The European Parliament called on EU member states and the European Commission to break down barriers to the growth of the EU’s digital single market in a resolution voted on Thursday.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) also stressed the need to prevent online companies from abusing dominant positions by enforcing EU competition rules and unbundling search engines from other commercial services.

According to the European Parliament, the digital single market could generate an additional €260 billion a year for the EU economy, as well as boosting its competitiveness, says the European Parliament resolution, which was approved by 384 votes to 174, with 56 abstentions. However, the resolution warns that important challenges, such as market fragmentation, lack of interoperability as well as regional and demographic inequalities in access to the technology, need to be tackled in order to unlock this potential.

Enforcing EU rules for online search companies

The resolution underlines that “the online search market is of particular importance in ensuring competitive conditions within the digital single market” and welcomes the Commission’s pledges to investigate further the search engines’ practices.

The resolution calls on the Commission “to prevent any abuse in the marketing of interlinked services by operators of search engines”, stressing the importance of non-discriminatory online search. “Indexation, evaluation, presentation and ranking by search engines must be unbiased and transparent”, MEPs say.

Given the role of internet search engines in “commercialising secondary exploitation of obtained information” and the need to enforce EU competition rules, MEPs also call on the Commission “to consider proposals with the aim of unbundling search engines from other commercial services” in the long run.

MEPs stressed that “all internet traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference”. Parliament urged member states to start negotiations on the telecoms package, so as to “put an end to roaming charges inside the EU, provide more legal certainty as regards net neutrality and improve consumer protection”.

Common standards for cloud computing

MEPs also called on the Commission “to take the lead in promoting international standards and specifications for cloud computing” so as to ensure that it is privacy friendly, reliable, accessible, highly interoperable, secure and energy efficient.

The post European Parliament Resolution Eyes Internet Search Companies And Clouds appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — The Bulgarian minister of economy has stated that during the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks the United States should lift the visa requirements on the country’s nationals, Dnevnik, the EurActiv partner in Bulgaria wrote yesterday (26 November).

Minister Bozhidar Lukarski was quoted as saying that the visa problem Bulgaria has with the USA is part of the national position regarding the TTIP talks.

Citizens of some new EU member states including Bulgaria, Romania and Poland still need a visa to travel to countries such as the United States, Canada or Australia.

Lukarski said his country wanted the visa issue to be discussed during the TTIP talks, but added that this was not a Bulgarian pre-condition.

“I hope we will receive serious support from EU member states, as well as understanding on behalf of our American partners”, he said.

The US is generally supportive of lifting the visa requirement for its EU allies, but says its internal regulations require that the respective nationals who have been admitted on its territory don’t overstay, which appears to be the case with Bulgarian, Romanian and Polish nationals.

The Commission wants “third countries” to apply a uniform visa policy vis-à-vis the 28 member states.

According a recent regulation, the Commission can in theory temporarily suspend the EU’s own visa exemptions on foreign countries if they have not lifted their visa requirements within six months.

The new legislation is an initiative of the European Parliament, which in a 2012 report, drew a list of third countries maintaining visa requirements on some EU countries.

According to MEPs, the Lisbon Treaty gives new powers to the Union to request that its member countries are treated as a whole, and that the US reciprocates on visa policy.

The post Bulgaria Links US Visa Treatment To TTIP appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The European Parliament rejected a motion of censure against Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s team on Thursday, with 461 votes against, 101 in favour and 88 abstentions.

The motion was tabled by 76 EFDD and non-attached Members of Parliament (MEPs) further to the “Lux leaks” plenary session debate with Juncker on 12 November. A debate on the motion was held on Monday.

To dismiss the Commission, under Parliament’s rules the motion would have needed to obtain a double majority: two-thirds of votes cast and a majority of all MEPs (i.e. 376). The motion was tabled by 76 EFDD and non-attached MEPs.

The post European Parliament Rejects Censure Motion Against Juncker’s Team appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Erkin Kamalov

Some Kyrgyz families are going en masse to Syria to join the insurgency, and Kyrgyz authorities intend to put an end to the exodus.

Alarmed relatives include Inoyatkhan of Nariman village, Kara-Suu District, Osh Oblast.

She turned to police after learning that her son Saibjan, 49, had told his family to come join him in Syria. He went to the war-torn country this summer.

At least 150 Kyrgyz are fighting in Syria now, the State National Security Committee (GKNB) estimated in October. Almost 90% of them come from the southern oblasts, where the population traditionally has been more devout than in the north.

A distraught mother

“[Inoyatkhan] is crying and pleading that we bring them back, but that’s tough to pull off,” Osh Oblast police spokesman Jenishbek Ashirbayev told Central Asia Online. “Saibjan’s 47-year-old wife and three sons, ages 27, 25 and 20, left Kyrgyzstan in October.”

The youngest son already has been killed in combat, Ashirbayev said. Kyrgyz and Turkish security agencies are working to locate the rest of the family and to repatriate them.

Other southern families have aroused the concern of the authorities by going to Syria. They include two families, who are related to each other, from Aravan District.

Diloramkhan Akhmedova, 63, previously convicted of distributing extremist literature, went to Syria a year ago with her 26-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old granddaughter, authorities say.

By doing so, she joined her older son, Ikramjan Karimov, who has been fighting as a militant for several years in Syria, Aravan District police said. Ilkham Karimov, Ikramjan’s brother, expressed sorrow that his relatives have gone to Syria.

“My brother is 39 now; his wife, Miyassar Bazarova, 24, and their three-year-old son left with him four years ago,” Ilkham Karimov said. “First, they went to Turkey, but since 2012 they’ve been rumoured to stay in Syria, but I can’t say for sure.”

Akhmedova flew to a third country for medical treatment, and Ilkham Karimov last talked to her by phone a year ago, he said. Since then, he has not known her whereabouts.

“My mother worked for most of her life in the social welfare department, but after retirement she … began praying five times a day and attending meetings organised by people from out of town,” Ilkham Karimov told Central Asia Online. “I’ll be very sorry if it turns out she is in Syria now. I’d very much like to find her, as well as my sister, brother and nephews, who did a stupid thing by giving in to [brainwashing] by radical elements.”

Working to stop exodus

Clerics and authorities are trying to put an end to the exodus.

“During Friday sermons, we always tell our parishioners not to join non-traditional … movements or to succumb to external influence, and not to go to Syria under any circumstances,” Sultan haji Erkulov, imam at an Aravan District mosque, said. Some believers become the targets of newcomers seeking to foment a schism and questioning traditional Islam, he added.

“It’s very bad when brainwashed … Muslims start telling their family members about ‘jihad,'” he said.

That’s why the authorities hold outreach meetings with youth, women’s councils and local communities, Aravan schoolteacher Khadicha Pulatova told Central Asia Online. They also rely on the co-operation of schools in Osh Oblast, which teach schoolchildren about the dangers of extremist movements.

Work migration can serve as a cover for militants too, she said. Some ostensible Kyrgyz job-seekers go to Kazakhstan or other countries – but keep on going to Turkey and then to a Syrian battlefield, Pulatova said.

Meanwhile, Osh Oblast police have another fugitive in their sights.

They recently learned that another Aravan District resident, Mansurbek, 22, of Chek-Abad village, went to Syria, according to a November 8 police report.

The post Kyrgyzstan: Government Trying To Keep Families From Fighting In Syria appeared first on Eurasia Review.

US Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work traveled to Afghanistan Nov. 27-28 to visit US service members during the Thanksgiving holiday and thank them for their service, according to a DoD news release.

The Deputy Secretary made stops at several coalition operating locations, visiting ISAF, NATO and Afghan forces in Kabul, Kandahar, Gamberi and Jalalabad to commend them on their ongoing efforts and successes.

At each location, Work met with service members and expressed Secretary Hagel’s and his own appreciation for their service, and that of their families during this critical time, the release noted.

While in Afghanistan, Work met with numerous senior U.S. military commanders, including Army Gen. John Campbell, International Security Assistance Force commander. During several meetings, Work highlighted the progress made by Afghan National Security Forces, ISAF’s ongoing transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission, and ongoing U.S. retrograde efforts, the release stated.

