It’s not just soccer fans whose football fever soars during a World Cup. So does that of militant Islamists and jihadists with deadly consequences. Scores of fans have been killed since this month’s kick-off of the Cup in attacks in Iraq, Kenya and Nigeria.

The attacks by the likes of the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Al Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram appear to have become a World Cup fixture with similar random slaughter having occurred during the 2010 tournament in South Africa.

They reflect the diversity of opinion among jihadists on the merits of soccer as well as a degree of opportunism among all jihadists, irrespective of their attitude towards the beautiful game, in exploiting its popularity whether by seeking to maximise publicity by targeting fans during the tournament or using it as a recruitment tool.

The attacks occurred against the backdrop of a series of statements and fatwas, religious opinions, by militant clerics, often Salafis who seek to emulate to the degree possible 7th century life at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and his immediate successors who are not jihadists, condemning soccer as an infidel game that is intended to divert the faithful from their religious obligations or create divisiveness.

What amounts to an anti-World Cup campaign remains however an uphill battle for anti-soccer jihadists and Salafis in the Middle East and Africa, a region that is as passionate about the game as it is about its adherence in whatever form to Islamic beliefs. The Saudi Gazette reported that Saudi families in the run-up to the holy month of Ramadan that starts next week were preoccupied with balancing their shopping needs with ensuring that they don’t miss a World Cup match.

In stark contrast to four years ago, when the Saudi clergy rolled out in front of cafes where men gathered to watch World Cup matches mobile mosques on the backs of trucks to ensure that fans performed their daily prayers at the obligatory time, malls in Jeddah and facilities associated with the Jeddah Ghair Festival have this year set up screens broadcasting games as they are played in Brazil.

Pictures distributed by ISIL of Iraqi soldiers summarily executed in Tikrit last week show men who often unsuccessfully donned soccer jerseys, some with the images of German Turkish player Mesut Ozil or Sweden’s Zlatan Ibrahimovic who is of Bosnian extraction to escape the jihadist advance. In a morbid gesture, ISIS sent a video link of the beheading of an off-duty policeman to the Twitter hashtags #WorldCup and #Worldcup 2014 with the words: “This is our ball…it is made of skin.”

A café in the Kenyan coastal town of Mpeketoni where fans had gathered this week to watch a World Cup match was among the targets of Al Shabab gunmen who killed 49 people in attacks on several targets in the town. The attack was reminiscent of the bombing in 2010 of two sites in the Ugandan capital of Kampala where fans had come together to enjoy the Cup’s final.

Similarly, the group which at the time controlled substantial chunks of Somalia had threatened to execute anyone found watching World Cup matches on television. Somali players and sports journalists have been targeted by Al Shabab in the four years between the South Africa and Brazil World Cups. The Kampala bombings prompted the US embassy in the Ugandan capital to this month warn Americans to avoid soccer-viewing venues.

Nigerian police marked the opening of this month’s World Cup with a warning that owners of bars, video halls and mass open-air soccer-screening venues and fans should be vigilant against potential attacks by Boko Haram. Authorities in Adamawa and Plateau states and the Federal Capital Territory went a step further by banning screenings of World Cup matches in public venues. Like elsewhere in Africa, those venues are the only way for fans who can’t afford cable television subscriptions to see World Cup games and other major soccer matches live.

At least 21 fans were killed and 27 others injured barely a week after the security measures were announced when Boko Haram bombed a venue in Damaturu where fans had gathered to watch the match between Brazil and Mexico. A bombing a week before the announcement in Mubi in Adamawa state killed another 14 fans. Three people were killed last month in an attack on a soccer viewing venue in Jos, the capital of Plateau state and two people died in April when gunmen opened fire on a soccer-viewing venue in Yobe state.

The post Targeting Fans: Jihadists Get World Cup Fever – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted on June 20, 2014 by a narrow margin of 310-303 to give a big victory to divestment supporters inside and outside the 1.8 million-member Protestant Church, to use this strategy to pressure Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

The divestment movement, is particularly strong in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and almost passed a similar resolution two years ago.

Most Protestant churches oppose divestment. In 2012, the United Methodist Church rejected divestment as a tool to pressure Israel.

The issue has split the Presbyterian Church for the last decade. Then, in January 2014 the tilt against Israel became evident when “Zionism Unsettled,” a booklet produced by a church-chartered Mission, argued that the right of a Jewish nation to exist in the Holy Land is based on bad theology.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism in North America, came to speak before the Presbyterian General Assembly the day before the vote.

The Reform Rabbi warned that a divestment vote would be taken as a sign that the Presbyterian church has aligned itself with those in the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” movement who vilify Israel and often question its right to exist.

“It would be an attack on the Jewish community and religion,” especially in the wake of the publication of “Zionism Unsettled,” the Reform Rabbi said.

Rabbi Jacobs offered to arrange a meeting in Jerusalem the next week for Presbyterian leaders to talk with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if they voted against divestment.

Many who spoke against the measure urged their fellow Presbyterians to accept Rabbi Jacobs’ offer, but the majority were not open to the opportunity.

The authors of the divestment resolution did affirm the church’s support for a two-state solution and also stated that the resolution does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS movement, whose supporters often argue that Israel has no right to exist, and whose views the resolution did not reject.

They also did not also call for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; nor did they call for Hamas, the new part of the Palestinian government, to stop firing rockets at Israeli towns.

The post Presbyterian Church Tilts Against Israel – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Oklahoma recently took action to protect the state’s children from the federal education bureaucracy by withdrawing from Common Core. Common Core is the latest attempt to bribe states, with money taken from the American people, into adopting a curriculum developed by federal bureaucrats and education “experts.” In exchange for federal funds, states must change their curriculum by, for example, replacing traditional mathematics with “reform math.” Reform math turns real mathematics on its head by focusing on “abstract thinking” instead of traditional concepts like addition and subtraction. Schools must also replace classic works of literature with  “informational” texts, such as studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Those poor kids!

Oklahoma will likely not be the last state to explicitly ban Common Core, as grassroots opposition to this latest federal education “reform” scheme continues to grow.  While “reform math” and the use of “informational” texts grab headlines and fuel the outrage behind this movement, they are just symptoms of the problem, not the cause. The devil with Common Core lies not in its details but in its underlying principle. That principle is that that DC-based central planners can develop a curriculum suitable for every student. The idea that government “experts” can centrally plan a nation’s educational system is just as flawed as the idea that government can centrally plan the economy.

One major flaw in a curriculum deigned by central planners for use by all students is that it will likely not be academically rigorous enough to meet the needs of college-bound students. Yet at the same time, “one-size-fits-all” curriculums like Common Core offer little to meet the needs of students interested in technical or vocational education opportunities.

Growing dissatisfaction with Common Core and other centralized education schemes is leading an increasing number of parents to pursue alternatives such as homeschooling.  Throughout my congressional career I was a defender of homeschooling. Now that I am out of Congress, I have expanded my work with homeschoolers through my Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum.  The curriculum provides students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other subjects. While the curriculum is designed to prepare students for college-level work, students not interested pursing a traditional four-year college degree will also benefit.

The curriculum features three tracks: natural science/math, social sciences/humanities, and business. Students may also take courses in personal finance and public speaking. The curriculum avoids the ideological biases common in public schools; for example, the government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty.

Students can use the student discussion forums to interact with, learn from, and teach their peers.

One unique feature of the curriculum is that it gives students the opportunity to start their own Internet-based businesses.

The curriculum is free for students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Families above the fifth grade pay $250 a year, plus $50 per course. However, for the next three months, the Ron Paul Home School Curriculum is offering — for non-members only — an online summer school refresher program for students above the fifth grade. For just $25 students can access the curriculum for three months. This is an excellent opportunity for parents to see if my curriculum meets their child’s needs.

If you are a parent dissatisfied with existing education options, I hope you will take advantage of the Ron Paul Curriculum’s summer refresher program and consider opting-out of Common Core and opting-in to the Ron Paul Curriculum.

For information on my summer refresher program please see here.
For information on the curriculum please see here

The post Ron Paul: Opt-Out Of Common Core, Opt-In To The Ron Paul Curriculum – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As tens of thousands of people gathered at Stonehenge last night and this morning for the summer solstice — and, presumably, more photos were taken than ever before, including, of course, the ubiquitous “selfie,” an example of which can be seen in the photo to the left — I recall that, 30 years ago, in June 1984, the last Stonehenge Free Festival took place in the fields opposite Stonehenge, and I was one of the tens of thousands of people who took part in it.

I had first visited with friends the year before, and had been astonished to discover that, while Margaret Thatcher was embarking on her malevolent plan to create a taxpayer-funded privatised Britain of selfishness, consumerism and unfettered greed, tens of thousands of people were on Salisbury Plain — partying, yes, or just getting wasted, but also sidelining consumerism and embracing communalism and alternative ways of living and looking at the world.

My experiences were central to my book Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion, a social history of Stonehenge, which I wrote over an 18-month period from 2002 to 2004, and which was published ten years ago. It’s still in print, and you can buy it from me here, or from the publisher, Heart of Albion Press, or, if you must, from Amazon. After ten years, it is also — finally — being stocked at Stonehenge itself, in the new visitors’ centre that opened last December.

From humble beginnings ten years before, the Stonehenge Free Festival had grown to become the definitive counter-cultural expression of hedonism and dissent, a month-long manifestation of an alternative society, which so alarmed the authorities that the following year an advance convoy, travelling to Stonehenge to secure the festival site on June 1, was set upon by 1,400 police from six counties and the MoD, and decommissioned with shocking violence at an event that will forever be known as “The Battle of the Beanfield.” My book, The Battle of the Beanfield, about the terrible events of that day is also still available. For bulk orders, please contact Enabler Publications.

For 13 years after the Beanfield, a military-style exclusion zone was raised around Stonehenge every solstice, until, eventually, the Law Lords ruled that it was illegal. After a failed attempt to introduce managed access in 1999, through a ticketed event, a “Managed Open Access” policy was introduced in 2000, which has continued ever since, with free access allowed for a period of around 12 hours, from the evening on June 20 to the morning of June 21.

I visited Stonehenge, via “Managed Open Access,” every year from 2001 to 2005, and it was wonderful to finally be allowed back into the stones, although the irony was not lost on me, or on others familiar with the free festival, that while the festival occupied the fields opposite Stonehenge, only a few hundred people cared enough about the stones to make their way across the road for events on and around the solstice, whereas now up to 30,000 people gather in the stones, many of whom are drawn more by the promise of a free party than by any particular interest in the stones.

Mostly, though, while I have always appreciated the fact that “Managed Open Access” at least allows people to step outside of consumer society for 12 hours, with no entrance fee, and nothing to buy for the duration of the event, I lament how mainstream society has so thoroughly sidelined the counter-culture that dissent has  largely been done away with. We have our alternative points of view online, and there are a handful of vibrant political protests — against fracking, for example — but the main impulse of society is to ensure that people spend as much and as often as possible during their every waking hour, and, if they don’t have any money, that they don’t cause any problems.

35 years ago, the travellers’ movement arose in response to the mass unemployment of the time, which only got worse under Margaret Thatcher, and in the years that followed, despite the Tory government’s best efforts to suppress dissent, new forms of protest kept emerging, hybrid mutant variations of what had come before — the rave scene of the late 80s and early 90s, for example, and the road protest movement, which in turn led to the Reclaim the Streets movement, which fed into the anti-globalisation movement of the late 90s and the early 21st century.

In the meantime, however, darker forces were at work — a thoroughly unregulated financial sector was taking uncontrolled greed to a new level, while politicians presided over a monstrous housing bubble that perfectly matched a growing selfishness and self-obsession in society as a whole. In terms of stifling dissent, the “war on terror” provided a perfect opportunity to further strip civil liberties and assault basic human rights, and this, along with the development of “kettling,” and the increase in surveillance — via CCTV or online — plus the increasing privatisation of what was once public land provides a stark intimation of a growing dystopian police state, in which our sense of privacy — and our ability to be unseen — has been thoroughly eroded.

And running though all of this — still — is Stonehenge, the focal point of dissent in the late 70s and early 80s not only for the land reformers of the convoy, and the self-sufficient economy of the free festival circuit, but also for the green activists who particularly brought the weight of the state down on them at the Beanfield, because they had also been involved in protesting against Britain’s military subjugation by the US — establishing a peace camp at Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, the planned second site for cruise missiles after Greenham Common, where, of course, a famous women’s peace camp existed, whose occupants couldn’t be coralled into a field and truncheoned into submission like the Stonehenge convoy.

