The large dip in oil prices reverberated across asset markets, contributing to the depreciation of the Russian ruble. This column argues that the recent fall of the ruble may be more an exception than the norm. Oil shocks have only a limited impact on global exchange rate configurations, since oil exporters tend to lean against exchange rate pressures by running down or accumulating foreign exchange reserves.

By Sascha Bützer, Maurizio Michael Habib and Livio Stracca*

Oil prices have plummeted in recent months. The decline in the price of West Texas Intermediate – from more than $100 per barrel in the past summer to less than $50 in January – has been large in both relative and absolute terms, comparable to the ‘oil counter-shock’ in the mid-1980s.¹ In principle, this should be an important factor to be incorporated in foreign exchange markets, and a superficial reading of the evidence, such as the large depreciation of the Russian ruble or the recent abandoning of the US dollar peg in Azerbaijan, seems to confirm this view. But is it true more generally that large movements in oil prices are accompanied by shifts in global exchange rate configurations?

The theory

From a theoretical point of view, an oil price shock may be transmitted to the exchange rate through two main channels (see Bodenstein et al. 2012):

• The terms of trade: A negative terms of trade shock (say, a fall in oil prices for an oil exporter) drives down the price of non-traded goods in the domestic economy and thereby the real exchange rate, which is defined as the relative price of a basket of traded and non-traded goods between the domestic and the foreign economy. As prices of non-traded goods may be sticky, the adjustment of the real exchange rate could require nominal exchange rate depreciation too;
• Wealth effects: A negative oil price shock transfers wealth from oil exporters to oil importers, leading to large shifts in current account balances and portfolio reallocation (see Kilian 2007). In order to restore the external net financial sustainability of oil importers (exporters), the real exchange rate has to depreciate (appreciate) following a negative shock to the oil price, in order to improve the non-oil trade balance.

These fundamental channels derived from textbook inter-temporal models tend to suggest that a fall in oil prices should be accompanied by a real depreciation of oil exporters. However, things may be somewhat different in practice.

The real world

While theory suggests that oil exporters’ currencies should depreciate in the wake of negative oil price shocks (and vice versa for positive shocks), in practice there may be counter-balancing forces. First, monetary authorities may dislike large swings in the nominal exchange rate, countering exchange rate pressures through the accumulation or reduction of foreign exchange reserves. Second, the international risk-sharing channel may provide an automatic stabiliser through currency exposure. Given that oil exporters have accumulated a large pool of foreign exchange reserves and tend to be ‘net long’ in foreign currency, a decline in the oil price accompanied by a depreciation produces a positive valuation effect – a net gain for them relative to domestic GDP – therefore playing a stabilising role. In other words, the exchange rate does not need to depreciate quite as much to ensure external sustainability.

The evidence

In Buetzer et al. (2012) and later versions, we conduct a careful empirical analysis of the link between oil shocks and exchange rate configurations for the currencies of oil importers and exporters. We use a large database comprising 43 advanced and emerging countries over a sample period spanning from 1986 to 2013. Following the seminal studies by Kilian (2009) and Peersman and Van Robays (2009), we apply sign restrictions in a VAR model to identify three different types of oil price shocks that can be attributed to (i) global demand, (ii) oil-specific demand, and (iii) oil supply. In a second stage, we analyse the impact of these shocks on nominal and real exchange rates, reserve accumulation, and an index of exchange market pressure in a panel regression.

We uncover three stylised facts:

1. For the full sample of countries, we find no systematic evidence of a clear link between the oil or the commodity trade balance and real exchange rate movements following oil price shocks.
2. However, oil exporters (but not oil importers) tend to lean against depreciation pressures by running down foreign exchange reserves, notably after oil demand shocks, but also global demand shocks (which also decrease oil prices).
3. The exchange rate regime does matter. Oil exporters with floating currencies not only reduce foreign reserves in the face of negative oil demand shocks, but also experience a nominal depreciation. For these countries, therefore, oil demand shocks are a relevant factor for their exchange rates.

All in all, we find that oil shocks, in particular oil demand shocks, do determine exchange market pressures for oil exporters, which are more visible for floating currencies and which are countered by these countries by increasing or decreasing foreign reserve holdings. More generally, however, we find that the link between oil price movements and exchange rates is a loose one, which is perhaps another manifestation of the exchange rate disconnect.

The fall in oil prices between June 2014 and January 2015 represents an interesting ‘quasi-natural experiment’, given its sheer size and unexpected nature. While we do not cover this episode in our paper, it is natural to ask what happened to exchange rates. As can be seen in Figure 1, the whole group of oil exporters did depreciate against the US dollar, but so did most other currencies due to the dollar’s strength in the same period. Especially if we exclude Russia, which was influenced by largely idiosyncratic factors, we observe no clear sign of an additional depreciation of oil exporters’ currencies.

Figure 1. Floating oil currencies depreciating against the US dollar, roughly in line with other currencies

Exchange rate vs. USD of oil exporters and trade weighted value of the USD (index Jan-2014=100)

Source: Haver and authors’ calculations.
Notes: Hard pegs: Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. Floats: Azerbaijan, Kazakhastan, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Kuwait, and Russia. The USD index is the nominal broad trade-weighted index of the Federal Reserve Board. WTI is the spot price of oil, USD per barrel, from the Energy Information Administration.

What oil exporters did was to run down their foreign exchange reserves in order to support their exchange rates, in line with our predictions (see Figure 2). Moreover, and interestingly, both hard pegs and supposedly floating currencies did that.

Figure 2. Oil exporters running down international reserves to counter the negative oil shock

International reserves of major oil exporters (index Jan-2014=100)

Source: National authorities/Haver and authors’ calculations.\
Notes: Hard pegs: Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. Floats: Azerbaijan, Kazakhastan, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Kuwait, and Russia.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column belong to the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the institution to which they are affiliated.

*About the authors:
Sascha Bützer
Economist in the International Monetary Affairs Division, Deutsche Bundesbank and a PhD candidate in Economics, University of Munich

Maurizio Michael Habib
Senior Economist, European Central Bank

Livio Stracca
Head of the International Policy Analysis Division, Directorate General International and European Relations, ECB

References:
Bodenstein, M, C J Erceg, and L Guerrieri (2011), “Oil shocks and external adjustment”, Journal of International Economics 83(2): 168–184.

Buetzer, S, M Habib, and L Stracca (2012), “Global exchange rate configurations: Do oil shocks matter?”, ECB Working Paper 1442.

Kilian, L (2007), “Oil price shocks, international risk sharing and external adjustment”, VoxEU.org, 23 June.

Kilian, L (2009). “Not all oil shocks are alike: disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market”, American Economic Review 99(3): 1053–1069.

Peersman, G and I Van Robays (2009), “Oil and the euro area economy”, Economic Policy 24: 603–651.

Footnote:
1. See http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/thirdoilshock.html.

The post Plummeting Oil Prices, Depreciating Oil Currencies? Not So Simple – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Chen Jiang*

On February 2, the United States government expanded its list of sanctions against Venezuelan officials, accusing them of having violated human rights, during violent street protests, in Caracas last year, which purportedly were backed by jailed anti-government opposition leader, Leopoldo López, among others. Due to the severity of these sanctions, relations between the United States and Venezuela have deteriorated further to a new level of hostility.¹ However, at the same time, China has been generously co-signing financial transactions with the Venezuelan government including the borrowing of billions of dollars in exchange for future trade advantages. Since 2007, China has loaned Venezuela a total of $48 billion USD. But China’s help does not stop there. China’s generosity has reinforced the movement towards Latin America integration, fortified regional promotion of a multi-polar world, and it also has diminished somewhat the economic leverage of the United States in the region.

In January 2015, after a trip to Beijing and a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced that Venezuela will receive $20 billion USD in Chinese investments. Maduro also announced that this investment will be used on housing, technology, energy, and infrastructure projects. However the President did not provide further details on whether or not Venezuela will use this investment to import goods or pay old debts.² Beijing’s financial help has been arousing controversies in the United States and the European Union, since Venezuela has been routinely accused of wanton human rights violations by corporation-funded but heavily biased western media.

