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

Reinterpretation Of Japan’s Constitution: The Limits Of Abe’s Ambitions – Analysis

0
0

Japan recently reinterpreted its Constitution to allow for collective defence with its allies. Notwithstanding Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s strong political position, the subsequent protests and decline in Mr Abe’s approval rating will likely constrain his efforts to amend the limits placed by the Constitution.

By Tsjeng Zhizhao Henrick

On 1 July, the Japanese cabinet passed a resolution in effect reinterpreting the country’s pacific Constitution to allow collective self-defence – the provision of military aid to a country “in a close relationship with Japan” that is under attack. However, there have been public protests in Japan against the move, including a man who set himself on fire in downtown Tokyo. Moreover, by the end of July, public polls revealed that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s popularity has plummeted to lows not seen since his 2012 re-election.

The Abe administration originally intended to implement the reinterpretation by revising defence laws to allow for the Japanese Self-Defence Force to participate in collective security by the autumn of 2014. However, recent remarks made by the Chief Cabinet Secretary implied that these would instead take place over a year.

Mr Abe’s political position, especially compared to his predecessors, is nevertheless still relatively secure, providing some political capital to proceed with the implementation of the reinterpretation. However, he will struggle with those efforts in coming months due to the underlying dynamics constraining his ambition to amend the limits placed by the Constitution.

Favourable Circumstances

It would appear that circumstances, both internal and external, are on Mr Abe’s side. Firstly, much of Abe’s popularity is predicated on his hawkish stance against China with the backdrop of an increasingly uncertain security environment. With the festering territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and Japanese fears of China’s military rise, Mr Abe’s assertive stance against China has earned him political capital at home. This makes his constitutional ambitions, which could be perceived as measures to counter China, more palatable to domestic audiences.

Secondly, constitutional reinterpretation is supported by the U.S., which has for years pressed Japan to play a more active military role in the region. This has also found support in other countries such as the Philippines, which is itself embroiled in territorial disputes with China.

Thirdly, Mr Abe’s political position appears unassailable, given that his approval ratings across the nation have generally been much higher than those of the previous five Prime Ministers. The opposition parties appear fragmented and unable to mount a viable challenge against any moves made by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

Political Limits

But behind this image of wide popularity and propitious circumstances, cracks have been evident even before the Constitution’s reinterpretation. These have been laid bare by the recent protests against the reinterpretation, as well as Mr Abe’s plunging popularity, which point to underlying dynamics that may well put significant constraints on the passage of the legislation.

One of these factors is the state of Japanese society itself. Much has been said about the “right-wing drift” and increase in nationalism within Japan. However, local polls have shown that the proportion of Japanese people not in favour of constitutional reinterpretation generally exceed those who support the move.

Together with the recent protests, this suggests that many Japanese still subscribe to the notion of a “pacifist” Japan and are wary of any move towards remilitarisation. Moreover, there has been much outcry at the way the Abe administration passed the reinterpretation without any public consultation.

Such reservations extend within Japan’s political sphere as well, dominated as it may currently be by the conservative LDP. In the run up to the 1 July decision, the LDP’s junior coalition partner, the New Komeito Party, had in fact blocked several of the LDP’s proposals and forced the LDP to make concessions during negotiations. For example, any allusion to Japan’s involvement in collective security operations necessitating military force was dropped as a result of opposition from New Komeito.

This may also point to cracks in the LDP’s apparent political dominance which may have been building up from even earlier. In late 2013, Abe’s administration passed a state secrecy act that resulted in widespread outrage arising from concerns that it would undermine information freedom. By the end of the year, Mr Abe’s approval ratings had dipped to its lowest point since his re-election.

Mr Abe’s own initiatives to boost the Japanese economy, dubbed “Abenomics” by some, have also been thrown into uncertainty. A widening trade deficit, a failure to reach a 2% inflation goal and other indicators suggest potential problems with “Abenomics”. Despite their economic dimension, such concerns can translate into political trouble when the livelihoods of ordinary Japanese are affected, restricting Mr Abe’s room for manoeuvre in actions that require political support.

Implications for Further Legislation

Given these constraints, the Abe administration would face obstacles to its efforts to pass further legislation enabling collective self-defence. It is likely that it will have to focus more on the economy than on security matters in the aftermath of the constitutional reinterpretation as a way to repair its reputation and prevent its further slide.

That is not to say that the administration would be wholly unable to push through further legislation. While current approval ratings are at their lowest point since Mr Abe’s re-election, they are still higher than those of his predecessors when they left office, while opposition parties remain too weak to challenge the LDP. As long as the security environment remains volatile, not least due to Sino-Japanese tensions, there will always be a measure of support for constitutional reinterpretation. A major incident between China and Japan would undoubtedly lend these efforts greater impetus.

Mr Abe will nevertheless need to pay greater heed to political undercurrents and public sentiment in the coming months as the legislation for collective self-defence is further debated, in effect placing limits on his ambitions to steer Japan to become a country with a more “normal” military.

Henrick Z. Tsjeng is an Associate Research Fellow with the Maritime Security Programme of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Reinterpretation Of Japan’s Constitution: The Limits Of Abe’s Ambitions – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


‘Dance Of Breath’: God Lives. In Itself. I Love – Book Review

0
0

Book review of Violeta Allmuca’s book of poetry “Dance of Breath”,  (June 2014, USA)

The ground covered with roses of memories expect the final truth about itself. Inter-weaved with madness of love, sadness and surprise, it matures with gentleness.

With a multitude of personifications aspiring towards adjective, allegorically beaming the pearls of its own, sincere … destiny. Woven with naivete, optimism is fed while the essence inexorably rising in the bosom of the insane intentions. Crazy ones? Of her environment that denies optimism through building exclusivity with concrete walls of weird gray, retrograde habits to condemn. Poetry of humility and love. All of them! And who are they? It was all of those that are considered humans and not understood the message of an embodiment of possible love, that walks towards the happiness. Human life is that. The foundation that walks towards happiness. Do not stop it. Let it be. Certainly hope dies last. While building memories for the new generations to come, not even for one moment leaves the flood behind. Ah, if everyone would do just like that. As Violeta Allmuca. If all … Would just try.

Violeta Allmuca’s book of poetry “Dance of Breath”,  (June 2014, USA)

Violeta Allmuca’s book of poetry “Dance of Breath”, (June 2014, USA)

Even when she loses illuminated with consciousness she proudly warns us (who are arriving) that we pay attention to the small, carefully veiled, immature forms of love pains that build the future. In and around us. It also does this for herself. But most because of us because through the building of the message. Message of good. Of truth. Of poetry.

Her diving into the past, in-wrought through the religiosity of own being, born new presumptions aimed precisely for applying most sincere messages of wisdom that stayed for us from the sacred book(s): love, truth, honesty. Is it exactly in all of these books written that is a sin to do harm to anyone? Is it exactly written in the book(s) that all should go towards the brotherhood of humans? Is it exactly written in the book(s) “love thy neighbor”? And today we are faced with the fact that we have never had a more believers and never more thievery, hatred, exclusions. Contradictio in adiecto? Even worse than that, rather than build our own future through listening to the lyrics of this poetic prophetess (from the poem “Structure of Ruin”): “We walk with the sun of hope / Perhaps tomorrow at least / We will not walk as mad / Over the dessert of absence”. Just read that and … try to realize that avoiding warnings. Mythical, but also present ones.

Her communication does not stop in everyday life but severely, in research kind of way penetrates into the fabric of meaning, looking for an answer. Not long ago I wrote: “It is not difficult to write. It’s hard to know how to write,” and it makes Violeta Allmuca as an example of literary connoisseur when she writes (from the poem “To the Nameless Road “): “In the winter extinguished neon / Through the nameless roads / The chain of longing separated / Instants scrolling exhausted / In the stomach of the city’s watch“, where, through the use of hyperbole, metaphor and oxymoron builds a new picture of reality that she lives. Painfully, but honestly. Truly honesty.

Invisible, unnamed love emerges from all her pores seeking fot the understanding. And then suddenly, garlanded with the name is born a new/old love … mother. Just to remind you, this is the person who asks nothing in return. She loves you unconditionally. And with this poem. From Violet, titled “Mother”. I do no type it because of the space given with a invitation to read it not only once, but at least ….. as it breathes with the whole..of dance. She knows. While we are waiting, like Jesus/Issa on the cross of our own destiny condemned as Adam/Adem and /or Eve/Hawa to eternal hell of meaninglessness living along with a few, fate perpetuated, hope. Focused towards the memory of good. We always talk about the “good old days”, not even realizing that and this is our, our times, be “good old days”. Why? Because we’re going towards just … worse and worse times. The author is aware of that and she sends warnings, even cries, warning us to go back and just…become humans… no matter to whose God(s) we pray, or just pretending to do so. As I wrote many years ago, we will give our borrowed energy going out from this world and that 21 grams of consciousness (energy of consciousness) will just strengthen the energy that theists call The God and atheists the Universe of infinity. Myself, gnostic as I am, I call it energy. And I’m proud of something like that. Why? Because I will be just part of it. Just as the true believers says – God’s giving. Why God is not a woman? And maybe The God is the woman? It would be nicer for us. Or not? I do not know, striving towards the energy.

The Book of poetry Dance of Breath is a powerful poetic message of human – women. About the world without sin. That may exist. At least in the poem and her words.

Para – erotica just seemingly deviate from her messages, although I have to admit, provokes with its mystique. Invisible love of unnamed characters makes strong reflections of humanity. And striving for… searching for love. In it. And in her. Her dreams are our dreams. Incompleted. But oriented to the reality. Through selling memories that will never be able to sell. Because memories are pointedly and strongly related to the being of each of us. Not just hers. Really!
And, that when she says (in the poem: “Party Life”): “We are in this world when love baptizes us / Otherwise we remain a space without trees“, just strives to the humanity because “baptism” is just that … love. Unmixed. True one. And vice versa.

Yes, just amoebas enjoy the love because amoebas are not woven with the nation, covered, encircled. Here, now, and today, crazy as we are, just what humans may be, are waiting for the implementation of thought that, sinful as I am, wrote last year: “A nation is a historical category and we need only to wait for the end of history.” Yes, “Once upon a time” as the poem says, dear Violet.
While reads her national anthems …
Still seeking.
Herself.
In love.
And within the humans.
Being in the shadow of others. Becoming God.
Of Life … herself.

The post ‘Dance Of Breath’: God Lives. In Itself. I Love – Book Review appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Activist Crosses Mexico-US Border Dressed As Osama Bin Laden – Video

0
0

Conservative activist James O’Keefe crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico to the United States on Monday disguised as Osama bin Laden, according to a press release from Project Veritas, an organization that was founded by O’Keefe.

“Dressed in the trademark military jacket and dishdasha and donning an Osama bin Laden mask, O’Keefe asks, ‘Do you feel safe’ before stepping into the Rio Grande and easily walking across the border into the United States,” notes Project Veritas.

