By Gordana Andric

A wave of attacks on Albanian businesses in Serbia has occurred in the wake of the disastrous Serbia-Albania football math earlier this week.

Serbian police have arrested one person, following a series of attacks on Albanian-owned shops in Serbia that came after a football match raised tensions to boiling point in the country.

An 18-year-old man was arrested on Friday on suspicion of having taken part in attacks on two bakeries in the town of Banovci owned by ethnic Albanians.

Attacks on Albanian-owned businesses in the northern province of Vojvodina started after a football match between Albania and Serbia on October 14 ended in chaos and fighting on the pitch. The UK referee called off the match.

A day later, two shops in the towns of Stara Pazova and Sombor were set on fire while another in Serbia’s second city of Novi Sad was stoned.

The attacks continued on October 15. During the night a bakery in Novi Sad was burned, while hooligans damaged five more shops in Novi Sad and Vrsac.

Bajram Temaj, the owner of Novi Sad bakery that was torched on Thursday night, said police turned down his request for protection, which he had made after attacks started a day earlier.

He said the police had answered that they did not have enough patrol vehicles or the capacity to respond to his request.

Serbia’s Prime Minister, Aleksandar Vucic, condemned the attacks and stated that all citizens and their properties were entitled to protection.

“These are our citizens who work and pay taxes regularly and we will guarantee them full security,” he said. “These are criminal acts and the government will respond by protecting its citizens,” Vucic added.

Aleksandar Nikolic, State Secretary of the Interior Ministry, said Serbia would not tolerate the spread of religious and ethnic hatred, and that all those who destroyed property in this fashion would be punished.

“The ministry is working intensively to identify the individuals who have attacked facilities owned by our citizens of Albanian nationality,” Nikolic said.

He also stated that the police would guarantee the security of all the country’s citizens.

“We are doing everything in our power to prevented these and similar attacks, despite the brutal provocation at the football match”.

The “provocation” referred to was a drone that flew over the stadium in Belgrade bearing a map of Greater Albania.

Fighting then erupted on the pitch and some Albanian players were assaulted by Serbian fans who had invaded the field.

The post Attacks On Albanian Shops In Serbia Condemned appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By R. S. Kalha

It is said that politics in the Middle-East are like the sand dunes of the vast desert that engulfs most of the region; fast moving, here today gone tomorrow. The present situation is therefore no exception. The sudden emergence of the ISIS, it’s lightening quick victories, its brutalities and its extensive use of the social media have caught the imagination of everyone.

For the western powers the crisis in West Asia assumed a perilous turn when on 19 August 2014 the ISIS placed on the social media the killings of western hostages, first the journalist James Foley, followed by Steven Sotloff and then on 13 September the British aid worker David Haines. These gruesome images decisively pushed US public opinion towards an expanded military role against the ISIS, persuading a reticent US President Obama to jettison his own previous convictions against further military involvement in West Asia. On 10 September President Obama threatened ‘to degrade and ultimately destroy’ the ISIS and urged the building of ‘a new coalition’ for decisive action against the elusive ISIS.

The US sponsored ‘coalition of the unwilling’ met in Jeddah on 11 September consisting of 6 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and the US. The participants (excluding Turkey) agreed that: (a) the US would initiate air action against ISIS that might last for up to three years and (b) the GCC countries would finance the conflict and provide airbases and use of their air space. The ground fighting would be done in two parts: in Iraq, the Iraqi Army would re- armed and trained by US ‘advisers’ and would fight ISIS forces in alliance with the Kurdish peshmerga and ‘moderate’ Sunnis. In Syria, ‘moderate’ anti-Assad government elements would be trained in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab capitals. Turkey said it would not participate in the air operations. Turkey has reiterated two principal concerns in Syria: regime change in Damascus and curbing the influence of Syrian Kurds [the PYD and the YPG] who are affiliated with the PKK in Turkey. Both these interests are served by a strong ISIS, with whom Turkey maintains close ties and wishes to utilize it for promoting its objectives. Nonetheless, the Turkish decision to remain inactive against the ISIS may be a self- defeating combination of hubris and miscalculation. For similar reasons, the GCC Monarchies are reluctant to enter into a high profile ground combat role, for it is their belief that the ISIS creates more problems for the Shiites and does not harm their core interests.

US strategic objectives in the Middle-East have been over the years defined in National Security Directives issued by successive US Presidents. The common thought in almost all consists of the following 3 points. First is the safety and security of Israel. Second is the unimpeded free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and the third is that in order to attain its objectives the US will use force; if necessary.

Over the past millennium the area that now constitutes the state of Iraq has always attracted outside powers, first because of its fabled agricultural wealth and in more recent times because of its enormous oil reserves. Iraq was an artificial British creation, primarily to enable it to exploit its oil resources; for oil remains the engine that propels a state to great power status. Presently the oil reserves of Iraq are estimated at 145 billion barrels. But what makes it even more attractive are three facts. Firstly, Iraqi oil reserves are vast. Secondly, oil is found at depths of about 300-350ft; thus making it very easy and economical to extract and thirdly it is of very high quality; which means that it is relatively very economical to refine.

The British when they created Iraq continued the Ottoman tradition of ruling Iraq with the active assistance of the Sunni Arab elite. The Sunni domination of this area that precedes the Ottomans continued under the British and thereafter under successive Iraqi rulers including Saddam Hussein. It was this carefully crafted social balance that the US upset when under its occupation in 2003; the primacy of position both in the Administration as well as in the Armed Forces was turned over to the majority Shiite community. The Sunni backlash continues to this day and this disaffection has turned them towards the ISIS, which is seen as the ‘protector’ of the Sunnis against Shiite revanchism. The Shiite militias in Iraq make no distinction between the ISIS and moderate Sunnis when they go in for sectarian cleansing.

The Sunni-Shiite divide is almost as old as Islam itself. Iraq splits neatly into three sectarian areas; each dominated by the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. The Shiite South is oil rich and so are the Kurdish areas. The Sunni North- East, now under the control of the ISIS, is bereft of any significant oil resources. The Kurds remain keen to split from Iraq, for that has been their consistent dream. What holds up the sub-division of Iraq into three distinct sectarian states are US geo-political compulsions and Turkish hostility to Kurdish independence? The US realizes that a Shiite led Iraqi South would be a major petro- state which inevitably would move towards an Iranian orbit and sphere of influence and that in turn would upset the Gulf Monarchies that are Sunni ruled, but contain Shiite majorities. The US, in the midst of delicate negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, does not wish to add to the strength of the Iranian state. Similarly adding to the strength of Iran would only further alarm the Saudis, the present premier Sunni [Wahhabi] state; who are long term US allies in the region.

Turning to Syria, who are the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian elements that the GCC will be training? It cannot be the Free Syrian Army (FSA) for it has hardly any territory under its control and is known for venality and ineptitude. The US ‘strategy’ for arming the Syrian moderates is hardly realistic for there are hardly any moderates left. The ISIS is the strongest opposition group in Syria, and has systematically routed all its Sunni opponents, especially the poorly coordinated, poorly led Free Syrian Army (FSA). Why this ragtag force, which consistently failed to dislodge Bashar Assad for several years, should suddenly now be more trainable than the Iraqi Army, is a question that the administration has never addressed. Nor has it explained why, after refusing to arm the FSA earlier, it now finds the Free Syrians to be suitable inheritors of American arms.1.

With the US determined not to commit boots on the ground, the military defeat of ISIS, at present, is therefore neither feasible nor imminent. Neither the so-called retrained Iraqi Army, nor US air power against this powerful and motivated force will be sufficient. The Iraqi Army has once again been easily over-powered by elements of the ISIS and the remaining towns in Anbar Province such as Hit, Ramadi and Kubaisa have been captured by the ISIS. Today only Haditha and two bases [Al-Assad and Camp Mazrah] remain with the Iraqi government. The imminent fall of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani, despite the use of US air power will be a military and political disaster. Ethnic and sectarian cleansing has become the norm both in Iraq and in Syria leading to widespread destruction and a horrendous loss of life.

But what of the future? There are strident voices emerging that demand that the West review its policy of toppling the Assad regime and instead make it a partner against ISIS. This has been firmly rejected by Saudi Arabia and as the US would perhaps not like to disturb its firm relations with the Saudis, this demand may ultimately be a non-starter.

It goes without saying that there can be no stability in West Asia without a general Saudi-Iranian understanding emerging. Iran would have to influence the Shiite led regimes in Syria and Iraq to shape more accommodative and inclusive governments, while the Saudis would have to wean ‘moderate’ Sunnis away from the ISIS coalition and encourage them to join the system. The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, Amir Abdollahian visited Riyadh on 25 August and did discuss the situation in Gaza, Syria and the ISIS with his counterparts2. Similarly, there are reports of discussions between the US and Iran to shape an Iranian role, with the latter said to be seeking concessions on the nuclear issue in return. A US-Iranian denouement after decades would be a positive force for stability in the region. Nevertheless these daunting challenges remain.

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

1. Talmiz Ahmed, The Hindu 26 September 2014.

2. Op cit. Talmiz Ahmed

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/CanISISbedegradedanddestroyed_rskalha_171014.html

The post Can ISIS Be Degraded And Destroyed? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

IF THE British parliament had adopted a resolution in favor of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the reaction of our media would have been like this:

“In an atmosphere of great enthusiasm, the British parliament adopted with a huge majority (274 for, a mere 12 against) a pro-Israeli motion…Over half the seats were occupied, more than usual…the opponents of Israel were in hiding and did not dare to vote against…”

Unfortunately, the British parliament voted this week on a pro-Palestinian resolution, and our media reacted almost unanimously like this:

“The hall was half empty…there was no enthusiasm…a meaningless exercise…Only 274 Members voted for the resolution, which is not binding…Many Members stayed away altogether…”

Yet all our media reported on the proceedings at length, many related articles appeared in the newspapers. Quite a feat for such a negligible, unimportant, insignificant, inconsequential, trivial, petty act.

