By Giovanni Grevi*

The publication of a National Security Strategy (NSS) gives American presidents an opportunity to outline to domestic and foreign audiences the broad strategic posture and priorities of the world’s main power. The new United States (US) NSS published in February 2015 puts forward ‘strategic patience’ as the organising principle for dealing with growing challenges, while building on the achievements of the previous six years of the Obama administration.

The vindication of President Obama’s foreign policy record and the reassertion of ‘an undeniable truth – America must lead’ (as Obama puts it in his introduction to the strategy) stand out in the new document.

The NSS features strong elements of continuity with its 2010 predecessor. It affirms the need for American leadership, acknowledges the limits of American power and confirms a preference to wield it in concert with others, where possible. At the same time, it reflects the considerable changes that have occurred in the US and in the global strategic landscape since the 2010 version of the NSS.

PATIENCE

The defining message of the 2010 NSS was that, after two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a deep economic downturn, American leadership needed renewal. That would start from rebuilding the base of US power at home, notably restoring economic growth. The 2015 NSS claims mission accomplished on this crucial score. America has recovered its economic strength, the US has become the largest producer of oil and gas in the world and well over 150,000 troops have left Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2015, the US  ‘is stronger and better positioned to seize the opportunities’ of the 21st century.

The strategy goes to great lengths to stress American resolve to lead ‘by example’ (promoting core values at home and abroad), ‘with capable partners’ (expanding both their number and capabilities) and ‘with all the instruments of US power’. The US military ‘must remain dominant in every domain’, but the strategy makes clear that the use of force will not be America’s first choice. Instead, it should be ‘principled and selective’ and should be part of a much broader toolbox. The words ‘lead’ and ‘leadership’ are used almost as many times in the 2015 document as in the 2010 one (131 times against 153) but the latter is twice as long.

The new NSS also calls on the US to lead ‘with a long-term perspective’ to be able to influence the evolution of five key transitions, namely: power shifts; the diffusion of power away from states; increasing interdependence; power struggles in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA); and dramatic changes in the global energy market.

The (rather blurred) list of security priorities of the 2015 strategy somewhat mirrors this long- term approach. Thematic issues – such as conflict prevention and state fragility, climate change, access to ‘shared spaces’ (cyber, space, air and oceans) and health security – take more prominence than in 2010. Like in 2010, however, the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), associated with the ‘persistent’ threat of terrorism, is considered the biggest danger to American security.

Strategic patience frames the US approach to the key relationships with China and Russia. The nar- rative of proactive engagement with large rising powers that was central to the 2010 NSS has been toned down a notch and made more selective. There is an emphasis on partnerships with other like-minded countries and allies from Asia to Europe. Like in 2010, China’s rise is welcomed by the US, which will pursue a ‘constructive relationship’ with Beijing. But the 2015 strategy clearly states that the US is and will remain a Pacific power, and acknowledges that tensions in the Asia-Pacific risk escalating.

The document seeks to carve a viable path for US-China relations: ‘While there will be competition, we reject the inevitability of confrontation’.

Conversely, prospects for strengthening the US- India ‘strategic and economic partnership’ are highlighted, including a reference to the convergence between India’s ‘Act East’ policy and the US rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific. Russia’s ‘aggression’ in Ukraine has triggered a marked shift from the aim to build a substantive relationship with Moscow in 2010 to the need to ‘deter’ Russia today by imposing costs for its behaviour and supporting the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries. And yet, the US will keep the ‘door open’ to collaboration with Russia on areas of common interest.

In short, the 2015 NSS calls for a firm but incremental and inclusive approach to facing tensions and crises in key global regions. It warns against allowing ‘fear’ to result in over-reach, and allowing the immediate threats posed by ‘transgressors’ to define the regional strategies of the US. Along with Europe and the Asia-Pacific, this also applies to the MENA region, where the NSS fleshes out a rather patchwork set of objectives, including dismantling terrorist networks, boosting the capacity of partners (Israel, Jordan and the Gulf countries) to defend themselves, supporting domestic reforms and political transitions, and pursuing a comprehensive agreement with Iran to prevent WMD proliferation.

PRUDENCE

The 2015 NSS represents a sensible but arduous, and not always persuasive, attempt to reconcile American strategic ambitions with global geostrategic turmoil. In so doing, it seeks to chart a prudent middle ground between three strategic dilemmas facing the US.
First, to borrow the language of the 2010 strategy, the dilemma between accepting ‘the world as it is’ and pursuing ‘the world we seek’. Second, the tension between rejecting the ‘false choice’ between interests and values (as stated in the 2010 NSS) and recognising the need to make ‘hard choices’ between competing priorities (as stated in the new strategy). Third, the gap between robust, sometimes unilateral responses to immediate threats and the comprehensive, multilateral approaches required to manage long-term trends and challenges.

On most measures, the gulf between the world as it is and the world that the US seeks has grown wider over the last five years. The so-called Arab spring has resulted in destabilisation, conflict and authoritarian restoration, with the exception of the ongoing democratic transition in Tunisia. Russia has turned from a potential partner to a challenger in Eastern Europe with a large spoiler potential on a number of key files, chiefly Iran and arms control more generally. China has become more assertive, making it harder, though not prohibitive, to work out a viable relationship between the two Pacific superpowers.

Reality has taken a toll on the aspiration to inspire ‘hope’ in people around the world, building on common aspirations and the power of example, which featured prominently in the 2010 NSS. The choice between pursuing short- term interests and promoting values over the long-term is indeed a false one in principle, but requires a very difficult balancing act in practice. The best intentions to shape sustainable, rules-based solutions over time do not necessarily rule out the need to take hard short-term measures to avert or counter dangers to vital interests when they arise. However, ill-advised short-term action can preclude long-term progress instead of paving the way to it.

In short, the middle ground may be prudent, but it is not an easy place from which to devise and implement a strategy. However, the 2015 NSS is correct in charting it as the only available option between sheer realpolitik and lofty ideological designs. The question is whether the NSS provides the necessary sense of priority and direction. On that score, the balance is mixed.

STRATEGY?

The strategy includes a rather heterogeneous list of security priorities, ranging from attacks on the US, which comes on top, to countering terrorism and the spread of WMD, and from improving cyber-security to tackling climate change and fighting pandemics.

Geopolitical tensions from Russia and Ukraine to the Middle East are mainly addressed in separate sections, notably under the heading ‘International order’. Taking a comprehensive approach to security with a focus on the root causes of instability and threats is fundamental. Placing geopolitical rivalries or regional tensions at the top of the security agenda might raise excessive expectations on American responses and appear inconsistent with the current efforts to defuse them. However, the document could have better connected the main geopolitical threats shaking regional orders today with the broader cross-border risks that affect international security The structure of the document leaves it rather unclear what really matters for the US beyond protecting the homeland and American citizens.

As to strategic direction, the NSS offers three pathways to overcome the dilemmas fleshed out above. First, it regards the comparative strengths of the US as a solid basis for confident leadership. The document stresses the unparalleled assets of the US, such as economic performance, technological competitiveness, a vibrant society and military might, among other benchmarks. This diagnosis is correct but it remains unclear how it squares with the fact that over the last five years the US has been unable to prevent or resolve various international crises which have surely affected its interests. The insight that power assets (in themselves) buy less influence in an increasingly contested and polycentric international system could have helped address this conundrum. How these assets are used, and the perceptions and responses of others, will define influence in today’s world.

Second, the NSS offers strategic patience, a long-term comprehensive approach and working with partners as the recipe to pave the way towards a stronger, rules-based international order.

The strategy insists that the use of force ‘is not the principal means of US engagement abroad, nor always the most effective’. On the one hand, this is a sound approach, including the important recommendation not to let emergencies or rivals define the US response, but preferably joining forces with others to impose costs on transgressors and deter them. On the other, the strategy dedicates only limited space to assessing the ‘undeniable strains’ challenging the international order. Besides, it relies on the fact that ‘the vast majority of states’ buy into the current international system and demand American leadership to uphold it. However, multiple divisions on key global issues suggest a more complex picture.

Third, the strategy posits that the US needs to live its values at home and promote universal ones abroad, with an emphasis on democracy and human rights. Values are presented as a source of strength and advancing them is ‘related to every enduring national interest’. In particular, the NSS insists on the need to empower civil society and connect with young leaders. Restating these principles and objectives is important but the commitment to values is very much qualified by the recognition of the many constraints. The NSS acknowledges that the US will need to engage with governments that do not share its values but argues that any American support to them ‘will be balanced with an awareness of the costs of repressive policies for our own security interests and the democratic values by which we live’. The strategy is correct to point out the tensions and tradeoffs between conflicting priorities. However, it is less convincing in drawing out the consequences of these tradeoffs, in particular when it comes to cooperating with authoritarian regimes in the MENA region, where security-driven considerations appear to prevail.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EUROPE

The ‘profound commitment’ of the US to a free, whole and peaceful Europe is restated. If the US is the indispensable leader, Europe is its ‘indispensable partner’. NATO is the ‘hub’ of an expanding global security network and the US commitment to collective defence under Article 5 is ‘ironclad’. The European Union (EU) is mentioned (once) in relation to seeking an ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and deepening NATO-EU ties. In addition, the strategy points to the fact that the US has a ‘significant stake’ in the energy security of Europe and should work with Europeans to improve it, notably with reference to Europe’s dependence on Russia’s supplies.

The ongoing crisis with Russia and, more broadly, the important role of Europeans in the American global network of allies and partners are the twin pillars framing the strategy’s approach to Europe.

America’s determination to deter Russia and reassure allies is meant to meet widespread concern in Europe about US commitment there, although implementing these guidelines will continue to require intensive dialogue to preserve a common transatlantic front. The clear commitment to pursue a comprehensive deal to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme will also be welcomed in Europe, as an important factor in preventing the further destabilisation of the Middle East. At the same time, there is a strong risk that Americans and Europeans converge towards a short-sighted approach to conflicts and broader security challenges in the MENA region, essentially directed to contain threats and counter terrorism.

The NSS confirms the US intention to advance its rebalancing to Asia, which is described in Obama’s introduction to the strategy as a historic opportunity. It is interesting to note that while the NSS mentions both the TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as important planks in shaping a new global economic order, only the latter scores a mention in the president’s introduction. The strategy broadly confirms that the US looks at Asia as the biggest source of both future opportunities and challenges.

From an American standpoint, Europe is no longer going to be the theatre where the global balance of power and prospects for prosperity will be defined. However, even beyond the current crisis in Ukraine, the ‘enduring alliance’ with Europe may become more valuable than often assumed for the US, as it seeks to preserve the liberal international order in the face of many challenges. The question is whether Europeans and Americans will necessarily see eye-to-eye across the board in responding to these challenges and fostering a rules-based international order. For instance, Europeans and Americans do not always agree on how to deal with crises in the Middle East or the implications of China’s rise.

CONCLUSION

The 2015 NSS is simultaneously a response to sustained criticism of Obama’s foreign policy as too cautious, a consolidation of his strategic direction and practices, and an update of the US global posture to reflect evolving security challenges. It is a strategy of the possible couched in the language of ambition. Overall, compared to the 2010 version, elements of continuity prevail over innovations.

The strategic direction of the new strategy is broadly correct but the document could have benefited from less emphasis on the inevitability of American leadership and a better sense of priorities.

