By Karlos Zurutuza*

The media tend to portray Balochistan as “troubled”, or “restive”, but it would be more accurate to say that there´s actually a war going on in this part of the world.

Balochistan is the land of the Baloch, who today see their land divided by the borders of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is a vast swathe of land the size of France which boasts enormous deposits of gas, gold and copper, untapped sources of oil and uranium, as well as a thousand-kilometre coastline near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz.

In August 1947, the Baloch from Pakistan declared independence, but nine months later the Pakistani army marched into Balochistan and annexed it, sparking an insurgency that has lasted, intermittently, to this day.

Now senior Baloch rebel commanders say that Islamabad is training Islamic State (IS) fighters in Pakistan´s southern province of Balochistan.

IPS met Baloch fighters at an undisclosed location in the Sarlat Mountains, a rocky massif, right on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and equidistant from two Taliban strongholds: Kandahar in south-eastern Afghanistan and Quetta in southwest Pakistan.

The fighters claimed to have marched for twelve hours from their camp to meet this IPS reporter.

They are four: Baloch Khan, commander of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), and Mama, Hayder and Mohamed, his three escorts, who do not want to disclose their full names.

“This is an area of ​​high Taliban presence but they use their own routes and we stick to ours so we hardly ever come across them,” explains commander Khan, adding that he wants to make it clear from the beginning that the Baloch liberation movement is “at the antipodes of fundamentalism”.

“Today we speak of seven Baloch armed movements fighting for freedom but all share a common goal: independence for Balochistan,” says Khan. At 41, he has spent half of his life as a guerrilla fighter. “I joined as a student,” he recalls.

The senior commander refuses to disclose the number of fighters in the BLA’s ranks but he does say that they are deployed in 25 camps throughout “East Balochistan [under the control of Pakistan]”.

Khan admits parallelisms between his group and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), also a “secular group fighting for their national rights,” as he puts it

“We feel very close to the Kurds. One could say they are our cousins, and their land is also stolen by their neighbours,” says the commander, referring to the common origin of Baloch and Kurds, and the division of the latter into four states: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Historically a nomadic people, the Baloch have had a moderate vision of Islam. However, Khan accuses Islamabad of pushing the conflict into a sectarian one.

“Until 2000 not a single Shia was killed in Balochistan. Today Pakistan is funnelling all sorts of fundamentalist groups, many of them linked to the Taliban, into Balochistan, to quell the Baloch liberation movement,” claims the guerrilla fighter, adding that target killings and enforced disappearances are a common currency in his homeland.

The Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, a group advocating peaceful protest founded by some of the families of the disappeared, puts the number of people from Balochistan since 2000 at more than 19,000, although exact figures are impossible to verify because no independent investigation has yet been conducted.

However, in August this year, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called on Pakistan’s government “to stop the deplorable practice of state agencies abducting hundreds of people throughout the country without providing information about their fate or whereabouts.”

Baloch insurgent groups, however, have also been accused of murdering civilians. In August 2013, the BLA took responsibility for the killing of 13 people after the two buses they were travelling in were stopped by fighters in Mach area, about 50km (31 miles) south-east of the provincial capital, Quetta.

Pakistani officials said they were civilians returning home to Punjab to celebrate the end of Ramadan. Commander Khan shares another version:

“There were 40 people in two buses. We arrested and investigated 25 of them and we finally executed 13, all of whom belonged to the Pakistani Security Forces,” assures Khan, lamenting that a majority of the foreign media “relies solely on Pakistani government official sources.”

Could an independence referendum like the one held in Scotland possibly help to unlock the Baloch conflict? Khan looks sceptical:

“Before such a step, we´d need to settle down both the national and geographic borders as many parts of our land lie in Sindh and Punjab – the neighbouring provinces. Besides, there´s a growing number of settlers and the army is in full control of the country, election processes included,” the commander claims bluntly.

Instead of a consultation, the rebel fighter openly asks for a full intervention, “not just moral support but also a military and economic intervention.”

“The civilised world should support us, not Pakistan. Why help a country that is struggling to feed fundamentalist groups across the world?” asks the guerrilla commander before he and his men resume the long way back to their base.

Balochistan and beyond

The meeting with the BLA leader was only possible via Afghanistan, because Pakistan’s south-western province remains a “no go” area due to a veto enforced by Islamabad.

“The province has the worst record in Pakistan for journalists being killed so local journalists usually censor themselves to avoid being harassed, jailed or worse. Meanwhile, foreigner journalists are deported if they try to access the area,” Ahmed Rashid, a best-selling Pakistani writer and renowned Central Asia commentator, who was an activist on behalf of Balochistan in his youth, told IPS.

The visa ban over this reporter after working undercover in the region was no hurdle to get the viewpoint of Allah Nazar, commander in chief of the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF).

Through a satellite phone, this former medical doctor from Quetta corroborates commander Khan´s statements on a “common goal for the entire Baloch insurgency movement”. He also endorses the BLA commander´s analysis of Islamabad’s alleged backing of fundamentalist groups.

“Pakistan is breeding fundamentalists to counter the Baloch nationalist movement but it has entirely failed. Now they are trying to use the instrument of religion in order to distract attention from the Baloch freedom movement,” Nazar explains from an unspecified location in Makran – southern Balochistan province – where the BLF has its strongholds.

According to the movement´s leader, such threat could well transcend the boundaries of this inhospitable region. Commander Nazar gave the coordinates of “at least four training camps” where members of the Islamic State would reportedly be receiving instruction before being transferred to the Middle East:

“There´s one is in Makran, and another one in Wadh, 990 and 315 km south of Quetta respectively,” says the guerrilla fighter. “A third one is in the Mishk area of Zehri – 200 km south of Quetta – and there are more than 100 armed men there: Arabs, Pashtuns, Punjabis and others who are based there with the help of Sardar Sanaullah Zehri [a local tribal leader]. The fourth camp is near Chiltan, in Quetta.”

Nazar adds that Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) is “both activating and patronising the Islamic State.”

“The Islamic State is overwhelmingly present among us. They even throw pamphlets in our streets to advocate their view of Islam and get new recruits,” denounces Nazar.

In October 2014, six key Pakistani Taliban commanders, including the spokesman of Tehrik-e-Taliban – a Pakistan conglomerate of several Pakistani insurgent groups – announced their allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

“IS is simply an upgraded version of the Talibans and finds sympathy with the ruling establishment in Pakistan,” human rights activist Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur told IPS.

Talpur, who has been challenged and attacked repeatedly for writing about such uncomfortable issues for Islamabad, claims that creating the Taliban is “the core of state policy which has not yet given up on this megalomaniacal scheme of Islam ruling the world.”

Despite repeated calls and e-mails, Pakistani officials refused to talk to IPS. However, the issue is seemingly a well-known secret after the Minister of Interior himself, Nisar Ali Khan, recently told Parliament that even in the naval base in Karachi –Pakistan´s main port and commercial city – there is support for the activities of radical religious groups.

The post Pakistan’s ‘Other’ Insurgents Face Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Russia may cut its oil output due to low global oil prices and the lack of investment into the country’s energy industry, Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said Thursday.

Given the pessimistic scenario, Russia’s oil output could shrink by 10 percent in the next two or three years, which will not produce serious effects on global oil markets, Dvorkovich told Russia’s TV channel Rossiya 24.

Dvorkovich predicted that oil prices will remain at the current level or keep falling for a few more months, and afterwards will bounce to around 80 U.S. dollars per barrel.

“The oil price would finally be restored by fundamental factors and the limitation of speculative instruments,” Interfax news agency quoted Dvorkovich as saying.

He added that oil demand remained weak due to the economic growth slowdown in Russia and European Union, as well as the increasing crude oil production in the United States and member states of the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries.

At the beginning of December, Russian Economic Development Ministry revised down the forecast for next year’s oil export by 2. 19 percent to 222.5 million metric tons, or 1.63 billion barrels. Its gas export in 2015 was also expected to go down by 1.8 percent to 186.6 billion cubic meters, while the output volume will be at 655 billion cubic meters.

The country’s oil-dependent economy has hit a rough patch recently due to falling oil prices, coupled with a sharply depreciating ruble.

On Wednesday, light, sweet crude for February delivery lost 1. 28 U.S. dollars to settle at 55.84 U.S. dollars a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, while Brent crude for February delivery decreased 1.45 dollars to close at 60.24 dollars a barrel.

The post Russia Mulls Cutting Oil Output In 2015 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The search for a missing AirAsia plane with 162 people aboard is set to resume full force on the Java Sea at daybreak Monday, after rescuers scaled back efforts overnight.

The Airbus A320 disappeared Sunday morning, Asia time, on a flight from Surabaya in Indonesia to Singapore. Most of the 162 passengers and crew on board were Indonesians.

Flight QZ 8501 by the low-cost airline was nearly halfway from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to its destination of Singapore when it disappeared from radar at 7:24 Sunday morning, local time, 42 minutes into its flight.

Vessels remain in the area

Indonesia said its vessels would remain in the search area overnight, scanning the waters with powerful lights. Search flights have been suspended until dawn.

Speaking from Surabaya, AirAsia CEO Tony Fernandes said storms made for poor weather conditions at the time the plane went missing, but avoided further speculation about what happened to the aircraft.

“We are very devastated about what’s happened, it’s unbelievable, but we do not know what’s happened yet, so we’ll wait for the accident investigation to really find out what’s happened,” Fernandes said.

“Our concern right now is for the relatives and for the next of kin, there is nothing more important to us for our crew’s family, and for our passengers’ families, that we look after them. That is our number one priority at the moment to make sure that we take care of them. And to fully cooperate with the investigation,” he added.