A day before, 363 Jewish Israeli citizens called upon the British Parliament to adopt the resolution, which calls for the British government to recognize the State of Palestine. The signatories included a Nobel Prize laureate, several winners of the highest Israeli civilian award, 2 former cabinet ministers and four former members of the Knesset (including myself), diplomats and a general.

The official propaganda machine did not go into action. Knowing that the resolution would be adopted anyhow, it tried to downplay the event as far as possible. The Israeli ambassador in London could not be reached.

WAS IT a negligible event? In a strictly procedural sense it was. In a broader sense, far from it. For the Israeli leadership, it is the harbinger of very bad news.

A few days before, a similar news item came from Sweden. The newly elected leftist prime minister announced that his government was considering the recognition of the State of Palestine in the near future.

Sweden, like Britain, was always considered a “pro-Israeli” country, loyally voting against “anti-Israel” resolutions in the UN. If such important Western nations are reconsidering their attitudes towards the policy of Israel, what does it mean?

Another unexpected blow came from the South. The Egyptian dictator, Muhammad Abd-al-Fatah al-Sisi, disabused the Israeli leadership of the notion that the “moderate” Arab states would fill the ranks of our allies against the Palestinians. In a sharp speech, he warned his new-found soul-mate, Binyamin Netanyahu, that the Arab states would not cooperate with Israel before we make peace with a Palestinian state.

Thus he punctured the newly inflated balloon floated by Netanyahu – that pro-American Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, would become open allies of Israel.

IN South America, public opinion has already shifted markedly against Israel. The recognition of Palestine is gaining ground in official circles, too. Even in the US, unconditional support for the Israeli government seems to be wavering.

What the hell is going on?

WHAT IS going on is a profound, perhaps tectonic change in the public attitude towards Israel.

For years now, Israel has been appearing in world media mainly as a country that occupies the Palestinian lands. Press photos of Israelis almost always show heavily armed and armored soldiers confronting protesting Palestinians, often children. Few of these pictures have had an immediate dramatic impact, but the cumulative, incremental effect should not have been underestimated.

A truly alert diplomatic service would have alerted its government long ago. But our foreign service is thoroughly demoralized. Headed by Avigdor Lieberman, a brutal heavyweight bully considered by many of his colleagues around the world as a semi-fascist, the diplomatic corps is terrorized. They prefer to keep quiet.

This ongoing process reached a higher pitch with the recent Gaza war. It was not basically different from the two Gaza wars that preceded it not so long ago, but for some unfathomable reason it had a much stronger impact.

For a month and a half, day after day, people around the world were bombarded with pictures of killed human beings, maimed children, crying mothers, destroyed apartment buildings, damaged hospitals and schools, masses of homeless refugees. Thanks to Iron Dome, no destroyed Israeli buildings could be seen, nor hardly any dead Israeli civilians.

An ordinary decent person, whether in Stockholm or Seattle or Singapore, cannot be exposed to such a steady stream of horrible images without being affected – first unconsciously, then consciously. The picture of “The Israeli” in the mind’s eye changes slowly, almost imperceptibly. The brave pioneer standing up to the savages around him mutates into an ugly bully terrorizing a helpless population.

WHY DO Israelis not realize this? Because We Are Always Right.

It has often been said before: the main danger of propaganda, any propaganda, is that its first victim is the propagandist himself. It convinces him, rather than his audience. If you twist a fact and repeat it a hundred times, you are bound to believe it.

Take the assertion that we were compelled to bomb UN installations in the Gaza Strip because Hamas was using them to launch rockets at our towns and villages. Kindergartens, schools, hospitals and mosques were targeted by our artillery, planes, drones and warships. 99% of Israelis believe that this was necessary. They were shocked when the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon, who visited Gaza this week, claimed that this was totally inadmissible.

Doesn’t the General Secretary know that ours is the Most Moral Army in the World?

Another assertion is that these buildings were used by Hamas to hide their arms. A person of my age reminded us this week in Haaretz that we did exactly the same during our fight against the British government of Palestine and Arab attackers: our arms were hidden in kindergartens, schools, hospitals and synagogues. In many places there are now proud memorial plaques as a reminder.

In the eyes of the average Israeli, the extensive killing and destruction during the recent campaign was completely justified. He is quite incapable of understanding the world-wide outrage. For lack of another reason, he attributes it to anti-Semitism.

AFTER ONE of the Lebanon wars (I forget which) I received an unusual message: an army general invited me to give a lecture to his assembled officer corps about the impact of the war on the world media. (He probably wanted to impress his officers with his enlightened attitude.)

I told the officers that the modern battlefield has changed, that modern wars are fought in the full glare of the world media, that today’s soldiers have to take this into account while planning and fighting. They listened respectfully and asked relevant questions, but I wondered if they were really absorbing the lesson.

Soldiering is a profession like any other. Any professional person, be he (or she) a lawyer or a street-cleaner, adopts a set of attitudes suitable to it.

A general thinks in real terms: how many troops for the job, how many cannon. What is necessary to break the enemy’s resistance? How to reduce his own casualties?

He does not think about photos in the New York Times.

In the Gaza campaign, children were not killed nor houses destroyed arbitrarily. Everything had a military reason. People had to be killed in order to reduce the risk to the lives of our soldiers. (Better a hundred Palestinians killed than one Israeli soldier.) People had to be terrorized to make them turn against Hamas. Neighborhoods had to be destroyed to allow our troops to advance, and also to teach the population a lesson they will remember for years, thus postponing the next war.

All this makes military sense to a general. He is fighting a war, for God’s sake, and cannot be bothered with non-military considerations. Such as the impact on world public opinion. And anyway, after the Holocaust…

WHAT THE general thinks, Israel thinks.

Israel is not a military dictatorship. General al-Sisi may be Netanyahu’s best friend, but Netanyahu is not a general. Israel likes doing business, especially arms business, with military dictators all around the world, but in Israel itself the military obeys the elected civilian government.

True, but…

But the State of Israel was born in the middle of a hard-fought war, the outcome of which was by no means assured at that moment. The army was then, and is now, the center of Israel’s national life. It may be said that the army is the only truly unifying element in Israeli society. It is where males and females, Ashkenazi and Oriental, secular and religious (except the orthodox), wealthy and poor, old-timer and new immigrant meet and are indoctrinated in the same spirit.

Most Jewish Israelis are former soldiers. Most officers, who leave the army in their mid-40s, spread out in the administrative, economic, political and academic elite. The result is that the military mindset is dominant in Israel.

This being so, Israelis are quite unable to comprehend the turn of world public opinion. What do they want from us, these Swedes and Britons and Japanese? Do they believe that we enjoy killing children, destroying homes? (As Golda Meir memorably once declared: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we shall never forgive them for compelling us to kill their children!”)

THE FOUNDERS of Israel were very conscious of world public opinion. True, David Ben-Gurion once declared that “it is not important what the goyim are saying, what is important is what the Jews are doing!” but in real life Ben-Gurion was very conscious of the need to win over world opinion. So was his adversary, the right-wing Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, who once told Menachem Begin that if he despairs of the conscience of the world, he should “jump into the Vistula”.

World public opinion is important. More than that, it is vital. The British Parliament’s resolution may be non-binding, but it expresses public opinion, which will sooner or later decide government action on arms sales, Security Council resolutions, European Union decisions and what not. As Thomas Jefferson said: “If the people lead, then eventually the leaders will follow.”

The same Jefferson recommended “a decent respect for the opinion of mankind.”

The post British Parliament And Palestine: Decent Respect – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Synod of Bishops working groups expressed their dismay at the false impression that was given by the interim report. This was understandable given that almost none of them were consulted about it; the document was leaked to the press behind their backs. This explains why they took the opportunity yesterday to say that the midterm report “does not express a univocal opinion shared by all the Synod Fathers.” They also called for a more definitive statement in the final report, to be presented tomorrow, affirming the Church’s teachings on marriage and the family.

The interim report was deficient, the bishops said, in not addressing such issues as adoption and the challenges to the family presented by biotechnology and the Internet. They also said that greater attention should be given to the plight of women and children who are being sexually exploited.

On the subject of homosexuals, the bishops accepted the need to respect their dignity “without however implying that this may indicate a form of approval, on the part of the Church, of their orientation and way of life.” By explicitly calling attention to the “way of life” of homosexuals—a clear reference to the gay lifestyle—the bishops took a courageous stand.

Moreover, the working groups counseled against giving “the impression of a willingness on the part of the Church to legitimise irregular family situations.” Thus did they reject the interim report’s embrace of the “positive” aspects of cohabitation. On the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics, there is a clear split between those who want to perfect current practices and those who want to amend them. It was suggested that this issue be given further study.

It will be interesting to see how the final report measures up with the working groups’ input, or whether it mirrors the divisive interim report.

The post Synod Bishops Coming Together – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Orkhan Valiyev

International relations were created at the Peace Conference of Westphalia in 1648. Subsequently, world affairs have been regulated by monarchies, nation states and ideological wars. Now, we find ourselves in 2014, at the centenary of World War I, as Huntington famously wrote the world politics has entered a new phase that in which the sources of conflicts will primarily be cultural.

After the Soviet breakup the West endeavored to remap post-Soviet geography with revolutions being one of its major instruments. While these color revolutions were ultimately able to prompt regimes change in Ukraine, Georgia, the EU failed to eliminate corruption and Russian presence in Ukraine thereafter, therefore rendering the hopes of the initial revolution void. Yet looking at it from a different angle, since independence Ukraine was never able to fully independent due to the strong influences of both Russian and the West. Here the western part of the country leaned toward the West, while on the other hand eastern Ukraine refused to accept western values due in large part to the high concentration of the Russian speaking minority living there. With the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia’s popularity has declined in the post-Soviet geography and the West has been there to try and supplant by sowing the seeds of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. The West was able to convince of western Ukraine of the democratization process, and as a result those living there began to identify themselves as part of the EU even though their country would never be a full member. The western oriented leadership of Ukraine may have succeeded in ousting the pro-Russian president but they did not have any realistic strategy for the future.