This visit to Afghanistan marks the third time Work has traveled to the country in an official capacity. This was his second trip as the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

The post US Deputy Secretary Visits Deployed Troops In Afghanistan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Luke Coffey and Daniel Kochis

In November 2013, the former Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, postponed signing an Association Agreement with the European Union after receiving an ultimatum from Moscow to choose between closer ties with Europe or Russia. One year later, Yanukovych is out, a pro-Western government is in power, Russia has illegally annexed the Crimea, and the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk are in rebellion. A fragile cease-fire remains in place, although localized fighting is an everyday occurrence. The U.S. must continue to back, and if necessary increase, targeted economic sanctions against Russian and separatist figures, offer non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian military, and keep Russia isolated diplomatically.

Cease-fire and Frozen Conflict

In July, when Russian-backed separatists shot down flight MH-17, killing almost 300 people, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived at a strategic decision-making point. He could have used the tragic incident as an “off-ramp” to his policy of supporting rebel groups in eastern Ukraine, or he could send in more Russian troops to help advance their cause. He chose the latter and increased the number of Russian troops operating in Ukraine to an estimated 4,000. While Russia denies ever sending forces inside Ukraine, this claim has been disputed by the U.S., NATO, and other European countries.[1]

In response, the Ukrainian government launched a major military offensive to retake control of territories from separatists. The offensive by Ukrainian forces was initially successful and retook large pieces of territory controlled by the Russian-backed separatists. The military offensive eventually stalled. With the help of Russian troops, the separatists began pushing back Ukrainian forces. Consequently, in September, the government in Kyiv agreed to a cease-fire—the so-called Minsk agreement—brokered by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Although the cease-fire officially remains in effect, localized fighting is the norm. Furthermore, as recently as November, NATO has confirmed another buildup of Russian military equipment and troops inside Ukraine.[2] The latest Russian military buildup is clearly an effort to consolidate gains in the region, and may constitute preparations for a renewed offensive.

Recent Political Developments in Ukraine

Ukrainian parliamentary elections held on October 26 resulted in pro-Western parties winning the largest number of seats. The pro-Western People’s Front, led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, won 22.2 percent of the vote, while Bloc Petro Poroshenko, the party led by Poroshenko, the current president, won 21.8 percent. Voters in the regions under separatist control, as well as in the annexed Crimean peninsula, were blocked from voting. As a result, 27 seats in parliament remain vacant. While support for the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc in the elections was overall low, only 9.8 percent, the party dominated in the eastern Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv oblasts. underscoring the internal divide that remains in the country.

On November 2, in a move widely criticized by the U.S. and its European allies, the separatists organized separate illegal elections in the territories under their control. The swift Russian recognition of these elections as legitimate led to international condemnation and threats of new sanctions against Russia.

Russia’s Next Move

Russia’s ultimate goal is to keep Ukraine out of the transatlantic community. Russia will also want to consolidate the gains made by separatist forces in eastern Ukraine with a longer term goal of controlling all territory that once formed 19th-century Novorossiya.

Short-term goals for Russia are to:

• Keep the conflict in eastern Ukraine “frozen.” In many ways, this equates to victory for Russia because it leaves Ukraine not in control of all its territory. Russia can also use the future status of separatist-controlled regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as bargaining chips.
• Ensure that the conflict continues until winter in order to use gas exports as a potent weapon.
• Use propaganda in western Ukraine to paint President Poroshenko and his government as weak, complacent, and corrupt.

Longer-term and more ambitious goals for Russia likely include:

• Helping the separatists consolidate gains in Donetsk and Luhansk in order to create a political entity that becomes more like a viable state. This will include the capture of important communication and transit nodes, such as Donetsk airport, Mariupul and its port, and the Luhansk power plant—all of which are under Ukrainian government control.
• Expanding separatist-controlled areas to include the entire Donbas region consisting of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the eastern sections of Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv oblasts.
• Re-establishing Russian control of the historical Novorossiya region. This would create a land bridge between Russia and Crimea—eventually linking up with the Russian-backed Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldavia. Re-establishing this control would be no easy undertaking and would require the capture of Mariupol and Odessa, Ukraine’s 10th-largest and third-largest cities, respectively.

US Must Maintain Focus on the Crisis

Since Ukraine is not a NATO member it does not enjoy a security guarantee from the U.S. However, the situation is not black and white. The alternative to U.S. military intervention is not to do nothing. The U.S. can, and should, help Ukraine by:

• Expanding the target list of Russian officials under the Magnitsky Act. Washington should implement a greater range of targeted sanctions aimed directly at Russian officials responsible for violating Ukrainian sovereignty, including freezing financial assets and imposing visa bans.
• Developing a new diplomatic strategy for dealing with Russia. The U.S. could start by acknowledging that the Russian “reset” is—and has long been—dead. Russia has already been expelled from the G-8 and NATO–Russia cooperation has been suspended. The U.S. should continue to marginalize Russia in other international fora, especially the G-20.
• Adopting a new global free-market energy policy. The U.S. should work immediately and comprehensively to eliminate barriers to U.S. energy exports. The benefits of this are obvious—reducing Europe’s dependence on Russia to keep the lights on and the fires burning.
• Providing defensive weaponry to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Every country has the inherent right to self-defense. The U.S. should increase its assistance to the Ukrainian military to include anti-armor, anti-aircraft, and small-arms weapons of a defensive nature. Also, any pre-planned joint training exercises between the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine should continue, and more should be planned.
• Withdrawing from New START. New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is a fundamentally flawed treaty that dramatically undercuts the security of the U.S. and its allies. It does nothing at all to advance U.S. security while handing Moscow a significant strategic edge in Europe.

The US Needs a Strategy

The difference between Russia and the U.S. right now is that Russia has a strategy that it is willing to follow, while the U.S. is hoping the problem disappears. Russia has been able to exploit the situation in eastern Ukraine for its own benefit, calculating that the West will not respond in any significant way. It is time to acknowledge that Russia’s imperial ambitions have no limits—and develop a strategy accordingly.

About the authors:
Luke Coffey is Margaret Thatcher Fellow, and Daniel Kochis is a Research Assistant, in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] David Stout, “Washington and Kiev Say Moscow Is Sending Heavily Armed Troops onto Ukraine,” Time, August 28, 2014, http://time.com/3202234/ukraine-us-putin-russian-troops-war-poroshenko/ (accessed November 21, 2014).

[2] “NATO Says Russian Troops Are in Ukraine,” Associated Press, November 12, 2014, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-russian-troops-ukraine- (accessed November, 21, 2014).

The post Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine: US Needs A Strategy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mona Yahia

Tunisia on Tuesday (November 20th) established the Intelligence, Security and Defence Agency under the Ministry of Defence.

Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa said the move “gives more flexibility and efficiency to intelligence work”.

The intelligence apparatus, whether military or security, has been criticised since the revolution for its inability to prevent terrorist groups from carrying out attacks on Tunisian territory and then quickly fleeing.

The security establishment was aware of the great weakness after the dissolution of the state security system, and has since started to recover.

The new intelligence agency “falls within the framework of a comprehensive conception of the military system and its security”, Defence Minister Ghazi Jeribi said. “This structure will replace the General Administration of Military Security, where it will include intelligence levels of collection and analysis of information, and a third level to determine strategy.”

“We will also create co-ordination at the level of the presidency of the government for the provision of information and analysis. Combating terrorism is not only a security approach, but also a comprehensive approach,” Jeribi added.

According to Mokhtar Ben Nasser, who runs the Tunisian Centre for Global Security Studies, the new agency’s task is to develop a comprehensive security system, and collect and analyse intelligence.

“Now there is no longer a security system separate from the defence,” Ben Nasser noted. “As far as I know, another administration will be created at the level of the head of government that includes all parties and shall ensure co-ordination between the defence and interior ministries and adjust strategies similar to ones that exist abroad.”

The new agency “will be equipped with the latest technology to counter terrorism, espionage and communicable diseases, such as Ebola, as well as all risks lurking around the country.”

The idea of establishing an intelligence agency is not new. Ever since terrorists started successfully carrying out attacks in the country, a number of politicians have suggested the move.

At a press conference on October 29, 2013, Ahmed Najib al-Chebbi, presidential candidate of the Republican Party, suggested creating a fund to fight terrorism. It would provide the necessary equipment to security forces and the army for counter-terrorism, and combat the risk of terrorism for security personnel and the army. The fund also would establish a national agency to collect intelligence information to fight terrorism and espionage.