The strategy seeks to strike a very difficult balance between overlapping strategic dilemmas. While providing important pointers, it only partially succeeds. Seeking to reconcile the ‘world as it is’ and the ‘world we seek’ is exceedingly difficult for international actors that aim to advance their particular interests and liberal values at once, torn between short-term needs and long-term aspirations. As the EU now embarks on a new exercise to assess changes in the global environment and work out its own strategic priorities, the challenge of balancing hard realities and normative aspirations is worth bearing very much in mind.

About the author:
*Giovanni Grevi is director of FRIDE.

Source:
This article was published by FRIDE as Policy Brief No 194 – FEBRUARY 2015 (PDF).

The post Patient, Prudent, Strategic? The 2015 US National Security Strategy – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi Arabia has suspended the activities of its embassy in Yemen after the United States and a number of European countries shut their embassies in the Arab country where the Ansarullah revolutionaries have taken control of the capital, Sana’a.

“Due to the deteriorating security and political situation in the Yemeni capital, Saudi Arabia has suspended all embassy operations in Sana’a,” the Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official SPA news agency.

The statement further noted that Saudi Arabia, as the first Arab country, has “evacuated all its staff” from the embassy and that its diplomats “have arrived safely in the kingdom.”

Earlier in the day, Italy and Germany temporarily shut their embassies in Yemen after a similar move by the US, Britain and France over what they call security concerns.

On Friday, the Italian Foreign Ministry issued a statement, saying the country’s ambassador and staff are returning home from Italy’s embassy in Yemen.

The ministry further expressed hope that through mediation of the UN special envoy to Sana’a, Jamal Benomar, security would be restored to Yemen in order to pave the way for the reopening of its embassy in Sana’a.

In the same vein, Germany’s ambassador and its diplomatic staff in Sana’a left Yemen on Friday.

The post Saudi Arabia Closes Embassy In Yemen appeared first on Eurasia Review.

WHO IS the ruler of Israel?

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, of course.

WRONG.

The real ruler of Israel is one Sheldon Adelson, 81, American Jew, Casino king, who was rated as the world’s tenth richest person, worth 37.2 billion dollars at the latest count. But who is counting?

Besides his casinos in Las Vegas, Pennsylvania, Macao and Singapore, he owns the US Republican party and, lately, both Houses of the US Congress.

He also owns Binyamin Netanyahu.

ADELSON’S CONNECTION with Israel is personal. On a blind date, he fell in love with an Israeli woman.

Miriam Farbstein was born in Haifa, attended a prestigious high school, did her army service in the Israeli institute which deals with bacteriological warfare and is a multifaceted scientist. After one of her sons (from her first marriage) died of an overdose, she is devoted to the fight against drugs, especially cannabis.

Both Adelsons are fanatical supporters of Israel. Not just any Israel, but a rightist, supremacist, arrogant, violent, expansionist, annexationist, non-compromising, colonialist Israel.

In “Bibi” Netanyahu they found their man. Through Netanyahu they hope to rule Israel as their private fief.

To assure this, they did an extraordinary thing: they founded an Israeli newspaper, solely devoted to the furthering of the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu. Not of the Likud, not of a specific policy, but of Netanyahu personally.

Years ago I invented a Hebrew word for papers which are distributed for nothing. “Hinamon” translates, roughly, into “ragratis” or “gratissue” and was intended to denigrate. But I did not dream of a monster like “Israel Hayom” (“Israel Today”) – a paper with unlimited funds, distributed every day for nothing in the streets and malls all over the country by hundreds, perhaps thousands of paid young persons.

Israelis love getting something for nothing. Israel Hayom is now the daily paper with the widest distribution in Israel. It drains readers and advertising revenue from its only competitor – Yedioth Ahronoth (“Latest News”), which held this title until then.

Yedioth reacted furiously. It became a ferocious enemy of Netanyahu. Yossi Werter, a commentator of the center-left Haaretz (which has a far lower circulation) even believes that the present election boils down to a contest between the two papers.

That is vastly exaggerated. Judged by political and social content, there is little to differentiate the two. Both are super-patriotic, war-mongering and rightist. That is the journalistic recipe for attracting the masses anywhere in the world.

Yedioth is owned by the Moses family, a business-minded clan. The present, third-generation publisher is Arnon (“Noni”) Moses, the publicity-shy boss of a large economic empire based on the paper. The paper serves his business interests, but he has no special political interests.

Adelson is unique.

IN ISRAEL, betting is forbidden by law. We have no casinos, and secret gambling dens are raided by the police. In our early youth we were taught that casino moguls are bad people, almost like arms merchants. They take the money off poor addicted people, throwing them into despair, even suicide. See Dostoyevsky.

Israelis read Israel Hayom (it’s something for nothing, after all), but they don’t necessarily like the man and his methods. So some members of the Knesset were encouraged to enter a bill forbidding gratis newspapers altogether.

Netanyahu and the Likud party did everything to obstruct this bill. But in the preliminary vote (necessary for private members’ bills) they were beaten in an amazing way. Even members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition voted for it. The cameras caught Netanyahu literally running in the Knesset plenum hall to gain his seat before the voting started.

The vote was 43 to 23. Almost half the Likud members absented themselves. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his party voted for the bill. So did ministers Ya’ir Lapid and Tzipi Livni.

From the preliminary vote to the final adoption, such a bill has to pass several stages. There was plenty of time to bury it in one of the committees. But Netanyahu was furious. A few days after the vote, he dismissed Lapid and Livni from the cabinet, causing the government coalition to break up and the Knesset to disperse.

Why did Netanyahu do such a foolish thing less then half way through his (third) term of office? There can be only one logical explanation: he was ordered to do so by Adelson, in order to prevent the adoption of the law.

If so, Adelson is now our chief lawmaker. Perhaps he is also our chief government-maker.

MONEY PLAYS an ever-increasing role in politics. Election propaganda is made on television, which is very expensive. Both in Israel and the US, legal and illegal funds pour into the campaign, directly and indirectly. Corruption is abetted or tolerated by the courts. The very rich (known euphemistically in America as the “wealthy”) exercise undue influence.

In the last US presidential elections, Adelson poured rivers of dollars into the contest. He supported Newt Gingrich, and then Mitt Romney, with huge sums of money. In vain. Perhaps Americans don’t like to be ruled by captains of casinos.

For the next US presidential elections, Adelson has started early. He has summoned to his Las Vegas casino HQ all leading Republican candidates, to grill them on their allegiance to him – and to Netanyahu. Nobody dared to refuse the summons. Would a Roman senator refuse the summons of Caesar?

In Israel, such rituals are superfluous. The Adelsons – both Miri and Sheldon – know who their man is.

The Israel Hayom newspaper is, of course, a big propaganda machine, totally devoted to the re-election of Netanyahu. All quite legal. In a democracy, who can tell a newspaper whom to support? We are still a democracy, for God’s sake!

IT SEEMS to be strange for a country to allow a foreigner, who never lived in the country, to have such enormous power over its future, indeed, over its very existence.

That’s where Zionism comes in. According to the Zionist creed, Israel is the state of the Jews, all the Jews. Every Jew in the world belongs to Israel, even if temporarily residing somewhere else. A few days ago, Netanyahu publicly claimed to represent not just the State of Israel but also the entire “Jewish People”. No need to ask them.

Accordingly, Adelson is not really a foreigner. He is one of us. True, he cannot vote in Israel, though his wife probably can. But many people, including himself, believe that he, being a Jew, has a perfect right to interfere in our affairs and dominate our lives.

For example, the appointment of our ambassador in the US. Ron Dermer is an American, born in Miami, who was active in Republican politics. To appoint an American functionary of the Republican Party as ambassador of Israel to a Democratic administration may seem strange. Not so strange if Netanyahu acted under the orders of Sheldon Adelson.

It was Adelson who prepared the witches’ brew that is now endangering Israel’s lifeline to Washington. His stooge, Dermer, induced the Republicans in Congress – all of them dependent on Adelson’s largesse or hoping to be so – to invite Netanyahu to give an anti-Obama speech before both Houses.

While this intrigue was in preparation, Dermer met with John Kerry but did not tell him of Netanyahu’s coming. Neither did Netanyahu inform President Obama, who, in a fury, announced that he would not meet with the Prime Minister.

From the point of view of Israel’s vital interests, it is sheer madness to provoke the President of the United States of America, who controls American’s flow of arms to Israel and the American veto power in the UN. But from the point of view of Adelson, who wants to elect a Republican president in 2016, it makes sense. He has already threatened to invest unlimited sums of money to prevent the reelection of any Senator or Representative who is absent from Netanyahu’s speech.

We are nearing open warfare between the Government of Israel and the President of the United States.

Is someone playing roulette with our future?

The post Israel And The Casino Republic – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Judging by the report on RT I conclude that the Ukraine peace deal worked out in Minsk by Putin, Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko has little chance of success.

As Washington is not a partner to the Minsk peace deal, how can there be peace when Washington has made policy decisions to escalate the conflict and to use the conflict as a proxy war between the US and Russia?

The Minsk agreement makes no reference to the announcement by Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of US Army Europe, that Washington is sending a battalion of US troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces how to fight against Russian and rebel forces. The training is scheduled to begin in March, about two weeks from now. Gen. Hodges says that it is very important to recognize that the Donetsk and Luhansk forces “are not separatists, these are proxies for President Putin.”

How is there a peace deal when Washington has plans underway to send arms and training to the US puppet government in Kiev?

Looking at the deal itself, it is set up to fail. The only parties to the deal who had to sign it are the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk break-away republics. The other signers to the Minsk deal are an OSCE representative which is the European group that is supposed to monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, a former Ukrainian president Viktor Kuchma, and the Russian ambassador in Kiev. Neither the German chancellor nor the French, Ukrainian, and Russian presidents who brokered the deal had to sign it.

In other words, the governments of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia do not appear to be empowered or required to enforce the agreement. According to RT, “the declaration was not meant to be signed by the leaders, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.”http://rt.com/news/231571-putin-minsk-ukraine-deal/

The terms of the agreement depend on actions of the Ukrainian parliament and prime minister, neither of which are under Poroshenko’s control, and Poroshenko himself is a figurehead under Washington’s control. Moreover, the Ukrainian military does not control the Nazi militias. As Washington and the right-wing elements in Ukraine want conflict with Russia, peace cannot be forthcoming.

The agreement is nothing but a list of expectations that have no chance of occurring.

One expectation is that Ukraine and the republics will negotiate terms for future local elections in the provinces that will bring them back under Ukraine’s legal control. The day after the local elections, but prior to the constitutional reform that provides the regions with autonomy, Kiev takes control of the borders with Ukraine and between the provinces. I read this as the total sell-out of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. Apparently, that is the way the leaders of the republics see it as well, as Putin had to twist their arms in order to get their signatures to the agreement.

Another expectation is that Ukraine will adopt legislation on self-governance that would be acceptable to the republics and declare a general amnesty for the republics’ leaders and military forces.

Negotiations between Kiev and the autonomous areas are to take place that restore Kiev’s taxation of the autonomous areas and the provision of social payments and banking services to the autonomous areas.

After a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine guaranteeing acceptable (and undefined) autonomy to the republics, Kiev will take control over the provinces’ borders with Russia.

By the end of 2015 Kiev will implement comprehensive constitutional reform that decentralizes the Ukrainian political system and provides privileges of autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

Both Putin and Poroshenko are both reported as stating that the main thing achieved is a ceasefire starting on February 15.

The ceasefire is of no benefit to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics as they are prevailing in the conflict. Moreover, the deal requires the republics’ forces to give up territory and to pull back to the borders of last September and to eject fighters from France and other countries who have come to the aid of the break-away republics. In other words, the agreement erases all of Kiev’s losses from the conflict that Kiev initiated.