According to Project Veritas, the video was filmed in Hudspeth County, Texas, at a crossing commonly used by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

“In less than one minute, O’Keefe crossed the river, which is only 2-3 feet deep and 20 feet wide in that area. The crossing is outside of Fort Hancock, Texas and only six miles from Interstate 10 on the American side. On the Mexican side, an access road comes within 100 feet of the river. Footprints, recent campsites, litter and well-worn paths mark both sides of the river where O’Keefe crossed,” according to Project Veritas.

O’Keefe was not confronted by a single member of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to Project Veritas.

“If the President or Senator Reid or anyone else tries to tell you that our borders are secure, they are lying to you,” said O’Keefe, adding “Border security is national security. We were able to pick a well-traveled crossing, easily accessible from both sides, and cross unobserved by federal agents. Just six miles from our crossing is Interstate 10, and from there, the rest of the country. Do you feel safe?”

The post Activist Crosses Mexico-US Border Dressed As Osama Bin Laden – Video appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Robin Williams Dies In Apparent Suicide

0
0

Actor and comedian Robin Williams has been found dead in his California home in a suspected suicide, according to a sheriff’s press release.

The 63-year-old actor was found unconscious around 12 p.m. inside his unincorporated residence in Tiburon, according to a report by the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.

“Robin Williams passed away this morning. He has been battling severe depression of late,” his publicist said in a statement. “This is a tragic and sudden loss. The family respectfully asks for their privacy as they grieve during this very difficult time.”

An investigation into his cause of death is underway while the coroner suspects that it was a suicide caused by asphyxiation. A forensic examination is scheduled for Tuesday.

The late actor’s wife also released a statement expressing how “utterly heartbroken” his death has left her.

“This morning, I lost my husband and my best friend, while the world lost one of its most beloved artists and beautiful human beings,” she stated. “I am utterly heartbroken. On behalf of Robin’s family, we are asking for privacy during our time of profound grief. As he is remembered, it is our hope the focus will not be on Robin’s death, but on the countless moments of joy and laughter he gave to millions.”

Williams was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor three times, and took home an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in 1997’s Good Will Hunting.

Last month he was reported as entering into a Minnesota rehab facility to “focus on his continue commitment” to sobriety, his rep told the Daily News.

Williams had been open about his struggles with addiction after maintaining sobriety for 20 years.

He had a relapse during his 2005 filming of “The Big White” and entered a rehab a year later but was said to have maintained sobriety ever since.

The post Robin Williams Dies In Apparent Suicide appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamic State Militants Threaten Turkey With Violence If Euphrates Water Supply Not Restored

0
0

Islamic State militants have directly threatened Turkey with violence as they swore to “liberate” Istanbul in order to reopen a dam on the Euphrates River. Water flow to parts of Syria and Iraq is at a record low.

The apparent closure is especially unfavorable to the terrorist group, as its new ‘capital’ Raqqa, in northern Syria, is in that zone. This is creating a humanitarian catastrophe as water levels plummet in nearby Lake Assad.

In a new Vice documentary episode on the IS militia, one member warns that if the Turkish government doesn’t open the Euphrates Dam back up, the group will do it for them by “liberating” Istanbul.

“I pray to God that the apostate [Turkish] government reconsiders its decisions. Because if they do not reconsider it now, we will reconsider it for them by liberating İstanbul,” Abu Mosa, the spokesman for the group, tells the camera during the filming of the five-episode documentary in Raqqa. He makes sure to identify this as “a clear threat.”

The documentary is among the most in-depth looks at Islamic State militants, their lives, practices, and even indoctrination of children into their way of thinking.

Recent fierce fighting around the Mosul, Tabqa and Haditha Dams in Iraq has given the militants a large degree of control, as they took areas from Kurdish fighters. The dams are among the largest in the country.

Turkey, Syria and Iraq are all heavily dependent on water from the Euphrates – the main water artery that runs through the region. Fair use of the river has been a problem for the three since the 1970s. Natural drought can be an immense driver of conflict in itself, not to mention deliberate blockages.

On May 13, the Syrian government had to cope with a devastating water shortage in Aleppo after extremists reportedly turned it off, putting two million people in mortal danger. However, only two weeks later, the Lebanese newspaper alleged that the Turkish government was complicit in this, allegations that Ankara rejected.

When the water supply was last cut in June, levels in man-made Lake Assad dropped by six meters, putting millions of Syrians without drinking water, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported. The gradual reduction of water flow had been taking place over a period of a month-and-a-half.

Nonetheless, according to the newspaper, Al-Akhbar’s interview with an anonymous source revealed Turkey had decided to intervene in the Syrian conflict by cutting the water supply from the river, something civilians began to refer to as the “water wars” waged at their expense.

Despite the allegations, some say the water shortages that really hit hard in July are the work of the Islamic State. One anonymous engineer at the Tabqa dam told Al Jazeera that “the whole drop happened since the Islamic State group took over. They took control and then we saw major issues… “Deterioration of the [lake's] level all happened within one month.”

Other reports speak of illegal water drawn for the purposes of irrigation. No blame can be attributed with certainty in a chaotic situation that also involves the worst drought in 60 years, with rainfall down by 50-85 percent since October 2013.

The Turkish government has also recently been in the spotlight with allegations that it helped Islamic State expansion by turning a blind eye to militants passing through its borders into Syria, where Turkish views align with those of the Sunni elements fighting President Bashar Assad. Added to this are complaints from Damascus to the UN in March that Turkey was providing cover to rebels crossing the border from Turkish territory, which allegedly included several Al-Qaeda affiliates.

Now, however, the Islamic State militants have set up shop in large swathes of Syria and Iraq, making water their problem as well.

Turkey is currently involved in a hostage situation following the June 11 kidnapping by the IS of 49 of its staff from the consulate in Mosul, Iraq, a situation that still has not been resolved.

The post Islamic State Militants Threaten Turkey With Violence If Euphrates Water Supply Not Restored appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Fidel Castro: The Palestinian Holocaust In Gaza – OpEd

0
0

I think that a new, repugnant form of fascism is emerging with notable strength, at this time in human history when more that seven billion inhabitants are struggling for their survival.

None of these circumstances have anything to do with the creation of the Roman Empire, around 2,400 years ago, or with the U.S. empire which, in this region only 200 years ago, was described by Simón Bolívar who exclaimed, “…the United States appears to be destined by providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty.” England was the first true colonial power to use its dominion over a large part of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, North America, and many Caribbean islands, in the first half of the 20th century.

On this occasion I will not talk about the wars and crimes committed by the United States empire over more than 100 years, but will only state what it wanted to do to Cuba, what it has done to many other countries in the world, and only served to prove that “A just idea in the depth of a cave is stronger than an army.”

History is much more complicated than everything I have said, but that is the was it is, in broad strokes, as the inhabitants of Palestine know, and it is likewise logical that the modern communications media reflect the news which arrives daily, as has occurred with the shameful, criminal war in the Gaza Strip, a piece of land where the population lives in what remains of what was independent Palestine only 50 years ago.

The French agency AFP reported August 2, “The war between the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas and Israel has caused the deaths of close to 1,800 Palestinians,… the destruction of thousands of homes, and ruined an economy which was already weakened,” although it does not indicate, of course, who initiated the terrible war.

Added later, “… As of Saturday at midday the Israeli offensive had killed 1,712 Palestinians and injured 8,900. The United Nations was able to verify the identities of 1,117 dead, in their majority civilians … UNICEF counted at least 296 dead minors.”

“The United Nations estimates …some 58,900 persons homeless in the Gaza Strip.”

“Ten of the 32 hospitals were closed and another 11 damaged.”

“This Palestinian enclave of 362 km² does not have the infrastructure needed for 1.8 million inhabitants, above all in terms of the provision of electricity and water.”

“According to the IMF, the rate of unemployment surpasses 40% in the Gaza Strip, territory subjected to an Israeli blockade since 2006. In 2000, unemployment was 20%, and in 2011, 30%. More than 70% of the population depends on humanitarian aid during normal periods, according to Gisha.

The Israeli government declared a humanitarian truce in Gaza at 07:00 GMT on Monday, nevertheless within a few hours, it broke the truce attacking a house, injuring 30 persons, in their majority women and children, and an eight-year-old girl died.

In the dawn hours of this same day, 10 Palestinians died as a result of Israeli attacks in all of Gaza and the number of Palestinians murdered has already increased to 2,000.

The killing has reached the point that, “French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius stated this Monday that Israel’s right to security does not justify the massacre of civilians taking place.”

The Nazi genocide of Jews outraged all the earth’s peoples. Why does this government believe that the world will be insensitive to the macabre genocide which today is being perpetuated against the Palestinian people? Perhaps it is expected that the complicity of the U.S. empire in this shameful massacre will be ignored?

The human species is living in an unprecedented stage of history. A crash between military planes or warships which are closely watched, or other similar events could unleash a conflict with the use of sophisticated, modern weapons, which could become the last known adventure of Homo sapiens.

There are events which reflect the almost total inability of the United States to face the world’s current problems. It can be stated that there is no government in this country, no Senate, no Congress, CIA or Pentagon which will determine the final outcome. It is truly sad that this should happen when the dangers are so great, but the opportunities to move forward are great as well.

When the great patriotic war took place, Russian citizens defended their country like Spartans, underestimating them was the worse error made by the United States and Europe. Their closest allies, the Chinese, who like the Russians achieved their victory on the basis of the same principles, constitute today the earth’s most dynamic economic force. Countries want yuan and not dollars to acquire goods and technology, and increased trade.

New, indispensable forces have emerged. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – establishing links with Latin America and the majority of countries in the Caribbean and Africa struggling for development – constitute the forces which in our era are willing to collaborate with the rest of the world’s countries, without excluding the United States, Europe or Japan.

Blaming the Russian Federation for the in-flight destruction of the Malaysian airplane is a stunning oversimplification. Not Vladímir Putin, nor Serguéi Lavrov, Russia’s minister of Foreign Relations, or any other leader of this government would ever come up with such nonsense.

Twenty-six million Russians died in the defense of their homeland against the Nazis. Chinese combatants, men and women, inheritors of a millennial culture, are people of uncommon intelligence and an invincible spirit of struggle. Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.

The post Fidel Castro: The Palestinian Holocaust In Gaza – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Blowback From Further US Intervention In Iraq – OpEd

0
0

As Iraq faces a governmental crisis and collapses into what looks to be a three-sided civil war, Republicans even other Democrats—members of Congress and potential presidential candidates, such as President Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—are alleging that Obama facilitated the rise of the Sunni radical group Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). They blame him for withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 and for failing to provide greater aid for moderate groups opposed to President Bashar al Assad in Syria.

Though I am no fan of President Obama, such logic is breathtakingly horrendous. Although Americans are not known for placing of importance on history, one should expect them to at least remember a few years back. And the public seems to at least have a vague idea that they are tired of 13 years of brush fire wars in faraway places. However, politicians, always eager to spend soldiers’ lives and taxpayer dollars on another interventionist fiasco, begin their history in 2011 when Iraq’s autocratic leader, Nouri al Maliki vetoed Obama’s conditions for keeping American troops in that country. Somehow, these politicians argue, the United States should have just kept a small U.S. force in Iraq despite the opposition, and likely hostility, of the host government. Forgetting these facts and starting history at this point leads to a bias toward further U.S. intervention in Iraq (and Syria).