Subsequently, the government is still in need of western aid to which end the newly elected president visited the US on 18 September and held a “historic speech” at congress asking for support against Russia. He added that the crisis in Ukraine is a global issue but I argue that despite loud applause at the congress the Western leadership cannot agree with him because the world is currently facing such crises and, conflicts that are much more threatening to global security especially western interest. Ultimately, the Ukrainian crisis is a regional and even post-Soviet issue for the west.
Karl Popper described politics as “irrational action”, and in the case of Ukraine’s interim government that came to power after Yanukovich, irrational decisions were made which had dire consequences for the Ukrainian population.

First, with the nullification of the law on minority languages in Ukraine, the interim government opted to shoot first, think later, an action which has come at a high price and given the Kremlin a pretext. Seizing this opportunity, Russia declared that the Russian minority in Ukraine was in danger, and therewith, a justification for Russian intervention on behalf of the society of its people was provided.

Second, the interim government hoped for full membership in both the EU and NATO, but according to the joint Declaration of the Prague Summit in 2009, participation in the Eastern Partnership does not guarantee EU membership. In article one of the declaration it is stated that “The participants of the Prague Summit agree that the Eastern Partnership will be based on commitments to the principles of international law and to fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as to, market economy, sustainable development and good governance”. As can be seen the declaration makes no mention of membership.

Third, as Huntington wrote on his thesis in terms of religion and ethnicity Ukraine was divided two parts, with the majority of those in western Ukraine, which saw the first of five movements in the post-Soviet geography against Soviet authority on the eve of the Soviet breakup as European. While the opposition leaders successfully aimed their aggression against at Russia in the western part of the country, they neglected eastern Ukraine and the Russian presence there. As Huntington wrote “people can change their religious, political, and civil identities but they cannot change their cultural identity”. In addition, economic interdependence is seen by Dale C. Copeland as the major cause of wars yet this characteristic of Ukrainian- Russian relations was not aptly recognized by Ukrainian leaders.

Why Ceasefire won’t stop deaths

On the eve of the Soviet breakup five conflicts emerged within the post-Soviet geography all of which were frozen by Russian “mediation”. In the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, both sides signed an agreement but skirmishes and casualties never stopped as the terms of ceasefire neither released Azerbaijani territories that were invaded by Armenia exerted any significant impact on the future proceedings of the negotiation process. In the case of Ukraine, the signing of a ceasefire agreement in no way ensures that the conflict will truly be resolved.

First of all, the central government of Ukraine does not have direct contact with the separatists, thus making any form of negotiation difficult.

Second, as can be seen in the example of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Russia does not seek to stop deaths or reach a genuine political solution to the conflict, rather, the Kremlin’s primary interest is maintenance of its influence over Ukraine.

Ironically, despite the fact that the Kremlin denies its relations with the separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, during the signing of the ceasefire agreement in Minsk, representatives of the separatist did not sign the final peace plan. From my point view, the ceasefire process proved once again that unless they formulate and pursue a rational strategy which would guarantee Russia’s interest in eastern regions, Ukrainian officials will not prevail.

In conclusion, I postulate that Russia will not annex or seize the eastern regions of Ukraine like it did with Crimea. Nonetheless, Russia will also never agree to the existence of Western values in eastern Ukraine and has already successfully planted the seeds of fear and revulsion which are the major factors of conflict. As Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski famously wrote “Modern nation-building is a difficult process. Because it is so complex, the process is easily vulnerable to nationalistic emotions and, indeed, ethnic antipathies” (The Caucasus and New Geo-Political Realities). Therefore, Ukraine should formulate a rational, pragmatic strategy that can act as a guide, and understand that nations have no permanent friends or enemies, they only have permanent interests.

Additionally, Ukrainian officials should also heed the words of Lippmann that “the facts of geography are permanent” when analyzing its geographical position, Ukraine does not technical fall into Europe in a geographical sense. Moreover, despite the fact that the newly elected government signed the Association agreement with the EU, it will be implemented in 2016, once again proving that Ukraine’s westernized political elite made a historic mistake. While the fact remains that the Russian economy has seen declined, the country still have formidable influence over the post-Soviet geography and the Ukrainian officials have failed to balance their relations with the Kremlin. Consequently, Putin hold all the cards in his hand. Unfortunately, despite the repulsion of the population of western Ukraine towards Russia it will be unable to institute a central government without Russian participation.

The post Ukraine: Interim Mistake – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rupak Bhattacharjee

Bangladesh, India, China and Myanmar-Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC) is a sub-regional grouping that seeks to deepen friendly cooperation among the four member nations and linking South Asia with Southeast and East Asia by building multi-modal connectivity, harnessing economic complementaries and enhancing people-to-people relations. The BCIM region is one of the richest in the world in terms of natural, mineral and other resources. The region covers 9% of the world’s total area, 7.3% of the global gross domestic product and involves 440 million people. The BCIM has the potential to generate enormous economic benefits in the arena of trade, investment, energy, transport and communication.

The primary focus of the economic corridor is to facilitate trade and connectivity between the landlocked and underdeveloped southwestern parts of China and the North Eastern region of India. The proposed economic corridor will originate from Kunming in China’s Yunan province and pass through Yangon and Mandalay in Myanmar, Chittagong-Dhaka-Sylhet in Bangladesh before entering North Eastern states, Bengal and ending in Kolkata. The leaders of the four nations intends to revive the ancient “Southern Silk Road” and its southwestern trade routes which emerged as the shortest journey between China and India and served as a highway for merchants carrying gold and silver in the Twelfth century. The South Asian and Chinese leaders are aiming at transforming the route into a robust economic corridor.

The member countries emphasised the need to quickly improve physical connectivity in the region in the first Joint Working Group meeting held in the Chinese city of Kunming, the provincial capital of Yunan which shares border with Myanmar. Initially, the member nations will identify realistic and achievable infrastructure projects to expand physical connectivity. The implementation of several ambitious projects and subsequent linking of all the four countries will open up the entire North Eastern region to Southeast and East Asia. Under the BCIM initiative, the North East in general and Manipur and Barak valley of Assam are projected as the major beneficiaries since the proposed economic corridor will pass these states. Currently, most of the landlocked states of the region are paying higher transportation price for not having easy access to sea ports. Lack of proper infrastructural facilities has led to economic isolation of the region.

It can not be denied that the successive governments at the Centre have more or less ignored the North Eastern part of the country for too long. An over-emphasis on security and strategic aspects involving North East has been the dominating feature of the national policy making since the attainment of independence. The Indian ruling elites have seldom tried to devise a long-term development strategy for this sensitive region where some isolated pockets are still socio-economically very backward and almost inaccessible in terms of transport and communication. Despite endowed with abundant natural resources, the Union government never seemed serious about properly utilising those to bring about economic growth and prosperity in the region. North East has gained prominence in the foreign policy making only after the articulation of Look East Policy (LEP) in the early 1990s. The region is now considered as India’s gateway to Southeast and East Asia.

Among all the North Eastern states, only Assam has an industrial base and elaborate transport networks. It is the largest economy contributing about 60% of North East’s GDP. The state produces more than 65% of country’s tea which is appreciated globally for its aroma. Assam also maintained trade links with the neighbouring countries in different phases of its history. The partition of the sub-continent in 1947 inflicted damage to the economy of North East as the rail, road and waterways which existed throughout the colonial period, were closed one after another. The other key factor crucial for continuing commercial ties with the North East’s neighbours such as China, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Myanmar, has been India’s political relations with them. Barring Bhutan, India’s relations with these nations had hardly been warm consistently. The North Eastern states maintain trade and commercial ties mainly with three neighbouring countries—Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. There are scopes for cooperation in the services sectors like health, tourism, education, and transport and communication between North East and the neighbouring countries.

In order to remove infrastructural bottlenecks, some major projects had been launched in the region since the late 1990s. But the people of North East are yet to be benefited from those as their implementation has remained very slow. Factors such as chronic insurgency, periodic political instability and rampant corruption have also stood in the way of speedy completion of the projects. At present, there are many plans to link India especially it’s North East with Southeast and East Asia through Myanmar. A few of them include India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway, Mekong-India Economic Corridor and Moreh-New Delhi-Hanoi rail link. India has taken the initiative of developing Kaladan Transport Corridor which connects North East with Sitwee port in Myanmar. Plans are underway to set up 2000 acres Special Economic Zone at Moreh in Manipur. Similar schemes have been proposed at Sitwee and Champai (in Mizoram).

Furthermore, Lumding- Badrapur broad-gauge conversion project is expected to be completed by March, 2015. In addition to Barak valley, states like Mizoram and Tripura are heavily dependent on this railway link for supply of essential commodities. The NDA government has also assured the people of these states that the proposed East-West Corridor connecting Silchar with Gujarat will be accorded top priority. Once these roads and railway lines become operational and inter-linkages are established with the BCIM corridor, it will be a game changer for landlocked regions like Barak valley, Tripura and Mizoram. India is also pressing Bangladesh to grant transit facilities to the North Eastern states through its territory and access to Chittagong port.

The North Eastern states have shown keen interest in the BCIM initiative. A few workshops and conclaves have already been organised to explore ways for boosting cooperation between North East and the BCIM countries. The precipitants at the Stakeholders’ Consultative Workshop on “The Role of BCIM-EC in Regional Integration: Perspectives from North East India” organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry in Guwahati on July 18, noted that India should focus on export potential of the North Eastern region to get rid of economic underdevelopment. The stakeholders also pointed out that the North East has not been engaged with the implementation of the LEP in a meaningful manner. They observed that this needed to be corrected and a consultative mechanism set up for the same.

North East is an ethnic mosaic and rich in natural resources. But at the same time, it is considered as the most backward region of the country. The stakeholders therefore raised questions on the impact on people, culture and bio-diversity once North East’s borders are opened for trade and transit under the framework of the BCIM-EC. Many in North East believe that if such concerns are addressed properly, the region’s integration with the fastest growing economies of Southeast and East Asia will lead to an economic resurgence in this hinterland which has not received due attention of the Indian governing elites for a long time.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/NorthEast%20inBCIM-EC_RBhattacharjee_171014.html

The post North East In BCIM-EC: Problems And Prospects – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Google has reported a dip in profits during its third-quarter earnings call, Digital Spy said.

