By Khalil Hanware

Saudi Arabia and heavyweight Gulf oil producers are showing no sign of deliberately cutting exports to address oversupply and support prices that slipped to a four-year low below $83 a barrel last month, according to a survey.

Sources in the Reuters survey said that the shutdown of the Khafji oilfield, jointly run by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, slightly curbed Kuwaiti output but has not affected Saudi production as the Kingdom holds a vast amount of capacity in reserve.

“Oil did play a role in the recent plunge in the Saudi stock exchange (Tadawul),” John Sfakianakis of Ashmore Group told Arab News, reacting to recent market developments.

The Tadawul All-Share Index (TASI) also extended declines on Thursday, with the main index falling 0.5 percent. Shares in Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC) dropped 1.2 percent and Al-Rajhi Bank lost 0.6 percent.

The insurance sector was hit particularly hard after rising to a six-year intraday high in the previous session. It fell 1.3 percent despite insurers posting strong third-quarter earnings.

However, Mediterranean And Gulf Insurance And Reinsurance Co. added 1.4 percent after its third-quarter profit surged more than tenfold.

Sfakianakis added: “As oil prices seem to be stabilizing around these levels, the market should read this positively. Year to date the Saudi stock market’s 17.57 percent growth is quite good.”

He also said: “With the National Commercial Bank’s (NCB) IPO going to an end soon, we just having to complete the earning seasons to see how the market reacts from here on.”

According to NCB, the retail portion of its SR22.5 billion initial share sale had attracted investor interest amounting to more than double the amount on offer.

The IPO reached 281.1 percent by the end of the 13th day, according to the financial advisers and lead managers GIB Capital and HSBC Saudi Arabia. About 904,000 investors bought shares at a total value of SR37.95 billion.

Basil Al-Ghalayini, CEO of BMG Financial Group, said: “The positive news of NCB’s IPO oversubscription will enhance the attitude toward this mega offering which is expected to witness even further increase over the weekend before the closing date on Sunday.”

He said: “Obviously, once listed, the financial sector weighting within Tadawul index will be significantly increased which ultimately further deepen the overall market.”

Al-Ghalayini added: “”Obviously, the global oil prices decline had its negative impact on traders’ sentiments. The sharp division between OPEC members, driven by political agendas of the super powers, is making things even more difficult for investors and traders to plan their trading programs.”

Oil prices, meanwhile, dropped on Friday and were headed toward their fourth consecutive monthly fall.

US and Brent crude fell by almost a dollar to put them both on pace for the steepest monthly decline since May 2012, and the longest monthly losing streak since 2008.

The post Oil Impact Feared In Saudi Arabia Market Fall appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kwei Quartey

When the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital missed a crucial diagnosis of the Ebola virus and released Liberian Thomas Eric Duncan to go home, it unleashed a sequence of events that is still unfolding rapidly.

As in the great AIDS panic, the introduction of the Ebola infection into the American populace has resulted in confusion, speculation, and hysteria. Even perfectly healthy individuals, such as American reporters who have been to the West African region, find themselves being shunned because of irrational fears.

For better or worse, the response of the authorities to this crisis will go down in history. Certain categorical declarations will particularly stand out—and in some cases return as painful ironies. As an example, in late July, Stephen Monroe—the deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for Zoonotic Infectious Disease—stated, “Ebola poses little risk to the U.S. general population,” adding that, “the likelihood of the outbreak spreading outside of West Africa is very low.”

In an effort to tamp down fears over Ebola, CDC director Thomas Frieden asserted in October that “Ebola is scary. It’s a deadly disease. But we know how to stop it.” It is unclear whether the “we” refers to the CDC, health facilities more generally, or some other entity, but this firm and sweeping assertion was called into question as news broke of the first and then a second case of Ebola transmission to Thomas Duncan’s caregivers at Texas Presbyterian Hospital.

Earlier this month, David Lakey, commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, famously said of Dallas, “This is not West Africa. This is a very sophisticated city.” Still not sophisticated enough, apparently, to prevent one fumble after another.

U.S. Lapses

The supposed “mystery” as to how these caregivers contracted Ebola when they were supposedly shielded from transmission by their personal protective equipment (PPE) is actually no mystery at all.

As a physician at a wound care center in Southern California, I go through 10 to 20 units of protective gear every day, one for each patient. A quick, self-administered test on removing my PPE revealed that I did it with less than 100 percent safety. It is, quite frankly, not easy.

With Ebola, even 99 percent safety is not good enough. Many hospitals in the United States use PPE for procedures such as wound repair and colonoscopies. And in many wards and intensive care units, healthcare staff don PPE for cases of MRSA or VRE. But not only does the care required in such “ordinary” protection pale beside the vigilance involved in Ebola exposure, the PPE itself is quite different.

So the answer to whether “we,” as Frieden put it, know how to stop the virus here in the United States might well be a “no” at worst and a “sort of” at best.

Indeed, National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro has claimed that there is an absence of any protocol at the Texas Presbyterian hospital on how to deal with the deadly virus. Other hospitals have opted for the World Health Organization’s Ebola protocol instead of the CDC’s because of its extra guidelines for hand sanitation.

The CDC poster for removal of PPE shows the use of only a single pair of gloves and appears highly lacking compared to the painstaking measures described by Australian nurse Sue Ellen Kovack at a Sierra Leonean Ebola treatment center. Of note in her account is the liberal dousing with a chlorine (or bleach) spray from head to toe, a chlorine hand rinse, hand washing at least eight times during the procedure, and the use of two pairs of gloves instead of just one as recommended by the CDC. On October 16, the CDC effectively admitted that its own guidelines were lax and has moved to the more exacting guidelines.

Ironically, rough-and-ready Ebola treatment centers like the tents constructed by agencies like Doctors Without Borders are much better equipped for safety procedures like the chlorine bath than many modern Western facilities. To do this in a technologically advanced U.S. hospital, separate alcoves would need to be built in designated spaces to accommodate a “spraying area.” That could be extremely complicated in the average intensive care unit.

Learning from Africa

Perhaps we in the United States are learning a small lesson in humility.

Is it possible, for example, that Nigeria, of all places, might have some wisdom to convey to the United States? Both Nigeria and Senegal moved quickly to quell an Ebola outbreak through meticulous contact tracing, coordinated national action, exhaustive interviews, and activation of an Ebola Incident Management Center. Both countries are now reportedly free of the disease.

Although the story is not yet over, the U.S. government has lauded Nigeria’s initial management of the outbreak. Indeed, the CDC has now ordered dozens of high-tech, infrared, no-touch thermometers to be used in screening procedures at U.S. gateway airports—the same ones that are already being used in West Africa.

David Lakey is right: Texas is not West Africa. But every once in a while, the West African example is worth following.

Kwei Quartey M.D. is a crime novelist and physician who grew up in Ghana. He is now based in Los Angeles. A former columnist at Foreign Policy in Focus and a contributor to The Huffington Post, he travels frequently to Ghana. His fourth novel, GOLD OF THE FATHERS, will be published in February 2016.

The post What West Africa Can Teach The US About Ebola – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty

Pakistan’s army chief Raheel Sharif railed against India recently, saying Pakistan will give a “befitting response” to any aggressor. He also warned that there will be no peace in South Asia unless the Kashmir issue is resolved in accordance with the UN resolutions.

Lest he sounds too aggressive, the army chief added that Pakistan desires peace and regional stability on the basis of mutual respect and dignity.

This is jaded rhetoric from Pakistani army generals and rabble-rousing politicians in the current context of continuing ceasefire violations by the Pakistani armed forces along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Boundary (IB). The 742 km LoC that divides Jammu and Kashmir is not an international boundary. It is a de facto boundary. India controls around 60 percent of the state and Pakistan controls around 30 percent, while 10 percent is controlled by China.

Beyond the LoC, what India calls the International Boundary or the IB, Pakistan calls it the “Working Boundary” to maintain its position that the India-Pakistan boundary is not final. The LoC, a product of the 1972 Simla Agreement, is a modified version of the Ceasefire Line (CFL), delineated in the 1949 Karachi Agreement brokered by the UN.

Pakistani forces have targetted civilians deliberately on the Indian side. India’s robust response may have surprised the Pakistani establishment. The first time Prime Minister Narendra Modi surprised Pakistan was when he invited Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend his swearing in ceremony. Intermittent firing by Pakistani forces continues. India’s leadership has warned Pakistan to desist from such provocations and authorized Indian forces to retaliate massively.

Earlier, India avoided responding to Pakistani provocations sometimes in order to maintain the sanctity of the ceasefire. This left Pakistan with the freedom to choose the time and place for ceasefire violations. India has clearly made a course correction.

Deliberate targeting of civilians, primarily Hindus, living in Jammu along the LoC and others living along the IB reflects Pakistan’s rising frustration in failing to elicit any response globally on the Kashmir issue. Prime Minister Sharif’s attempt to raise the Kashmir issue and seek the UN’s intervention fell flat. The harsh reality is that the world is not interested in Kashmir, and this was reinforced when Pakistan’s subsequent appeal to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was also rebuffed. The UN spokesperson told Pakistan to discuss the Kashmir issue with India bilaterally.