In fact, George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq led directly to the creation and radicalization of what is now the brutal IS group. The group morphed from the group al Qaeda in Iraq, which rose in resistance to the U.S. military intervention. Anyone familiar with the Islamic religion would be unsurprised by the rise of such guerrilla resistance to non-Islamic foreign occupiers on Islamic soil. Yet most American politicians, including high-level Bush administration officials, seemed to be.

Furthermore, the current leader of the IS group, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, and two of the three other men on the group’s military council—like many other IS fighters—were radicalized during detention in U.S. camps during the American occupation. To the apparent disbelief of many American politicians of both parties, people, even non-Islamists, rarely like having their country occupied by a foreign invading force.

Moreover, the U.S. military usually tries to win against insurgencies by “decapitating” their leadership, but this tactic almost never works; in the evolutionary hothouse of war, killing a group’s leadership usually just leads to the rise of even more radical and ruthless leaders. In the case of al Baghdadi, he rose to the top of al Qaeda in Iraq when the United States killed the group’s top two leaders in 2010. Although the group then focused its efforts on overthrowing Assad in neighboring Syria, its financial base stayed in Iraq even though it changed its name to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). If Obama had poured greater amounts of weapons to more moderate opposition groups in Syria, ISIS would probably be even stronger today. In war, the most ruthless groups grab the weapons and use them on everyone else. If doubt exists about this phenomenon, when ISIS recently invaded Iraq, it disarmed the better-equipped Iraqi military and sent it on the run. In its current air campaign against forces of the now renamed IS, American airpower is fighting its own weaponry.

So if we go back in history far enough, we reach a much different conclusion than the interventionist politicians could fathom: George W. Bush’s original interventionism has led to the Islamist radicalization of both Iraq and Syria. More U.S. intervention—as is happening now with air strikes to help the Kurds against IS in Iraq—will only lead to more of the same. Usually implicit in the interventionism of American politicians and policymakers is that U.S. military action will make things better wherever it is undertaken. The United States has destabilized Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon with its invasion and occupation of Iraq, has destabilized Pakistan with its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and has destabilized Libya and Mali (and helped create a terrorist base in southern Libya with the weapons unleashed from Muammar Gaddafi’s storehouses) after a U.S.-led coalition toppled Gaddafi in Libya. The United States has fueled Islamist radicalism by also intervening militarily in Yemen and Somalia.

With such a great recent track record, one would think that American politicians would be too embarrassed get re-involved militarily in Iraq. But they now think they need to fight the monster that they created. But if IS is more ferocious than its ancestor, al Qaeda in Iraq, what more formidable creature are they now creating in opposition to U.S. bombing?

This article appeared at and is reprinted with permission.

The post Blowback From Further US Intervention In Iraq – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Taking Offense At Every Word Or Phrase? – OpEd

0
0

A recent news item (here) suggests that if offense possibly can be taken, it will be taken.

We have just been treated to studied outrage at the nicknames of the NFL’s Washington “Redskins”, Florida State University’s “Seminoles” and the MLB’s Cleveland “Indians.” As my friend and colleague Randy Holcombe reminds us in a recent blog, the moniker of the “New York Yankees” may be more offensive to southerners than any of those names.

News reports now suggest that a small cadre of faculty members at the University of Mississippi want to ban the use of “Ole Miss” as the school’s nickname owing to its “racist” origins. Never mind that a survey conducted by the university itself found that a majority of respondents reported that “Ole Miss” was nothing more than convenient shorthand for “The University of Mississippi” (and it fits better on football helmets and baseball and basketball jerseys).

What is the origin of “Ole Miss”? Slaves coined it, in reference to the wife of the planter to whom they were bound. If the planter and his wife had a daughter, she was called the “young miss.” The term, hence, did originate in the slave culture of the cotton south, but its racist the connection is indirect insofar as it grew from the linguistic usages of the slaves themselves. (Truth in advertising: Until 2011, I was on the faculty at the University of Mississippi for 23 years; I am a Rebel as well as an Aggie.)

Slavery and “Ole Miss” are anachronisms, but history happened and cannot be expunged by linguistic revisionism, unless we are willing to establish an Orwellian Ministry of Truth that erases our collective memory. Ole Miss already has banned the Beauregard (“Rebel”) flag and “Colonel Reb” as its on-field mascot, substituting for them a black bear having no historical context other than a possibly apocryphal bear-shooting visit to the state by Teddy Roosevelt.

The University of Utah just reached an agreement with the “Utes” allowing the school to continue to use its nickname in return for a promise of college scholarships earmarked for members of that tribe of Native Americans. I suspect that a payoff in cash or in kind likewise is the underlying goal of individuals and groups opposed to “Ole Miss.”

The post Taking Offense At Every Word Or Phrase? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Kerry: US Welcomes Important Step In Iraq’s Government Formation Process – Statement

0
0

By John Kerry, US Secretary of State

The United States welcomes Iraqi President Fuad Masum’s charging of the nominee of the largest bloc in the Council of Representatives, Dr. Haider Al-Abadi, with the formation of a new government. This signifies the successful completion of the third step in Iraq’s constitutionally mandated government formation process, following the election of the Speaker of Parliament and the election of the President of the Republic in July.

The United States applauds President Masum’s fulfillment of his constitutional duties and urges the Prime Minister-designate to form a government that is representative of the Iraqi people and inclusive of Iraq’s religious and ethnic identities. The Prime-Minister designate should present the members of his proposed new government to the Council of Representatives consistent with Iraq’s constitutional timeline.

The United States will continue to support Iraq’s democratic process and stand with the Iraqi people in their fight against terrorism.

The post Kerry: US Welcomes Important Step In Iraq’s Government Formation Process – Statement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iraq Investigates ISIL Abductions, Missing People

0
0

By Khalid al-Taie

The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry has begun keeping a formal record of civilians and military members abducted by the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL) or missing since the group overran Mosul in June.

This step comes in response to demands raised by the families of missing or kidnapped individuals who seek to discover the fate of their sons, the ministry said.

The ministry said it intends to assemble detailed information about these incidents in order to present this data to the international community.

Authorities are trying to learn the fate of air force cadets who went missing from Speicher military base in Salaheddine province, which was attacked by ISIL before security forces regained control of it.

Videos and photographs published on social networking sites at the time showed thousands of young men in civilian clothes marching along a road as a gunman was heard describing them as “soldiers who surrendered at the base of Speicher”.

“I have lost contact with my son for about 40 days,” said Ali Hussein, 52, of Nasiriyah, who is the father of one of the missing men.

“I do not know what happened to him, whether he is now alive or if he is among the martyrs,” he told Mawtani.

“Since the last call between me and him I could not enjoy sleep, and the same is true for his mother and his wife, who are in a miserable state,” he said, in tears. “I wish to know any news about him.”

Families asked to provide data

The ministry is asking the families of all those who went missing after ISIL’s incursion into Mosul to come in and fill out a form, said ministry spokesman Kamel Amin.

“Centres were opened in all provinces in the country to receive the parents and record the required data of their children,” he told Mawtani, adding that the form also is available on the ministry’s website and can be completed and returned electronically.

The form requests personal data for the missing person, details of the place, date and circumstances of their disappearance or abduction and must be presented with two copies of a document identifying both the missing individual and the applicant, he said.

The ministry “will work with the competent authorities based on what information is available to it to search for the missing civilians and military members alike to learn their fate and to alleviate the suffering of the families who lost communication with their children in the flashpoint provinces and combat zones”, Amin said.

Registration offers accountability

Registering the missing and abducted will enable the ministry to account for them more accurately and to enter their records into an integrated database that will help it prepare an international document detailing ISIL’s crimes against Iraqis, he said.

Unofficial reports indicate that many abductees are residents of southern provinces such as Dhi Qar, which formed a committee to tackle the issue at an August 4th emergency meeting, Amin said.

The ministry also seeks to open channels of communication with Salaheddine province to determine the fate of those missing and abducted from the military base, he added.

Dhi Qar governor Yahya Nazarene told Mawtani concentrated efforts and intensive communications are under way with the central government and other stakeholders to follow up on the cases of these victims.

“Telephone hotlines and an operations room have been dedicated to achieve direct communication between the families of the kidnapped and the committee formed by the provincial council in order to provide data on all the kidnapped and missing,” he said.

Work to document the numbers of the missing and abducted and account for their fate will continue “until the fate of all of them is disclosed”, he said.

The post Iraq Investigates ISIL Abductions, Missing People appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ralph Nader: What The Democratic Party Does Well, Doing Itself In – OpEd

0
0

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the minority leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, just had her political consultants send out a mass mailing to women asking for money and responses to an enclosed survey of their opinions.

The mass mailing duly recites the truly horrible House Republican votes against a variety of women’s health, safety and family protections and seeks to survey women’s priorities for the Congressional Democrats’ legislative agenda. Under the category titled “Employment,” there is no mention of restoring the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which Rep. Pelosi supports. The closest option to check was “inadequate/or no salary increase.”

The Pelosi mailing, uninspiring and defensive, is another product of the Party’s political consultants who have failed them again and again in winnable House and Senate races against the worst Republican Party record in history. These consultants, as former Clinton special assistant, Bill Curry, notes, make more money from their corporate clients than from political retainers. Slick, arrogant and ever reassuring, these firms are riddled with conflicts of interests and could just as well be “Trojan horses.”

The full restoration of the federal minimum wage to make up for the ravages of inflation since 1968 would take it from the present, stagnant $7.25 per hour and beyond the proposed $10.10 to $10.90 per hour. Over thirty million American workers – two thirds of them women and two thirds of them employed by large low-wage companies like Walmart and McDonald’s – would benefit from this wage restoration, and in turn would be able to strengthen the economy by increasing their consumer expenditures. There are a lot of votes out there if the Democrats go beyond lip service and push for a major media and grassroots campaign against the Congressional Republicans who are blocking a vote on this minimum wage bill.

Three of four Americans favor a restored minimum wage. Some cities and states have already taken their state minimum wage toward $9.00 per hour. They’re feeling pressure from distressed workers, from growing street demonstrations and from holding their fingers to the political winds. This is an issue whose time has come. A few months ago, even Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and other out of office Republicans who are not raising money from their corporate paymasters, declared their support for increasing the minimum wage.

Bill Curry flatly says that the Democrats can retain control of the Senate and take back the House by making raising the federal minimum wage a top 2014 campaign issue. The many human interest stories about the plight of underpaid workers are compelling and would motivate more voters to turn out.