The internet giant raked in $2.8 billion during the period in question, down 5% from the same period last year. Revenue increased by 20% to $16.52 billion in the three months ending September 30, but this figure was shy of analysts’ estimates.

The downturn was attributed to a rise in real estate and hardware inventory costs, but Google is confident that gains in its advertising business will rectify the situation.

“We continue to be excited about the growth in our advertising and emerging businesses,” said Google chief financial officer Patrick Pichette.

Google will also be hoping that the release of its new Nexus 6 smartphone and Nexus 9 tablet will help claw back the hardware inventory deficit.

The post Google Posts Quarterly Drop In Profits appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Thanoe Wai

Former Religious Affairs Minister Hsan Hsint was found guilty of sedition and criminal breach of trust on Friday by a district court in Naypyidaw, where he was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and a 100,000 kyat fine.

Hsan Hsint’s lawyer Tin Tun said his client was sentenced to three years for criminal breach of trust (Article 409 of the Penal Code) and 10 years plus a 100,000 kyat (US$100) fine for sedition (Article 124(a) of the Penal Code).

The lawyer said the defence team paid the fine immediately after the verdict and that they are planning to appeal the jail sentences at Mandalay Division’s high court next week.

“Right now we are awaiting a court order permitting [Hsan Hsint] to grant power of attorney around Tuesday. We expect to file the appeal in Mandalay [Division’s high court]” said Tin Tun.

After the verdict, Hsan Hsint attempted to tell reporters something as he was being taken away from court by police officers, but he only managed to utter “The judicial and the executive sectors … ” after which he was quickly pulled away from the crowd by his police escorts. Then, as he left scene, Hsan Hsint said that he will fight against the verdict in accordance with the law.

The former religious affairs minister was charged with criminal breach of trust charge for misappropriating public funding, while the sedition charge was for reportedly saying that the military government ruling the country was “fake” and that only the next military government will be real.

Hsan Hsint’s lawyer slammed the verdict as unfair.

“It’s like they are still tying a rope around him, and whether they take it off or not is their decision alone. This is how the courts work, and if you ask me whether I’m happy with the verdict, I would say no,” said Tin Tun.

On Thursday, Burma’s parliamentary speaker Shwe Mann sent a petition to President Thein Sein containing signatures from over 50 MPs which urged the government to exercise leniency on Hsan Hsint.

MP Khin Maung Yi, who collected signatures for the petition, said: “I view U Hsan Hsint, who was just sentenced, as an enthusiastic participant in our country’s reforms. This sentence makes me wonder whether he was purged for his liberal ideas.”

Hsan Hsint was arrested on 19 June, stripped of his position, and accused of mishandling a raid on Mahasantisukha Monastery in Rangoon.

The raid took place on 10 June and resulted in the detention of five monks—including prominent Buddhist leader Uttara—for their alleged involvement in a land dispute. The monks were subsequently disrobed and charged for insulting religion and inciting mutiny, a move widely denounced by the Burmese public and religious leaders.

Shortly after his arrest, allegations emerged that Hsan Hsint had also misused up to US$10,000 in public funds.

The post Burma: Former Min. Of Religious Affairs Sentenced To 13 Years’ Imprisonment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Brahim Saidy

For more than 30 years, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has attempted to establish a collective defense regime to protect its six members: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This ambition was expressed through a number of initiatives, beginning with the foundation of the Peninsula Shield force in 1982 and culminating in the establishment of a Unified Military Command in 2013.

This latter decision represents an important reform and could be considered a crucial step in the evolution of the GCC towards deep regional integration, especially on the military side. A Unified Military Command can benefit from the various weapons systems in the Gulf, and create a new generation of Gulf officers, who take advantage of the broad similarities of the military systems and experiences of the GCC countries. In the light of the historical background of the GCC’s defense cooperation, this article aims to analyze the strategic opportunities that could be generated by the foundation of the unified military command and to explain the political challenges that could hamper the GCC countries’ attempt to evolve towards a real military alliance.

INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS TO IMPROVE MILITARY COOPERATION

Following the new regional order generated by the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979 and Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Arab Gulf countries decided in 1981 to create a regional organization called the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in order to create and maintain a sense of regional integration as well as to achieve interdependence in all fields of cooperation. Although defense and security issues were not clearly mentioned in the founding treaty^[1], the final communiqué issued after the first GCC summit in May 1981 affirmed the conviction of its members about the connected nature of their security and the necessity to coordinate their policies in this domain. Since then, in a series of meetings between chiefs of staff and defense ministers of the Gulf States, the GCC has proposed a wide range of agreements and useful projects to improve military cooperation and collective self-defense capabilities.

In 1982 the GCC defense ministers agreed on the creation of a two-brigade Peninsula Shield Force (PSF).^[2] This move was “one of the oldest decisions in the field of military cooperation.”^[3] The force, which is based in Saudi Arabia near King Khalid Military City at Hafar al Batin and commanded by a Saudi officer, currently consists of a Saudi brigade and a composite brigade made up of about 10,000 personnel contributed by other GCC member states.

Over the years, the modernization of PSF has continued developing more mechanized infantry with full fire and fighting logistics. Although its mission is not clearly publicly defined, the PSF is intended to be activated in response to threats to the territorial integrity of the GCC states and would have the authority to intervene in cases of internal unrest as well. Its performance in specific cases has demonstrated that the PSF still has limited military capabilities. The occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi forces in 1990 was the first real challenge the PSF confronted (but it was inadequate for any serious response to this aggression).^[4] The second test for the PSF was the popular uprising in Bahrain in the wake of the Arab Spring. Bahrain requested the deployment of the PSF as part of the mutual engagement guaranteed by the GCC Charter to insure its integrity and territorial borders.^[5] The PSF was not engaged in any direct confrontations with Bahraini civilians, and its intervention was limited to provide assistance to the Bahrain Defense Force to secure key infrastructure and installations in the country.

In December 2000, the GCC concluded the Joint Defense Agreement, which was considered the second most significant achievement in field of military cooperation after the establishment of the PSF. This agreement provided a framework for collective defense based on the concept that an attack on any member State meant an attack against all of them. On this subject, the agreement obliged all six states to provide military assistance to help each other. It also established a Joint Defense Council and a Military Committee to supervise cooperation, and promote collaboration in joint military exercises and coordination in military industries. The move is seen as a sign that the states are looking to build an integrated defense structure after years of prevarication and delay, instead of remaining dependent on the U.S. and other Western forces for protection.^[6]

NEW MOMENTUM: UNIFIED MILITARY COMMAND

The ambition to provide the GCC with credible military capabilities has been reinforced by the decision taken during the 34^th GCC’s Summit – held in Kuwait City on December 10-11 2013 – to set up a unified military command structure. This command will have a force of around 100,000, half of which would be contributed by Saudi Arabia, the main advocate of this initiative. This indicates that GCC members are coordinating air, land, and marine forces under one common structure.

Progress towards a fully integrated defense system could allow the GCC to become a real military alliance along the lines of NATO. But this can only effectively work if there is a certain level of interoperability to ensure smooth cooperation and the ability of different national forces of each member to conduct joint operations. So, the primary tasks of the GCC command is to see how to develop interoperability tailored to the key missions necessary to meet the security needs of all the GCC countries. This is complicated on the one hand because the countries preserve sovereign decision making authority, and on the other, because their armed forces have a very diverse mix of equipment, command and control systems, munitions, support facilities, and power projection capabilities. In the past, this regional organization has tried to develop different initiatives to advance common defense priorities, but with little regard for developing truly effective, interoperable forces or a common doctrine and organization.^[7]

To overcome those historical shortcomings, the GCC’s unified military command requires a certain minimum standard of training and education. The GCC armed forces also still face great challenges relative to their performance and professionalism. They do not have extensive combat experience, in contrast to other regional militaries such as those of Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan, and Iran. An example of this can be seen during NATO’s military intervention in Libya. The Gulf states offered support, but their actions revealed that states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) still have limited power projection capabilities and remain critically dependent on Western logistical support.

In addition, in order to ensure its viability, a unified GCC command is needed to modernize procurement policy and develop a common armaments programs. The most apparent problem in the GCC is that its members have procured major platforms and weapons systems without regard to interoperability.  This prevents them from transforming their spending or their arms imports into forces whose effectiveness would be proportionate to their cost. In practice, their weapons systems are Western with great dependence on U.S., British and French power projection, but some are Russian. For that reason, the main task of this command is to help to build the right defense partnerships for the future aimed at providing direction, control, co-ordination, support and assessment of military cooperation activities across the Arabian Gulf. The GCC needs to establish a much clearer base for mid and long-term planning regarding the involvement of different actors in bilateral or multilateral military partnership.

CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES

The GCC as a regional organization has tried to develop different initiatives to advance common defense priorities. These initiatives should be assessed and judged on their utility vis-à-vis regional security, and to ensure that each nation in the Arabian Gulf could benefit from creating more interoperable forces.

Despite the large wealth of its members, however, the GCC’s efforts over the past three decades still have not guaranteed deterrence and security against external threats, even as the number of those threats have grown. The GCC states have spent tens of billions of dollars on upgrading their defense, particularly their air forces, since the 1990-91 Gulf War. However, the Gulf wars demonstrated that despite massive arms procurement, the Gulf states cannot defend themselves. They still rely heavily on the United States and the European Union for their security. The GCC failed to guarantee security to its members due to the absence of a real military integration, which has led the GCC member states to seek other security options provided by external powers through bilateral security agreements.

The little progress accomplished by the GCC in the field of military integration was basically due to the reluctance of several GCC states to work together, in particular because of their starkly contrasting political perceptions. They agree about security and defense pacts with the Western countries, but have been unable to reconcile their regional and individual interests. Indeed, a common threat perception still does not exist among the GCC states, a fact that has significant implications for effective defense cooperation. The effectiveness of all initiatives and projects in this military sphere are of course conditioned by political factors rather than purely military considerations. In this regard, the GCC countries will need to continue its difficult efforts to bridge conflicting political interests, and to reduce the political rivalries that have constituted a barrier to vital cooperation.

