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

Kosovo Status: Carpe Diem? – Analysis

0
0

Several important factors provide the context for smart, collective planning and action in the benefit of all the peoples of Kosovo and led by the northern Serbs.

By Gerard M. Gallucci

At a recent meeting in Belgrade between the leaders of Serbia and Albania, the Albanian Prime Minister suggested that the status of Kosovo as an independent country was settled.  Rami noted that “108” countries had recognized it as well as the International Court of Justice.  Leaving aside the fact that the ICJ did not “recognize” Kosovo’s independence but merely said international law is silent on the subject, he is essentially correct.  Kosovo’s fate was sealed when, in 1999, NATO – without UN mandate and therefore illegally – ended the longstanding conflict between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians with two months of bombing and then entered the territory.

Everything since the NATO intervention has been a kind of shadow play.  Under UNSCR 1244, approved after Serbia surrendered, the UN sent a peacekeeping mission to Kosovo to hold the place until the intervening powers formally decided what to do with it.  The Quint (the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy) ignored the elements of 1244 they didn’t like – such as recognizing Serbia’s continued sovereignty over the territory – and in 2008 decided to give Kosovo its independence.  (This occurred outside the ambit of the UN Security Council as the Russians would not go along with the plan).  UNMIK did its holding job as well as possible, given the difficult mandate and lack of unanimity among the Perm Five, and turned things over to the EU.  Unfortunately, the EU has failed in almost every way possible to help the new country onto its feet as a functioning, non-corrupt, multi-ethnic democracy.

Serbs in Kosovo reacted in different ways to the fact that they were now being told they lived in a different state than the one they were born into.  Many left and those that stayed south of the Ibar eventually accommodated themselves to the fact they were surrounded by Albanians and left to their own devices.  (The internationals did nothing when Pristina used force to bully them into submission.)  The Kosovo Serbs in the north resisted and still do despite the evident decision of Serbia’s rulers to abandon them to their fate.

The present government of Serbia has tied its continued existence to EU accession.  The country’s economy is in dire condition and its future depends on gaining EU assistance and eventual membership.  Despite the SNS’ origin as a “nationalist party,” it has already essentially let Kosovo go in order to meet the Brussels/Berlin demand that it move to regularize Belgrade’s relationship with Pristina.  Pristina says it wants full diplomatic recognition from Belgrade in four years and Berlin still refuses to open any chapters on EU accession until Serbia regularizes relations with Kosovo.  Belgrade cannot simply roll over but as long as the Kosovo Albanians don’t launch an outright invasion on the north, any rational Serbian government will do whatever it takes vis-à-vis Kosovo to remain on the EU track to membership.

The question for the northerners remains what it always has been:  what happens to them?  Until it became clear they would receive only minimal help from Belgrade, the leadership in the north was simply rejectionist.  They resisted UN efforts to help work toward a status neutral approach as embodied in the Ahtisaari Plan and wasted opportunities to use the openings offered by UNMIK management to settle some boundary issues in a way that would establish clearer lines between them and the Albanians while also opening up channels to conduct necessary relations in a status neutral way.  During that period, most northern Kosovo Serbs didn’t even bother to read the Ahtisaari Plan.  But recently, signs of a new, younger and more pragmatic leadership have emerged.  They are looking to the continued role of the UN and at models for implementing Ahtisaari provisions along, for example, the South Tyrol model, to provide a safe and secure environment for the Serbs, north and south, remaining in Kosovo.

It remains clear that the fate of Kosovo Serbs remains in their own hands. As NATO and the Quint finally came to recognize, there is no “military solution” to the north.  But Belgrade will eventually recognize Kosovo whether it be in four years or 20.  The relevant elements of the Ahtisaari framework remain and the internationals cannot afford to allow the Albanians any more episodes of outright ethnic cleansing.  Indeed, given the difficulties the Kosovo Albanian leadership is having even forming a government, Kosovo’s Serbs may be able to have outsized political influence by participating fully and playing their cards wisely.  These factors provide the context for smart, collective planning and action in the benefit of all the peoples of Kosovo and led by the northern Serbs. Carpe diem.

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008 and as Chief of Staff for the UN mission in East Timor from November 2008 until June 2010. He was Diplomat-in-Residence at Drake University for the 2013-14 school year and now works as an independent consultant.

This article was originally published by KoSSev – the Kosovo Sever portal, and is available by clicking here

The post Kosovo Status: Carpe Diem? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Spain’s PM Rajoy To Talk With Catalonia Government

0
0

While speaking at the government control session in the Lower House of Parliament, Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy expressed his willingness to enter into dialogue with Artur Mas about the document he submitted recently. Furthermore, he urged the PSOE to present proposals on a reform of the Spanish Constitution instead of slogans.

In response to a question from Pedro Sánchez of the Socialist Party, Mariano Rajoy, stressed that he will “talk with the Regional Government of Catalonia, as I will with any other regional government, about the issues that are of interest to the people” and added that he is “willing to talk” with Artur Mas about the document he submitted recently.

The Prime Minister also listed the other “lines of political action” relating to Catalonia aimed at, first and foremost, “trying to maintain political stability” as a fundamental condition for “consolidating our recovery from the crisis, returning to job creation and recovering a certain degree of well-being for the people of this country”.

Secondly, he added that such mechanisms as the Regional Liquidity Fund (Spanish acronym: FLA) and the Supplier Payment Plan will be maintained, “as they have enabled debt maturities to be tackled and public services and suppliers to the Regional Government of Catalonia to be paid”. Thirdly, he expressed a desire to defend his political position by “reaffirming national sovereignty and the validity of the Spanish Constitution”.

Finally, Rajoy expressed his willingness to “listen to all proposals” from the groups in the Lower House of Parliament, provided they do not relate to “something that may dissolve national sovereignty or that aims to establish a right to self-determination or affects the equality of all Spanish citizens”.

Furthermore, Rajoy urged the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) [Spanish Socialist Workers' Party] to present clear proposals and not just “slogans” on a reform of the Spanish Constitution as “such action is incapable of resolving Spain’s problems or any problem anywhere in Spain”.

The post Spain’s PM Rajoy To Talk With Catalonia Government appeared first on Eurasia Review.

North Korea Threatens Nuclear Test Over UN Vote

0
0

By Shannon Van Sant

North Korea on Thursday threatened to carry out a fresh nuclear test in response to a U.N. committee’s condemnation of Pyongyang’s alleged human rights abuses.

In a statement Thursday, the North’s foreign ministry said Pyongyang will be “unable to refrain any longer” from conducting a fourth nuclear test after the United Nations moved to bring the country before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity earlier this week.

On Thursday China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson urged all parties to return to dialogue and the six party talks.

Hong Lei said differences on human rights issues should be resolved by all countries via dialogue. He said China’s position is to maintain stability on the peninsula and resolve issues through dialogue.

South Korea condemns threat

South Korean foreign ministry spokesman Noh Kwang-il condemned the North Korean threat.

“If North Korea aggravates the situation with nuclear threats towards the international community, it will be considered a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution. We warn North Korea that it will face a firm response,” Noh said.

China voted against the resolution and will likely veto any action to refer North Korea to the ICC. China, a longtime ally of North Korea, returns North Korean refugees who are caught fleeing across their shared border.

Many of these refugees said they are fleeing what the U.N. described in a report earlier this year as “unspeakable atrocities.”

The U.N. has detailed the use of labor camps, torture, rape and abductions by the North Korean government.

North Korea has called these allegations a “political provocation” and said the U.N. resolution was based on “fabricated testimonies” from North Korean defectors.

Thursday, North Korea released a statement on government run television.

The North Korean news reader said hostile U.S. policy toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea compels North Korea to not refrain any longer from conducting a new nuclear test.

The reader said the principal architect of the U.N. resolution and their colleagues will be held wholly responsible for all the consequences of the resolution’s adoption.