The post Tunisia Strengthens Intelligence Capacity appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Yemen’s external debt was $7.256 billion in September, down $128 million from August, the Central Bank of Yemen (CBY) said Saturday,  the national news agency SABA reported.

According to SABA, international financing organizations make up the largest creditors with collective loans worth $3.606 billion, according to CBY figures.

Yemen’s external debt stands at $1.589 billion, divided among member countries of the Paris Club, with the largest creditors being Russia ($1.133 billion), SABA noted.

Yemen’s debt to the non-member countries of the Paris Club was $1.538 billion, with most of that amount ($1.352 billion) the country owes to the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD).

The post Yemen: External Debt Slightly Down To $7.256 Billion appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sushant Sareen

The excitement that greeted the handshake between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers at the end of the 18th SAARC summit in Kathmandu is as unnecessary as the anticipation. Neither the meeting nor the handshake (which was nothing else but courtesy) was going to change anything in the India-Pakistan dynamic. Around the same time when Prime Ministers Modi and Nawaz Sharif were bidding farewell, the Fidayeen attacked in Arnia in the Jammu region, a rude reminder of the ugly reality of India-Pakistan relations.

By not diluting its principled position that Pakistan needs to respect India’s sensitivities on separatism and address its concerns on terrorism for any dialogue between the two countries to become meaningful, Modi has sent a firm message that this time the ‘no business as usual’ position is for real. But at the same time it was also clear that India was not going to let its bilateral troubles with Pakistan impinge on the vision that the new government has for developing SAARC into a vibrant and dynamic regional grouping. Therefore, to blame the failure of the Summit to ink two agreements relating to road and rail connectivity on the so called India-Pakistan logjam is dumbing down of what actually transpired and what was at stake at the SAARC summit.

Despite the frostiness that exists between India and Pakistan, New Delhi was more than willing to put its problems with Islamabad aside in the larger interest of the South Asian community. Pakistan, on the other hand, wanted to play its diplomatic hardball by blocking the agreements. Some Pakistani analysts are of the view that this was Pakistan’s payback for India vetoing the entry of China as a full member of SAARC. There is also talk in Pakistan that these agreements would pave the way for India getting overland transit facilities to Afghanistan and beyond, something that Pakistan could not allow.

Whatever the real reason for Pakistan’s obduracy, the failure to get the agreements through lies squarely on its feet. To drag India into this is completely unwarranted because these agreements were not bilateral but a SAARC deal, which all the other member states wanted. By rubbing the other countries the wrong way, Pakistan has actually done India a favour by not just isolating itself in South Asia but also giving India an opportunity to strengthen relations with SAARC member countries.

Pakistan has not only failed to leverage its own location to become what Nawaz Sharif called ‘a natural economic corridor’, but also its ability to gain access to other South Asian countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan through India. For long, Pakistan has been crowing about its ‘strategic location’, first during Cold War and later during the War on Terror. Now, with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan looming large, and the world economy having undergone a paradigm change, Pakistan’s geographical location is an advantage only in relation to India. All the oil and gas pipelines, power corridors, trade and transit routes become viable only if India is at the other end.

If Nawaz Sharif was genuine and serious about what he said in his Kathmandu speech, then he could have effectively used the SAARC platform. Precisely because these agreements weren’t a bilateral deal with India, Nawaz Sharif could have taken the stand that holding out would make Pakistan appear to be the spoiler. What is more, signing on the dotted line of the agreements isn’t the same thing as actually implementing them. It is another matter that had Pakistan signed but stalled implementation, it would still have got isolated because the other nations would have gone ahead with enhancing connectivity leaving Pakistan out in the cold.

By denying India, all that Pakistan will get is a way to monopolize access to and from Afghanistan, a country which isn’t exactly a land of milk and honey. If anything, Afghanistan is a bottomless pit and Pakistan is welcome to sink in it. The Pakistanis currently dominate the trade with Afghanistan but once the foreigners leave and the money being currently pumped in by the expatriates (both civil and military) dries up, the trade will tumble.

India’s interest in Afghanistan was more altruistic than covetous. There isn’t much purchase in Afghanistan for India except for the fact that India would like to contribute to the stability and well-being of that country. As for gaining access to Central Asia, apart from the fact that the Iranian route is an efficient substitute to the Afpak route, a lot of the talk of Central Asia being some kind of an el Dorado is just hot air. It would, therefore, appear that in order to spite India, the Pakistan has once again cut its nose.

By playing spoiler at the SAARC summit, maybe the Pakistanis have spared India the embarrassment of reneging on the road and rail deal at a later date. A deal like this which would open India to Pakistani traffic is a security nightmare and highly avoidable. But more importantly, Pakistan has opened an opportunity for India to take the sub-regional route with the other South Asian countries from whom India stands to gain a lot more than from Pakistan.

India’s official plus unofficial trade with Bangladesh is around $10 bn. With Sri Lanka, bilateral trade is about $ 5-6 bn. But with Pakistan, it’s just about $2.5 billion – the unofficial trade of about $1-2 billion with Pakistan will continue regardless of whether Pakistan opens up to India or not. Yet, India remains obsessed with Pakistan. Ideally, if Pakistan doesn’t want to join in a mutually beneficial relationship, India should ignore it and instead economically tie with other SAARC countries.

Given Pakistan’s bloody-mindedness, the myth that the SAARC charter can’t be meaningfully implemented without getting both India and Pakistan on board needs to be busted. Without India, there is of course no SAARC. But the same doesn’t stand true for Pakistan. The time has perhaps come to restructure, even partition, SAARC to make it more effective. This is something that might also be required to be done in the likely event that Pakistan fosters the Taliban in Afghanistan. Surely, a Taliban-run Afghanistan cannot be accepted as a member state of SAARC and chances are that Pakistan will continue to insist on its client state remaining in SAARC. This would effectively kill this organisation. Fortunately, an opportunity has now arisen to rethink SAARC and this should be grasped.

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

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/LetsPartitionSAARC_ssareen_281114.html

The post Let’s Partition SAARC – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.

Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The Barack Obama/Gina McCarthy Environmental Protection Agency is likewise exploiting its lack of transparency and most Americans’ lack of scientific understanding. EPA bureaucrats and their hired scientists, pressure groups and PR flacks are getting rich and powerful by implementing costly, punitive, dictatorial regulations “for our own good,” and pretending to be honest and publicly spirited.

EPA’s latest regulatory onslaught is its “Clean Power Plan.” The agency claims the CPP will control or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change,” by reducing carbon dioxide and “encouraging” greater use of renewable energy. In reality, as even EPA acknowledges, no commercial-scale technology exists that can remove CO2 from power plant emission streams. The real goal is forcing coal-fired power plants to reduce their operations significantly or (better still) shut down entirely.

The agency justifies this by deceitfully claiming major health benefits will result from eliminating coal in electricity generation – and deceptively ignoring the harmful effects that its regulations are having on people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and well-being. Its assertion that reducing the USA’s coal-related carbon dioxide emissions will make an iota of difference is just as disingenuous. China, India and other fast-developing nations must keep burning coal to generate electricity and lift people out of poverty, and CO2 plays only a tiny (if any) role in climate change and destructive weather events.

The new CPP amplifies Obama Administration diktats targeting coal use. Companion regulations cover mercury, particulates (soot), ozone, “cross-state” air pollution, sulfur and nitrogen oxides that contribute to haze in some areas, and water quality. Their real benefits are minimal to illusory … or fabricated.

American’s air is clean, thanks to scrubbers and other emission control systems that remove the vast majority of pollutants. Remaining pollutants pose few real health problems. To get the results it needs, EPA cherry picks often questionable research that supports its agenda and ignores all other studies. It low-balls costs, pays advisors and outside pressure groups millions of dollars to support its decisions, and ignores the cumulative effects of its regulations on energy costs and thus on businesses, jobs and families.

Now, for the first time, someone has tallied those costs. The results are sobering.

An exhaustive study by Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. tallies the overall effects of EPA regulations on the electric power industry and provides state-by-state summaries of the rules’ impacts on residential, industrial and overall energy users. The study found that EPA rules and energy markets will inflict $284 billion per year in extra electricity and natural gas costs in 2020, compared to its 2012 baseline year.