Rebuffed internationally, Pakistan has resorted to the option of ceasefire violations, combined with rising domestic political rhetoric about taking back every inch of Kashmir and hinting darkly about Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. Additionally, Pakistan is mobilizing its diaspora in the UK, through its agents in the immigrant community, to organize marches against so-called human rights violations by India in Kashmir.

This has provoked India to warn the UK to stop such demonstrations. The UK has always played a dubious role on the Kashmir issue. Even when the Khalistani issue was at its height in the 1980s it gave asylum to various Khalistani leaders, thereby giving encouragement to some Sikhs to resort to violence. Under the fig leaf of peaceful right to protest, UK’s role has always been dodgy.

For Pakistan, the primary anxiety is that the Kashmir issue has lost its salience internationally. Even Pakistan’s consistent patrons, China, Saudi Arabia and the USA appear to have lost interest in Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir. Heating up the LoC and IB draws global attention, which is the objective of Pakistan’s ceasefire violations.

Disrupting the coming elections in Jammu and Kashmir and pushing in terrorists are also factors. Apart from a few anodyne statements by some countries urging India and Pakistan to start negotiations, there has been no other international development.

On the domestic front, the Kashmir issue is a hardy perennial for the army to incite public opinion, particularly jihadi elements. It is also a convenient tool that the Pakistan army uses to keep the civilian government on a tight leash on bilateral engagement with India. If it is Pakistan’s intention to bring India to the negotiating table under pressure, then Pakistan has been seduced by its own flawed logic. India has made it clear that its neighbourhood policy is anchored in seeking good relations with all neighbours, but with Pakistan there can be no normalization as long as Pakistan continues to use terrorism as a tool of it foreign policy and uses ceasefire violations to pressurize India.

While Pakistan may not be deterred in so far as ceasefire violations are concerned it will not seek to escalate and risk a full blown war with India. But circumstances are ripe, at least in the Pakistani strategy to meddle in Kashmir again in the backdrop of the forthcoming withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. Arguably, the most dangerous aspect is Pakistan’s intention of mounting terrorist attacks in India using jihadi elements and Al Qaeda. The video recently released by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri exhorting jihad against India is a clue to Pakistan’s future intentions.

The video itself could be quid pro quo for allowing Zawahiri to continue staying in Pakistan under ISI protection, like Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad before he was snatched by American Special Forces, killed and buried in the high seas. Pakistan seems to have misread Prime Minister Modi’s initial friendly gesture in inviting Nawaz Sharif to the swearing in ceremony. Over several decades India has engaged Pakistan in the hope of normalizing relations, but it seems increasingly clear that the terms of engagement have to change and Prime Minister Modi’s government has decided to do just that.

(Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty is a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and has served as India’s Consul-General in Karachi. He can be contacted at southasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post Border Firing: Time Pakistan Realised That Terms Of Engagement Have Changed – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A two-day track 1.5 dialogue between China, Afghanistan and Pakistan was organized by Pakistan-China Institute (PCI) in Islamabad on Oct 19-20, 2014.

Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Sun Weidong, Afghan Ambassador Janan Mosazai, Chairman of the PCI Mushahid Hussain and other strategic analysts, academicians and diplomats attended the dialogue to discuss the current security and political situation in Afghanistan and its implications for neighbouring countries.

The special guest at the trilateral was Pakistan’s National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz. The first trilateral dialogue was held in Beijing in August last year under the joint auspices of China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) and the PCI. The third round of this trilateral conference is planned to be held in Kabul next year. This article contextualizes the outcomes of the second trilateral dialogue.

The First Round

At the first round of the trilateral dialogue in Beijing, the Chairman PCI introduced the concept of ‘Greater South Asia’ as an economic entity emerging beyond the sub-continent; and voiced appreciation for Pakistan for hosting 5 million Afghan refugees on its soil. Zhou Gang, the former Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, stated that the US should not maintain its military presence in Afghanistan post 2014. The Chinese diplomat also expressed concern regarding spread of terrorism to Xinjiang, even as he recognised the sacrifices made by the Pakistani people in combating terrorism and expressed China’s support for Pakistan in this regard.

The Second Trilateral

The current second trilateral was seen as an opportunity to put forth specific policy recommendations on the issues of peace and security, regional economic cooperation and combating terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking. On the security situation it was felt that Al Qaeda can hold “central position” for a short term, but the influence of Islamic State-inspired groups will increase and the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), on the other, hand may not remain a cohesive entity. In Afghanistan countering ethnic factionalism will be challenge and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may continue with its attempts to influence political developments. But implications of the continued NATO presence in Afghanistan were not fleshed out.

Commending Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts and its role in region affairs, the Chinese Ambassador Sun said China appreciates Pakistan’s steps to promote dialogue and improve relations with Afghanistan. The impact of the Silk Road economic zone, Pakistan-China economic corridor and Central Asia economic belt were discussed. Li Qingyan of CIIS said the economic integration of Pakistan and China was on track and postponement of President Xi Jinping’s visit to Islamabad would not affect ties.

It was also felt that New Delhi is enhancing its role in Afghanistan to define security contours of the region and isolate Pakistan. Yet, as enhanced trade and economic relations can facilitate regional peace Pakistan needs to support more economic and social development in Afghanistan as India has been doing. Yet there was little discussion on taking the Pakistan-Afghanistan-India transit trade agreement forward.

A five-point recommendation was presented by PCI for “Way Forward” in cooperation between China, Afghanistan and Pakistan at conclusion of the two-day Trilateral Dialogue. The recommendations called for creating Joint Trilateral Task Forces on Counter Terrorism and for promoting the Central Asia Economic Belt and Pakistan-China Economic Corridor. A trilateral business council, involving the private sector and annual trilateral Media Conference to promote communication and better understanding were suggested. Joint Trilateral Youth Summer Camps for students and youth of the three neighbours to assemble by rotation in Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan, Xinjiang province in China and the Wakhan region of Afghanistan were also proposed.

Assessment

Recommendations of dialogues of this nature are largely Confidence Building Mechanisms and aimed to enhance the feel good factor; yet they have to be cognisant of ground realities. Despite the prickly issue of Pakistani support to the Afghan Taliban, and the fact that consequent to Operation Zarb-e-Azb against militants in North Waziristan Afghanistan is willy-nilly now a party to the internal security situation in Pakistan, the Trilateral skirted the issue of security dynamics between the two neighbours. The cancellation of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pakistan in September appeared to be seen more as a one-off consequence of a political hiccup than being symptomatic of the tenuous and recurrent internal security situation in Pakistan. The implications seemed papered over by the excitement due to acceptance of Pakistan’s application for full-member status of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) along with India, at the SCO summit in Dushanbe held Sep 11-12.

However, what should have played on the minds of the gathering is the fact that on Oct 10, during a meeting of Pakistan Senate’s Standing Committee, the re-routing of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor on security considerations was debated. China and Pakistan have decided to re-route the corridor mostly through Punjab, in the process avoiding some of the country’s most restive areas in both Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. China is therefore not only seeking security assurances in Pakistan, but also a more stable political environment. Recently Chinese state owned enterprises have declined to accept Pakistani sovereign guarantees for providing project finance.

China is also concerned at potential Islamist spill over to Xinjiang, as the issue is acquiring worrisome proportions. In a raid in Xinjiang region on Oct 12, four ethnic minority Uyghur men armed with knives and explosives stabbed an unknown number of police officers as they stormed a township market hurling explosives and attacking Han Chinese stall owners before they were gunned down. The attack left 22 people dead, including police officers. The upsurge of violence fuelled by ethnic tensions has resulted in around 300 dead in the past year and half in the region. The reported association of Uyghurs with the Islamic State and the IS presence in Afghanistan would be an added cause for concern.

Though there was consensus at the trilateral that China is well positioned to play a proactive role in Afghanistan because of its policy of non-interference and quest for enhanced economic engagement, China has in the last few years demonstrated little or no staying power in deteriorating local security conditions in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. Hence it will remain for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to provide the required security environment for any meaningful Chinese investment. Further, China has shown little appetite for a leadership role on security issues in the region or to articulate how the continued US presence in Afghanistan affects its approach.

There was little mention of Iran, a key player in Afghanistan, and the ongoing tension between Pakistan and Iran due to various reasons, including the Saudi-Iran proxy tussle in the Middle East. Recently Iranian border guards attacked and killed a Frontier Corps (FC) soldier and injured another three in Pakistan’s Mand area. Earlier, 30 Iranian border guards had entered Pakistani territory and taken the residents of Nokundai, another Pakistani border town, hostage. More recently, forces along the border have exchanged mortar fire. Regional cooperation on Afghanistan involves Iran as much as it does Pakistan.

Hence a trilateral on fostering regional cooperation and trade that disregards Iran and considers India a “spoiler” is actually assessing the environment selectively, and deliberations of such a caucus are bound to be stilted.

(Monish Gulati is a Senior Research Fellow with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted atm_gulati_2001@yahoo.com)

This article was published by South Asia Monitor.

The post China, Afghanistan And Pakistan Dialogue: Eyes Wide Shut? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

WHEN A high-ranking official of one country calls the leader of another country “chickenshit”, it may be assumed that the relations between the two countries are not at their best. In fact, they may be considered somewhat less than cordial.