The questions raised by western media have mainly focused on the alleged irrationality behind China’s loans to Venezuela. At times they expressed concern that Venezuela will not be able to pay back the nearly $50 billion USD due to falling global oil prices. The reality is that Venezuela already has paid back $24 billion USD, making the Chinese government confident that Caracas will pay back its debt. Due to the country’s heavy dependence on its oil production, when international oil prices plunged last summer, Venezuela’s economy suffered a serious setback. According to OPEC’s statistics, last September’s oil basket prices first dropped below $100, and then continued on a downward slope. As of January, 2015 oil WTI prices have plunged to $44.38. It was not until February, 2015 that oil basket prices first saw a minor recovery.³Real wages in Venezuela also are dropping along with oil production, while inflation rates skyrocket across the country. To add on to Venezuela’s economic misery, its oil production rate is also losing ground. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.(PDVSA), state-owned oil company of Venezuela, is now pumping 2.7 million barrels of crude oil per day, ⁴ compared to 2006 when Venezuela was producing 3.2 million barrels per day.⁵

Chinese Monetary Fund Contribution to Venezuela

Both China and Venezuela have been benefiting from the close economic ties that had been forged starting in 2001. Although China and Venezuela began their diplomatic relationship in 1974, it was not until 2001, after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), that the two nations established a strategic, economic partnership.

Since 2007, Venezuela has been able to secure nearly $50 billion USD, in loans, from the China Development Bank Corp (CDB).⁶ To be specific, from 2007 to 2012, China made four loans of $4 billion USD to Venezuela for energy infrastructure. In April 2010, there was another $10 billion USD loan package that went to the state oil company, PDVSA. Later in 2010 and 2011, Venezuela received two $4 billion loan packages again.⁷ These investments were not simply a charitable offering in order to facilitate Venezuela’s economic development; they also benefited Chinese corporations. Although the loans were made at a low interest rate, the Chinese had conditions on how Venezuela should assign them. In fact, the use of these loans have led to a relatively stronger Chinese commercial presence in Latin America, while Venezuela was able to develop its own financial institutions, in a win-win situation.

The Venezuelan government had spent the loans mostly on such Chinese products as electronics, railways, and modernization infrastructure. For example, in 2010, the Haier Group, a Chinese electronics company, sold $3 million USD air conditioners to Venezuela along with cars from the Chery Automobile Corp, a Chinese automobile company. In addition to the purchase of Chinese products, Venezuela also built factories and infrastructure which would provide a great number of jobs for both Chinese and Venezuelan workers.⁸

One characteristic of financial cooperation between China and Venezuela is that the Chinese provide technology and equipment while the Venezuelans export natural resources to China. In 2010, Wuhan Iron & Steel Group, the third biggest steel maker in China, signed a contract to import iron ore from a Venezuelan company.⁹ The two countries later furthered their cooperative ventures, in 2014, when SANY Heavy Industry invested in the building of eight construction material factories in Venezuela. The Minister of Public Works and Housing of Venezuela, Ricardo Molina, said “these factories will be able to provide enough construction material for 200,000 units of housing.”¹⁰ However, one needs to recognize that this cooperation is based on the abundance of Venezuela’s oil reserve and its auspicious mining locations. While the Chinese may have near endless supply of cash due to its large economy, Venezuela does not have bottom-less oil fields or extractive resources. Therefore, it is important for Venezuela to diversify its economy, as well as encourage technological innovation.

In addition to the supply of technology and infrastructure, China also brings in human resources. As the Venezuelan government gives contracts to large Chinese firms, these enterprises have begun to hire more Chinese workers in Venezuela. For example, in 2012, Huawei, a major telecommunication company in China, had over 1000 workers in Venezuela, and four hundred were Chinese nationals.¹¹ According to the New York Times, there are more than 50,000 Chinese who are settled across Venezuela today.¹²A considerable portion of this impressive number are Chinese people who have come to Venezuela to work as shopkeepers. This trend of immigrant workers suggests that Chinese investment not only has a direct effect on Venezuela, by helping with its economic development and its finances, but it has also brought on more frequent exchanges of various kinds between the people of both countries.

Although Chinese companies and funds opened up the job market, many local workers also complain that a large number of job opportunities in Venezula have been taken by Chinese workers. Also, China backed companies in Venezuela are often accused of abusing local workers for having them work long hours.¹³ In 2011, Venezuela had 77 construction projects under contract with China, which employed over 2,800 workers then stationed in Venezuela. One of these projects based in Barinas had 812 workers, about 43 percent of which were Chinese citizens.¹⁴ Cooperation with China usually comes with a price, but as Venezuela continues to face economic turmoil, Chinese funds are becoming more and more crucial to the country’s economic planning.

While China offers loans without threatening to interfere with a country’s internal and foreign policies, funding from the United States often involves conditions in which less developed countries are asked to follow the United State’s neoliberal model for their development. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the Chinese loans come with no conditions attached. As in any other trading relation, the Chinese ask for guarantees in return for their generous loans. In the case of Venezuela, the Chinese are aiming for Venezuela’s rich oil reserves. Although the United States has remained the largest importer of Venezuelan crude oil, compared to a decade ago when oil shipments from Venezuela to the United States has dropped 49 percent.¹⁵ When Chinese President Xi visited Venezuela in mid-2014, he signed a $4 billion USD oil-for-financing deal with Venezuela.¹⁶As a late-comer into the energy trade, China has taken advantage of Venezuela’s urgent demand for funds in exchange for a secure and politically protected energy source in the future.

Beyond Economic Trade

Chinese-Venezuelan relations have also brought about important cultural and educational exchanges between the two countries. These exchanges in fact, began long before the close economic partnership initiated in 2001. Since 1961 China has been accepting students from Venezuela, and as of 2012, 127 Venezuelan students have studied in China with a scholarship funded by Venezuela. Furthermore, starting from 2015, China will be offering 100 Venezuelan student scholarships to study in China annually.¹⁷ As the number of Chinese workers in Venezuela increases, so too does the desire for sharing Chinese culture. Trying to address the Chinese workers’ needs, seen as a feature of human development, PDVSA organized a Chinese Spring Festival in 2012.¹⁸ The venue was decorated and the Chinese ambassador to Venezuela, Zhao Rongxian, expressed his gratitude, as well as the Chinese government’s positive expectation on further cooperation in this sphere.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Venezuela, in July 2014, he noted that China and Venezuela had established a mutually beneficial strategic partnership since 2001. He also mentioned that China is looking forward to bringing their relation to a level of a comprehensive strategic partnership. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement in July 21, 2014 stating that the theme of future Chinese-Venezuelan partnership would be based on a framework, which includes a mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and independence. This framework is quite different from the imposition of hegemony by the United States during Venezuela’s fourth republic and recent statements by Washington that suggest Caracas needs to be “steered” in a direction preferred by the State Department. Furthermore, because of the similarity of Chinese and Venezuelan views on multi-polarity, and the non-aligned movement, the two countries should work closely on major international affairs to protect the interests of developing countries. This statement also takes note that China will understand and respect Venezuela’s ideologies on continental integration and multi polarity.¹⁸

Although the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has avoided discussing which issues China and Venezuela share similar views on, in both of their statements China and Venezuela were admittedly heavily influenced by the U.S. economy. The United States gradually emerged as a world super power after the WWII, and it has since been trying to use its large economy to dominate the development of other regions. Nevertheless, in Latin America, in the 2000s, foreign investment and international power have been slowly shifting away from western countries, and specifically from the United States, to China. Pacific Asia and Latin America have taken advantage of their natural and human resources to develop their  own economies. In particular, China and Venezuela have built bridges based on a mutual respect for the other’s sovereignty through educational and cultural exchanges.

Against U.S. Domination

In December 2014, Obama decided to reset U.S. relations with Cuba and ease the embargo and at the same time, escalated heavy-handed strategies against Caracas. Obama acknowledged the embargo against Cuba as being obsolete and ill-advised. In comparison, Venezuela remains under the influence of a U.S. two-sided foreign policy. Not only is the United States unwilling to ease sanctions and condemnation on Venezuela, but it has gone further to impose more anti-Caracas bans in the name of human rights. The United States has been using human rights as an excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries for decades. If the claims about ideological differences were important and true, why is Venezuela being singled out? The United States is only using such excuses to maintain its sense of dominance against selected foes.

Latin America has long lived under the shadow of the United States. On the other hand, China is willing to offer its financial and economic cooperation to Latin America in an exchange for much-needed resources. The technological, infrastructural and constructional support China provides Venezuela has become a pathway for it to pull away from the United States. The bans on Venezuelan officials’ visas are solid evidence that the United States does not fully appreciate the nature of the Venezuelan-Chinese strategic partnership because such measures only push CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) towards more integration with the BRICS economies.

China’s vast investments and loans in the entire Latin America theater will greatly reduce U.S. influence in the region. Since the beginning of the new century, China has been working closely with CELAC, an organization of American countries that excludes the United States and Canada. Latin America has since intensely traded and invested in the Chinese market, currently one of the most profitable markets in the world. The region has also become less dependent on the U.S. market which comes with U.S. intervention when it comes to domestic affairs.