After being too inactive in 2010 and 2012, the labor movement has touted a restored minimum wage, lobbied at some state legislatures for a raise, and organized demonstrations of workers, backed by SEIU, in front of fast food and other big box chains. AFL-CIO chief, Richard Trumka, has been at demonstrations and has put out materials demanding that Congress act on H.R.1010 to take the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

However, organized labor can do more with multi-million dollar organizing drives and ad buys (as they did in 1996). More demonstrations in more Congressional districts and more pressure on nervous Republican incumbents to sign the pending Discharge Petition to force Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, to let the House members vote on the bill could make a difference on this important fight.

Boehner is on the wrong side of this politically popular issue, but up to now he hasn’t thought the Democrats can turn this into enough votes to discharge his speakership after November. At the very least, the AFL-CIO unions should prepare a big mass media buy soon, since there are less than 100 days to the elections.

The key discharge petition in the House, to bring the modest $10.10 over three years to a vote, is assumed to have all 199 Democrats signed on. Only 19 Republicans need to sign it to get to the decisive 218 tally. Six Republican incumbents pushed for the last minimum wage raise in 2006 saying that “nobody working full time should have to live in poverty.” These six went on to vote for the raise in 2007.

The trouble is that since the discharge petition was filed by Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) in February, there has been little publicity for it by either the Democratic House Leadership or the White House (see timeforaraise.org).

And what of President Obama who is reportedly desperate to win back the House? On April 30th, he held an event with some minimum wage workers and criticized Republicans. On June 12th, he announced the details of the executive order to raise wages for federal contract workers. But he is not barnstorming on this BIG proposal that resonates with so many people in their hard-pressed daily life. He does, however, barnstorm around the country to attend exclusive high contributors’ fundraisers. How can he not understand that, with his “bully pulpit” and hard-working Americans by his side around the country, he could raise real political heat under the Republicans whose refusal to bend on this issue could result in their breaking? The mass media, after all, covers the news-making President everywhere.

I’ve often said that the Democratic Party cannot even defend the country against the demonstrably cruel, anti-worker, anti-consumer, pro-big business/Wall Street over Main Street Republican Party. The voting evidence in Congress is fully accessible. The Democrats compiled, but did not adequately deploy a report on some sixty outrageous Republican Party House votes during the last Congress that, if really driven home to voters, would have resulted in a landslide Democratic win against the GOP. Instead, the Democrats allowed the GOP to cover its truly vicious tracks with flowery rhetoric that kept their day of reckoning from seeing sunlight (see for yourself).

My message to Democrats is: Dump your corporate consultants. Just campaign for the necessities of the people. And publicize those Republican votes crisply, widely and repeatedly.

The post Ralph Nader: What The Democratic Party Does Well, Doing Itself In – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Albania And Macedonia Inch Closer To EU Standards

0
0

By Miki Trajkovski

Albania and Macedonia are reforming their judiciaries and other key EU accession areas, maintaining the course to get closer to Union membership, experts said. The requirements in the EU-integration process have grown over the years and relate to rules that apply to Union members as well, said Michael Davenport, head of the EU delegation to Serbia.

“The difference is the members fulfil them as obligations arising out of being a member, while the member-candidates as their obligation to become members,” Davenport said.

Officials said Macedonia will use 15 percent more funds this year from the allocated 730 million euros to implement the government’s strategic priorities and development projects that include EU-related reforms of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and organised crime.

“This is a proof that the government is committed to implementing reforms related to the EU integration process. Macedonia has already made significant progress in implementing EU-agenda reforms, especially regarding national legislation compliance with EU laws,” Fatmir Besimi, deputy prime minister for European Affairs, said.

In the first half of this year, the country adopted 11 out of 27 EU laws, engaging 13,000 civil servants and 100 institutions in the process, said Bojan Maricic, director of the Macedonian Centre for European Education in Skopje.

“An accession partnership will be formed … through which the European Commission and Macedonia will jointly determine the country’s tasks for next year,” Maricic told SETimes.

Macedonia will also adopt a strategic framework for economic development because reducing unemployment and maintaining macroeconomic stability are also key EU requirements.

Albania officials said the government continues the series of reforms that are directly or indirectly related to the process of the country’s integration in the EU though it has not yet prepared a financial bill for them this year.

“More important than the financial bill is the will to move ahead with the reforms. This will is all-inclusive, not only for the government, but for all institutions and the Albanian society,” the Albania ministry for integration said in a statement to SETimes.

Albania’s reform focus includes establishing an efficient and de-politicised government administration, strengthening the judiciary’s independence, intensifying the fight against corruption and organised crime and protecting human rights.

The ministry added that “the EU supports Albania in a series of other projects which for the first time have a sectorial approach in the priority fields such as agriculture, environment and infrastructure.”

Correspondent Linda Karadaku in Pristina contributed to this report.

The post Albania And Macedonia Inch Closer To EU Standards appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China Defends Position On South Sea Dispute

0
0

Speaking on the sidelines of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Summit in Naypyidaw on Saturday, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that the country is willing to listen to suggestions regarding the South China Sea dispute, but reiterated that their position is “firm and unshakable”.

The minister’s statements, issued by the Chinese embassy on 11 August, insisted that China and ASEAN are capable of handling “the so-called tensions”, stating that “the overall situation in the South China Sea is stable and there is no problem with freedom of navigation in the South China Sea”.

Following the ASEAN Regional Summit held in the capital from 8-10 August during Burma’s first ever chairmanship of the regional bloc, the group’s ten member nations released a statement stressing the urgency of resolving the maritime dispute, which “emphasized the need for the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct… and early conclusion of a Code of Conduct”.

Wang also met with US Secretary of State John Kerry in a closed-door meeting on Saturday to discuss relations between the two superpowers, which he described as stable and improving.

The US, which co-chairs a regional maritime security board, “will continue to encourage greater multilateral cooperation through increased transparency and confidence building”, according to the State Department.

“I expressed the concerns of many, which are shared, about the rise in tensions that have occurred,” Kerry said in a press briefing on Sunday. He emphasised the need for a quickly-implemented, legally-binding code that adheres to international standards.

“And I stressed the importance of everybody clarifying claims under international law and proceeding under the legal process through the law, through arbitration, and also through bilateral relationships,” he continued.

A statement by the Chinese Embassy in Rangoon said Kerry assured Wang that “the US will not take sides on the issue of the South China Sea”.

The disputed area is claimed in part by four Southeast Asian countries – Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei – as well as China and Taiwan. Controversy intensified earlier this year when a Chinese oil rig was positioned in disputed waters near Vietnam.

While the US is not directly involved in the South China Sea dispute, it advocates for a clear and speedy resolution between the claimants, for fear of issues of freedom of navigation in the disputed waters.

The post China Defends Position On South Sea Dispute appeared first on Eurasia Review.

European Spacecraft Reaches Comet After 10-Year Chase

0
0

(CORDIS) — Imagine undertaking a 10-year chase around the solar system. That’s exactly what the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosetta spacecraft has been doing for the past decade and this week, she finally caught up with her target: Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.

Rosetta is now the first spacecraft ever to rendezvous with a comet, and in doing so, her team at ESA claim that she has opened a new chapter in Solar System exploration. As you read this, Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and Rosetta lie 405 million kilometres from Earth, about half way between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, rushing towards the inner Solar System at nearly 55 000 kilometres per hour.

The long sought-after target, Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, is in an elliptical 6.5-year orbit that takes it from beyond Jupiter at its furthest point, to between the orbits of Mars and Earth at its closest to the Sun. The ESA says that Rosetta will be its constant companion now for over a year as they swing around the Sun and back out towards Jupiter again.

However, the quest towards the comet was not straightforward. Since the launch in 2004, the spacecraft had to make three gravity-assist flybys of Earth and one of Mars to help it on course to its rendezvous with the comet. This complex course also allowed Rosetta to pass by asteroids Steins and Lutetia, obtaining unprecedented views and scientific data on these two objects.

Unsurprisingly, the team at ESA is jubilant after successfully reaching the target of a decade-long odyssey. ‘After ten years, five months and four days travelling towards our destination, looping around the Sun five times and clocking up 6.4 billion kilometres, we are delighted to announce finally ‘we are here’,’ says Jean-Jacques Dordain, ESA’s Director General. ‘Europe’s Rosetta is now the first spacecraft in history to rendezvous with a comet, a major highlight in exploring our origins. The discoveries can begin.’

Alvaro Giménez, ESA’s Director of Science and Robotic Exploration, adds, ‘We have come an extraordinarily long way since the mission concept was first discussed in the late 1970s and approved in 1993, and now we are ready to open a treasure chest of scientific discovery that is destined to rewrite the textbooks on comets for even more decades to come.’

Rosetta is now just 100 km from the comet’s surface, but it will edge closer still. Over the next six weeks, it will describe two triangular-shaped trajectories in front of the comet, first at a distance of 100 km and then at 50 km.

Not content with one space history first, over next few months, the ESA team will begin final preparations for another: landing on a comet.

Matt Taylor, ESA’s Rosetta project scientist, concludes, ‘After landing, Rosetta will continue to accompany the comet until its closest approach to the Sun in August 2015 and beyond, watching its behaviour from close quarters to give us a unique insight and realtime experience of how a comet works as it hurtles around the Sun.’

It seems Rosetta’s travelling days are far from over!

The post European Spacecraft Reaches Comet After 10-Year Chase appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Critical Moment To Stop The TPP And Other Rigged Trade Agreements – OpEd

0
0

The moment facing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its sibling the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (known as ‘TAFTA’) and the future approach to trade is reaching a critical stage. The TPP and TAFTA are attempts to get past the failed World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, but like the WTO, these new agreements are meeting significant opposition and obstacles. We are poised to stop these attempts to rig the international economy in favor of multinational corporations and move to a new model of trade that respects the rights of people and nature, but it will take a coordinated effort. We must be prepared for moves to thwart that effort and organize to avoid them.

The TPP and TAFTA represent a new era of deception and back-room dealing to pass laws that have nothing to do with trade, but that hand even greater power to multinational corporations to profit from everything no matter the consequences for the health of people and the planet. For the first time, the text of the agreements has been classified and they are being negotiated in secret with hundreds of corporate advisers and minimal involvement by Congress. In order to complete the agreements without transparency and public input, the President has asked Congress to grant him the authority to sign them, ‘Fast Track,’ a form of Trade Promotion Authority.

As elections get closer, Democratic Party leaders in Congress are getting the message out to inside-the-beltway activists groups that they are unifying to support giving President Obama some form of Fast Track. Recent letters from member of Congress to the President indicate support for trade with particular stipulations, but the overall message is to continue negotiating. Washington advocacy groups believe that they must also show support for Fast Track or they will find themselves without access or influence.

Rather than kowtowing to the usual ‘on the table’ threat from the corrupt bi-partisan Congress, the movement needs to tell them that the only thing on the table is a complete transformation from the failed global trade that rigs profits for big business at the expense of the ecology of the planet and the necessities of the people. It is time to declare the TPP, TAFTA and the Services agreements as dead, develop a new approach to trade and begin to renegotiate past trade agreements like NAFTA that are doing ongoing damage to the economy, planet and people.