Evidence of possible test

Several American research institutes cite evidence that North Korea is preparing for a nuclear test.

In a report Wednesday, the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University said the North appears to be restarting a facility for processing weapons-grade plutonium. The report relied on satellite photos that show steam coming from the Yongbyon plant.

The U.S.-Korea Institute also reported other evidence, including truck activity, near the reactor site.

The Institute for Science and International Security has said satellite imagery shows a reactor shutdown.

The U.N. committee resolution must now be approved by the wider General Assembly. It could then head to the Security Council, where China and Russia hold crucial veto votes.

The two countries have in the past protected the North at the Security Council.

North Korea conducted nuclear bomb tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013. The country last reprocessed spent fuel in 2009 before conducting its second nuclear test.

The post North Korea Threatens Nuclear Test Over UN Vote appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US-Russia And Global Nuclear Security: Under A Frosty Spell? – Analysis

0
0

By Sheel Kant Sharma

It is twenty years since acute concern about unauthorised and malevolent access to sensitive nuclear material and radioactive substances, particularly from successor states to the former Soviet Union, roused the international community in 1994. Nuclear security has since remained at the centre of post-Cold War cooperation between the US and Russia over these past two decades – till that cooperation was given severe body blows by the chill that has set in the relations between Putin’s Russia and the West. While the immediate root of this frosty development lies in Ukraine and Crimea, the President Putin’s Sochi speech last month seemed to lay down a new manifesto for a Cold War redux. The APEC summit in China and the G20 meeting in Australia earlier this month failed to dispel the frost and, on the contrary, hardened it as the Russian president was cold shouldered and treated with concerted tough talk by his Western interlocutors.

Even prior to these summits Russia had put an end to the twenty year process begun by the famous Nunn-Lugar team in the US to salvage nuclear material, technology and installations in Russia and its Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), as Moscow used to describe them. This programme championed by the Nunn-Lugar team has been a success story that now risks being burnt up by the exacerbating diplomatic fracas with Russia. Even someone as committed to the transformation of East-West relations as Gorbachev has voiced fears about a renewed Cold War.

The Nuclear Security Summit process which has been the high point of Barack Obama’s presidency, and supported widely by 59 states, is not spared anymore by an irate Russia which has advised US and all concerned that it would only work for nuclear security within the IAEA framework. Russia announced it would not join the Sherpas’ meetings for the next NSS which is going to be hosted by US in 2016. There has been in addition a whole slew of international initiatives geared to securing nuclear materials, facilities and the enterprise in general from threats of terrorism. In all of these Russia had been an active and willing partner. Since its nuclear enterprise remains vast and as diversified as that of the US it is hard to visualise the future of all those initiatives without a well disposed Russia.

Fear of nuclear terrorism has gone up a few more notches in the past year due to the unmitigated horrors disseminated by the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and its propensity to stop at nothing. Among the elaborate action points deliberated and recommended by the Nuclear Security Summits so far, not all are limited to the IAEA even though its centrality has been progressively underscored. The principal requirement in grappling with threats to nuclear security is the combined unbroken pressure from moral, diplomatic, civil society and legal angles. The existing legal instruments and the Security Council edicts are still in the formative stage of enforcement. Undiminished support and cooperation of all major countries with nuclear materials and technology is the sine qua non. It remains to be seen how Russia will play ball in diverse forums.

There have been critiques of the post-Cold War world order, some of them quite harsh too, but to leverage such critiques to a particular situation of conflict and tension, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This applies to both sides of the tense situation in Ukraine just as it does to the ongoing talks about Iran’s nuclear future. A relapse to a Cold War-like division of the world would benefit no one just as it did not help even during the heady years of the last Cold War. Neither the triumphalism that marked the 1990s nor a panicked reassertion of destructive power as witnessed in recent months can help in stabilising international nuclear diplomacy, be that in regard to non-proliferation or strategic arms reduction or nuclear security. The edifice created over the past two decades in regard to each of these spheres merits preserving.

Absence of negotiated agreements has also presaged a host of sub-legal or voluntary arrangements to fix the problems posed by inadequate controls on nuclear material – these voluntary arrangements ought not to be interrupted in pique or partisan parsimony as in budget cuts in the US Congress on valuable nuclear security programmes. As regards the centrality of the IAEA, that has also been a result of the growing common understanding about a range of voluntary steps that have been generally supported over the past two decades such as peer reviews, advisory services or collation of related data banks or coordination of intelligence and forensics among different organisations.

Prime Minister Modi stated in Canberra this week that we do not “have the luxury to choose who we work with and who we don’t.” This sentiment remains key to strengthening and sustaining a norms-based order to cope with new age threats like nuclear terrorism. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism are two significant examples in this regard. The entry into force of the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material can be a big step forward where cooperation of major players remains crucial.

It is to be hoped that the tough talk possibly conceals quiet diplomacy to restore balance and stability in great power relations and pave the way forward. Until there is progress in that direction a climate of suspicion is unlikely to help global endeavour towards greater nuclear security.

Sheel Kant Sharma
Former Permanent Representative to UN Offices in Vienna & the IAEA

The post US-Russia And Global Nuclear Security: Under A Frosty Spell? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China In Afghanistan: Is The Engagement Really A Win-Win? – Analysis

0
0

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy

On 28 October, Ashraf Ghani, the newly-elected president of Afghanistan, landed in Beijing, making China the destination of his first international visit after assuming office. The timing and the visit are telling. The West has been attempting to convince China to take the lead following the completion of the troop withdrawal. Given how China’s engagement with Afghanistan has not been extraordinary over the past ten years, what does an intensified Kabul-Beijing bilateral mean for both parties?

China’s Engagement with Afghanistan: An Assessment

From 2001-2014, the China-Afghanistan bilateral remained rather lacklustre. Beijing has so far only contributed a measly US$250 million in aid to the country. In fact, Chinese involvement in the reconstruction of the country was minimal until 2011. However, given the sizes of the economies and overlapping geopolitical, internal political and economic plans, among others, China today is an important partner for Afghanistan.

A Win-Win?

The upswing in this bilateral is indeed timely. The recent boost in the Beijing-Kabul bilateral has oft been backed by a win-win narrative, listing three areas as mutual interests. However, will this camaraderie bring about substantial returns for both parties?

Energy: China is a growing economy that is constantly energy-hungry. Despite its forays into Africa, securing energy security in the neighbourhood is also extremely important. Afghanistan is abundant in natural resources such as oil, natural gas, copper, iron ore, and other rare earths. Furthermore, it is in the process of rejuvenating its economy to ensure stability and self-sustenance post the Western troop withdrawal and reduction in foreign aid. A finger in the Afghan energy pie is important for Beijing that, while expanding its energy sources, is simultaneously diversifying them. It already has a stake in Kazakhstan’s Kashagan oil field, and the functional and expanding Central Asia-China natural gas pipeline that passes through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

However, foreign investment in the Afghan energy sector is difficult due to security threats. For his part, Ghani is undertaking what he sees as in the best interest of his country. The new government must not be swayed by the positive turn of events and stay focused on the country’s best interests. Abundance in resources also brings with it the likelihood of a resource curse that has already emerged with the possibility of the destruction of the Mes Aynak archaeological site. Given how Ghani plans to make energy the bulwark of the Afghan economy, he would do well to learn from the African experience of engaging with China, and deploy knowledge from successful resource-rich countries in Europe and Latin America to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure transparency and the avoidance of a resource curse situation.