Washington perceives Beijing’s move into Latin America as a threat to its authority. However, such an assumption on China’s motivation maybe inappropriate because China is not working to pull or push Latin America into its camp as the United States and the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. Their cooperation is mutually beneficial, and has remained respectful. In January, the first ministerial China-CELAC was successfully held in Beijing. Venezuela is not the only country in Latin America that has been working closely with China. In fact, since 2000, China has established either strategic partnerships or comprehensive strategic partnerships with Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela and Peru. In 2001, trade between China and CELAC countries was at $15 billion USD, and the number mounted to $261.2 billion USD by 2012. China became the third biggest exportation market for Latin America in 2010.²⁰

The sharp increase in trade between China and the region suggests that the geopolitical circumstance existing in Latin America is rapidly changing. The United States trading market is no longer the most important market for Latin American products; because of the growing relationship of the CELAC countries and China now have, one can readily expect enhanced trade and investments between China and CELAC will quickly grow in range and diversity. As an important player in Latin America, Venezuela inevitably has become one of China’s primary focuses in the CELAC countries. Venezuela accounts for a large portion of China’s investments in the region.

The United States has been trying to slow down the development through the hemisphere using the practice of sanctions to punish Caracas ostensibly on human rights ground, but more realistically has been inspired by a geopolitical orientation. However, as China joins the battle against U.S. preeminence, it is becoming clear to U.S., policy makers that the world is moving toward a multi-polar system. More importantly, rather than slamming sanctions filled with contradictory excuses such as human rights violations, China respects Venezuela and other countries’ sovereignty and stability. Venezuela is now using China’s strong support to develop a stronger economies as well as leading the way toward continental integration in the multi-polar world system.

Venezuela has brought in billions of Chinese funds, and has cooperated with China in various investments and trade areas, such as agriculture, construction, telecommunication, tourism and mining. According to Ivan Antonio Guerrero Zerpa, Venezuelan Ambassador to China, in the next 10 years, Venezuela’s strategic plan will include bilateral cooperation on creating Special Development Zones and Special Economic Zones in the country. Moreover, the ambassador also mentions that Venezuela recognizes the increasing need of natural resources in Asian countries, and he believes this could be an incredible opportunity for the two regions to increase their trade.²² With an established demand and supply chain between Venezuela and China, it is fair to predict that while the United States continues to apply more sanctions on Venezuela, China will be there to support Venezuela’s development requirements. At the same time, China will be able to rely on Venezuela, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, to be its natural resources exporter as well as the importer of technological products. Now that Venezuela and other CELAC countries can count on another main economic partner waiting to fill the void, the grip of the United States on the region is softening to a marked degree.

*Chen Jiang, Research Associate at the Council of Hemispheric Affairs

1. “U.S. Slaps More Venezuelan Officials With Visa Bans,” Washington Street Journal, Published February 2, 2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2015/02/02/u-s-slaps-more-venezuelan-officials-with-visa-bans/
2. “China agrees to invest $20bn in Venezuela to help offset effects of oil price slump”, The Guardian. Published January 8, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/china-venezuela-20bn-loans-financing-nicolas-maduro-beijing.
3. “OPEC Basket Price,” Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/40.htm

4.”Venezuela’s Oil Industry Exodus Slowing Crude Production: Energy,” Bloomberg, Published December 3, 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-04/venezuela-s-oil-industry-exodus-slowing-crude-production-energy

5. “OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2014,” OPEC, Published 2014. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/ASB2014.pdf

6.”China Weighs Risks to $50 billion Investment After Chavez,” Bloomberg, Published March 6, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-06/china-weighs-risks-to-50-billion-investment-after-chavez-death

7. “Chinese Investment in Venezuela,” Hong Kong Liaison Office Of The International Trade Union Movement, Published August, 2013. http://www.ihlo.org/CINTW/Venezula.pdf
8. Ibid

9.”Wuhan Secures Cheaper Iron Ore From Venezuela,” Bloomberg, Published July 21, 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-07-21/wuhan-steel-secures-cheaper-iron-ore-from-venezuela-than-supplied-by-vale

1. “中国企业将在委内瑞拉投资20亿美元,” 东方财富网，Published September 22, 2014. http://finance.eastmoney.com/news/1351,20140922426682180.html
2. Even Ellis, China on the Ground in Latin America: Challenges for the Chinese and Impacts on the Region (n.p.: Palgrave Macmillan 2014).
3. “In Venezuela, A New Wave of Foreigners,” New York Times, Published November 6, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/americas/07venez.html?pagewanted=all
4. Chinese Investment in Venezuela,” Hong Kong Liaison Office Of The International Trade Union Movement, Published August, 2013. http://www.ihlo.org/CINTW/Venezula.pdf
5. Ibid

15.”中国同委内瑞拉的关系,” 中国外交部，Published August, 2014. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/gjhdq_603914/gj_603916/nmz_608635/1206_608880/sbgx_608884/

16.”Venezuela Says to Keep Boosting Oil Export to China, India,” Reuter, Published November6, 2014.” http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/venezuela-oil-china-india-idINKBN0IQ20Q20141106

7. “China secures Venezuelan oil and gold deals, as President visits L.America,” RT, Published July 22, 2014. http://rt.com/business/174588-china-oil-deal-venezuela/
8. “委内瑞拉石油公司隆重庆祝中国春节,” 中国外交部，Published January 25, 2012 http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/zwbd_602255/gzhd_602266/t898936.shtml
9. “中华人民共和国和委内瑞拉玻利瓦尔共和国关于建立全面战略伙伴关系的联合声明,” 中国外交部, Published July 21, 2014. http://www.mfa.gov.cn/mfa_chn/zyxw_602251/t1176647.shtml
10. “‘中拉合作论坛’成为中国对拉美的新战略,”共识网, Published March 17, 2014. http://www.21ccom.net/articles/qqsw/zlwj/article_20140317102525.html
11. “Obama Trumpet ‘New Chapter’ in Cuba, Hits Reset On Diplomatic Ties,” Aljazeera America, Published December 17, 2014. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/17/us-cuba-announceplantonormalizerelations.html
12. Guerrero Zerpa, Ivan Antonio. “China And Venezuela, A True Model And Example Of Mutual Respect.”China Today63, No. 8 (August 2014): 46-47.

The post Venezuela Sailing Away From US Domination Thanks To Chinese Funds – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Alessandro Bruno

The Syrian civil war has been completely lost in the quagmire that is ISIS and the wider problems stemming from Iraq and the war waged upon it by President Bush and the neoconservative establishment. The dangers of meddling in Iraq were clear to anyone who had read even a few pages of modern Middle Eastern history, but few in Western power circles were honest enough to question the policy and call on their governments to think twice before meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

Iraq’s straggling reconciliation and seemingly permanent state of crisis failed to discourage the West – and other governments that should have known better (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to name three) – from interfering in the wave of protests that broke out in Syria shortly after the revolts of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt had reached a mature point coined as the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011. The media interpreted the coincidence of the timing of the Syrian protests as an expression of the desire for democracy. Regional and world powers, meanwhile, saw an opportunity to change the Baathist government that had ruled in Damascus for almost 50 years, skillfully navigating through many traps to maintain a degree of independence, and bring Syria into their ‘sphere of influence.’

Little attention was given to the more expert analyses that the Syrian ‘awakening’ never actually happened; democratic ambitions were dormant then and remain ever more lethargic today. Much like Tunisia, the original impetus for the protest came from farmers looking for compensation and improved water supply, especially in the southern regions – and the town of Dara’a in particular – that had suffered intense periods of drought for at least three seasons. The Syrian leadership made a significant mistake: it used hardline methods against the protesters rather than suffocating the issue with some good old fashioned largesse (which could have been limited to infrastructure improvements in Dara’a or inviting a few protesters to the presidential palace to meet the president in an atmosphere of reconciliation).

In Tunisia, the protests also started in an area affected by drought. However, close ties between the European Union and the Ben Ali dictatorship, cemented through intense economic cooperation, tourism, and migration, kept the EU at bay. The United States had relatively few ambitions in the Maghreb; and Tunisia does not border Israel – in fact, bilateral relations were relatively good. The Tunisian protest grew organically, following its own tempo rather than one tuned by foreign interference. President Ben Ali himself, moreover, never received due credit for realizing that his time was up such that on January 14, 2011, he left Tunisia to seek exile (surely encouraged by the secret police and the armed forces), sparing his people from a prolonged conflict. Tunisia, unlike Syria, has a rather uniform ethnic makeup in the context of Arab states. It is 99% Sunni Muslim, featuring a well-integrated Berber population, and held together, unlike many Islamic states, by a well-rooted tradition of secularism and strong institutions. Ben Ali could leave knowing that there were few chances of a civil war mutating into an ethnic or religious conflict while Tunisia’s main and best organized Islamist expression, al-Nahda, is dominated by the most liberal wing of the Muslim Brotherhood under the leadership of Rashid Ghannouchi. Syria, meanwhile, has endured ethnic and religious sectarianism and the al-Assads, like many other dictators in the Arab world, have proven to be adept at balancing divisions (if by force) in order to establish the kind of stability that allows a country to grow and even develop.