Congress be warned: The people are watching and are onto the rigged trade corruption scheme. Members of Congress will pay a political price, with the end of their careers, if they continue to force their failed trade strategy on the nation and the world.

Challenges for the TPP

For more than three years the President’s US Trade Representatives have sought Fast Track trade authority. Fast Track means that Congress would give up its constitutional responsibility “to regulate commerce between nations.” The movement for fair trade has fought back and pushed Congress to not give President Obama the authority he needs.

More than 3,150,000 have signed a petition to stop Fast Track.  At the critical moment in January and February when the President and “free” traders in Congress (note: whenever you see “free trade” think “rigged trade”) were set to push Fast Track legislation, the people responded with over 40,000 phone calls and 600,000 emails to Congress. There were also protests across the continent.  As a result, that Fast Track bill died.

The opposition is global. At the same time people were acting in the US, 65,000 people protested the TPP in Mexico and more than 1.8 million in Australia called for the text to be made public. President Obama was greeted with TPP protests when he visited Asia as was Vice President Biden when he visited Japan. We just returned from an economic conference organized by the Center for Global Justice that included people from the US, Mexico, Australia, China, Israel, Guatemala and other nations, and the top area where people agreed to work together was to stop the TPP and transform global trade.

This occurred because the TPP has been a matchstick that has united people into a ‘movement of movements’ of more than 150 organizations (including our project Popular Resistance) that worked together to Stop Fast Track. Activists concerned about food safety, worker rights, health care, finance, the environment, Internet freedom and more have organized scores of rallies and protests throughout the nation and around the world. There have been protests at trade negotiations even when they try to hide the location. The negotiators have become so fearful of protests that for the last negotiating session they fled 2,650 miles across Canada in an attempt to avoid them. The retreat failed as protesters exposed the TPP and brought 19,000 voices to the negotiations.

In this audacious protest last September, which we helped to organize, activists climbed up on and covered the US Trade Representative national office near the White House with four large banners to expose the secrecy.

In response to mobilization against the TPP, Congress in an election year has sent a variety of letters to the president on the shortcomings of the TPP. These include: 153 members of Congress calling for stronger labor standards, a bi-partisan letter signed by 140 members of Congress opposing the agricultural provisions of the TPP, and 120 members of Congress signed a letter saying they would not support a trade agreement with weak environmental standards and 35 members of Congress writing concerning the human rights violations in Vietnam, and Brunei adopting Sharia law. While these sound good, voters should be on alert to these election year actions. Language could be added to the TPP which sounds good but changes nothing as has occurred in previous trade deals. There is no form of the TPP that can actually protect the people and planet. Corporate lawyers have been writing the TPP for four years. The only response is to defeat the TPP.

Message to US Trade Representative, Obama and free-traders in Congress: If you have to be secretive, and fear protesters because your agreement is so unpopular, you need to start over. The process should be open, transparent and participatory. Simple message: Stop the Secrecy! This is supposed to be a democracy.

Desperate Attempts to Salvage the TPP

It has been evident that there is synergy between the movement’s success in stopping ‘Fast Track’ and the weakening negotiating position of the Obama administration. As protests have escalated, negotiators have become emboldened to stand up to the bullying of the United States.

Advocates of the TPP are beginning to face reality: the TPP negotiations may never reach completion. Last December, Wikileaks published documents that revealed there were wide chasms of dispute between the nations negotiating the TPP. Countries were unwilling to give transnational corporations as much power as the United States was demanding.

Now some advocates of the TPP believe that the TPP may be over.  Negotiators have missed three deadlines to conclude the talks. Countries are recognizing that the TPP is skewed in favor of one country, the United States, and its transnational corporations. They also see the reality that the WTO has been stalled since the Seattle protests in 1999 and has been unable to reach any agreement in the Doha Round.

Advocates of corporate trade agreements realize the people are connecting globalized trade to the wealth divide, lowering of labor standards and destruction of the environment. And, there is near universal opposition to investor state rights to sue in rigged trade tribunals for loss of expected profits. Transnational corporate globalization is hitting a wall of opposition.

More opposition to rigged trade is developing: LGBT groups have demanded the US stop negotiating with Brunei because of its brutal treatment of a penal code that targets women, LGBT and religious minorities; others are protesting how the TPP will worsen inequality and the wealth divide, result in lost jobs, lower wages and expand the income divide, give corporations unusual new power under the guise of intellectual property, will make NSA spying easier, force policing of Internet users, and result in more fracking in both the United States and Europe, as well as off-shore drilling and other extreme energy extraction.

The Movement Should Not Compromise

We know that the transnationals and their corrupt congressional representatives want the TPP, TAFTA and Services Agreement to become law. It will result in concentration of wealth and political power in their hands and result in laws that could not be openly passed through legislatures to become law. We know they are not ready to give up on the trillions in profits they will reap from rigged trade.

We also know that the movement of movements that opposes rigged trade has shown some power and is capable of mobilizing even more people. As the push for rigged trade and a new form of Fast Track moves forward, if we are not fooled by false promises in Fast Track legislation, the movement to end corporate trade will grow even stronger.

Message to our allies: This is the time for continued solidarity, it is not the time for the movement to compromise, nor is the time for countries to give in to US demands. It is time for opposition to rigged corporate trade to take an even stronger stand: oppose the trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, refuse to enact any form of Fast Track and demand a transformation of trade to rules that provide for the necessities of the people and planet as the top priorities.

Labor has hopefully learned the lesson that merely improving the language in trade agreements that claims to protect workers will not protect labor, will not prevent the loss of jobs and will encourage the downward decline in wages. Environmentalists must have learned that trade agreements will encourage extreme energy extraction, ecology-destroying mining and destruction of the oceans and other waterways. The USTR knows the political importance of environmental protection and has been caught lying about the issue.  People concerned with the power of big corporations must now know that rigged trade makes corporations more powerful than governments and will undermine democracy, food security and safety, clean water and air as well as health care among other basic necessities.

Senator Ron Wyden, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has signaled that he will be pushing for what he calls “Smart Track,” an embarrassingly obvious false marketing term designed to fool people. This is a trade authority that if enacted is very likely to allow the TPP, TAFTA and Services Agreement to become law. Wyden has been told by his constituents as well as tech companies, who are a key part of his base, that they oppose any form of Fast Track.  People are not falling for this re-labeling and Wyden-marketing.

We need a new form of Trade Promotion Authority, but we cannot negotiate a new trade regimen until the current agreements: TPP, TAFTA and the Services Agreement are defeated.  If the so-called “Smart Track” becomes law, what happens to these three agreements that have been negotiated for years? A new approach to trade cannot retroactively apply to agreements that are so far along in negotiation.

New Trade Era

What would appropriate trade look like? The goals of trade must be clearly stated. The first priorities for trade are meeting the necessities of people and benefitting their lives. This means trade must reduce wealth and income divides, raise wages and the standards of working conditions and ensure people have access to clean water, safe foods and high-quality healthcare. Second, trade must benefit the planet. The world needs to move toward clean, sustainable energy sources and stop the extreme energy extraction of carbon polluting energy as well as uranium for nuclear energy. Trade needs to be designed to move the planet to a carbon-free, nuclear-free energy economy. Ecology protecting trade means there should be less trade so that local communities can be self-sufficient, with small family farms thriving instead of being overcome by highly subsidized crops that allow large agribusiness to destroy traditional agriculture.  Relying on transporting foods thousands of miles when they can be grown locally is bad for local economies as well as for the environment and climate change.

And, the process of negotiating trade must be very different. While each country has different legislative and executive processes, the basics must be transparency in the negotiations and participation by the public and elected representatives throughout the process. In the United States this could mean that as trade is negotiated chapters are shared with responsible committees and the public so we can weigh in on whether the chapter is supported. It also means that when the full agreement is reached, it is published with sufficient time for the public and legislators to read and review it. Further, the Congress should be able to hold hearings and make final amendment suggestions that the USTR will then bring back to other countries before the agreement is signed by the president.

These are transformational changes in the goals, purposes and process of trade agreements. To achieve these changes the movement of movements must show solidarity and defeat the TPP, TAFTA and Services Agreement. This show of political power is the only approach to bringing Congress and the president to our perspective.

The next steps for the movement are to organize locally to broaden the movement. We urge people around the world to put in place “Trade Justice Zones” where local governments pass laws and resolutions that make it clear – we will not obey trade agreements that are negotiated in secret without a democratic process.  Local communities need to keep control of their sovereignty so they can protect the environment and people in their communities. See e.g. actions taken by Madison and Los Angeles.

The next big push by the Obama administration and Congress will come around the G-20 summit being held in Sydney, Australia on November 15 and 16, during the lame duck session of Congress. This is an opportunity for the world’s citizens to tell the leaders of the world – we oppose rigged corporate trade agreements and want a new approach to trade that puts people and planet before profits.

No doubt, some in Congress will take action to strengthen President Obama’s negotiating position before the G20, perhaps by promising Fast Track will pass during the lame duck or making it look like Congress is moving in that direction. Civil society must take united action across the Pacific and Atlantic just before the summit to show our opposition to rigged corporate trade; and during the summit with a worldwide day of action opposing globalized trade for transnational corporations. People of the world must unite against corporatization and in favor of real democracy.

In the United States, opposition to rigged corporate trade has made these trade agreements increasingly toxic. That toxicity needs to continue to build so that no elected representative thinks they can get away with supporting TPP, TAFTA or the Services Agreement, no matter how good they try to make it sound.

The movement has shown it is capable of educating each other despite a corporate media blackout of these corporate trade agreements. By sharing articles like this one widely we can educate and mobilize a growing mass movement for a new form of trade. To stay informed, take the pledge at our campaign, FlushTheTPP.org.

Now is the time to recommit to not compromising with the corporate-dominated governments that ignore our interests. If we do so, we can stop Fast Track, defeat corporate trade, transform it to a people and planet form of trade and begin to build the new economy essential to humankind and the planet.

This article is produced by Popular Resistance in conjunction with AlterNet.  It is a weekly review of the activities of the resistance movement.

Follow us on twitter @PopResistance and sign up for our daily news summary here.

Kevin Zeese, JD and Margaret Flowers, MD are organizers of Popular Resistance; they co-direct It’s Our Economy and co-host Clearing the FOG. Their twitters are @KBZeese and MFlowers8.

The post Critical Moment To Stop The TPP And Other Rigged Trade Agreements – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


An Open Letter To My Palestinian Friends – OpEd

0
0

As my heart bleeds for those of you suffering in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine, I want to add my voice to those who are encouraging you to consider revising your strategy of resistance to Israeli occupation. See, for example, ‘Wanted: A new strategy for Palestinian resistance’.

In doing this, I wish to acknowledge the long-standing and ongoing
debate over violence/nonviolence as a strategy – discussed again
recently by Ramzy Baroud in his article ‘On Heroes and Preachers: Gaza’s New Resistance Paradigm‘ with other articles cited below it – as well as the long history of Palestinian nonviolent resistance, recorded in Mazin Qumsiyeh’s book ‘Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment‘.