No distress signal

The director general of aviation for Indonesia’s transportation ministry, Djoko Atmojo, told reporters that the last transmission from a crew member on the Airbus came at 6:12 a.m. local time (Sunday) and no distress signal was subsequently received.

He said the pilot stated that he was trying to avoid clouds and was moving left of the intended route and requested permission to climb (1,800 meters higher) to nearly 11,600 meters (38,000 feet).

A few minutes later the plane disappeared from radar and no contact was re-established.

There were thunderstorms with lightning reported in that vicinity, along with wind shears.

Indonesian authorities said the plane’s last known position was about halfway along its course, off the island of Belitung, which in recent years has become a tourist destination but was long better known for its pepper and tin.

Indonesia’s transport minister, Ignasius Jonan, said military and rescue teams from his country, as well as Singapore, initiated search operations.

Busy waterway

The Java Sea is one of the world’s busiest waterways and is relatively shallow.

The flight manifest listed 149 Indonesian passengers, including 16 children, as well as three South Koreans, including an infant; a Malaysian and a British man traveling with his 2-year-old Singaporean daughter.

An Indonesian pilot and French first officer lead the seven-member crew aboard. The flight crew was comprised of two pilots, four flight attendants and one engineer – all are Indonesian citizens except for the French first officer, according to AirAsia.

The plane’s captain is described as experienced, with about 20,500 flying hours, according to a statement front the airline, roughly 6,000 of those hours were with AirAsia Indonesia on the Airbus A320.

The six-year-old aircraft had last undergone maintenance on November 16.

Indonesia AirAsia is 49 percent owned by Malaysia-based AirAsia. The low-cost AirAsia family of airlines, serving more than 100 destinations in 22 countries, has had a good safety reputation with no fatalities since beginning operations 18 years ago.

Malaysia Airlines, which saw its Flight 370 disappear from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March, posted a message of support to Twitter on Sunday encouraging the loved ones of AirAsia’s passengers to “stay strong.” The plane was never found.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with all family and friends of those on board [the flight],” Malaysia Airlines tweeted.

A White House spokesman said U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed about the missing plane and officials “will continue to monitor the situation.”

Singapore and Malaysia have joined rescue efforts.

Reuters reports the United States has offered to assist “in any way that’s helpful,” though none of the passengers are believed to be American citizens.

Steve Herman contributed to this article from Bangkok.

The post Search Set To Resume For Missing AirAsia Jet In Java Sea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Egyptian security forces have detained 477 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in security swoops in the past 12 days, the Interior Ministry said Sunday.

“Some 477 members of the ‘terrorist’ Muslim Brotherhood group and rioters have been arrested in various provinces,” the ministry said in a statement.

According to the statement, 2,013 firearms and 12 workshops for manufacturing weapons had been seized during the raids.

The statement said that 15 gangs of arms traffickers had also been detained.

Since last year’s ouster of elected President Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s military-backed government has waged a relentless crackdown on political dissent – largely targeting Morsi supporters – which has seen hundreds killed and thousands detained.

Last year, Egyptian authorities designated the decades-old Brotherhood, the group from which Morsi hails, a “terrorist” organization, blaming it for a spate of deadly attacks on security officials in the country.

The Brotherhood denies the allegations, saying that it is committed to peaceful activism.

Original article

The post Egypt Arrests 477 Muslim Brotherhood Members appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An international research team, including researchers from Simon Fraser University, has determined the genetic sequencing of 16 mosquitoes (Anopheles genus)–the sole carriers of human malaria–providing new insight into how they adapt to humans as primary hosts of the disease.

Their findings have been published in the Science Express, an electronic publication of selected papers of the prestigious journal Science.

SFU mathematician Cedric Chauve and his student, Ashok Rajaraman, used computational methods to reconstruct ancestral mosquito genomes and analyze their chromosomal evolution over the past hundred million years. Their hope is to understand how chromosomes evolved and to unravel potential adaptation mechanisms that may be related to malaria transmission. They also hope to determine the genetic differences between these species and others that are merely bothersome and not toxic.

While only mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles genus species transmit human malaria, not all species within the genus, or even all members of each vector species, are efficient malaria carriers. “This suggests an underlying genetic/genomic plasticity that results in a variation of key traits determining transmission capacity within the genus,” says Chauve.

He adds: “This is a very exciting project because there is no way we could sequence the genomes of long-dead ancestral mosquitoes species, without precious data from current species that was supplied by the biological team.”

The multidisciplinary team consisted of over 100 biologists, immunologists, infectious disease specialists, computational mathematicians and geneticists from around the world.

While advances in malaria control have met with successes, the sequencing of these 16 new genomes will contribute to further understanding the genomic adaptability of mosquitoes in transmitting malaria.

The post Study Sheds Light On How Mosquitoes Transmit Malaria appeared first on Eurasia Review.

One hundred years ago last week, on Christmas Eve, 1914, German and British soldiers emerged from the horrors of World War One trench warfare to greet each other, exchange food and gifts, and to wish each other a Merry Christmas. What we remember now as the “Christmas Truce” began with soldiers singing Christmas carols together from in the trenches. Eventually the two sides climbed out of the trenches and met in person. In the course of this two day truce, which lasted until December 26, 1914, the two sides also exchanged prisoners, buried their dead, and even played soccer with each other.

How amazing to think that the celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace could bring a brief pause in one of the most destructive wars in history. How sad that it was not to last.

The Christmas Truce showed that given the choice, people do not want to be out fighting and killing each other. It is incredibly damaging to most participants in war to face the task of killing their fellow man. That is one reason we see today an epidemic of PTSD and suicides among US soldiers sent overseas on multiple deployments.

The Christmas Truce in 1914 was joyous for the soldiers, but it was dangerous for the political leadership on both sides. Such fraternization with the “enemy” could not be tolerated by the war-makers. Never again was the Christmas Truce repeated on such a scale, as the governments of both sides explicitly prohibited any repeat of such a meeting. Those who had been greeting each other had to go back to killing each other on orders from those well out of harm’s way.

As much as governments would like to stamp out such humanization of the “enemy,” it is still the case today that soldiers on the ground will meet and share thoughts with those they are meant to be killing. Earlier this month, soldiers from opposing sides of the Ukraine civil war met in eastern Ukraine to facilitate the transfer of supplies and the rotation of troops. They shook hands and wished that the war would be over. One army battalion commander was quoted as saying at the meeting, “I think it’s a war between brothers that nobody wants. The top brass should sort things out. And us? We are soldiers, we do what we’re told.”

I am sure these same sentiments exist in many of the ongoing conflicts that are pushed by the governments involved — and in many cases by third party governments seeking to benefit from the conflict.

The encouraging message we should take from the Christmas Truce of 100 years ago is that given the opportunity, most humans do not wish to kill each other. As Nazi leader Hermann Goring said during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, “naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.” But, as he added, “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

This is where our efforts must be focused. To oppose all war propaganda perpetrated by governments against the will of the people.

This article was published by The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Ron Paul: The Real Meaning Of 1914 Christmas Truce – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Gen. John F. Campbell, current commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and United States Forces—Afghanistan

Good afternoon everyone … especially to our Afghan friends … As-salamu alaykum … National Security Advisor Atmar, thank you for your remarks … and thank you for coming … You honor us with your presence … Thank you for your selfless and courageous service to your country … It’s a privilege to serve alongside you and the other Afghan leaders here today as we strive together to strengthen the new National Unity Government … and protect the Afghan people and the international community from extremism.

To all distinguished guests … ambassadors … ministers … Coalition partners … GEN Dumröse (Happy Birthday!) … commanders … sergeants major … ladies and gentlemen … thanks again for joining us as we formally end the ISAF mission … and more importantly … we transition to our new mission … Resolute Support … I want to express my special thanks to Ambassador Jochems … Thank you for your service … I would also like to welcome the incoming NATO Senior Civilian Representative … Ambassador Aramaz.

To those who planned and organized this ceremony—I thank you for your hard work … An event like this requires a great deal of organization, preparation, and rehearsal.

Today marks an end of an era … and the beginning of a new one … Today, NATO completes its combat mission … A 13-year endeavor filled with significant achievements … and branded by tremendous sacrifice … especially by the thousands of Coalition and Afghan Army & Police wounded and fallen who gave so much to build a brighter future for this war-torn land … And I would like to add the tens of thousands Afghan civilians lost and wounded in this conflict … Today, … as we case the ISAF colors … and unfurl the Resolute Support colors … we also remember and honor all those Coalition and Afghan heroes whom we’ve lost … and the loved ones they left behind … Their sacrifices drive us to persevere … They drive us to finish this noble mission well … They drive us to win.

As we close out the ISAF mission, … it’s appropriate to pause and reflect upon what we’ve collectively accomplished … Our progress has been considerable … In the wake of the Taliban’s defeat in 2001, … Afghanistan possessed no standing, professional security forces … Over the course of a decade, our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan Army and Police Force of over 350,000 personnel … For the last two fighting seasons, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have been in the lead, … and they’ve prevailed over a determined enemy … Today, the ANSF have rightfully earned their position as the most respected institution in the country.

We should take great pride in our contributions to the ANSF’s success … Together, … we have created the security conditions, … which have allowed Afghan society to rise up after decades of relentless war … Together, … we have lifted the Afghan people out of the darkness of despair and given them hope for the future … In 2001, the life expectancy here was 43 … today it’s 64 … that’s 21 additional years for each individual … if you multiply that by the Afghan population of ~ 32 million … that equals over 741 million years of additional life … that’s the tremendous gift that the ANSF and Coalition have given to the Afghans … By almost every metric … Afghanistan is prospering because of our efforts … Roads, internet users, cell phones, radio & TV stations … females in schools … women in the workforce.