The Syrian civil war, with its causes and eventual outcome, is being largely ignored. World attention is now concentrating on the Frankenstein like side-effects of the Iraq war – Islamic State (IS or ISIS) – and its spillover into the fertile anarchy of Syria. The Assad presidency, whose dire predictions of chaos to foreign meddlers have become too embarrassing for the latter to concede, is now but a footnote on the issue of regional terrorism. The West wonders how it could have come to this; how many of its youth have become drawn to the struggle in Syria (and Iraq), ignoring the causes and their tremendous responsibility for the current state of affairs.

For this reason alone, Bashar al-Assad and the Baathist party in Damascus are worthy of consideration. Indeed, it is time for al-Assad to be rehabilitated and included in the process of resolving – if such a verb is even legitimate given the extent of the anarchy – the problem of ISIS and the Syrian civil war itself. That fight has been stolen from him – Western, Saudi, and Qatari-funded foreigners rather than native Syrians have taken over and they have made the very kind of progress in Syria that the West claims to have been fighting since the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The rebels (at least those that have any power and influence) are motivated not by democracy but by the ultimate installation of an Islamic state.

Many media pundits should consider Hillary Clinton’s statement when she visited Jordan two years ago and, looking over at Syria from Mt. Nebo, proclaimed like a reincarnation of Col. T.E. Lawrence and General Allenby that “Assad must go.” King Abdallah of Jordan, who has found his sense of leadership and royal legitimacy through his country’s new war against ISIS, is likely very grateful that President al-Assad ignored Ms. Clinton’s vacation suggestions, staying on to contain the Islamist tide from spilling over to Amman. Syria is not Tunisia, and al-Assad is not Ben Ali.

It is not a stretch to suggest that had al-Assad gone into exile, by now the Caliphate would be based in Damascus rather than the middle of nowhere.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com.

The post Assad Key To Any Political Solution In Syria – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Saudi Arabia’s Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman and the German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel have described the recent developments in the Middle East as a source of “concern” for the region and the world as a whole.

The talks held between the king and Gabriel at Al-Yamamah Palace focused on the Islamic State, Iraq and Yemen, as well as other key bilateral and regional issues.

Gabriel, who is also the minister for economy and energy, acknowledged the Kingdom’s important role as an ally in the fight against the IS, and said the Kingdom would have Germany’s full support when it came to defending itself.

“The good relationship between Germany and Saudi Arabia as well as the regional situation were the center of my talks with the king,” said the German official.

“What is happening in the south of Saudi Arabia, the IS threat, the situation in Iraq, and other issues are of concern for everyone in Europe,” said Gabriel. Speaking to Arab News, Gabriel said the joint Saudi-German Business Forum, which concluded on Sunday, would yield positive results.

He said: “German firms could provide an important service in the modernization of infrastructure in the Kingdom.”

He pointed out that his talks with several top Saudi officials including Prince Mohammed bin Salman, defense minister; Ibrahim Al-Assaf, finance minister; Abdullah Al-Muqbil, transport minister; and Abdullah Al-Hossayen, minister of water & electricity, have been “candid and substantial.”

During the meeting with King Salman, Gabriel conveyed the greetings of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. For his part, the king sent his greetings to Merkel.

Al-Assaf was quoted in reports as saying that trade between the two countries reached $12.4 billion in 2013.

The meeting was attended by the Crown Prince Muqrin, deputy premier; Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal; Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, minister of National Guard; Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif, second deputy premier and minister of interior; Prince Mohammed bin Salman, defense minister; and Boris Ruge, German ambassador.

Gabriel, Social Democratic Party’s leader, is the first top German official to visit Riyadh since the death of King Abdullah. Gabriel and his accompanying delegation will visit Qatar after the UAE to boost commercial links with the Gulf states and promote German exports.

The post Germany Offers Saudi Arabia Full Support To Crush Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker*

The Middle East is suffering the blowback from rotten U.S. policies, disastrous wars, and cultural turmoil. ISIS and its ilk are one result.

ISIS — or the so-called “Islamic State” — is the latest and most horrifying iteration of the modern terror groups that have plagued the region in recent years. With 20,000 to 30,000 combatants and recruits streaming in from all over the globe, the group is unlikely to be significantly degraded by U.S. air strikes — not when political conditions in the Middle East continue to favor it.

The media often depicts ISIS recruits as lost souls in search of a cause or suffering from mental illness. That may be true in some cases. But these explanations are not sufficient to explain ISIS’s resilience and recruitment capabilities.

No organization, especially a terrorist one, can survive without support. That can range from passive acceptance to active assistance, and it comes from individuals who may view ISIS as either the lesser of many evils or else a righteous group waging a holy war.

Both views are fueled not only by decades of Western colonialism, but also by recent U.S. invasions, drone strikes, and the installation and support of corrupt and brutal puppet governments. When Washington holds hands with dictators, or strikes oil deals that benefit only the hyper-wealthy, hatreds are remembered and passed down over the generations.

Yes, ISIS has committed unspeakable atrocities. But it’s too easy to forget that the U.S. invasion of Iraq killed some half a million Iraqis by one estimate — most of them civilians — and wounded another million. Looking at the numbers, we can only imagine the thousands of Iraqi children killed by bombs who may have actually been burned alive or smashed by rubble. They died the sort of deaths that inflame Arabs and Muslims around the world. No mother, father, sister, or brother will ever forget.

The invasion also brought torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners, in blatant violation of international law and the most rudimentary elements of humanity. And the pictures of torture we saw are only a small part of what happened.

The aftermath of the war only fueled the outrage felt by Iraqis and the rest of the Muslim and Arab world. The puppet government installed by Washington made corruption a reality at every level of daily life, and it badly neglected and abused the country’s non-Shiite populations. Daily life continued to be miserable, if not fatal.

As a nation, the United States likes to tout its moral superiority. Yet the bleak contrast between what Iraqis experienced and America’s self-proclaimed exceptionalism led many Iraqis to join a group that made its own set of promises — ISIS — and the results have been terrifying.

Meanwhile, America’s allies in the Middle East aren’t much better.

Saudi Arabia beheads over 100 people per year, and its fellow Gulf States defy any semblance of respect for basic human rights. Even Jordan’s King Hussein, touted as a hero for his newfound resolve to fight ISIS, oversees a government that has no freedom of the press and freely tortures dissidents. America’s support for these countries motivates a large number of disillusioned locals to join groups like ISIS that promise a different world order under the banner of religion.

Beyond the basic elements that pull supporters into their orbit, ISIS has shown considerable political savvy in advancing its aspirations. It brilliantly made an alliance with the secular Iraqi Baathists (including former soldiers, civil servants, and ordinary civilians) that were thrown out of their jobs in the early stages of the U.S. invasion. These Baathists provide ready-made organizational skills, military prowess, and knowledge of the Arab world.

There is no sound-bite solution to the Middle East. The issues are too complex, with far too many moving parts. President Obama’s remarks at the closing session of a recent summit against extremism hinted at the reality of the situation: “If we’re going to prevent people from being susceptible to the false promises of extremism,” he said, “then the international community has to offer something better.” But bombing Iraq and Syria will not solve the problem of ISIS. Neither will putting tens of thousands of American boots on the ground. On the contrary, these actions could potentially add fuel to the fire.

Working with Muslim communities in Western nations to identify issues that could lead some disillusioned members to join terrorist groups would be a worthwhile start. But what are we going to do with the simmering resentment in the Middle East over colonialism, invasions, bombing, and torture?

This anger isn’t going away anytime soon. But unless we begin an honest effort to address it, ISIS — and movements we cannot yet foresee — will continue to use these issues as ammunition. Sadly, the hostile political environment in Washington doesn’t give the president much space to honestly discuss these issues without being labeled as anti-American or some other nonsense.

The muscular arms of ISIS are pulling thousands into its fold and the results are horrific. We need to acknowledge that this nihilistic movement has appeal for a reason and begin to address these issues before the blowback blows us farther than we could imagine.

*Adil E. Shamoo is an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, a senior analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, and the author of Equal Worth – When Humanity Will Have Peace. He can be reached at ashamoo@som.umaryland.edu. Bonnie Bricker is a freelance writer and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus.

The post Why The Islamic State Exists – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aline Robert

(EurActiv) — France has blamed a communication “failure” after EurActiv revealed the existence of a letter instructing French MEPs how to vote on the controversial question of ISDS. Paris tried to rectify the error by sending another confidential letter to MEPs on 4 March.