The typical household’s annual electricity and natural gas bills will rise 35% or $680 by 2020, compared to 2012, and will climb every year after that, as EPA regulations get more and more stringent. Median family incomes are already $2,000 lower since President Obama took office, and electricity prices have soared 14-33% in states with the most wind power – so these extra costs will exact a heavy additional toll.

Manufacturing and other businesses will be hit even harder, the study concluded. Their electricity and natural gas costs will almost double between 2012 and 2020, increasing by nearly $200 billion annually over this short period. Energy-intensive industries like aluminum, steel and chemical manufacturing will find it increasingly hard to compete in global markets, but all businesses (and their employees) will suffer.

The EVA analysis calculates that industrial electricity rates will soar by 34% in West Virginia, 59% in Maryland and New York, and a whopping 74% in Ohio. Just imagine running a factory, school district or hospital – and having to factor skyrocketing costs like that into your budget. Where do you find that extra money? How many workers or teachers do you lay off, or patients do you turn away? Can you stay open?

The CPP will also force utility companies to spend billions building new generators (mostly gas-fired, plus wind turbines), and new transmission lines, gas lines and other infrastructure. But EPA does not factor those costs into its calculations; nor does it consider the many years it will take to design, permit, engineer, finance and build those systems – and battle Big Green lawsuits over them.

How “science-based” are EPA’s regulations, really? Its mercury rule is based on computer-generated risks to hypothetical American women who eat 296 pounds of fish a year that they catch themselves, a claim that its rule will prevent a theoretical reduction in IQ test scores by an undetectable “0.00209 points,” and similar absurdities. Its PM2.5 soot standard is equivalent to having one ounce of super-fine dust spread equally in a volume of air one-half mile long, one-half mile wide and one story tall.

No wonder EPA has paid its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee $181 million and the American Lung Association $25 million since 2000 to rubberstamp its secretive, phony “science.”

Rural America will really be walloped by the total weight of EPA’s anti-coal regulations. Nonprofit electricity cooperatives serve 42 million people in 47 states, across three-fourths of the nation’s land area. They own and maintain 42% of America’s electric distribution lines and depend heavily on coal. They have already invested countless billions retrofitting coal-fired generators with state-of-the-art emission control systems, and thus emit very few actual pollutants. (CO2 fertilizes plants; it is not a pollutant.)

EPA’s air and water rules will force these coal units to slash their electricity generation or close down long before their productive lives are over – and before replacement units and transmission lines can be built. Electricity rates in these rural areas are already higher than in urban areas, but will go much higher. Experts warn that these premature shutdowns will slash electricity “reserve margins” to almost zero in some areas, make large sections of the power grid unstable, and create high risks of rolling blackouts and cascading power outages, especially in the Texas panhandle, western Kansas and northern Arkansas.

The rules will thus put the cooperatives in violation of the Rural Electrification Act and 16 other laws that require reliable, affordable electricity for these far-flung communities. EPA’s actions are also putting rural hospitals in greater jeopardy, as they try to cope with “Affordable Care Act” rules and other burdens that have already caused numerous closings. As USA Today reported, the shuttered hospitals mean some of the nation’s poorest and sickest patients will be denied accessible, affordable care – and people suffering strokes, heart attacks and accidents will not be able to reach emergency care during their “golden hour,” meaning many of them will die or be severely and permanently disabled.

EPA never bothered to consider any of these factors. Nor has it addressed the habitat, bird, bat and other environmental impacts that tens of thousands more wind turbines will have; the “human health hazards” that wind turbines have been shown to inflict on people living near them; or the high electricity costs, notorious unreliability, and increased power grid instability associated with the wind and solar installations that EPA seems to think can quickly and magically replace the coal-based electricity it is eliminating.

Congress, state legislators and attorneys general, governors and courts need to stop these secretive, duplicitous, dictatorial Executive Branch actions. Here’s one thought. Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr helped organize the panel that called for establishing the Environmental Protection Agency. In a persuasive analysis, he says it’s time now to systematically dismantle the federal EPA and replace it with a “committee of the whole” of the 50 state environmental protection agencies.

The new organization would do a far better job of protecting our air and water quality, livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare. It will listen better to We the People – and less to eco-pressure groups.

The post The Gruberization Of Environmental Policies – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Bikram Vohra

I love the fact that President Obama is coming to Delhi for the Republic Day parade and it is always a great spectacle and we are, as a nation, a very hospitable people, we even invite strangers sitting next to us on a plane to stay in touch and call if they are in our city again. Look how warmly we welcome our prime minister every time he visits India or is passing through to another sell out performance somewhere in this wonderful world. I love the way he scampers down the plane, so full of bounce and beans. After all, our PM needs to be well rested. We cannot afford a jet lagged PM.

Just think of the cost of all the flowers handed to him when he gets off the plane which he does not even look at. And everyone to-ing and fro-ing to the airport to greet him like Caesar after Pompeii, another nation conquered, another speech given, more fans than Justin Beiber. The flowers had hardly wilted from the Oz trip when he was off to Nepal to attend the SAARC conference. In the interests of austerity, they can be reused tomorrow as he pops into Delhi again. Always reminds me of that line from the song in Sound of Music; how do you catch a cloud and pin it down.

Which is what I am worried about. Not the flowers but the heavy schedule. Next stop London and the Queen, then who knows, South Africa for a tryst with Gandhian history and a million Indians in Durban. The way he is on a roll we might even have him hosting the Oscars at the Kodak auditorium and appearing on Sesame Street. If I could make a deal with him I’d act as his event manager and sell tickets and obtain sponsorships and make lots of money. Boy, is he marketable.

I was tossing and turning in bed last night and my wife says, why are you stressed, what is the problem (she is a caring soul, this one) and I say, what if Obama arrives in India and Namo is at the Royal Albert or Wembley or he has a gig in Rio, that won’t look nice, will it and it will make everyone in Pakistan so excited that Obama was snubbed and that could lead to an extended stay in Afghanistan and we’d have to suffer all those talk shows interpreting the ramifications.
I am sure the PMO has worked out his itinerary and he’ll be able to squeeze Obama and Michelle into it before he flies out again, now go to sleep.

There’s the Sheherezade initiative at Carnegie Hall on the same day, I say, to fight against violence toward women, he’s a natural for it.
They’ll find someone else, switch off the light.

It is not that simple, I say, Namo is bigger than the Indian cricket team when they are on a winning streak, if he continues like this he could be the first NRI Prime Minister ever. He could be a PIO. But that is not all. Now that Namo has given Americans a free pass into India, Barack might feel it only fair to give him a green card in return and then the next you know he might shift to the USA and become a candidate for their elections, our loss their gain, you see where I am coming from, I mean President Modi of the United States, how does that sound?

I don’t think the Pakistanis will be pleased, she said.

They won’t, I said, but he’d be ideal for the State of the Union address.

Which Union, asks my wife sleepily.

The post Finding Namo – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pope Francis said Sunday that Muslim leaders around the world must speak out against violence and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. The Pope made the comments on his in-flight press conference returning from a three-day trip to Turkey,

“I believe sincerely that it can’t be said that all Muslims are terrorists. You can’t say that. Just as you can’t say that all Christians are fundamentalists because we have them too, eh. In all religions, there are these little groups,” he said Nov. 30.

“I told the (Turkish) president that it would be nice if all the Muslim leaders, whether political leaders or religious leaders or academic leaders, say that clearly and condemn it, no?” he continued, explaining that “all of us need a worldwide condemnation, also from Muslims who have the identity who say ‘We aren’t that. The Quran isn’t that’.”

The Pope also offered a firm warning on the situation of Middle East Christians.

“Truly, I don’t want to use sweetened words. Christians are being chased out of the Middle East. Sometimes, as we have seen in Iraq, the area of Mosul, they have to go away and leave everything, or pay the tax which doesn’t do any good.”

Speaking of broader violence throughout the world, Pope Francis said he believes “that we are living through a third world war, a war in pieces, in chapters, everywhere.”

“Behind this, there are rivalries, political problems and economic problems, to save this system where the god of money and not the human person is at the center. And behind this, there are also commercial interests: arms trafficking is terrible; it is one of the strongest businesses of this time.”