Security: China’s security concerns vis-à-vis Afghanistan is almost always viewed from the Xinjiang lens. China’s Xinjiang Province shares a small, rugged border with Afghanistan’s Badakshan Province. The bordering Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has seen much unrest, and insurgency by Islamist groups such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) who have links with other Islamist groups in the region have worried China for a long time. However, the border between Afghanistan and China is rather short, and any cooperation between the two would not deliver any substantial difference in dealing with the ETIM cadres. In fact, China would do well to further engage Pakistan to make a difference. However, that Beijing is also looking at Kabul could mean that it has lost its confidence and/or trust in Islamabad’s contribution to dealing with the ETIM extremists, who are often sheltered and trained by Pakistan-based jihadist outfits. Alternately, China could simply be using the Xinjiang narrative to portray to the world that it is genuinely interested in contributing to ensure security and stability in Afghanistan, while using this as a tool to complete its image of having an ‘all round interest in Afghanistan’.

Trade: Afghanistan has been projected as a key component of China’s New Silk Route initiative via which Beijing plans to revive the historical Silk Route – a trade route that connected China, West Asia and Europe. This fits perfectly in Ghani’s strategy to revive the country’s economy, make it a “hub of regional trade, transit and peace,” and reduce reliance on aid. However, Afghanistan does not feature in the New Silk Route map that has been made public. The New Silk Route in fact bypasses Afghanistan and enters Iran by through Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Unless China is in the process of drawing a new access route into Iran’s Chabahar port via Afghanistan, the New Silk Route will not bring great returns for Afghanistan. A new route plan is plausible, given how Beijing has expressed its interest in developing the Port, thereby providing it with an option other than Pakistan’s Gwadar Port to access other West Asian countries, and Africa.

In either case, the likelihood of Afghanistan becoming a transit hub – an upshot of the dividends that can be reaped by being on the New Silk Route Corridor – is higher than that of it becoming a trade hub. Regardless, Ghani must ensure that the country’s manufacturing sector gets a boost and that the Afghan market is not inundated with Chinese goods.

Ghani’s Task: Trust but Verify

China has played its cards deftly and has effortlessly come out looking like the knight in shining armour, despite making paltry contributions over ten years. This is essentially a manifestation of Deng Xiaoping’s policy of ‘keep a low profile and bide your time’ in incumbent Chinese President Xi Jinping’s leadership strategies.

For China, engaging with Afghanistan is more about pragmatism and furthering its own agenda than genuine concern for the country or the region. That this move does promise returns for Afghanistan as well as the region is simply a fortunate happenstance that China can use to further its image as a responsible regional and global player.

In the euphoria of potential stability, Kabul must not forget the principle of ‘trust but verify’.

Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy
Research Officer, IReS, IPCS
Email: rajeshvvari@gmail.com

The post China In Afghanistan: Is The Engagement Really A Win-Win? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Azerbaijan And Iran: Bound To Be Together – OpEd

0
0

By Fuad Huseinzadeh

Despite the historical proximity of the Azerbaijani and Iranian peoples, until recently relations between the two countries haven’t been easy. The divergence in positions on regional security issues, the Caspian Sea problems, fundamental differences in the national foreign and domestic policy – all have periodically created problems between the two countries, which should be close allies due to their historical and cultural similarities. For this reason, each contact between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran have always been perceived as a very significant event for the relations between the two neighboring countries.

On this background, the official visit to Baku by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on November 12-13, inspired confidence – this visit is bound to succeed. The arrival of the Iranian President was a continuation of the unprecedented active contacts of the two presidents – before the current visit by Rouhani, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran had already had four personal meetings this year. In addition, the reformist internal and external policies of the current Iranian president, plus the success of the last summit of the Caspian states in Astrakhan, all participants of which reached what Tehran believes is a key agreement on preventing the presence of extra-regional countries in the Caspian Sea – all this created a favorable background for the upcoming Azerbaijani-Iranian talks in Baku.

As was expected, during the negotiations and their follow-up, President Rouhani and President Aliyev talked extensively about the intention to strengthen bilateral relations in the political, economic and cultural fields.

“Our ties are strong, Iranian-Azerbaijani friendship is indestructible, and no external power can come between us. Our unity is necessary for the future of our country and the future of the region,” Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev underlined in a statement for the press.

According to the presidents, at the meeting, the sides discussed issues of cooperation in energy, oil and gas, electricity, agriculture, banking and transit, including the implementation of the North-South transport corridor. They agreed to sign an agreement on the continuation of construction and further operation of waterworks and the Xudafarin and Qiz Qalasi hydroelectric power plants soon. The sides noted the importance of the bilateral intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the field of construction and operation of the Ordubad and Marazad hydroelectric power plants coming into force as soon as possible. In general, Aliyev noted, the parties discussed the prospects for the implementation of a large number of new bilateral-joint projects soon.

Caspian issues, regional security issues and the Middle East events were featured prominently in the talks. Noting that the region is now faced with a serious crisis such as the development of separatism, terrorism and radicalism, the presidents assured each other that they will not allow any outside forces to cause discord in relations between the two countries and damage the development of cooperation.

After the completion of the negotiations, the signing ceremony of documents covering cooperation in the fields of alternative and renewable sources of energy, economics and finance, postal sector, ICT and security of Border Rivers was held in the presence of the presidents. But the key document was a joint statement by President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, which reflected the concerns of the two countries.
In particular, the two countries unanimously declared the inadmissibility of using acts of aggression and threats of violence in international relations and non-recognition of the violation of internationally recognized borders by force, and spoke out in favor of resolving conflicts on the basis of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders. In view of the aforesaid, the parties reiterated the importance of peacefully settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as soon as possible.

The Iranian President stated that Tehran does not approve of the current situation in Nagorny-Karabakh and called for a solution to this issue through political means. Hassan Rouhani called it his duty to assist in resolving the conflict, since the Islamic Republic wants justice, peace, stability and friendship in this region.

In addition, taking the universally recognized norms and principles of international law as a basis, the parties reiterated their support for the right of all states, including Iran, to the peaceful use of nuclear energy under the IAEA Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This point can be regarded as particularly important for Iran, as any vote in support for the development of its nuclear program is worth its weight in gold for Iran. Nor it was less important for the sides the agreement on the prevention of activities by organizations, groups and individuals whose actions are against the neighboring countries.

Among other important aspects of the joint statement, we should also note the parties’ agreement on the effective use of the potential of the United Nations in promoting international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, separatism, extremism, drug trafficking and transnational crime, as well as active support based on the tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism.

The business forum held on the second day of the visit with the participation of businessmen from the two countries only confirmed the commitment of the parties to the expansion of economic ties, implementation of joint projects and mutual investments.
As acknowledged by the Iranian president, the sides held detailed talks and came to an agreement to further develop bilateral relations and carry it out in a more open and transparent manner. It is necessary to intensify relations in the field of energy, trade, industry, construction of dams and power plants and in the development of new technologies, as this will contribute to the development of both countries.

“We have extensive experience in constructing dams and power plants, creating infrastructure, and in laying roads and railways, and we can cooperate in these areas. We can work together – you can work in our country and we can work in your country. Thanks to mutual investment, we can create small towns near the border. We can arrange free economic zones along the border. We can extend links between border regions,” the President of Iran said.

At the same time, Rouhani expressed a desire to make better use of the common religion, beliefs, customs and traditions that lie at the basis of the unity of Iran and Azerbaijan. Along with that, the president noted that the rapprochement in relations between the Iranian and Azerbaijani peoples is not directed against third countries.

Rouhani stressed that the location of Azerbaijan and Iran allows them to play for each other the role of a bridge connecting Iran with Europe and Azerbaijan with the southern corridors. He added that Azerbaijan can connect Iran with the Black Sea ports of Poti and Batumi. And Iran, in turn, will connect Azerbaijan to Bandar Abbas, Abadan and Khorramshahr. We can create broad cooperation in the trilateral format involving Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

Cooperation between Azerbaijan and Iran is an objective necessity not only due to the historical and geographical proximity of the two states, but also their geopolitical significance. For Azerbaijan, Iran is a major power, positive relations with which will have the most favorable impact on security in the region, including the Nagornyy Karabakh problem and the legal status of the Caspian Sea.