Tens of thousands of people had gathered at Stonehenge for the last few free festivals, and after the festival’s suppression legislation was passed — the Public Order Act of 1986 — that began the process of criminalising unauthorised gatherings. The numbers attending the Stonehenge festivals were matched only, in later years, by the Castlemorton Free Festival in Gloucestershire in May 1992, which I also attended, and which, in turn, was followed by further legislation — the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 — that finally made unauthorised gatherings illegal. Whereas previously 30,000 people had gathered with impunity, now just two people — yes, just two people — in a field, or involved for what the police might consider to be preparations for a rave (involving amplified music “wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats”) can be arrested.

Under Tony Blair and now David Cameron, the rhetoric has now been ramped up even more. Under Blair, protestors became “domestic terrorists,” and Cameron, of course, criminalised squatting, which previously had been a purely civil offence. In London, there is now an epidemic of empty buildings occupied by “guardians” — young people, often artists, who are obliged to pay dodgy security companies to live in empty properties and protect them from squatters.

With youth unemployment at record levels, rents in the south east at an all-time high, tenant protections against unscrupulous landlords at an all-time low, and no politicians prepared to put the needs of the people — for work, for genuinely affordable housing and for an end to individual lives increasingly locked into credit and debt — before the greed of banks and corporations, it is surely time that new forms of dissent are devised.

What is needed are new movements to challenge what, over the last 30 years — but particular since the global financial crash of 2008, for which bankers, economists and politicians were entirely responsible — has become an ever more unequal society, enriching the already rich, and, on a daily basis, driving more and more ordinary people — working, or unfortunate enough to be unemployed or disabled — into ever more precarious situations, up to and including outright poverty.

As the solstice sun shines, it’s time for dissent to make a comeback, 30 years after the last Stonehenge Free Festival, which, lest we forget, took place during the Miners’ Strike, the defining act of state violence against workers’ dissent in the whole of Margaret Thatcher’s wretched 11-year premiership.

The post 30 Years On From Last Stonehenge Free Festival, Where Is Spirit Of Dissent? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Sunday that Washington is not responsible for the current crisis in Iraq, according to Agence France Presse.

During a surprise visit to Cairo to meet with Egypt’s new president, former military chief Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Kerry told reporters, “The United States of America is not responsible for what happened in Libya, nor is it responsible for what is happening in Iraq today.”

“The United States shed blood and worked hard for years for the Iraqis to have their own governance… but [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] ISIL crossed the line from Syria, began plotting internally. They have attacked communities and they are the ones marching through to disrupt the ability of Iraq to have the governance it wants,” he added.

Kerry’s commentary comes in response to growing violence in Iraq under the current Sunni jihadist insurgency that is sweeping the country.

The extremist Sunni militant group ISIL has taken over parts of Iraq’s northern territories as well as the city of Mosul; the group also managed to take over control of the country’s main oil refinery within days last week, but security forces claim they have regained control of the facility.

With many international actors, particularly Iran, saying that the U.S. sparked the current sectarian tension in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion aftermath, Kerry called on Iraqis to “rise above sectarian considerations…and speak to all people” in order to fight the growing jihadist threat.

Kerry later added that the “U.S. is not engaged in picking or choosing any one individual… it’s up to the people of Iraq to choose their own leadership.”

Kerry has been in Cairo to discuss both Egypt and regional-related issues with Sisi, with the Iraq situation considered of central importance.

Original article

The post Kerry Insists US Not Responsible For Crisis In Iraq Today appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Interview by Telegraaf with Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 21 June 2014

(ECB) — When Mario Draghi took over as President of the European Central Bank in November 2011, he stepped into the eye of the hurricane. The euro area was confronted with serious problems. After the financial misery in Greece, Portugal and Ireland, larger countries like Spain and Italy were also threatening to collapse. Panic was widespread, both among politicians and among investors.

As of his very first day in office as the President of the central bank, the Italian had to take crisis measures. The most serious concerns are a thing of the past, but Europe is still experiencing economic woes. Draghi remains outwardly calm despite the turbulence he has had to deal with. Did he ever have doubts about taking on the job? “No, no, I never hesitated. Things happen.”

Mario Draghi is 66 years old and has a further five and a half years ahead of him in Frankfurt. He met the reporters of De Telegraaf for an exclusive interview on the 35th floor of the ECB tower. In the near future, he will be moving to gleaming new premises, but at the moment he is still surrounded by what his predecessors Jean-Claude Trichet and Wim Duisenberg have left him. “Only the books are different – they are mine.”

He is happy to take up the Dutch debate on the euro. He doesn’t think much of politicians who promise the earth outside the single European currency. “Some people think we should move back in time, thirty or forty years back. I prefer to go forward.” And that also means to continue to build up Monetary Union because it has by no means been completed.

Minister Dijsselbloem said recently that the crisis was over. What is your view?

“The recovery has now been ongoing for around nine months. It is still weak and unevenly distributed across the euro area. And it is vulnerable. Accidents could happen in the global economy that can quickly change the situation. That might be a disruption on the financial markets, or geopolitical risks. In addition, unemployment has now been stabilising for some six months. Very slowly it has been going down. Also in crisis countries such as Portugal. But the level of unemployment is still very high. That alone poses a risk to the recovery because it leads to lower consumer demand.”

You would thus define a recovery as any growth above zero?

“No, but economic activity is gradually, though slowly, picking up. Both manufacturers’ and consumers’ confidence has been quite good in recent times. However, in the first quarter of this year we saw slower growth.”

The troubles in Iraq are causing oil prices to surge. How much of a risk is that?

“Our mandate is to ensure price stability. If inflation in the medium term is higher than the target of close to, but below, 2%, we are concerned. But we are also concerned if it is far lower. We are constantly asking ourselves why inflation is so low in the euro area. Initially, this was due to lower energy and food prices. Later, US dollar prices of these products stabilised, but the euro appreciated, causing inflation to fall still further. Higher oil prices are sure to have an impact on inflation, at least if we do not experience a further appreciation of the euro. But it is also good news for the countries that produce energy, as in the case of the Netherlands with its gas.”

At least if the winter is not too mild, since that cost the Netherlands quite a bit in terms of gas sales at the beginning of the year.

“Yes, indeed. Is it not remarkable that the significant fall in economic activity in the Netherlands in the first quarter was due primarily to this fact? Many people simply don’t realise just how large the energy sector is. Incidentally, one has to acknowledge that too low inflation, while being generally negative for growth and especially so in the euro area, does support real disposable incomes. That is one of the reasons why consumption in the euro area is rising.

Compared with the United Kingdom and the United States, economic activity in Europe is still rather weak.

“Our recovery is in an earlier stage that that in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. That is why the ECB adopted a number of policy measures on 5 June: a lower interest rate (and for banks a negative deposit rate), the introduction of support for banks that is linked to the provision of credit, the so-called TLTROs and preparations for a programme for purchases of packaged corporate loans, asset-backed securities. In April, I already said in Amsterdam that there are three situations that could induce the ECB to take action. One was an unwarranted tightening of the monetary policy stance that is reflected in an increase in short-term interest rates. That could lead to higher medium-term interest rates, and thus also impact economic growth and price stability. The second was an ongoing deterioration of lending. That was also a matter for our attention because lending has now been weak for a very long time. The third development was a deterioration of the prospects for price stability over the medium term.”

And all three occurred at one and the same time?

“No, we responded primarily to the first two. We have not seen any deflation in the sense of prices declining across the whole spectrum in the euro area, with households and firms postponing consumption and investment because they are waiting for lower prices. What we do see is that low inflation persists for a long time. If it lasts too long, adjustment in the crisis countries is made more difficult. In a situation of low inflation, wages in these countries need to really decline in absolute terms in order to improve their competitiveness.”

Does the fact play a role that debt weighs more heavily when inflation is low?

“Certainly, that is yet another consequence of low inflation. The reduction of debt levels, which is of great importance in large parts of the euro area, becomes more difficult in the event of low inflation.”

Private and public sector debt?

“Yes, both private and public debt.”

Low interest rates are detrimental for savers, and for people’s pensions. How would you answer such concern?

“It is a very understandable concern. Many life insurance policies and pension plans promised far higher value at the time they were agreed.”

How long will interest rates continue to remain low?

“We have prolonged banks’ access to unlimited liquidity up to the end of 2016. That is a signal. Our programme in support of bank lending to businesses will continue for four years. That shows that interest rates will remain low over a longer period. But thereafter they will increase when the recovery will firm up.”

If the United States were already to raise interest rates in spring 2015, would Europe have to wait until spring 2017?

“We will have to wait and see what happens, but the extension to the end of 2016 is a signal. Incidentally, the United States has reduced the growth figure for the first quarter.”

In view of the impairment of pension entitlements, people are spending less because they have to set more aside.

“We do not see this. There is no lack of spending in the countries that are affected most by the low interest rates. I understand the concerns about the low interest rates, but on the other hand, they are what leads to more investment and higher growth. And we need to take into account precisely which interest rate we are talking about. These pension products invest in government bonds with long maturities. Many of the reasons why interest rates on government bonds are low have nothing to do with the ECB. They are low because countries such as the Netherlands and Germany have become safe havens. Prior to the crisis, life insurers invested in bonds issued by all countries, both “core” countries and ‘non-core’ countries. The interest earned on their investment was thus higher because weaker countries had also been included. The crisis created financial fragmentation in that insurers all used government bonds issued by their own countries to fulfil obligations. That caused insurers in the north to be confronted with low yields. Returns in the south were particularly good. Once there is renewed confidence in the euro area, the northern countries will no longer be the only safe havens. Money will then again flow freely and the recovery of confidence will lead to higher yields in the northern countries. Besides that, we have to conduct monetary policy for the whole euro area. We cannot consider only one single point of interest.”

Do you have any understanding for the fact that people in the north feel that they are having to pay for the mistakes made by the south?

“I am well aware of this conflict. Some months ago, I held a lecture on Monetary Union in the United States. I said then that there were major imbalances between various euro area countries, large debtor and large creditor countries. I said that it was never a goal of Monetary Union to create permanent creditors and permanent debtors. That would have to change in order to have a balanced Union. An American in the audience responded to this by saying ‘what you are saying does not hold water because here in the United States, the State of Oklahoma has always been a debtor, while New York has always been a creditor, and that is no cause for us to worry. So why should you be worried about it?’ I think that this touches on the heart of the matter. The debts of US citizens are all treated equally, irrespective of where they come from.”

Because the United States is a political union.

“Indeed. The Dutch have a problem with paying for the Greeks, but not with paying for other Dutch. But let’s look at that ‘paying’. It is not at all clear what some countries have really paid for other countries. In Greece, there was a write-off on debts held by the financial sector, but there was no further default. It has cost the euro area countries far more to save their own banks.”

Will Greece ever be able to repay its debt?

“If Greece continues with its structural reforms, restores order to its public finances and improves its competitiveness, growth there will increase. If that happens, Greece will be able to do so. Greece has less debt to service over the next five years than Belgium. Much of Greek debt has a very low interest rate and very long maturities.”

The ECB has taken many measures, but has not undertaken any quantitative easing, i.e. has not purchased bonds. What needs to happen before you would start doing so?

“That would be the answer to the third situation that I mentioned in Amsterdam, a deterioration of inflation expectations over the medium term. At the moment, however, we are focusing on the measures announced on 5 June.”

Is it legally possible to buy up government bonds? There is still a court case pending on this issue.

“This is indeed possible within our mandate, namely if the purchases are aimed at ensuring price stability. We are not permitted to provide Member States with monetary financing.”

You were very happy about the unanimity of the decision taken on 5 June. Would a unanimous decision also be possible on quantitative easing?

“Any guess would be premature. Quantitative easing can include not only government bonds, but also private sector loans. We will discuss that when the time comes.”

Your statement ‘whatever it takes’, to save the euro at any cost, made at the time of the announcement of a new government bond purchasing programme, marks a turning point in the euro crisis. Do you feel that you no longer need to follow through on it?

(Smiles) “In contrast to both the initial purchases of government bonds and possible quantitative easing, the programme of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) is aimed at a very specific risk, namely the so-called tail risk of the euro area falling apart.”

Did you ever fear that that might happen?

“In July 2012, there were more than enough reasons for concern. In my short statement in London, I said that one of the mistakes many people make is to underestimate how much political capital has already been invested in the euro. I was very much aware of that fact. Just before I made that statement, the political leaders had fully committed themselves to the euro at the European Summit, within the scope of which the Banking Union was created.”

Are the OMTs some kind of nuclear bomb, a threat that will never be carried out?