This week, It happened. An unnamed very high-ranking US official said this in an interview with the respected American journalist who bears the very Jewish name of Jeffrey Goldberg.

No high-ranking official would use such a term for publication without the express permission of the President of the United States of America. So here we are.

HISTORY HAS seen many strange relationships between nations. But I dare say none stranger than that existing between Israel and the US.

On the face of it, no two states could be closer to each other. Just a minor example: the day the memorable Chickenshit remark made headlines, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon the US to put an end to its 50-year old embargo on Cuba. 188 countries, including the whole spectrum of EU and NATO countries, voted in favor. Two states voted against: the US and Israel.

Two countries against the entire world? No, not entirely. Micronesia, Palau and the Marshal Islands abstained. (These three mighty island nations generally support Israel, too, though few Israelis could place them on the map.)

Throughout the years, in hundreds of UN votes, Israel has stood loyally with the US, and vice versa. An unshakable alliance, so it seemed. And now they call our valiant Prime Minister chickenshit?

THE OFFICIAL based his uncomplimentary remark on Binyamin Netanyahu’s disinclination to bomb Iran, as threatened repeatedly, as well as on Netanyahu’s unwillingness to make peace with the Palestinians.

The first accusation is unfounded, since Netanyahu never seriously considered an attack on Iran. Some of my readers may remember that from the first day I assured them that such an attack would not happen, without even leaving myself a loophole in case I might be wrong. I knew that such an attack was quite out of the question. And not only because the entire Israeli defense establishment was against it.

The second accusation is even more groundless. Netanyahu did not chicken out of making peace. This would presuppose that he wanted peace in the first place. If the Americans really believe so, they should read a few good articles (especially mine).

Netanyahu never entertained even for a moment the idea of making peace. His entire upbringing makes this quite impossible. His late father, Ben-Zion, was such an extreme and rigid nationalist, that compared to him Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Zionist right-wing leader, looked like a leftist pacifist.

Every word Binyamin Netanyahu has ever uttered in favor of peace and the Two-State solution was a blatant lie. For him to advocate a Palestinian state is like the Chief Rabbi advocating eating pork on Yom Kippur.

Any American diplomat who does not know this should be transferred at once to Micronesia (or Palau).

LATELY IT seems that Netanyahu has been doing everything in his power to provoke a quarrel with the US government.

At first sight, this looks like an act of lunacy, an act so dangerous that any competent psychiatrist would commit him to the closed wing of an asylum.

Israel is totally dependent on the US – not 99%, but 100%. On the very same day as the publication of the Chickenshit statement, the US agreed to sell Israel a second squadron of F-35 fighter planes, after the sale of the first 19 planes (which costs 2.35 billion dollars). The money comes from the yearly tribute the US pays to Israel.

Without the automatic US veto on all UN Security Council resolutions not approved by the Israeli government, there would have long been a State of Palestine as a full-fledged member of the UN. A cornerstone of our foreign relations is the belief of many countries that in order to gain entrance to the favors of the US Congress, they first need to bribe the gatekeeper – Israel. And so on.

Literally every Israeli is convinced that our relationship with the US is the lifeline of the state. If there is anything at all on which Israelis of all age groups, communities, beliefs and political orientations are unanimous, it is this conviction.

So how come our prime minister is working full-time on destroying the relationship between the two governments?

When our Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon, visited Washington DC this week, all his requests to meet US cabinet ministers and other high officials were categorically refused, except for a meeting with his colleague, Chuck Hagel, who could not very well object. It was an unprecedented, open insult.

Ya’alon, a former Chief of Staff of the army, is not considered a genius. Some believe that it would have been better if he had stayed at his former profession – milking cows in a kibbutz. When he declared that John Kerry suffered from an “Obsessive Messianism” in his efforts to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine, both Kerry and President Barack Obama were deeply offended.

But such statements by Israeli cabinet ministers have become routine. So have the sharp rebuttals of official US spokesmen and spokeswomen. These are ignored by the Israeli public.

BINYAMIN NETANYAHU is no fool. Chickenshit or not, unlike Ya’alon he is considered smart and intelligent. So what is he doing?

There is method in his madness.

Netanyahu grew up in the United States. When his father was boycotted by Israeli academia, which refused to take him seriously as a historian, the family moved to a suburb of Philadelphia. Binyamin prides himself on having an intimate knowledge of the US.

What is he thinking about?

He knows that Israel controls the US Congress. No American politician could possible be reelected if he voiced even the slightest hint of criticism of the “Jewish State”. AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in Washington (apart from the National Rifle Association) will see to that. The powerful grip the Jewish lobby has on the media is a further guarantee.

In Netanyahu’s view, in any confrontation between Congress and the White House over Israel, the President is bound to lose. So there is nothing to be afraid of.

NETANYAHU, IN FACT is playing roulette with all the capital of Israel in the vast casino called the USA. Perhaps he has been infected by his mentor and protector, the Casino Czar Sheldon Adelson, who has a hand in conducting Israeli policy in the US.

(It was Adelson who appointed the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Ron Dremer, a prominent activist of the Republican party, who is detested by the White House.)

In order to appreciate the magnitude of Netanyahu’s gamble, with us as chips, one has to visualize the state of the union.

The US is now a dysfunctional democracy.

In a normal democracy – say the UK or Germany – there are two central parties, or party coalitions, which face each other. They are both “mainstream” and the differences between them are minor. They succeed each other from time to time without much ado. The citizens hardly notice.

Not in the US. Not anymore.

The American public is now deeply divided between two camps, which hate each other from the bottom of their hearts (if they have any). This hatred is abysmal. One is the party of the ultra-rich, who defend their privileges, the other belongs to the moderately wealthy and serves their interests.

The ideologies of the two camps are diametrically opposed. Therefore, they cannot agree practically on anything. Anything the Democrats do is considered almost treason by the Republicans, anything the Republicans advocate is considered by the Democrats as stupid, if not crazy

The Republicans, who control Congress (and may do so even more firmly in a few days time) are out to immobilize the administration. Once they even stopped all federal payments, making the running of the state impossible. A consistent joint foreign policy is out of the question. I am not sure that the situation on the eve of the great Civil War was much worse.

INTO THIS crazy situation Netanyahu has plunged. He has placed all his chips (us) on the Republicans.

During the last presidential elections, he almost openly supported Mitt Romney, the opponent of Obama, thus practically declaring war on the present administration. The radical anti-Obama statements made now by Israeli leaders are used – and designed to be used – by Republican candidates against their Democratic opponents.

The Democrats make strenuous efforts to woo Jewish voters and donors by flattering Israel in the most outrageous terms, promising to support each and every action of the Israeli government, now and for all eternity, be it what it may. Inadvertently, they stick knives into the back of the Israeli peace forces, making the fight for peace even more Herculean.

But even if the mid-term elections make the House and the Senate even more subservient to the Israeli right-wing, Obama will be around for two more years. In a way, having no more elections to fear, he will be freer than before to obstruct Netanyahu.

I wish he would. But I do not entertain too much hope. Even as a lame duck, he will still have to consider the interests of the next Democratic candidate for the White House.

OBAMA COULD still do a lot for peace between Israel and Palestine, a peace supported by the entire pro-American Arab bloc – something clearly in the US national interest, not to mention ours.

For that, courage is needed. And – yes – a little more Obsessive Messianism.

The post The Strange US-Israel Alliance – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In the wake of last week’s attacks in Ottawa by a lone gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who killed a soldier at the National War Memorial and also attacked Parliament Hill, and another attack in Quebec, where a warrant officer was run over and killed, the word “terrorism” has been used liberally, and the Canadian government has rushed to release a new bill, the “Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act,” which, if passed, “will expand the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,” as the Globe and Mail reported.

The paper stated that sources had told them that the government was “weighing new tools to deal with citizens who openly support terrorist attacks on Canadians or back groups that urge this goal,” and that “the country’s top Mountie”  — RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson — was “calling on the government to make it easier to restrict the liberties of suspects in terror cases.” When senior officials start talking openly about restricting liberties, alarm bells should always start ringing.

In another chilling passage, the Globe and Mail noted that the government “has already signalled it’s looking at lowering the threshold for preventive arrests.” That is chilling, of course, because “preventive arrests” overturns the accepted concept of the law as something that is designed to deal with crimes that have taken place, not crimes that may or may not take place in the future.

In response to the Ottawa attacks, there have also been many voices calling for restraint, not least Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the New Democrat Party, who yesterday took exception to the use of the word terrorism in relation to the attacks. “I don’t think that we have enough evidence to use that word,” he said after an NDP caucus meeting.

The Toronto Star, noting that Mulcair “said he based his opinion on reports that Zehaf-Bibeau had been struggling with mental illness, for which he had tried to seek help,” also noted that Mulcair said of the government, “They’ve used the word [terrorism] from the get-go. It was the word that they used immediately before any of this other information was out there and frankly the information that is now available to the public comforts me in my choice not to use the word terrorism in describing the act that took place here.”

He added, “It doesn’t take away from the horror of what took place. It doesn’t make it any less criminal, but I think there is a distinction to be used and when you look at the background of the individual and what was actually going on, that the use of that word was not the appropriate one. That’s our point of view. That’s my point of view.”