(You can access the complete E-Book on which this summary is based here.)

About the author:
Dr. Brahim Saidy is an Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Qatar University. Before he joined Qatar University, he served as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in International Relations at University of Ottawa and Laval University in Canada. He has also taught at the University of Québec in Montréal (UQAM), and the University of Sherbrooke. During the summer of 2014, Dr. Saidy was a visiting scholar at FPRI, during which time he wrote the E-Book GCC’s Unified Military Command: Severe Challenges Ahead. This E-Note is the Executive Summary.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] The GCC’s Charter is available at : http://www.gcc-sg.org/eng/indexfc7a.html?action=Sec-Show&ID=1 (accessed July 17, 2014).

[2] This Force was officially created in 1982, but it became operational starting 1984.

[3] See GCC website; http://www.gcc-sg.org/eng/index8409.html?action=Sec-Show&ID=49 (accessed August 13, 2014)

[4] Malcolm C. Peck, Historical Dictionary of the Gulf Arab States, Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2008, p.113.

[5] Silvia Colombo, “The GCC and the Arab Spring: A Tale of Double Standards”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47:4, 2012, p. 116

[6] Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 12, 2001.

[7] Y. Guzansky, “Defence Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf: The Peninsula Shield Force Put to the Test,” Middle Eastern Studies  50:4, 2014, p. 644.

The post GCC’s Defense Cooperation: Moving Towards Unity – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Air Force’s top-secret space plane landed in California on Friday morning after nearly two years orbiting Earth on a classified mission. The robotic spacecraft’s purpose remains a mystery, though surveillance is a likely candidate.

The Boeing X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle ‒ an unpiloted aircraft that looks like a miniature space shuttle ‒ made its third landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California after spending more than 670 days in low-Earth orbit.

“I’m extremely proud of our team for coming together to execute this third safe and successful landing,” Col. Keith Balts, commander of the 30th Space Wing that is headquartered at Vandenberg, said in a statement. “Everyone from our on-console space operators to our airfield managers and civil engineers take pride in this unique mission and exemplify excellence during its execution.”

The spacecraft was launched on December 11, 2012 by an Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It has since been flying in low-Earth orbit, performing whatever mission the Pentagon had prepared for its third test run. In March, X-37B broke its own space longevity record for staying in orbit. Its two previous rounds in space in 2010 and 2011-2012 lasted 225 and 469 days, respectively. This mission lasted a total of 674 days.

A report by the IDG News Service earlier in 2014 suggested the trip’s mission was to test out the Air Force’s new space capabilities while also boosting the intelligence community’s surveillance capacity. However details about X-37B missions ‒ including the payloads carried to orbit ‒ are officially classified, Space.com reported.

Conventional theories from space and military enthusiasts believe the spacecraft will add additional reconnaissance capabilities to the US arsenal – either directly, or by deploying a small satellite from its cargo bay at a desired orbit.

More sinister theories suggest that the vehicle may be weaponized and serve as a space counterpart to the Predator unmanned aerial vehicles. Some postulate that it could be used to attack and destroy adversaries’ satellites orbiting the Earth. Others suspect that the X-37B might be used to transport troops to global hotspots within mere hours.

The Air Force owns two of the solar-powered space planes built by Boeing’s Phantom Works. The spacecraft will call Florida’s Kennedy Space Center home, thanks to an agreement between the Air Force and NASA announced last Wednesday. The X-37B will use the center’s Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) Bays 1 and 2 to process the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle for launch. The OPF bays have sat unused since the end of the Space Shuttle Program in August 2011.

“This agreement ensures the facilities will again be used for their originally-intended purpose ‒ processing spacecraft,” the space agency said in a statement. “In addition to vehicle preparation for launch, the X-37B Program conducted testing at Kennedy’s Shuttle Landing Facility to demonstrate that landing the vehicle at the former shuttle runway is a technically feasible option.”

NASA expects to complete renovations on the two hangars by the end of the year, though painted blue doors on OPF-1 already tout it as “Home of the X-37B,” marketing that is visible to passing tour buses, C4ISR & Networks reported.

The X-37B is about 29 feet long by 9.5 feet tall (8.8 by 2.9 meters), with a wingspan of 15 feet (4.6 m) and a payload bay the size of a pickup-truck bed. Two X-37Bs could fit inside the payload bay of the space shuttle, which was 184 feet (56 m) long from nose to tail.

The post Air Force’s Top-Secret X-37B Spacecraft Lands After Nearly Two Years In Orbit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that world economy will collapse if oil prices remain at $80 per barrel.

Shale oil production in the United States is profitable at a price of $80 per barrel, according to Putin.

“If oil prices remain at $80 per barrel, it will lead to production collapse. Budgets of all major oil-producing countries are based on the price of little more than $80, close to $90 per barrel…” the Russia leader told reporters after the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit in Milan.

Crude oil prices have been in decline since mid-June and have lost over 28 percent of their value since that time. Oil prices started dropping on October 10 after OPEC published its October report which indicates increases in oil production in OPEC-member countries. Gulf nations plan to oppose any cut to OPEC’s oil-production ceiling at next month’s meeting, according to experts.

The post Global Economy Will Collapse If Oil Prices Remain At $80 Per Barrel – Putin appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nick Simeone

President Barack Obama has authorized the Defense Department to call up a small number of National Guard or reserve troops that possess special skills needed to aid efforts in stopping the spread of the deadly Ebola virus in West Africa.

Obama issued an executive order yesterday authorizing the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to order the Selected Reserve and certain members of the Individual Ready Reserve to deploy to West Africa, where as many as 4,000 U.S. troops are headed, most of them to Liberia, to support U.S. and international efforts to stop the rapidly spreading virus that has killed nearly 4,500 people.

U.S. officials say Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel requested the order after determining that specialists with skill sets needed by Operation United Assistance, including engineers, comptrollers and religious specialists, were in short supply, or to replace active-duty personnel.

Already, elements of the Kentucky Air National Guard are in Dakar, Senegal, to establish a staging base for the Liberia-based mission, having volunteered and deployed before the presidential order was issued.

The post Obama Activates Reserves For Operation United Assistance In Fight Against Ebola appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Facing intense criticism from the news media and being lambasted by members of his own party during an election cycle, President Barack Obama announced on Friday the appointment of Washington-insider and lawyer Ron Klain, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, to oversee the America’s response to the Ebola virus. He will be Obama’s Ebola czar, despite having no medical or healthcare background, which is infuriating many emergency-response leaders in medicine, law enforcement and disaster response.
While making a big deal over the appointment of an “Ebola czar,” the reality is it’s much-a-do about nothing.
While making a big deal over the appointment of an “Ebola czar,” the reality is it’s much-a-do about nothing.
Courtesy WH Press Office

Klain is best known as the man who pushed President Obama to fork over $535 million to the now-defunct Solyndra, a company that was supposed to revolutionize the solar energy industry but ended up costing taxpayers about a half-billion dollars during one of Barack Obama’s “phony scandals.” Many observers in Washington are skeptical about the appointment of what many call a Democratic Party hack.

“This shows how the so-called Ebola crisis is viewed in the Obama administration. With all the true geniuses in medicine and science to choose from, Obama selects a party hack? A professional party ‘bundler’ who helped get Obama elected in the first place is in charge of dealing with a deadly disease?” political strategist George Rosen asked rhetorically. “It’s a slap in the face that Obama and his minions think they can buy Americans off with an empty-suit and a big budget,” he added.

Leslie Tarnash, a former emergency first-responder for both a fire department and police agency, believes that if things were going so wrong because the current staff at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) were “screwing the pooch” then get rid of them and hire competent people. “I’m very upset that taxpayers must pay for the incompetence in government workers getting top salaries and bonuses, while the President has to hire another guy to run departments employing these same people,” said Tarnish. “On my right hand I can count five-people more qualified to handle such an emergency without all the pomp and circumstance Obama loves to display,” she aded.

On top of Klain’s appointment, Obama announced the Ebola czar would report to two other administration members who fit the denigrating description of “empty-suits.” His appointment entails working under Obama’s national security advisor, Susan “Benghazi” Rice, and his homeland security advisor, Lisa Monaco, who served as Attorney General Janet Reno’s assistant during the Clinton administration.

“Leave it to President Obama to put a liberal political activist in charge of the administration’s Ebola response,” Rep. John Fleming, R-Louisiana, who is also a medical doctor, said in a statement. “His so-called Ebola Czar will be someone with no medical background.” Supporters of Klain said his ability to coordinate many different agencies and interest groups trumped his lack of medical experience. But Mike Baker disagrees. “This is a typical liberal response to a problem: add one more layer of bureaucracy and throw taxpayers money at the problem,” he said.

Klain’s wife, also a Democratic Party insider, is environmental activist and special assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Monica Medina, who was instrumental in setting up Obama’s sequestration plan. As with her husband, she has no scientific or military background and is a loyal foot-soldier for the liberal-left wing of the Democratic Party.

The post Obama Appoints ‘Political Hack’ To Head Ebola Response – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Garamone

The strategy against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is working, but degrading and destroying the terror group will require “strategic patience,” Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III said today.

Austin, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters at the Pentagon that Iraq remains the focus of operations for his command and the airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq are having an effect.

“The things that we’re doing right now in Syria are being done primarily to shape the conditions in Iraq,” Austin said. “Once the Iraqis are able to get a better handle on the situation inside of their country and regain control of their border, that will help to localize the problems a bit more.”

Airstrikes having effect

The airstrikes are having a decided effect on ISIL, the general said, but they’re just one part of the total U.S. whole-of-government effort in the region.

“We are enabling the efforts of the Iraqis in their fight against ISIL, acknowledging that, in addition to halting ISIL’s advance, the Iraqis must secure the border,” he said. “They must regenerate and restructure their forces to ensure that they are able to provide for the sovereignty of their country going forward. And this represents our main focus right now — enabling the efforts of the Iraqis.”