“The markets reacted in a way that made it unnecessary to use the programme. The spreads between the interest rates [on bonds] of southern euro area countries and Germany narrowed sharply. That was something that could not have been achieved by any other monetary policy measure.”

Were you surprised by this effect?

“By the magnitude of the effect? Yes, certainly. We were all surprised.”

Or were you relieved that you had merely had to promise action without following through with it?

“In order to be credible, we also had to be sure that we could actually use the instrument. We were not bluffing, most certainly not.”

The other side to the coin is that you bought so much time for politicians that they no longer needed to implement reforms so rapidly. Do you also see this other side?

“Yes and no. We have a mandate to safeguard price stability. We are not responsible for how politicians make use of the time they have. I do not want to mix the responsibilities of the central bank with those of governments. But look at the extent of the reforms undertaken by governments since 2012. You will then need to admit that considerable progress has been made. Take Spain, for example, which has restructured its banking sector and reformed the labour market. Portugal is another example and Ireland yet another. And even in Greece progress has been remarkable.”

You have said repeatedly that the euro is an irreversible project. It is understandable that you say that, but is this not something for politicians to decide?

“Our mandate is to ensure price stability. There was more than enough evidence that a collapse of the euro would endanger price stability, and therefore our action was squarely within our mandate.

You saved the euro. In doing so, did you not take a political decision?

“No, certainly not. The issue is by no means political. My statement in July 2012 was aimed at price stability. There was unjustified uncertainty about the future of the euro, not political uncertainty but a financial one. Unjustified speculative expectations about a break-up of the euro had been selffulfilling in a vicious spiral for several months. They had produced a very high level of interest rates. These rates were harming the real economy and the banking sector. The consequence might have been a new credit crisis and the impairment of our monetary policy, and therefore of our ability to maintain price stability. There has far too often been criticism that it was a political decision, but that is simply not true.”

Much has been undertaken to close the gaps in Economic and Monetary Union, stricter budget rules and a banking union. Is everything now in place?

“The banking union is a major step forward in the direction of a more complete monetary union. The crisis has shown that the economic policies of one country have a clear impact on other countries. Economic policy cannot be a purely national matter. Where fiscal policy is concerned, a certain degree of Union-wide discipline is already given. But the marked imbalances between euro area countries are due to a lack of structural reforms in some countries. The next step to be taken is to subject structural reforms, too, to Union-wide discipline.”

Current economic policy coordination in the euro area is merely a first step?

“Yes, indeed, it is merely a first step.”

What will the second step look like?

“That is a matter for the political domain to decide. In the case of the budget agreements, sovereignty has been shared among Member States. That should also be done with respect to the labour market, competitiveness, bureaucracy, agreements on the internal market. Sovereignty needs to be shared at a level other than the national sphere. That is where I stop. Because now there are several options for politicians to choose from. You could grant greater powers to the European Commission, or to the Member States within the European Council, or you could create new European institutions. That is not for me to decide.”

The contention of some politicians that EMU is complete is thus not correct?

“No, far more is necessary for a perfect monetary union.”

Is a budgetary authority necessary at the euro area level, a fund for the compensation of weak countries?

“That is a highly political issue. Compliance with existing rules would be enough. But it is clear that my predecessor in office, Trichet, made a strong case for a budgetary authority.”

Returning to your example of the State of Oklahoma, would that not be a form of financial solidarity that is needed in the euro area?

“There is at least one difference. The United States is a single country, the euro area is not. Given the more complex structure, we must seek a design that best ensures that economic policy is regarded as being of common interest.”

Do you understand the concerns about such a transfer of powers? The outcome of the European elections can also be viewed against that background. Do you have a solution to this issue?

“Are we really so sure that it would have been better if we all still had our own currency? Would we have been better off over the past ten, fifteen years? In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, we experienced a whole number of currency devaluations with often high inflation as a result. We currently have a formidable degree of price stability, a low rate of inflation. That offers enormous opportunities for growth and job creation. It is not the fault of the euro that economic policy went wrong in some countries. But let us please conduct that debate. It is important as such. Some people feel that we should turn time back thirty or forty years, but I prefer to move forward.”

Do you understand that people see the euro as the cause of the crisis, and of unemployment?

“The crisis and the unemployment are the result of a very severe financial crisis and partly also of wrong economic policies. The euro may have masked it but it has not caused it. We must end the crisis in Monetary Union and enable it to create prosperity and jobs again.”

That sounds terrific, but the many EU Summits on growth and job creation have all led to nothing. What needs to be done?

“That is a complicated issue. We cannot accept the present because we currently have low growth and insufficient job creation. On the other hand, we should not dream of a past that cannot be brought back and that cannot by any means be clearly taken to be better. We must work for the future in order to achieve not only stability, but also growth and employment.”

Source: ECB

The post Mario Draghi, President Of ECB – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On 19 June 2014, the European Union and Georgia held the seventh round of their human rights dialogue in Tbilisi.

The dialogue at expert level was held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere, with an exchange on a wide range of issues of mutual interest and concern, as well as discussions on possibilities for concrete cooperation in the field of human rights.

The EU delegation was headed by Mr Dirk Schuebel, Head of the Eastern Partnership Bilateral Division at the European External Action Service. The Georgian delegation was headed by Ms Tamar Beruchashvili, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia.

The dialogue allowed in particular for an exchange of views on the challenges and reform of the justice system and the law enforcement system, including the functioning of the prosecutor’s office; elections and electoral framework; anti-discrimination policy and rights of minorities, rights of internally displaced persons and the human rights situation in Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Georgia.

The EU and Georgia also discussed human rights cooperation within international organisations, in particular at the UN. The dialogue was followed by a field trip to the administrative boundary line in Georgia between the territory administered by the government in Tbilisi and the region of South Ossetia.

The EU-Georgia human rights dialogue takes place in the context of a deepening relationship between both partners within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, in the run-up to the signature of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement.

In keeping with the EU’s practice of incorporating the voice of civil society into its meetings on human rights with third countries, the EU met with representatives of Georgian NGOs and international NGOs prior to the human rights dialogue.

The post EU-Georgia Continues Human Rights Dialogue appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The landslide election earlier this month of Narendra Modi does not bode well for the 800 million or so Indians living in destitution, or the 120 million minority Muslims in the country, or the Adivasi (indigenous) people and Dalit groups sitting on resource-rich land in Orissa, Jharkhand and elsewhere. He may well come from a humble background, but Mr. Modi’s loyalties lie firmly with the corporations of India, not the chai wallahs working the train station at Vadnagar in Gujarat State like his father once did. And certainly not the Adivasi families being forced from their homes to make way for multi national bulldozers, or the marginalized millions on the fringes of India’s cities living in tin shacks with no sanitation or health care, where children play alongside open sewers, and women work on mountains of refuse collecting Chinese plastics for a few rupees a day.

Modi is a far right Hindu Nationalist whose election suggests India is “entering its most sinister period since independence.”[The Guardian] Hindu nationalism is an exclusive club made up of upper-caste Hindus who form the ruling elite; it is of course closed to the devout worshipers from the lower castes. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) openly promotes the ideal of an India run by and for Hindus. It is “quite open about its belief in the Hindu India … where everybody else lives … as second-class citizens.” Modi’s rise to electoral stardom is a “terribly sad thing and something to be ashamed of.” [Arundhati Roy]

His election campaign was the most expensive ever staged in India, funded as all these political games are by the men with the money. The billionaires and millionaires, the rupee resplendent corporations that own India; her sacred putrid rivers; the forests and bauxite rich mountains; the media – print, radio, Television, the schools, hospitals and water ways. Everything of value, catalogued within the business portfolios of a tiny few, whilst the majority starve, defecate in public, are violated, exploited, ignored.

Nobody knows the precise cost of the new PM’s campaign: it is estimated to have exceeded Rs. 5,000 crore – that’s about $840 million. The man and his message was polished, packaged and sold like any other fizzy brand, with advertised promises of economic revival and goodies galore. “Can a massively funded and aggressive media campaign make people choose a particular leader?” asked Jayati Ghosh (Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru university, New Delhi); the answer, she says, “Sadly, seems to be yes.” [The Guardian]

No limits are placed on spending by political parties, except what’s in their bank accounts. The BJP staged a media blitz, saturating the television and press with images and sound bites from their charismatic candidate. He ‘received’ “nearly 7.5 times more coverage [2,575 minutes] than Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi [his leading opponent] during prime time” viewing. [The Hindu] Massive exposure facilitated by the corporate media that avoided asking probing questions, or “pointing to some of the clear dishonesty in the claims made about his success in Gujarat.” [The Guardian] Such are the benefits of being in bed with the corporations. Big business rightly saw in Modi someone who would deliver all the benefits they have become used to.

Divisive, Violent, Prejudicial

Revealing the Prime Minister’s extreme prejudicial leanings is the disturbing fact that Mr. Modi is a lifelong member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). “A paramilitary Hindu nationalist organisation inspired by the fascist movements of Europe, whose founders believed that Nazi Germany had manifested ‘race pride at its highest’ by purging the Jews.” [ The Guardian] Set up in 1927, the far right group admires Mussolini and Adolph Hitler, whom they openly praise. Outlawed by the British Raj, the RSS has been banned three times since independence. It was a former member of the RSS [Nathuram Godse] who murdered Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 for being too soft on Muslims. Traditionally dominated by upper-caste Hindus, the extreme group has led many vicious assaults on minorities, especially Muslims. Assaults threatened in the later stages of the Modi election campaign. Speaking in West Bengal, “Modi declared that only Hindu migrants from Bangladesh were welcome; the others would be repatriated.” And in Uttar Pradesh his ‘henchmen’ made it clear “that anyone who did not support Modi should go back to Pakistan, where they belonged.” [The Guardian]

As chief Minister of Gurjarat, Modi presided over a brutal Hindu pogrom against the State’s Muslim community in 2002. Over 1,000 (many put the figure much higher) lost their lives, and many women were raped, in riots that “began after a train with Hindu pilgrims was set on fire in Godhra, killing 59 people. Hindu mobs then turned on Muslims in Gujarat.” [Ibid] Since then Muslims and other minorities in the State have been marginalized and silenced, terrorized into submission. “Muslim families and individuals are increasingly ghettoised, finding it impossible to buy or rent accommodation in dominantly Hindu areas.”[The Guardian] Young Muslim men cannot find work and suffer police intimidation and violence. They are denied bank loans and “intercommunity social mingling, particularly between young men and women, is frowned upon.” It is picture of social division, prejudice and injustice;< it is a picture painted by India’s new Prime Minister.

Whilst it’s unclear what part Modi played in the pogrom of 2002, what is apparent is that when Hindu mobs roamed the streets looking for Muslims to kill and rape, he did very little to stop them. In 2005 the American government felt the evidence against him was strong enough to deny him a US diplomatic visa: “former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarked on a ‘get Modi’ policy while in office, funding European NGOs on a quest to find mass [Muslim] graves.” And to cast further suspicion, in 2011 a “senior police officer’s sworn statement to India’s Supreme Court alleges that…Modi deliberately allowed” the slaughter. [BBC] Modi of course denies this, but his divisive prejudicial approach remains clear.

An economic recipe for disaster

India has witnessed GDP growth of up to 9% per annum since the economic reforms of 1991; it now sits at around 3%. Liberalization, globalization and privatization are the cornerstones of this process, which has involved the transfer of support from the poor to India’s corporations, triggering, amongst other calamities, a plague of farmer suicides – 19,000 according to The Lancet killed themselves in 2010 alone. It has been resource-led growth, based mainly on the extraction of natural resources, cheap labour (including children) and foreign investment. Whilst a small number (15% of the population perhaps) have slipped into the ranks of the middle class, the chief benefactors have been the corporations and the already wealthy who have become extremely rich. India boasts 60 rupee resplendent $ billionaires plus 153,000 millionaires, and 800 million – 60% of the population – living on less than $2 a day. Over half the population has no sanitation and defecates in public and 43% of children are malnourished. It is an unjust and shameful economic system that facilitates such inequality, in India and throughout the world.

An internal armed conflict from the Northeast of the country to Karnataka state in the South West, along with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Adivasi and Dalit people have been the major consequence of the race for resources; together with an enormous dam building programme and the construction of ‘Special Economic Zones’ (SEZ). Since Independence it is estimated that as many as 65 million people (excluding those displaced through armed conflict) have been displaced in India, mostly due to ‘development’ projects.

Modi’s approach in Gujarat showed him to be in line – in many ways way over the line – with the government’s divisive development policies: Promote and incentivize big business “through all sorts of explicit and implicit subsidies, keeping wages low and suppressing any workers’ action, repression of popular movements and cracking down on dissent.” [The Guardian] At the same time crucify the poor, exclude them and deny them; bury them in the filthy past, as New India embraces the defunct western model of modernity, sanctifies temples to consumerism large and small, enflaming materialism and poisoning the Indian psyche. This is the economic recipe.