For Iran, good-neighborly relations with Azerbaijan are equally important. Today, against the backdrop of significant progress in the negotiations on the “Iranian dossier”, the Western community is set to gradually relax the policy of sanctions against Iran, which makes it possible to reopen the window between this country and the West.

This window could be Azerbaijan, for Iran cannot find a better way to Western countries among its neighbors. In addition, we must not forget that Iran is one of the world leaders in gas and oil reserves. The prospect of Western sanctions on Iran being lifted and the creation of opportunities for Azerbaijani-Iranian cooperation in energy exports will raise bilateral relations to the level of strategic ties.

The post Azerbaijan And Iran: Bound To Be Together – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iraq: Senior Islamic State Leader Killed In Mosul

0
0

A senior ISIL leader has been killed in an airstrike in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, residents and a local medical source said Thursday to Reuters.

Radwan Taleb al-Hamdouni, ISIL’s leader in Mosul, was killed with his driver after his car was struck in a western district of the city on Wednesday afternoon.

ISIL swept across swathes of northern Iraq in June. Iraq’s Sunni region of Anbar went almost unopposed by the Iraqi army. As a result, ISIL was able to consolidate their resources in the region.

Hamdouni was buried later on Wednesday. ISIL supporters attended the funeral, one source said to Reuters.

He was the ISIL governor of Mosul, which was captured in June. It remains the largest city in the self-declared ISIL caliphate, located by the border between northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

The United States, backed by Western and Arab allies, launched airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq in August, and later expanded operations to Syria.

Original article

The post Iraq: Senior Islamic State Leader Killed In Mosul appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Socialists, Liberals Bicker Over Juncker’s Multi-Billion Investment Plan

0
0

(EurActiv) — As European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker prepares to unveil a €300 billion plan to boost investment in the Union, the liberal ALDE and the Socialists in Parliament tabled alternative proposals, stoking controversy amongst themselves.

The Commission President is expected to present his €300 billion plan to parliament next week and submit it to EU leaders for approval at a summit on 18-19 December.

Juncker announced his €300 billion plan to boost investment in the EU on 15 July, the day when MEPs voted to confirm him as Commission President.

Ever since, the Socialists and the ALDE have kept reminding him that their support for the new Commission hinges upon delivering on this promise.

S&D group President Gianni Pittella said today (20 November) that the commitment Juncker made on 15 July was “the main conquest” of his political force over the hard bargaining following the EU elections.

Pittella also said that by tabling their proposal, S&D wanted to “save Juncker from a fiasco”. He called the plan “shock therapy” and “revolution”.

‘Shock therapy’

The Socialists presented to the press a graphic image of their proposal for an investment plan totalling €800 billion euro, consisting of three schemes to mobilise funds. Two of them, totalling €300 billion, appear as more traditional, and the third one, which is designed to mobilise a total of €500 billion of public and private investment, was presented as innovative.

The more traditional schemes involve the European Stability Mechanism, which was set up to deal with the countries’ bailouts during the Eurozone crisis, where there is money available. By a ratio of one to two of ESM money and private investment funds, a total of €150 billion is expected to be raised.

The second traditional-style scheme involves the use of profits and dividends of the European Investment bank. By a ratio of one to four the EIB money and private investment funds, another €150 is expected to be raised.

he third scheme is based on capital provided by the member states in order to reach €100 billion within six years. These national contributions should be excluded, according to the Socialists, from the calculation of public deficit and public debt. On this basis, the fund is expected to raise an additional €400 billion, provided by public and private investors.

As Pittella insisted, the crucial element of the plan was to deduct the national contributions for the fund of the Stability Pact.

The Socialists argue that the new investment plan should be directed at projects which could never flourish without a share of public investment, mentioning energy transition and energy efficiency, digital economy and innovation, as well as human capital.

But the ALDE was quick to slam the S&D’s blueprint.

‘Stability Pact at stake’

ALDE leader Guy Verhofstadt, who had present a €700 billion plan the previous day, stated in a press release that it was good that the Socialist group also wants a bigger contribution than the amount of €300 billion proposed by Juncker. But he added that “the big problem” with their proposal was that it establishes a fund that is financed with contributions of the member states and which would only create more debt.

Verhofstadt said the S&D proposal was in clear contradiction with the Growth and Stability Pact, adding that exempting the proposed national contributions to such fund would be tantamount of “fooling ourselves”.

Verhofstadt also highlighted his own plan, which is based on three pillars.

The first is attracting private investment via European collateral. The collateral will be funded only by EU countries, whose budgetary plans have received approval by the Commission.

The second pillar of the Verhofstadt plan is a European tax stimulus for households and small and medium sized businesses. And the third builds on a legislative package to reduce red tape, integrate EU capital markets, complete the Single Market, build an EU energy market and accelerate the digital single market.

The Socialists in fact expressed criticism of both Juncker and of Verhofstadt’s blueprints. Reportedly, Juncker has been quite open in sharing his ideas with the two political groups. What the Socialists reproach him for is the lack of an innovative approach and what they described as an “unrealistic” leverage threshold, according to which public funds could attract a sevenfold amount of private money.

The S&D similarly criticized Verhofstadt, saying that his tax stimulus would only deplete state budgets of revenue, and create more problems than it could solve.

The post Socialists, Liberals Bicker Over Juncker’s Multi-Billion Investment Plan appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Jolie Says Wants To Switch Focus To Directing

0
0

Hollywood star Angelina Jolie says she plans to give up acting after a “few more” films and switch her focus to directing, according to Yahoo News Digest.

Jolie walked the red carpet in Sydney with husband Brad Pitt this week at the premiere of her new movie, World War II epic “Unbroken”, which was filmed in Australia.

“I love directing, I’m much happier directing. I like following a project all the way through. I like spending two years on something and learning about it… I like being pushed mentally to have to learn so much and be a part of every single aspect of a production,” she said.

It was her second foray behind the camera after the critically-acclaimed 2011 film “In the Land of Blood and Honey” and she said directing was where she saw her future.

“I’ll do a few more, but I’ll be happy to let that all go at some point,” she told the Sydney Morning Herald of acting, in comments published online Thursday, Nov 20.

The post Jolie Says Wants To Switch Focus To Directing appeared first on Eurasia Review.

South Africa: Record Number Of Rhinos Killed

0
0

A record 1,020 rhinos have been poached in South Africa this year, the government said. In a bid to curb the slaughter of the endangered species authorities have been forced to move a number of rhinos to “safety zones”, some in neighbouring countries.

The vast Kruger National Park has been hit the hardest by poachers, with 672 killed inside the park.

In 2013, a total of 1,004 rhinos were poached in parks across the country and the South African government launched a number of initiatives to fight the scourge, including deploying troops along the border with Mozambique.

The reason for the scarce results of these initiatives is that “poaching is part of a multi-billion dollar worldwide illicit wildlife trade”, the minister of Environmental Affairs Edna Molewa said.

The post South Africa: Record Number Of Rhinos Killed appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Nigeria, China Ink Deal For Atlantic Railway

0
0

The China Railway Construction Corp (CRCC) signed a deal today in Beijing worth nearly $12 billion with Nigeria to build an over 1,400km railway along Nigeria’s Atlantic coast, east to west.

The railway line, which will be designed for a speed of 120 km/h, will also have 22 railway stations which will spread across the 10 states.

According to CRCC, the project will be beneficial for both China and Nigeria, The construction is expected to create 200,000 jobs, while on completion the railway should employ around 30,000.

The post Nigeria, China Ink Deal For Atlantic Railway appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Drop In Oil Prices: Economic And Strategic Implications – Analysis

0
0

If oil prices continue to spiral downward, what will be the economic and strategic results? Not too bad, says Gawdat Bahgat. Consumers will benefit at the expense of producers and, perhaps more controversially, the ‘oil for security’ bargain crafted between Western powers and Middle Eastern suppliers will remain intact.