All of the risks of the agreement are imposed on the break-away republics and on Putin. The provinces are required to give up all their gains while Washington trains and arms Ukrainian forces to attack the provinces. The republics have to give up their security and trust Kiev long before Kiev votes, assuming it ever does, autonomy for the republics.

Moreover, if the one-sided terms of the Minsk agreement result in failure, Putin and the republics will be blamed.

Why would Putin make such a deal and force it on the republics? If the deal becomes a Russian sell-out of the republics, it will hurt Putin’s nationalist support within Russia and make it easier for Washington to weaken Putin and perhaps achieve regime change. It looks more like a surrender than a fair deal.

Perhaps Putin’s strategy is to give away every advantage in the expectation that the deal will fail, and the Russian government can say “we gave away the store and the deal still failed.”

Washington’s coup in Kiev and the attack on the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east and south is part of Washington’s strategy to reassert its uni-power position. Russia’s independent foreign policy and Russia’s growing economic and political relationships with Europe became problems for Washington. Washington is using Ukraine to attack and to demonize Russia and its leader and to break-up Russia’s economic and political relations with Europe. That is what the sanctions are about. A peace deal in Ukraine on any terms other than Washington’s is unacceptable to Washington. The only acceptable deal is a deal that is a defeat for Russia.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Russian government made a strategic mistake when it did not accept the requests of the break-away provinces to be united with Russia. The people in the Donetsk and Lugansk provinces favored unification with the same massive majorities that the people in Crimea showed. If the provinces had been united with Russia, it would have been the end of the conflict. Neither Ukraine nor Washington is going to attack Russian territory.

By failing to end the conflict by unification, Putin set himself up as the punching bag for Western propaganda. The consequence is that over the many months during which the conflict has been needlessly drawn out, Putin has had his image and reputation in the West destroyed. He is the “new Hitler.” He is “scheming to restore the Soviet Empire.” “Russia ranks with ebola and the Islamist State as the three greatest threats.” “RT is a terrorist organization like Boco Haram and the Islamist State.” And so on and on. This CNN interview with Obama conducted by Washington’s presstitute Fareed Zakaria shows the image of Putin based entirely on lies that rules in the West. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duu6IwW3sbw

Putin could be no more demonized even if the Russian military had invaded Ukraine, conquered it, and reincorporated Ukraine in Russia of which Ukraine was part for centuries prior to the Soviet collapse and Ukraine’s separation from Russia at Washington’s insistence.

The Russian government might want to carefully consider whether Moscow is helping Washington to achieve another victory in Ukraine.

This article originally appeared on paulcraigroberts.org and is reprinted with permission.

The post Minsk Peace Deal Has Little Chance Of Success – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(Civil.Ge) — Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko announced on February 13 about establishment of International Advisory Council on Reforms and appointed Georgia’s ex-President Mikheil Saakashvili as its head.

The council is “a consultative body” tasked to elaborate “proposals and recommendations on the implementation of reforms in Ukraine taking into account the best international experience,” Ukrainian President’s office said, adding that the council, which will be made up of foreign experts, will work on “the reformation of the Ukrainian legislation and increase the level of international support to Ukraine.”

“We’ve been thinking for a long time how to use the knowledge, experience and unique know-how of Mikheil Saakashvili in the best possible way,” President Poroshenko said. “In Georgia, he managed to implement reforms actually in all spheres of economic, political and social life.”

“Until recently, Mikheil was in fact a freelance consultant of Ukraine in reforms and now, at last, he gets the official status,” the Ukrainian President said.

Saakashvili is wanted by the Georgian authorities on multiple criminal charges, which he denies as politically motivated. Officials in Tbilisi have said previously that appointment of persons wanted by Tbilisi on official posts in Ukraine would harm bilateral relations.

Several former Georgian officials are already holding senior government posts in Ukraine. Georgia’s ex-healthcare minister Alexander Kvitashvili took the same post in Ukraine and ex-deputy interior minister Eka Zguladze was appointed as Ukraine’s deputy interior minister. Gia Getsadze, who served on various high-ranking positions in Saakashvili’s administration till mid-2005, was appointed Ukraine’s deputy justice minister. Three other former Georgian officials have also joined the Ukrainian justice ministry.

According to the Ukrainian president’s office newly established International Advisory Council on Reforms will be in close coordination with the National Council of Reforms, which was formed last year.

Co-head of the National Council of Reforms, Dmytro Shymkiv, who is also deputy chief of staff of the Ukrainian president, said that “many international experts and prominent figures assist Ukraine” and the International Advisory Council on Reforms will help to arrange and better organize these efforts.

“We guarantee that we will listen to all the proposals of the Council,” Shymkiv said.

The post Saakashvili Appointed Head Of Ukraine’s International Advisory Council On Reforms appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The new Sri Lankan government has released its initial ideas for constitutional reform. This article highlights and discusses some of the salient features of the document published in Sri Lankan media.

President Maithripala Sirisena and the new government won the last presidential election promising to address or resolve many of the sociopolitical problems that proliferated in the postwar period. Corruption and abuse of power were some of these issues. However, the fundamental problem was the rapid erosion of democracy in the country. Some of the structural changes that were introduced in this period centralized power in the hands of a few and threatened the very existence of democratic institutions. Some, not without reason, believed that the country could dip into a full-blown dictatorship. Consequently, reinforcing democracy through constitutional reform shaped the main electoral slogan of President Sirisena’s alliance.

Constitutional Council

Sri Lanka’s Maithripala Sirisena. Official photo via Facebook.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the present proposals entail several provisions to promote democracy. One of the main ideas is the reinstatement of the Constitutional Council (CC) and Independent Commissions (ICs).

The original suggestions to create a CC and ICs were formalized in the Memorandum of Understanding between the People’s Alliance (PA) headed by President Kumaratunga and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna in 2001. They were institutionalized through the 17th Amendment to the constitution in the same year. In addition to the CC, the 17th Amendment also established four ICs. They were (1) the Public Service Commission, (2) the Election Commission, (3) the Judicial Service Commission, and (4) the Police Commission. The CC and ICs curtailed the president’s powers drastically. The 17th Amendment, if implemented properly, had the potential to undercut the very foundation of the executive presidential system introduced in 1978.

President Rajapaksa’s government repealed the 17th Amendment through the introduction of the 18th Amendment to the constitution in 2010. The present proposals seek to reinstate the CC and ICs with some modifications. The changes suggested are aimed at accommodating diversity and expertise that exist within the country and addressing some of the implementation issues faced in the past. This provision certainly will dilute powers of the president and strengthen elected representatives in parliament.

Right to Information

In line with the idea of reinforcing democracy, the present document offers a proposal to transform the right to information (RTI) into a fundamental right provided by the constitution. RTI is increasingly seen as an important tool for community participation in governance. It provides citizens the opportunity to seek and legally obtain information from, for example, public institutions. Ever since India introduced The Right to Information Act in 2005, the slogan has been growing in popularity in Sri Lanka as well.

One of the personalities who advocated the change in Sri Lanka was the present minister in charge of Public Administration, Minister Karu Jayasuriya. He probably was behind this proposed change. The proposal states that the right will be restricted on issues of national security, territorial integrity and public safety. This is understandable given the fact that Sri Lanka is emerging from a separatist war, which ended in 2009.

Executive Presidency?

The most significant and fundamental aspects of the proposals are the changes proposed to the executive presidential system. If endorsed, these proposals will transform Sri Lanka into a parliamentary democracy without openly declaring it. The proposals, while curtailing powers of the president, seek to strengthen the powers of the prime minister. The proposals state “the President will be the Head of State, the Head of the Executive and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The President shall always, except in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister or as otherwise required by the Constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister.” They also state “the Prime Minister will be the Head of the Government.”

These provisions suggest that the government wants to revert to the parliamentary system of governance, which existed in Sri Lanka until 1978. This notion is further reinforced by the fact that the president will retain powers and duties conferred by Article 33 of the present constitution. These are ceremonial arrangements such as the power to make the government policy statement and to preside over state ceremonies. Therefore, the constitutional changes proposed will transform the president into a ceremonial head.

Election

The problem, however, is that the mode of election of the president will remain the same. Decision on this matter is left to the next parliament. Currently the president is elected directly by the people. Until the constitution is altered by a future parliament the people will elect the president in a direct vote. Why should a ceremonial president be elected directly by the people? This is unnecessary and costly. This provision could also lead to conflicts between the government and the president in the future if they come from different parties and have hostile relations. Both could assume that they have the power to govern as both are elected directly by the people.

It is not clear why the government is not proposing to change the mode of election. One possible reason is that amending the mode of election of the president may warrant a national referendum because it is one of the entrenched clauses of the constitution. The government is not keen to go for a referendum immediately. A referendum at this point in time may delay the proposed changes.
Ceremonial presidents generally are not elected directly by the people. For example, the president under the First Republican Constitution (1972) was nominated by the prime minster. In India, the president, who is a nominal head, is elected by an electoral college consisting of members of parliament and state legislative assemblies.

In order to avoid instability, render clarity to the constitutional reform process and avoid unnecessary cost, the government must revisit and reconsider this provision. If the real intention is to transform the system into a parliamentary form of government, an indirect form of election, preferably an electoral college, may be considered.

Removal

Another noteworthy aspect is the proposed mode of removal of the president from office. According to the present proposals, it will require only a no-confidence motion approved in the national legislature with a two-thirds majority to remove the president. The current constitutional requirement of impeachment will be removed. Some commentators have already questioned this arrangement on the argument that the president could be removed easily if a two-thirds majority is the only requirement. This would become a problem if the executive presidency will remain after the constitution is amended. The very essence of the proposal does not suggest that executive presidency will stay.

A ceremonial president, on the other hand, could be removed without an arduous process. Here again, the government is borrowing from the First Republican Constitution. This constitution prescribed much easier ways to remove the president, one of which was a no-confidence motion with a two-thirds majority. The spirit of the present proposal does not suggest that removal of the impeachment provisions is a problem because the executive presidency will not be retained.

Political Culture

The shift from the executive presidency to a parliamentary form of government has the potential to ease the pressure on democratic institutions of the country. Nevertheless, this alone will not resolve the problem of democratic deficiencies. It is true that introduction of the executive presidential system paved the way for serious centralization of power and erosion of democratic values in the country. However, the slide started under a parliamentary system. Issues such as authoritarianism and abuse of power existed even in the early and mid-1970s. A true democratization process requires reform of the political culture as well.

The post Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Reform Proposal And Democratization – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Hikmet Çetin*

Humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial subjects of international relations. In which scenarios humanitarian intervention is deemed necessary, and under what sort of conditions it is to be applied are among the important questions concerning the issue. Even though arguments over the answers to these questions began to take place within the framework of the UN system established in 1945, the application of the principle of humanitarian intervention was not possible at all under the conditions of the Cold War due to the bipolar nature of the global balance of power. The issue of humanitarian intervention gained currency with the humanitarian crises emerging in the aftermath of the Cold War. Taking place in the first half of the 1990s, the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica urged the international community to adopt a more sensitive and responsive approach towards humanitarian crises. In this respect, it began to be perceived as the shared responsibility of humanity as a whole to protect individuals and societies from the tragedies caused by genocides, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. While the primary responsibility, of course, falls to the national governments of those countries inflicted by such troubles, a general consensus emerged that the international community should step in as a responsible party in case national governments are incapable of putting an end to such crises, or are in fact themselves charged with the crimes in question.