The momentous events of 2014 reinforce our optimism … The first peaceful, democratic transition in Afghan history occurred … The international community confirmed its financial commitments … The Afghan Parliament ratified long-term security agreements with NATO and the U.S… The ANSF demonstrated extraordinary courage and increasing capabilities … and our Coalition’s resolve remained firm.

There are many challenges that remain … yet all of these positive developments bode well for an eventual, successful resolution of this conflict … We now enjoy considerable momentum as we move into 2015 … There is no turning back to the dark days of the past … The insurgents are losing … and they’re desperate … The inauguration of the National Unity Government and the ratification of the BSA & SOFA represent devastating political blows to the enemy’s cause and narrative … The Afghan people have spoken … They’ve chosen progress over backwardness … education over ignorance … and transparency over criminality … They’ve roundly rejected the insurgents’ senseless destruction and murdering … This year the Afghan people reasserted their sovereignty … and they’ve asked for and need our sustained support … and we will give it to them … We are not walking away.

Yet in spite of all of this, … the insurgents continue to kill their fellow Muslims in their misguided cause … It’s time for the enemy to heed President Ghani’s call … lay down their arms … come to the peace table, … and help rebuild the Afghan nation.

As we look to the future, … we can see that Afghanistan and our Coalition are at a critical turning point … We are presented with an unprecedented strategic opportunity to break the cycle of misery … and lay the foundations for an enduring peace … Our new Resolute Support Mission reflects NATO’s continued investment in Afghanistan’s future … Our commitment to Afghanistan endures.

The ANSF have already proven that they can win the tactical fight … The ANSF overmatch the enemy wherever … and whenever challenged … Our Afghan partners can … and will … take the fight from here … Because of the ANSF’s success on the battlefield, … we’re transitioning to the Resolute Support mission … We’ll continue to train, advise, and assist the ANSF and Afghan Security Institutions at the operational and strategic-levels so that they can sustain their hard-fought gains and win the war … President Ghani recently remarked at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ Conference, … “Compelled by tragedy, … and cemented by mutual sacrifice, … the partnership between Afghanistan and NATO is entering a new phase …” Resolute Support will serve as the bedrock of our Enduring Partnership with Afghanistan … in which our joint interests and cooperation will ensure our shared security … Working together, we cannot fail … Working together, we will prevail …

Let me close by first thanking the men and women of our historic Coalition … We’ve endured many challenges since 2001, … yet we’ve remained cohesive and effective … You’ve played a central role in the largest, most resilient, and effective Coalition in modern history … NATO and its partners … representing 51 nations—over a quarter of the countries of the world—have stood firmly with Afghanistan for 13 years and counting … The men and women of our Coalition have earned the Afghans’ and International Community’s respect, admiration, and lasting gratitude … To all who’ve served under the ISAF colors … and to all those who will serve under the Resolute Support banner, … I hope you take great pride in the positive impact you’ve made … and will continue to make upon the Afghan people and their future … You’ve made Afghanistan stronger and our countries safer … Because of your vigilance, courage, and extraordinary efforts, … Afghanistan will never again be a safe haven for international terrorists.

I also want to express my gratitude to your families at home … I know firsthand the sacrifices they make every day to support us while we’re deployed … In many ways, these separations are harder on them than on us … Please convey to them how important your mission remains here … and how vital their support is to our success.

Finally, I’d like to thank our Afghan partners … Today, … and throughout the month of January, … we join President Ghani, CEO Abdullah, and all of the Afghan people as you rightfully celebrate the ANSF’s development, success, and sovereignty … We too salute the ANSF’s heroism … We too honor your brave soldiers and policemen who are rightfully the pride of your nation … We stand in awe of their selfless courage … I only need to cite the actions of two Afghan National Policemen … One, Officer Murad Khan, last year embraced a deranged suicide attacker and smothered the effects of his explosion … and saved scores of women and children in Khost Province … and another, Officer Mir Afghan, who just 10 days ago … valiantly stood his ground and gave his life … and prevented another homicidal madman from driving his explosive-laden vehicle into Kabul.

For the last 13 years, … we have fought and bled alongside the ANSF … and as we commence the Resolute Support mission, … we will continue to stand by them and you … today … and in the future.

We’re all very proud of our relationship … a relationship built on trust, friendship, and shared interests … That trust and a common vision for a stable, secure, and unified Afghanistan fill me with confidence that we’ll continue to be successful … The road before us remains challenging, but we will triumph.
Once again … thank you for coming … Tashakur

The post Gen. Campbell Statement On Afghanistan Transition Ceremony appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jamal Kanj*

On January first, it will be 50 years since the start of the modern Palestinian revolution; and on the 15th it will be 10 years since Mahmoud Abbas was first, and last, elected as the President of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Two years after becoming a non-member UN state, the PA is circulating a UN Security Council draft resolution to set a time frame for full Israeli withdrawal and the establishment of an independent Palestine. On the other hand, France appeared to posit a European-led alternative resolution emphasizing on restarting negotiations rather than specifying an end for occupation.

Last week and following the murder of its minister, the PA threatened to stop security co-ordination with Israel. This week in Algeria, President Abbas reiterated the same if the UN failed to put an end to Israeli occupation.

A little over a year ago, Secretary of State John Kerry succeeded in cajoling the PA to go back to the negotiation table promising to make every effort ‘…to reach a final status agreement, not an interim agreement’ in nine months.

The PA agreed with the understanding that Israel would unofficially limit building new Jewish-only colonies and release, although on batches, 104 Palestinian prisoners held from before the Oslo Accord.

In turn, the PA agreed to hold off from joining new UN organizations during the negotiations.

Soon after it started, Israel issued permits to build new Jewish-only homes in occupied east Jerusalem. Following Palestinian protests, Israel’s response to Kerry’s team was that Israel did not consider east Jerusalem as part of the West Bank.

The inept at best, or colluding US mediators told the Palestinians, to the effect, that east Jerusalem wasn’t specifically mentioned in the agreement. It would be worth noting that the American team was led by Martin Indyk, a known Zionist, who for many years, was on the payroll of AIPAC and other Israeli think tanks in Washington.

The PA kept quiet, talks continued and after each release of a group of Palestinian prisoners, Israeli issued a batch of illegal Jewish-only homes in occupied West Bank. Self-professed Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat angrily told his impassive Israeli counterpart, ‘We agreed on prisoners for no UN, not prisoners for settlements.’

Yet, the exercise continued and with every release of prisoners ‘“held as hostages now to keep the sham negotiations going ‘“Israel gobbled up more illegal land.

At the end, Israel reneged on releasing the last batch of prisoners and instead of forcing Israel to keep its commitment, the US sought to convince the PA to extend the negotiations.

Needless to say, nine months later, Israel built more than 15,000 Jewish-only homes on Palestinian occupied land, the US did not deliver what it promised and the PA failed to act on its threat of joining UN organizations. To placate internal opposition, Abbas theatrically signed applications to join 15 irrelevant UN organizations such as the anti-corruption protocol. The highly talked about International Criminal Court (ICC) was conspicuously absent from the list.

Hitherto and with upcoming elections, the Israeli government is likely to pander to the anti-peace camp by issuing new illegal Jewish-only homes. In a repeat of the same history, the US is likely to pressure the PA to hold back in the hope that a more moderate Israeli government is elected.

But if the Americans are genuinely interested in a moderate coalition, then they should not reward the current right-wing government by blocking the UN vote to end the Israeli occupation.

If not, the PA should stop dilly-dallying and sidestep the US’ throttled UN Security Council by signing the Rome Statute to become a fully-fledged ICC member. Otherwise by its inaction, the Palestinian leadership risks history’s final verdict of being an accessory for surrendering all of Palestine.

*Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) writes regular newspaper column and publishes on several websites on Arab world issues. He is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (A version of this article was first published by the Gulf Daily News newspaper.)

The post Palestinian Authority Dilly-Dallying Must Stop – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

New Zealander Phil Blackwood told a Rangoon court on Friday that he posted an image of the Buddha on his nightclub’s Facebook page as a promotional item for his business and that he had no intention of insulting the Buddhist religion.

“I am not guilty as I honestly posted it without knowing this problem could occur,” said Blackwood, the general manager of VGastro, a newly opened bar-restaurant in Rangoon’s Bahan Township. “I had no intention at all of insulting religion.”

The New Zealander’s comments were read out in Burmese by a judge.

Blackwood, along with fellow nightclub managers Tun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, has been charged under Penal Code articles 295, 295(a) and 188.

Under Burma’s Religion Act – article 295 – anyone who attempts to insult, destroy or damage any religion can be sentenced to a maximum of two years in jail, with another two years for insulting religion through the written word.

The Penal Code lists Article 188 as “Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant”, and is generally used as a public indecency offence.

Meanwhile, Blackwood’s lawyer, Mya Thwe, claims he has received death threats though social media. He told reporters outside Bahan Township court on Friday that he had been threatened on Facebook for defending the trio.

Four other lawyers had previously turned down the defendants on the basis that the case was “too sensitive”.

The two other defendants, Htun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, both Burmese, are due in court on 2 January.

International rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have slammed the decision to indict the three on religious offences, and have called for all charges to be dropped.

However, several Burmese Buddhist groups are calling for severe punishments to be handed down, including the Association of Protection of Race and Religion, commonly known as the ma-ba-tha, a fundamentalist Buddhist organisation closely associated with extremist monk Wirathu’s 969 movement.

The post Myanmar: Blackwood Says Buddha ‘Insult’ Was Honest Mistake appeared first on Eurasia Review.