By Gawdat Bahgat

Shortly after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war Arab oil producing countries cut production and imposed an oil embargo on the United States and a few other countries in retaliation for their support of Israel. This led to a rapid surge in oil prices that came to be known as the first ‘oil shock.’ Since then, oil prices have fluctuated in response to changes in supply and demand as well as political developments. In 2008 oil prices reached their peak, around $147 per barrel and stayed above $100 per barrel in subsequent years. The last few months, however, have witnessed a steady decline in oil prices. In early November, a barrel of oil sold for a little more than $80 per barrel.

The forces that have led to the recent decline in prices (more production and less consumption) seem to differ from those that led to previous declines. This time, it is likely that prices will remain low for a prolonged period of time. Major producers and consumers will have to re-adjust their economic policies and strategies to respond to these key changes in the global energy landscape. Although oil consumers are likely to benefit at the expense of producers, economic and strategic cooperation between Western powers and Middle Eastern countries is likely to continue.

Reasons for declining oil prices

Oil prices, like the prices of any other commodity, reflect and respond to changes in supply and demand. For decades major consuming countries, led by the United States, have felt vulnerable to economic and political upheavals in producing countries. Since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s U.S. officials have talked about reducing dependency on the Middle East and ending the nation’s ‘addiction’ to oil. In pursuing these objectives, consuming countries have adopted a three-fold strategy: increase oil and gas production, diversify the energy mix, and reduce consumption.

Increase oil and gas production : Oil companies have invested heavily in new exploration techniques. In recent years drilling in deep water has substantially contributed to increases in both production and reserves. Equally impressive, the so-called shale revolution (a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’) has added millions of barrels in US production (and billions of cubic meters of gas). This technology has transformed the U.S. from a major importer to a rising exporter. The United States has taken the lead in producing shale gas and shale/tight oil, but proven reserves have been reported in many other countries in Europe, Russia, China and others. In other words, the promise of the shale revolution is not limited to the United States. Finally, the technology is not static. Oil companies are investing in improving the technology and overcoming environmental challenges.

Diversification : In addition to the rise in oil and gas production consuming countries have sought to diversify their energy mix – i.e., reduce the share of fossil fuels and increase the share of alternative energy, particularly renewable sources. These efforts are driven mainly by concerns over energy security and climate change. Renewable energy is any form of energy that is replenished by natural processes at a rate that equals or exceeds its rate of use. Renewable energy is obtained from the continuing or repetitive flow of energy occurring in the natural environment and includes resources such as biomass, solar energy, geothermal heat, hydropower, the tides and waves, ocean thermal energy, and wind energy. Some renewable energy resources such as hydropower are technically mature and have been deployed at a significant scale. Others, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, are in a nascent phase of technical maturity and commercial production and deployment. Unlike fossil fuels, almost all countries have access to some form of renewable energy. For example, solar and ocean energy are widely distributed. Still, the contribution of renewable energy to the overall energy mix varies substantially from one country to another. In recent years renewable energy has been expanding rapidly. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that renewable energy will account for nearly half of the increase in global power generation to 2035, with wind and solar making up 45% of the expansion.

Energy efficiency : The energy equation has two sides – supply and demand. The increase in oil supplies has been accompanied by aggressive efforts to reduce consumption. The IEA estimates that investment in energy efficiency markets worldwide in 2012 was between $310 billion and $360 billion. The Agency estimates that final consumption in the IEA countries is 60% lower today because of energy efficiency improvements over the past four decades. European countries and the United States are taking the lead in global energy efficiency. The European Union (EU) has set itself ambitious energy and climate goals. By 2020, Europe should achieve a 20% decrease in energy consumption, and a 20% share of renewables in the EU energy mix. In its Energy Efficiency Communication, released in late July this year the EU proposed a new energy efficiency target of 30% for 2030. Indeed, most of the increase in consumption in the coming decades will come from South Asia and the Middle East.

Economic and strategic implications

The rise in oil and gas production, the diversification of the energy mix, and the decline in consumption have fundamentally altered the global energy landscape. Almost all countries in the world have contributed to these new dynamics, albeit to different degrees. The potentially prolonged period of low oil and gas prices is likely to have significant and wide-spread implications.

Environmental impact: Since the early 2000s, global natural gas production has substantially increased. In addition to well-established players such as Russia, Iran, and Qatar, several new producers have emerged as well-established exporters. These include Turkmenistan, Australia, and the United States. Cheap gas has replaced coal in generating electricity in many countries. Given that coal is more polluting than gas, this replacement is considered a positive development in the efforts to contain pollution. However, cheap gas has also reduced incentives to invest in renewable energy, which is less polluting than gas. In other words, cheap gas is considered a mixed blessing with regard to environmental protection and climate change.

Economic impact : Consuming countries will benefit from cheap oil and gas while producing countries are likely to lose out (at least in the short term). Lower prices mean that the billions of dollars the United States and Europe would have transferred to producing countries will, instead, be spent and/or invested in their domestic economies. These ‘saved funds’ can be used to stimulate the economy and generate jobs. On the other hand, low prices might negatively impact (slow or even undermine) the shale revolution. Shale/tight oil and production from the North Sea are expensive.

Production costs in the Middle East are the cheapest. Middle Eastern producers can make profits even at $70 per barrel. However, such a low price would not be enough to allow them to balance their budgets. In the last few decades most Middle Eastern producers have achieved very modest success in their efforts to reduce their heavy dependency on oil and gas revenues. They need high prices to maintain and support the high standard of living they enjoy. Several Middle Eastern producers have created sovereign wealth funds (oil funds) to invest their oil revenues. These funds (such as the United Arab Emirates’ Mubadala, Qatar Investment Authority and Kuwait Fund are among the richest in the world. Their massive financial assets can help to overcome the declining oil revenues. Less wealthy oil producers such as Iran will have to be more aggressive in reforming their economies and creating other sources of revenue.

Strategic impact: Oil is not only an economic commodity, it is a strategic one as well. The key changes in oil markets are likely to have a significant impact on the political and security relations between producers and consumers. In its Energy Outlook, British Petroleum concludes that the United States is on a path to achieve energy self-sufficiency, while import-dependence in Europe, China and India will increase. Asia will become the dominant energy importing region. Russia will remain the leading energy exporter, and Africa will become an increasingly important supplier. While it will remain a key energy player, the Middle East is likely to see relatively static exports. These projections are likely to shape geopolitical relations between producers and consumers.

Since the 1940s many analysts have argued that Western, particularly American, relations with the Middle East were largely driven by the ‘oil for security’ bargain. In other words, Middle Eastern producers, led by Saudi Arabia, would provide un-interrupted oil supplies to Europe and the United States at ‘reasonable’ prices and, in return, Western powers would guarantee their security. In recent years the fundamentals of this bargain have changed. The United States is becoming less dependent on foreign supplies from the Middle East and elsewhere. Currently the bulk of US imports come from the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, large Asian economies (i.e. China, India, Japan and South Korea) are growing more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. In the last two decades the broader economic and trade ties between the Middle East and South Asia have grown much faster and become deeper than those between the former and Western powers. These expanding volumes of trade and investment suggest that sooner or later Asian powers (particularly China) are likely to assume responsibility for protecting sea lanes and oil shipments from the Gulf to South Asia.

Middle Eastern producers have reacted to the sharp decline in oil prices in multiple ways. Instead of cutting production, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran (among others) have reduced the price. The UAE has recently allowed the expiration of some longstanding concessions to major Western oil companies and is considering replacing some of them with partners from Asia. The Qatar Investment Authority announced plans to invest $15 billion across Asia in partnership with China’s Citic Group.