Anyone who has been looking closely at Canada’s counter-terrorism powers since 9/11 — or, perhaps more accurately, its powers in relation to what it claims to be terrorism, even if that term is inaccurate — will be alarmed by the tendency to hysteria of some of the current discourse.

After all, since 9/11, Canada has introduced a system of house arrest, on the basis of secret evidence, enforced by security certificates, even though the use of secret evidence ought to alarm anyone who believes in the necessity of open justice to prevent executive overreach or the protection of the intelligence services from scrutiny. This regime continues to blight the lives of people like Mohamed Harkat, persecuted by the government for 12 years, even though he has never been charged or tried with any offence.

Then there is the monstrous injustice of Canadian complicity with the Bush administration in the rendition of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria, where he was tortured, and the betrayal of other Canadian citizens to the Syrian regime in the early years of the “war on terror” (see the section on Syria in my 2010 report for the UN about secret detention here).

Another glaring injustice is, of course, the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen abandoned for ten years in Guantánamo — with the exception of visits by Canadian agents that, the Canadian Supreme Court eventually ruled, violated his rights. Khadr’s story is a disgrace. He was just 15 years old at the time of his capture in Afghanistan in July 2002, but instead of recognizing their UN treaty obligations to recognize him as a juvenile who cannot have been responsible for his actions, because he was under the care of his father, and to rehabilitate him rather than punishing him, both the US and Canada treated him as though he was not a child, with the US abusing him while the Canadian government either turned a blind eye, or, with the visits by intelligence personnel, actively aided the Americans in their abuse.

Eventually, the US put Khadr forward for a kangaroo court trial on invented war crimes charges, and, in October 2010, he accepted a plea deal as the only means of guaranteeing his release from Guantánamo, which guaranteed him an eight-year sentence — with one more year to be served in Guantánamo, followed by seven years in Canada.

The Canadian government then dragged its heels on securing Khadr’s release for nearly a year, and, since his return, has continued to demonize him, and to oppose his transfer to a medium-security prison where he can apply for parole. That battle was finally won by Khadr, but he remains the victim of unacceptable lies and distortions by the government.

As a result, it was heartening to see that, on Tuesday, the Ottawa Citizen published an op-ed by Khadr in response to the latest fears about terrorism, entitled, “Misguided security laws take a human toll,” which I am cross-posting below. As well as reflecting on his own case, and its bearing on the current situation, Khadr also mentioned a conference on Wednesday, “Arar +10: National Security and Human Rights a Decade Later,” about which a short report was published in the Ottawa Citizen, providing a brief summary of what took place.

Below is Omar Khadr’s timely op-ed. Please do share it if you find it useful.

Misguided security laws take a human toll
By Omar Khadr, Ottawa Citizen, October 28, 2014

Ten years ago the Canadian government established a judicial inquiry into the case of Maher Arar. That inquiry, over the course of more than two years of ground-breaking work, examined how Canada’s post-Sept. 11 security practices led to serious human rights violations, including torture.

At that same time, 10 years ago and far away from a Canadian hearing room, I was mired in a nightmare of injustice, insidiously linked to national security. I have not yet escaped from that nightmare.

As Canada once again grapples with concerns about terrorism, my experience stands as a cautionary reminder. Security laws and practices that are excessive, misguided or tainted by prejudice can have a devastating human toll.

A conference Wednesday in Ottawa, convened by Amnesty International, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the University of Ottawa, will reflect on these past 10 years of national security and human rights. I will be watching, hoping that an avenue opens to leave my decade of injustice behind.

I was apprehended by US forces during a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002. I was only 15 years old at the time, propelled into the middle of armed conflict I did not understand or want. I was detained first at the notorious US air base at Bagram, Afghanistan; and then I was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay for close to 10 years. I have now been held in Canadian jails for the past two years.

From the very beginning, to this day, I have never been accorded the protection I deserve as a child soldier. And I have been through so many other human rights violations. I was held for years without being charged. I have been tortured and ill-treated. I have suffered through harsh prison conditions. And I went through an unfair trial process that sometimes felt like it would never end.

I am now halfway through serving an eight-year prison sentence imposed by a Guantánamo military commission; a process that has been decried as deeply unfair by UN human rights experts. That sentence is part of a plea deal I accepted in 2010.

Remarkably, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided in my favour on two separate occasions; unanimously both times. Over the years, in fact, I have turned to Canadian courts on many occasions, and they have almost always sided with me. That includes the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Alberta Court of Appeal.

In its second judgement, the Supreme Court found that Canadian officials violated the Charter of Rights when they interrogated me at Guantánamo Bay, knowing that I had been subjected to debilitating sleep deprivation through the notorious ‘frequent flyer’ program. The Court concluded that to interrogate a youth in those circumstances, without legal counsel, “offended the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” That ruling was almost five years ago.

I had assumed that a forceful Supreme Court ruling, coming on top of an earlier Supreme Court win, would guarantee justice. Quite the contrary, it seemed to only unleash more injustice.

Rather than remedy the violation, the government delayed my return from Guantánamo to Canada for a year and aggressively opposed my request not to be held in a maximum security prison. It is appealing a recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision that I should be dealt with as a juvenile under the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

No matter how convincingly and frequently Canadian courts side with me, the government remains determined to deny me my rights.

I will not give up. I have a fundamental right to redress for what I have experienced.

But this isn’t just about me. I want accountability to ensure others will be spared the torment I have been through; and the suffering I continue to endure.

I hope that my experience — of 10 years ago and today — will be kept in mind as the government, Parliament and Canadians weigh new measures designed to boost national security. Canadians cannot settle for the easy rhetoric of affirming that human rights and civil liberties matter. There must be concrete action to ensure that rights are protected in our approach to national security.

National security laws and policies must live up to our national and international human rights obligations. I have come to realize how precious those obligations are.

That is particularly important when it comes to complicity in torture, which is unconditionally banned.

I have also seen how much of a gap there is in Canada when it comes to meaningful oversight of national security activities, to prevent violations.

And I certainly appreciate the importance of there being justice and accountability when violations occur.

I want to trust that the response to last week’s attacks will not once again leave human rights behind. Solid proof of that intention would be for the government to, at a minimum, end and redress the violations I have endured.

The post Omar Khadr Urges Canadian Government To Respect Law While Dealing With National Security Issues – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Canadian federal citizenship ministry on Friday announced that it is suspending visa applications from anyone, who has recently visited Ebola-hit countries.

“Effective immediately, Canadian visa officers have temporarily paused the processing of visa applications from foreign nationals, who have been physically present in a country, designated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as having widespread and intense transmission of the Ebola virus,” the official statement, published on Canadian government’s website, said.

According to the document, the new measures have been introduced to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The current Ebola epidemic, one of the current global security threats, started in southern Guinea in February and later spread to other West African countries, with several Ebola cases, having been reported in Europe and in the United States.

Over 4,900 people have died from the current Ebola outbreak, with more than 13,700 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases of the virus.

The post Canada Bans Travelers From Ebola-Hit Countries appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Tuva Julie Engebrethsen Smith

“We don’t abide by British rule.” “Sharia is the law of God, and should be implemented in the whole world.” “The ‘flag of Sharia’ will eventually fly over Downing Street.” These are statements voiced by the radical preacher, Anjem Choudary, in the UK.

What do Choudary and his supporters seek?

Anjem Choudary, a 47 year-old British Muslim of Pakistani descent born in England, is a former lawyer and founding member of proscribed Islamist groups like al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. These groups were banned based on government evidence of them operating as terrorist organisations with links to al Qaeda. According to Hope Not Hate, Choudary represents “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”

His support base is prominent. According to a recent poll by ICM Research, 40 per cent of 500 Muslim families that were surveyed expressed support for the establishment of strict Sharia laws in the UK. Policy Exchange reveals that one-third of the domestic Muslim youth would happily succumb to Sharia. According to Henry Jackson Society, 18 per cent of people linked to acts of terror have had associations with Choudary´s banned organisations. Hope Not Hate reveals that 200-300 supporters from Choudary’s European network have left to fight in Syria. His guidance has resulted in an indoctrination of vulnerable youth who have devoted themselves to terrorism in the UK and abroad.

The shared views of Choudary and sections of the British Muslim population who are his supporters have been well documented by the media. However, whether these supporters extend solidarity to Choudary because they genuinely believe in him or whether it is because of the cause he represents, is unclear. Jihad is considered a just war, and like Choudary, his supporters believe that the IS will surface as the winning power. They may not directly believe in Choudary as a person, but they seek the same end: a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

If Sharia offers such an exceptional way of living, why is Choudary still living in Britain? When confronted with whether he should leave Britain, Choudary says, “Why should I? I was born here.” It is this supposedly oppressive apartheid system that, according to Choudary, impedes him from leaving: apparently if he decides to go, he will be arrested and his passport confiscated. “Muslims are imprisoned over here. We can’t travel abroad,” says Choudary. How then does he travel to Spain and France for Islamic conferences?