The concept of humanitarian intervention transformed into the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in this process. As an umbrella term, R2P covers a broad range of measures from diplomacy and political pressure to sanctions and coercive measures. Military intervention constitutes the ultimate measure to be employed if deemed necessary.

The most basic problem with the concept of R2P is the uncertainty of when and how it can be considered a valid ground for intervention. The most common approach stipulates that any action based on the R2P principle will be legitimate as long as it is sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, it is understood that emerging powers which are not permanent members of the UNSC, and some smaller countries as well, are wary that R2P might be devised as a tool to legitimize the intervention of great powers in third countries. It is witnessed that countries are polarized in their approach to the subject along the lines of their positions vis-à-vis the divides between Global North and Global South, Western and non-Western worlds, established and emerging powers, democratic and authoritarian regimes, and so forth. Nevertheless, defining R2P within the narrow boundaries of such strict and rather arbitrary categorizations would be highly inaccurate.

The main dilemma made apparent in discussions of R2P stems from the urge to find the optimal balance between national sovereignty and humanitarian protection. While some countries are more conservative when it comes to preserving their national sovereignty and preventing external interventions, others put emphasis on the international character of the responsibility to protect transcending national borders. But there is an overall consensus regarding the implementation of R2P in severe cases such as in Somalia in the 1990s, where the national government failed, an all-out civil war ravaged the entire population, human rights violations became commonplace, and mass migrations thoroughly disturbed demographic distribution.

I’d like to share with you my own assessment of Turkey’s perspective of the R2P principle, based mainly on my personal experiences and observations.
Turkish foreign policy is based on the principle of “Peace at home, peace in the world”, formulated by our country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This principle entails utmost respect for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of third countries. In this regard, Turkey is careful not to interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. Nevertheless, Turkey’s sensitivity with respect to human security and humanitarian diplomacy increased in parallel with the notions of human rights and humanitarian intervention gaining prominence on a global scale. Besides being a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Turkey is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and it has also recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect, Turkey has pledged to comply with the principles of basic human rights in both its domestic and foreign policy. Within this framework, Turkey cannot be expected to remain irresponsive to genocides, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansings. Under such circumstances, Turkey’s priority is to act in accordance and collaborate with international and regional organizations and the international community at large.

Turkey gained significant experience regarding humanitarian intervention and the prevention of international crises in the post-Cold War period. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991 created new zones of conflict and paved the way for severe humanitarian crises. The Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the de facto secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia, the ethnic conflict in Russia’s Chechnya, disputes over Transnistra in Moldova, the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, similar problems experienced in Kosovo and Macedonia, and more recently, the Crimean issue and ethnic conflicts in eastern Ukraine all compelled Turkey to take part in international endeavors to find durable solutions to such conflicts and to combat emergent humanitarian crises. In the meantime, Turkey also came to host waves of refugees and immigrants originating from these conflict zones.

During all of these conflicts, and their consequent humanitarian crises, Turkey maintained dialogue with all parties involved and cooperated with international organizations, the UN first and foremost. Even though hot conflict has subsided in Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistra, and eastern Ukraine, parties involved in those conflicts have yet to reach an ultimate solution. Turkey favors resolving these conflicts through diplomacy before the fragile stalemate inevitably leads to a resurgence of armed clashes and renewed humanitarian disaster.

The most tragic of these crises mentioned is no doubt the Bosnian Civil War. I was serving as Turkey’s foreign minister back then. Hundreds of thousands of people, the majority of them being Bosnians, lost their lives, and millions of people were either internally displaced or forced to leave their country due to the war. The massacre of around 8000 Muslim Bosnian men in Srebrenica was recognized as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). During the war, Turkey pursued a policy aimed at preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina’s independence and territorial integrity, ending armed conflict as soon as possible, and safeguarding the peaceful cohabitation of Croatians, Serbs, and Bosniaks under the umbrella of a unified country. Turkey kept in close contact with all parties involved as well as various major international organizations, first and foremost of which were the UN, NATO, the EU, and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Turkey maintained diplomatic dialogue with Serbia, called “New Yugoslavia” back then, and did not recall its ambassador back from Belgrade throughout the ordeal. At the end of the day, the Bosnian civil war came to a halt. The United Nations deserves credit for finding a solution after years of ethnic conflict in Bosnia, even if it was a partial and temporary one.
On the other hand, the UN proved unable to resolve the Kosovo crisis; therefore a NATO intervention took place there. Turkey, like its NATO allies, believed that the mass emigration of Kosovar Albanians would lead to a humanitarian tragedy similar to that experienced before in Bosnia. According to Turkey, an increasing number of immigrants arriving in neighboring Albania and Macedonia would trigger a wide-spread regional crisis.

Unfortunately, Turkey was proven right, and a crisis emerged in Macedonia as the sensitive ethnic balances in the country were rattled by the incoming Albanian population. If the NATO intervention did not take place, the humanitarian and security-related problems in Kosovo could have grown much larger. Turkey sent peace missions and police forces to both Bosnia & Herzegovina and Kosovo after peace agreements were reached in those countries.
In the case of Macedonia, Turkey dearly contributed to the settlement of disputes between different ethnic groups in the country. Its policies helped re-establish mutual trust between Macedonians, Albanians, and Turks living in Macedonia, which in turn enabled the reinstitution of a constitutional order in the country. In the process, Turkey maintained close cooperation with the EU, which played a pioneering role in the consolidation of peace within the borders of Macedonia.

NATO carried out a military operation in Afghanistan within the scope of the war on global terrorism following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In the case of Afghanistan, Turkey contributed to the peace-keeping efforts with the non-combatant troops it provided to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Turkey’s priorities for Afghanistan between 2002 and 2014 were the prevention of terror, achievement of stability, reinstitution of a functioning state mechanism, establishment of a democratic order, and improvement of the living conditions of the Afghan people. With these goals in mind, Turkey undertook numerous projects facilitating advancements mainly in public health and education. Turkey’s investments and the hard work of Turkish troops in Afghanistan were mainly targeted at strengthening the physical and social infrastructure of the country, including both urban and rural areas. Turkey will continue to provide a wide array of services to the people of Afghanistan after the withdrawal of ISAF forces, which is scheduled for the end of 2014. This is because Turkey believes that Afghanistan’s integration into the international community will be possible only through a persistent, post-2014 effort to prevent renewed civil war, further displacement of Afghan people, and a resurgent humanitarian crisis.

It is for sure that the Arab Spring, which broke out in 2011 and was immediately followed by a wave of instability and conflict, gave new momentum to discussions on R2P. Many experts believed only a NATO operation, which was to be backed by a Security Council resolution, could preempt widespread civilian massacres by Colonel Gadhafi during the Civil War in Libya. Therefore, NATO intervened in Libya and toppled Gadhafi, allowing the opposition forces to take over the country. Turkey also joined NATO’s naval blockade against Gadhafi during the civil war. Like other NATO allies, Turkey expected the establishment of a democratic regime responsive to the people’s demands in Libya. But unfortunately, the situation in Libya has not turned out as we expected.

Again, in Syria, the transformation of the demands for democracy into an armed conflict and a consequent civil war that has swept across the land deeply disturbed Turkey. Turkey expected Syria to undergo a peaceful transformation by way of reforms that were to be carried out by the Assad regime. However, Assad refused to embark on an agenda of reform despite public upheaval, and as a result, around two hundred thousand people have lost their lives up until now. Furthermore, millions of Syrian people were internally or externally displaced due to the ongoing civil war. Today, Turkey alone hosts more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees. The emergence and rise of terrorist organizations like ISIS that take advantage of the devastating chaos in Syria should also be seen as one of the most tragic results of the civil war. Turkey has been calling for a military intervention to be carried out by an international coalition within the framework of R2P since the eruption of civil war in Syria.

Last but not least, Turkey decided to send peace-keeping forces to Mali and the Central African Republic in November 2014 in line with R2P. The ongoing civil wars in these countries led to immense humanitarian crises, and Turkey believes any such crisis, no matter where it breaks out, requires the utmost attention and constructive involvement of the international community. By sending peace-keepers to these two countries, Turkey solidly demonstrated its willingness to bear responsibility within the framework of R2P on legitimate grounds when necessary conditions arise.

*Hikmet Çetin is Former Turkish Foreign Minister

The post Humanitarian Intervention And Responsibility To Protect: Turkey’s Approach – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A new report by the Islamic State has just been published with photos alluding to the possible execution of the 21 Coptic Christian construction workers kidnapped from their place of employment in Sirte, Libya. Coptic Solidarity has condemned the kidnapping and urges the Egyptian government to do everything possible to save the Coptic hostages.

Websites related to the Islamic State published pictures of the abducted Coptic workers, wearing orange execution dresses, their hands tightened with ropes, and being led by masked men on a sea shore. They are shown in another picture with knives put over their throats in a slaughter position. While showing the Coptic abductees in death dress, there was no explicit mention of whether they have already been executed.

The abductees are construction workers who belong to the Samalot and Matai districts, in the Minya governorate, in Upper Egypt. Families of the abductees appealed yet again to President Sisi to intervene to save their loved ones, or at least meet them in order to be to briefed on the details of the abduction which occurred over 40 days ago.

The Islamic State’s magazine Dabiq included an article in its latest issue #7 attacking “the Coptic Crusaders.” Thursday’s publication says that the abducted workers have been “captured by members of the organization in retaliation of what the West inflicts upon Muslims.” Accusing the Copts of being the followers of the late (Pope) Shenouda and the supporters of the taghut (tyrant) Sisi, the article boasted that the Islamic State “strikes terror in the hearts of the Copts.” This presumably refers to the capture of 21 Coptic workers in Libya almost six weeks ago and prior attacks on churches in Egypt.

The article concluded with a call to kill Copts anywhere: “Finally, it is important for Muslims everywhere to know that there is no doubt in the great reward to be found on Judgment Day for those who spill the blood of these Coptic crusaders wherever they may be found…”

Coptic Solidarity said it holds the Egyptian government responsible to protect its own citizens in Libya, including evacuating them from areas of danger. The Egyptian government to date has been lax and done very little regarding the despicable deaths and kidnapping of Copts in Libya.

Coptic Solidarity said it urges President al-Sissi to immediately take the lead to save the innocent workers, abducted for their faith and possibly to revenge Mr. Sissi’s war on Islamist fighters. Confronting the Islamist State terrorists in Egypt’s western flank is no less important than combating them in Sinai, said Coptic Solidarity.

The post Egypt Urged To Free Coptic Christians Kidnapped By Islamic State In Libya appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By C. Raja Mohan*

Cricket has always come in handy for the leaders of India and Pakistan to signal goodwill towards each other and break political ice at difficult moments in bilateral relations.

So it has for Prime Minister Narendra Modi who suspended the dialogue last August when Pakistan’s high commissioner in Delhi got in touch with the Kashmiri separatist leaders just before the Indian foreign secretary was to travel to travel to Islamabad.

While Pakistan saw it as a routine consultation with the Hurriyat leaders, the Modi government signalled that it will not accept any role for the Kashmiri separatist groups in the India-Pakistan dialogue.

Delhi’s capricious move at once reversed the bonhomie that Modi had generated with Nawaz Sharif when the Pakistani PM joined other South Asian leaders at the swearing in ceremony of the new Indian government last May.

Whatever the political logic behind the suspension, it had become increasingly counter productive for the Modi government to be seen as resisting a dialogue with Pakistan. Islamabad has been portraying Modi as intransigent and was mounting pressure on the international community to push Delhi towards a dialogue.