On 26 February, EurActiv France published the contents of a letter advising French MEPs on the official French position on the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.

The letter, from the French Secretariat General for European Affairs (SGAE), was relaxed about the question of international arbitration tribunals, contrary to the harder line previously adopted by the government.

This apparent change of position upset many French MEPs, including Pervenche Berès of the Socialist Party.

Matthias Fekl, the secretary of state for Foreign Trade, was quick to tell Le Monde that there had been a mistake.

“The letter from the Secretariat General does not reflect the French position. There has been an administrative error. We will be sending the MEPs our corrections on the question of ISDS”.

Confirmation came on Thursday 5 March with a new letter from the SGAE, presenting a revised, more succinct position on the hotly disputed subject.

But contrary to what some may have expected, the new SGAE position does not appear much changed. The latest letter proposes the development of a new, revised ISDS mechanism.

A new investor-state dispute settlement mechanism

“The basic concepts of “fair and equitable treatment,” the “legitimate expectations” of investors and “indirect expropriation” need to be clarified in a way that gives the right of regulation to the states,” the SGAE wrote.

This is essentially the same position, reworded. France is still trying to avoid closing the door altogether on arbitration courts in TTIP.

“The error that was made came from within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs […] letters from the SGAE are consensual by definition, as they are drafted by all the ministries,” the SGAE explained. The cosmetic changes to the letter appear to be a political manoeuvre on the part of the French government, which is still trying to persuade MEPs to adopt a moderate position on the subject.

But many of the French representatives remain firmly opposed to the very principle of arbitration tribunals.

Political problems of the SGAE

The French delegations in Brussels often approach the SGAE with caution, preferring instead to deal with France’s permanent representation.

“The SGAE is something of a free spirit; it had trouble switching from right to left in 2012, and so produces memos that do not always reflect the positions of the government,” an inside source told EurActiv.

According to some sources, MEPs tend to contact the relevant ministries directly for details on projects, rather than going through the dedicated European service.

The SGAE is currently directed by Philippe Leglise-Costa, François Hollande’s former advisor, whose mission is to consolidate his control of the institution, to centralise power on European questions within the French government.

Translated from French by Samuel White

The post Paris Caught Meddling In TTIP Arbitration Debate appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena and Mrs. Jayanthi Sirisena arrived in London yesterday beginning a four-day official visit the United Kingdom.

Baroness Garden of Frognal Ms. Susan Garden and Sri Lanka’s Acting High Commissioner in London Chanaka Talpahewa received the President at the London Heathrow International Airport.

President Sirisena, as the Chair in Office of the Commonwealth, will attend the Commonwealth Day Observances, themed ‘A Young Commonwealth’, today.

The day’s events took place in the presence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; Head of the Commonwealth, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, members of the Royal Family and senior politicians, High Commissioners, and Commonwealth dignitaries.

The President will participate in a multi-faith Observance at Westminster Abbey in London, UK, followed by a reception hosted by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr. Kamalesh Sharma, at the Commonwealth Secretariat in Marlborough House, London.

During his visit in London, President Sirisena is expected to hold talks with the British Prime Minister Mr. David Cameron. The President will also meet with members of All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka (APGSL) and All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPGT) at the House of Lords.

The President will have an audience with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Wednesday. As is customary, the President will also meet with the Sri Lankan community in the United Kingdom before conclusion of the visit.
Minister of External Affairs Mr. Mangala Samaraweera, Deputy Minister Mr. Ajith P. Perera, Presidential Adviser on International Affairs Dr. Chris Nonis and many senior government officials are accompanying the President.

The post Sri Lanka’s Sirisena In London On Four-Day Official Visit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Some quarters are calling for reconciliation with Syrian President Bashar Assad while Iran and its allies are militarily supporting him. On the other hand, it is no secret that Iran is leading the fight in Tikrit and Saladin province of Iraq against the militants of the so-called Islamic State (IS).

I completely disagree with those calling for reconciliation with Assad. This option might have been acceptable at the beginning of the Syrian crisis. At present, it would be the worst option any Arab — especially Gulf — government could possibly consider.

The problem is not with Assad as an individual but with his legacy, his pairing with Iran and the amount of blood he has shed. The previous promise to give him a safe exit, to protect him from retribution, and to turn a new page with some of the regime’s leaders and establish a transitional phase that unites all Syrians, was sincere.

One cannot view the war in Syria as a domestic problem, or without understanding the regional power balance and the struggle with Iran. Accepting a solution allowing Assad to remain in power would mean handing over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to Iran, which would inevitably result in an Iranian domination of the Gulf region.

The notion that Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood and IS constitute a worry is true, but it is no reason to hand over Syria and Iraq to Iran.

We are in an era in which several wars are being orchestrated in parallel and threats vary, but the Iranian threat is the greatest, especially as a nuclear deal is close to being reached. Iran will translate such a deal into an indirect attack against its Gulf rivals.

We cannot put our faith in the Americans, no matter how much they insist that they will not let Iran harm its neighbors. US regional influence has decreased. Therefore, supporting the moderate Syrian opposition politically and militarily has become absolutely necessary for Gulf Arab states in order to prevent Iran from controlling Syria.

Saudi Arabia cannot give up on 20 million Syrians no matter what the reasons are, and it cannot overlook the threat of Iranian expansion in Mesopotamia. We should not accept the possibility of reconciling with Assad, as this has no place in the Gulf’s supreme calculations.

It is impossible for Saudi Arabia to reconcile with Assad, who has killed a quarter of a million people, in order to fight IS. How can we convince the 10 million displaced people — victims of Assad’s war machine — that we are giving up on them?

As for Turkey, the problem lies with its president. Other than protecting and evacuating the remains of Suleyman Shah — the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, who has been dead for hundreds of years — the government has done nothing to protect Turkey’s vital interests in Syria.

When the time comes to discuss Assad’s fate, no one will care about the concept of vengeance. The focus today is on two parallel solutions: Supporting the armed moderate opposition — the Free Syrian Army (FSA) — and supporting any peaceful solution based on the reconciliation of the entire Syrian people and on the maintenance of the regime without its senior leaders. A political solution cannot be fairly imposed without supporting the FSA.

The post No Chance Of Reconciling With Assad – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. and Sarah Torre*

On March 6, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser transmitted to Congress two pieces of legislation that will seriously infringe on conscience rights and religious freedom in our nation’s capital. Congress now has 30 legislative days to pass a resolution of disapproval, which, if signed by the President, would effectively veto these bad laws and protect the rights of DC residents.

The two euphemistically titled acts are the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA) and the Human Rights Amendment Act (HRAA). These policies will saddle religious organizations and employers with a choice between complying with coercive laws that force them to violate their religious beliefs and organizational missions and staying true to their beliefs in defiance of unjust laws.

RHNDA discriminates against pro-lifers and HRAA violates religious liberty. The former could force employers in the nation’s capital to cover elective, surgical abortions in their health plans and require pro-life organizations to hire individuals who advocate for abortion. The latter could force Christian schools to violate their beliefs about human sexuality and recognize an LGBT student group or host a “gay pride” day on campus.

DC Laws Will Severely Infringe on Rights of DC Residents

The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act poses a serious threat to the conscience rights of many organizations in DC such as the Susan B. Anthony List, March for Life, Family Research Council, and the Archdiocese of Washington, among others. Organizations whose mission is to empower women facing unplanned pregnancies with physical and emotional support or who advocate for policies that affirm the dignity and value of both mother and child could be forced to provide health insurance for the life-ending procedure they oppose. The legislation could also prohibit a pro-life organization from making employment decisions in accordance with their beliefs so as to maintain the integrity of their pro-life mission.[1]

Even former DC Mayor Vincent Gray urged the council to postpone voting on the abortion bill due to concerns that it may be unconstitutional, noting a review of the legislation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) “deemed the legislation legally insufficient.” The mayor’s letter continued:

According to the OAG, the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Religious organizations, religiously-affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law’s applicability to them.[2]

The DC Council is in the process of passing a supposed fix to RHNDA that would prevent the law from being used to mandate coverage of elective abortions—tacitly admitting that the legislation contains serious legal flaws. But even that temporary legislation is just that: temporary. That so-called solution will expire 225 days after enactment and pro-life organizations in the District could, once again, be forced to pay for life-ending procedures in their health plans. Rather than tinker with the legislation after the fact, the city should never have passed such a legally suspect law in the first place.