Choudary cheers for Muslims to quit their jobs and request unemployment benefits. He despises the country he lives in, but contentedly receives welfare benefits provided by the state. UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 categorises terrorism as the use of threat to intimidate or influence the government, organisations or the public with “the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.” Choudary somehow seems to stay on the right side of law. On occasions where he has been linked to convicted terrorists like Habib Ahmed (convicted for membership with al-Aqeda), Choudary has proclaimed that these people left his groups prior to the conviction, and he cannot therefore be held responsible for their actions. Thus, as a former lawyer, Choudary probably knows his way around British law so as to avoid prosecution for his provocative views on race relations and religion. However, there have been debates on whether his hate speeches should be met with resistance by law enforcement officers.

In 2010, the Terrorism Act led to the banning of Islam4UK, based on accusation of the group’s controversial statements about the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings. Choudary openly condemned the act, saying, “We are now being targeted as an extremist or terrorist organisation and even banned for merely expressing that. I feel this is a failure of the concept of democracy and freedom.” On the contrary, Choudary said in an interview with Iranian Press TV: “As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights.” However, it is this democracy that allows Choudary to use his freedom of speech and make controversial statements.

On 25 September, Choudary and eight other radicals were arrested in an anti-terror raid, based on the accusation of their support for banned organisations and for encouraging terrorism. However, Choudary was later released on bail. According to Choudary, the arrest was nothing more than a politically motivated move for the government to gain votes on Iraqi airstrikes, and went as far as to say that this bloody war will eventually “manifest itself on the streets of London.” In a multicultural society like Britain, views similar to Choudary’s have proved difficult to silence. An interesting question to ask is: if Britain were to adopt Sharia, how would people like Choudary react to hate speech against its state, and would the same rights to protest that radical Muslims enjoy today be granted in such a state?

Tuva Julie Engebrethsen Smith
Research Intern, IPCS
Email: tuva.engebrethsen@gmail.com

The post ‘Britain Belongs To Allah': Anjem Choudary And His Supporters – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Harun Yahya

Incompatibilities in any human relationship — be it on an individual level or group/national level — lead to splits. When love departs, so does the desire to live together. This applies to all unions, not just to marriage. When love departs and severe incompatibility sets in, people begin to leave countries, and countries begin to leave unions or alliances.

The Scottish referendum may have come and passed but it has left indelible impressions on the collective psyche of a nation, impact of which would be felt for a long time to come. On ground, Scotland may not have left the United Kingdom (UK) but the thought of separation drives a wedge between people and the feelings of compassion and nationhood are affected.

These feelings of intense incompatibility are not only prevalent in the UK but also among the member states of the European Union (EU). Observers may recall how countries like Germany and France began considering certain other EU countries as the so-called weak links in the euro zone. Southern Europe wished to become a single entity within itself and various methods were employed to isolate the “burden” on the EU-Greece and Southern Cyprus.

The outcome of the recent elections of the European Parliament is a testimony to the growing incompatibility within the EU. The elections saw the emergence of some left-leaning and racist political elements with strong anti-migrants sentiments and almost no empathy for those so-called weak links. The election results have exposed the weakening of bonds within the EU.

The results were followed by some major events within the region. The Scottish referendum encouraged various others. Catalonia in Spain, the Flemings in Belgium, Wales in the United Kingdom, Corsica in France and Sicily and Sardinia in Italy all followed the fashion for independence. Although “independence” is a familiar political term, it means breaking away from a country. The feelings of separation only rise to fill the vacuum left by the feelings of brotherhood and compassion.

One of the main reasons for this phenomenon in various countries and particularly among the Europeans is undoubtedly the pursuit of selfish interests at the expense of unity and brotherhood. Countries with high incomes such as Germany, France and Holland are adopting a new policy of Franco-German domination and literally regarding countries of the union in economic crisis as a burden.

However, the desire for taking undue advantage of the situation has also struck EU countries with strong economies. That is why The Economist has described the economy of Europe as exceedingly sick in its latest issue.

According to this assessment, while some people concentrate on stagnation in the Japanese and Chinese economies, the real stagnation is taking place in the euro zone. Germany’s growth is slowing down, prices are falling in eight European countries, the region has entered stagnation three times in the last six years and the level of youth unemployment in Italy and Spain is more than 40 percent.

Since the article in the magazine examined concerned the economic aspects of the issue, radical measures such as buying bonds from the Central Bank and stepping up infrastructure spending were suggested. However, it is a known fact that crises increase in times of uncertainty. During such times, neither individuals nor investors wish to spend or invest. They just cling onto the money they have.

Money is hidden away because of the crisis, and the crisis just gets worse. The euro zone is being increasingly dragged into a climate of uncertainty. West Africa has ceased being a commercial zone for Europe because of the threat of Ebola, relations with Russia have been gravely damaged because of the Ukraine crisis and the flow of oil and natural gas from key areas of the Middle East has ceased.

While all this is going on, European countries have directed their greatest spending toward arms in the framework of the coalition against the ISIL. The cost of a single air operation is $4.5-$9 million, and that of launching a single tomahawk missile is $1 million. Some people may regard stimulation of the arms sector as a pathway to profit. However, changing balances across the world and unexpected disasters have created a dismal situation. Even powerful countries are falling apart.

In the face of this situation, what Europe really needs to be fighting is lovelessness. The self-interest engendered by race, pedigree, country, and national egoism has to a large extent done away with love. As a result, strong countries that should be in charge of the balances in the world have become unable to find solutions to its problems. The way they resort to arms instead of education against radical organizations, their delays in taking measures against epidemics such as Ebola, saying, “This is none of our concern,” and the way they sit back and watch the refugee crisis unfold are some of the greatest manifestations of this. Europe’s problem is not linked to the sale and purchase of bonds and shares, but solely to the growing lovelessness.

The European Union is highly valuable in terms of being a modern and democratic union containing many countries. This union must grow and become stronger and should act like an elder brother providing solutions, not just to its own problems, but also to the issues facing the entire world. We don’t wish to see economies of the European countries suffer. No country can grow strong at the cost of the collapse or destruction of another. Everyone must grow strong together. The purpose of writing this article is, therefore, to draw attention to the real cause and to suggest an appropriate solution.

It should not be forgotten that when people are unhappy, countries always go through uncertain times, from their democracies to their economies. Those troubles can only be brought to an end by making the people happy. Yet if people are constantly wishing to break away from their own fellow citizens, there must be something triggering that lovelessness. Countries have an obligation to seek the cause of that lovelessness among their own people in their own policies, in their own education systems and in their attitudes to other countries. A policy that seeks to solve violence through violence, that encourages the ruthless and entirely materialist mentality of “the strong crushing the weak” in its education system and that sees nothing wrong in encouraging racial and national egoism inevitably sows the seeds of hatred in its people. A nation that hates will hide its money away, turn its back on the poor and always want to break itself up. It should not be forgotten that the economy of a country is a manifestation of the mental state of its society or people. The problem facing the euro zone is therefore not an economic one, but one of its people’s mental state.

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

The post Euro Zone: What Exactly Went Wrong? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The ruling dogma of our political economy is corporatism. Corporatism claims to draw legitimacy from the free market theory that all vendors who do not meet market demands will go under. Corporatism uses this illusion to exert power over all aspects of our political economy.

Free markets, corporatists believe, are the best mechanism to allocate resources for the exchange of goods and services. They believe markets free of regulation, taxation or competition from government enterprises produce the best results. Their favorite metaphor is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people by the exertions of many willing sellers and many willing buyers (Adam Smith, they neglected to add, favored public works, public education and social safety nets like decent wages and public welfare as needed.)

Many things intrude on free market theories including military expenditures, wars, taxation, public infrastructure, health and safety regulation and governments’ emergency duties. What financier George Soros has called “market fundamentalism,” is opposed to any interference with free markets. Yet, corporatism makes massive exceptions that rig markets and tilt the seller-buyer balance heavily in favor of the former who become bigger and bigger global corporations.

Market critics call this hypocrisy. Corporations push for larger military budgets, which have concentrated power in ever fewer military contractors. What are less recognized and more part of the culture of acceptance are the other interferences with free markets, which corporate power has entrenched so deeply that they are rarely part of any political or election-time debate.

Let this point be made in the form of questions rarely asked and therefore rarely answered.

Can there be a free market without freedom of contract? Corporatism has stripped consumers of freedom of contract with fine-print standard-form contracts that become more dictatorial every decade. They now often take away consumers rights to go to court for their grievances via compulsory arbitration clauses. They stipulate that the vendors can change the contract anyway they want – called unilateral modification – which takes away the last vestiges of consumer bargaining power. An example is the unilateral changes in what you have to pay in penalties, late fees or any hundreds of fees hidden in the fine print. And you can’t shop around because companies don’t compete over the fine print. (See faircontracts.org.)

Can there be a free market if workers cannot join together to bargain with large employers whose investors have expanding freedom to form companies, holding companies, subsidiaries, joint ventures and partnerships to advance their bargaining power? Moreover, in comparison with the freedom of investors, workers are besieged with union-busting intimidations, lockouts and a system of corporate-driven labor laws that present far more obstacles to go through than is the case with the labor laws of other Western nations.