After over 13 years, the US and NATO have formally ended their war in Afghanistan. As the Taliban expands its power in the region, fears are growing over whether Afghan forces will be able to maintain security.

“Resolute Support [mission] will serve as the bedrock of an enduring partnership” between NATO and Afghanistan, Gen. John Campbell, commander of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) told an audience of Afghan and international military officers, officials, diplomats and journalists, in Kabul on Sunday.

“The road before us remains challenging but we will triumph,” he added.

The symbolic ceremony marking the end of ISAF was held under tight security and was closed due to a high terror threat. On December 11 a teenage bomber targeted a French cultural center in Kabul killing a German man and wounding 16 people.

However, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is optimistic about the overall situation in the country. The previous Wednesday, when the bloc met in the ISAF format for the last time, he asserted that “today Afghanistan is more stable and more prosperous than ever.”

Stoltenberg maintains that Afghanistan’s 350,000-strong security forces are ready to take on the insurgency alone, despite complaints by officials that they lack the necessary assets to combat violence, such as air support, medical evacuation and intelligence.

The Afghan insurgency is meanwhile on the rise.

Last week, Taliban gunmen slaughtered 145 people, mostly children, at a school over the border in Pakistan. It was the worst terrorist atrocity in the country’s history.

The UN estimates that the number of civilian deaths reached a new high this year – over 3,100. In 2007, the death toll stood at 1,523. According to the UN, the number of civilian deaths will exceed 10,000 by the end of 2014.

Armed confrontations between militants and security forces in Afghanistan have intensified in recent years, as the number of Taliban fighters has skyrocketed from 2,000 to around 60,000, since the US-led invasion in 2001. In 2014 Afghanistan lost over 5,000 police and soldiers fighting the Taliban, more than in any previous year.

“I don’t think it’s possible to find peace in Afghanistan without actually sitting down with insurgents, with the Taliban, to negotiate a peace process. More than a decade of the US war in Afghanistan has been a complete failure, the US has deployed tens of thousands of troops and still haven’t been able to put down this insurgency,” Theo Sitther, of the Peacebuilding Policy Friends Committee on National Legislation, told RT.

Since the US toppled the Taliban in 2002, opium production in the country has tripled. Afghanistan now accounts for over 90 percent of the world’s heroin market.

“The Taliban actually uses drug trafficking to finance much of their insurgency,” Sitther told RT.

With fighting on the rise in Afghanistan, the US is delaying its withdrawal plans, saying it will keep more troops than previously announced. From January 2015, the new US-led mission will provide training and support for Afghanistan’s military, with the US accounting for almost 11,000 members of the residual force.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Afghanistan has already cost the US taxpayer $686 billion throughout the 13 years – roughly $144 million a day.

The post NATO Officially Ends 13-Year Mission To Afghanistan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

At the end of this year, we complete our combat mission in Afghanistan and open a new chapter in our relationship with Afghanistan.

The security of Afghanistan will be fully in the hands of the country’s 350,000 Afghan soldiers and police. But NATO Allies, together with many partner nations, will remain to train, advise and assist them. This is what NATO and Afghan leaders agreed together. It has been made possible by the courage and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces, and by the dedication of the international forces who helped train them over the past years.

Many challenges remain, and there is much work still to do. The Afghan security forces will continue to need our help as they develop.

Our new mission, “Resolute Support,” will bring together around 12,000 men and women from NATO Allies and 14 partner nations. The mission is based on a request from the Afghan government and the Status of Forces Agreement between NATO and Afghanistan. The United Nations Security Council unanimously welcomed the agreement between Afghanistan and NATO to establish the mission and stressed the importance of continued international support for the stability of Afghanistan.

We will also contribute to the financing of the Afghan security forces, and build an Enduring Partnership with Afghanistan which reflects our joint interests, shapes our joint cooperation and contributes to our shared security.

For over a decade, NATO and our partners have stood with Afghanistan. 51 nations have contributed forces to our effort – over a quarter of the countries of the world. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been the largest military coalition in recent history and represents an unprecedented international effort. The mandate of the United Nations Security Council was to help the Afghan authorities provide security across the country and develop new Afghan forces.

This mandate was carried out at great cost, but with great success. We will always remember the sacrifice of international and Afghan forces, who deserve our respect and our gratitude.

Thanks to the remarkable effort of our forces, we have achieved what we set out to do. We have made our own nations safer, by denying safe haven to international terrorists. We have made Afghanistan stronger, by building up from scratch strong security forces. Together, we have created the conditions for a better future for millions of Afghan men, women and children.

The post NATO Stoltenberg: New Chapter In Relationship With Afghanistan – Statement appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Founded in 1949, Communist China under its Supreme leader Mao Zedong gave the ‘Chinese dream’ of becoming a numero uno Great Power in global power politics. China under Mao charted a different way — unlike erstwhile Soviet Russia — which came to be known as ‘communism with Chinese characteristics’, and which rattled the Kremlin and soon began a Sino-Soviet rivalry over many issues, especially the border demarcation issue.

India, which had gained independence two years before, became the first State outside the communist/socialist bloc to recognize the new regime in Beijing. But true to its undemocratic and hegemonistic nature, Communist China never reciprocated India’s goodwill gesture and instead got a ‘strategically blinded’ PM Nehru into signing the famous Panchsheel Treaty. This was a brilliant masterstroke by Chinese Premiere Zhou-en-Lai, with China getting India to agree on the Tibet issue as an internal matter of China with the principle of the Treaty i.e. mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. Citing this, China attacked Tibet and forcibly annexed it in 1959 overthrowing the traditional regime of the Dalai Lama. India gave shelter to the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetan refugees in India, which made China furious.

Communist China refused to accept the 1914 MacMohan Line as the international boundary between India and China. But  still PM Nehru went ahead with his ill-timed ‘Forward Policy’ of building border posts, etc., which added insult to China’s injury.

Mao’s well-timed Chinese invasion of India in October-November, 1962 — when both the Superpowers were embroiled in Cuban missile crisis — took a slumbering India by surprise. The outcome is well known and this Chinese perfidy ensured that bilateral relations remained bitter till the ushering in of the so-called ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ when in 1977 India’s then Foreign Minister A B Vajpayee, under the first non-Congress of India i.e. Janata Party Government, visited Beijing, but soon had to cut short his journey over China’s Vietnam aggression.

However, under the stewardship of a dynamic Deng Xiaoping that ushered in a ‘new China’ of ‘market socialism’, bilateral relations between the two nations started moving in the right direction, and which got a further fillip by the historic China visit by then PM Rajiv Gandhi in 1988. Both sides agreed to build bridges, not walls.

But Communist China’s territorial aggrandizing agenda coupled with claiming Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh (called ‘Southern Tibet’ by China) acted as thorn in the flesh and normalization of bilateral relations still could not be done without solving the protracted border demarcation issue over which more than 30 rounds of talks have been held since 1981 without any mutually agreed outcome.

While India recognizes a ‘One China’ policy, what India has got in return is not ‘One India’, but a ‘Many India’ policy.

Above all, China’s support to India’s arch-rival Pakistan by assisting that country in acquiring nukes, building infrastructure in Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJK), arming insurgent groups in India’s North-East region, etc., have given the realistic impression that China wants to sabotage India’s rise in global power politics.

South China Sea

Additionally, China by using the ‘Strings of Pearls’ (SOP) strategy wants to engage in a ‘strategic-encirclement-cum-containment’ of India, and has succeeded in building friendships across the littoral states of the Indian Ocean region (IOR) via its ‘no strings attached’ aid-cum-military-diplomacy that is a by-product of its global energy diplomacy.

That said, SOP has come as a blessing in disguise as it has compelled India to redraw its China policy, especially in the IOR. Taking the Kautilyan edict (part of his Mandala Strategy) i.e. ‘enemy’s enemy is my friend’, India started deepening its ties with Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea etc. What followed is a ‘countering China without confronting it’ and in this regard India has started making inroads in the volatile and highly contested waters of the South China Sea, a region the Indian Navy has given a high priority.

China’s constant knack for inventing ‘historical claims’, its non-acceptance of international laws, especially maritime laws (ie. UNCLOS, 1982) have made the issue of China’s growing foray in the IOR highly problematic. Therefore, India needs to envisage a futuristic maritime strategy to deal with the new scenario of ‘CIMBYISM’ i.e. ‘China in My Backyard’ syndrome, very different from the earlier non-threatening stance of ‘NIMBYISM’ i.e. (China) ‘Not in My Backyard’ phenomenon.

This approach, it is hoped, will benefit India in protecting its strategic-cum-economic-interests in the IOR, which has emerged as the global energy inter-state or what Robert Kaplan in his book ‘Monsoon’ has called the ‘centre stage of 21st Century’s new Great Power game.

To conclude, the rise of China and India — or ‘Chindia’ as coined by prominent Congress leader Jayram Ramesh — in global politics is a matter of great strategic discourse for the both Indian and global leaders of the strategic community or Think-Tanks. While the rise of a ‘democratic’ India inspires them, the rise of a ‘Communist’ China scares them. And, perhaps, therein lies the basic fulcrum of the ongoing debate on the rise of Communist China vis-a-vis India in international politics and how both India and the world must take on this inevitable phenomenon in the 21st Century. This alone will determine which way the global compass of balance of power will tilt and that is why this geographical region has witnessed a new ‘scramble for Asia and Asia-Pacific’ as vindicated by the US’s new policy of ‘re-balancing’ or ‘pivot of Asia’ policy.

The post From ‘Nimbyism’ To ‘Cimbyism': An Indo-Centric Perspective On Rise Of Communist China – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

ran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced in a statement on Sunday December 28 that Brigadier General Hamid Taghavi, a Revolutionary Guard commander, was killed in Iraq “during an advisory mission”.