The airstrikes are targeting specific ISIL capabilities, Austin said. The strikes focus on ISIL command and control capabilities, the terror group’s ability to project combat power, and sustainment capabilities. The coalition is very careful to not cause civilian casualties in the attacks.

“Had we killed a lot of innocent civilians, and specifically in Sunni areas, I think that it is fair to say that we would be in a much different place at this point,” the general said. “But because we’ve done this the right way, we’ve secured the support of our Sunni Arab partners in the region. And together, we are making progress.”

The strikes have taken out ISIL’s communications equipment and their command centers, Austin said. Airpower has also hit vehicle parks, taking out enemy tanks, artillery, and armored personnel carriers.

Eliminating oil financing

The strikes also hit the underpinning of ISIL financial power, taking out oil refineries under ISIL control, the general said.

“By striking these types of facilities, we reduce their ability to generate the funds and the fuel required to sustain their operations,” Austin said. “And we are having the desired effects.”

Centcom believes the strikes are having an effect not only via battle damage assessments, but by changes in the enemy’s behavior and tactics, he said.

“We’re no longer seeing them move around the country in large convoys,” the general said. “Now they’re mostly traveling in civilian vehicles in smaller numbers. This is hindering their ability to mass and to shift combat power.”

ISIL also altered methods of communication, he said, which is inhibiting the terror group’s ability to coordinate and synchronize efforts.

Airstrikes will continue to degrade ISIL and Iraqi forces will continue to gain strength and cohesion, Austin said.

“We must remain focused and disciplined in our approach,” he said. “Most important, we must maintain strategic patience going forward. The campaign to destroy ISIL will take time and there will be occasional setbacks along the way, and particularly in these early stages of the campaign as we coach and mentor a force that is actively working to regenerate capability after years of neglect and poor leadership.”

The United States is in this effort for the long haul, the general said.

“We intend to defeat and ultimately destroy ISIL,” Austin said. “Even more important, we want to change conditions inside of Iraq and Syria so that what we see happening there now does not happen again in the future.”

The post Anti-ISIL Strategy Working, Needs Patience – Centcom Director appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Inviting the punchy Russian leader to a military parade and awarding him a country’s highest honour may well be considered as dangerous as inviting a drunk to a well-stocked wine cellar for a the prized drop, but the analogy would be specious. The relationship between Serbia and Russia is both complex and intense, a deliciously neurotic bond that has both disappointed and benefited the parties. While nationalist admiration tends to be misplaced, the occasion of celebrating liberation from the occupation of Nazi forces after 70 years is not. Every European country treasures it and the anniversary of Serbia’s liberation this month is no exception.

Belgrade has been in history’s tight spot for decades, enshrouded and packaged as both refuse and bad boy. It used to be as free as an audacious bird, taking flight and landing in places most states in the Eastern bloc could only dream of. Those were the days of Titoist extravaganza – Yugoslavia, defiant of Moscow, but also understanding of certain common principles.

Now, the rhetoric of navigating blocs of power have emerged – the aspirations of wounded but slowly emerging Serbia on the one hand; and the impositions of aggressively renascent Russia on the other. European officials peer cautiously from the west – they are eyeing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s every move, a form of power perving and inquisitiveness that has come to dominate EU chatter. The Russian bear is bearing down on the honey supply. What will Brussels and company do?

Officials in Belgrade have not disappointed. The military party bash, even if oddly timed, is extensive, the first military parade in 29 years. “We have held no parade for the past 29 or 30 years,” claims Serbian President Tomislav Nikolić. While the President tends to be Serbia’s disappearing act, someone who is ventriloquised by the prime minister, the point is clear: Serbia is happy to remember those who helped it.

Serbia is certainly adopting a gymnast’s pose here, though Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić sounds comical when he talks about a policy that is neither swerving, let alone moving, to the left or the right. It was impossible during the years when Russia was itself in history’s straightjacket. “Serbia is going towards the EU, which is a strategic goal, but that it will not impose sanctions on Russia for many reasons, economic being one of them.” The Prime Minister is keen to remind his audience that this is not a matter of concealment. “I am not concealing from our Russian partners that we are following the European course.” Point being: we are not Ukraine.

There is also that other issue of the South Stream construction project, a Russian gas pipeline that is seen by Vučić as “good for Serbia” on the one hand, but a headache for other states. “This should pass through Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria and all other countries. As for Serbia, we have done our part, all the rest depends on others.”

The call for sanctions upon brother Russia has become something of a mindless reflection, a reflex that is encouraged for those willing to join the moral club – if you don’t follow in step, you will be shunned. Serbia’s imposition of sanctions on Russia would be, in many ways, a constriction and self-willing constipation. In the Serbian government scheme, the Russian purse is being directed to government assets, which is in some ways more enthusiastically directed than other western reserves. “[W]e expect participation of Russian investors in privatisation of certain enterprises.”

Admittedly, that resource – Russia’s hefty investment – has its own price tag, its own problematic influences. Such money bags do come with weighty considerations and consequence, the risk that the recipient state becomes both compliant and compliable. Being invested in is one thing; being filled to the point of becoming a client state is another matter. But the point to be made here is that the government should decide on its own accord, a decision exclusive to Belgrade as opposed to pen pushing moralists in Brussels. As Vučić has told the Russian Tass news agency, “Serbia is a free and independent state, Serbia is on the European path”.

The other side of the bargain should also be emphasised: that the EU wishes Serbia to express the moral outrage of a member towards a force it considers a problematic citizen at international law, while denying that member membership. Moscow has misbehaved. It needs chastisement. The EU has been moving into the land of the gentleman’s club, a sort of affair where cant and irritating sanctimony triumph over creditability and worth.

Putin, on the other hand, has his own targets. Making sure that he touches the palpitating heart strings, he is clear to remind readers of the Serbian paper Politika of a weakening of “the vaccine against the Nazi virus”. While he may be a bit short on describing his country’s own nationalist movements, he is not mistaken in noting “open manifestations of neo-Nazism, which have come common in Latvia and other Baltic states.”

As ever, the Serbian political grouping has had to adopt the approach of the gambler, or at least the gambler who will concede to accepting money and self-reform. We have bad habits. (We are too close to Moscow, and have suspicions of the Albanians.) We are a frightfully traditional bunch, and we decided that a murderous approach might have been appropriate to keep the Yugoslavian union intact. Hardly exceptional, given the circumstances – but it has made for interesting discussion.

The application for EU membership these days is much like spending a life time on the waiting list of an exclusive, overpriced club, a sort of generational pondering as to whether you just might join the Marylebone Cricket Club. Given the chaos within an unsteady Europe, the Serbian antics on this look less peculiar, a sort of dogged manoeuvre before torridness. There is time – and European states should learn one thing: don’t lecture the student who has not yet been admitted to the classroom.

The post Vladimir Putin In Serbia – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi Arabia has asserted that fighting extremist ideologies is an integral part of any strategy to combat terror.

“From our experience, it has become crystal clear that terror has no religion, no ethnicity and no nationality,” said Ahmed Al-Salem, undersecretary at the Ministry of Interior.

“Fighting against terror ideology is as important as any other method adopted to combat terror,” he said, while addressing the Crans Montana Forum in Geneva.

“Terror is the scourge of the 21st century that has left a catastrophic impact on the security and prosperity of human societies across the world,” he said.

The Kingdom is at the forefront of combating terrorism as it has been the target of a number of violent attacks, he pointed out.
Since 2003, the Kingdom has suffered 147 terror attacks in which 95 innocent civilians lost their lives and 569 people were wounded.

Foreign employees and visitors were also among the casualties.
Security forces foiled 250 plots to blow up domestic and foreign facilities and murder citizens and foreigners. The forces also brought those who were involved in terror attacks to justice.

According to the Saudi Press Agency, he put the number of the security officers who were killed in terror attacks at 74, adding that 657 officers sustained serious injuries.

He warned that terrorism remained a serious threat to international security despite the battles fought collectively under the UN umbrella or individually by various countries.

“The situation demands that all countries intensify their efforts to combat and root out the menace and bring terrorists to justice wherever they might be,” he said. This can only be achieved with reinforced international, regional and bilateral cooperation, he said.

The official called for more effective measures to ensure the implementation of international and regional agreements on defeating terrorism in addition to enacting national laws with the aim of eradicating the menace.

The laws should also be strong enough to weed out terrorist and extremist ideologies, said the official.

He also stressed the need to take steps to spread the spirit of peaceful coexistence across the globe.

The official also said that the Kingdom had developed a comprehensive strategy over the past years to combat terrorism, focusing on the prevention of terror activities and rehabilitation of reformed terrorists. These efforts, he said, aim at fortifying and protecting the community from extremist ideologies by way of anti-extremist campaigns through the media, lectures and seminars.

A unit to deal with terror has been set up in collaboration with educational, religious and social establishments, he said.

A culture of dialogue and preparedness to respect the views of others is also being promoted in addition to paying special attention to protecting the youth and foreign residents from the influence of extremist ideologies, he said.

The Kingdom’s efforts against terror also include signing a number of regional and bilateral agreements to cooperate in the combat, participation in the drafting of the comprehensive charter to fight international terrorism, besides urging other countries to set up a center to combat terror with a donation of $100 million.

The post Saudi Arabia Backs Tough Steps Against Terror appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Harun Yahya

As the world continues to grapple with new problems arising every new day in the Middle East and ponder a feasible solution for Syria and Iraq, especially with regards to the threat of the so-called Islamic State (IS), another tragedy is unfolding in West Africa that has left the world baffled. After crippling two countries and threatening the third one — Nigeria — Ebola is moving fast across continents.

The world media also appears confused as now there are two powerful contenders to qualify for breaking news: Explosions in Iraq or Syria, turmoil in Lebanon and the fast increasing number of Ebola victims.

Unfortunately, the world did not pay much attention to the virus in its early stages. After all, it was just confined to that abandoned continent, which had always been exploited by the powers that be every now and then. Ebola is a dangerous contagious virus and its cure remains elusive. At the onset of the breakout of Ebola in West Africa, health experts hoped that treatments for flu and malaria would help but that approach did not work and anyone who came into contact with the virus contracted it immediately and resulted in death.