Likewise, the Orwellianly titled Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 eliminates an important protection for a key human right: religious liberty. It does so by rescinding the Nation’s Capital Religious Liberty and Academic Freedom Act, popularly known as the Armstrong Amendment. Passed by Congress in 1989, the Armstrong Amendment has protected religious schools in DC from being coerced by the government into violating their beliefs about human sexuality by “promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.”[3]

If the Human Rights bill goes into effect, it will severely infringe on the ability of DC religious schools to operate according to their religious beliefs.[4] After all, many religions believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other. The government should not force religious institutions to violate these beliefs.

Congress Has the Authority to Overrule the DC Bills

Congress should prevent these bills from going into effect and should restore pro-life conscience and religious liberty protections in the District.[5] The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District. Congress delegated some of this authority in 1973 when it passed the Home Rule Act, which created a city council and mayor. However, it retained authority for Congress to overrule bad policies enacted by the DC government.[6]

Congress can pass a Resolution of Disapproval which, when signed by the President, effectively overturns the District legislation in question. Congress can also attach riders to annual appropriations bills which provide federal funds to the District, preventing taxpayer monies from being used to put a law into effect.

Congress should do this because no governmental entity should force a citizen to promote or pay for abortion, or violate their beliefs that men and women are made for each other in marriage and that sexual relations are reserved for such a union.

Congress Should Protect Conscience Rights and Religious Freedom

In addition to the specific actions Congress can take to remedy the problems with the DC legislation, Congress should also act to protect conscience and religious liberty more broadly.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. Since 2004, the federal Weldon Amendment has prohibited state and local governments receiving certain federal funds from discriminating against health care entities that decline to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.”[7] That protection extends to health care plans. To the extent that the DC Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act would force pro-life organizations to pay for abortion coverage, the legislation would be in violation of the Weldon Amendment. Enforcement of the conscience policy, however, is left to the discretion of officials in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Congress should provide victims of conscience rights violations the ability to defend their rights in court, not leave them to wait on bureaucrats in the Obama Administration. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2015, S. 50, recently introduced by Senator David Vitter (R–LA), would do just that by modifying the Weldon Amendment to provide a private right of action for individuals and institutions that are discriminated against because they decline to participate in or pay for coverage of abortion.[8]

Marriage and Religious Freedom Act. In addition to protecting conscience rights in the abortion context, Congress should protect marriage and religious liberty. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting.[9]

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which is expected to be introduced again in the 114th Congress by Representative Raul Labrador (R–ID) in the House and by Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) in the Senate, would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.[10]

States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage and abortion.

Protecting Religious Freedom Protects Pluralism

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere—and a peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement. In a nation founded on limited government and religious freedom, government should not attempt to coerce any citizen, association, business, or school into promoting or paying for abortion or celebrating same-sex relationships.

—Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, is William E. Simon Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah Torre is a Policy Analyst in the DeVos Center.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] M. Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, et al., letter to Chairman Phil Mendelson, December 16, 2014, http://www.adfmedia.org/files/Bill20-790letter.pdf (accessed February 24, 2015).

[2] Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia, letter to Chairman Phil Mendelson, December 2, 2014, http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Mayor-s-Letter-regarding-Legislative-Meeting1.pdf (accessed February 24, 2015).

[3] William C. Duncan and Michael T. Worley, “D.C. Council: Religious Schools Must Adopt Its Views on Sexual Morality,” National Review Online, December 5, 2014, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394106/dc-council-religious-schools-must-adopt-its-views-sexual-morality-william-c-duncan (accessed February 24, 2015), and District of Columbia Code, Sec. 2-1402.41.

[4] Patrick J. Reilly, “School Ground Bullies in the Nation’s Capital,” The Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/patrick-reilly-schoolyard-bullies-in-the-nations-capital-1419636856 (accessed February 24, 2014).

[5] Council of the District of Columbia, “How a Bill Becomes a Law,” http://dccouncil.us/pages/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law (accessed February 24, 2015).

[6] Council of the District of Columbia, “DC Home Rule,” http://dccouncil.us/pages/dc-home-rule (accessed March 5, 2015), and District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Public Law 93–198, Sec. 601-604.

[7] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, “Overview of Federal Statutory Health Care Provider Conscience Protections,” http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/providerconsciencefaq.html (accessed February 24, 2014).

[8] Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2014, S. 50, 114th Congress, 1st Sess.

[9] Ryan T. Anderson and Leslie Ford, “Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2891, April 10, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/protecting-religious-liberty-in-the-state-marriage-debate.

[10] Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, H.R. 3133, 113th Cong. 1st Sess., and Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, S. 1808, 113th Cong. 1st Sess.

The post Congress Should Protect Religious Freedom In The District Of Columbia – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram pledging allegiance, at least in theory, to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) should lead to a comparison of efforts in the Middle East and Western Africa regions to fight these threats. Boko Haram and ISIS are some of the most brutal terrorist groups in the world but are both largely threats to their respective regions. Although ISIS has grabbed world attention, using the heinous tactics of beheadings and enslavement and aided by the spotlight of Western media and government hysteria, Boko Haram had earlier pioneered such tactics of intimidation. And despite ISIS having pledged regional Islamist affiliates in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, and now likely Nigeria, all of these already existing Islamists are largely trying to milk the ISIS connection for propaganda purposes to attract more funding and fighters. Thus, ISIS remains largely a threat to Iraq and Syria.

Yet it is striking that the U.S. response has been very different against ISIS holding parts of Iraq and Syria versus Boko Haram holding part of northeastern Nigeria. When ISIS started taking over parts of Iraq, the United States quickly started bombing the group, which had theretofore, unlike al Qaeda, focused on fighting regional security forces (the “near enemy”) to acquire territory to establish Islamist rule. Once the United States started bombing, ISIS realized, as did al Qaeda long ago, that many recruits and much funding could be attracted by drawing the “far enemy” deeper into a quagmire. When Western governments and media became overwrought by the ISIS’s beheadings, leading to more Western military activity, the recruiting and funding stream became a flood of riches for the group.

Because of the U.S. government’s frantic response to ISIS, local Middle East allies—such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Gulf states—have sent a few aircraft but have not offered what has been lacking in the fight against ISIS: much-needed regional ground forces to find and root out ISIS. The worst offender is NATO ally Turkey, which has demanded that the United States set up a no-fly zone over its territory for protection but has not offered to send its large and well equipped army to fight ISIS, which menacing its border. But why should all of these nearby U.S. allies send troops when they expect that the United States will eventually bail them out, as it always seems to by taking matters into its own hands militarily.

In contrast, in West Africa, which until very recently the United States cared little about, oil-rich Nigeria is being bailed out by four poorer countries (compared to Nigeria and also to the Middle Eastern countries) —Chad, Niger, Cameroon, and Benin. Nigeria’s military has been slow to react to Boko Haram’s holding of its territory and incompetent in beating it back. These countries have mobilized thousands of forces to fight Boko Haram, have had some successes, and have even motivated the Nigerian military to fight better against the insurgents. In contrast to the Middle East, Africans know that the United States will not ride to the rescue and that they need to be more self-sufficient against a regional threat. The United States has sent only some instructors to train the militaries of these nations. The model for this West African coalition is a similar one earlier cobbled together in East Africa— that of Uganda, Kenya, and Burundi—to fight another regional terrorist threat, al-Shabab in Somalia.

But why the difference in U.S. response? Both Nigeria and Iraq have substantial oil fields, but the United States doesn’t really buy that much oil from either country. And contrary to popular belief, the United States only gets about 20 percent of its oil from the Persian Gulf. Could it be that as policeman of a world empire of sorts, the United States wants to have its finger on the Persian Gulf, a major supplier of oil to the world market? Probably. I say this because, in my book, No War for Oil: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East, I concluded that simply buying the oil—even if the price goes up due to war, crisis, etc in the region —is cheaper than essentially stealing it at gunpoint by stationing military forces all over the region and intervening profligately in its affairs—for example, sending forces into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. So the more imperial reason seems more plausible than the need to merely “protect vital oil supplies.”

Another imperial reason— U.S. prestige—may also be contributing to this divergence of policy. When then-President George W. Bush was intent on invading Iraq for no good reason, Colin Powell, his Secretary of State, warned him “if you broke it, you’ve bought it.” After the United States “liberated” Iraq into chaos and indirectly caused, in response to that invasion, what became ISIS, the U.S. government cannot be seen to “lose” Iraq to that same group. It would make a superpower look bad. In contrast, the United States didn’t invade Nigeria (at least not yet) and so has no legacy to uphold there.

The main thing that a comparison of the fight against ISIS and Boko Haram, both regional threats in oil producing areas, should tell us: If foreign countries know that the U.S. superpower will save the day, they understandably have little incentive to put out much of an effort. A further lesson from the master of diplomacy in the 19th century, the conservative Otto von Bismarck, has gone unlearned by the United States: when your enemies are fighting each other—the radical Sunni ISIS Islamists versus Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in Iraq and against the dictatorial Assad regime in Syria—stay out of the fight.