He cautioned that while humanity has discovered the positive good of nuclear energy, it has also used this energy for destructive means.

Asked about his trip to Turkey, Pope Francis emphasized ecumenism. He spoke about the importance of dialogue based on shared experience.

The Holy Father voiced his conviction that Catholics are moving forward in their relationship with the Orthodox, who have both the sacraments and apostolic succession.

“Unity is a journey we must undertake together,” praying and working together, he said, also noting “ecumenism of the blood,” as both Catholic and Orthodox martyrs shed their blood for the Christian faith.

Division exists when the Church becomes self-referential rather than focusing outward, the Pope stated. But while there are still difficulties, “we must be respectful and not tire of engaging in dialogue, without insulting others, without dirtying ourselves, without gossiping.”

In addition, Pope Francis spoke about a particularly intense moment of prayer he had during the papal trip.

He explained that he came to Turkey “as a pilgrim, not as a tourist,” and “the main reason was the feast today to share it with Patriarch Bartholomew, a religious reason.”

“But then, when I went into the mosque, I couldn’t say, ‘No, now I’m a tourist.’ No, it was all religious,” he said. “I saw those marvels, also the Mufti explained the things well to me with so much meekness, with the Quran where it spoke of Mary and John the Baptist. And he explained it all to me and in that moment I felt the need to pray. And, I said to him, ‘Shall we pray?’ And he said, ‘Yes, yes.’ I prayed for Turkey, for peace, for the Mufti, for everyone, for myself because I need it. And, we truly prayed. And, I prayed especially for peace. Lord, let’s end wars. It was like that. It was a moment of sincere prayer.”

He also spoke about his visit with refugee children and said that he would like to go to Iraq.

“For the moment it isn’t possible. It’s not that I don’t want to go, but if I went right now it would cause a quite serious problem for the authorities, for security. But, I would really like to and I want to,” he said.

The post Pope Francis Says Muslims Must Speak Out Against Terrorism, Violence appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By C. Raja Mohan

For all its trappings of a multilateral organisation, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose leaders are gathering in Kathmandu this week, is only an aggregation of India’s bilateral relations with its neighbours. This is the reason why the world is focusing on what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has to offer during the first Saarc summit that he is attending.

The Great Game Folio

The PM had raised expectations that India would take the leadership of the region by his surprise invitation to all the Saarc leaders to attend his swearing-in ceremony in May. His visits to Bhutan and Nepal have reinforced those hopes. Modi, however, has a problem. He has inherited a dysfunctional Saarc, whose failures are rooted in geography and history.

As the largest country located at the heart of the subcontinent, India has borders with all its neighbours. Only two other members, Pakistan and Afghanistan, have a border with each other. It is no big surprise, then, that most of the regional trade is actually bilateral trade between India and its neighbours. So are the problems that come from a common border.

That takes us to the history of these frontiers. The partition of the subcontinent created new borders and territorial disputes within the subcontinent. Nearly seven decades later, India does not have settled borders with either Pakistan or Bangladesh. In the northwest, Kabul does not accept Islamabad’s claims that the Durand Line drawn by the British Raj between undivided India and the subcontinent at the end of the 19th century is the legitimate boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Economic partition

Territorial disputes would not have mattered if India and its neighbours had built open economies. Instead, they all turned to state socialism that de-emphasised trade and connectivity. As a consequence, what was an integrated economic space under the Raj broke up into several inward-oriented markets. The global compulsions for economic reform in the early 1990s had also set the stage for regional integration. If New Delhi was a hesitant reformer at home, it has been equally tentative in its efforts to rewrite the economic map of the region. The few initiatives that India has taken in Saarc in recent years have, however, run into political problems.

This unfortunate situation is unlikely to change at the Kathmandu summit. For example, it is not yet clear if Pakistan is ready to sign the regional agreements on rail, road and energy connectivity that have been drafted for the Kathmandu summit. Even if it signs them, it is by no means guaranteed that Islamabad will implement them. The experience of the South Asian free trade agreement that Pakistan was unwilling to extend to India is a case in point. Pakistan’s argument is simple: as long as it has political problems with India, it will not

Positive unilaterism

Modi has three options. The first is to focus on a two-speed Saarc. As Delhi waits for better relations with Pakistan, it could, in the interim, move towards subregional cooperation. In the east, India can take steps to foster integration with Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. In the south, it can construct deeper links with the Maldives and Sri Lanka.

The second is to build on transregional institutions like the BIMSTEC, which connects the eastern subcontinent with parts of Southeast Asia or join Chinese Silk Road initiatives that hope to connect different parts of the subcontinent with various regions of China.

While India can do much on the first and second, it is the third way that offers Modi the greatest opportunity — unilateral action. Modi, for example, has already proposed, unilaterally, to build a Saarc satellite for use by its neighbours.

Former foreign secretary Shyam Saran has suggested that Modi could open India’s market for goods produced in the neighbouring countries by reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers and improving trade facilitation. Delhi could also consider transit to its neighbours — for instance, letting in overland trade between Bangladesh on the one hand and Nepal and Bhutan on the other. Modi can also announce unilateral visa liberalisation.

Instead of negotiating the setting up of a Saarc bank, Modi could unveil an Indian financial facility for liberal lending to transborder connectivity projects in the subcontinent. If he can break from Delhi’s old mindset, a strategy of positive unilateralism would allow Modi to push the subcontinent a little faster towards long overdue regional integration.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a Contributing Editor for ’The Indian Express’)

Courtesy : The Indian Express, November 26, 2014)

The post Modi’s Regionalism – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Around 50 Islamic State fighters were killed by coalition airstrikes and in clashes  around Kobani, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), including five ISIS members who detonated themselves with explosive devices.

Additionally, SOHR reported that clashes continued between the two sides at the Syrian Turkish borders, with Turkish forces regaining control of the border and the silos area.

According to SOHR, around 160 shells were fired yesterday by the IS  on areas Kobani, adding that two ISIS tanks were destroyed, one of them by the coalition air strikes.

Coalition warplanes also carried out today four air strikes targeting ISIS strongholds Kobani, with reported ISIS losses, SOHR reports.

Earlier this week, US Central Command officials reported that US military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria using bomber and fighter aircraft to conduct 10 airstrikes.

The post Syria: 50 Islamic State Fighters Killed In Kobani appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dmitry Durnev

“There’s a new battalion deployed at the checkpoint,” my companion Igor said. “Look at the massive queue to get into Mariupol. It’ll be like that for three days now, until they learn to check just the big things rather than all the minor stuff.”

Igor knows what he’s talking about. As a minibus taxi driver, he has driven the route from rebel-held Donetsk to Mariupol and back twice a day for the entire duration of the conflict. He has survived bombardment with shells exploding either side of the road, complete closure during the fighting in late August, when he had to take an alternative route along country roads, and much more besides.

When he isn’t driving a minibus, he is a biker – he enjoys taking risks. He likes the money as well, and the Donetsk-Mariupol fare has doubled since July.

Drivers like him are first-hand observers of the war. They get together at the Southern Bus Station in Mariupol to swap stories, and Igor has become an expert commentator on newly-arrived military equipment, new fortifications and fresh Ukrainian reinforcements around Volnovakha, Krasnoarmeysk, Konstantinovka and Mariupol.

I know fair amount about this myself. For instance, I know about Ukrainian defence minister Stepan Poltorak’s recent unannounced tour of army units in Donbas. Ukraine was rapidly preparing to deal with for a new rebel offensive. News that the separatists were building up their military hardware and manpower was reinforced by an understanding among Ukrainian leaders that the Minsk agreement signed in early September was effectively dead. The accord did not, for example, envisage that the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics would hold their own elections on Novermber 2.

There are three factors that have sharpened the sense that full-scale war is imminent in the Donetsk region.

First, both before and after the Ukrainian parliamentary election of October 26 and then ahead of the November 2 rebel election, there was a constant flow of convoys of vehicles coming from the east. The shelling of Donetsk airport increased dramatically, coming from residential areas and targeting most of the airfield perimeter. In the last week, howitzer batteries have lined up along Donetsk’s ring-road, unsettling the last quiet district in the city, Proletarsky. This build-up of manpower and hardware is hardly coincidental, and comes as Ukrainian volunteer units are running painfully short of ammunition.