Although the U.S. President Barack Obama did not publicly bring up the question of resuming the India-Pakistan dialogue, it is believed the two leaders had talked about the issue during their conversation at the Hyderabad House on the eve of the Republic Day celebrations.

On his part, Modi apparently reaffirmed his commitment to the peace process and his readiness to engage Islamabad in a framework that responds to Delhi’s concerns on cross-border terrorism, is focused on expansive economic cooperation, and avoids the kind of posturing that Islamabad does on Kashmir.

Modi reminded Obama of his quick and empathetic response to the horrible terror attack on a school in Peshawar last December and his deep disappointment at the reports that Pakistan was going to release the main plotter of the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai.

It was not just Obama who was urging Modi to renew the dialogue with Pakistan. In his address to the Indian envoys last week, President Pranab Mukherjee reminded the government of the need to revitalise its regional peace overtures.

The opening of the World Cup this weekend provided Modi with an opportunity to end the current diplomatic impasse with Pakistan. He called up Sharif to wish Pakistan well in the World Cup and offered to send the new foreign secretary Dr. S. Jaishankar to Islamabad.

The PM was careful to present the outreach to Pakistan as part of extending good will to all the five South Asian nations participating in the World Cup. Dr. Jaishankar’s trip to Pakistan is also being billed as part of the foreign secretary’s travel to all the capitals of the Subcontinent.

Despite the attempt to couch the initiative in South Asian terms, there is little doubt that Dr. Jaishankar’s visit to Pakistan is an important step forward by the Modi government. But it is important to note that Dr Jaishankar’s visit will be more in the nature of ‘talks about talks’.

As he reviews the state of bilateral relations with the Pakistani officials and political leadership, Dr. Jaishankar would want to test out the possibilities for instituting a new framework of engagement rather than simply return to status quo ante.

The significant change unfolding in the Subcontinent—both within the region and its international relations—demands that the two sides try and develop a fresh approach to the troubled relationship between India and Pakistan.

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

Courtesy : The Indian Express, February 13, 2015

The post Modi’s Cricket Diplomacy: Renewing Political Contact With Pakistan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Following is the joint statement issued by the G-7 in regard to the Minsk meeting and the Ukraine conflict.

*****

We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission welcome the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” adopted by their original signatories on 12th February 2015 in Minsk. Implementation of the “Minsk Package” offers a way forward to a comprehensive, sustainable, and peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

However, the G7 remains concerned about the situation in Ukraine, in particular in view of the fighting around Debaltseve where Russian-backed separatist militias are operating beyond the line of contact agreed upon in the Minsk agreements of September 2014, causing numerous civilian casualties. We urge all sides to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Package and to carry out its measures without delay, starting with a ceasefire on the 15th of February. All parties should refrain from actions in the coming days that would hinder the start of the ceasefire. The G7 stands ready to adopt appropriate measures against those who violate the “Minsk package” and therefore intensify the costs for them, in particular against those who do not observe the agreed comprehensive ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons.

We again condemn Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international law.

The G7 welcomes the agreement in principle reached on the 12th of February by the IMF and the government of Ukraine on a new economic reform program that will be supported by an IMF Extended Fund Facility. The G7 members look forward to prompt consideration of the program by the IMF Executive Board. We are providing financial assistance to support Ukraine. This international assistance will help Ukraine in the ambitious economic reforms it is undertaking to restore economic growth and improve the living standards of the Ukrainian people. We commend the government of Ukraine for its commitment to implement this ambitious reform agenda with regard to economic, rule-of-law, and democratic reforms.

The post G-7 Leaders Statement On Ukraine appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič attended the first founding meeting of the Advisory Council on the Southern Gas Corridor in Baku  11 February, a project to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe by 2019-2020.

Ministers from transit countries, including Georgia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Albania and Bulgaria also participated in the meeting hosted by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev, as well as representatives from the planned TANAP pipeline via Turkey, and the TAP (Trans-Adriatic) pipeline via Greece and Albania.

The participants adopted a joint declaration through which they established a format for working level consultations to address all outstanding matters as they may emerge during the implementation of the project “in the most practical and timely way”.

Šefčovič said in an interview with the APA agency that “Azerbaijan is today one of the EU’s major and most reliable energy partners, and this contributes to our mutual economy and energy security.”

Although only 10 billion of cubic metres per year (bcm/y) are expected to be delivered to the EU by 2019-2020, Azerbaijan has substantial gas reserves.

President Aliev was quoted as saying during the event that the country’s confirmed gas reserves exceed 2.5 trillion cubic metres (tcm), which allow supplies to last for dozens of years.

The Southern Gas Corridor has the potential to meet up to 20% of the EU’s gas needs in the future, with potential supplies from the Caspian Region, the Middle East, and the East Mediterranean in the longer term.

Šefčovič also said that the EU is developing gas interconnections in the Central and South East Europe in order to better connect the Southern Gas Corridor with European consumers.

Indeed, in the context of Russia’s abandonment of the South Stream project, Bulgaria is one of the countries showing the most interest in the Southern Gas Corridor project. Gas from the Southern Gas Corridor could also be brought to Romania, and further north.

Russia has decided to bring 63 bcm/y of gas via an offshore pipeline called “Turkish Stream” to European Turkey, and then to a gas hub, where EU customers could buy it. Šefčovič has said he didn’t believe in this project.

Asked about the EU relations with Turkey, Šefčovič said he had no reason to question the reliability of Turkey when it comes to the country’s energy relation with the EU.

The Commission is unable to open the energy chapter in the framework of the accession talks with Turkey due to the opposition of some member states. Šefčovič, however, said that the Commission believes that Turkey is sufficiently prepared to start negotiations under the energy chapter. He said that his services would continue to discuss this issue with the member states, stressing European interest in making progress.

The post Šefčovič Gives Blessing To Southern Gas Corridor appeared first on Eurasia Review.

UN climate talks in Geneva have ended with agreement on a formal draft negotiating text for the summit in Paris in December, BBC News reports.

The document, which runs to 86 pages, builds on negotiations in Peru last year.

The Swiss meeting set out to create a draft for consideration at the Paris talks.The aim is to have a new global climate agreement in place by the end of 2015.

The latest climate talks focussed on finalising a draft negotiating text for the Paris summit. The six-day conference in the Swiss city was the first formal gathering since the Lima climate summit in December.

“I am extremely encouraged by the constructive spirit and the speed at which negotiators have worked during the past week,” said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“We now have a formal negotiating text, which contains the views and concerns of all countries. The Lima Draft has now been transformed into the negotiating text and enjoys the full ownership of all countries,” she added.

Governments are expected to submit their national plans by an informal deadline of the period from March to June.

China, the United States and the European Union have already given an indication of their plans.

The UN seeks to limit the increase of the average global surface temperature to no more than 2C (3.6F) compared with pre-industrial levels, to avoid “dangerous” climate change. But scientists warn the Earth is on track for double that target.

The World Meteorological Organization confirmed this month that 2014 had been the hottest year on record, part of a continuing trend. Fourteen out of the 15 hottest years have been this century.

The UNFCCC, based in Bonn, Germany, has 196 parties – including virtually all of the world’s nations – and grew from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting greenhouse gases.

The next meeting will be held in Bonn in June.

The post UN Climate Talks End With Agreement On Draft Text For Paris Summit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Chido Onumah*

These are perturbing times. On the eve of what promised to be Nigeria’s fiercest election, one that has set the country on edge, it is important that we sound alarm bells.

Even though we have seen it all before – whether we are talking about the 1964/65 elections (postponed for several weeks due to disagreements over the voters’ list) that precipitated the first military coup in January 1966 and the civil war the year after or the June 12, 1993 debacle and the Interim National Government (ING) contraption that followed – Nigeria today is in uncharted waters. We haven’t had an election this close with war raging in a part of the country.

The angst that followed the postponement, by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), of the presidential election scheduled for this weekend is therefore understandable. The speech by Prof. Attahiru Jega, Chairman of INEC, announcing the postponement, has been debated widely by Nigerians. Clearly, there are many questions begging for answers. But if we focus on Jega, his pronouncements and the “politics” surrounding the postponement, we miss the forest for the trees. And here, I am not addressing the party faithful who can’t see the big picture even if it is as large as the 400-metre monolith called Aso Rock.

Even though I have strong reservations about elections being held on the new dates announced by INEC (Presidential and National Assembly- 28 March; Governorship and State House of Assembly -11 April), I am inclined to give Prof. Jega and INEC the benefit of the doubt. I sincerely hope all eligible Nigerians get the opportunity to collect their Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC) and that the war on terror would have been won appreciably in the next six weeks to justify the postponement.

So, while we continue to prepare for the elections, patriots and active civil society – or what is left of it – should necessarily begin to interrogate why every election (and census, I must add) in Nigeria is a referendum on the continued existence of the country and why elections have literally become wars that the military would have to “supervise”.

It is for this reason that we must do a deep and sincere reflection on the current situation. If we do, we will, undoubtedly, arrive at the conclusion that more than anything else, we need a genuine national conversation about whether this country is sustainable the way it exists today.

President Jonathan was elected in 2011 in a bloody election (postponed from January to April) that witnessed the death of hundreds of Nigerians, including patriotic youth who were serving their fatherland. He became president by default the year before following the death of his principal, Umaru Yar’Adua, who came to power in 2007 in one of the most farcical elections the country has witnessed.

President Yar’Adua, alongside then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, was anointed by his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo, who was handpicked by the military, on the eve of their “departure” in 1999, to return the country to “civilian” rule. It was the same Obasanjo, as an army general in 1979, who ushered in the country’s 2nd Republic which was led by President Shehu Shagari who was overthrown in 1983 by Gen. Muhammadu Buhari – who is currently running for president – in a coup that saw the country go through four military regimes in 16 years, the annulment by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, of the June 12, 1993 election won by Moshood Abiola – who was murdered by the military regime of Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar while in detention – and ultimately, the return of a retired general as president in 1999.

Clearly, our so-called democracy is nothing but “Army Arrangement”, apologies to Afrobeat maestro Fela Anikulapo-Kuti. Then again, the question is, can we really blame our military? Looking at our history, is it out of place to say, as someone has noted, that Nigeria was rigged to fail?

Nigeria’s rapacious ruling class is salivating at the prospects of retaining power or coming to power. They have a right, going by our current constitution, to do so. What the ruling class – those in power now, those who have been in power and those who are seeking power, whether civilian or military – don’t have the right to do is to imperil the mass of our people.

Of course, I don’t expect the protagonists in this tragicomedy that Nigeria has become to appreciate, much less work to mitigate, the clear and present danger. How then do we as a people break this vicious circle? It’s simple. Let genuine patriots, humanists, active civil society, if there is still anything so-called, stop worrying about which section of the ruling class will lose or benefit from the actions, inaction, greed and idiocy of Nigeria’s power blocs or what, for example, the current postponement has done or would do to our image in the comity of nations.

We have to forge a nation before we can compete or meet the standards set by the “international community”. The current crisis will fester and it is hard to predict the outcome. There is no other option but to confront this dilemma frontally.

* Chido Onumah is Coordinator, African Centre for Media & Information Literacy, Abuja, Nigeria. Follow him on Twitter @conumah.

The post Nigeria: History And The Clear And Present Danger – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Cemre Nur Öztürk

The EU adopted its first package of sanctions directed at Russia on 17 March 2014 with Council Regulation No 269/2014 and Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP. As it is stated in these legislative acts, the EU’s motivation was the Russian Federation’s unprovoked violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and terri¬torial integrity and illegal decision by the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to hold a referendum on the future status of the territory.