Consumer Nirvana

The desire for material delights has been sown firmly into the minds of India’s young population (two-thirds are under the age of 35), and Modi has scratched away at the itchy insatiable surface promising consumer heaven. ‘The good days are coming’ was his theme tune, with a ‘B’ side of ‘we need a Corrupt Congress free India’, and ‘give me a massive mandate’. Sounds like the predictable rallying call of politicians worldwide – no wonder nobody trusts them.

Hundreds of millions of Indians (not the 800 million who can barely eat) have seen no benefits from market liberalization and are denied the chance to shop. They have been seduced by Modi’s saccharin-laced images of a consumerist future, where “skyscrapers, expressways, bullet trains and shopping malls proliferate,” [The Guardian] and the Army of Poor are hidden away in the slums and rural India, to quietly die. Along with the Bollywood brigade, the young voted for Modi, seeing him as the one to package and deliver their designer trainers, i-phones and essential cosmetics – the “long-awaited fruits of the globalised economy.” However, because the adopted development model is undemocratic and fundamentally flawed, based as it is on an unwavering belief in the market economy, rewarding the rich, excluding the poor and victimizing minorities, “he actually embodies its inevitable dysfunction.” [Ibid] It is a model that aggravates desire, creating discontent and fear – the essential ingredients of social upheaval and conflict. True democracy, which is based on participation, equality, freedom and the rule of law, is denied. But then India is far from being a democratic nation: “there isn’t a single institution anymore which an ordinary person can approach for justice: not the judiciary, not the local political representative…. all the institutions have been hollowed out and just the shell has been put back.” [Arundhati Roy] The comical catchphrase, ‘the world’s largest democracy’, has little meaning when the voice of the people is consistently and brutally suppressed; the caste system dominates all areas of life – particularly in rural areas where most people live, while the country is run by a group of elite Hindu men. “We’re a country whose elite is capable of an immense amount of self-deception.” [Ibid]

As millions worldwide respond to the tone of the times and demand freedom, justice and a new, fairer civilsation, we ask: is Modi of the time? Is he the kind of man who will be able to empathise with the people; does he possess the vision and imagination needed to create a new way of living; is he kind and inclusive? In a detailed document published by Wikileaks, Michael S. Owen of the US consulate in Mumbai said, “in public appearances Modi can be charming and likeable. By all accounts, however, he is an insular, distrustful person……….He reigns by fear and intimidation,” not “inclusiveness and consensus, and is rude, condescending and often derogatory. He hoards power… and has an abrasive leadership style.”

At a time when the world needs new ideas, politicians who can listen, are inclusive and tolerant, who long to cooperate and understand others and themselves, at such a time India has a man at the helm rooted in the ideological Stone Age, who “resembles the European and Japanese demagogues of the early 20th century.” [The Guardian]

The post India’s New Prime Minister: A Dangerous Lurch To Extreme Right – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Bush and Cheney spent more than $870 billion of our tax dollars to fund their Iraq War; the stated objective of which was to make America safer by toppling an evil dictator with a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and one who was harboring and providing material support to Al-Qaeda. Of the total spent, about $41 billion was spent on reconstruction and foreign aid, and a staggering $28 billion on local security (source: “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11” prepared by the Congressional Research Service). Also, consider that in addition countless American lives were lost training and equipping the very same Iraqi army that recently ran with its tail tucked between its legs at the first sign of trouble.

If the latest developments in Iraq were not so worrying and potentially dangerous, within an already volatile region, we could laugh at the irony that neither Al-Qaeda nor any other terrorist organisation had operated or been given safe haven inside Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime. In fact, it was not until a year and a half after the US invasion that Al-Qaeda officially formed in Iraq. Even so, Bush and Cheney had told us on numerous occasions in the lead-up to their invasion that their primary objective was to break the very dangerous nexus between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda before he gave them access to weapons of mass destruction. The truth is that the sectarian chaos and power vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam gave Al-Qaeda the perfect breeding ground for recruitment and for establishing their very first base of operations in Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS), the terrorist group that has overrun major cities and now controls large swaths of the country, was formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“We know that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade…We’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” – President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, 7th October, 2002*

“We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the 90’s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that Al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on systems that are involved.” – Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 14th September, 2003*

(*Source: United States Congressional Serial Set, Serial No. 14876, Senate Report No 301).

As for Cheney and Bush’s smoking gun, independent reviews of the millions of documents seized from across Iraq all reached the same conclusion: “The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had by 2006 translated 34 million pages of documents from Hussein’s Iraq and found there was nothing to substantiate a “partnership” between Hussein and Al-Qaeda (Source: “Bush’s toxic legacy in Iraq” CNN). In fact, the same report stated that there was “no ‘smoking gun’ (i.e. direct connection) and that “the predominant targets of Iraqi state sponsored terror were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside Iraq.” [source: Institute for Defense Analyses – ‘Iraqi Perspectives Project. Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents’, Volume 1 (Redacted)].

While we can sit here and argue about the justification for the US invasion of Iraq and never agree on it, what cannot be refuted is that the US never established a single credible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda or produced a shred of evidence that Saddam possessed any weapons of mass destruction; and Al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before the invasion. Another dangerous unintended consequence has been that Iran is now the most dominant power in the region with Iraq no longer being able to serve as strong counter-balance. So in sum total, not only did Cheney and Bush’s war make the region less safe than it was in 2003, but it has also spawned a totally new and deadly terrorist organisation called ISIS; one that Al-Qaeda officially broke ties with, for being too brutal.

Conveniently, the Republicans are now trying to blame Obama for the mess Cheney and Bush are responsible for creating. If one were to examine the facts, we should start with the much maligned Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). It is the document which dictated the timing for full US military withdrawal from Iraq. SOFA was negotiated and signed by George W. Bush in 2008 and not Barrack Obama, as many Republicans will have us believe. Bush agreed to all of Nouri al-Maliki demands, which included getting all US forces out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, and leaving no permanent military presence or bases in the country. Turns out that Bush’s ‘liberating’ forces were so unpopular that no Iraqi leader was willing to risk having them stay on with “… several rounds of upcoming elections and an intensely strong popular Iraqi hostility to the U.S. occupation under any name.” (Source: ‘Bush’s finest moment on Iraq: SOFA, not the surge’ – Foreign Policy). Republicans are now blaming him for not trying hard enough to re-negotiate the terms Bush agreed to; the same Republicans who – at the time it was signed – were proclaiming victory in Iraq.

The truth is that Iraq has been and remains a big mess ever since the illegal US invasion, which left both a major power vacuum in the center and a government without civil institutions or strong leadership. Another lie that Republicans are good at spreading has to do with General Petraeus’ surge; which was responsible for preventing the total disintegration of Iraq, and cleaning up Rumsfeld and Cheney’s unmitigated disaster and a lack of plan for Iraq, post invasion. Listening to Republicans, one would believe that it was the additional boots on the ground that led to the success of the surge. This is totally untrue, as Petraeus himself has repeatedly made clear. The cornerstone of Petraeus’ success and surge strategy was based on facilitating peace between the Sunni and Shia factions, which in turn led to a disarming of the powerful Shiite militia. It was this peace he helped broker that was also responsible for removing Al-Qaeda’s key weapon: fanning sectarian flames in Iraq. In addition, Petraeus forced the government to focus on developing local institutions, employment programs and on improving the daily life of Iraqi citizens. The final part of his strategy involved a dramatic surge in the boots on the ground, deployed to the most troubled parts of the country in order to dramatically enhance the presence and perception of security. So it is totally disingenuous to say that if Obama had tried harder to find a way to re-negotiate Bush’s SOFA, which never included immunity from prosecution for troops, and left behind a few hundred US troops, that this would have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

There are many things I am critical of when it comes to Barack Obama’s leadership, but his stance on Iraq it absolutely right. Obama understands what Bush and Cheney never will: that democracy is a grass roots movement that must be started by the people, who must also be willing to fight and die for their freedom. It is always bloody and it is always messy, and the hard work always begins once the freedom has been won. It takes a few generations for democratic values and institutions to take root; the country needs to build civil institutions, infrastructure, write laws, agree on a constitution, etc. Where there are long-running sectarian divides, blood will be spilled before wounds can be healed and a country unite. Inevitably, the early leaders are also corrupt and tyrannical, from having grown up without the benefit of ever experiencing liberty or democratic freedoms themselves. The current crisis is not something that has happened overnight;. it is a direct result of the sectarian Pandora’s Box opened by the illegal US invasion. One that left no power structure in the center and a weak and divided nation that is open to manipulation by its various Sunni and Shiite neighbours that include Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.

This crisis also has a lot to do with Nouri al-Maliki wanting to consolidate his corrupt hold on power by creating a Shiite-dominated government and country. He has been slowly and systematically replacing the competent army generals, commanders and police officers (trained by the US), as well as other government officials and filling these posts with incompetent Shiite cronies who would never threaten him. He has made no effort to form a unity government that is inclusive of the Sunni minority or the Kurds, which was central to how Petraeus won the peace. Instead, Al-Maliki has helped re-ignite the old sectarian divides, and as a result allowed ISIS to slowly and systematically re-build their presence and base in Iraq by recruiting from within an excluded and disenfranchised Sunni community.

So while there is no question that the Bush and Cheney invasion is single-handedly responsible for creating the massive void that will leave a weak Iraq in turmoil for many decades to come, it is equally true that the only path out is for Iraqis to figure out how to get along, by pursuing the true tenets of democracy; which are reconciliation and inclusiveness. No amount of US intervention on the ground or from the air can help fix this fundamental problem; and I doubt US taxpayers have the appetite for yet another misguided and fruitless effort at nation building. So even though America created this mess, only Iraq has the ability to fix it. Until Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds come together and realise that their real enemies are the terrorists, the world will have to wait and remain a much less safe place. This is Bush’s and Cheney’s Iraq legacy.

The post Bush And Cheney’s Iraq Legacy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Plans by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to try to challenge the Swedish detention order next week are due to become a turning point in the scandal, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson told RT Friday in an interview.

“I hope they will be successful, given the fact that it is becoming so shameful for Sweden. The last hope that it will be the breaking point in this ridiculous standoff,” Hrafnsson said.

Lawyers for Assange, who on Thursday marked his second anniversary staying in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, are expected to file a challenge to his detention order in Sweden on Tuesday, WikiLeaks spokesman said without giving further details.

Hrafnsson said he is certain that the whistleblower has no regrets about the revelations of WikiLeaks.

“He of course is defending his rights by seeking asylum in Ecuador, the asylum that he was granted. It is a human right and indeed, almost 60 individuals in the organization have submitted reports to the UN condemning Sweden for depriving him from his human rights according to international law,” he said.

Asked whether the hounding of Assange has made whistleblowers scared to speak out, Hrafnsson said: “I’m sure that everybody will take a serious look at the situation and the examples that we have had before – the situation of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and others that had faced serious consequences because of their action, standing up against corrupt powers and acting upon their conscious.”

“However, people of strong conviction I’m sure will in the future stand forward for that information. We of course provide a platform, where we can secure their anonymity, protecting them from those serious consequences,” he added.

Answering a question if Assange could be able to walk free, he said: “We always hope this would happen in the next few days even, it is going on far too long and it is something that has to end. We speak frequently and we are in a constant contact, and his spirit is high despite the fact that of course it has consequences to be constrained, to be indoors for two years. Everybody could try to imagine what that does, but he is dedicated to work and keeping himself very busy every day.”

Assange launched his website WikiLeaks in 2006, which has published hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents. In 2010 he was arrested on sexual assault charges in Sweden, but released soon after on bail. He has been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since June 2012 to avoid extradition.

Ecuador granted political asylum to Assange in August 2012, saying there were indications of political persecution against him. The UK refuses to allow Assange safe passage out of the embassy — ensuring round-the-clock security.

The post WikiLeaks: Assange’s Fresh Legal Challenge To Be Turning Point appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China has solid evidence of its indisputable sovereignty over the Xisha (Paracel) Islands. The oil rig that China has located is not inside Vietnam’s EEZ, as Hanoi claims.

By Li Dexia

In her RSIS Commentary entitled The Paracels: Forty Years On, Dr. Nguyen Thi Lan Anh stressed that China had located its oil rig in disputed waters in the Xisha (Paracel) Islands which Vietnam claims. In reality, China owns indisputable sovereignty over the islands grounding on ample historical and legal basis.