I also wish to acknowledge the sensitivity of some Palestinians to suggestions from those of us who are only Palestinian in the sense that ‘We are all Palestinian’. I did not choose my nationality. I did choose to study, exhaustively, strategic theory and nonviolent strategy so that I could share them with those who might be interested. I have no interest in doing more than offering this suggestion and my help; if they are rejected, I will be understanding. And still supportive of the struggle to liberate Palestine.

Of course, some of you are well aware of my wholehearted support for your struggle as well as my long-standing position on the issue of your strategy but it feels appropriate to repeat this offer more publicly at this time, particularly given the suffering that is now being experienced. Hopefully, this offer will reach new ears among those of you who are ‘ordinary Palestinians’ but also strategic thinkers, a rare capacity in any struggle, as history graphically illustrates (and for which an argument over the existence or otherwise of a ‘Palestinian Gandhi’ is not useful).

In essence, I would like to encourage you to seriously consider planning and implementing a comprehensive nonviolent strategy for the liberation of Palestine using a book I wrote in the early 1990s: ‘The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach‘. This book – for which cheap, second-hand copies are readily available
via the Internet – explains how to develop and implement a comprehensive nonviolent strategy to liberate countries living under dictatorship or occupation. I used difficult cases such as Palestine, Tibet and China (each of which I studied extensively) to ground the book. I also explained why nonviolent strategy, intelligently devised and implemented, is empirically superior to any military strategy. And I exposed the flaws in the fairly widespread delusion that the British in India were ‘civilised’ opponents and this explains why nonviolence worked in that context.

While simpler and flawed nonviolent approaches have been used with some success during the Velvet Revolutions in Europe in 1989, the Color Revolutions and, most recently, the Arab Spring, these approaches are extremely unlikely, for readily identifiable strategic reasons, to liberate countries such as Palestine, Tibet, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, particularly given the role played by the United States elite in supporting these occupations and dictatorships. If you need a reminder of US support for Israel, see ‘Thank You, President Obama. Love, Israel‘.

Anyway, if you wish, you will get a taste of the strategic thinking in the above book by reading the brief article ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’ recently republished here. This article explains the vital distinction, which is virtually never understood, between the political objective and the strategic goal of
all nonviolent actions.

This offer is not intended as criticism of the courage of Palestinian efforts but, if used, the strategic theory and twelve-point strategic framework in this book would facilitate the development and implementation of a far more comprehensive and, equally importantly, precisely focused strategy for the nonviolent liberation of Palestine.

For example, it would help Palestinian strategists to understand how to more effectively focus and use the tactics of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as part of a comprehensive strategy and to recognise the importance of identifying many other tactics to complement BDS.

By basing Palestinian strategy on a precise political and strategic assessment, the definition of a clear political purpose and related set of demands, the definition of the two strategic aims and the appropriate strategic goals (of both the defense and the strategic counteroffensive), by clarifying the conception of nonviolence that will be utilized, identifying the leadership structure including the process that will be used to ensure the maintenance of effective strategic coordination, by nominating communication processes, preparations, elements of the constructive program, the nature of your organisation including the decision-making structure and process, the timeframe of the strategy, the tactics as well as their sequencing and attendant peacekeeping, and by using a clear evaluation process to gauge progress in the struggle you will give life to a strategy that can then be widely communicated to your many allies around the world giving people vast opportunities for involvement in support of your struggle.

Of course, even the most sophisticated nonviolent strategy cannot guarantee to prevent insane and genocidal opponents – see ‘Understanding Obama and Other People Who Kill‘ – which have the backing of key puppets – see ‘Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on the situation in Gaza‘ and ‘UN’s Ban Ki-moon is a partner in Israel’s crimes‘ – from using military violence against us. But we can plan to minimize its likelihood, minimize its impact if it is used and to ensure that it is always strategically counterproductive for our opponents.

I wish to acknowledge some previous responses by Palestinians (most recently, 18 months ago) to my offer which touch on the problems Palestinians would face in developing and implementing this strategy.

‘I still believe that our biggest weaknesses are in both vision and strategy and I also believe that you don’t need to have vision first, but when learning what you can do, learning that you can actually face the impossible, then you can also create space for dreaming the impossible.’

‘I’m glad you have taken this initiative. As an advocate of nonviolence I can tell you that never before has it been so hard to promote it as is now. Israel’s heavy handed response to nonviolent protestors, the constant failures of the PA to secure the rights of Palestinians through diplomacy and negotiations coupled with the final round of violence in Gaza and the rise of Hamas’s militant brand of resistance has made things challenging to say the least.’

So it isn’t going to be easy. But the point is this. Palestinians are struggling with enormous courage, as they have always done. And the ‘world public’ is really waking up to what is going on.  A comprehensive nonviolent strategy will allow all of us – those of us who are Palestinian and those of us in Israel and elsewhere around the world who identify with Palestinians – to play a strategically effective role in your liberation struggle.

So if you are interested in developing a comprehensive nonviolent strategy for the liberation of Palestine, I would be happy to assist you to do so. And there are many solidarity activists and groups around the world who will no doubt be happy to help implement it.

For the nonviolent liberation of Palestine; Robert.

The post An Open Letter To My Palestinian Friends – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Xi Jinping’s Visit To South Korea: Implications For The Two Koreas – Analysis

0
0

By Pranamita Baruah

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent two-day state visit to South Korea in July attracted a lot of attention. The world closely monitored the developments, as the visit took place at a time when tensions in the Korean Peninsula are growing due to North Korea’s relentless pursuit of missile and nuclear weapons programme.

Geostrategic rivalries and territorial antagonisms have turned the security environment in northeast Asia all the more volatile. Nevertheless, it was Xi’s first visit to South Korea after assuming office, even though he and his South Korean counterpart Park Geun-hye have held four bilateral summits since last year. During the recent summit, the two countries signed a number of documents to boost economic and political ties. However, the joint statement issued after the summit seemed to highlight agreement over resumption of the Six Party Talks (SPT), and commitment towards finalizing the bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) by the end of this year.

Merely Symbolic?

Many analysts have argued that Xi Jinping’s visit was heavier on symbolism than substance, as the joint statement did not yield any significant breakthroughs. According to these accounts, South Korean President Park Geun-hye’s visit to China in June last year was more fruitful. The Joint Statement for Future Vision signed by the two countries at that time received highly favorable response not only at home but also abroad, especially in the US.1 However, a similar kind of response was not possible from the recent summit. This time, the rest of the regional states, as well as the US, seemed apprehensive about the summit outcome and they monitored events with caution.

Xi Jinping’s visit to South Korea was still significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, since the normalization of China-South Korea relations in 1992, Xi Jinping was the first Chinese president to visit Seoul before visiting Beijing’s long-time ally North Korea.2 Secondly, excluding the visit to Russia in February this year to attend the Winter Olympics, Xi Jinping’s South Korea visit was his first single-nation overseas trip since assuming office.3 Thirdly, even though the recent visit did not indicate any significant departure from established policies of the two countries vis-à-vis North Korea, the very fact that both emphasized denuclearization in the joint statement released at Seoul sent a strong signal to Pyongyang. Last but not the least, in recent years China has been relentlessly pursuing South Korea to strengthen bilateral ties as the former hopes to acquire the latter’s assistance in shaping a new security architecture and financial order in the region. Xi Jinping’s visit to South Korea came at a time when President Park is striving to deepen and broaden bilateral relations with China. Under the circumstances, the visit cannot be treated merely as a symbolic gesture on the part of China towards South Korea. It seemed to have a number of implications for the regional states, as well as the US.

Bonhomie between China and South Korea: A Reality Check

China and South Korea are not natural allies. Recently though, their shared frustration with North Korea’s provocative behavior, as well as their historical disputes with Japan, seem to have brought the two countries closer. Since assuming office, President Park has been particularly keen on strengthening economic ties with China, and in denuclearizing North Korea. During the July summit, both leaders vowed to work toward a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. They also expressed their resolve to adhere to the UN Security Resolutions against Pyongyang for its involvement in nuclear and missile development programme.4 These are significant steps in strengthening China-South Korean relations.

However, the recent summit did not indicate any dramatic shift in China’s policy towards North Korea. That seems to concern the South Koreans. For years, South Korea has been seeking China’s support in denuclearizing North Korea. This time, South Korea reportedly tried to single out North Korea for denuclearization in the joint statement. Even though China expressed its intention to deal with the Korean Peninsula issue in a balanced manner, and emphasized denuclearization, it abstained from specifying ‘North Korea’. Also, the joint statement did not contain anything that could antagonize North Korea or harm relations between Beijing and Pyongyang.5

During the recent summit, while South Korea called for North Korea’s commitment towards its own denuclearization, China emphasized the necessity of the state parties of the SPT to lower the threshold for North Korea to relinquish its nuclear aspirations. Such divergence in North Korea policy pushed the Chinese and South Korean leadership to reconcile by simply incorporating wording that the concerned states would try to resolve disputes through “meaningful dialogues in various forums”.6 It also bears mention that South Korea has been seeking Chinese support for a South Korea-led reunification of the Korean Peninsula. However, as long as South Korea continues to remain allied with the US, it will be extremely difficult to convince China of this logic. 7

Economic cooperation remains one of the key components of China-South Korean relations. The fact that 250 Chinese business executives accompanied Xi on his visit supports that point.8 During Xi’s visit, both countries talked about accelerating the negotiation for the conclusion of the bilateral FTA. The trade volume between the two countries stood at US$220 billion last year.9 That is larger than South Korea’s trade with the US and Japan combined.10 The proposed FTA will undoubtedly boost China-South Korea economic cooperation further. During the recent summit, both countries also explored the possibility of launching a direct transaction market of their currencies. As South Korea’s trade with China constitutes more than 20% of its total trade, the proposed market seemed to prove particularly beneficial to South Korea, and the deal could also reduce South Korea’s dependence on the dollar in international trade.11 However, Seoul’s opposition to Beijing’s proposed multilateral bank – the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – to finance development projects in Asia could prove a barrier to boosting their bilateral economic ties further. Seoul has opposed joining any regional financial order that excludes the US. Given the divergence between Seoul and Beijing, the recent joint statement expressed only agreement on the “need to expand investment on infrastructure for Asia’s economic growth”.12

In the wake of China’s declaration of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in November 2013, as both China and South Korea succeeded in resolving their spat over the issue, many analysts argued that the two countries could explore the possibility of strengthening security ties. Their argument seemed justified, to some extent, as China did not pressurize the South to reduce its joint military drills with the U.S. during the recent summit. Beijing also abstained from taking an extremely critical stance on South Korea’s US-led missile defense system. South Korea seemed to appreciate that gesture by expressing its intention not to adopt the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).13 The US wants to bring the missile system to South Korea to deal with North Korean nuclear threat. Although Seoul’s decision might have assuaged Beijing’s concerns, it could put Washington in an uncomfortable position.