According to the statement, Brigadier General Taghavi was taking part in advisory missions against “Daesh (ISIS) terrorists in Samarra, Iraq”.

Samarra, which is 110 kilometres north of Baghdad, is predominantly Sunni and is also home to the shrine of the tenth and eleventh Imams of Shias. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces have recently intensified their attacks in this region.

Some sources have identified Hamid Taghavi as a commander of Revolutionary Guards Qods forces, which is the international branch of the IRGC.

The IRGC previously confirmed that its forces are present in Iraq providing advisory and training aid to Iraqi government forces against ISIS.

The post Iran Says IRGC Commander Killed In Iraq appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sven Milekic

Incumbent president Ivo Josipovic leads by just 1.5 per cent in first round of Croatian presidential elections, held amid a continuing economic crisis in the newest EU state.

Preliminary results from the Croatian presidential elections on Sunday showed that the centre-left incumbent, Ivo Josipovic, from the ruling Social Democratic Party, won 38.5 per cent of the votes with 97 per cent of the ballots counted.

“I expect a win, what else?” said Josipovic as he cast his ballot.

His main challenger, Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic, the candidate from the centre-right opposition Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ, won 37 percent of votes, according to the count.

In a third place, Ivan Vilibor Sincic, a left-wing activist from an NGO that helps people battle debt-related evictions, won 16.4 per cent of the vote. Far-right candidate Milan Kujundzic won 6.2 per cent.

Grabar Kitarovic, a former foreign minister who is backed by the Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ, said as she voted in Zagreb that she hoped that the bad weather would not disrupt the polls.

“I hope that the elections will pass off in a democratic atmosphere, that they will be free and fair, and that the snow will not prevent people from coming out and casting their votes,” Grabar Kitarovic said at a polling station in Zagreb.

The vote was held amid continuing economic problems, with youth unemployment running at 41.5 per cent, third in terms of youth joblessness in the EU, behind Greece and Spain, and a high level of foreign debt.

Polling stations opened at 7am for a total of 3.7 million eligible voters, and closed at 7pm.

The country has held six presidential elections since declaring independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.

The president is elected for a five-year mandate and the vote normally goes to two rounds. A second round is held if none of the candidates receives 50 per cent of all votes cast in the first round.

The post Croatia: Josipovic In Narrow Lead In Presidential Polls appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has condemned a series of airstrikes on targets in the city of Misrata amid an upsurge in fighting across the war-torn North African country, adding that any further escalation in hostilities could plunge the nation back into “all-out war.”

In a statement, UNSMIL deplored today’s airstrikes reportedly conducted by the Libyan air force against militants based in the west Libyan city, warning that “these and other attacks will only worsen the security situation and will not help bring an end to the fighting.”

“UNSMIL appeals to all sides to work towards de-escalation, and calls on them to take the courageous steps to stop this cycle of violence which, if it continued, will lead the country to chaos and all-out war,” the statement cautioned.

The attacks – the latest spell of violence to rattle the beleaguered nation following the beginning of its civil war in 2011 which resulted in the ouster of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi –come on the heels of last week’s militant aggression against an oil installation in Sidra which left numerous storage tanks ablaze and at least 20 soldiers dead.

At the same time, recent fighting in the neighbouring Nafusa mountains has left 170 people dead. In addition to the casualties, the fighting has also caused a humanitarian crisis with at least 120,000 people forced to flee their homes, resulting in consequent shortages in both food and medical supplies.

Meanwhile, in the eastern city of Benghazi, an uptick in violence has seen 450 people killed since October as residents continue to face shortages in medical care. Moreover, upwards of 15,000 families – some 90,000 people – have been displaced.

In its statement, the Mission reminded those advocating military escalation that they were “actively creating obstacles to a consensual political solution” to the current Libyan crisis and underlined that their actions remained in violation of UN Security Council resolutions on Libya.

The post Libya Risks ‘All-Out War’, UN Says appeared first on Eurasia Review.

While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition.

Paul Driessen and Chris Skates*

In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.

All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.

What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.

The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.

The real deniers refuse to recognize that natural forces dictate weather and climate events. They deny that computer model predictions are completely at odds with real world events, that there has been no warming since 1995, and that several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the U nited Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. They refuse to acknowledge that, as of December 25, it’s been 3,347 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland; this is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War.

Worst of all, they deny that their “solutions” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, and limiting economic growth in poor nations to what can be sustained via expensive wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy. Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” From our perspective, perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries – in the name or preventing climate change – is evil.

It is truly disturbing that Mr. Schmidt could make a statement so thoroughly flawed in its basic premise. He runs a multi-billion dollar company that uses vast quantities of electricity to disseminate information throughout the world. Perhaps he should speak out on issues he actually understands. Perhaps he would be willing to debate us or Roy Spencer, David Legates, Pat Michaels and other climate experts.

Setting aside the irrational loyalty of alarmists like Schmidt to a failed “dangerous manmade climate change” hypothesis, equally disturbing is the money wasted because of it. Consider an article written for the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers’ summit website by Google engineers Ross Koningstein and David Fork, who worked on Google’s “RE<C” renewable energy initiative.

Beginning in 2007, they say, “Google committed significant resources to tackle the world’s climate and energy problems. A few of these efforts proved very successful: Google deployed some of the most energy efficient data centers in the world, purchased large amounts of renewable energy, and offset what remained of its carbon footprint.”

It’s wonderful that Google improved the energy efficiency of its power-hungry data centers. But the project spent countless dollars and man hours. To what other actual benefits? To address precisely what climate and energy problems? And how exactly did Google offset its carbon footprint? By buying “carbon credits” from outfits like the New Forests Company, which drove impoverished Ugandan villagers out of their homes, set fire to their houses and burned a young boy to death?

What if, as skeptics like us posit and actual evidence reflects, man-made climate change is not in fact occurring? That would mean there is no threat to humans or our planet, and lowering Google’s CO2 footprint would bring no benefits. In fact, it would keep poor nations poverty stricken and deprived of modern technologies – and thus unable to adapt to climate change. Imagine what Google could have accomplished if its resources had been channeled to solving actual problems with actual solutions!

In 2011, the company decided its RE<C project would not meet its goals. Google shut it down. In their article, Koningstein and Fork admit that the real result of all of their costly research was to reach the following conclusion: “green energy is simply not economically, viable and resources that we as a society waste in trying to make it so would be better used to improve the efficiencies in established energy technologies like coal.”

Skeptics like us reached that conclusion long ago. It is the primary reason for our impassioned pleas that that the United States and other developed nations stop making energy policy decisions based on the flawed climate change hypothesis. However, the article’s most breathtaking statement was this:

“Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger…. A 2008 paper by James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies… showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for ‘if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.’ His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. We’ve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm.…”

We would never presume to question the sincerity, intellect, dedication or talent of these two authors. However, this statement presents a stunning failure in applying Aristotelian logic. Even a quick reading would make the following logical conclusions instantly obvious:

1. Hansen theorized that 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would have catastrophic results.

2. CO2 did indeed reach this level, and then exceeded it by a significant amount.

3. There were no consequences, much less catastrophic results, as our earlier points make clear.

4. Therefore, real-world evidence clearly demonstrates that Hansen’s hypothesis is wrong.

This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century. But the Google team has failed to apply it; instead it repeats the “slash fossil fuel use or Earth and humanity are doomed” tautology, without regard for logic or facts – while questioning CAGW skeptics intelligence, character and ethics. Such an approach would be disastrous in business.

We enthusiastically support Eric Schmidt’s admonition that our nation base its policy decisions on facts, even when those facts do not support an apocalyptic environmental worldview. We also support President Obama’s advice that people should not “engage in self-censorship,” because of bullying or “because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”

In fact, we will keep speaking out, regardless of what Messsrs. Schmidt, Hansen and Obama might say.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-earth money machine. Chris Skates is an environmental chemist and author of Going Green: For some it has nothing to do with the environment.

The post Google Goes Off The Climate Change Deep End – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Prashant Kumar*

The colour red seems inauspicious for airlines in India. With the news of the inevitable shutdown of SpiceJet, memories of the Kingfisher Airlines debacle have been refreshed. The warning of history repeating itself may have fallen on deaf ears this time around, as events of 2012 surrounding Kingfisher Airlines seem to be unfolding again in 2014 for the low-cost SpiceJet, and the prospects of another airline biting the dust are only too real.

The similarities between Kingfisher Airlines and SpiceJet regarding their financial woes, are uncanny. Where the KFA required nearly Rs4000 crore capital infusion to stay afloat in 2012, Spice Jet now requires Rs2100 crore. The same Directorate General of Civil Aviation mandate which disallowed the sales of future tickets, applied to Kingfisher and now applies to SpiceJet operations. Much like Kingfisher, SpiceJet has reduced its daily operation from 330 flights down to 237 flights, and has cancelled almost 1800 flights between December 8 and December 31. SpiceJet too has been reduced to cash and carry operations for fuel. Even the financial audit reports of the two companies seem similarly worded.

What is unknown though is the state of salaries of employees and crews of the newly beleaguered airline. While it was well known that the KFA crews had not been paid for months on end, no information on SpiceJet compensations is available. But the exodus of pilots that the KFA saw in its last days is apparent in SpiceJet already – and perhaps it’s an indication of the status of salaries. Some 125 of the 500 odd pilots have already quit and 55 of them have moved or applied to the other larger airlines in the country.

