendra Modi,” Prasad said. “… The first thing would be to restore people’s confidence in the economy by better governance.”

A return to power

It will be the BJP’s second stint in office; the party was voted out after six years in office in 2004. But with a majority in parliament, and the Congress Party decimated, it comes to office with greater strength.

Political observers attribute BJP’s victory to two factors: the hope of better times, which Modi has generated, and a strong desire for change from Congress rule, which was tainted by corruption, rising prices and a weakening economy.

Voters believed Modi offered a change, said Sanjay Kumar, a professor at the Center for Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi.

“People had an image or kind of faith that this is a man who can do development, this is a man who has a vision, who is a strong ruler … but clearly the ground was laid by the misgovernance of the Congress in the last three years,” Kumar said. “People were not only unhappy, there was huge anger against the ruling UPA government.”

Modi’s critics remain uneasy about how the Hindu nationalist leader will govern a diverse nation with many religious minorities. As governor of Gujarat state, he was criticized for his handling of Hindu-Muslim rioting that killed more than 1,000 people in 2002. India’s Supreme Court cleared Modi of charges that he incited the violence.

The controversy appears to have faded for many voters. Modi has since cast himself as an able administrator and decisive leader who has energized the economy of Gujarat and holds the promise of doing the same for the rest of the country.

Gandhi influence fades

There was huge anticipation on vote-counting day. People follow TV reports of election results as closely as they do a high-stakes cricket match.

While celebrations continued nonstop for the BJP, the New Delhi headquarters of the Congress Party wore a desolate look. Congress Party leaders conceded defeat early. The “grand old party,” which has ruled India for more than 50 years, was not just voted out – it was decimated. That is likely to raise questions about its continued reliance for leadership on the Gandhi political dynasty.

The post India’s Bharatiya Janata Party Poised For Landslide Win appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The chair of House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry for the second time this month over the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack, prompting an angry rebuke from the US State Department and Democrat representatives.

Darrell Issa issued the second subpoena on Thursday for Kerry to appear on May 29 before his committee and testify on the Benghazi attack, in which four members of the US diplomatic mission, including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed. It came days after he revoked the first subpoena for May 21, which the State Department said was in conflict with the secretary’s schedule.

“I lifted the subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify on May 21 because the State Department made reasonable arguments for an accommodation and told our committee they were seeking a suitable alternative date for his testimony on a voluntary basis. But soon after I lifted the subpoena, the State Department backtracked – stating publicly that we should accept ‘a more appropriate witness’ and refusing to commit to making Secretary Kerry available,” Issa said in a statement.

The State Department replied angrily to Issa’s move, branding his tweet announcing the second subpoena “a headline-grabbing, highly political” attack on “the integrity of the State Department itself.”

“This is not the way legitimate and responsible oversight is conducted, and it’s a departure from the days when Rep. Issa himself once lamented that a Secretary of State should not be distracted from the work of national security to testify at the barrel of a subpoena,” spokesperson Marie Harf said in a statement.

“We will continue to work with the committee to resolve their request, but we have not made arrangements for a hearing date, and we hope to explore with them whether there are witnesses better suited to answer their questions and meet their needs for oversight.”

The Oversight Committee is one of five bodies in the House currently probing the Benghazi attack. Republican representatives voted Thursday on forming a Select Committee with an intention to merge the multiple probes into a single panel. Issa, a Republican, is not part of the select committee, and Democrats believe his second subpoena works against the Republican effort.

“Chairman Issa’s subpoena of Secretary Kerry calls into question the Republicans’ stated purpose of the Select Committee on Benghazi,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

She said “the Select Committee is a sign of no confidence in Issa just as Issa’s action today is a sign of a lack of confidence in the Select Committee.”

A similar assessment came from Elijah Cummings, senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

“I don’t know if this is Chairman Issa’s attempt to reinsert himself into this investigation after the speaker removed him, but this looks more and more like the ‘sideshow’ and ‘circus’ Speaker Boehner said he would not tolerate,” Cummings said in a statement.

But Boehner’s office said the speaker supports Issa’s subpoena, while Issa last week defended the Select Committee idea, saying it would help focus the investigation on the White House actions in the wake of the attack.

Republicans believe that President Barack Obama administration hushed up details of the Benghazi tragedy to protect his re-election campaign. Democrats accuse the Republicans of spinning the investigation to score political points ahead of the November mid-term elections.

The post ​State Dept Lashes Out Over Second Kerry Subpoena To Testify On Benghazi appeared first on Eurasia Review.