Can there be a free market without strong and comprehensive anti-monopoly, anti-cartel and other laws against the myriad of anti-competitive practices that Adam Smith alluded to back in 1776 when he warned of the motives when businessmen gather together?

Today, the antitrust laws are weak, dated and little enforced with puny budgets.

For example, thousands of joint ventures between direct competitors are being formed without concern of the moribund antitrust police. There is globalization of businesses without globalization of law enforcement. Big companies can leverage the differences between nations in a race to the bottom to unfairly gain market power against buyers, workers and small businesses.

Can there be a free market without a free market of retaining lawyers to pursue wrongful injuries and fraud by both direct negotiation with the perpetrators or resorting to open, public courts? In our country, such private disputes are not socialized by government. They are given over to a market system of legal and other supplementary services. Yet corporatism strives strongly to block or limit, through captive legislators, access to the courts or tie the hands of judges and juries, the only people who see, hear and evaluate the evidence in each case.

Can there be a free market when corporatists produce crony capitalism or torrents of corporate welfare tax escapes, subsidies, handouts and bailouts that rig markets against other smaller businesses that are playing by the rules of the market?

Can there be a free market when corporate-managed trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), subordinate civic efforts to secure better labor, environmental and consumer treatments to the supremacy of commercial trade? (See http://www.citizen.org/trade/.)

Finally, can there be a free market when the banks fund and control the powerful, secretive Federal Reserve that tightly regulates interest rates and can buy trillions of dollars in bonds (aka quantitative easing – QE) to juice the stock markets and the banks, while tens of millions of savers receive less than half of one percent in interest on their savings? Libertarians, to their credit, have noted this abuse by this corporate government more clearly than have many liberals.

There are other corporate controls against the free market, such as politically extending already lengthy patent monopolies to ward off competition by, for instance, generic drug producers.

Suffice it to say that the American people have enough evidence to abandon the ideological hypocrisy that corporatism uses to control them.

Corporatism, in reality, is the corporate state – a tyranny, greased by big money in elections – never envisioned by the framers of our Constitution when they started its preamble with “We the People.”

Wake up call, anyone? (See citizen.org for more information.)

The post Corporate Destruction Of Free Markets Rules Us – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

In this week’s address, the President highlighted the progress our economy is making, and the commonsense policies that could make it even stronger by ensuring that everyone who works hard has the opportunity to get ahead, especially women and working families. This commitment has been a core part of the President’s Year of Action and a priority since the start of his administration, which is why he has put forth a range of policies that would help women and working families get ahead, from raising the minimum wage, to ensuring equal pay for equal work, to increasing access to high-quality child care and paid family leave. This week’s address follows remarks the President delivered on Friday at Rhode Island College, where he discussed the importance of harnessing our economy’s momentum by making policy choices that will help women and all working parents fully participate in and contribute to our economy.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 1, 2014

Hi, everybody. On Friday, I had a discussion with working women in Rhode Island about the economic challenges they face in their own lives — challenges shared by many of you.

Thanks to the work we’ve all put in, our economy has come a long way these past six years. Over the past 55 months, our businesses have added 10.3 million new jobs. For the first time in six years, the unemployment rate is below 6 percent. And on Thursday, we learned that over the past six months, our economy has grown at its fastest pace since 2003.

But the gains of a growing economy aren’t yet felt by everyone. So we’ve got to harness this momentum, and make the right choices so that everyone who works hard can get ahead.

In recent weeks, I’ve talked about these choices, from raising the minimum wage to creating new jobs in construction and manufacturing. Today, I want to focus on what I discussed with those women — the choices we need to make to help more women get ahead in today’s economy.

Right now, women make up almost half of our workers. More women are their family’s main breadwinner than ever before. So the simple truth is, when women succeed, America succeeds. And we should be choosing policies that benefit women — because that benefits all of us.

Women deserve fair pay. Even though it’s 2014, there are women still earning less than men for doing the same work. We don’t have second-class citizens in this country — we shouldn’t in the workplace, either. So let’s make sure women earn equal pay for equal work, and have a fair shot at success.

Women deserve to be able to take time off to care for a new baby, an ailing parent, or take a sick day for themselves without running into hardship. So let’s make sure all Americans have access to paid family leave.

Pregnant workers deserve to be treated fairly. Even today, women can be fired for taking too many bathroom breaks, or forced on unpaid leave just for being pregnant. That’s wrong — and we have to choose policies that ensure pregnant workers are treated with dignity and respect.

New parents deserve quality, affordable childcare. There’s nothing like the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your kids are safe while you’re at work. And the benefits that children get out of early enrichment can pay off for a lifetime. But in many states, sending your kid to daycare costs more than sending them to a public university. So let’s start demanding Pre-K for our kids.

And when most low-wage workers are women, but Congress hasn’t passed a minimum wage increase in seven years, it’s long past time that women deserve a raise. About 28 million workers would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to ten dollars and ten cents an hour. And more than half of those workers are women. The local businesses where these workers spend their money would benefit, too. So let’s do this — let’s give America a raise.

All of these policies are common sense. All of them are within our reach. We’ve just got to speak up and choose them. Because they’ll build a stronger America for all of us.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

The post Obama: It’s Time To Help Women And Working Families – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Israel is looking to build on the success of its Iron Dome, used during the Gaza War this summer, by creating a maritime version. The developers say it boasts a 360-degree range and can fire a missile every second.

The architect of the new program, Rafael, an Israeli state owned defense contractor, is looking to find buyers for its new sea-based missile system. They believe it could be especially effective in trying to defend and protect economic assets at sea, such as oil and gas platforms.

The C-Dome was unveiled at this week’s Euronaval conference in Le Bourget.

The maritime system uses similar technology to the land version. The trajectory of an incoming missile is recognized and a counter missile is launched to intercept it. The makers of the defense program say that their new system, ‘C-Dome’, can fire a missile per second, and cover a 360-degree range.

“C-dome offers something that is not out there (in the market) yet … A small footprint and the capability to engage multiple targets and saturation threats. And it’s based on the only system in the world that has more than 1,000 intercepts,” said program director Ari Sacher, as reported by AP. “We can protect the ship from every direction at the same time. Most systems out there can’t do that.”

Another advantage of the ‘C-Dome’ missile defense system is its size. About as large as a coffee table, it can be housed in a variety of locations and is also adaptable for a number of different vessels. Smaller boats could be used to defend oil rigs, and their size would give them much greater maneuverability, while also ensuring the structural integrity of the platform would not be put at risk.

Just like the Iron Dome, which managed to shoot down 735 rockets fired by Hamas during the Gaza War this summer, with more than an 85-percent success rate, the ‘C-Dome’ will use the same Tamir rockets. However, the company has not specified how many missiles the system can carry, though they did say it would depend on buyers’ requests.

At sea, “C-Dome’ can intercept “anything above the water,” including guided weapons, Sachar said. The threat faced by the missiles fired by Palestine was relatively straight forward, as the weapons lacked any guidance features. However, the challenge at sea is likely to include much more advanced technology. The designers of the system say that missiles can piggyback onto a vessel’s radar systems, with heat-tracking missiles that can intercept multiple targets at once.

One maritime expert was quick to play down just how effective the new sea-based missile defense program could be.

“I don’t think you would want to overcook this as ‘Iron Dome for naval vessels’,” said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East and Africa editor at IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly, as reported by AP. However, he did say that the ability to defend oil and gas platforms with missile defense systems would be an important development, if the technology works.

The new system has been developed to protect maritime interests rather than counter possible threats of Palestinian missiles being fired towards the sea.

“The most strategic sites for the future right now will be gas platforms and oil platforms,” said reserve Israeli Navy Captain Meir. “You have to secure them from missiles from terror organizations, from mother boats, from enemy countries, from drones — or any other aerial threat,” said Meir, who declined to give his surname for security reasons.

The post Israel Develops Maritime ‘Iron Dome’ Missile Defense System appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Does this country really have a bright future?

“In this way, thanks to a skillful sovereignty and internal against–sovereignty policies (Dayton kind) BiH Parliament have made a full circle, and in the tenth year of the post-conflict existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and returned to the “crime scene” in its pre-war status as an essential expression of the geopolitics of violence. What is today’s BiH Parliament rather than the place where the absence of violence (strategic obstructions) announces some presence … presence of violence through a noticeable absence means the “metaphysical work” of old, conventional, territorial geopolitics, but now as a post-modern geopolitics in pre-sovereignty or post-sovereignty (depending on the point of study and analysis) structure of the Bosnian political system.” Nerzuk Ćurak: “Restoration of the Bosnian utopia,” (p. 29 Publisher_Synopsis, Sarajevo 2006).

Honesty is a virtue of the brave, but of the fools as well.

Really, until when we will cry out for:

1.  A Society that acts for morality!
2.  A Country which aims towards admiration!
3.  A People who are heading towards a common ground!

The elections are behind us. Four years of new hopes lay in front of us. Imagine – 2018! A war which was over in 1995. (Is it?!). This year also (four, please do not forget) will pass by us like the previous nineteen. No way out for Bosniaks (Muslims) and for Serbs and for Croats, but also, for the others as well.