There are a few differences between the experiences of Kingfisher and SpiceJet, though. First in terms of financials, the KFA’s liabilities and dues amounted to more than Rs6500 crore; SpiceJet’s liabilities are still much lower at Rs1500 crore. SpiceJet’s borrowings are backed by fixed deposits and securities, the KFA’s were backed by personal guarantees. Kingfisher was heavily funded by Indian financial firms, while the bulk of SpiceJet’s liabilities are through a Canadian bank used for procurement of the Bombardier aircraft.

Second, during Kingfisher Airlines’ troubles, aviation reforms of 49 per cent foreign direct investment or direct import of aviation fuel had not been made, thus making it harder for the bankrupt company to save itself.

Third, SpiceJet is not represented by a flamboyant owner whose continued pursuance of a grandiose lifestyle indicated that he cared little about what became of the airline. It is perhaps because of this that the Government is actively pursuing to save SpiceJet from its financial woes rather than let it crumble into bankruptcy.

Until Kingfisher’s finality in October 2012, Government help for the airline was marred in debate on why the taxpayers’ money or Government support should at all be given to an entrepreneur who seemed to flounder away company resources in his pursuit to provide a five-star experience. But SpiceJet’s financial woes are not a result of cyclical movements in the industry. With 18 per cent of the market, SpiceJet was effectively the third-largest carrier in the country. Its looming demise seems largely the result of lapses in management, as was the case with Kingfisher Airlines. It is, thus, important to wonder why the Government is so willing to help SpiceJet just as much as it was ready to wash its hands off Kingfisher.

The arguments centre on the plight of the 20,000 people who will directly or indirectly be effected by a shutdown of SpiceJet operations. Employees in Kingfisher Airlines numbered in the same league. Other arguments suggest that a shutdown would send wrong signals to foreign investors. But that would have been the same result post the Kingfisher shutdown. Some say a shutdown would give the remaining few companies (all of which are painted blue, except Air India, whose financial troubles are well known) monopolistic control over the market. But Kingfisher Airlines’ demise gave Jet Airways complete control of the luxury aviation market in India. Only until the announcement of Vistara this year, has Jet Airways faced any prospect of competition. Finally, the political connection of SpiceJet ownership may be a strong driver of Government intervention – the one factor Kingfisher owner Vijay Mallya had going largely against him.

The Government has requested banks to provide fresh loans for the ailing airline to the tune of Rs600 crore. It is even considering allowing external commercial borrowing as a special dispensation. But why now? Governments have long ignored the underlying issues when it comes to civil aviation and have often stood by while aviation companies have folded operations. The DGCA has hardly ever acted as the regulator that Indian aviation needs and successive Governments have failed to address the key problems that allows aviation companies to fold so easily. So, what is so different this time around that justifies an intervention by the DGCA?

The aviation industry is a crucial sector for the Indian economy. With an annual growth rate of 18 per cent to 22 per cent, civil aviation business cannot be ignored. While the change in strategy of the Centre vis-à-vis SpiceJet is a good and forward-looking step, the justification of allowing so many airlines to perish before this, must be underlined. But more importantly, both the DGCA and the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation must start to pay far closer attention to the industry in a holistic manner. They must learn from the experiences of both these major airlines – one dead and the other floundering – to be able to nip financial problems before they become looming crises. They must regulate and respond, rather than watch as spectators.

The turbulent history of the sector and the threat of a bumpy future given its current situation, are not good for the economy or the image of India as a rising economic power through private entrepreneurship. At the very least though, the colour red should be banned from Indian skies!

* The writer is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation and a former pilot.

Pioneer, December 21, 2014

The post SpiceJet: Too Many Reds Have Left The Skies In The Red – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Rocky Intan*

With the ascendancy of China, much attention has been given to the geopolitical competition between China and the United States. The dynamics in the former’s rise and the latter’s relative decline have come to be regarded as the most important bilateral relationship of the century.1 Yet, one should not ignore the relationship of China with another major power in the region, Japan. The rise of China is a more urgent matter for Japan due to simple geographical reasons.

Indeed, geopolitical tensions have coloured relations between both countries. Both China and Japan at various times have been eager participants in constructing and engaging the regional security architecture in the Asia Pacific. Both countries have also been at loggerheads, however, over various issues from the visits of Japanese officials to the Yasukuni Shrine to the status of the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands.

Senkaku Diaoyu Tiaoyu Islands

Southeast Asia is one of the prime arenas of geopolitical competition between Japan and China. As both countries border the region in the maritime domain, the salience of the seas in strategic and economic terms must be underlined. This competition might be observed in their respective maritime strategies in the region, specifically towards ASEAN.

Indonesia is the largest archipelagic country in the world and it possesses the largest maritime territory within Southeast Asia. It also has the largest population in ASEAN and is one of the founding members of the Association. There is little doubt of the importance of Indonesia as a maritime country in the region and an influential member of ASEAN.

The aim of this article is to provide perspectives from Indonesia on the maritime strategies of Japan and China towards ASEAN. It shall elaborate on how Japan and China respectively engage ASEAN in the maritime arena. It shall then explain the interests of Indonesia as a maritime country within ASEAN and middle power in the region, followed by how it views the engagement from Japan and China. The article closes with several policy recommendations on how Japan and China can improve their maritime relations with ASEAN.

Japan’s engagement of Southeast Asia

Japan has been an eager participant in regional security initiatives. First, the Cold War’s end gave an impetus for Japan to be less U.S.-centric in its regional security policy, thus providing it space to strengthen relations with Southeast Asian countries. Second, the ascendancy of China and the consequent competition provided more strategic reason for Japan to reinforce engagement with ASEAN. The case for this is perhaps further strengthened with the recent perceived assertive behaviour of China. Third, a more active Japan in the regional security architecture is only natural for a country that relies heavily on the import of primary commodities and consequently the safety of the regional sea commons. In this regard, Japan has been working to enhance safe passage at sea. For example, it was instrumental in the establishment of the multilateral Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) in 2006.2

In its approach, Japan has favoured a multilateral approach in its maritime strategy towards ASEAN. Its participation in various ASEAN-centric regional security initiatives such as the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Maritime Forum underlies its implicit support for ASEAN centrality. Japan has also advocated a peaceful resolution of territorial disputes in the region. This does not, however, underscore the bilateral maritime relations of Japan and ASEAN countries.

In its technical assistance, Japan has focused on building up the maritime capacity of ASEAN countries. It has provided billions of dollars in aid and training in the maritime arena for ASEAN countries, especially states bordering critical junctures like the Malacca Strait and the littoral states bordering the South China Sea. The former relates to Japan’s interest in maintaining the security of regional commons—its maritime technical assistance to Indonesia is an example—while the latter is reflected in Japan’s assistance to the ASEAN littoral states embroiled in territorial disputes with China over the South China Sea.3 This is exemplified by its provision of patrol vessels to Vietnam and the Philippines.4

China’s engagement of Southeast Asia

China claims to South China Sea

In its participation within the regional security framework, China has been actively seeking to integrate itself into the ASEAN-centred architecture. This has been part of its strategy to assure the world, especially neighbouring countries, that its rise is peaceful. So far, the most pronounced manifestation of China’s willingness to integrate itself in the regional security architecture in the maritime arena has been its signing of the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002.5 In light of recent perceived assertiveness of China in its maritime territorial disputes, it remains to be seen how China’s effort to integrate regionally is being perceived by its neighbours.

Although integration into the regional architecture is multilateral by nature, China has displayed a preference for a bilateral approach in dealing with ASEAN countries on maritime issues. In the negotiations on the South China Sea territorial disputes, China has always preferred to negotiate bilaterally with littoral states rather than with ASEAN collectively. In 2013, China rejected the multilateral path in resolving competing claims over the South China Sea. It argued that ASEAN does not have a direct role in the disagreements and the issue should be dealt with countries directly involved.6 It needs to be noted that this bilateral tendency mainly concerns the Chinese approach in resolving its maritime disputes. To its credit, China has also shown willingness to manage the issue multilaterally with its maritime neighbours in the south.

China has provided technical assistance to Southeast Asian countries both at the multilateral and bilateral levels. Although this assistance might not be as extensive as Japan’s, China seems willing to further expand it. Multilaterally, China has contributed 3 billion Yuan for the China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund in 2012.7 Bilaterally, it has been cooperating with Vietnam on maritime search and rescue operations since 2003.8 In addition, China has recently come up with the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, promising to assist in building the regional port capacity of partner countries.9

The view from Indonesia

Indonesia

This section will attempt to explain Indonesia’s interests as a maritime country within ASEAN and a middle power in the region. It will then explain how these interests are compatible with the maritime approaches of Japan and China.

As a maritime country in ASEAN, the foremost interests of Indonesia in this area are freedom of navigation at sea and integrity of its maritime territory. Related to this, the two most prominent maritime issues for Indonesia are crimes at sea and management of sea resources.10 As such, technical assistance in combatting piracy and peaceful resolution of maritime disputes are in line with the country’s stance. In this regard, technical assistance from Japan and China are much welcomed in Indonesia, although the latter’s cooperation in resolving South China Sea disputes is further called for.

As a middle power in the region, Indonesia has long championed multilateralism. First, Indonesia has been seeking to integrate more actors into the regional security architecture as a multilateral setting will allow it to punch above its weight. Second, the “strategic ambiguity” in the region with the rise of China makes hedging through multilateralism a sound strategy.11 Although cooperation between the two countries has been growing, Indonesia still has misgivings about the benevolent ascendancy of China. This might be further reinforced by China’s recent perceived assertiveness. In this regard, Tokyo’s tendency for multilateralism is applauded while Beijing’s preference for a bilateral approach in its territorial disputes resolution is not preferred from Jakarta’s standpoint—although its recent initiatives and integration in the regional security architecture are much welcomed.