However, although South Korea does not treat China as a direct security threat, it seems apprehensive about the possibility of China’s growing military assertiveness leading to regional arms race and heightening of regional tensions.14 For its part, China continues to be suspicious of the US-South Korean security alliance and treat it as part of the US strategy to contain China. Such apprehension and mutual suspicion have emerged as major challenges in expanding security ties between China and South Korea.

The divergent approaches towards regional security became evident when South Korea rejected China’s proposal to create a new Asian security order based on the notion that “Asian security should rely on Asians”.15 Given its long-standing security alliance with the US, South Korea did not seem to find that proposal quite appealing.

Although Xi and Park expressed concern about Japan’s move to reinterpret its pacifist constitution and exercise the right to collective self-defense, Seoul abstained from condemning Tokyo’s comeback as global military power during the July summit. By doing so, South Korea might be sending a message to the US that it was not trying to alienate itself from the US-South Korea-Japan trilateral alliance. In fact, there was hardly any mention of Japan in the joint statement between China and South Korea. Instead the two countries agreed to carry out joint study on Japan’s involvement in the comfort women issue.16

A Rift Between Beijing and Pyongyang?

Xi Jinping’s visit to Seoul before Pyongyang certainly irked North Korea. Interestingly though, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has yet to receive an invitation to visit China. Moreover, in the last three years China has not held a bilateral summit with North Korea. So, in an apparent attempt to express displeasure with Xi’s trip, North Korea fired several short-range missiles and rockets into the sea off its eastern coast in the weeks ahead of the Xi visit.17

In recent years, North Korea’s belligerency and relentless pursuit for nuclear weapons has raised questions in various quarters regarding China’s continued leverage over its wayward ally. North Korea could jeopardize China’s plan to emerge as a major player in the international order in the near future. That is why these days China has become much more vocal in criticizing North Korea for its nuclear programme, especially at the UN. Xi expressed displeasure in February 2013, after Pyongyang carried out its third nuclear test in defiance of China’s warning. Frustrated with North Korea’s behavior, Xi broke away from the long-standing tradition and visited Seoul first before visiting Pyongyang.

However, the current bonhomie between China and South Korea does not signify that the China’s relationship with North Korea is in jeopardy. China wants to deal with the two Koreas while keeping in mind its relations with the other neighboring states as well as the US. It would like to continue maintaining its leverage over North Korea in order to have a say in the issues such as the North’s denuclearization, and the reunification of the two Koreas. China’s growing efforts towards resuming the SPT and its avoidance of specifying North Korea in the joint statement this July, clearly indicates that Beijing is not about to sacrifice its alliance with Pyongyang at the cost of Beijing-Seoul relationship.

As for North Korea, it cannot take China for granted much longer. Given the North’s economic dependence on China, defying Beijing could hurt Pyongyang’s own national interest. In the wake of the UN’s condemnation of North Korea’s ballistic missile launches and nuclear tests, Pyongyang has threatened to carry out a “new form” of nuclear test.18 Such a step could rupture the Beijing-Pyongyang relationship. Moreover, it could provoke South Korea and Japan, not to mention the US, to take strong measures against North Korea.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that China and South Korea share economic interests. But China has become increasingly aware of Seoul’s strategic value amid the ongoing great power rivalries. It would be very much in Beijing’s interest to keep Seoul distant from Washington’s “pivot” toward Asia. However, South Korea’s interest in the region could get hurt to some extent as other regional powers, including the US, pressure it to take sides. At this point, Seoul needs a more prudent and creative foreign policy strategy, one that could help South Korea maintain constructive partnerships with rest of the regional powers while maintaining its security alliance with the US.

North Korea also needs to restrain itself from taking further provocative action against neighboring states, as this could alienate China. At present, a heavily sanctioned North Korea cannot afford to lose Chinese patronage. Moreover, if Pyongyang keeps up its belligerent attitude, the resumption of the SPT will be in jeopardy. Even though China has been pushing for the resumption of the talks, North Korea’s provocations could compel China to stand against the former to reiterate Beijing’s claim as a responsible regional leader. Under the circumstances, North Korea needs to strengthen ties with China further. In order to recover its depleting economy, North Korea should focus on making some sincere efforts in resuming the SPT. Improving relations with neighboring states would benefit North Korea both economically and strategically.

About the author:
Pranamita Baruah, Researcher, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints 149, August, which may be accessed here (PDF).

Notes:
1. Richard Weitz, “Xi’s Seoul Summit Sustains Seoul Ties” (China-US Focus, 15 July 2014).
2. “Park-Xi summit draws regional powers’ attention” (The Korea Herald, 3 July 2014).
3. “Beijing eyes closer ties with Seoul, increased clout” (The Korea Herald, 2 July 2014).
4. “Leaders send message to North Korea” (The Korea Herald, 3 July 2014).
5. Richard Weitz, “Xi’s Seoul Summit Sustains Seoul Ties” (China-US Focus, 15 July 2014).
6. Ibid.
7. Scott Snyder, “China snubs North Korea with leader’s visit to South Korea”
(The Guardian, 3 July 2014).
8. “China and South Korea oppose North Korea Nuclear tests” (BBC News, 3 July
2014).
9. Scott Snyder, “China snubs North Korea with leader’s visit to South Korea”
(The Guardian, 3 July 2014).
10. “With Seoul visit, China leader sends message north” (Associated Press/CBS News, 2 July 2014).
11. “Chinese leader Xi arrives in S. Korea for summit with Park” (Yonhap/The Korea Herald, 3 July 2014).
12. Hee Ok Lee, “South Korea-China Relations, What has Changed and What will be Sustained?” (East Asia Foundation, EAF Policy Debates, No. 6, 16 July 2014).
13. Ibid.
14. Richard Weitz, “Xi’s Seoul Summit Sustains Seoul Ties” (China-US Focus, 15
July 2014).
15. Hee Ok Lee, “South Korea-China Relations, What has Changed and What will be Sustained?” (East Asia Foundation, EAF Policy Debates, No. 6, 16 July 2014).
16. “North Korea Newsletter 321” (Yonhap, 10 July 2014).
17. “With Seoul visit, China leader sends message north” (Associated Press/CBS News, 2 July 2014).
18. “North Korea Newsletter 321” (Yonhap, 10 July 2014).

The post Xi Jinping’s Visit To South Korea: Implications For The Two Koreas – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Says China, Not Washington, Responsible For South China Sea Tensions

0
0

By Victor Beattie

The United States says it is trying to lower tensions in the South China Sea and accused China of “fomenting instability” by its “aggressive actions.” Washington’s comments came amid Chinese criticism of a U.S. plan for a voluntary freeze on provocative actions in Beijing’s maritime disputes with Southeast Asian nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on Monday said a final statement by the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in Myanmar, also known as Burma, was sufficient in addressing regional territorial disputes. That statement underscored the importance of “maintaining peace and stability in accordance with universally-recognized principles of international law,” and called for “the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties” and “the early conclusion of a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.”

Harf said Secretary of State John Kerry, who attended the ASEAN Regional Forum and suggested the voluntary freeze on provocations, said the United States made the points that needed to be made:

“And, he said, you know, we weren’t seeking to pass something per se – trying to put something on the table that people could embrace. So, you know, he also said that a number of countries have decided that’s what they’re going to do. It’s a voluntary process. But, he also said he thinks there’s a way to achieve some progress with respect to the South China Sea based on conversations they had at ASEAN. It’s an ongoing conversation, but I think judging from his comments, he seems like we had made some progress,” said Harf.

A senior Obama Administration official Saturday said the ASEAN statement is explicit in emphasizing the need for self-restraint, calling it “a significant shift” in the way ASEAN members are approaching their diplomacy with China. He said they are increasingly concerned about China’s “escalatory pattern of behavior.”

On Monday, a commentary by Chinese state-run Xinhua news agency said Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who also attended the meeting, rebuffed the freeze proposal as potentially counterproductive. Xinhua said Washington’s proposal only stokes the flames by emboldening countries like the Philippines and Vietnam to take a hardline stance against China. It also urged Washington not to make the South China Sea the latest place of “chaos” as a result of U.S. intervention, and referenced Iraq, Syria and Libya as previous examples. In response, Harf pointed out that the Chinese were the ones taking “aggressive” actions, not the U.S.

“We’re not the ones that are fomenting instability there (South China Sea). It’s the aggressive actions the Chinese have taken that are doing so. Everything we are doing is designed to lower tension, to get people to resolve their differences diplomatically, and not through coercive or destabilizing measures, like we’ve seen Chinese take increasingly over the past several months,” said Harf.

The United States has accused China of asserting itself militarily in territorial disputes with Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines in the South China Sea, and in a dispute with Japan over competing claims to a group of uninhabited islands northeast of Taiwan.

A U.S. official traveling with Kerry said the United States will be monitoring the actual situation around the rocks, reefs and shoals of the South China Sea.

Pavin Chachavalpangpun, an associate professor at Japan’s Kyoto University Center for Southeast Asian Studies, says the reality is that nothing has changed and China continues to pursue what he calls its “aggressive foreign policy” in the South China Sea. He said China’s actions represent America’s declining influence in that part of the world.

“What I’m trying to say is that, even though the US has come out firmly in regard to resolving South China Sea [disputes], we’ve seen ASEAN, in recent years, sliding into the warm, embracing arms of China to the point that, even as a regional organization, [it] has been reluctant to deal with this issue perhaps because of the interest between each individual ASEAN country with China in terms of its own political interest to the point that this interest has eclipsed regional interests,” said Pavin.

He said that given the Chinese leadership’s commitment to exert its national interests, he sees little hope of reducing tensions, which could erupt into armed conflict. Pavin added that perhaps the only way to check China’s policy is to take the dispute to an international organization such as the United Nations.

University of New South Wales professor emeritus Carl Thayer says the U.S. voluntary freeze proposal did not get consensus within ASEAN before it was publicly unveiled. However, he describes China’s stated goal of 2015 being the year of China/ASEAN maritime cooperation is, in his words, turning black into white.

“It’s just totally misrepresenting itself that there is no blame to be accorded to its (China’s) activities. All the provocations are coming from outsiders or from ill-intentioned countries inside ASEAN that are buoyed by US support and it’s just the opposite,” said Thayer.

Thayer said China’s recent completion of geologic measurements involving a deep-sea oil rig off the Paracel Islands claimed by Vietnam is a current source of debate in Hanoi about whether it’s time to accommodate China diplomatically.

Meanwhile, he said maritime disputes between China and the Philippines remain a tense stalemate, where China has frustrated Philippine efforts to resupply its forces on Second Thomas Shoal, part of the disputed Spratly Islands.

And, he said, there is no halt to China’s reclamation efforts on other disputed islands in the South China Sea.

The post US Says China, Not Washington, Responsible For South China Sea Tensions appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Spanish Priest Becomes First Man To Die Of Ebola In Europe

0
0

The first European infected by a strain of Ebola, Spanish priest Miguel Pajares, has died in hospital, Reuters reported, citing a spokeswoman for Madrid health authorities.