To begin with, in accordance with the international law and customary law, the main condition to own an island far from the mainland is to be the first to occupy it effectively. Based on numerous Chinese historical records, since at least the North Song Dynasty (960-1127AD), China had exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Xisha (Paracel) and Nansha (Spratly) Islands effectively. It is several hundred years earlier than the 17th century claimed by Vietnam (assuming Hanoi’s evidence was unproblematic for the moment).

China’s ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over the Xisha Islands

Secondly, the writer mentioned “during the period of Western colonial expansion sovereignty over the Paracels was continuously exercised by France”. Actually, France occupied the Islands only for a short period from 3 July 1938 to 1 March 1939 when Japan seized them and ousted the French there. After Japan’s surrender in 1945, however, the Islands were returned to China according to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. So why did the writer claim that “Sovereignty later passed from France to South Vietnam under the 1954 Geneva Accords?”

Thirdly, from 1954 to 1974, the successive Vietnamese governments had publicly and officially admitted the Xisha and Nansha Islands as inherent Chinese territory for many times, among which are three striking ones:

• When Vice Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Ung Van Khiem met with charge d’affaires ad interim Li Zhimin of the Chinese Embassy in Vietnam on 15 June 1956, he indicated, “according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory”. Then the Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, Le Loc added, “judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty”;

• China issued a statement of the territorial sea on 4 September 1958, announcing that it applied to all China’s territories, including the Xisha and Nansha Islands. Ten days later, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong sent a diplomatic note to China’s Premier Zhou Enlai, solemnly declaring that “the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam recognises and supports the declaration of the government of the People’s Republic of China on its decision concerning China’s territorial sea made on September 4th, 1958”;

• In a statement issued by the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on 9 May 1965, it wrote, “US President Lyndon Johnson designated the whole of Vietnam, and the adjacent waters which extend roughly 100 miles from the coast of Vietnam and part of the territorial waters of the People’s Republic of China in its Xisha Islands as ‘combat zone’ of the United States armed forces,” and it is “in direct threat to the security of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and its neighbours”.

In addition to its government statements and notes, Vietnam’s newspapers, maps and textbooks then also reflected its above-mentioned position clearly. Since the successive Vietnamese governments had publicly acknowledged these islands as belonging to China, it is thus unreasonable for Vietnam to dispute them. Or it would be against the equitable estoppel – which is a bar to a party from asserting a legal claim or defence that is contrary or inconsistent with his or her prior action of conduct.

Unfortunately, since the 1970s, South Vietnam had started to covet those Islands. It tried repeatedly in 1973 to invade the Zhongjian (Triton) and Chenhang (Duncan) Islands, both within the Xisha Islands group, ignoring China’s protests. What the writer did not mention is that despite Vietnam’s frequent military provocation starting from 15 January 1974, China was obliged to fight back only until 19 January, because the Vietnamese army had killed and injured many Chinese fishermen, and their warplanes and warships had bombarded the Chenhang Island and China’s patrol boats.

Is the oil rig deep inside Vietnam’s EEZ?

The writer stated the rig is “deep inside Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, close to the islands”. Is the statement tenable? According to my knowledge, the location of the rig is 17 nautical miles from both the Zhongjian (Triton) Island of the Xisha Islands group and the baseline of the territorial waters of Xisha Islands, yet approximately 133 to 156 nautical miles away from the coast of the Vietnamese mainland. Is it closer to China or to Vietnam?

Unquestionably Vietnam has its EEZ and continental shelf, but so has China. According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Yongxing (Woody) Island of the Xisha Islands is also entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf, and when the EEZs of two countries overlap, they are required to negotiate the demarcation. Before that, any unilateral claim of EEZ is illegal. It is therefore out of place to argue the rig is deep inside Vietnam’s EEZ.
Furthermore, the rig is exactly within the continuous zone of the Zhongjian (Triton) Island, which owns a total of 24-nautical-mile territorial sea and continuous zone grounding on UNCLOS even as a “rock”. In other words, the rig is well within China’s waters.

Who is the real bully?

One of the crucial factors for Vietnam to be desirous of the islands was the discovery of rich oil and gas deposits in the 1970s. China’s recent operation in the Xisha Islands has undoubtedly stimulated Vietnam’s sensitive nerves. Since May this year, Vietnam has sent plenty of vessels, including armed ones, to harass China’s operation and crash into the Chinese government vessels constantly and violently.

It is reported that up to 5 p.m. on 7 June 2014, “there were as many as 63 Vietnamese vessels in the area at the peak, attempting to break through China’s cordon and ramming the Chinese government ships for a total of 1,416 times”. Moreover, the anti-China demonstrations condoned by the Vietnamese government in mid-May led to four Chinese killed, over 300 others wounded, and numerous companies of different countries looted, smashed, and set on fire.

Has Vietnam behaved as a responsible power in the international arena? Who is the real bully?

Li Dexia is Associate Professor with the School of Journalism and Communication at Xiamen University, China. She contributed this specially to RSIS Commentaries.

The post Xisha (Paracel) Islands: Why China’s Sovereignty Is ‘Indisputable’ – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China’s act of locating its oil rig in contested waters in the Paracels is more than a dispute over sovereignty. It is also a dispute about international law of the sea.

By Nguyen Thi Lan Anh

It has been a month since the South China Sea was again stirred up near the Paracel Islands. Forty years ago, in January 1974, the Paracels were a battlefield between China and the then South Vietnam.

In taking control of the islands from South Vietnam, China sank one South Vietnamese naval ship and damaged four others, leaving 53 Vietnamese killed and 16 injured. The battle resulted in China obtaining full control of the Paracels for the first time.

More than a dispute over sovereignty

Vietnam’s sovereignty claim over the Paracel Islands is based on the Nguyen dynasty occupation of the Paracels and Spratlys from at least the 17th century when the islands belonged to no one. During the period of Western colonial expansion sovereignty over the Paracels was continuously exercised by France, the protector of Vietnam.

Sovereignty later passed from France to South Vietnam under the 1954 Geneva Accords, and it then passed by succession to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam when North and South Vietnam were united in 1975. Vietnam has continued to assert its sovereignty claim by protesting activities conducted by China in the Paracels.

Although Vietnam’s sovereignty claim to the Paracels has a strong legal basis, China insists that it has “indisputable” sovereignty. China refuses to acknowledge that sovereignty over the islands is in dispute and it refuses to discuss the sovereignty issue with Vietnam in bilateral negotiations. Also, China will not agree to refer the sovereignty dispute to an international court or tribunal.

The act which made the Paracel Islands the latest hotspot in the South China Sea was China’s placement of the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig deep inside Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, close to the islands.

At first, the oil rig controversy may look like a dispute over who has sovereignty over the Paracels. However, a closer look reveals that it is also a dispute about the international law of the sea.

Geographical distance not the issue

Triton Island in the Paracels, where China located the deep-water oil rig HD-981, is a 1.6 km2 sand and coral cay that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of its own. Consequently, under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it is a “rock” that can generate no more than a 12 nautical mile territorial sea. Even if some other islands in the Paracels are in principle entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf, the rig would still be located in an “area in dispute” for two reasons.

First, since both Vietnam and China claim sovereignty over the Paracels, any EEZ claimed from the Paracels is an area in dispute. Second, the rig is in an area of overlapping claims because it is within the EEZ and continental shelf claimed by Vietnam from its mainland as well as within the EEZ claimed by China from the Paracels.

The area where the rig has been placed is an area in dispute until China and Vietnam agree on how to delimit the maritime boundary in that area. According to the practice of States in maritime boundary delimitations, Triton Island and the other islands of the Paracels should be given “reduced effect” in drawing the maritime boundary because the length of coastline of the small islands is much shorter than the coastline of Vietnam.

China and Vietnam have followed this practice in negotiating their maritime boundary. In delimiting their limited maritime boundary in the northern-most section of the Gulf of Tonkin, the two States agreed to give only 25% effect to Bach Long Vi Island, a Vietnamese island located in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was the case even though the island has an area of 2.33 km2 and a permanent population.

In any case, since there is no agreed maritime boundary in this area, the argument that the rig is located closer to the Paracels than to the Vietnamese coast is not relevant. The rig is located in a “disputed area”, where China cannot exercise exclusive rights.

China’s oil rig move violates DOC

The true basis for China’s claim to the natural resources in Vietnam’s EEZ is not an EEZ claim from the Paracels, but its claim to rights and jurisdiction over all the natural resources with the nine-dash line that Beijing has demarcated on its map of the South China Sea. Without providing any official documents supporting this claim or its legal basis under international law, the nine-dash line map is being used by China to claim rights to all the natural resources in and under the waters inside the line, even when they are in the EEZ of other States.

China is basing its claim on the nine-dash line map because the areas with high oil and gas potential off the coast of Vietnam are all located outside the areas that China could claim under the international law of the sea. Therefore, China has decided to ignore the international law of the sea, and assert claims based upon its nine- dash line map, which includes up to 85% of the South China.

It is very significant that the rig has been place in an area of disputed waters. Under the law of the sea, until an agreement has been reached between China and Vietnam on the maritime boundary in this area, the two States are under a legal obligation to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature.

The international law of the sea also imposes an obligation on China and Vietnam not to undertake any unilateral activities that would jeopardise or hamper the negotiation of a final boundary agreement.

International tribunals have ruled that in an area of overlapping maritime claims, it is unlawful for one State to attempt to exploit the natural resources by drilling because such a unilateral activity would permanently change the status quo and thus jeopardise or hamper the negotiation of a final boundary agreement.

In its discussions with ASEAN on a legally binding Code of Conduct for the South China Sea, China has consistently maintained that there must be full and effective implementation of the 1992 Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).

However, China’s act of unilateral drilling is a clear violation of the provision in the DOC which provides that the Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes.

It is hoped that China will soon understand that bullying neighbouring countries in violation of international law is not the way a responsible power behaves in the international arena.

Nguyen Thi Lan Anh is the Vice Dean at the International Faculty of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. The views expressed in this commentary are her own and do not necessarily reflect any official position. She contributed this specially to RSIS Commentaries.

The post The Paracels: Forty Years On – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Portugal and the US split the points in a hard-fought draw in Manaus which sets up a tantalizing final round in Group G with Germany and Ghana in which any of the four teams could go through.

Portugal took the lead in when Nani took advantage of a horribly sliced clearance by Geoff Cameron to beat US goalie Tim Howard to his near post.

The equalizer came in the 64th minute from a US corner which fell to Jermaine Jones 25 meters out. He hit one of the shots of the tournament which left Beto rooted to his spot as it flew inside his left post.

Dempsey put the US ahead in the 81st minute when he diverted in a cross shot from Graham Zusi. But a last minute cross from Ronaldo found the head of Varela who powered it past Tim Howard in the US goal, reports DPA.

The post World Cup: Portugal Draw With US 2-2 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the last week, there has been a rapid march toward military action in Iraq despite widespread opposition to more war among the US population for a variety of reasons. One concern is that it would require more military spending despite immense and unmet needs for funding in a broad array of areas at home. Unlike any other policy area, there never seems to be a lack of funds for a military attack or even a war. The military-industrial complex has a powerful hold on US lawmakers.

The hawks in Congress are exerting tremendous pressure for military action in Iraq to prevent ISIS and former members of Saddam Hussein’s government from taking control. On Thursday President Obama delivered a statement describing the steps he is taking on Iraq. These include:

• Reinforcing the US Embassy in Iraq by removing some Americans stationed there and adding military troops to protect it;

• Significantly increasing intelligence and surveillance to understand what ISIS is doing as well as what the US can do to counter their influence;

• Increasing support for the Iraq military, including sending 300 soldiers to Iraq to “advise” them and set up joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq;

• Repositioning additional US military assets in the region so that “going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action…”

• And finally, pursuing diplomacy in the region to support stability in Iraq.

While this is not the military attack that hawks are urging, it certainly is a policy that moves in that direction. This week, President Obama told congressional leaders that he did not need any authorization for the use of military force from Congress, but that he would keep congressional leadership informed of his actions.

Protests around the United States

The American public is sick and tired of war. It is a mistake for President Obama to decide that he can take military action in Iraq without congressional or UN approval. He likely made this decision because he knows that if Congress were allowed to consider the issue, there would be a tidal wave of opposition from constituents in an election year. If Congress really functioned as a check and balance, it would be warning President Obama that a military attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense; that the Constitution is clear – only Congress has the power to declare war and a military attack is an act of war. The silence of Congress will mean complicity in another illegal military action and will again reveal the bi-partisan nature of the war machine.