This article was published by Huffington Post and reprinted with permission.

The post Allies Against Islamism In Mideast Could Learn From The Fight In Nigeria – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Deterrence as described in the movie Dr. Strangelove (1964) is described as “Deterrence is the art of producing, in the mind of the enemy, the fear to attack.” In this regard, the purpose of Islamabad in its March 9, 2015 missile test is to ensure a counter strike capability that limits the threat of India’s conventional limited war.

Pakistan conducted a successful test launch of the Shaheen-III Surface to Surface Ballistic Missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 2,750 KMs, on Monday. The test launch was aimed at validating various design and technical parameters of the weapon system at a maximum range.

According to an Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release, the successful launch with its impact point in the Arabian Sea was witnessed by senior officers from Strategic Plans Division, strategic forces, scientists and engineers of strategic organizations. Strategic Plans Division Director General Lieutenant General Zubair Mahmood Hayat, while congratulating the scientists and engineers on achieving yet another milestone of historic significance, termed it a major step towards strengthening Pakistan’s deterrence capability.

Hayat appreciated the technical competency, dedication and commitment of scientists who contributed whole heartedly to make this launch a success. Moreover, he expressed his full confidence in the Strategic Command and Control System and the Strategic Forces’ capability to safeguard security of the mother land against any aggression. The successful test launch and achievement of this milestone was also warmly appreciated by the President Mamnoon Hussain and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who congratulated the scientists and engineers on their outstanding achievement.

Ironically, New Delhi’s immense investment in conventional arms, and the upgrading of its anti-missile program (Ballistic Missile Defense) as well as its latest doctrinal transformation have indulged Pakistan to respond in the form of TNWs in one or the other, which is necessary for the restoration and maintaining of the credibility of its nuclear deterrence.

For this reason Pakistan previously had successfully tested on November 13 the Shaheen-II (Hatf-VI) Ballistic Missile  that was capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 1500 kilometers. The other successful test launch was of the Intermediate Range Shaheen 1A (Hatf IV) Ballistic Missile on November 17. It was aimed at re-validating various design and technical parameters of the weapon system. The Shaheen1A Missile is capable of carrying nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 900 Kms whose impact point as declared, was in Arabian Sea.

Then there have been a wide range of missiles tests, including nuclear-capable tests, ranging from the Hatf-IX tactical missile with a range of 60 kilometers to Hatf-IV, in recent months as part of efforts to strengthen its nuclear arsenal to counter India’s conventional superiority. On November 17, the intermediate range Shaheen 1A (Hatf IV) ballistic missile (900km) was test-fired; on November 13, intermediate range Shaheen-II (Hatf-VI) (1500km) was tested; On September 26, short range surface-to-surface missile Hatf IX (NASR) (60km) was test-launched; On May 8, short range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf III (Ghaznavi) (290km) was test-fired, while on April 22, short range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Hatf III (Ghaznavi) (290km) was tested.

Primarily, the ongoing race between India and Pakistan at a tactical level is to show each other’s capabilities as well as their abilities, but in this particular tactical level race Pakistan is not acting, but rather it is reacting. As such, this ongoing race is becoming a burning point of concern not only for the whole region, but also for the entire globe. Pakistan doesn’t want to involve itself in a dire and unending race, but the behavior of Indian strategists, government and decision makers is compelling Pakistan to react with its full force accordingly.

However, these successful tests clearly show the capabilities as well as abilities of Pakistan. At each and every level, whether it is technological, tactical or strategic the readiness and robustness of Pakistan cannot be challenged. All efforts, which are being done by India to gain conventional military superiority, are in vain. Therefore, it is not easy task to counter Pakistan’s military abilities, especially its nuclear capabilities. These aggressive moves that are being made by India have a big potential to bring South Asia to the brink of instability that would result in destruction.

Nevertheless, the posture of Credible Minimum Deterrence has remained a principle option of Pakistan’s nuclear policy. This principle is based on the concept that Pakistan’s nuclear policy is driven by its perceived threat to its security from India and is therefore India centric. Deterrence is the sole aim and a small arsenal is considered adequate for satisfying it. So, it could be concluded that it is only when states feel threatened they opt for defending their territory and sovereignty that actually compels them to maximize and enrich their security measures under the perceived threat of vulnerability.

The post Pakistan’s Shaheen III Ballistic Missile: A Deterrent Strengthener – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

An Islamist preacher from Kuwait has called to destroy Egypt’s Sphinx and pyramids, stating it is time for Muslims to erase the pharaohs’ heritage. The alleged call comes as Islamic State jihadists ramp up their attacks against historic sites.

Although the ancient monuments are not religious – but rather cultural and historic sites – they should still be “destroyed” by Muslims, putting an end to the worship of images, preacher Ibrahim Al Kandari said, according to Al-Watan daily.

The fact that early Muslims who were among prophet Mohammed’s followers did not destroy the pharaohs’ monuments upon entering the Egyptian soil, does not mean that we shouldn’t do it now,” Al Kandari said.

Another call for the destruction of Egypt’s main symbols comes from Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who suggested the demolition of the historic monuments is a “religious duty,” Al Alam news reported on Sunday. In the extreme interpretations of Islam, no material objects should be idolized or worshiped.

It comes amid growing concerns over the safety of many other historic and architectural monuments in the region, where militants continue to destroy ancient cities and artifacts.

Only last week, the Islamic State reportedly destroyed and looted the ancient Assyrian city of Dur Sharrukin in northern Iraq, demolished the remains of the ancient city of Hatra, and bulldozed the city of Nimrud near Mosul. The assault on the latter has already been compared by archaeologists to the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001.

In 2012, an Egyptian cleric also issued a fatwa calling to rid the country of its pyramids and the Sphinx. The member of the radical Salafi movement said he wanted the antiquities demolished, as Prophet Mohammed destroyed the idols in Mecca, and demanded Egypt’s tourism ministry be abolished, comparing the industry to “prostitution and debauchery.”

The religious ruling was denounced by Egypt’s officials and scholars, who claimed the site was part of the country’s cultural – not religious – heritage.

Attacks on the Sphinx date back centuries. Despite many legends surrounding the monument’s missing nose – with harm from Napoleon’s cannon being among the most popular myths – historians believe it was actually destroyed by Sufi Muslim Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr in the 14th century, after he learned that some peasants worshipped the Sphinx.

The post Islamic State, Kuwaiti Preacher, Call For Demolition Of Egypt’s Sphinx, Pyramids appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The U.S. economy is picking up steam but most Americans aren’t feeling it. By contrast, most European economies are still in bad shape, but most Europeans are doing relatively well.

What’s behind this? Two big facts.

First, American corporations exert far more political influence in the United States than their counterparts exert in their own countries.

In fact, most Americans have no influence at all. That’s the conclusion of Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues — and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

The second fact is most big American corporations have no particular allegiance to America. They don’t want Americans to have better wages. Their only allegiance and responsibility to their shareholders — which often requires lower wages  to fuel larger profits and higher share prices.

When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted of making 43 percent of its cars in place where labor is less than $15 an hour, while in North America it could now pay “lower-tiered” wages and benefits for new employees.

American corporations shift their profits around the world wherever they pay the lowest taxes. Some are even morphing into foreign corporations.

As an Apple executive told The New York Times, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.”

I’m not blaming American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.

But because of these two basic facts – their dominance on American politics, and their interest in share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans – it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness, or represent the interests of the United States in global commerce.

By contrast, big corporations headquartered in other rich nations are more responsible for the wellbeing of the people who live in those nations.

That’s because labor unions there are typically stronger than they are here — able to exert pressure both at the company level and nationally.

VW’s labor unions, for example, have a voice in governing the company, as they do in other big German corporations. Not long ago, VW even welcomed the UAW to its auto plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Tennessee’s own politicians nixed it.)

Governments in other rich nations often devise laws through tri-partite bargains involving big corporations and organized labor. This process further binds their corporations to their nations.

Meanwhile, American corporations distribute a smaller share of their earnings to their workers than do European or Canadian-based corporations.

And top U.S. corporate executives make far more money than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

The typical American worker puts in more hours than Canadians and Europeans, and gets little or no paid vacation or paid family leave. In Europe, the norm is five weeks paid vacation per year and more than three months paid family leave.

And because of the overwhelming clout of American firms on U.S. politics, Americans don’t get nearly as good a deal from their governments as do Canadians and Europeans.

Governments there impose higher taxes on the wealthy and redistribute more of it to middle and lower income households. Most of their citizens receive essentially free health care and more generous unemployment benefits than do Americans.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that even though U.S. economy is doing better, most Americans are not.