The prospects of a new vision for the conservation of Bosnia (and Herzegovina) within one common denominator — society ratio — is impossible. As long as we do not have the critical mass (and for a long time it will not be) those persons, citizens, and people who are thinking towards the formulation of a common goal — a different country — the country of overall assuredly reflection. Yes, but how to do it when the guilt in this area always is on another and someone else. Are they really ‘the other’ and different ones? Don’t we have a common pre-history, history and also aspire for a communion in the post-history (for the last one I’m not so sure).

Anyway, as was said by my friend from student days, Prof. Dr. Nerzuk Ćurak:

“The paradox is complete: Defender of Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereignty still comes from outside (international factor) and against-sovereignty forces exist within a “glass sovereignty”, with latent ambition to break it into the pieces.” (Ibid, page 33).

I wonder if the breaking has already begun. And the ELEPHANT (?!) is so pleased to enter into the small store of secrets through a back door. And breaks, and breaks, our beloved country.

But where are they – our professed politicians. As Nerzuk said:

“Most of them work; most of them generated their political activities in a way that represents them as political entities of disappeared country. And in the executive and in the legislative branch of government what combines them is Evil, whether it comes to unbridled confidence of Bosnian (Muslim) nationalists that they are historically right and why this has to become an issue, whether it comes hyper-national destruction of intuitive Bosnia of primordial, modern and post-modern neo-conservative Serbianism or HDZ/CDU (Croatian political party- Croatian Democratic Union) kleptocratic integral Croatianism without still found entity, homeland or something third. Politics as a refuge of scoundrels, as the truth lie of political being. “(Ibid, p. 74).

Then he continues:

“Bosnia is one of those spaces of the World seeking for real idea and real projects as one of the ways that drivers of the hate (Encesberger, 1999), which are mainly shepherd intellectuals, disable.”

White Button (“Bijelo Dugme“ — a popular rock’n’roll band in former Yugoslavia back in 70’s and 80’s of XX Century) surged at the end of the seventies of the previous century playing something that was called shepherd’s rock’n’roll, as one of the new age forms of musical expression. They were popular but they always reawakened a dose of restraint in me, probably because of simplicity (really big one) of the present content (and plagiarism, am I right?).

How to conclude this tirade for a disappearing country? Perhaps by writing about us outsiders, conditional authorities of the written word, as Mr. Ćurak mentioned. But I have questions not only for myself, fellow Ph.D. colleagues and others that are trying to wake up the sleeping consciousness of the citizen Bosniacum. Do we have the strength to do so, my dear friends? A deep dream that has been established/emerged and awakening from it has to be drastically different. But how? And is it too late?

Or, like DUBIOZA KOLEKTIV just on 22.9.2014 sang “No escape from Balkan“. Who will switch and or turn on the light?

The post Bosnia And Herzegovina And XXI Century: No Way Out! – Essay appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An Egyptian court jailed eight men for three years over a video of what prosecutors claimed was of a gay wedding.

The video, which went viral on the internet, showed footage of a “gay marriage” ceremony aboard a Nile River boat. Two men are seen in the center kissing, exchanging rings, and cutting a cake with their picture on it.

Homosexuality is not banned under Egyptian law. The eight men, arrested in September, were charged with debauchery and offending public morality.

Despite the men testing “negative” for controversial medical exams designed to test for homosexuality, the men were sent to trial. New York-based rights watchdog, Human Rights Watch, condemned the tests and the treatment of the eight men, urging Egypt to release the men.

The post Egyptian Court Sentences 8 Men To Jail For 3 Years Over ‘Gay Marriage’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

At least 24 people died Saturday in bombings in Iraq’s capital Baghdad.

“Bombings in the Baghdad area killed at least 24 people Saturday, just days ahead of major Shiite religious commemorations that face significant danger from militants,” Agence France-Presse has reported, citing local security and medical officials.

Earlier on Saturday, the United Nations mission in Baghdad published a statement, saying that more than 1,200 people have died in Iraq in October as a result of the violence. Baghdad has become the number one city with the worst security situation.

According to UN estimates, in Baghdad alone 379 civilians died in October.

The post Death Toll Of Baghdad Bombings Exceed 20: Local Officials appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Spanish state adviser has backed a veto of a watered-down Catalan “consultation” on independence, making it likely the government will try and have the so-called consultation of citizens blocked by the courts, Euronews reads.

Spain’s Council of State unanimously decided the government should ask the Constitutional Court to declare the vote illegal, according to a spokeswoman for the consultative body said.

Mariano Rajoy, Spanish Prime Minister, said: “We have witnessed, well I don’t know what to call it, the intention to celebrate something akin to, I’m not sure if it even has a name, to a pseudo-consultation which has not been called for, as you all know, which does not fulfil any democratic conditions and everyone knows it does not fulfil them because it does not make any sense, is not supported legally, and is not backed by a body to oversee its neutrality.”

As Catalonia’s push for independence goes on, many pro-independence politicians say they will ignore any new ruling against the consultation.

“Let’s disobey,” suggested David Fernandez from the left wing pro-independence party CUP.

“The dilemma now is to obey or to disobey, and if we want to be respected as a community, as a society, we have no choice but to go to the polls,” continued Fernandez.

Tensions are simmering ahead of the consultation scheduled for November 9.
It’s not clear how Madrid would enforce a block if Catalan leaders decided to press ahead regardless.
Polls show around half of Catalans want more independence from Spain. A vast majority favour a vote on their future.

The post Spain’s Advisor Supports Veto On Catalan Vote appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aparupa Bhattacherjee

The International Crisis Group (ICG) published a comprehensive report on the ongoing ethno-political and communal violence in the Rakhine state of Myanmar in October 2014, titled, “Myanmar: The Politics of Rakhine State.”

There are four specific issues that the report has highlighted that ask for a more detailed discussion.

Buddhist Suspicions: Towards the Government or Domestic Muslims?

The report states that the Rakhines were initially suspicious of the centre due to their geographical and political isolation. However this fear and suspicion against Naypyidaw has slowly been re-directed towards the significant number of Muslims in Rakhine state. In order to substantiate its argument, four points are highlighted as the reasons for this shift.

The high birth rate among the Muslims, fear of Muslims forming an autonomous region, perception of economic deprivation among the Buddhists, and the distinctive socio-cultural divide between the religious communities further enlarges the rift. However these factors fail to explain the reason for the shift in fear and suspicion that was initially towards the centre and is currently aimed at Muslims within the state.

However, these reasons are debatable. The high birth rate among the Rakhine Muslims is surely not a new phenomenon – the increasing number of migrations could instead be one of the reasons for the increasing number of Muslims in the state. The point on economic deprivation could be questioned because Muslims dominance in small trades both in Rakhine state and other parts of Myanmar is not new. Even historically most of the Muslims who settled in Myanmar were traders. Furthermore as mentioned by the report most of the bigger trade is controlled by cronies and ex-military leaders. Why then is anger not directed towards the government instead of the Muslim community – after all, the government is the real cause for the state’s poverty and economic underdevelopment.

Socio-Economic Changes

The report talks about a new socio-political backdrop that is helping the rift to thrive. However the report seems to have overlooked other changes that also play significant roles in aggravating the rift between the two communities to an unprecedented level of violence. The partial withdrawal of censorship on the media on 2011 is one reason. The media has become an avenue for the propagation of both negative and positive sentiments in society. Also, the National League of Democracy’s (NLD) sweeping victory in both 1990 and 2010 has led those in the opposition to attempt to widen the rift for their own political gains. Thus the centre’s change of heart towards the Rakhines, especially the Buddhists, who are not only in the majority but are also a bigger vote bank. In this new game, the political elite have allied with the Rakhine Buddhists while politically marginalising the Muslims.

Muslim Disenfranchisement?

The word Rohingya, as stated in the report, is more than an identity for the northern Rakhine Muslims. Most ‘Rohingya’ Muslims insist on this identification because they hope that if recognised as an indigenous group, it would allow them to be eligible for full citizenship. Full citizenship will enable them to attain all basic freedoms including enfranchisement. However the report has contradicted its own argument by stating that full citizenship may not necessarily entitle a person full freedom. It also provides the example of the Kaman Muslims, who although eligible for full citizenship face the same discrimination as the Rohingya Muslims only due on the basis of their religion.

Is there a Way Forward?

Although the report analyses whether international Islamic radicalisation will have an impact on the Rohingya, it does not look at the growth and impact of radical Buddhism on the Rakhine Buddhists. This could have been explored further in the section titled “The Way Forward.” The report talks about how the problem requires a political solution and must therefore be dealt with in a holistic manner, rather than a narrow focus like the “Rakhine State Action Plan.” Along with this political solution, civil society initiatives are also very important, since both political and social factors have come together to result in the present tensions.

Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Research Officer, SEARP, IPCS
Email: aparupa@ipcs.org

The post Myanmar: Violence In Rakhine State And Way Forward – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Thanks to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s extremism—total subservience to the US and Israel Middle East agenda—Canada now has a thriving Muslim-based extremism. This is a truly frightening development, and the situation will only get worse. The apocalypse will surely come, all Jews will ‘make aliyah’ to Israel, and all evangelical Christians will go to heaven. Hallelujah.