Conclusion and recommendations

The competition between Japan and China might not be apparent within their respective maritime engagement strategies with ASEAN. Their differing approaches towards ASEAN, however, might provide insights on their power positions in the region. Although tensions abound, there is plenty of room for further engagement and opportunity for cooperation in the trilateral relationship of China, Japan and ASEAN.

As a middle power in Southeast Asia and prominent member of ASEAN, it is only natural for Indonesia to advocate a multilateral approach in dealing with powers in the wider Asia Pacific. In return, it also expects those powers to follow a similar approach in order to ensure peace and prosperity in the region.

Going beyond simply advocating a multilateral approach might be needed, however, given the fierce competition between China and Japan.

Indonesia welcomes further technical assistance from both China and Japan towards ASEAN and its members. The collective interests of Japan, China and Indonesia in maintaining the stability of regional commons can be assisted by further technical assistance for ASEAN and its members in combatting piracy. ReCAAP has been an exemplary programme in this regard. Multilateral initiatives by both countries are warmly welcomed by Indonesia. China’s initiative on the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road is also applauded. Indonesia invites both China and Japan to further integrate into the regional security architecture and advocates for both countries to utilise the multilateral approach in resolving disputes for the betterment of all parties involved.

About the author:
* Mr Rocky Intan is a researcher in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Indonesia.

Source:
This article was published by RSIS in its December 2014 Policy Report, IMPACT OF THE SINO-JAPANESE COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP ON ASEAN AS A REGION AND INSTITUTION (PDF), in pages 15-18.

Notes:
1. Ying-jia Huang, “Ambassador Clark Randt on ‘the Crucial Relationship’,” USC US-China Institute, April 30, 2010, http://china.usc.edu/ (X(1)A(0J4XabT9zwEkAAAAOTM3OTIwN2ItZmU4My00OWExLWIzYzMtM2I5ZjkzZTI4MTBl8_xMz4Gce9VSueFNsPokFsYhqlY1) S(echckdvv5hn00i55pbonfr45))/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1021&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1x.
2. Nguyen Hung Son, “ASEAN-Japan Strategic Partnership in Southeast Asia: Maritime Security and Cooperation,” in Beyond 2015: ASEAN-Japan Strategic Partnership for Democracy, Peace, and Prosperity in Southeast Asia, eds. Rizal Sukma and Yoshihide Soeya (New York: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2013), 214-227, http://www.jcie.org/japan/j/pdf/pub/publst/1451/12_nguyen.pdf.
3. Ibid.
4. Nikkei Asian Review, “Japan, US to help Southeast Asia with maritime security,” April 3, 2014, http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/ Policy-Politics/Japan-US-to-help-Southeast-Asia-with-maritime-security.Publish/Download/Seisaku/pdf/120208.pdf.
5. Carlyle A. Thayer, “The Rise of China and Maritime Security in Southeast Asia,” IDE JETRO, 2011, http://www.ide.go.jp/Japanese/
6. Julian E. Barnes, “China Rejects Multilateral Intervention in South China Sea Disputes,” Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323324904579042742806878158.
7. Fox News, “China unveils $474M maritime cooperation fund to ASEAN amid territorial disputes,” October 5, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/05/china-unveils-474m-maritime-cooperation-fund-with-asean-amid-territorial.
8. Zhao Lei. “China pledges maritime cooperation with ASEAN,” China Daily (USA), November 1, 2011, http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-11/01/content_15862685.htm.
9. Zhong Nan, “New Maritime Silk Road to Promote Ties with ASEAN,” China Daily (USA), August 28, 2014, http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-08/28/content_18504906.htm.
10. Shafiah F. Muhibat, “Indonesia’s Maritime Security: Ongoing Problems and Strategic Implications,” in Maritime Security and Piracy: Common Challenges and Responses from Europe and Asia, eds. Wilhelm Hofmeister and Patrik Rueppel (Singapore: East Asian Institute), 129-142.
11. Rizal Sukma, “Indonesia’s Response to the Rise of China: Growing Comfort and Uncertainties,” in The Rise of China: Responses from Southeast Asia and Japan, ed. Jun Tsunekawa (Tokyo: The National Institute for Defense Studies, 2009), 139-155, http://www.nids. go.jp/english/publication/joint_research/series4/pdf/4-5.pdf.

The post Maritime Engagement Strategies Of Japan And China Towards Southeast Asia: An Indonesian Perspective – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Anthony Rusonik

Despite the enormous pressure, the perceptions of “fairness,” and the predictions of conflict resolution that Western leaders assure would be the outcome of a Palestinian state, there is a remarkable dearth of dialogue as to what a Palestinian state might in fact look like. By “look,” this means to consider beyond the borders – over which there is much debate – and focus on the character of the state. Even here we don’t mean the intent or orientation of a prospective Palestinian state – though that too is a matter of hot debate.

Rather, the character of the prospective state is more a question of what sovereignty and “statefulness” would actually entail for Palestinians and Israelis. The concept of the state endures well into the 21st century. Ethno-nationalism, it seems, remains a prominent force to sustain aspirations for the traditional territorial state. Even so, the neo-liberalism so popular is the late 20th century , albeit in retreat, is not mistaken in the assertion that transnational forces of trade, capital flow, environment, gender, and even religion – ISIS – can combine to challenge the foundations of the traditional state.

The one repeated mantra that is almost as entrenched as the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is that it must be a “viable” state. Almost as popular as this undefined notion of viability is the concession that said state would be “demilitarized.” The meaning of “viability” and the assurance of “demilitarization” are not at all clear.

One supposes that “viability” is Western code for “territorial continuity” which, in turn, is code for the June 1967 borders with “minor modifications.” There would be little new in an article on Palestinian statehood if we focused on the moral or even the practical implications of the 1967 borders.

Suffice it to say, no Israeli government of whatever stripe or composition will accept a loss of “sovereign” territorial control at the Jordanian border and, of course, in Jerusalem.

Again, this isn’t a comment on justice or fairness or what ought to be, just an observation on Israeli red lines. In short, it is hard to imagine how this would happen given Israel’s resolve and its capabilities.

The failure to imagine such a scenario and yet to still conceive of a “viable” Palestinian state acceptable to both Israelis and those Palestinians we call moderate by virtue of their suppression of territorial absolutism implies that sovereignty might be a more fluid concept than we had imagined.

This is not a back door argument for “autonomy,” which would not satisfy Palestinian aspirations. Still, one is entitled to ask: when does statefulness degenerate to autonomy? And what accelerates Camp David and Oslo beyond autonomy to statefulness?

The obvious answer is “sovereignty.” Again, however, we see that this assertion raises as many questions as it answers. Consider that it is Western Europe that is determined to recognize a Palestinian state, which is a bit ironic given that the Europeans have themselves diluted their own sovereignty in the European Union.

Some would argue this is sophistry, not at all an “apples to apples” comparison. True enough, if the ethnic divide between Israelis and Palestinians is the sole consideration. Yet, not so true if we think about what happens on Day Two of a Palestinian state. What currency will the Palestinians use? Jordanian Dinars, Israeli Shekels or a Palestinian unit? What of the Palestinian labor force? Will statehood change the fact that a good number of Palestinians work in Israel, or else in Israeli enterprises on the West Bank? What of the more obvious questions of Palestinian air travel ? Tel Aviv or Amman? A Palestinian sea port? If that seems contentious after the Gaza wars with Hamas, what of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Territorial “contiguity” between the West Bank and Gaza? Dare we even ask about Jerusalem?

Once the rhetorical pronouncements, flag-waving, and national anthems abate, Jerusalem might offer a model for “neo–sovereignty.” Palestinians may bristle at Israeli military and territorial “sovereignty” in Jerusalem now. Nonetheless, even right-wing Israeli governments remain reluctant to “demonstrate” sovereignty on the Temple Mount and at the Haram al-Sharif.

Israel has never flown its flag on the Mount, nor have Israeli governments ever authorized Jewish prayer there. The most “aggressive” Israeli move amounted to Ariel Sharon’s walk on the Temple Mount, which some say triggered the Second Intifada.

So, it is unclear that Israel wields political or administrative “sovereignty” in Jerusalem, though it is at the same time undeniable that Israel has military control. Is sovereignty and statehood no more than that the Jews have the guns?

If more than that, the best chance for a viable Palestinian state is where such a state and its leadership recognize a fluid and interdependent concept of statefulness and sovereignty.

Again, if saner and pragmatic minds prevail with the recognition that Israeli military control over the Jordanian border and Greater Jerusalem is in fact essential to stabilize a prospective demilitarized Palestinian state, then the real significance of sovereignty on Day Two becomes the ethnic composition of each state.

Whatever one’s political bias and allegiance, the fact is that 20% of Israel “proper” within the Green Line is Palestinian Arab. Perhaps not “full citizens,” these Palestinian Israelis nonetheless enjoy property rights, legal recourse, and the right to vote – like any other Israeli.

Might ethnic Israelis inside a “sovereign” Palestine hope to enjoy the same status? Not a chance, at least not on Day One with wounds still raw. Indeed, this might be the clearest manifestation point of Palestinian sovereignty: the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces from whatever territory in the West Bank that is negotiated as Palestinian. At that moment, prudence suggests Israeli citizens would be best to withdraw as well – either within the Green Line or to areas within the West Bank that might be ceded to Israel.

How this might come about is as unclear as the impasse itself is clear, yet the fact remains that most Israeli settlers are pragmatic and not religious/ideological; economic and housing incentives for repatriation inside Israel proper might entice all but the most zealous.