If unchecked, it seems the most likely scenario is that the President will build intelligence to justify further intervention and will then use drones to bomb Iraq. The President, with the support of groups like Human Rights Watch, acts as if unmanned bombing is a legal military attack even though his drone policy is being questioned by the UN, the legal community and the public. This will ultimately lead to another US war in Iraq.

Perhaps this is the President’s desired purpose. The goal of having US military bases in Iraq to control the region, which is the center of the Middle East at a time when oil is desperately needed, has not been achieved. A justification for intervention would provide an excuse to re-occupy those bases.

If we re-occupy Iraq, we can expect a long-term presence. The (currently) most likely next president, Hillary Clinton, has a track record as a hawk. She has already signaled to the military-industrial complex that she is open to more war. Clinton recently said she was even open to staying in Afghanistan beyond President Obama’s already-too-slow exit from that country.

Opponents of war organized opposition quickly. This week Veterans For Peace (VFP) held nationwide protests against war in Iraq along with Military Families Speak Out and other organizations. They also protested the failure to adequately fund the Veterans Administration and to take care of current veterans when they return from war. VFP warned the President that military attacks will just add to the disaster in Iraq, result in the loss of more American and Iraqi lives and create more wounded veterans. They put out an action alert that included a variety steps people can take to oppose a military attack in Iraq and that listed the many organizations petitioning the government against war.

Iraq Veterans Against the War have spoken out against another military engagement in Iraq. They spoke as experienced veterans, writing:

“Many of our members deployed to Iraq during the recent US occupation. Those of us who were there know firsthand that US military solutions in Iraq do not serve the interests of the Iraqi people. We advocate for the self-determination of all people, in this case the people of Iraq. Any solution to this crisis must come from them. When the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, the formerly secular country was destabilized. The United States and the Department of Defense intentionally created and agitated sectarian divisions that would not have otherwise existed. The result of this is what we see today, and Iraqi civilians are paying for it.”

Americans are also protesting members of the previous administration. This week protesters disrupted a speech by Condolezza Rice at Norwich University in Vermont with a mic check which in part said: “I come here today to charge Condolezza Rice for having participated in and perpetrated crimes against humanity in the name of the citizens of the United States.” This is not the first protest against Rice. She was protested at the University Of Minnesota in April. Also at Rutgers, students protested Rice being invited to speak at their commencement. As a result of opposition by students and faculty, Rice declined to speak.

As Robert Brune of the DC Media Group points out, the Iraq War was based on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and now we see the lie of ‘the successful surge’ being exposed by the current violence. Too many lives have been lost, too much treasure has been squandered and there has been too much intrusion into Iraq and other nations.

Most Americans know that the current violence in Iraq is the result of the US invasion and US strategies that increased sectarian divisions in the country. As a result, we know that more military violence will continue to make things worse.

The chaos in Iraq demonstrates that those who opposed the war were right. Many people predicted that invasion and occupation of Iraq were likely to result in a civil war and ongoing bloodshed as well as anti-Americanism and strengthening those who hate US Empire.  The media is trying hard to ignore those lessons by highlighting the voices that were wrong – the people who supported the Iraq War. American people across the political spectrum are not being fooled. They can see reality despite the media mythmaking.

Why Is It So Difficult to Learn from the Failure of War?

War and militarism are deeply ingrained in the American psyche.  We call it War Culture. Youth are taught to admire the heroes of war and are rarely told of the long history of US war crimes. Just this week Occupy.com reported that in Dayton, Ohio youth in K through 12 are being pushed to build drones by the US military.  With this report we added a Disney Junior video of a cartoon glorifying drone characters that spy on people and includes images of youth appearing in its bullseye. These are two examples of many of how early the pro-war brainwashing begins in the United States.

There is a lot of money to be made in war and militarism. The Congress is currently debating the military spending bill. Military spending makes up more than half of all US discretionary spending. This is particularly horrid at a time when the US economy continues to flounder, when there is no full employment program, when there is record poverty, when infrastructure is crumbling and when the country needs to transition to a new energy economy, among many other urgent domestic needs.

It is not only the obvious expensive weapons systems that are always over budget and corporations like Halliburton that make billions rebuilding nations destroyed by the US military – and the deep corruption in those industries, but this week we got a glimpse of another military profit center, the Police Industrial Complex. This is big business and includes vehicles, weapons and sophisticated surveillance technology. Even corporations are joining in the frenzy. A coal company purchased drones that fire pepper spray and bullets to be used against protesters. And a private corporation in Brazil received $22 million to provide weapons and gear used against World Cup protesters.

Part of the problem is that the American people are consistently lied to about war. Chelsea Manning, who is serving decades in prison for exposing the truth about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote a column in the New York Times about the Fog of War. Manning gave multiple examples of how the media is manipulated and controlled by the US military resulting in the American people being told false information about what is really occurring in wars. Manning reports “The more I made these daily comparisons between the news back in the States and the military and diplomatic reports available to me as an analyst, the more aware I became of the disparity.” Manning also notes there was never more than 12 hand-picked journalists embedded to cover a country of 31 million and more than 100,000 US troops.

The government and media work to manipulate the views of Americans because if the Americans new the truth they would be even more angry at the US war machine. As long-time military writer Tom Engelhardt writes, the United States has a war record of unparalleled failure. What major war has the United States been on the winning side of since World War II?

People have the Power to End War

Thanks to whistleblowers and new media outlets like Wikileaks, the truth is being exposed and propaganda is starting to fail. Unprecedented efforts by the US and its allies to suppress leaks have taken a toll on proponents of the truth but have largely been unsuccessful. Rather than shrinking, support for whistleblowers is growing.

Julian Assange, publisher and editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, marked two years of asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London this week. On his behalf, international organizations are petitioning the United Nations to protect Assange’s human rights. And new organizations to aid whistleblowers, ExposeFacts.org and the Courage Foundation, were launched this month. A new tool for whistleblowers called Secure Drop is being provided by media outlets such as the New York Times and The Guardian.

People have more power to end war and the destructive empire economy than we realize, although opponents of peace are aware of it. The US Department of Defense has been studying social unrest through its Minerva Research Initiative since 2008 and soldiers are preparing to suppress protests inside the US.

We can harness our power by working together across borders and by sharing our knowledge and tools. In a recent interview by Nafeez Ahmed of former CIA official Robert David Steele, Steele points out that open source technology is a key to defeating corrupt centralized power. Ahmed writes, “Open source everything, in this context, offers us the chance to build on what we’ve learned through industrialisation, to learn from our mistakes, and catalyse the re-opening of the commons, in the process breaking the grip of defunct power structures and enabling the possibility of prosperity for all.”

We must have a bold vision of what we wish to achieve – a world without war in which people participate in decisions that affect their lives. Movements to achieve these ends are growing globally. Jerome Roos tells us in his review of a new book on democracy by Marina Sitrin and Dario Azzelini that there are ‘laboratories of democracy’ all over the world. And World Beyond War is working to create a new global coalition to abolish war.

The growing movement for social, economic and environmental justice in the United States has done much to focus attention on the wealth divide and corrupt economy controlled by Wall Street. Likewise, we must also focus on the Empire economy and the War Culture that supports it. Through increased awareness and collaborative popular action we can weaken these pillars of power and build a just and peaceful society. We have the power if we choose to use it.

Take action: We can stop the next Iraq War. A majority of Americans oppose a military attack. Contact Congress tell them to warn President Obama: a military attack violates the Constitution and is an impeachable offense.

This article is produced by Popular Resistance in conjunction with AlterNet.  It is a weekly review of the activities of the resistance movement. Sign up for the daily news digest of Popular Resistance, here.

The post Ending Empire And War Culture As Important As Confronting Wall Street – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Progressives believe in free speech, robust debate, sound science and economics, transparency, government by the people and especially compassion for the poor – except when they don’t. These days, their commitment to these principles seems to be at low ebb … in both Washingtons.

A perfect example is the Oregon and Washington governors’ determined effort to enact Low Carbon Fuel Standards – via deceptive tax-funded campaigns, tilted legislative processes and executive fiat.

The standards require that conventional vehicle fuels be blended with alternative manmade fuels said to have less carbon in their chemical makeup or across the life cycle of creating and using the fuels. They comport with political viewpoints that oppose hydrocarbon use, prefer mass transit, are enchanted by the idea of growing fuels instead of drilling and fracking for them, and/or are convinced that even slightly reduced carbon dioxide will help reduce or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change.”

LCFS fuels include ethanol, biodiesel and still essentially nonexistent cellulosic biofuels, but the concept of lower carbon and CO2 naturally extends to boosting the number of electric and hybrid vehicles.

Putting aside the swirling controversies over natural versus manmade climate change, its dangers to humans and wildlife, the phony 97% consensus, and the failure of climate models – addressed in Climate Change Reconsidered and at the Heartland Institute’s Climate Conference – the LCFS agenda itself is highly contentious, for economic, technological, environmental and especially political reasons.

California has long led the nation on climate and “green” energy initiatives, spending billions on subsidies, while relying heavily on other states for its energy needs. The programs have sent the cost of energy steadily upward, driven thousands of families and businesses out of the state, and made it the fourth worst jobless state in America. Governors Jerry Brown, John Kitzhaber and Jay Inslee (of California, Oregon and Washington, respectively) recently joined British Columbia Premier Christy Clark in signing an agreement that had b een developed behind closed doors, to coordinate policies on climate change, low carbon fuel standards and greenhouse gas emission limits throughout the region.

California and BC have already implemented LCFS and other rules. Oregon has LCFS, but its law terminates the program at the end of 2015, unless the legislature extends it. As that seems unlikely, Mr. Kitzhaber has promised that he will use an executive order to impose an extension and “fully implement” the state’s Clean Fuels Program. “We have the opportunity to spark a homegrown clean fuels industry,” the governor said, and he is determined to use “every tool at my disposal” to make that happen. He is convinced it will create jobs, though experience elsewhere suggests the opposite is much more likely.

Mr. Inslee is equally committed to implementing a climate agenda, LCFS and “carbon market.” If the legislature won’t support his plans, he will use his executive authority, a state-wide ballot initiative or campaigns against recalcitrant legislators – utilizing support from coal and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer. Indeed, Inslee attended a closed-door fundraiser in Steyer’s home the very day he signed the climate agreement. The governor says he won’t proceed until a “rigorous analysis” of LCFS costs and technologies has been conducted, but he plans to sole-source that task to a liberal California company.

Their ultimate goal is simple. As Mother Jones maga zine put it, “if Washington acts strongly on climate, the impact will extend far beyond Washington…. The more these Pacific coast states are unified, the more the United States and even the world will have to take notice.”

But to what end? In a world that is surging ahead economically, to lift billions out of abject poverty and disease – with over 80% of the energy provided by coal, oil and natural gas – few countries (or states) are likely to follow. They would be crazy to do so. Supposed environmental and climate benefits will therefore be few, whereas damage to economies, families and habitats will be extensive.

The Oregonian says the LCFS is “ultimately a complicated way of forcing people who use conventional fuels to subsidize those who use low-carbon fuels. It’s a hidden tax to support ‘green’ transportation. It will raise fuel prices … create a costly compliance burden … [and] harm Oregon’s competitiveness far more than it will help the environment. And that assumes it works as intended.” It will not and cannot.

LCFS laws will raise the cost of motor fuels by up to 170% over the next ten years – on top of all the other price hikes like minimum wages and the $1.86 trillion in total annual federal (only) regulatory compliance costs that businesses and families already have to pay – the Charles River Associates economic forecasting firm calculates. If these LCFS standards were applied nationally, CRA concluded, they would also destroy between 2.5 million and 4.5 million American jobs.

Ethanol gets 30% less mileage than gasoline, so motorists pay the same price per tank but can drive fewer miles. It collects water, clogs fuel lines, corrodes engine parts, and wreaks havoc on l awn mowers and other small engines. E15 fuel blends (15% ethanol) exacerbate these problems, and low-carbon mandates (“goals”) would likely require 20% ethanol and biodiesel blends, trucking and other groups point out.

Those blends would void vehicle engine warranties and cause extensive damages and repair costs. The higher fuel costs would affect small business expansion, hiring, profitability and survival. The impact of lost jobs, repair costs, and soaring food and fuel bills will hit poor and minority families especially hard.

Some farmers make a lot of money off ethanol. However, beef, pork, chicken, egg and fish producers must pay more for feed, which means family food bills go up. Biofuel mandates also mean international aid agencies must pay more for corn and wheat, so more starving people remain malnourished longer.