Pajares, 75, was airlifted from Liberia on August 7 after contracting the disease. The priest worked for a non-governmental organization in the African country. Co-worker Juliana Bohi, a nun who was also repatriated, has tested negative for the disease.

The Spanish priest was one of the first to receive doses of the experimental drug ZMapp, a cocktail of three antibodies designed to recognize Ebola and attach itself to infected cells so the immune system can destroy them.

A team of medical personnel donning protective suits cared for the Catholic priest on his journey back Spain on a specially-adapted Airbus plane from Liberia in west Africa.

The Madrid hospital where Pajares died refused to confirm if he had been treated with ZMapp at the time of his death.

The number of victims from the Ebola outbreak has reached 1,013 after another 52 people succumbed to the virus in the three days to Aug. 9 in three West African countries, the World Health Organization said Monday.

The largest number of reported new deaths have occurred in Liberia, where 29 people died, followed by 17 in Sierra Leone and six in Guinea, the WHO said in a statement on its website.

Two American aid workers repatriated to the United States are also being treated with ZMapp, the experimental drug doctors are using in the hope of finding a cure for Ebola.

WHO panel of medical experts has agreed that it is ethical to provide experimental treatments to patients infected with the deadly virus, AFP reported.

“In the particular circumstances of this outbreak, and provided certain conditions are met, the panel reached consensus that it is ethical to offer unproven interventions with as yet unknown efficacy and adverse effects, as potential treatment or prevention,” the WHO said in a statement.

US company Mapp Bioparmaceutical which produces the treatment said it had sent all its supplies of the drug to west Africa, Reuters reported.

The post Spanish Priest Becomes First Man To Die Of Ebola In Europe appeared first on Eurasia Review.

My Money’s On Putin – OpEd

0
0

“History shows that the United States has benefited politically and economically from wars in Europe. The huge outflow of capital from Europe following the First and Second World Wars, transformed the U.S. into a superpower … Today, faced with economic decline, the US is trying to precipitate another European war to achieve the same objective.”

– Sergey Glazyev, Russian politician and economist

“The discovery of the world’s largest, known gas reserves in the Persian Gulf, shared by Qatar and Iran, and new assessments which found 70 percent more gas in the Levantine in 2007, are key to understanding the dynamics of the conflicts we see today. After a completion of the PARS pipeline, from Iran, through Iraq and Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean coast, the European Union would receive more than an estimated 45 percent of the gas it consumes over the next 100 – 120 years from Russian and Iranian sources. Under non-conflict circumstances, this would warrant an increased integration of the European, Russian and Iranian energy sectors and national economies.”

– Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine

The United States failed operation in Syria, has led to an intensification of Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine. What the Obama administration hoped to achieve in Syria through its support of so called “moderate” Islamic militants was to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad, replace him with a US-backed puppet, and prevent the construction of the critical Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. That plan hasn’t succeeded nor will it in the near future, which means that the plan for the prospective pipeline will eventually go forward.

Why is that a problem?

It’s a problem because–according to Dr. Lehmann–”Together with the Russian gas… the EU would be able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.” As the primary suppliers of critical resources to Europe, Moscow and Tehran would grow stronger both economically and politically which would significantly undermine the influence of the US and its allies in the region, particularly Qatar and Israel. This is why opponents of the pipeline developed a plan to sabotage the project by fomenting a civil war in Syria. Here’s Lehmann again:

“In 2007, Qatar sent USD 10 billion to Turkey´s Foreign Minister Davotoglu to prepare Turkey´s and Syria´s Muslim Brotherhood for the subversion of Syria. As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help of “rebels”’ (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)

In other words, the idea to arm, train and fund an army of jihadi militants, to oust al Assad and open up Syria to western interests, had its origins in an evolving energy picture that clearly tilted in the favor of US rivals in the region. (Note: We’re not sure why Lehmann leaves out Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the other Gulf States that have also been implicated.)

Lehmann’s thesis is supported by other analysts including the Guardian’s Nafeez Ahmed who explains what was going on behind the scenes of the fake civil uprising in Syria. Here’s a clip from an article by Ahmed titled “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”:

“In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had “cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations” intended to weaken the Shi’ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. “The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria,” wrote Hersh, “a byproduct” of which is “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” hostile to the United States and “sympathetic to al-Qaeda.” He noted that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria”…

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business”, he told French television:

“I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”
… Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.”
(“Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern“, The Guardian)

Apparently, Assad was approached by Qatar on the pipeline issue in 2009, but he refused to cooperate in order “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally.” Had Assad fallen in line and agreed to Qatar’s offer, then the effort to remove him from office probably would have been called off. In any event, it was the developments in Syria that triggered the frenzied reaction in Ukraine. According to Lehmann:

“The war in Ukraine became predictable (unavoidable?) when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed during the summer of 2012. …In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at seizing the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the ”Libyan Brigade” was literally wiped out by the Syrian Arab Army.

It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.

The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report ”Tentative Jihad”. Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself ”politically” from the ”extremists”. Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on Syria was not winnable anymore.” (“The Atlantic Axis and the Making of a War in Ukraine“, New eastern Outlook)

There were other factors that pushed the US towards a conflagration with Moscow in Ukraine, but the driving force was the fact that US rivals (Russia and Iran) stood to be the dominant players in an energy war that would increasingly erode Washington’s power. Further economic integration between Europe and Russia poses a direct threat to US plans to pivot to Asia, deploy NATO to Russia’s borders, and to continue to denominate global energy supplies in US dollars.

Lehmann notes that he had a conversation with “a top-NATO admiral from a northern European country” who clarified the situation in a terse, two-sentence summary of US foreign policy. He said:

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

This is the crux of the issue. The United States is not going to allow any state or combination of states to challenge its dominance. Washington doesn’t want rivals. It wants to be the undisputed, global superpower, which is the point that Paul Wolfowitz articulated in an early draft of the US National Defense Strategy:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

So the Obama administration is going to do whatever it thinks is necessary to stop further EU-Russia economic integration and to preserve the petrodollar system. That system originated in 1974 when President Richard Nixon persuaded OPEC members to denominate their oil exclusively in dollars, and to recycle their surplus oil proceeds into U.S. Treasuries. The arrangement turned out to be a huge windfall for the US, which rakes in more than $1 billion per day via the process. This, in turn, allows the US to over-consume and run hefty deficits. Other nations must stockpile dollars to purchase the energy that runs their machinery, heats their homes and fuels their vehicles. Meanwhile, the US can breezily exchange paper currency, which it can print at no-expense to itself, for valuable imported goods that cost dearly in terms of labor and materials. These dollars then go into purchasing oil or natural gas, the profits of which are then recycled back into USTs or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, bonds, real estate, or ETFs. This is the virtuous circle that keeps the US in the top spot.

As one critic put it: “World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy.”

The petrodollar system helps to maintain the dollar’s monopoly pricing which, in turn, sustains the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It creates excessive demand for dollars which allows the Fed to expand the nation’s credit by dramatically reducing the cost of financing. If oil and natural gas were no longer denominated in USDs, the value of the dollar would fall sharply, the bond market would collapse, and the US economy would slip into a long-term slump.

This is one of the reasons why the US invaded Iraq shortly after Saddam had switched over to the euro; because it considers any challenge to the petrodollar looting scam as a direct threat to US national security.

Moscow is aware of Washington’s Achilles’s heel and is making every effort to exploit that weakness by reducing its use of the dollar in its trade agreements. So far, Moscow has persuaded China and Iran to drop the dollar in their bilateral dealings, and they have found that other trading partners are eager to do the same. Recently, Russian economic ministers conducted a “de-dollarization” meeting in which a “currency switch executive order” was issued stating that “the government has the legal power to force Russian companies to trade a percentage of certain goods in rubles.”

Last week, according to RT:

“The Russian and Chinese central banks have agreed a draft currency swap agreement, which will allow them to increase trade in domestic currencies and cut the dependence on the US dollar in bilateral payments. “The draft document between the Central Bank of Russia and the People’s Bank of China on national currency swaps has been agreed by the parties…..The agreement will stimulate further development of direct trade in yuan and rubles on the domestic foreign exchange markets of Russia and China,” the Russian regulator said.

Currently, over 75 percent of payments in Russia-China trade settlements are made in US dollars, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper.” (“De-Dollarization Accelerates – China/Russia Complete Currency Swap Agreement“, Zero Hedge)

The attack on the petrodollar recycling system is one of many asymmetrical strategies Moscow is presently employing to discourage US aggression, to defend its sovereignty, and to promote a multi-polar world order where the rule of law prevails. The Kremlin is also pushing for institutional changes that will help to level the playing field instead of creating an unfair advantage for the richer countries like the US. Naturally, replacing the IMF, whose exploitative loans and punitive policies, topped the list for most of the emerging market nations, particularly the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) who, in July, agreed to create a $100 billion Development Bank that will “will counter the influence of Western-based lending institutions and the dollar. The new bank will provide money for infrastructure and development projects in BRICS countries, and unlike the IMF or World Bank, each nation has equal say, regardless of GDP size.

According to RT:

“The big launch of the BRICS bank is seen as a first step to break the dominance of the US dollar in global trade, as well as dollar-backed institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both US-based institutions BRICS countries have little influence within…

“This mechanism creates the foundation for an effective protection of our national economies from a crisis in financial markets,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said.”
(“BRICS establish $100bn bank and currency pool to cut out Western dominance“, RT)

It’s clear that Washington’s aggression in Ukraine has focused Moscow’s attention on retaliation. But rather than confront the US militarily, as Obama and Co. would prefer, Putin is taking aim at the vulnerabilities within the system. A BRICS Development Bank challenges the IMF’s dominant role as lender of last resort, a role that has enhanced the power of the wealthy countries and their industries. The new bank creates the basis for real institutional change, albeit, still within the pervasive capitalist framework.

Russian politician and economist, Sergei Glazyev, summarized Moscow’s approach to the US-Russia conflagration in an essay titled “US is militarizing Ukraine to invade Russia.” Here’s an excerpt:

“To stop the war, you need to terminate its driving forces. At this stage, the war unfolds mainly in the planes of economic, public relations and politics. All the power of US economic superiority is based on the financial pyramid of debt, and this has gone long beyond sustainability. Its major lenders are collapsing enough to deprive the US market of accumulated US dollars and Treasury bonds. Of course, the collapse of the US financial system will cause serious losses to all holders of US currency and securities. But first, these losses for Russia, Europe and China will be less than the losses caused by American geopolitics unleashing another world war. Secondly, the sooner the exit from the financial obligations of this American pyramid, the less will be the losses. Third, the collapse of the dollar Ponzi scheme gives an opportunity, finally, to reform the global financial system on the basis of equity and mutual benefit.”

Washington thinks “modern warfare” involves covert support for proxy armies comprised of Neo Nazis and Islamic extremists. Moscow thinks modern warfare means undermining the enemy’s ability to wage war through sustained attacks on it’s currency, its institutions, its bond market, and its ability to convince its allies that it is a responsible steward of the global economic system.

I’ll put my money on Russia.

The post My Money’s On Putin – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images