Subsequently, as the gravity of violence in eastern Ukraine became stronger, the European Council adopted ten implementing regulations and decisions which amended Council Regulation No 269/2014 and Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as indicated below. With this act, the range of persons and institutions targeted by sanctions were expanded. The sanctions targeting Russia’s financial, military and energy sectors were established with the adoption of the Council Implementing Regulation No 960/2014 and Council Implementing Decision 2014/659/CFSP on 12 September 2014. Additionally, the EU adopted a Council Regulation and Decision specifically concerning the Crimean Peninsula. This paper constitutes a collection of EU sanctions issued against Russia between 17 March 2014 and 29 November 2014.

This chronological study is based upon official EU Regulations and Decisions.

17 March 2014 – Council Regulation No 269/2014
Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP

Subject: restrictive measures taken as a response to Russian Federation’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

Diplomatic sanctions: suspension of bilateral talks with the Russian Federation on visa matters as well as talks with the Russian Federation on a comprehensive new Agreement which would replace the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

Targeted sanctions:
Visa ban: prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the natural persons responsible for actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and inde¬pendence of Ukraine, and of natural persons associated with them, as listed in the Annex.

Asset freeze: all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural persons responsible for actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sover¬eignty and independence of Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.

According to the Annex, 21 individuals, that are held responsible of referendum in Crimea and unprovoked violence in eastern Ukraine, are targeted by visa ban and asset freeze.

Council Regulations and Decisions Amending Council Regulation No 269/2014 and Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014

1) 21 March 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 284/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/151/CFSP

12 persons are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to visa ban and asset freeze as set out in the Annex to Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014.

2) 28 April 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 433/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/238/CFSP

15 persons are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to visa ban and asset freeze as set out in the Annex to Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014.

3) 12 May 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation 476/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/265/CFSP

The criteria for targeting natural and legal persons is expanded to include natural persons responsible for, actively supporting or implementing, actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or security in Ukraine, or which obstruct the work of international organizations in Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, or legal persons, entities or bodies in Crimea or Sevas¬topol whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law, or legal persons, entities or bodies which have benefited from such a transfer. The beneficiaries of the transfer of ownership are to be understood as legal persons, entities or bodies that have become the owners of assets transferred contrary to Ukrainian law following the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.

13 persons and 2 legal persons whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to visa ban and asset freeze as set out in the Annex to Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014.

4) 12 July 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 753/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/455/CFSP

11 persons are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to visa ban and asset freeze as set out in the Annex to Decision and Regulation of 17 March 2014.

5) 19 July 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 783/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/475/CFSP

The conditions for freezing of funds and economic resources are expanded to target legal persons, entities or bodies materially or financially supporting actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

6) 25 July 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 810/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/499/CFSP

The restrictions on admission and the freezing of funds and economic resources also apply to natural and legal persons, entities and bodies actively supporting, materially or financially, or benefiting from, Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilization of Eastern-Ukraine.

15 natural persons and 9 entities such as the so called ‘Lugansk People’s Republic’, International Union of Public Associations ‘Great Don Army’, So called ‘Donbass People’s Militia’ and 9 entities whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

7) 31 July 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 833/2014
Council Implementing Decision 2014/512/CFSP

Transactions in or the provision of financing or investment services or dealing in new bonds or equity or similar financial instruments with a maturity exceeding 90 days issued by state-owned Russian financial institutions are prohibited excluding Russia-based institutions with international status established by intergovernmental agreements with Russia as one of the shareholders. These prohibitions do not affect the granting of loans to or by those state-owned Russian financial institutions independently of their maturity. The institutions targeted in this prohibition are indicated in the annex: Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Vnesheconombank (VEB) and Rosselkhozbank.

The sale, supply, transfer or export to Russia of arms and related materiel of all types by the Member States are prohibited. The procurement from Russia of arms and related materiel of all types is prohibited.

Furthermore, the sale, supply, transfer or export of dual-use items for military use or to military end-users in Russia are prohibited. This prohibition should not affect the exports of dual-use goods and technology, including for aeronautics and for the space industry, for non-military use and/or for non-military end-users.

The sale, supply, transfer or export of certain sensitive goods and technologies are prohibited when they are destined for deep water oil exploration and production, arctic oil exploration and production or shale oil projects.

7.1. 12 September 2014 – Council Regulation No 960/2014
Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP

These are amending the Council Implementing Regulation No 833/2014 and the Council Implementing Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014.

• Transactions in or the provision of financing or investment services or dealing in new bonds or equity or similar financial instruments with a maturity exceeding 90 days issued after 1 August 2014 to 12 September 2014 or with a maturity exceeding 30 days, issued after 12 September 2014 by Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Vnesheconombank (VEB) and Rosselkhozbank.
• The direct or indirect purchase or sale of, the direct or indirect provision of investment services for, or assistance in the issuance of, or any other dealing with bonds, equity, or similar financial instruments with a maturity exceeding 30 days, issued after 12 September 2014 by OPK Oboronprom, United Aircraft Corporation, Uralvagonzavod, Rosneft, Transneft and Gazpromneft are prohibited.
• It shall be prohibited to directly or indirectly make or be part of any arrangement to make new loans or credit with a maturity exceeding 30 days to any legal person, entity or body referred to in paragraph 1 or 2, after 12 September 2014 except for loans or credit that have a specific and documented objective to provide financing for non-prohibited imports or exports of goods and non-financial services between the Union and Russia or for loans that have a specific and documented objective to provide emergency funding to meet solvency and liquidity criteria for legal persons established in the Union, whose proprietary rights are owned for more than 50 % by Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Vnesheconombank (VEB) and Rosselkhozbank.
• The direct or indirect sale, supply, transfer or export of dual use goods and technology , providing technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance to JSC Sirius (optoelectronics for civil and military purposes) OJSC Stankoinstrument (mechanical engineering for civil and military purposes) OAO JSC Chemcomposite (materials for civil and military purposes) JSC Kalashnikov (small arms) JSC Tula Arms Plant (weapons systems) NPK Technologii Maschinostrojenija (ammunition) OAO Wysokototschnye Kompleksi (anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems) OAO Almaz Antey (state-owned enterprise; arms, ammunition, research) OAO NPO Bazalt (state-owned enterprise, production of machinery for the production of Arms and ammunition.) by nationals of Member States or from the territories of Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft, are prohibited whether originating or not in their territories.
• The direct or indirect provision of associated services necessary for deep water oil exploration and production, arctic oil exploration and production or shale oil projects in Russia, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States, shall be prohibited.

8) 12 September 2014 – Council Implementing Regulation No 959/2014 Council Implementing Decision 2014/658/CFSP

The criteria of targeting the natural and legal persons are expanded to natural persons conducting transactions with the separatist groups in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

24 natural persons are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

9) 29 November 2014-Council Implementing Regulation No 1270/2014 Council Implementing Decision 2014/855/CFSP

13 natural persons and 5 entities such as Donetsk Republic, Peace to Luhansk Region, etc are added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

The Regulation is amending the Council Implementing Regulation No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014.

10) Sanctions specifically targeting Crimean Peninsula 24 June 2014 – Council Regulation No 692/2014 Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP

Subject: restrictions on goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

The import into the European Union of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol and providing, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance related to the import of these goods are prohibited, with the exception of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol having been granted a certificate of origin by the Government of Ukraine.

The post Chronology Of EU Sanctions Against Russia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Islamists fighters of the Ansar al-Sharia, affiliated to al Qaeda, seized an army base after heavy fighting in southern Yemen. The group also claimed on Twitter that it took numerous government soldiers prisoner.

The base is situated in the Chabua provice, where between 1,200-2,000 troops are stationed. The advance of al Qaeda-linked groups in the south comes after the Shiite Houthi rebels seized the capital Sanaa last September, and last week substantially took power, following the resignation of the President and government. The Houthi have frequently clashed with the Islamist militias, who are backed by local Sunni tribes.

In face of deteriorating security, the US, UK and France closed their Embassies this week, while United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon used dramatic words in an address to the UN Security Council. “Yemen is collapsing before our eyes. We cannot stand by and watch”, Ban told the Council, calling on the international community to intervene to avoid complete chaos.

From Sanaa, UN special envoy for Yemen Jamal Benomar via video link stressed the need to return to political negotiations for a peaceful solution to the crisis. He also warned of the risk of a complete disintegration of the country and “resurgence of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula”.

The post Yemen: Islamists Seize Army Base In South appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Imagine staying in a hotel run by robots that can greet you and carry your luggage. This is no dystopian nightmare – in fact it will be a reality this summer when a hotel in Nagasaki, Japan staffed by 10 humanoid robots opens its doors to the public.

According to the The Telegraph, the Henn-na Hotel robots will come from robotics company Kokoro, which has been developing ‘actroid,’ or human-like, robots since 2003. Kokoro’s actroids can mimic human behaviours such as breathing and blinking, speak fluent Japanese, Chinese, Korean and English, and know how to make eye contact and respond to body language and tone.

Since 2005, Kokoro has introduced three models (or sisters) of actroids – the Actroid-DER1, DER2 and DER3. The actroid that will appear to check guests in at the Henn-na Hotel may look real but she is comprised of cutting edge technology. The actroid is mounted with a basis mechanism called the ‘Pneumatic Pressure System’ or Air Servo System, which uses compressed air as a medium to supply power. Kokoro says that this system has safety advantages compared with other fluid pressure systems such as the oil pressure system and the water pressure system. The Kokoro team also works with robots of a much larger scale such as dinosaurs so the team had to reduce the size of the system to make it small enough to mount into humanoid robots, allowing the actroid to have realistic human proportions and also move in a human-like way.

When Henn-na Hotel opens initially there will be some human staff on the beat to handle anything beyond the scope of the robots – or to tend to the robot-adverse guests –, however the hotel soon hopes to have robots performing 90 % of hotel services. Company president Hideo Sawada told the Japan Times that the aim is to make the Henn-na Hotel, the most efficient hotel in the world.

Along with the team of robot staff, the hotel itself also boasts some high-tech attractions, according to CNN. This includes facial recognition technology to access rooms and a radiation panel will detect body heat in rooms and adjust the temperature. Solar power and other energy-saving features will be used to reduce operating costs.

Japan is particularly keen on this area of robotics, according to the Washington Post. Earlier this week a Tokyo bank unveiled ‘Nao’, a 23-inch tall automaton that speaks 19 languages and can assist customers using an ATM. Tokyo also offers a robot cabaret and the opportunity to get their hair styled by a 24-fingered hair-washing machine!

Source: CORDIS

The post Japan: Hotel To Be Staffed By Humanoid Robots appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An antibody which boosts the survival chances for patients suffering from influenza and pneumonia has been developed by scientists from NTU Singapore.

Proven effective in lab tests, the antibody is now being made suitable for use in humans. The scientists are also using the new antibody to develop a diagnostic kit which can help doctors accurately track the recovery progress of flu and pneumonia patients.

The patent-pending antibody has generated much interest globally. Two biotech multi-national corporations, Abcam based in the United Kingdom and Adipogen International based in the United States, have won the rights to license the antibody. The two multinational companies will produce the antibody for sale to global organisations doing research in vaccine and drug development.

The breakthrough finding was published in the latest issue of the prestigious international peer-reviewed journal Cell Reports.

Influenza epidemics, such as the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu which killed over 50 million people or the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002, are of big concern to governments and the general populace worldwide.

The World Health Organisation estimated that influenza results in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide each year, with about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually.

Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children worldwide accounting for 15 per cent of all deaths for children under 5 years old, and is among the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States.

This new antibody was developed by NTU Singapore’s Associate Professor Andrew Tan, who led an interdisciplinary team of scientists from Singapore.

“While it will take up to eight years to develop the antibody into a useable treatment for human patients, we are currently developing a diagnostic kit which should be commercialised in about three years,” said Assoc Prof Tan.

“The kit will help doctors diagnose the severity of pneumonia and the efficacy of the prescribed treatment. This is done by detecting the concentration of a particular protein called ANGPTL4, which is present in samples taken from patients suffering from upper respiratory tract infections.”

How the new antibody works

The new antibody works by blocking ANGPTL4 which was found to be in high concentration in the tissue samples taken from patients suffering from pneumonia.

“When the antibody we developed was given to mice suffering from pneumonia and influenza which had high levels of ANGPTL4, these mice recovered much faster than the other mice which didn’t receive the antibodies,” Assoc. Prof Tan said.

“We know that ANGPTL4 usually helps to regulate blood vessel leakiness. But this is the first time we have shown that by blocking this protein, we are able to control the natural response of inflammation, which in turn reduces the damage that inflammation does to the lungs.”

“The concentration of ANGPTL4 correlates to the amount of inflammation the patient is having,” Assoc Prof Tan explained. “With our diagnostic kit, doctors will be able to see if a particular treatment is working for a patient. This is done by observing whether the concentration of ANGPTL4 is decreasing or not.”

Assoc Prof Vincent Chow from NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, a co-author of the paper, said, “This study reveals the potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of targeting ANGPTL4 in pneumonia, and warrants further detailed clinical investigation in pneumonia patients.”

What happens during a lung infection

When a patient is suffering from a lung infection such as influenza and SARS, the inflammation process is started as part of the body’s natural defence. Inflammation is beneficial during this stage, as it has been shown to help get rid of the pathogens (harmful bacteria, virus or parasite) causing the infection.

However in many cases, inflammation continues after the harmful pathogen is flushed out of the body. The continued inflammation causes a build-up of fluids in the lungs and also internal bleeding, and the patient will take longer to recover. In severe avian flu and SARS infections, excess inflammation was shown to cause more deaths than the infection.

First author of the paper and NTU researcher Li Liang said they proved that ANGPTL4 caused blood vessels in the lungs to be leakier, which allowed more white blood cells and other antibodies to enter the lungs to combat the infection. By blocking ANGPTL4, the ‘leakiness’ of the blood vessels is lessened, thus reducing the inflammation process.

The post New Weapon In War Against Flu Pandemics And Pneumonia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Farooque Chowdhury*

Amidst weeks of mainstream media-gossip about Fidel the world again heard the voice: ‘I do not trust the policy of the United States, nor have I exchanged one word with them …’

The revolutionary leader expressed his observation in a letter he wrote to the student federation at the University of Havana. The letter, “For my Federation of University Students classmates”, appeared in Granma, newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba. The letter was also read out on state television in Cuba.

Fidel Castro said in the letter: ‘I do not trust the policy of the United States, nor have I exchanged one word with them, though this does not in any way signify a rejection of a peaceful solution to conflicts or threats of war.’

Fidel’s cautious approach is evident in the statement. As a reader of Lenin, which he mentions in the letter, Fidel is fully aware of the Empire and its policies, and at the same time, he doesn’t reject non-hostile approaches to conflicts.

He mentions Lenin as a genius of revolutionary action. Lenin has views on peace, negotiations, and imperialist war. Fidel doesn’t miss the contradictions within war and peace and within the present global reality as he writes:

‘Observe carefully the realities of this well-known, globalized and very poorly shared planet Earth, on which we know every vital resource is distributed in accordance with historical factors: some with much less than they need, others with so much they don’t know what to do with it. Now amidst great threats and dangers of war, chaos reigns in the distribution of financial resources and social production.’

Fidel stands for peace as he writes: ‘Defending peace is the duty of all. Any negotiated, peaceful solution to the problems between the United States and peoples, or any people of Latin America, which does not imply force or the use of force, must be addressed in accordance with international principles and norms.’

But the Empire doesn’t go by widely accepted international principles and norms. Fidel’s letter mentions an example from Africa:

Ronald Reagan authorized the delivery of nuclear weapons to the racist South Africa to attack Cuban and Angolan forces defending Angola against the racist troops attempting to occupy the country. “In such a situation, there was no possibility whatsoever for a peaceful solution.” The racist army was trying to liquidate Angola, bleed the country.

The world is full of similar examples. Media reports including reports by The New York Times and The Washington Post, and declassified government documents have exposed the Empire’s “peace” enterprises: patronizing killers with the target of interference, war, subjugation and plunder. The enterprise has ravaged countries, devastated lands, ruined peoples’ lives. None of these, the patronization of killers and anti-democratic forces, the ravages “bestowed”, the deaths “awarded”, has brought peace and democracy in any land. Following are a few examples.

WE DON’T LIKE THIS GUY

In 2002, Venezuela’s revolutionary leader Hugo Chavez was pushed out of power in a 47-hours coup by a ring of military officers and business leaders. ‘Senior members of the Bush administration met several times in recent months [before the coup] with leaders of a coalition that ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, for two days last weekend, and agreed with them that he should be removed from office, administration officials said today [April 15, 2002].’ (NYT, April 16, 2002, “Bush officials met with Venezuelans who ousted leader”) The daily cited US officials, and one of whom said: ‘We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don’t like this guy’ [Chavez]. Another official, the White House spokesman, ‘suggested that the administration was pleased that Mr. Chavez was gone.’

The coup was not a single effort against Chavez. Eva Golinger, the author of the famous ‘The Chavez Code’, writes: ‘Chavez’s international influence turned him into the number one enemy of Washington. The threats against Chavez were constant, attempts against his life never ceased. There was a systematic aggression against his government from the most powerful interests in the world, together with their agents in Venezuela.’ (“A tribute – Chavez: A giant under the moon”)

She raises another serious question: ‘We may never know if his death was provoked or not, although enough evidence exists to investigate’. (ibid.) Questions concerning the death of Hugo Chavez have also been raised from other responsible quarters including the chairman of the Venezuelan legislative assembly.

Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, has recently accused publicly: The US is behind an attempted coup in Venezuela. He has alleged the US vice-president Joe Biden was behind the entire destablizing plot. Maduro said: ‘The northern imperial power has entered a dangerous phase of desperation, going to talk to the continent’s governments to announce the overthrow of my government. And I accuse Vice-president Joe Biden of this.’

This is the first time a direct accusation of this gravity was made publicly. However, there was denial from the other side. On an earlier occasion, Maduro specified a number of US agencies for allegedly plotting against Venezuela.

In the recent accusation, Maduro questioned US president Barack Obama publicly, whether the US president was ‘aware of these plans to promote violence and a coup in Venezuela’. Terming the situation as no ordinary crisis, the Venezuelan president said: ‘There are US diplomats in Venezuela contracting military officials to betray their country, looking to influence socialist political leaders, public opinion leaders and entrepreneurs to provoke a coup.’ He appealed to the people and the patriots among the officials to be on high alert ‘as a bloody coup is underway in Venezuela.’

Maduro further alerted: ‘The people must be prepared to rescue their democracy, the Constitution and their revolution’. He said it’s difficult to imagine, despite earlier promises, how to maintain diplomatic relations with the US, in light of its constant attempts to subvert the Venezuelan leadership and sink the country into a crisis.

The Empire’s interference in Venezuela is not a new case. Eva Golinger in an article, “The dirty hands of the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela”, provides the following facts as she mentions anti-government protests led by several individuals and organizations have close ties to the US government:

‘Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado, two of the leaders behind the violent protests, have long histories as collaborators, grantees and agents of Washington. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have channeled multi-million dollar funding to Lopez’s political parties Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, and Machado’s NGO Sumate and her electoral campaigns. These Washington agencies have also filtered more than $14 million to opposition groups in Venezuela between 2013 and 2014 including funding for their political campaigns in 2013 and for the anti-government protests in 2014. This continues the pattern of financing from the US government to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela since 2001, when millions of dollars were given to organizations from so-called “civil society” to execute a coup d’état against President Chavez in April 2002. After their failure days later, USAID opened an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas to, together with the NED, inject more than $100 million in efforts to undermine the Chavez government and reinforce the opposition during the following eight years.

At the beginning of 2011, after being publicly exposed for its grave violations of Venezuelan law and sovereignty, the OTI closed its doors in Venezuela and USAID operations were transferred to its offices in the US. The flow of money to anti-government groups didn’t stop, despite the enactment by Venezuela’s National Assembly of the Law of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination at the end of 2010, which outright prohibits foreign funding of political groups in the country. US agencies and the Venezuelan groups that receive their money continue to violate the law with impunity. In the Obama Administration’s Foreign Operations Budgets, between $5-6 million have been included to fund opposition groups in Venezuela through USAID since 2012.

The NED, a “foundation” created by [US] Congress in 1983 to essentially do the CIA’s work overtly, has been one of the principal financiers of destabilization in Venezuela throughout the Chavez administration and now against President Maduro. According to NED’s 2013 annual report, the agency channeled more than $2.3 million to Venezuelan opposition groups and projects. Within that figure, $1,787,300 went directly to anti-government groups within Venezuela, while another $590,000 was distributed to regional organizations that work with and fund the Venezuelan opposition. More than $300,000 was directed towards efforts to develop a new generation of youth leaders to oppose Maduro’s government politically.

One of the groups funded by NED to specifically work with youth is FORMA, an organization … tied to Venezuelan banker Oscar Garcia Mendoza. Garcia Mendoza runs the Banco Venezolano de Credito, a Venezuelan bank that has served as the filter for the flow of dollars from NED and USAID to opposition groups in Venezuela.

Another significant part of NED funds in Venezuela from 2013-2014 was given to groups and initiatives that work in media and run the campaign to discredit the government of President Maduro. …Throughout the past year, an unprecedented media war has been waged against the Venezuelan government and President Maduro directly, which has intensified during the past few months of protests.

In direct violation of Venezuelan law, NED also funded the opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Table (MUD), via the US International Republican Institute (IRI), with $100,000 to “share lessons learned with [anti-government groups] in Nicaragua, Argentina and Bolivia…and allow for the adaption of the Venezuelan experience in these countries”.

Regarding this initiative, the NED 2013 annual report specifically states its aim: “To develop the ability of political and civil society actors from Nicaragua, Argentina and Bolivia …”

IRI has helped to build right-wing opposition parties Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, and has worked with anti-government coalition in Venezuela since before the 2002.

Detailed in a report published by the Spanish institute FRIDE in 2010, international agencies that fund the Venezuelan opposition violate currency control laws in order to get their dollars to the recipients. Also confirmed in the FRIDE report was the fact that the majority of international agencies, with the exception of the European Commission, are bringing in foreign money and changing it in the black market, in clear violation of Venezuelan law. In some cases, the FRIDE analysis reports, the agencies open bank accounts abroad for the Venezuelan groups or they bring them the money in hard cash. The US embassy in Caracas could also use the diplomatic pouch to bring large quantities of unaccounted dollars and euros into the country that are later handed over illegally to anti-government groups in Venezuela.

All these things are being done in the name of democracy. And it’s not only the Venezuela case.

Hip-hop in Cuba

An investigation by the Associated Press found that USAID attempted to infiltrate the Cuban hip-hop movement as part of a covert project to destabilize the country. The AP report, “US co-opted Cuba’s hip-hop scene to spark change”, was available on December 11, 2014.