Even then, the Palestinian state that takes shape strikes us as less than “sovereign” from what our image of hard “billiard balls” in International Relations engenders. Palestine – if it suppresses irredentist pressures to attempt to push the Jews into the sea – will in fact need to accept the dilution of conventional sovereignty in order to hope to prosper and remain viable.

This is the paradox. A sovereign Palestine in the conventional sense is a candidate for failure. It will need to move from the symbols and trappings of statehood with deft precision and determination to de facto confederation with Israel and Jordan. If one thinks about it in an abstract sense – devoid of the rivers of blood in Jerusalem at present – there is no reason why a Palestinian parliament could not assemble in Jerusalem under a “diluted” sovereignty where ceremonial armed guards patrol a delicate but functional modus vivendi with Israeli soldiers.

Naïve? Perhaps….. No more so, however, than to think the status quo is sustainable, or that Greater Israel will prevail as Pax Israelica, or that speeches and declarations will subdue Israel and form Palestine without compromised negotiations.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com.

The post A Palestinian State: Elusions And Illusions Of Sovereignty – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Of late, RT’s “CrossTalk” has often become more of a show where everyone pretty much agrees with each other. “CrossTalk” typically features three guests and a host. On “CrossTalk”, the likes of Ariel Cohen, Anders Aslund and Taras Kuzio have been outnumbered. This situation has perhaps influenced some people with their views to not appear on that show. The “CrossTalk” preference is a reversal to the favoritism that’s frequently given to these commentators (and others with the same takes) in Western mass media. In numerous comparative instances, “CrossTalk” isn’t less objective.

I find this matter to be regretful, despite my not being in general agreement with A. Cohen, Aslund and Kuzio and opposition to much of the 24/7 Western mass media TV coverage of former Communist bloc issues. The aforementioned three individuals can be successfully refuted without stacking the cards against them, in a way that can be (and has been) propagandistically used against RT.

In contrast, the not as well known RT show, “Worlds Apart”, has one-on-one situations between the host and guest. It’s not uncommon to see fundamental differences between the two.

RT has other shows which deal with the issues discussed on “CrossTalk” and “Worlds Apart”. IMO, RT will qualitatively improve its standing with a relatively objective show, that will regularly and simultaneously feature competent guests, with fundamentally different points of view from each other. On former Communist bloc issues, (as well as some other topics), this kind of an approach is frequently lacking among the leading 24/7 Western mass media TV networks.

The following are my responses to some recent “Worlds Apart” shows.

Re: http://rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/212159-human-rights-conflicts-roth/

Human Rights Watch (HRW) Executive Director Kenneth Roth, said that Russian mass media cherry picks the reports of his organization. In turn, the RT “Worlds Apart” host Oksana Boyko, noted Roth making a political statement on that score.

It’s fair to say that selective emphasis is a worldwide occurrence of varied biases. Roth isn’t keen on speaking out against the MANY instances of faulty US mass media coverage against Russia. One of many cases in point, is the one-sided December 21, CNN/GPS panel discussion. In comparison, the above linked RT show gave Roth ample time to express his views, which go against the slant of RT.

HRW made it a point to openly oppose the detention of the Pussy Riot exhibitionists, who disrespectfully violated the sanctity of a Moscow church, which had previously experienced a repressive anti-religious act in the 1930s. Concerning humanitarian stands with global implications, I’m not aware of HRW criticizing the governments of the US, Canada and Ukraine for being the only countries to have voted against a proposed and passed UN resolution, denouncing the glorification of Nazism. The UN document in question makes no specific reference to any one country. Therefore, the attempt of any human rights advocate to excuse the US, Canadian and Ukrainian votes on this particular seem to be especially flawed. BTW, this news item was very much downplayed in Western mass media.

The above linked show ended with an exchange about Crimea. Roth’s geopolitical subjectivity is exhibited in how he portrayed a Ukrainian territory suddenly becoming a part of Russia, with an armed occupying force supporting this move. Omitted is what led to that change, along with that force not being so foreign to the land in question.

The coup in Kiev against a democratically elected president, followed by a series of increased anti-Russian actions, triggered Crimea’s changed territorial status. There are also the matters of Kosovo and northern Cyprus, which have some comparative relationship with Crimea. Does Roth characterize an “occupying force” in Kosovo, dominated by countries that have supported the drive for that region’s independence, in contradiction to the still active UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the preference of Serbia?

There’s much more to the Kosovo-Crimea comparison, which includes the issue of which of the two have the best historical and human rights cases for a changed territorial status? Crimea has a lengthy past with Russia. The desire for Kosovo’s designation as an entity unto itself is a more recent development. The repackaged KLA in Kosovo doesn’t come across as having a greater moral fiber than the Crimean body politic.

Re: http://rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/216331-crimea-sanctions-syria-war/

Michael O’Hanlon’s contestable views were given a longer leash, when compared to what his reasoned geopolitical opposites could expect on a good number of US mass media TV news shows. He expressed his opinion that Putin isn’t a good option as Russian president. O’Hanlon’s overall takes on Russia and some other topics are arguably less constructive.

Boyko noted that the main political forces associated with the post-Yanukovych Kiev regime were on record to favor ditching the Russian-Ukrainian lease agreement for Russia’s naval presence in Crimea. Within reason, O’Hanlon said that this matter could’ve been worked out, without changing Crimea’s territorial status. On this issue, why should Russia be so trustful, given how anti-Yanukovych Kiev situated forces ditched the Feb 21 accord they signed, followed by a series of increased anti-Russian actions? The protestation over Crimea’s changed status looks hypocritically absurd, when the pro-Russian majority in Crimea, along with the Kosovo and northern Cyprus situations are added to the precarious developments in Kiev.

On that last point, O’Hanlon described Yanukovych as leaving office, while downplaying the coup-like circumstances involved with that move. At times, the “rule of law” advocacy has limits. Neocon, neolibs and flat out Russia haters expect the Kremlin and pro-Russian elements in Ukraine to be flexible by recognizing the post-Yanukovych Kiev regimes. Flexibility is lacking elsewhere, as exhibited by the righteous indignation being expressed over Crimea’s changed territorial status.

O’Hanlon confidently emphasized his overly subjective and inaccurate depiction of the wars in 1990s former Yugoslavia. He finds fault with Russia for not being so agreeable with the Clinton administration policy on that topic. For O’Hanlon, Milosevic is the “monster”, while saying NOTHING about the otherwise noticeable faulty mass killing/hate mongering related aspects associated with Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Thaci. The record shows that some key neolib/neocon claims on former Yugoslavia (like the actual war related death toll in Bosnia) were quite inaccurate. (The bias against Russia and Serbia is discussed in my Global Research article of this past July 23 “Twisted History Against Russia and Serbia“.)

O’Hanlon and Boyko suggested that O’Hanlon’s recent coauthored Washington Post article (with Jeremy Shapiro), is a shining change from the Beltway establishment. In actuality, his piece underscores the limited substantive analysis among that grouping.

O’Hanlon’s suggestion of a partitioned Crimea comes across as a hypocritical idea. He didn’t advocate a partition of Kosovo or Ukraine (not including Crimea).

Re: http://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/199300-ukraine-finance-economy-eu-us/

RT initially promoted this show with Andrew Kuchins expressing the belief that Victoria Nuland probably should have been canned by the Obama administration. Has Kuchins ever expressed this view elsewhere?

On this show, Kuchins erroneously blamed then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych for pursuing a zero sum game (Russia or the EU) stance on Ukraine’s foreign and economic policies. In reality, Yanukovych sought a fairer EU Association Agreement for Ukraine, while seeking to maintain mutually beneficial close ties between Russia and Ukraine. Under his presidency, Ukraine didn’t recognize the Russian led independence recognitions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He also didn’t commit Ukraine to the Russian involved Customs Union/Eurasian Union. Prior to Yanukovych’s ouster, it was the EU and US (not Russia and Ukraine) which pursued the zero sum game stance on Ukraine’s economic development.

Kuchins went on to say that the Feb 21 accord signed by Yanukovych, his main opposition and some Western officials, was unrealistic from its inception; because the Euromaidan protestors would oppose that agreement for leaving Yanukovych in office for the remainder of 2014. When expressing this thought, Kuchins gave no acknowledgement to the counter-Euromaidan perspective in Ukraine and the fact that Yanukovych was the democratically elected president. Just how reasonable was it for the counter-Euromaidan side to readily accept the disproportionate number of nationalist anti-Russian leaning Svoboda members in the Kiev regime which overthrew Yanukovych? (Svoboda’s declined role in the current Kiev regime has been somewhat offset by others, who in one form or another have taken nationalist anti-Russian stances.)

Kuchins has exhibited the position of American neocon to neolib foreign policy advocacy, by presenting Russia as a country having a bout of extreme nationalism (more like reasoned patriotism) and (at the same time) being relatively mute on the nationalist anti-Russian tilt that has been associated with the Euromaidan side.

A related piece:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-03/putin-experts-club-going-to-sochi-even-as-ukraine-battles-rage.html

Excerpt -

“Kuchins has been to about five meetings and says attending this year will help maintain a dialogue while government ties are strained. He acknowledges that the event is part of the Kremlin’s public relations campaign.

‘I have pretty strongly held views about Mr. Putin and I’ve certainly never shied away from criticizing him and his government, sometimes in quite brutal ways, and yet I’m still invited,’ he said by phone. ‘That’s really very rare, frankly, for a major world leader to meet a group of so-called experts, journalists in a pretty intimate gathering as Mr. Putin generally does for these meetings’.”

****

An academic acquaintance noted how some can further bolster their comments against Russia and Putin by highlighting their Valdai Discussion Club appearance.

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

The post With Room For Improvement, RT Gives Time To Diverse Views – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.