Second, the rebel units have been bolstered quite a lot of men from Slavyansk and Kramatorsk who left those towns with Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) in early July in the face of Ukrainian advances. Their families now live in Donetsk’s university hostels and await their return home in triumph. That is taking longer than they expected, though.

Then there are the fresh recruits from Russia – and there are a lot of them. They haven’t yet learned to their cost that people are often killed in war, so they are gung-ho about going into battle. I have heard this first-hand from army medics in the rebel forces, who see a lot of injured soldiers.

The third point is that within its present bounds, the Donetsk People’s Republic or DNR is not a viable economic entity. That is all the more true in light of President Petro Poroshenko’s recent decree effectively imposing an economic blockade on areas the government does not control.

Given all these circumstance, and reports of activity on the ground, everyone was expecting the war to escalate on November 16, while Russian president Vladimir Putin was at the G20 summit in Brisbane

I can even say where the offensives were scheduled to happen – Debaltsevo, Lugansk and Mariupol. Two were supplementary while the main push was to be in the Mariupol area, circling round the city itself and targeting Mangush.

After the offensives failed to materialise, there was, surprisingly enough, a brief lull. In relative terms, of course – artillery fire could still heard in Donetsk itself at night and in some places in the daytime too. Looking out of my apartment window on November 21, I could see a heavy pall of smoke hanging over the airport.

On another note, some structural shifts are taking place within the DNR. A new body, the Central Department for Donbas Reconstruction is playing an increasingly prominent role. Located in a three-story building to the left of the provincial government offices, it coordinates all flows of funding and supplies, and works to rebuild infrastructure in rebel-held areas. Igor Martynov, appointed by DNR leader Alexander Zakharchenko to replace city mayor Alexander Lukyanchenko, is officially styled “Donetsk Administrator” and is beginning to instruct municipal service agencies to articulate their needs more clearly and direct all requests to the central reconstruction department.

“Russia will help us!” Martynov proclaimed in remarks shown on local television on November 20, as he announced the arrival of more Russian aid. The most recent convoy from Russia brought foodstuffs, medicines, building materials and sixty tons of petrol and diesel – enough to keep ambulances, police and urban transport on the move. This is more than just aid – it is a total supply programme that Russia has been forced to undertake to support the unrecognised republic.

I have been planning a trip to Moscow, and some friendly DNR insiders gave me a practical tip-off – not to leave my car in Mariupol. They warned that within the next couple of weeks, Volnavakha and Mariupol could be “sorted out” – meaning captured, of course. I won’t be surprised if they try to do just that.

Dmitry Durnev is editor-in-chief of the MK-Donbass newspaper in Donetsk. This article was published at IWPR.

The post Ukraine: Donetsk, Mariupol Await Conflict Resurgence – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

It seems nobody wants to be Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration. The president’s first two Defense Secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, both complained bitterly this month about their time in the administration. The president’s National Security Council staff micro-managed the Pentagon, they said at a forum last week.

Former Secretary Gates revealed that while he was running the Defense Department, the White House established a line of communication to the Joint Special Operations Command to discuss matters of strategy and tactics, cutting the Defense Secretary out of the loop. His successor at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta, made similar complaints.

Last week President Obama’s third Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, was forced out of office after complaining in October that the administration had no coherent policy toward Syria. He did have a point: while claiming recent US bombing in Syria is designed to degrade and destroy ISIS, many in the administration continue pushing for “regime change” against Syrian president Assad – who is also fighting ISIS. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has spoken out in favor of further US escalation in Syria and Iraq despite President Obama’s promise of “no combat troops” back to the region.

Shortly after Chuck Hagel’s ouster, the media reported that the president favored Michelle Flournoy to replace him. She would have been the first female defense secretary, but more tellingly she would come to the position from a think tank almost entirely funded by the military industrial complex. The Center for a New American Security, which she founded in 2007, is the flagship of the neocon wing of the Democratic Party. The Center has argued against US troops ever leaving Iraq and has endorsed the Bush administration’s doctrine of preventative warfare. The Center is perhaps best known for pushing the failed counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan. The COIN doctrine was said at the time to have been the key to the US victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the US is back in Iraq and will continue combat operations in Afghanistan next year, you don’t hear too much about COIN and victories.

Flournoy turned down Obama before she was even asked, however. She is said to be waiting for a Hillary Clinton presidency, where her militarism may be even more appreciated. With the next Senate to be led by neocons like John McCain, a Hillary Clinton presidency would find little resistance to a more militaristic foreign policy.

So President Obama cannot keep defense secretaries on the job and his top Pentagon pick is not interested in serving the last stretch of a lame duck administration. There is bickering and fighting within the administration about who should be running the latest US wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Here is one thing none of them are fighting about: the US policy of global intervention. All sides agree that the US needs to expand its war in the Middle East, that the US must continue to provoke Russia via Ukraine, and that regime change operations must continue worldwide. There is no real foreign policy debate in Washington. But the real national security crisis will come when their militarism finally cripples our economy and places us at the mercy of the rest of the world.
This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: Who Wants To Be Defense Secretary? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sung-Hoon Park

In 2010, the European Union (EU) and Korea began a new era of engagement by establishing a strategic partnership, which intends to strengthen bilateral dialogue and cooperation in regional and global affairs. The EU-South Korea Framework Agreement specifically commits the two parties to ‘strengthening cooperation in the area of [...] development assistance’.1 As a new development donor and recent member of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Korea is reforming and scaling up its development assistance and establishing cooperation initiatives with traditional donors, including some EU member states. In this context, cooperation on international development appears to be a promising issue for the future agenda of the Korea- EU partnership.

Korea’s Emergence As A Development Donor

Korea provides a rare example of a state that has successfully transformed itself from a poverty-stricken country to a flourishing industrialised nation within just a few decades.2 While in 1962 Korea’s per-capita income was around US$80, by 2013 it had increased to more than US$23,000. This experience has contributed to shaping the country’s commitment and approach to development cooperation, including its interest in sharing lessons from its own development progress.

Korea first began to provide international development assistance in the 1980s. In 1987, it established the Economic Development and Cooperation Fund (EDCF) and in 1991, the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA).3 During the period 1987- 2000, Korea was a ‘Janus’ in international development cooperation, as it increasingly provided funds as a donor, while receiving itself development assistance from Western countries.4

Development Assistance Committee Membership And Related Reforms

Korea became a DAC member in 2009. An important factor that motivated the Korean government to seek membership was the fact that Korea had received huge amounts of development aid from the international community in the early stages of its economic development. Korea’s political leadership saw this as a means to pay back the international community for its support, while fulfilling its international responsibilities as a newly industrialised country.5 Korea’s more proactive involvement in development cooperation can also be seen as an attempt to increase its profile and strategic position in East Asia, taking advantage of the current leadership vacuum in the region that has been created by growing rivalry between China and Japan.

DAC membership has triggered a number of important reforms in Korea’s development cooperation policy. In line with commitments undertaken during the membership negotiations, the overall development assistance budget has been increased;6 there is now greater emphasis on grants rather than on loans; the ratio of untied loans has been raised relative to tied loans;7 and the policy governance structure has undergone significant reforms.8 Among the measures taken, the adoption of the Framework Act on International Development Cooperation (hereafter Framework Act) in 2010 was particularly noteworthy. This provided the basis for the establishment, also in 2010, of the Committee of International Development Cooperation (CIDC) under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) as a control centre for all development-related policies.9

But Korea’s international development cooperation still faces a number of challenges and there is a long way ahead to reach the standards of other DAC members.10 Despite increases, in 2013 Korea’s international development cooperation budget represented around 0.15 per cent of GNI, which is one of the lowest among DAC members. The DAC has recommended that Korea consistently increase its official development assistance (ODA) to reach 0.25 per cent of GNI by 2015.11 Furthermore, Korean aid is highly fragmented, which reduces its impact. In 2012, the DAC recommended that Korea concentrate on fewer sectors and countries.12 Korea’s ODA also overly focuses on Asia, overlooking development needs in Africa and Latin America.13 Finally, despite reforms, Korea’s aid governance system is still in need of improvements, particularly in terms of the division of competences for grant-type and loan-type ODA.