In the beginning, the World Health Organization (WHO) seemed reluctant to allocate funds for Ebola treatment, which was associated with Africa as a killer that cannot be stopped. Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are the two countries where the epidemic has hit the hardest, were some of the poorest countries of the world and to some people; the proposition of investing into the health care industry did not appear to be a commercially viable option. Francis Collins, head of the National Health Institute admitted that Ebola vaccine could have been found a long time ago if it hadn’t been for the budget cuts. He also said that if necessary funds had been allocated, they would have been a year or two ahead of where they were, which would have made all the difference.

The number of people, who have died of Ebola in West Africa, has reached 5,000 and entries/exits to and from both countries have been stopped. Unsurprisingly, the economies of both countries have collapsed. It is estimated that by the end of next year, the cost of the disease to the West Africa economy will reach $32 billion, which is already a very poor region of the world. And no one knows how many more people will die. Ebola remains shrouded in mystery, with no known cause or treatment. It can be neither understood nor stopped.

After having claimed thousands of lives for months, Ebola has finally begun to grab the attention of the world. And the reason for that is Ebola cases are now being reported in the US and Europe, too. Since Ebola spreads only by contact, the places that Ebola patients touched until they reached their countries and the people they got in contact with during that time, makes the situation even grimmer.

At the moment this disaster is the only thing that health organizations are talking about. Top newspapers have finally begun to cover the news, and famous TV channels begun to invite experts to broach the subject. Suddenly, the World Health Organization has started seeing Ebola as the most serious health crisis of modern times.

Ebola is indeed one of the most worrisome and rare health disasters that the world has ever encountered. And ignoring the problem doesn’t eliminate it. The fact that Ebola cases are now seen in Europe and the US show that this disaster is spreading all around the world. Surely one would have wished that the world had started paying attention to this danger before the two African countries were completely quarantined, and before so many lives were lost. If this indifference resulted from an “I don’t care what happens as long as it doesn’t hurt me” mentality or if it is a result of financial concerns, we have to emphasize a very important fact one more time: Terrorism, diseases and disasters are like cancer. They can spread to the whole body one day. Therefore, it is important that countries act with the intent of protecting the entire humanity, and not only “their own race, country and future.”

Surely, there are steps that can be taken against this mysterious disaster that is threatening to take over the world. First of all, an additional special effort should be launched for quarantine conditions in the three West African countries. The US has sent healthcare teams to the region recently. However, in addition to that, it is important that people diagnosed with the disease are placed in a special location where they cannot get in contact with the outside world, but where they will be taken care of very well and feel very comfortable. The establishment and implementation principles regarding such regions should be on a par with those of Europe and the US. In order to ensure this, the western world needs to take action.

Francis Collins said that he’d like the Congress to pass emergency supplemental appropriations to help with the efforts even though “no one seems to be enthusiastic about that.” He also said that they were trying to find a breakthrough, but the best-case scenario would be for a clinical trial to start in December, and it would take until February or March to know if the drug worked. Obviously it is a very long time. Considering that thousands have died only in a couple of months, it is clear that such a scenario would have alarming consequences.

US, which has used billions of dollars worth of weapons in a matter of minutes, hitting the targets in Iraq and Syria, can obviously find a solution to Ebola by spending a lot less. We wouldn’t want to see more lives lost neither in the USA nor in the Africa or in other parts of the world due to this horrible disease. However, if urgent precautions are not taken, it is very likely that the disease will spread all around the world. The consequences of this disease, which can spread even through a glass you will hold, can be very serious as it can affect anyone, be it young or old, Muslim or Christian, women, men or children. It is clear that ignoring Africa in the beginning only exacerbated the problem. The sole superpower, US, and other countries need to allocate funds to find a cure to this disease and make it their top priority to solve this problem.

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya.

The post Ebola: A Threat That May Unite Mankind – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

I was a participant in the online October 16 US-Russia.org panel discussion “Thinking the Unthinkable: What Comes Next In the New Cold War?” What follows is a longer version of my contribution to that forum. This piece is being presented with the knowledge and approval of US-Russia.org. The views expressed are my own and don’t necessarily reflect those of US-Russia.org. — Michael Averko.

With the US mass media and body politic especially in mind, it’s no small wonder why there’s a considerable existence of arrogance and ignorance towards reasoned pro-Russian commentary. At the higher profile television/radio venues, the hypocritically faulty comments taken against Russia are frequently unchallenged. In contrast, the opposite perspective doesn’t get as much coverage and is more prone to being given a harder time by the involved television/radio host.

Moderator Gilbert Doctorow’s introductory second guessing of the thoughts taken among some American foreign policy establishment realists, partly relates to the mass media coverage. In terms of seeking as complete an accurate assessment as possible, it’s imperative to actively promote the valid and underrepresented sources, which tend to be kept out of the more high profile situations.

All things considered, the Russian government has weathered the geopolitical storm quite well. This has been done in a confident manner, which conforms with present and likely future realities.

Uphill battle and all, there are nevertheless enough influences in the (by no means monolithic) West that serve as a fairly decent counter to a significant furthering of hostility against Russia. Jackson Diehl’s October 12 Washington Post Op-Ed piece, meshes some negative inaccuracies about that country, with an acknowledgement to this observation. Moscow hasn’t been successfully isolated, because it hasn’t acted in an extremely unwarranted aggressive manner, to generate a stronger response against it.

With other options in the global economy, combined with Russia’s own ability, Russia-West trade relations aren’t the one way street as some suggest. Besides dealing with themselves, Russia and the West each have other geopolitical concerns to ponder – issues that have some convergence of interest between the two.

Practically speaking, there are limits to what Russia and the West can and can’t do. Post-Soviet Russia during Vladimir Putin’s leadership, reveals a clear understanding of this situation. On a related note, it’s ironic how some believe that the Kremlin has been pursuing a zero sum game stance.

The 2008 war in the former Georgian SSR was initiated by a brazenly armed Georgian government strike into the disputed territory of South Ossetia, where there’s a preference for Russia over Georgia. In that instance, Russia didn’t pursue “regime change” in Georgia. Georgia’s president at the time of that war is no longer in office – due to his own faults, in conjunction with the internal political dynamics in Georgia.

Prior to the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected, albeit imperfect president Viktor Yanukovych, the Russian and Ukrainian governments sought three way (Russian, EU and Ukrainian) talks on how to best develop Ukraine. In contrast, the EU and the Obama administration pursued an all or nothing approach, which disregarded the counter-Euromaidan perspective in Ukraine. Yanukovych’s overthrow contradicted the internationally brokered power sharing agreement, on how Ukraine would be governed for the remainder of this year. The coup in Kiev led to a series of enhanced anti-Russian activity, that prompted a counter-response from many in the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR.

Had a reasonable course of political action been pursued in Kiev, Crimea might very well still be a part of Ukraine. As is, Moscow has ample reason to feel well premised about Crimea’s reunification with Russia, in addition to the Kremlin’s formal recognition of South Ossetian and Abkhaz independence. Refer to the earlier move by the leading Western powers and some others to recognize Kosovo’s independence (in contradiction to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the preference of Serbia), along with Turkey’s decades long military presence in northern Cyprus and its lone recognition of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.

For the time being, it looks like the situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas of eastern Ukraine could be in a prolonged frozen conflict status. The Kiev regime has been unable to have its way there. Simultaneously, there’s the probability that this part of eastern Ukraine will not achieve a formally recognized independence from Russia, or an offer to become a part of that country. Russia has good reason to not risk getting so entangled in a prolonged messy setting. At the same time, the Kremlin can’t be too passive to a nearby unstable condition, that can create increased (economic and other) problems for Russia.

Outside Donetsk and Lugansk, the rest of Ukraine remains problematical. It’s not in the interests of Russia or the West to see things in that former Soviet republic get too chaotic. Hopefully, Ukraine itself can eventually see a rise in a better political outlook – one that can successfully balance the different historical, cultural and geopolitical preferences in that former Soviet republic. Russia and the West can’t be completely blamed for the imperfections in Ukraine.

Put mildly, the Russian economy isn’t in as dire straits as Ukraine’s. I’d be no surprise to see this difference become even more evident in the coming months. In the foreseeable future, the relationship between Russia and the West will continue to have up and down trends. As time progresses, there will be added examples to review and analyze, for further guidance on how to best proceed.

When things heat up, expect the usual suspects to advocate a more confrontational approach. Notwithstanding, there’s a cautiously optimistic basis for the realists. As has been exhibited, the bully pulpit, mouthing off appearances on CNN and elsewhere have limits. The likes of John McCain and Mikheil Saakashvili haven’t completely gotten their way. The mass media feedback from Western foreign policy establishment elites, has included the view of the possibility for improved Russia-West relations, without an official Western acceptance of Crimea’s changed status, despite the understanding that the predominately pro-Russian Black Sea area territory in question isn’t likely to revert back to Ukraine.

For accuracy sake, beware of the simplistically faulty, tabloid sensationalism, relating to issues like the disputed former Moldavian SSR territory of Pridnestrovie (AKA Transnistria and closely related spellings). On such a subject, the crusading idealistic, hardline approach, typically downplays the key particulars running counter to the preferred spin. A matter like Pridnestrovie shouldn’t be a potential major flashpoint.

On the subject of hypothetical future occurrences, we’re IMHO distant from the aforementioned scenario (brought up in the introduction to this panel discussion) of a Russian military presence in Kiev. For now, there seems to be enough of a Russia-West understanding to limit the chance for that move. On a somewhat related aside, the former Supreme NATO Commander of Europe, Wesley Clark, recently came out against the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. As a frequent geopolitical commentator, Clark isn’t known for being sympathetic to pro-Russian interests.

In any event, Russia’s military entry into Kiev would face greater opposition, when compared to the more pro-Russian parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. Since the end of WW II, that city has experienced a noticeable migration of people from the not so pro-Russian areas of Galicia and Volhynia. The Kiev regime still has sway over Odessa and Kharkov, which are more pro-Russian than the Ukrainian capital.