Biofuels harm the environment. America has at least a century of petroleum right under our feet, right here in the United States, but “renewable” energy advocates don’t want us to lease, drill, frack or use that energy. However, the per-acre energy from biofuels is minuscule compared to what we get from oil and gas production. In fact, to grow corn for ethanol, we are already plowing an area bigger than Iowa – millions of acres that could be food crops or wildlife habitat. To meet the latest biodiesel mandate of 1.3 billion gallons, producers will have to extract oil from 430 million bushels of soybeans – which means converting countless more acres from food or habitat to energy.

Producing biofuels also requires massive quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, fossil fuels – and water. The US Department of Energy calculates that fracking requires 0.6 to 6.0 gallons of fresh or brackish water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, corn-based ethanol requires 2,500 to 29,000 gallons of fresh water per million Btu of energy – and biodiesel from soybeans consumes an astounding and unsustainable 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of fresh water per million Btu!

Moreover, biofuels bring no net “carbon” benefits. In terms of carbon molecules consumed and carbon dioxide emitted over the entire planting, growing, harvesting, refining, shipping and fuel use cycle, ethanol, biodiesel and other “green” fuels are no better than conventional gasoline and diesel.

Put bluntly, giving politicians, bureaucrats and eco-activists power over our energy would be even worse than having them run our healthcare system and insurance websites. Spend enough billions (much of it  taxpayer money) on subsidies and propaganda campaigns – and you might convince a lot of people they should pay more at the pump and grocery store, and maybe lose their jobs, for illusory environmental benefits. But low-carbon mandates are a horrid idea that must be scrutinized in open, robust debate.

It’s time we stopped letting ideology trump science, economics and sanity. We certainly cannot afford to let despotic presidents and governors continue using executive orders to trample on our legislative processes, government by the people, constitutions, laws, freedoms, livelihoods and living standards.

Fiats are fun cars to drive. Executive fiats are dictatorial paths to bad public policy.

The post Executive Fiats In The Other Washington – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Pavol Stracansky

People in Siberia must prepare to face frequent repeats of recent devastating floods as well as other natural disasters, scientists and ecologists are warning, amid growing evidence of the effects of global warming on one of the world’s most ecologically diverse regions.

More than 50,000 people were affected by floods in the Altai region and Khakassia and Altai republics in southern Siberia at the end of May and early June. These came just over half a year since the worst floods in Siberia in living memory.

But while floods caused by snowmelt are not uncommon to Siberia, these most recent ones were caused by excessive rainfall – a phenomenon global warming is expected to make much more frequent in future.

Vladimir Galakhov, a physical geography professor at Altai University in Siberia, told IPS: “Although many people think the recent floods were caused by snow melting, it was actually intense rainfall. We had two months’ rain in one week. Weather models for the next two decades forecast a 10 percent rise in rainfall volumes, so we can expect more flooding in the future.”

Siberia is home to some of the richest diversity of flora and fauna in the world, including endangered species such as the Amur tiger. It is also one of the coldest places on earth, with average temperatures in most parts just under zero degrees Celsius and often much lower.

But scientific studies in the last decade have shown that parts of Siberia are warming more quickly than any other part of the world – something pointed out again in the wake of the floods by local meteorologists.

Professor Valentin Meleshko, a meteorologist and former head of the St Petersburg-based Voyeikov Geophysical Observatory, told Russian media last month after the flooding that rapid temperature rises were having a “significant” impact on Siberia.

“All forecasts from complex [weather and climate change forecast] models show that Siberia will get more precipitation, mostly in winter, when more snow will accumulate.

“It will naturally melt in spring and this melting snow will put more water into rivers, and the floods in Siberia will be more intense than before.”

But warming is not only expected to increase flooding. According to experts such as Alexei Kokorin, head of the WWF Russia climate division, it poses other serious threats.

He told IPS that the size of Siberia meant that different areas will be affected in different ways: east and south-east Siberia in the area of the Amur River will see more frequent heavy rains and a monsoon climate while southern Siberia near Mongolia will see increasing desertification leading to water supply problems and disappearing pastures to provide feeding grounds for animals.

Meanwhile, in northern Siberia, the melting of permafrost will destroy existing infrastructure. This also threatens to drastically worsen climate change as vast amounts of methane – a potent greenhouse gas – are trapped in the frozen ground and if released into the atmosphere in large amounts would accelerate global warming.

“Siberia will maybe not be the very worst affected area in the world by global warming, but some parts of it will be heavily affected,” Kokorin told IPS.

Ecological groups have been warning of these risks for years and appealing to Russian authorities to take action.

But the Russian political response to global warming has been characterised largely by apparent ambivalence.

As the world’s fourth largest greenhouse gas producer behind the United States, India and China, and with a fossil fuel-intensive economy which the government is desperate to boost, Russia has historically been far from the vanguard of global environmental policy reform.

But some experts believe that the general government ambivalence to climate change is driven by the fact that Russia potentially stands to be one of the biggest geopolitical gainers from climate change.

Although a highly resource-rich nation, vast reserves of fossil fuels in Russia are under either ice or frozen permafrost. Higher temperatures could make it easier to access these and other enormous quantities of valuable ores and minerals as well as changing huge areas of land from being uninhabitable to fit for agricultural production or other use.

Arctic ice melt driven by global warming is also expected to soon provide an almost year-round open sea passage north of the country which Russia could exploit, allowing tens of millions of tons more of goods to be transported annually.

Some officials have publicly said that they view global warming positively. In an interview last year, Rinat Gizatullin, an official at the Russian Natural Resources Ministry, told the BBC: “We are not panicking. Global warming is not as catastrophic for us as it might be for some other countries. If anything, we’ll be even better off.”

Against this backdrop, the Russian scientific community is divided on climate change. While some, including senior state meteorologists, have in the past spoken publically of the threat from climate change to Russia, others are more reticent on the issue and refuse to openly acknowledge global warming as a phenomenon.

Raisa Buzunova, a hydrometeorologist from Kemerovo in western Siberia, told IPS that while temperatures had been rising constantly for years in parts of Siberia, the result of which was now extended summers, this was not evidence of global warming.

She told IPS: “We are not talking about a sudden change in climate or global warming, but only periodic temperature fluctuations. A stabilisation of temperatures in Siberia is expected by 2020.”

Many others say that global warming has actually peaked and that world temperatures will actually begin falling in a few years and then stabilising.

However, local ecologists say that the evidence is irrefutable, pointing to events such as the record wildfire season in 2012 in Siberia amid an unusually warm summer, as well as the worst floods on record last autumn, an exceptionally mild winter just passed, as well as a record warm spring and the recent floods.

Mikhail Gunykin from the Moscow-based pan-Russian Ecodelo ecological network, told IPS: “In Russia, as in the rest of the world, what we have seen in recent years is increasingly frequent natural disasters as a result of the way humans treat ecosystems.”

The post Siberian Global Warming Meets Lukewarm Reaction In Russia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Diako Hosseini

The invasion of Iraq by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is not a pleasant development, but an even more unpleasant development will come about when the government of Iraq and its neighboring countries lose the opportunity to act.

US President Barack Obama has announced that the United States has no plan to dispatch its military forces to Iraq in order to help the country’s government counter the terrorists. He added that even if Washington made a decision on military intervention in the Iraq’s crisis, it would be limited to air strikes. In a move, which undoubtedly reveals the US president’s unwillingness to get his country caught in another dire case like Afghanistan, Obama is simply hoping that the Iraqi government would be able to tackle the ISIL militants on its own.

This situation has provided Iran with a unique opportunity to demonstrate its power and finesse for crisis management in the absence of the United States through cooperation with other neighboring countries of Iraq. There are a few reasons to discourage Iran’s direct military intervention in Iraq.

Firstly, such an intervention will practically endorse the war between Shias and Sunnis, not only in Iraq, but also all across the Western Asia. The United States, on the one hand, will not be unhappy with such a situation, while on the other hand, it would confirm the legitimacy of political goals pursued by the ISIL and its supporters.

Secondly, in the follow-up to direct and unilateral intervention in Iraq by Iran, the Islamic Republic will have to incur the costs of possible failure in this war on its own and even in case of victory, it will be exposed to vengeful and retaliatory measures by the ISIL and similar terrorist groups.

Thirdly, an outright demonstration of Iran’s power will increase the motivations of other regional countries to strike a balance of powers with Iran and form alliances against the Islamic Republic.

From the viewpoint of Iraq’s neighboring countries, a powerful Iran with the license to launch military intervention in regional countries will be more dangerous and less trustworthy. Now, do all these reasons mean that Iran should remain idle and watch as unrest and chaos consume its western neighbor?

From the viewpoint of Iran, the presence of Takfiri militants across the region is not only a military threat, but also a political one, which poses the most serious threat to Iran among all neighboring countries of Iraq. If the ISIL were allowed to have its way in Iraq, this would greatly increase the audacity and self-confidence of this group and other militant groups similar to it in Syria, and possibly in Lebanon.

In addition, apart from Iran, other neighboring countries of Iraq have been fighting side by side the ISIL militants against the Syrian government for three years and are currently not willing to change the situation of war fronts in Syria to the benefit of the legitimate government of Syrian President Bashar Assad by taking a military initiative against the ISIL.

Even if the ISIL aimed to pose a threat to conservative monarchies in the region, that threat would only come after Takfiri groups have settled their scores with the sole Shia power in the region.

Therefore, Sunni and Arab neighbors of Iraq are more immune to terrorist attacks by the ISIL compared to the non-Arab and Shia Iran. This is especially true as the ISIL owes a large part of its spiritual and material support and motivation to these monarchies. There is also one more convincing reason to be mentioned here: the war theater chosen by the ISIL includes two important allies of Iran; that is, Iraq and Syria. The loss of every one of those allies will speed up the fall of Iran’s position and influence in international system.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said in a recent press conference that Iran is ready to assist the government of Iraq in dealing with terrorism. For understandable reasons, Iran is not willing to spearhead the fight with terrorists. However, it is also not willing to become notorious as a country that is not ready to defend its natural sphere of influence.

During the past decade, the Islamic Republic of Iran had persistently urged the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq and trust the responsibility for restoring regional security and stability to countries in the region. At present, it is not willing to witness once again the unilateral presence of the United States in Iraq because as soon as the American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, the assumption will be strengthened that no regional power in the Middle East is able to protect the region’s stability and security in the absence of the United States. The Islamic Republic of Iran clearly remembers how a similar mistake by European countries in the conflict of Kosovo in 1999, helped to prove the United States’ claim to being the “global police.” Iran will certainly not repeat the same mistake. Instead, the Islamic Republic of Iran has other trump cards to play in this game.

A useful and alternative initiative would be establishment of a rapid deployment force by the neighboring countries of Iraq, centered on Iran and Turkey, on the official request of the Iraqi government. In order to do this, Iran can encourage the Iraqi government to hand its official request for the establishment of this force to Iran.

The next step will be to convene a meeting of Iraq’s neighboring countries to discuss this issue. As a final step, the composition of this force, its goals and a timetable for joint action to achieve the common goal of “helping the Iraqi government to fight terrorism,” will be determined. If this initiative were accepted by all neighboring states of Iraq, Iran would be able to play its leadership role as the main pillar of regional security in order to spearhead the war against terrorism in the region. If some of the neighboring countries of Iraq oppose this initiative, those countries that have opposed the plan will become more isolated internationally. In both cases, Iran’s constructive role will be reaffirmed and this will be a major political win for the Islamic Republic.

Diako Hosseini
Researcher, Institute for Political & International Studies (IPIS),
Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The post ISIL’s War In Iraq: Iran’s Opportunity To Score A Political Win – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Amitava Mukherjee

It is significant that Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, has made Bhutan his first port of call after assuming office. This is quite in consonance with Modi’s declared policy of building up cordial relations with neighboring countries. But beneath this diplomatic posture, an apparent tension clearly permeates the corridors of power in New Delhi so far as Bhutan is concerned. The twenty-first round of negotiations between Bhutan and China held in October last year in regard to disputed border areas has decided to conduct joint technical surveys in the northern sector, without laying any stress on the northwestern sector which has so long dogged the Sino-Bhutan relationship. This is likely to lead to consternation among Indian strategic experts, who may be debating whether Bhutan has already decided to give in to Chinese demands over its northwestern areas.

So far as Indo-Bhutan relations are concerned, New Delhi’s principal headache is the Chumbi Valley, an arrow-like protrusion of southern Tibet separating Bhutan from the Indian state of Sikkim. It is a tri junction of China, India, and Bhutan and enjoys unparalleled strategic importance in the whole of the eastern Himalayas. It is very near to the Siliguri Corridor, called the ‘chicken’s neck’ due to its long and narrow shape, which is India’s only gateway to its northeastern part. Any Chinese push down the Chumbi Valley resulting in control of the Siliguri Corridor would cut off all the northeastern states of India from the mainland.