Last week’s hit-and-run killing of a Canadian soldier in a Quebec town by Martin Couture-Rouleau, and the shooting death of the War Memorial guard on Parliament Hill in Ottawa by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, were the worst incidents of terrorism since 1989, when 14 women were shot at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in Canada’s worst mass shooting. Both attackers were recent converts to Islam. Both were among 90 people being tracked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on suspicion of planning to join jihadists in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Both recently had their passports confiscated, forcing them to turn their frustrations against local military targets.
Were Couture-Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau crazies? Perhaps. Both showed signs of mental imbalance in recent months. Were their attacks isolated incidents? Unfortunately, not. Only last month, the first Canadian jihadist death occurred in Syria, a Somali Canadian Mohamud was killed in Syria, fighting for the new ‘caliphate’, one of as many as 70 Canadian jihadists already there. And Zehaf-Bibeau’s actions on Parliament Hill apparently inspired New Yorker Zale Thompson to attack a group of police officers with a hatchet the next day. Thompson was also considered troubled, and a convert to Islam.

When one dares to say the obvious to people, that these deaths would not have occurred without the Conservative Party’s loud pro-Israeli bias and aggressive war agenda targeting Muslim countries during the past eight years, one is attacked as un-Canadian, a sympathizer of terrorism.

Stephen Harper came to power in 2006 and rushed ahead with an aggressive military policy in Afghanistan and then in virtually any Muslim country the US was currently opposed to (Libya, Mali, Syria, Iraq). The Canadian military has been turned into a plaything of US imperial strategists, occupying Afghanistan and now going back into Iraq with the sole purpose of bombing and killing Iraqis. Yes, some of them are no doubt IS supporters, but who can tell from 5,000 feet?

El-Farouk Khaki, head of the secularist Muslim Canadian Congress, warned shortly after Harper came to power, “Canadians need to wake up and realize the recipe offered by George Bush and Tony Blair, and now being adopted by Stephen Harper, has only led to an increase in terrorism fueled by the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Why is this so difficult to understand? People who empathize with those killed by Canadian bombs and bullets inevitably will consider attacking the military responsible for that violence. To give them their due, Couture-Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were not targeting civilians. Even the latter’s 20 scattered shots in the parliament building were directed against the politicians responsible for sending the soldiers to Iraq.

Canada did not experience Muslim-inspired violence prior to 9/11. Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to send troops to Iraq in 2003 (though he sent them to Afghanistan). In 2006, Canadian counter-terrorism forces arrested the “Toronto 18”, a group of youths inspired by al-Qaeda, intending to explode a truck-bomb. (The group was infiltrated and monitored by police agents). Harper had just been elected, and despite the shoddy evidence, the misguided teens were sentenced and the trial set the stage for his rule. Harper sent ever more troops to a failing occupation of Afghanistan, and welcoming Canada’s first Israeli military attache, the fruit of the Canadian-Israeli public security cooperation “partnership” which he signed in 2008, now sending bombers and troops to Iraq.

Canada’s image as conciliator on the world stage disappeared almost overnight. Particularly embarrassing was the refusal of UN Security Council members to appoint Canada in 2010 to a temporary seat. Harper’s pro-Israeli bias culminated in a parliamentary junket to Israel in January 2014 composed of 208 Canadians including Harper, 21 rabbis, a handful of evangelical Christians and Jewish Defense League Canada official Julius Suraski. (The FIB labeled the JDL “violent extremist” in 2000.) He has no shame, as confirmed in his loud support for the Israeli invasions of Gaza in 2009 and 2014.

There are lonely, sane voices in Canada. One is Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who stated recently: “The 2003 Iraq war was waged on false pretences and flawed intelligence. It was a mission that destabilized the region, sowed further conflict, cost our allies $3 trillion, and cost thousands of people their lives. The world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake.” Before the attacks, he criticized Harper’s latest foreign policy fiasco-in-the-making: “Once again [Harper] relied on rhetoric rather than facts and information. He has no plan, he has not justified his case for going to war in Iraq.” Of course, Trudeau is vilified in the rightwing press.

The Canadian Pease Alliance went ahead with already planned demonstrations. In defiance of the attacks and inevitable surge of support “for our troops”, major protests were coordinated across Canada October 25–26 in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver: “No to US and Canadian Troops in Iraq and Bombing of Iraq and Syria!” No one questions the tragedy of the deaths of the two soldiers last week, but rather the tragedy of why they and hundreds of other Canadian troops have died so senselessly.

What would be a more sensible policy for the Canadian government in dealing with the seemingly unending cycle of violence?

Airstrikes against IS militants (and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity) do nothing to address the root causes that gave birth to IS. Instead of flooding the region with arms (as at present), world leaders need to cut off funding sources and all arms supplies. Most important, Canada and the West must invest massively in humanitarian and development aid. The UN has registered over three million Syrian refugees in neighboring countries, and over nine million Syrians in need within the country.

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) insists there are alternatives to either ‘doing nothing’ or plunging Canada into new military initiatives in the Middle East, but they require courage and intelligence. It is vital to talk to all parties, to recognize popular groups in the region, and encourage moderate voices. Popular resistance movements like Hizbullah and Hamas are fundamentally different than a group like IS, and hold the key to ending the lure of extremist groups like IS and al-Qaeda. Most important is to cut the umbilical cord with Israel.

The situation reminds us of earlier acts of political violence and their consequences. Malcolm X tried to “wake up” Americans after the assassination of President Kennedy when he called it a case of “chickens coming home to roost,” a result of a “climate of hate” fostered by a violent US regularly overthrowing governments and assassinating progressive leaders.

A longer version of this appeared at Al-Ahram Weekly

The post Harpers’ Chickens Come Home To Roost – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Öznur Keleş

The Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) in collaboration with the Ministry of Customs and Trade announced Turkey’s September foreign trade statistics on October 31st, 2014.

The foreign trade deficit in September 2014 fell from $7,560 million in the same year of 2013 to $6,925 million, a figure that is lower than expected. According to Anadolu Agency’s “Foreign Trade Expectation Survey”, which was contributed to by 13 economists, Turkey’s September foreign trade deficit was expected to be at the level of $7.4 billion. The highest forecast for this rate was $7.8 billion, while the lowest stood at $5.8 billion.

Thus, the ratio of exports to imports, the amount of import goods an economy can purchase per unit of export goods, rose this month to 66.4% from 63.3% year-on-year.

Turkey’s exports in September of 2014 amounted to $13,660 million—an increase of 4.6% compared to the same month of 2013. Imports showed a decrease of 0.2%, amounting to $20,585 million.
According to the series adjusted for seasonal and calendar effects, in September 2014, exports increased by 4.8% and imports decreased by 1%, month on month.

The European Union’s share in Turkey’s exports rose to 43.9% from 42.9% in the same month of 2013. Imports from the EU to Turkey amounted to $6.2 billion with an increase of 7.2% year-on-year.
Turkey’s main export partners were once again Germany, the UK, Iraq and the U.S. Turkey’s exports to Germany in September 2014 amounted to $1,321 million, while the others saw export volumes of $921 million, $911 million and $602 million, respectively.

The main import partner was China, with an import volume of $2,318 million, followed by Russia ($2,025 million), Germany ($1,859 million) and the U.S. ($1,071 million).

In September 2014, the share of high-tech exports was 3.4%, while the share of medium-high-tech exports was 32%. Also, the share of high-tech imports was 14% and the share of medium-high-tech imports was 41%.

Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci said that the trade deficit will fall further with the decrease in energy prices. He also added that he was pleased to see such a shrinking foreign trade deficit.

On the other hand, yesterday, Turkey’s Central Bank Governor Erdem Başçı released a new inflation forecast for the end of 2014. According to the report, inflation is expected to be around 8.9% at the end of 2014; this is an upwards revision from the mid-point forecast of 7.6% that was reported in July.

The post Turkey’s Foreign Trade Deficit In September Lower Than Expected appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dalga Khatinoglu

Iran and world powers will hold the next round of nuclear negotiations on Nov.18, a week before expiring interim nuclear deal.

The spokesperson of Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Michael Mann wrote on his Twitter that additional meetings in E3+3 framework to be scheduled before November 18.

E 3+3, or P5+1 implies six world powers including the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China plus Germany who has been carrying out nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Mann announced that E3+3, led by Ashton, will meet Iranian counterparts, led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in Vienna on Nov.18.

Iran and the P5+1 group achieved an interim nuclear accord on November 24, 2013, which came on force in Jan.20 for six months. The sides expanded the interim accord for four months in July to Nov.24 due to lacking agreement on the comprehensive nuclear deal.

Before Nov.18 meeting, Iran’s Foreign Minister, US Secretary of State John Kerry and outgoing EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton will hold trilateral meeting on November 9-10 in Oman.

According to interim nuclear accord, Iran imposed some restrictions over nuclear activities, including activation new centrifuges as well as converting its enriched uranium stockpile to nuclear fuel, instead, the West eased some sanctions on Iran.

The U.S. State Department’s Persian Language Spokesperson Alan Eyre told Trend on Oct. 27 that Iran and P5+1 had reached “significant progress” in the nuclear talks, but there is still “hard work” ahead.

The post Iran, P5+1 To Meet Nov.18 appeared first on Eurasia Review.