Korea’s Multilateral Role And International Partnerships

In recent years, Korea has assumed an increasingly prominent role in multilateral discussions on development.14 For example, during the 2010 G20 Seoul Summit, held under Korea’s G20 presidency, the country played an instrumental role in bringing ‘development’ onto the official summit programme and promoting the adoption of the ‘Seoul Consensus on Development’. The consensus, with its strong focus on economic growth, represented a change from the traditional OECD DAC ‘pro- poor’ agenda and was championed by G20 emerging powers.15 In the run-up to the summit, Korean diplomats conducted extensive negotiations with leading G20 countries, as well as with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in order to secure an agreement.16 Likewise, as host of the Fourth High- Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011, Korea played a significant role in helping achieve an agreement among traditional donors and emerging economies on the language of ‘common goals’ but ‘differential commitments’, as well as promoting the inclusion of gender empowerment in the Busan Outcome Document.17

Since its accession to the DAC, Korea has increased its cooperation with other bilateral donors and has established development partnerships with a number of countries, including the United States, Japan and some EU member states. These partnerships have served to both upgrade Korea’s own development policy framework and increase the effectiveness of its aid. The partnerships with some EU countries, such as Germany, are among the most far-reaching.

Korea’s Flagship Knowledge Sharing Programme

Among the various elements of Korea’s international development cooperation, the Knowledge Sharing Programme (KSP) stands out as a unique policy instrument. Established in 2004, it is funded by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) and administered by the Korea Development Institute (KDI). It aims to share lessons from Korea’s development experience – both successes and failures – with developing countries. The MOSF has designated around 50 developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America as partner countries and since its inauguration KSP has implemented around 135 projects. It encompasses a wide range of policy areas, ranging from trade and investment to infrastructure development, agricultural sector competitiveness and industrial policy.

In 2012, the Korean government launched under the KSP umbrella the ‘Joint Consulting with International Organisations (IO)’ initiative. It includes cooperation projects with international organisations, primarily regional and multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The initiative is currently managed by the Korea EXIM Bank and aims to combine ‘lessons drawn from Korea’s development experience with IOs’ development consulting expertise’.18

Korea-EU Engagement On Development

Korea-EU engagement on development has not yet gone beyond the high-level commitments established in the strategic partnership framework agreement. While Korea has engaged in policy dialogue and practical collaboration on development with various EU member states – including through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and joint project implementation– so far there has been no concrete collaboration with EU institutions.

This is due to two main factors. First, in recent years Korea has focused more on the internal policy reforms required for DAC membership than on the need and potential for cooperation with the EU. Second, the size and importance of the EU as a donor has often not been sufficiently recognised in Korean policy circles.19
Korean collaboration with EU member states

Korea’s collaboration with other donors, including EU member states, began mainly after Korea’s DAC membership. Since then, Korea has developed a wide portfolio of cooperation activities with a number of EU countries, including Germany (2006), Denmark (2010), France (2011), and Spain (2012). The collaboration with Germany is the oldest and most advanced, and covers a wide range of areas, including Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), trilateral cooperation, regional development and environment, Aid for Trade (AfT), research cooperation, and staff exchange. Both Germany and Spain are keen on strengthening trilateral cooperation programmes with Korea. For its part, cooperation with France focuses on basic human development goals, such as education, health, sanitation, poverty reduction and food security. Korea also cooperates with some EU member states on sustainable development, climate change and environment. Together with Denmark, Korea played an important role in setting up the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) as an inter-governmental organisation in 2011.

In 2010 German, French, Korean and Japanese development agencies formed a network for cooperation on development. This could be seen as part of European efforts to deepen partnerships with Asian regional actors in order to increase their collective impact both regionally and globally.

Korea’s partnerships with EU member states have evolved from workshops and MOU-type declaration of intent to include pioneer cooperation projects in the areas of project/ programme evaluation, human resource development and capacity building. These are sectors where EU member states and Korea have strong experience and can work in synergy, drawing on their respective expertise. Programme and project evaluation is also a sector where Korea can learn from European actors.

Korean Engagement With EU Institutions

There appears to be significant potential for greater Korean collaboration with EU institutions in the area of development, although the recent dialogue between the two partners on development (launched in 2012) has not translated into concrete action so far.

The 2010 Framework Agreement20 and the 2012 Summit Declaration could provide strong institutional and administrative underpinnings for such collaboration. The Joint Press Statement of the 2012 Korea-EU Summit Meeting identified international development as an important area for future bilateral cooperation, stating that ‘[...] the leaders agreed to conduct regular policy dialogue and to exchange information on their respective programmes and, where appropriate, to coordinate their engagement in-country to increase their impact on poverty eradication’. Since 2008, Korea and the EU have held three director-general-level policy consultations on development cooperation. During the third such meeting held in March 2014, the two parties shared their experiences in development cooperation, explored synergies between their cooperation projects in developing countries, and discussed ways to cooperate on key inter- national development issues, including the Busan Global Partnership and the post-2015 development agenda.21

Commitments to strengthen the Korea- EU partnership on development must be understood in the context of the upgrading of bilateral economic relations through the 2011 Korea-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In fact, Korea was the EU’s first Asian FTA partner and is so far the only country in the world to have signed both a Strategic Partnership Framework Agreement and an FTA with the EU. This unique status provides a strong foundation for deepening bilateral cooperation in a variety of fields, including in international development cooperation. ‘Korea could have a special role on acting as a bridge between the traditional and the new emerging donors’.22 Adopting such a mediating role is a strategic aim of the Korean government in relation to both the East Asian regional architecture (mediating between developed and developing Asia) and the global trade policy agenda (mediating between developed and developing trading nations).

An Agenda For The Future

High-level commitments, together with several MOUs between Korea and individual EU member states,are important foundations for strengthening Korea-EU cooperation in international development. The two partners must now identify how to work in complementary ways to avoid overlaps and duplications.

Trilateral cooperation could be an important modality for collaboration. Trilateral engagement in Asia, Latin America and Africa has the potential to combine the two partners’ respective regional expertise. Existing pilot projects being undertaken by Korea and Germany in Nepal and Mongolia could offer some useful lessons for future EU-Korea trilateral cooperation.

Given Korea’s own development experience through export promotion and the expertise of some EU member states in TVET, the EU and Korea could consider the development of trade-related infrastructure and human resources as a priority area for collaboration. Trade promotion, TVET and human resource development are among the most popular areas for support within Korea’s KSP. KSP benefits around 30 countries every year, with an average of 3-5 subject areas per project. KSP could thus provide a promising framework for EU-Korea engagement. EU participation could be carried out in a format similar to that of the Joint Consulting with International Organisations initiative and could take various forms. For example, EU institutions could participate in already existing country projects by sharing budgets, sending their own experts and providing regional expertise. Alternatively, the two parties could develop new joint projects.

Green growth and climate change, which are core issues of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda, could be another area for Korea-EU engagement on development. The EU and its member states have an excellent track-record in environmental protection. They also possess some of the most advanced green technologies. In contrast, Korea has only recently begun to develop its interest in this field. Korea’s green growth initiative in the G20 Summit Meeting was well received and resulted in the establishment of the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). The Green Growth Planning and Implementation (GGP&I), which constitutes one of core activities of the GGGI,23 could be an excellent candidate for Korea-EU partnership in these fields.24

Korea-EU engagement on development has so far been largely limited to working with individual member states. However, there appears to be significant potential for increased collaboration with EU institutions, building on Korea’s experiences with EU member states. In order to realise this potential, policy commitments to dialogue and cooperation must be translated into action. This will require identifying a few strategic projects on which the EU and Korea can begin concrete collaboration.

About the author:
Sung-Hoon Park is Professor at Korea University.

Source:
This article was published by FRIDE as ESPO (Europaan Strategic Partnerships Observatory) Policy Brief 15, November 2014 (PDF).