For the purpose of not being too lengthy, I end by presenting these articles, which provide further insight to some of the points stated in this commentary:

“Pridnestrovie’s Present and Future“, Eurasia Review, January 10, 2012

“Getting Russia Right With Better Analysis“, Eurasia Review, May 24, 2013

“Russia’s Role In the World: Gauging Moscow’s Active Foreign Policy“, Global Research, December 10, 2013

“Humanitarian Intervention Undertaken In Crimea“, Eurasia Review, March 14, 2014

“Blame Game Over Ukraine and Crimea’s Status“, Eurasia Review, March 17, 2014<

“Twisted History Against Russia and Serbia“, Global Research, July 7, 2014

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

The post Russia-West Relations: A Basis For Cautious Optimism – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Imagine a system of college education supported by high and growing government spending on elite private universities that mainly educate children of the wealthy and upper-middle class, and low and declining government spending on public universities that educate large numbers of children from the working class and the poor.

You can stop imagining. That’s the American system right now.

Government subsidies to elite private universities take the form of tax deductions for people who make charitable contributions to them. In economic terms a tax deduction is the same as government spending. It has to be made up by other taxpayers.

These tax subsidies are on the rise because in recent years a relatively few very rich people have had far more money than they can possibly spend or even give away to their children. So they’re donating it to causes they believe in, such as the elite private universities that educated them or that they want their children to attend.

Private university endowments are now around $550 billion, centered in a handful of prestigious institutions. Harvard’s endowment is over $32 billion, followed by Yale at $20.8 billion, Stanford at $18.6 billion, and Princeton at $18.2 billion.

Each of these endowments increased last year by more than $1 billion, and these universities are actively seeking additional support. Last year Harvard launched a capital campaign for another $6.5 billion.

Because of the charitable tax deduction, the amount of government subsidy to these institutions in the form of tax deductions is about one out of every three dollars contributed.

A few years back, Meg Whitman, now CEO of Hewlett-Packard, contributed $30 million to Princeton. In return she received a tax break estimated to be around $10 million.

In effect, Princeton received $20 million from Whitman and $10 million from the U.S. Treasury – that is, from you and me and other taxpayers who made up the difference.

Add in these endowments’ exemptions from taxes on capital gains and on income they earn, and the total government expenditures is even larger.

Divide by the relatively small number of students attending these institutions, and the amount of subsidy per student is huge.

The annual government subsidy to Princeton University, for example, is about $54,000 per student, according to an estimate by economist Richard Vedder. Other elite privates aren’t far behind.

Public universities, by contrast, have little or no endowment income. They get almost all their funding from state governments. But these subsidies have been shrinking.

State and local financing for public higher education came to about $76 billion last year, nearly 10 percent less than a decade before.

Since more students attend public universities now than ten years ago, that decline represents a 30 percent drop per student.

That means the average annual government subsidy per student at a public university comes to less than $4,000, about one-tenth the per student government subsidy at the elite privates.

What justifies so much government spending per student in private elite universities relative to public ones?

It’s not that the private elites educate more children from poor families. One way to know is to look at the percentage of their students receiving Pell Grants, which are available only to children from poor families. (The grants themselves are relatively modest, paying a maximum of $5,645.)

In fact, the elite privates with large endowments educate a smaller percentage of poor students than universities with little or no endowment income.

According to a survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, only 16 percent of students in highly-endowed private universities receive Pell Grants, on average, compared with 59 percent at the lowest-endowed institutions.

At Harvard, 11 percent of students receive Pell Grants; at Yale, it’s 14 percent; Princeton, 12 percent; Stanford, 17 percent.

By contrast, 59 percent of students at the University of Texas in El Paso receive Pell grants, 53 percent at the University of California at Riverside, and 33 percent at the University of California at Berkeley.

Moreover, because public universities have many more students than elite private universities, their larger percentages of Pell students represent far greater numbers of students from poor families.

For example, the University of California at Berkeley has more Pell eligible students than the entire Ivy League put together.

But perhaps the far higher per-student subsidies received by elite private universities are justified because they’re training more future leaders who will be in a position to reduce the nation’s widening inequality.

Unfortunately, there’s not much evidence for that proposition. According to a study by sociologist Lauren Rivera, 70 percent of Harvard’s senior class submits résumés to Wall Street and consulting firms. In 2007, before the global financial meltdown, almost 50 percent of Harvard seniors (58 percent of the men, 43 percent of the women) took jobs on Wall Street.

Among Harvard seniors who got jobs last spring, 3.5 percent were headed to government and politics, 5 percent to health-related fields, and 8.8 percent to any form of public service. The percentages at the other Ivies are not much larger.

So what justifies the high per-student government subsidies at the elite private universities, and the low per-student subsidies in public universities?

There is no justification.

The post Why Government Spends More Per Pupil At Elite Private Universities Than At Public Universities – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ebola! Ebola! Ebola! The word is everywhere—the name of the deadly virus from West Africa with a seventy percent fatality rate. A sense of dread and dismay is beginning to spread through our country. Asking vital questions will shed light on how to stop the spread of the current outbreak as well as prevent future outbreaks. Policies impacting both infectious diseases and those institutions that focus on treating, curing and stemming outbreaks need to be reworked to offer stronger support for nations with almost no public health facilities.

Since Ebola was first detected in the Congo by the Ebola River in 1976, it has sporadically struck remote villages in West Africa. Why haven’t Western countries responded with their advanced medical science and testing laboratories? For the same reason they were late in responding to malaria, resurgent tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, which together continue to take millions of lives a year. These diseases prevail in developing nations and were initially uncommon in developed countries. Until, as with HIV/AIDS, they make their way to Western nations.

Why didn’t the National Institutes of Health (NIH) properly anticipate Ebola? It did, according to NIH director Dr. Francis Collins. “NIH has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001,” he asserted, pointing to stagnant congressional funding for developing a vaccine and therapeutics. Dr. Collins said that with funding, “we probably would have had a vaccine in time…”

What was Congress funding? It was pouring trillions of dollars into the blast everywhere, quagmire “War on Terror,” which has spread al-Qaeda-type groups and violent instability into a dozen countries in a classic “blowback” against the U.S.

Along with the estimable Doctors Without Borders, I have been urging Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama to make the fight against the invisible but heavyweight viral and bacterial “terrorists” into a major priority. With organized pressure from HIV/AIDS victims and their families, the U.S. government was forced to address this disease domestically and in Africa. However, there is no such victims’ lobby for the international fight against malaria and TB. Modest increases in public funding for the prevention and treatment of malaria and TB are due significantly to the efforts of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), some foundations and some citizen groups like Princeton Project 55.

Collectively, the American people should take Congress to task for such neglect in the face of global experts in these and other infectious diseases saying “it is not a matter of if, just a matter of when.” Huge budgets are passed by members of both parties for weapons of mass destruction reminiscent of the Soviet Union age of hostilities. If the status quo persists, the pittances provided by Congress will do little to thwart infectious diseases that have taken and will continue to take millions of lives.

What of the immensely profitable drug companies—coddled with huge tax credits and billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded drug development given away free to selected pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer and Bristol-Myers-Squibb? They have long avoided doing work on vaccines because, unlike life-style drugs such as Viagra or those for chronic ailments like high-blood pressure, vaccines are not taken daily or often. Vaccines do not have the same return on investment for pharmaceutical companies as those medications taken daily for a variety of conditions and treatments.

During the avoidable Vietnam War, the second leading cause, after wartime injuries, for hospitalization of American soldiers was malaria. The Pentagon got so fed up with the U.S. drug companies refusing to do any research for anti-malarial drugs, that it set up its own very successful research division at Walter Reed Army Hospital. It was a there that dedicated physicians and other scientists developed most of that era’s breakthroughs for anti-malarial medicines at a fraction of what the price-gouging drug companies would have charged patients for access to the same medication.

Such drug industry indifference is not new. The public should demand that Big Pharma disgorge some of their profits, stop charging Americans the highest prices in the world, and create a fund to pay for research on drugs that can curb the spread of infectious diseases.

Another question is why there are so few doctors and health workers in these African countries. Dr. E. Fuller Torrey wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently that for years the U.S. has been part of the brain-drain of African physicians (and other health care professionals) because of an entirely preventable doctor shortage in our own country. He wrote, “The loss of these men and women is now reflected in reports about severe medical-manpower shortages in these countries, an absence of local medical leadership so critical for responding to the crisis, and a collapse or near-collapse of their health-care systems.”

He estimated that Liberia, a country of four million people, has only 120 Liberian physicians, while there were 56 Liberian-trained physicians practicing in the U.S in 2010.

Through H-1B visa preferences, we lure doctors and nurses from the developing countries that need them desperately. In contrast, Cuba, a much smaller and less wealthy country, has dispatched thousands of doctors over decades to assist needy countries in Latin America and Africa. Just this month, Cuba announced it had sent 165 healthcare workers to Sierra Leone with another 296 doctors and nurses on their way to Liberia to help counter the spread of Ebola.

Going deeper, we might ask how the “structural adjustment” policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund stripped developing countries of funds that could have been spent on health facilities and public works. At the same time, the World Bank and IMF pushed these countries to cut consumer food subsidies and change land that had produced grains and vegetables for the local populations into land for growing cash crops for export that drains these earnings to pay for their ever increasing debts to these financial institutions.

As long as Western nations keep politicizing the World Health Organization and keep it on a short budgetary leash (its annual budget is less than any of the revenues of the largest hospitals in Boston, Cleveland, New York or Houston), these nations are playing with the fate of millions of people, including those in Europe and North America.

Let’s face it, when it comes to putting preventative programs in place and reordering our public priorities, only we the people can get it done. Citizens are a democracy’s first responders. The first move is easy; call 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senators and Representatives. If you don’t get elected representatives on the phone, tell their assistants your questions and demands and ask for a detailed letter describing what your lawmakers intend to do about infectious disease epidemics.

No one can stop you from taking this first step.

The post Ralph Nader: Ebola! Prevention And Responsibility – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.