These recent reactions by oil producers, however, should not be over-estimated. Oil funds will not turn their backs on Europe. The continent remains the major destination of investments from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. Western oil companies have the most advanced technology in oil exploration and development and will continue to play a major role in the energy sector in the Middle East. The bottom line is that the oil market is a global one where disruption anywhere impacts prices everywhere. The long-standing close economic and strategic cooperation between Western powers and Middle Eastern producers is likely to survive the recent drop in oil prices.

Dr. Gawdat Bahgat is professor of National Security Affairs at the National Defense University’s Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Study. He is an Egyptian-born specialist in Middle Eastern policy, particularly Egypt, Iran, and the Gulf region. His areas of expertise include energy security, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli conflict, North Africa, and American foreign policy in the Middle East.

The post The Drop In Oil Prices: Economic And Strategic Implications – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Why Does Turkey’s President Think Muslims Discovered America?

0
0

By Coilin O’Connor

(RFE/RL) — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is no stranger to controversy but even many seasoned Turkey watchers were taken aback when he boldly claimed that “Muslims discovered America in 1178, not Christopher Columbus.”

Speaking at an Istanbul summit with Latin American Muslim leaders on November 15, the conservative president attempted to bolster his claim by saying that when the Italian-born explorer Columbus arrived 300 years later he “mentioned the existence of a mosque on a hill on the Cuban coast.” Erdogan then added that his government would be happy to build a new mosque at the site in Cuba.

Critics were quick to point out that Erdogan’s remarks about the discovery of America were based on a 1996 article by Youssef Mroueh, a historian with somewhat dubious academic credentials who “The Washington Post” notes is “not listed as a historian at any institution of higher learning.”

Mroueh’s claims — described by one investigative researcher as a “particularly fanciful” piece of “slipshod scholarship and fabricated quotations” — relies heavily on a diary entry by Columbus mentioning a mosque in Cuba as proof that “the religion of Islam was widespread” in the New World.

Although most scholars believe Columbus was simply making a poetic allusion to the shape of the Cuban landscape, a small number of Islamist researchers like Mroueh have taken his words literally even though there is no archaeological evidence of Islamic structures or settlements in the Americas pre-dating the Genoan mariner’s arrival.

While many Western observers have quickly dismissed Erdogan’s comments as just another quirky outburst in a long list of whacky sound bites, some see the Turkish president’s remarks as a further indication of his long-standing desire to reshape modern Turkey into a society based on traditionalist Islamic values.

Halil Karaveli, editor of “The Turkey Analyst,” maintains that Erdogan’s claims “reflect a certain rationality” in the conservative leader and pious Muslim who ruled the country as prime minister from 2003 before moving to his new post in August this year.

“Even though they may seem bizarre, almost insane, they are actually grounded in an ideological reality,” he says. “And that reality is that Erdogan is very purposefully remaking Turkey in his own image into a more religiously dominated country, more Sunni Islamic, and he’s more and more putting the emphasis on Islam. And, so in this endeavor to change Turkey — to create what they call ‘new Turkey’ — using the ideological instrument of Islam makes perfect sense.”

For good measure, the Turkish president also used his speech to take a swipe at the Christian colonization of the New World in the centuries after Columbus’s voyage there in 1492. “Converting people by force, by the sword, has never been a part of Islam. Our religion has never been a tool of exploitation,” Erdogan said, adding that European Christians “colonialized America for its gold and Africa for its diamonds, [and] now do it in the Middle East for its oil with the same dirty plot.”

While pro-government media in Turkey have backed the president to the hilt, saying Western sources on the discovery of America are wrong, many Erdogan critics at home were quick to pour scorn on the president’s claims. In a sarcastic piece for the “Hurriyet” daily, one columnist even suggested that the Turkish leader would soon go on to “correct other assumptions misunderstood by the world,” such as the fact that a Muslim, and not Isaac Newton, had discovered gravity.

Despite the criticism, Erdogan has stuck to his guns. On November 18, he insisted that “very respected scientists in Turkey and in the world” supported his claim.

He has since upped the ante and said that the supposed Muslim discovery of the Americas should be included in school curricula. “A big responsibility falls on the shoulders of the national education ministry and YOK [higher education board] on this issue,” he said in televised comments. “If the history of science is written objectively, it will be seen that Islamic geography’s contribution to science is much more than what’s known.”

According to Turkey-watcher Karaveli, Erdogan’s defiant stance is consistent with the Islamist roots of his socially conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) and reflect the president’s view of himself as a paternalistic leader and his desire to change society.

“Basically, he is creating a new ideological, historical narrative, which is changing the history of Turkey retroactively itself and at the same time — together with the new narrative of Turkish history — he is also fitting this into the broader historical ideological narrative of Islam. So in that sense it is a reflection of the very ideological nature of the Erdogan regime.”

The danger in pushing a conservative, Islamic agenda, Karaveli warns, is that it could deepen divisions in a country that also has strong secular traditions dating back to the days of Kemal Ataturk.

Far from seeing it as an attempt to push an Islamist agenda, however, some of Erdogan’s political opponents believe there are far more mundane reasons for the president’s comments.

Devlet Bahceli, leader of the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), said on November 18 that the controversy was a political maneuver devised by Erdogan to “cover up his faults,” and to distract the public from damaging corruption allegations that have been dogging his presidency in recent months.

The post Why Does Turkey’s President Think Muslims Discovered America? appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Anachronistic 1979 Oil Export Ban – OpEd

0
0

Political pressure is building to repeal the 1979 ban on U.S. exports of crude oil to the rest of the world. I blogged on that issue recently in Inside Sources, which was picked up by Orangeburg, SC’s Times and Democrat. Other blogs on that policy issue are forthcoming.

Several reasons for lifting the export ban are evident to anyone who grasps the benefits of free international trade, but the most compelling of those is that the United States now produces more crude oil than it has the capacity to refine, while the refining capacities of other nations exceed their domestic oil supplies. The potential gains from trade could not be more obvious to anyone who has taken Econ 101.

President Jimmy Carter signed the Export Administration Act in 1979, a time when OPEC ruled the global crude oil market. Now that the United States is the world’s leading oil producer, it makes no sense to ban exports of crude oil to nations other than Canada, which is required to process all U.S. crude into gasoline and heating oil and to consume all of it in what some people other than me refer to as our 51st state.

World prices will be lower and less volatile if we can participate directly in the international oil marketplace.

The post The Anachronistic 1979 Oil Export Ban – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jackson, Sharpton, Holder And Ferguson – OpEd

0
0

If a picture is worth 1,000 words the photo above proves the old adage to be true. This image encapsulates so much that is wrong with the so-called leaders of the black political class. Each of the three men depicted make a mockery of any claim to be allies of black people.

For decades Jesse Jackson’s seal of approval was enough to quiet or excite the masses to action. As a young lieutenant of Martin Luther King and then as leader of Operation PUSH he became in effect the leader of what was left of the civil rights movement old guard. His presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 mobilized millions of people to vote and brought election victories to progressives across the country. His history is part righteous and part mercenary, as he sought and received tribute from corporations around the country eager to curry favor with him and by extension the masses he sometimes did represent.

Jackson was supplanted by Al Sharpton, who surpassed him in crookedness and politically prostitution. Sharpton made a name for himself first in New York, where people hungry for justice turned to him for redress against white mob violence and police brutality. That reputation follows him even now and the shady reverend still lives off of his glory days.

He is now and always has been King Rat. Sharpton has taken money from right wing dirty trickster Roger Stone, helped Newt Gingrich promote public school privatization and declared that it is in the interest of black people to silence themselves and give Barack Obama a pass.

The third man in the photo, attorney general Eric Holder, has a powerful position, but ultimately answers to the president. Jackson and Sharpton still jockey for position, hoping to maintain favor with the Obama administration. They all happily use one another. Obama needs them to give himself cover with black people, they need him as the conductor of their gravy train. This photo taken in 2013 in Selma, Alabama shows Sharpton literally outrunning Jackson to maintain his spot as the administration’s black point person.