Narendra Modi will go to Bhutan keeping in the back of his mind a report from the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s external intelligence organization, which says that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China has recently built an all-weather road from Gotsa to Lepola via Pamlung in the disputed northern sector of the boundary between China and Bhutan. Nothing more of the RAW report has come to light, and it is not known how much of a transgression, if any, China has committed in this regard.

In 1954, China first published a map claiming considerable Bhutanese areas. In 1958, it not only published another map claiming even larger areas of Bhutan, but forcibly took possession of considerable amounts of territory. This made Thimphu turn to Clause 2 of the 1949 Indo- Bhutan treaty, which stipulated that Thimphu would be guided by India in its conduct of external relations. In 1962, Bhutan made its southeastern part available to the Indian army for safe retreat after it was vanquished by China. Aggressive postures by China continued and it was only in 1984 that the two countries opened negotiations for border settlement. Ultimately, Beijing agreed to renounce its claims over 495 square kilometers of areas in the north, but continued to stake claims to the 269 square kilometers of areas in the northwest, which are adjacent to the Chumbi Valley.

The reason behind China’s insistence on these areas is obvious. Through the Chumbi Valley, China can conduct pincer operations to cut off India’s northeast, and then by claiming the Siliguri Corridor it can threaten the city of Kolkata and the whole of eastern India. But at only 30 miles wide in its narrowest stretch, the valley is extremely narrow for military maneuvers, so Beijing has been trying to expand the Chumbi Valley by incorporating the neighboring Doklam Plateau of Bhutan into it.

There is every indication that China will leave no stone unturned in trying to gobble up the contested Bhutanese land, and its claim is no longer restricted to the Doklam Plateau alone, but touches other strategically-important neighboring areas like Charithang, Sinchulimpa, and the Dramana pasture lands. Although in 1998, Beijing entered into an agreement with Thimphu promising to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas, it has extended road networks in Zuri and Pheeteogang ridges overlooking the Charithang Valley, thereby creating tensions. There are also reports that China has not only put forward newer claims to over 300 square kilometers of territory in northern Bhutan, but has actually taken possession of 8,229 square kilometers of Bhutanese areas in 2013. In doing so it has reportedly bumped off some forward posts of the Royal Bhutan Army. But if China ultimately constructs railway lines connecting Lhasa-Zangmu-Shigatse and Yadong (at the opening of the Chumbi Valley) then India will be presented with a real threat to its Siliguri Corridor.

It must be admitted that the present Sino-Bhutan relations transcend hawkish eyes in China on Bhutanese territories, or even the PLA’s aggressive incursions resulting in discomfort for the Royal Bhutan Army. After the opening up of the Druk kingdom and two successive general elections, a new electorate comprised mostly of young people has emerged in Bhutan, which has been showing all kinds of restlessness to come out of Indian tutelage. They are not satisfied with the mere revision of the 1949 Indo-Bhutan Treaty in 2007, but expect an independent domestic and foreign policy for their country. That Jigme Thinley, the last prime minister of Bhutan, had attempted to forge a diplomatic relation with China should be viewed in this context.

Certainly Tsering Tobgay, the present prime minister, and his People’s Democratic Party (PDP) are more favorably disposed towards India than the previous prime minister and his Druk Phuensum Tsogpa (DPT). The withdrawal of subsidies by India on petroleum products on the eve of the last general election was viewed by many as an attempt to discredit Jigme Thinley and pave the way for the victory of Tsering Tobgay. But it has to be kept in mind that China has firmly entrenched itself with several stake holders of Bhutanese politics and economy, particularly the newly emerging business class.

India is still Bhutan’s biggest trade partner. New Delhi accounts for 75 percent of Bhutan’s imports and 85 percent of its exports. India still trains the Bhutanese army through the Indian Military Training Team. But several pressure groups are working within Bhutan to divert the course of its journey towards China. A case in point was the Bhutan Post Corporation Limited’s (BPCL) decision in 2012 to purchase Chinese public transport vehicles, instead of the long standing practice of buying India-made vehicles, through an agency named Global Traders and Gangjung owned by the son-in-law of the former prime minister Jigme Thinley. The reason proffered for such a decision was the BPCL’s stand that buses purchased from the Tatas (an Indian business house) had developed trouble within one year of their purchase.

It can only be hoped that during his forthcoming tour of Bhutan, Narendra Modi will send a message that Indo-Bhutan relations will henceforth be carried on in the right spirit. In spite of off-and-on hiccups in the bilateral relationship, there has been no dearth of attempts from the Indian side to stand by Bhutan. New Delhi has already committed Rs. 4500 crores towards Bhutan’s 11th Five Year Plan which will continue up to 2018. In addition, another 500 crores of will go towards the Economic Stimulus Package. Moreover India has decided to build up a 10,000 megawatt hydroelectric capacity in Bhutan by 2020. However, the mega hydroelectric project-based economy has been resulting in a rapid outflow of rupees. On three previous occasions, India has extended massive credits to the Druk kingdom to tide over this rupee crunch.

Amitava Mukherjee is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article first appeared.

The post The India-China Tug Of War Over Bhutan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United States is boosting aid and speeding up deportations to cope with the growing number of migrants from Central America, according to BBC News.

Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras will all receive millions of dollars to combat gang violence. The money will also be used to help citizens repatriated from the U.S.

The White House said it would also step-up the removal of illegal migrants from the country and open additional detention centers. But, in a statement, it added it would protect the rights of those seeking asylum.

From October 2013 to the middle of June, 52 000 unaccompanied children arrived on the U.S. border with Mexico, according to the U.S. Homeland Security department.

The agency is looking for more facilities to house the minors and has said it will bring more immigration lawyers to the border to deal with the influx. It is believed that criminal violence is responsible for the surge of Central American migrants, especially from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

But the U.S. has also begun a public-relations campaign to clarify a recent policy change that stopped deportations of people who had previously arrived in the U.S. illegally as children.

“All who enter the United States without proper immigration status are subject to deportation proceedings,” U.S. ambassador to Mexico Anthony Wayne said. “Simply put, there is no reward for the great risk to which these children are being subjected.”

Cecilia Munoz, the White House domestic policy director, said in a conference call that the US is trying to “deal with the misinformation that is being deliberately planted by criminal organizations, by smuggling networks, about what people can expect when they come to the United States”.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner placed the blame for the influx squarely on the White House, saying its policies had “directly resulted in the belief by these immigrants that once they reach U.S. soil, they will be able to stay here indefinitely”.

Boehner called for Obama to order the National Guard to the southern U.S. border to bolster the work of the Department of Homeland Security border patrol.

On Friday, the Obama administration also announced $93mln in new programs to reduce violence in the region.

The funding includes $40m to reduce gang membership in Guatemala, $25mln to build youth outreach centers in El Salvador and $18.5m to build youth outreach centers in Honduras.

U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden arrived in Guatemala on Friday, June 20, to discuss the proposals with the country’s President Otto Perez Molina, Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez and senior officials from Honduras and Mexico.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama described the growing influx of unaccompanied children migrating to the United States as an “urgent humanitarian situation”.

The White House asked Congress for an extra $1.4bn to cope with the situation.

The post US Speeds Up Deportations To Cope With Growing Number Of Migrants appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The upsurge in terrorist violence in Pakistan this month indicates the trajectory of its home-grown terrorism by Islamist insurgents well beyond 2014. Besides a strong military response to win the fight against militants, the political leadership must take ownership of the war and demonstrate strong political will.

By Abdul Basit

TWO HIGH-PROFILE attacks in Karachi and Balochistan have highlighted the resurgent threat of home-grown terrorism by Islamist insurgents in Pakistan. On 8 June 2014 militants from the Islamic Uzbekistan Union (IMU) and their Pakistani counterparts mounted a brazen terrorist attack on Pakistan’s biggest airport in Karachi. In the five-hour long siege, around 39 people, including 10 militants and 12 security personnel, were killed.

Meanwhile, three suicide bombers of a Sunni militant outfit Jaish-ul-Islam (Army of Islam) targeted a hotel hosting around 300 Shia pilgrims in south-western Balochistan province’s Taftan town, killing 30 people. The Shia pilgrims were returning from visits to shrines and holy places in Iran.

Implications of airport attack

The attack on Karachi airport virtually stymied the peace process between the militants’ umbrella group, the Pakistan Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan TPP), and the Pakistani government. It has pushed the country’s political and military leadership onto the same page. The public anger over the attack allowed the embattled Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to announce a military operation in North Waziristan Agency, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. On 15 June the Pakistani Army formally launched the military operation, Zarbe Azb (Sword of the Prophet) against local and foreign militants in the Agency.

The attack on Karachi airport has brought home the realisation that Pakistan’s fight against home-grown terrorism will continue well beyond 2014. The US exit from Afghanistan in 2014 will not bring any respite but more trouble for Pakistan’s internal security. In the context of growing militancy in Pakistan, the US presence in, or absence from Afghanistan and Pakistan-US counter-terrorism cooperation, have become irrelevant factors.

Ahead of 2014, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), had shifted its strategic objective from fighting the US occupation of Afghanistan to Pakistan-focused operations. TTP has reconfigured itself as a Pan-Islamist jihadist group in Pakistan. Its war is now against the Pakistani state for the establishment of Taliban-style Sharia system in Pakistan. TTP’s campaign against Pakistan’s May 2013 parliamentary elections was a clear signal of the strategic shift.

In August 2013, TTP wrote a four-page letter to Pakistan’s religious scholars seeking their opinion (Fatwa) about democracy as a system of governance in Pakistan. The letter categorically stated that TTP’s struggle was not only against Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the WOT but also against the democratic system in Pakistan.

TTP has been carefully orchestrating and spreading its terror campaign to mainland Pakistan. Moving to cities is a part of the Taliban’s evolving strategy for post-2014 operations inside Pakistan. The struggle to weaken Pakistan and bring about a Shariah system will not occur in the hinterlands of FATA but in the streets and cities of Punjab and Sindh. By targeting Karachi airport the TTP has announced the shift in the militant trajectory from tribal to urban areas.

Peace talks or military operations?

The Karachi airport attack has also raised serious questions about the efficacy of the political approach alone to deal with militancy. Since his assumption of power in May last year, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has engaged the TTP politically but only achieved a 40-day ceasefire (1 March-10 April).

The current government deemed suspension of drone strikes and military operation in FATA as a pre-condition for peace talks to succeed. Reluctantly, the Pakistan army supported Sharif’s political approach and gave his government the time and space it needed to try its political approach. During the peace talks, the US suspended drone strikes in Pakistan from December 2013 to 10 June 2014, and the Pakistan army did not conduct any major military operation in FATA as well.

The fanfare with which Prime Minister Sharif initiated the peace dialogue with the TTP has subsided now. It has dispelled the misguided belief that the Pakistan army’s counter-terrorism operations, unrest in Afghanistan and US-led drone programme in FATA had fuelled terrorism in Pakistan. The critics of military operations and drone strikes failed to realise that to date almost all the peace deals with the Taliban have failed.

At the same time, military operation alone is not a solution to militancy in Pakistan either. There is no one silver bullet for this pernicious issue. Disrupting and destroying terrorist infrastructure is only one component of counter-terrorism. Physically gaining an upper hand against the militants in the battlefield is a tactical gain that remains incomplete without discrediting and delegitimising the terrorist ideology.

Need for robust counter narrative

At a strategic level, winning the war of ideas is more important. Pakistan will have to come up with a robust counter narrative against the Taliban’s ideology to win the war of ideas as well. A comprehensive policy ensuring a strict legal and administrative counter terrorism regime that ensures timely and efficient trials of detained militants is also needed.

Given the above, Pakistan’s problem will only increase after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. TTP-led terrorism in Pakistan is not just about the retaliation of military operations and the US drone strikes.

Instead it is a means to force the state to accept the Islamist militant as a stakeholder in the system and create space for the terror group in Pakistan beyond 2014. To win against terrorists, besides a strong military response, it is critical that the political leadership takes ownership of the war and demonstrate strong political will.
The US withdrawal places Pakistan at a crossroads:to become an economic bridge between Central and South Asian regions by curbing the internal militancy that has regional and global aspirations, or be an obstruction to regional peace by continuing its support for favourable militant groups, the so-called “good Taliban”.

The latter scenario will lead to a new wave of proxy wars in the region.

The writer is a Senior Analyst at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Pakistan’s Home-Grown Terrorism Threat: War Beyond 2014 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.