The AP investigation found documents that indicate that USAID hired a group of rappers to organize a youth movement opposed to the Cuban government. The plan was implemented covertly for more than two years.

Its aim was using Cuban musicians to organize a network to agitate against the system. To undermine the Cuban government, it involved millions of dollars. A bank in Lichtenstein was also there with the purpose to hide the money trail to Cuba, where thousands of dollars went to fund a TV program.

The Huffington Post website published a chronology of USAID covert operations in Cuba. It showed in detail the activities of Rajko Bozic, a Serbian presenting himself as a musical promoter. Rajko arrived in Cuba with instructions to involve Cuban rappers including the Aldeanos duo in the covert hip hop program.

The covert operation net was wide. In Panama, the publication describes a company, the Salida Company, that was organized in March 2009. It was organized as a front for Washington-based Creative Associates International (CAI). In August 2009, the CAI hosted a meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica, to discuss using the Concert for Peace organized by Colombian musician Juanes in Havana to boost Los Aldeanos and their destabilizing discourse.

In December 2009, Alan Gross, the USAID contractor, was arrested in Havana for having illegally imported satellite phones and computing equipment to Cuba without the appropriate permits.

The USAID hip-hop covert operation was conducted along with two other operations sponsored by the US agency, which were also exposed by AP. These were the Zunzuneo or the Cuban twitter project, and a plan to send young Latin Americans to Cuba to build dissatisfaction among the Cuban youth and promote criticism of the government.

These facts led Raul Castro to warn the US against meddling in Cuba’s affairs. These facts also led Josefina Vidal, Cuba’s top official for US affairs, to say in early-February: ‘The way those (US) diplomats act should change in terms of stimulating, organizing, training, supplying and financing elements within our country that act against the interests of … the government of the Cuban people.’

Vidal said the Americans were meddling in internal affairs of Cuba. ‘Matters of the internal affairs in Cuba are not negotiable”, she said. “Nor are we going to negotiate matters of an internal nature regarding Cuban sovereignty in exchange for lifting the embargo. Beyond that, everything else is a process of negotiation.’

Cuba’s pain is old. In 1898, the US forced Cuba to accept Platt Amendment that allowed the Empire to intervene in Cuba and establish the base at Guantanamo.

The Empire’s war against countries aspiring to live with dignity is widespread. The war is conducted not only with subversion and coups. It goes to the economic front also.

SHADOW OIL WAR

In mid-December 2014, Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, said in an interview: The US is behind the current drop in oil prices as it is aiming to undermine the economies of large petroleum producers like Russia and Venezuela.

Morales further said: ‘Of course, now that America can’t overthrow a president by a violent military coup, it starts to view the option of economic sanctions. I am sure that the oil prices plunge was provoked by the US to undermine the Russian and Venezuelan economies.’

According to the Bolivian president, America is acting like other large empires did for centuries as they ‘disseminated strife and hatred inside and outside, wishing to establish political control over other nations and to plunder them economically.’

And the shadow oil war is now pushing Libya to the brink of bankruptcy. Shall the oil interests in Libya gain with this reality even if the interests of the Libyan people are ignored?

The cases are not only South America-centered. A conviction in the US exposes the Empire’s activities around the globe.

* Farooque Chowdhury is ex-editor of Paribesh patra, an environmental periodical (in Bangla) His writings focus on political economy, environmental sociology, Non Governmental Organization, micro-credit and Marxist theory. He is author of numerous books, the latest one is The Age of Crisis. He is also co-editor of a series of reports on Bangladesh environment.

The post Fidel Is Right: Don’t Trust The US – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David W. Murray*

The latest Health and Human Services (HHS) survey of drug use with state-level data showed a steep rise (22 percent) in regular marijuana use between 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the newly legalizing state of Colorado.

These results do not auger well for Colorado legalization, however there are grounds for caution regarding the policy meaning. The study ends with 2013 data, while marijuana legalization was not formally implemented until January 2014.

Clearly, a measurement that ends before the implementation of a program cannot tell us much about the impact of such implementation. Still, there may be some implications regarding deteriorating perceptions and norms in Colorado regarding marijuana.

The study in question represents state-level analysis by the HHS based on the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Because the sample for states like Colorado is small, HHS combines two years of results to make the state-level estimate.

They then compare the combined data from 2011-12 to the combined data from 2012-13, thereby showing the sharp increase in regular use by the population 12 and older (the sub-set population 26 and older showed a staggering 33 percent increase in prevalence over the same time period).

Consistent with a tendency in the media to underplay disturbing findings regarding what is often termed the Colorado “experiment,” the Denver Post‘s reporting on the findings features Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor who studies marijuana policy. Kleiman, who helped design a similar marijuana legalization program in the state of Washington, argues that the numbers are not “surprising, given what’s going on the medical side.”

That is, Kleiman wishes to explain the increase not as an indication of changing attitudes due to recreational marijuana becoming legal and marketed in the state, but rather as a reflection of shifts in enrollments in a previous program enabling “medical marijuana” distribution.

Given that the HHS study period ended just before the launch of recreational marijuana in 2014, it does seem possible that changes in medical marijuana enrollment could be more important than shifts in norms regarding the drug.

Moreover, as many researchers have noted, medical marijuana, unlike the commercial recreational product, is not taxed and is hence cheaper (just as with the continuing black market product), leading to an apparent cross-over of those “recreating” to patient status.

But that change should simply reclassify existing users of the drug, not produce a dramatic 22 percent increase in total users. Further, how could this appeal to the medical population in Colorado explain the concurrent 20 percent rise in marijuana use in nearby Washington State, which also recently legalized marijuana?

The bigger problem is that, despite the claim, the sharp rise in marijuana users found in 2012-13 does not appear to be related to increases in medical marijuana users during the study period.

That’s because the steepest increase in medical marijuana patients in Colorado occurred from early 2009 through summer 2011, when the number of “patients” with state-approved medical marijuana registry ID cards soared from 5,000 to 128,000—that is, before the 2012-13 period in which NSDUH just reported the 22 percent increase in marijuana use. If Kleiman were right, and that increase in marijuana use owed to the “medical side,” we should expect to see not only more, but a lot more, medical marijuana users in 2012-13 compared with 2011-12. Instead, the average number of users within each period is virtually identical—106,000 in 2011-12 and 105,000 in 2012-13. Kleiman, therefore, is plainly wrong: a 1 percent decrease in medical marijuana ID holders does not account for a 22 percent increase in marijuana use among Coloradans, and we must reconsider the effects of changing norms and perceptions.

Equally troubling is the increase in heavy marijuana use, as Kleiman correctly notes, “The fraction of [monthly users] who are in fact daily users has gone way, way up.”

Finally, the study further sharpened our understanding of an additional claim made by some economists (and one seized upon by the pro-legalization New York Times) that marijuana and alcohol are possible “substitutes,” and that as marijuana use increases, there will perhaps be a decline in alcohol consumption.

Well, perhaps. However, the HHS study in Colorado found not only a 22 percent increase in marijuana use, but also found an accompanying increase of 11 percent in binge drinking. Quite possibly, one intoxicant may well lead to “enjoying” another. The implications for highway safety are hardly positive.

Overall, given the importance of these data to public policy, the discussion so far has been surprisingly opaque, with marijuana-friendly media explaining away carelessly data findings that call into question their narrative. Coloradans—and all Americans—deserve better.

About the author:
David W. Murray is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute where he co-directs the Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research. While serving previous posts as Chief Scientist and Associate Deputy Director (Supply Reduction) in the federal government’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, Murray directed

The post Misrepresenting The Colorado Marijuana Results – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Around 1,500 people across 15 provinces get a chance to rate their leader’s record so far.

Participants in IWPR-organised debates across Afghanistan this month said the event was their first opportunity to publicly air their concerns about the new president.

Some 1,500 people across 15 provinces took part in a series of debates evaluating the first 100 days of Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, who was inaugurated at the end of September 2014 after a protracted electoral process. The debates are part of IWPR’s ongoing Youth and Elections project, designed to encourage young people to exercise their right to vote .

In Helmand, Suhaila Waziri told IWPR that she had never taken part in an event like this before.

“Very interesting topics were discussed,” she continued. “It was very good for increasing my level of knowledge. I think it’s a good thing.”

Waziri worked for Ghani’s campaign team last year, but she told the gathering that locals were bitterly disappointed by the new administration’s failure to improve security in Helmand.

Helmand civil society activist Shahnaz Fayez added, “I gained the courage to speak up in these debates. My understanding of women’s rights and how to solve their problems has increased.”

Torpekai, a member of the women’s council in Helmand, said, “Debates like these are needed to raise awareness among men and women. They are very effective in changing people’s opinions, especially women’s.”

Many participants in the debates criticised Ghani’s delay in forming a government and his reliance on keeping officials in post on an acting basis. Others were concerned about his deal with political rival Abdullah Abdullah, who was made “chief executive” of Afghanistan in exchange for accepting defeat at the polls.

“It’s the first time young people and government and NGO officials have discussed important matters together,” said Bahauddin, who took part in a debate held in Badghis province. “It is having a positive impact.”

With a parliamentary election due later this year, the debates gave ordinary people an opportunity to speak frankly about their concerns about Afghan democracy.

Susan Sadid, a participant in the Farah debate, said, “After the formation of a national unity government [with Abdullah], I took a very negative view of elections. I didn’t want to vote any more, but this debate has changed my mind. Now I want to take part in the parliamentary election.”

Debates were held in different formats, with an online event hosted via Skype on January 22 in which people from the western Farah province and Nangarhar in the east discussed who had ultimate responsibility for ensuring stability.

Abdul Rahman Zhwandai, a civil society activist in Farah, said, “The key to peace lies in the hands of the Afghans. Unless the Afghans decide to bring peace, foreigners will not deliver it to them.”

Sherzad, a lecturer at Nangarhar university, said, “If everyone in a society respects the law, this will create trust and confidence. When such an atmosphere is created, the pen will replace weapons and the culture of war, so that peace is established.”

Baryalai Ghafari, another civil society activist in Farah, said that holding such inter-province debates were a positive step.

“These programmes help accelerate the peace process, because it provides a way that civil society activists in different provinces can share their experiences with one another.”

On January 25, an IWPR roundtable on the president’s first 100 days was aired live on the privately-owned Radio Ghaznawian in the southern Ghazni province. Listeners were able to call in to the hour-long show and put questions directly to a panel.

Ghazni deputy governor Mohammad Ali Ahmadi said he was unhappy with Ghani’s performance so far.

“The reason for all the recent disorder is the delay in announcing the cabinet. Officials and the public are therefore disillusioned about their future.”

However, Mohammad Asef Hosseini, a reporter who took part in the roundtable, disagreed, saying, “There are many problems, but we are hopeful about the future.”

The programme proved so popular that listeners contacted the radio station to ask for more live call-ins, saying the format brought government and people closer together.

Meanwhile, IWPR held meetings with United Nations agencies to discuss plans for cooperation.

“They asked us to put our colleagues in the regions in contact with UNAMA’s provincial staff,” IWPR Afghanistan country director Noorrahman Rahmani, said following a meeting with Anna Maria Adhikari, public affairs officer for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). “UNAMA is willing to make radio reports based on our debates and get them broadcast on private radio stations.”

Rahmani also met United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) officials to discuss future collaboration on projects.

“Much of our activity appeared new and interesting to them. They said they’d be prepared to suggest topics for discussion in our debates,” Rahmani said.

The post Afghans Share Views On New President appeared first on Eurasia Review.