Black people can’t be fooled by any of these men under any circumstance, but this juncture in history requires extreme vigilance. The governor and other officials in Missouri have declared “states of emergency” and have prepared for demonstrations should the grand jury deciding the fate of Darren Wilson choose not to indict him for the killing of Michael Brown.

All three of the dubious characters have shown up in Ferguson, Missouri in response to the expression of mass outrage over Brown’s death. That fact should impress no one but should instead be a warning. When the White House sends Al Sharpton to Ferguson, the people there should call him the double dealing snitch that he is and turn their backs on him. After the grand jury verdict is announced, there is only one demand that these three should hear.

The Justice Department must prosecute Darren Wilson. Jackson and Sharpton’s presence in Ferguson will be proof of presidential inaction and an attempt to evade and avoid doing anything that might bring justice to black people. There should be no worry, no anxiety if Darren Wilson, is not indicted. After all, we have a United States Department of Justice, and they have the authority and resources at their disposal to carry out their own prosecution. There shouldn’t be any doubt that the Justice Department will prosecute Wilson except for one very big problem. The Obama Justice Department has never seen fit to carry out a prosecution in cases of police murder.

The police execution of Milton Hall in Saginaw, Michigan was caught on a squad car dashboard camera, and yet the Justice Department declined to prosecute. If there is no federal prosecution of Darren Wilson, the political disaster of the Obama presidency will be made crystal clear. Black people in this country have exulted over Barack Obama since his 2008 campaign and have nothing to show for their unrequited love. Demands went unmade, insults were overlooked, and the result is an escalation of the official violence that black people have always been subjected to.

No excuse, no rationale should be accepted if Wilson doesn’t face federal prosecution. Obama can’t run for re-election, so there is no longer a need to appeal to white voters willing to vote for a black man as long as he isn’t too black. There will be no more mid-terms that require black people to disappear and take their demands with them. The president and attorney general don’t need Republican permission to use the powers they have under the law.

It is time to make good on the often stated but phony intention of making Obama accountable to black people. Yes we need protest. There must be press conferences and actions and speeches but they all should have the same goal, pressing for federal prosecution of Darren Wilson. If the grand jury does not indict there will be that rare occasion where there is only one demand to be made. There is only hope of justice and that comes from the federal government. So Jackson and Sharpton can fight for favor all they want. No one should pay attention to them. All eyes should be directed at Obama and Holder, and the machinations of disreputable hustlers should be seen for entertainment purposes only.

The post Jackson, Sharpton, Holder And Ferguson – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Cashing In On The ISIS Crisis – OpEd

0
0

By Emily Schwartz Greco and William A. Collins

Maybe you think the U.S. air war on the Islamic State is a fine plan. Maybe you don’t. Either way, have you considered how little Washington’s latest military foray in the Middle East has to do with America’s welfare?

In case you haven’t heard, shock and awe are out in what’s increasingly being called either Iraq War 3.0 or — more ominously — Iraq War III. “Persistent and sustainable” are in, according to General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why can’t our leaders leave bad enough alone and get out of there? One possible explanation is that this apparently eternal battle has more to do with profits than protection.

No matter how pointless these wars prove, America’s military-industrial complex makes a killing.

There’s always a profit to be skimmed by the makers of cruise missiles and builders of submarines. They stay in the black even when humanity suffers.

But wait. Doesn’t the United States lose when these wars inevitably shore up anti-American hatred?

Worrying about that kind of thing isn’t really a job for military contractors. Just like the oil, gas, and coal industries, their goal is to grab what they can while the grabbing is good.

America’s hired guns and military contractors took a big hit after the last Iraq War wound down. But thanks to the eruption of “the ISIS crisis,” the dogs of war in Congress are howling again.

At the moment, they’re yelping at President Barack Obama and telling him to stop ruling out more “boots on the ground.” Obama has already called for doubling current troop levels in Iraq and asked Congress for permission to spend $5.6 billion more than anticipated on the conflict.

Perhaps the most galling military development so far is the Pentagon’s mobilization of depleted uranium weapons. These weapons are already suspected of causing widespread birth defects in Iraq from prior military campaigns, and there is a debate underway right now in the United Nations to ban them.

Whistleblower Peter Van Buren recently asked a good question about all of this: “What could go possibly go right?”

Emily Schwartz Greco is the managing editor of OtherWords, a non-profit national editorial service run by the Institute for Policy Studies. OtherWords columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut.

The post Cashing In On The ISIS Crisis – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India Signs MoU With US On Setting-Up Infrastructure Collaboration Platform

0
0

In a follow-up of the Joint Statement of the Prime Minister of India and the President of United States of America in September, 2014, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed in India between Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the US Department of Commerce on the establishing Infrastructure Collaboration Platform.

This MoU establishes a United States-India Infrastructure Collaboration Platform, under which both the Governments intend to coordinate and cooperate with the goal of facilitating U.S. industry participation in Indian infrastructure projects to improve the bilateral commercial relationship and benefit both the Participants’ economies.

Shri Dinesh Sharma, Additional Secretary, DEA signed the MoU on behalf of India while Shri Arun M. Kumar, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Global Markets, Department of Commerce signed it on behalf of United States of America respectively.

Representatives of Indian Infrastructure Ministries such as Urban Development, Commerce and Industry, Railways, Road Transport and Highways, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Power, New & Renewable Energy, Information and Broadcasting, Communications & Information Technology, Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, were also present during the meeting, along with representative of Ministry of External Affairs.

The post India Signs MoU With US On Setting-Up Infrastructure Collaboration Platform appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Obama To Bypass Congress On Immigration Reform

0
0

U.S. President Barack Obama is set to unveil his plan Thursday to unilaterally protect millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States from deportation, but it is already drawing a heated rebuke from his political opponents.

The Democratic president said in advance of a White House speech that the country’s immigration policies have been ineffective for too long, forcing him to take executive action after Congress failed to reach agreement on a new law.

But Republican lawmakers have voiced outrage at Obama’s go-it-alone plan, noting that the president has frequently said he did not have the legal authority to change the immigration policies by himself, absent congressional approval.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the president’s plan was aimed at securing his political legacy.

“He’s right. The action he’s proposed would ignore the law, would reject the voice of the voters and would impose new unfairness on law-abiding immigrants, all without solving the problem,” McConnell said.

Republicans consider options

McConnell said Republican lawmakers, about to assume full control of Congress in January, are considering a variety of options to thwart Obama’s immigration plan.

Some Republicans said a shutdown of the government ought to be considered, while others are calling for a specific ban on funding for Obama’s immigration overtures.

The president will announce his plans in a live primetime address from the White House on Thursday at 8 p.m. EST (0100 UTC Friday).

News outlets said an executive order Obama plans to sign will allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to obtain work permits, including those with children born in the country and spouses of U.S. citizens.

Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, told Reuters that family-centered policies have long been deemed palatable to American voters.

“The idea of a kid growing up without his parent is hard to swallow. We’ve had a history in this country of adopting policies that are pro-family unification,” Fitz said, adding he thought policies should focus not just on family connections but also on rootedness, or ties to the community.

Obama is also expected to expand an executive order he signed in 2012, known as the Dream Act, that protects young immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation by lifting the age restrictions on people who qualify. The parents of these children, however, would not be eligible for delayed deportation.

Undocumented immigrants eligible for these protections would not be entitled to receive federal benefits, including subsidies to obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Obama will sign the order Friday in Las Vegas, Nevada, which has a large Hispanic population.

Immigration lawyers warn of troubles

On Thursday, as details of the possible action circulated, immigration lawyers warned that Obama’s televised address may prove the easiest part of his controversial plan. Implementing it will be difficult and many people may never benefit, some lawyers said.

But immigration advocacy groups said they don’t have sufficient resources to provide legal services to their existing clients, never mind the millions of potential new ones.