Endnotes:
1. See Article 2 of the 2010 EU-South Korea Framework Agreement.
2. A. Marx and J. Soares, ‘Korea’s Development Cooperation Policy: Assessing Opportunities for European Union Collaboration in a New Global Development Cooperation Architecture’, Paper presented in the conference ‘EU-Korea Relations in a Changing World’, November 2013.
3. EDCF manages loan-type development assistance and is supervised by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, whereas the KOICA manages grant-type development assistance and is supervised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Government of the Republic of Korea, ‘Memorandum for the DAC Peer Review: Republic of Korea’, Seoul: Government of the Republic of Korea, May 2012.
4. It is reported that Korea had received a total sum of US$12.6 billion by the time it graduated from being a recipient country in 2000.
5. S.H. Park, ‘Quest for a stronger regional leadership and an upgraded global profile: Korea’s opportunity in the crisis’, in: Asia Europe Journal 9(2-4): 225–36, 2012.
6. Korea’s ODA budget has increased by an annual average of 21.6 per cent since 2001, having reached approximately US$1.6 billion in 2012. For more details, see Government of the Republic of Korea, ‘ODA White Book: Opening a New Era of Happiness for All Humanity’, Seoul: Government of the Republic of Korea, 2014.
7. Grant-type development assistance has increased from 30 per cent to 60 per cent of the total development budget. The share of untied loans has also continuously increased, having reached 36 per cent in 2011, but is subject to fluctuation. See Government of the Republic of Korea 2014, op. cit., p.90.
8. For a more detailed description of such policy efforts, see Government of the Republic of Korea 2012, op. cit.
9. Ibid.
10. A more detailed discussion can be found in OECD, ‘Korea: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review 2012’, Paris: OECD, 2012.
11. This was the commitment made by the Lee, Myung-Bak government when applying for DAC membership. See OECD,
‘Development Cooperation of the Republic of Korea: DAC Special Review’, DCD (2008)7, Paris: OECD, 2008.
12. Korea has already begun reforms to better focus its ODA, including identifying 26 priority partner countries and reducing the sectors in which it works. For more details, see Government of the Republic of Korea 2012, op. cit.
13. The Korean government is attempting to address this challenge by designating several priority partner countries in Africa and Latin America; spending more of its budget on basic needs and on cross-cutting issues; and engaging more strongly in international partnerships. As a result, the share of ODA provided to Africa increased from 2.6 per cent in 2001 to 22.1 percent in 2012. See Government of the Republic of Korea 2012 and 2014, op. cit.
14. Marx and Soares 2013, op. cit.
15. The Seoul consensus consists of eight pillars: infrastructure, private investment and job creation, human resources development, trade, financial services, G20 platform for knowledge sharing, resilience and food security, and governance.
16. G. Chin and J. Heine, ‘Consultative Forums: State Power and Multilateral Institutions’ in Currie-Alder et al (eds.), International Development: ideas, experience and prospect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
17 H.S. Sohn, ‘Busan High-Level Forum: From Dead Aid to Better Development?’, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2011.
18. Cited from KSP, Joint Consulting with International Organisations (IOs), Seoul: Ministry of Strategy and Finance of Korea, 2011, available at: http://www.ksp.go.kr/pillars/jointmain.jsp.
19. This may be due to (i) a strong orientation of Korea’s policy cooperation with the United States and regional neighbours; (ii) a focus on traditional bilateral country-to-country cooperation; (iii) weak engagement by the EU institutions with the Korean Government, especially in the area of international development cooperation.
20. The Preamble of the 2010 EU-South Korea Framework Agreement identifies ‘development assistance’ as one of the most important cooperation areas, while Article 27 of the Agreement is fully devoted to bilateral cooperation in this area.
21. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea, ‘Third ROK-EU Policy Consultation on Development Cooperation to Take Place (March 17, 2014)’, Press Release, Seoul: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea, 2014.
22. Marx and Soares 2013, op. cit.
23. See the website of the GGGI: www.gggi.org.
24. For more details on cooperation between GGGI and GTC-Korea, see http://gggi.org/gggi-and-green-technology-center-korea-pledge-to-collaborate-on-green-growth-research/.

The post South Korea And EU: Promising Partnership For Development Cooperation? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iran has dismissed as “baseless” a statement by Gulf Arab states supporting United Arab Emirates’ alleged ownership of three Iranian islands, saying the Persian Gulf islands are integral part of the country.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham, said that repetition of baseless claims to the three Iranian islands would not change historical facts.

Noting that “friendly ties with neighbors based on non-interference policy and mutual respect” top the Islamic Republic’s agenda, she said Iran does not put any limit on the expansion of friendly ties with neighboring countries.

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry also said that occupation of Palestine and organized and constant inhuman crimes of the Zionist regime of Israel against inhabitants of the holy land is the source of creation and continuation of one of the longest world crises.

According to the Foreign Ministry Media Department, the statement continued that these acts of the Zionist regime are not only the roots of many problems and crises in the Middle East and Islamic world, but one of the main sources of insecurity and instability in the world.

The ministry underlined again Iran’s all-out support for the human and liberating ideals of oppressed people of Palestine.

The statement continued Iran respects Palestinians’ admirable and legitimate resistance against invasion and occupation of the Zionist regime of Israel and calls on world community to pay attention to the main roots of continuation of Palestine crisis and ways to solve it.

It said there is no solution to end the big human tragedy except through ending occupation in order to restore inalienable rights of Palestinians to determine their own fate and return of all refugees to their motherland.

The statement also condemned recent acts of the Zionist regime in demolishing historical identity of the holy Quds and insulting Al-Aqsa Mosque and warned that continuation of invading policies of the regime would cause strengthening radicalism and emergence of bigger crises in the region and the world.

It also expressed sympathy with besieged people of Gaza Strip and called on Islamic countries and world community to perform urgent and unconditional acts to end the cruel blockade.

Iran has also condemned a recent terrorist attack on a mosque in Nigeria’s northern state of Kano, which left at least 120 people dead.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham, deplored the spread of terrorism and extremism in Nigeria and underlined the necessity to eradicate these ominous phenomena.

She further called on Nigerians to close ranks and prevent any measures that would cause sectarian and ethnic division in the African country.

On Friday, two explosions took place shortly after hundreds of people had gathered to listen to a Friday Payers sermon at the Grand Mosque in the city of Kano, situated 423 kilometers (262 miles) north of the capital, Abuja.

The post Iran: Statement Supporting UAE Ownership Of Three Islands Is ‘Baseless’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The exchange rate for the dollar rose even higher in Tehran with every dollar being traded at 3,520 toumans on Sunday, Mehr News Agency reports.

ISNA reported the dollar was traded at 3,560 toumans on Sunday afternoon, which is the highest rate of exchange for the dollar since Hassan Rohani took power last year.

The steep fall in the value of the Iranian currency began when the nuclear negotiations in Vienna were extended for another 8 months last week.

The Iranian Minister of Economy, however, has announced that these fluctuations were not representative of any major changes in the economy and the currency market would soon stabilize.

The post Iran’s Touman Continues Slide Against Dollar appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Last week’s South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in Nepal proved another disappointment as leaders of the eight nation grouping only managed to sign one agreement, the creation of a regional electricity grid. Pakistan was blamed for blocking the other two agreements that were on the table, covering road and rail links. There was also no progress in agreeing on how to fight terrorism which was regarded as a top priority of SARRC leaders.

The summit did agree on a declaration setting a 15 year target for developing a regional economic community. It contained several lofty aims to promote cooperation on cyber, culture, health, food security and so on but it is doubtful if any of the aims will be realised given the poor state of relations between the members.

Most media attention focused on the leaders of the two main countries in SAARC, India and Pakistan. A brief handshake for the cameras between India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was described as another summit ‘success’.

Modi had made developing relations with his South Asian neighbours a priority of his foreign policy and had also talked of revitalising SAARC. The historic rivalry between India and Pakistan, however, is one of the main reasons for the failure to achieve much progress with SAARC. Despite a 2006 free trade agreement, high tariffs and many non-tariff barriers are a major handicap to regional trade. Pakistan is also wary of India seeking to increase ties with Afghanistan.

China, which has observer status in SAARC, has not been slow to take advantage of the poor relations between SAARC members. Attracted by the size of the market, in recent years it has significantly boosted its presence in South Asia, providing loans, boosting trade and investing in infrastructure. At the summit it offered further loans for infrastructure as well as 10,000 scholarships for South Asians. Beijing would like to upgrade its status in SAARC to a full member or dialogue partner but India views China as a rival in its own backyard and is ready to block such a move.

The post Another Disappointing SAARC Summit – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.