Obama’s proposal is not expected to provide for federal funding for attorneys to guide immigrants through the process.

Karla McKanders, who runs the immigration law clinic at the University of Tennessee College of Law in Knoxville, told Reuters, “If the past is any indication, it’s going to be a significant increase in people asking for legal assistance.”

Also, immigrants who have lived illegally in the United States for many years can be afraid to sign up or lack the proper documentation to back up their claims, said Jacqueline Rishty from the Immigration Legal Services Program of Catholic Charities in Washington.

The lack of immigration lawyers also opens the door for self-described legal experts who give bad advice or even scam clients out of thousands of dollars. The American Bar Association has warned of fraudsters offering legal services in Spanish-speaking communities.

Executive orders

U.S. presidents through the years have decreed a variety of changes through executive action, often decisions that attract little public attention.

Just since July, Obama has issued 10 executive orders, none of them controversial. Among other things, they established an advisory council for U.S. businesses in Africa, revised a list of communicable diseases and set the terms for hiring alcohol, tobacco and firearm agents.

But some executive orders have played prominent roles in shaping U.S. history and often were controversial at the time or proved to be when examined with the passage of time.

President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order that forcibly transferred Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War Two, an act the country has subsequently apologized for and paid reparations to the victims.

Later, President Harry Truman abolished racial discrimination in the U.S. armed forces with a 1948 executive order and nationalized all steel mills during a 1952 labor strike.

President Dwight Eisenhower decreed an end to racial segregation in the country’s public schools in 1957.

Through the years, other presidents have issued many more executive orders than Obama.

Several executive orders have been overturned in court challenges, including Truman’s steel mill decree. New presidents can also override their predecessors’ orders with new directives, while Congress can attempt to undo the orders through legislation.

The post Obama To Bypass Congress On Immigration Reform appeared first on Eurasia Review.

American-Born London Mayor Refuses To Pay US Taxes, Threatens To Renounce Citizenship

0
0

The Internal Revenue Service reportedly wants London Mayor Boris Johnson to write a check for taxes he owes to the United States government, but the UK politician says he isn’t paying.

Johnson, 50, has been the mayor of London since 2008 and is considering a bid at Parliament in the near future. In the meantime, however, he might soon find himself in hot water on the other side of the pond. Johnson, who was born in New York but moved at the age of five, told NPR host Susan Page during an interview last week that the US wants him to pay a capital gains tax owed by American citizens who earn income abroad.

Previously, Johnson wrote in a 2006 column that he was “getting a divorce from America” and would renounce his citizenship, noting “for years I have travelled exclusively on a British passport,” and not the US-issued one he also holds. That threat failed to materialize, but a question emailed to the mayor while he was being interviewed by NPR recently might have rekindled his interest — and without a doubt revealed another issue that has peculiarly pitted Johnson against the IRS.

“It is very hard but I will say this: the great United States of America does have some pretty tough rules, you know,” Johnson said. “You may not believe this but if you’re an American citizen, America exercises this incredible doctrine of global taxation, so that even though tax rates in the UK are far higher and I’m Mayor of London, I pay all my tax in the UK and so I pay a much higher proportion of my income in tax, then I would if I lived in America.”

“The United States comes after me, would you believe it, for the — for capital gains tax on the sale of your first residence which is not taxable in Britain, but they’re trying to hit me with some bill, can you believe it?” Johnson continued.

Page, who was filling in during the Nov. 13 episode on behalf of NPR host Diane Rehm, quickly pressed Johnson: “Are you gonna pay the bill?” The mayor initially rebuffed her, though, saying instead that he just thought America’s demands were “outrageous.”

“Outrageous or not, will you pay this tax bill?” Page inquired again.

“Well, I’m — no, is the answer,” the mayor finally admitted. “I think, it’s absolutely outrageous. Why should I?”

“I could but I pay — I pay the lion’s share of my tax, I pay my taxes to the full in the United Kingdom where I live and work,” Johnson added, saying later that he continues to carry an American passport because “it’s very difficult to give up.”

Robert W. Wood, an expert on taxes and litigation, wrote for Forbes that Johnson still could decide to renounce his citizenship — something that Americans have done in record numbers in recent years. That wouldn’t solve the mayor’s tax problems, Wood wrote, however.

“When you exit you must certify five years of US tax compliance to the IRS. And any tax for the current or prior years must be paid. So, maybe Mayor Johnson should have renounced when he threatened to in 2006,” Wood wrote.

Around 2,353 Americans have renounced their citizenship since the start of 2014, Wood wrote later, and a continuation of the current trend would shatter last year’s record-breaking statistic of 2,999 renunciations.

The post American-Born London Mayor Refuses To Pay US Taxes, Threatens To Renounce Citizenship appeared first on Eurasia Review.

What’s Really Tearing Ukraine Apart – OpEd

0
0

Putin has set his steely sights on Ukraine. That’s been the unbending belief of President Barack Obama. He emphatically accused Russia of “seeking through force to exert influence on a neighboring country.”

Obama was talking, of course, about the violent 2014 crisis, ongoing as this is being written. It started with earnest street demonstrations and grew into a bloody revolution. It led to protest leaders taking over in Kyiv, the capital, and Russia assuming control of the Crimean peninsula in the south, and finally to civil war in the East.

The Obama administration also claims that in July 2014 Russia had Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in its crosshairs when the jetliner was shot out of the Ukrainian sky killing nearly 300 people. The plane may have been mistaken for a Ukrainian military transport. But it was Russia that supplied the advanced weaponry and expertise, according to the administration.

Russian president Vladimir Putin rejected Obama’s condemnatory claims all around. He asserted it was Obama who had Ukraine in the crosshairs. Putin glibly said the political crisis started as “a state coup supported by our U.S. and European partners.” He believes they’re the culprits who created the mess in the first place. The airplane disaster was just another consequence of America’s meddling.

Amidst those opposing views, one thing is clear: This high-stakes drama has pitted the United States against the Russian Federation in a confrontation that noted historian Stephen F. Cohen believes is the worst since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

The Plight of Ukrainians

While the U.S. and Russia exchange accusations about who’s to blame for the Ukrainian crisis, the predicament of the Ukrainian people seems to be lost in the shuffle.

News reports tend to focus on the hyperbolic rhetoric that is being tossed back and forth between the American and Russian sides. It’s true that each side has its own cadre of groupies within the Ukrainian population. But what about the main body of Ukrainians? Where are they left in all this?

Ukraine is one of the most impoverished countries in Europe. An International Monetary Fund report for 2013 ranks it fourth from the bottom of all Europe. Its per-capita GDP is less than one tenth that of France’s. According to Forbes magazine, “Ukraine is still struggling to recover from the 2008-2009 economic crisis while seeing its debt ($15.3 billion) skyrocket, among other financial woes.”

The country is second largest in Europe in land area (European Russia is the largest), and eighth in terms of population. It is a country with great potential. But, according to Transparency International, it is the most corrupt country in all of Europe.

Ukraine is on its sixth president since the country’s founding in 1991. Revolutions ushered two of them into power. And in each revolution there is convincing evidence that foreign interests took advantage of the Ukrainians. The foreigners exploited for their own questionable ends the Ukrainian passion for finding a government that can lead the citizens to a better way of life.

If we view the Ukrainians seeking to better themselves as the hero-protagonists of this saga, then the foreign actors that have exploited Ukraine’s tragic plight are decidedly the villains. The villains’ victim is Ukraine itself.

Before the tug-of-war began between the U.S. and the EU on one side, and Russia on the other, Ukraine existed with intact borders and without the tragedy of civil war…

The foregoing is excerpted from Ukraine in the Crosshairs (www.UkraineInTheCrosshairs.com) a newly-released book that exposes the ironic tragedy that is tearing Ukraine apart.

The post What’s Really Tearing Ukraine Apart – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images