The U.S. middle class is no longer the world’s richest. After considering taxes and transfer payments, middle-class incomes in Canada and much of Western Europe are higher than in U.S. The poor in Western Europe earn more than do poor Americans.

Finally, when at global negotiating tables – such as the secretive process devising the “Trans Pacific Partnership” trade deal — American corporations don’t represent the interests of Americans. They represent the interests of their executives and shareholders, who are not only wealthier than most Americans but also reside all over the world.

Which is why the pending Partnership protects the intellectual property of American corporations — but not American workers’ health, safety, or wages, and not the environment.

The Obama administration is casting the Partnership as way to contain Chinese influence in the Pacific region. The agents of America’s interests in the area are assumed to be American corporations.

But that assumption is incorrect. American corporations aren’t set up to represent America’s interests in the Pacific region or anywhere else.

What’s the answer to this basic conundrum? Either we lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American politics. Or we increase their allegiance and responsibility to America.

It has to be one or the other. Americans can’t thrive within a political system run largely by big American corporations — organized to boost their share prices but not boost America.

The post The Conundrum Of Corporation And Nation – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Malik Ibrahim

On March 7^th the inevitable happened – Boko Haram pledged formal allegiance to ISIS, sparking fears that West Africa may soon become over-flooded with ISIS jihadists fresh from the Syrian battlefield. But for analysts of the region, Boko Haram’s love of the Islamic State had been a fait accompli for months. The Nigerian group has slowly changed its modus operandi since the summer of 2014, adopting ISIS hymns, symbols and considerably improving the graphics of its revealing videos. Much like their Middle Eastern counterparts, Boko Haram’s territory has also expanded, measuring some 20,000 square miles of African “caliphate” where the jihadists have enforced their own reading of Sharia law.

As in Iraq and Syria, could Nigeria also be splintered against the backdrop of institutional dysfunctions and violent militancy? The future all hinges on the March 28 presidential elections. The poll was postponed by 6 weeks from it’s original February 14^th date at the request of military advisors claiming Boko Haram’s recent string of attacks risked derailing the process; so far, 2015 has been the bloodiest year in Nigeria’s ongoing fight with Islamic terrorism.

A senior Nigerian military official recently announced the offensive against Boko Haram, backed by the multi-national Joint Task Force, was gaining ground and “achieving its intended goals”. Should the army be successful in taking back Boko Haram strongholds in the north, the upcoming elections could see the country’s first democratic transfer of power since the establishment of democracy in 1999. But should the process be mired in violence and rumors of electoral fraud, the country could see itself become further divided between north and south, and descend into violence. The threat is so persistent that it has united all presidential hopefuls, who gathered in Abuja earlier this year to sign a pact, pledging to ensure the peaceful conduct of the elections.

A close call

Currently the two presidential candidates are running neck and neck in the polls. Incumbent president Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has taken a tumble in the polls proportional to the havoc wreaked by Boko Haram in the north. Despite his vast achievements in the economic sphere, and his planned “transformation agenda” aimed at diversifying the economy and generating employment, Jonathan has been accused of “lack of leadership” by his main opponent, Muhammadu Buhari of the All People’s Congress (APC).

Buhari, a lapsed ex-military dictator who anointed himself president in the early 1980s before being overthrown in a counter-coup, has refashioned himself as a converted democrat. Running on an anti-corruption program and vowing to defeat Boko Haram, Buhari and his APC party are certain they can secure a first round victory. However, despite Buhari’s salt of the earth image of being one of the least corrupt individuals in the country, his reputation for abusing human rights and freedom of expression puts into question his commitment to the democracy he claims to support.

Fighting electoral fraud

Elections in Nigeria have historically been subject to vote rigging and electoral fraud, but this year the country’s electoral body, the INEC, has put in a variety of measures to prevent fraud in the polls. Biometric voter cards have been issued to the population and a fingerprint identification system was created in order to avoid the duplication of votes. Additionally, ballots, result sheets and boxes have been customized for all polling stations to battle with ballot stuffing.

While such efforts to ensure the credibility of elections are certainly a step forward, preparation problems have meant that only a little over half of registered voters have received their voter cards, the majority of whom are in Buhari’s strongholds in the north. Considering the extremely close race in 2015, any feeling by either party that they have been cheated out of victory, could have grave implications for the country’s future governance.

A parallel government

Even though the army has been making strides to stop Boko Haram advances, election and post-election violence could end up splitting the country into two and result in the formation of a shadow government. For its part, the APC has already made threats of forming it’s own parallel government, should they deem the elections to lack credibility and be mired with electoral fraud. According to the Constitution, such an outcome would fall nothing short of a military coup against the elected government.

A “one country two presidents” solution is not unfounded. The Ivory Coast’s contested 2010 presidential elections, which ended in the formation of two governments, plunged the country into a 4 month long civil war, claiming the lives of 3000. Unlike Nigeria, the Ivory Coast had no aggressive militancy wreaking havoc across several of its states and neither does it have the same north/south, Christian/Muslim divide that makes every conflict take sectarian lines.

The escalation of violence by the population is also seen as an increasing threat, with some analysts concerned that should supporters of either candidate feel the elections were unfairly conducted, a disaster scenario of ethnic killings in both the north and south could erupt. Violence following the 2011 elections resulted in the deaths of 800 people, the displacement of 65,000 and the burning of Christian churches and schools.

Electoral fraud and violent outbreaks during the elections will risk tearing Nigeria apart, resulting in the formation of dual political system in a country that requires above all else unity and strong governance. Already plagued with thousands of deaths due to the Boko Haram insurgency, ethnic and religious violence among the population will likely increase the strength of the terrorist group and render the already under pressure army unable to contain the violence on all fronts. The formation of a shadow government will similarly undermine efforts to put an end to Boko Haram and will indicate weakness on the government’s behalf to ensure the stability and safety of the population, country and the region as a whole. A parallel government, which won’t have “the instrumentality to execute the powers and functions of government defeats the entire essence of government”.

The irony of a country risking destruction not only by an ISIS-affiliated group, but by the vanity of power-hungry political figures, which in the face of humanitarian disasters scheme and plot ways to win over power, should not be lost on us.

*Malik is a risk analyst currently based in France working for several consultancies on issues relating to political and secu

The post Nigeria’s Presidential Elections Are More Dangerous Than Boko Haram – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iraqi army seized control of large areas in Anbar province and killed 350 suspected Daesh militants within four days of its ongoing operation in the area, the Iraqi military said in statement late Monday.

According to the Iraqi army’s Military Operations Command, Iraqi armed forces launched an operation on al-Karma area four days back, which also destroyed 20 heavy machine guns and 20 vehicles; 382 improvised explosive devices were also dismantled, the statement added.

Major-General Qasem al-Mohammadi said that the Iraqi army, backed by al-Hashid al-Sha’bi Shia militia and the Iraqi air forces, took over al-Kanater and al-Rashad areas and three villages in eastern Falluja in al-Karma area.

Al-Karma police chief Lieutenant-Colonel Ali Ibrahim al-Halbousi and Daesh commander Wisam Hussein al-Ezzawi were also killed in clashes Monday, Major-General Kazem al-Fahdawi, Anbar’s police chief, told AA.

Abu Jasim Duleymi, a leading figure in Anbar’s Fallujah city, said Monday that the bodies of 103 suspected Daesh militants were taken to Fallujah General Hospital. Duleymi also said that the militant Daesh-controlled hospital received a total of 47 injured militants.

“Daesh buried the bodies of its militants in mass cemeteries in Fallujah and non-Iraqi doctors are treating the injured militants,” he added.

The figures provided by the officials could not be independently verified because of limited access to free media in the region.

Clashes between Iraqi forces and Daesh have been ongoing since June 2014 when the armed group seized Mosul and other territories in Iraq.

Daesh is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group.

Original article

The post Iraqi Forces Kill 350 Islamic State Militants In Anbar appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ghada Ageel*

With an axe in both hands and rage tightening every muscle in his face, the Palestinian physician started hacking at Rafah gate, popularly known by Gazans as Rafah hate. His Russian wife hugged her screaming dehydrated children close, trying to calm them down and simultaneously attempting to grasp and process the humiliation that her husband was experiencing at the very place he had yearned for, for years. The dream of bringing his children to see their grandparents and glimpse his homeland had morphed into a nightmare. Every sweet moment spent in Gaza was now evaporating. On the brink of a disaster, terrified of losing everything he had achieved in long years of painstaking work, he was making a half-crazed, desperate, valiant attempt to change his destiny with his own two hands.

Some of the other people stuck there at Rafah gate into Egypt were meanwhile making vain efforts to placate and restrain the doctor. He and his family had planned a three-week visit but had ended up stranded indefinitely in the open-air prison of Gaza with no prospects of leaving. They had already missed their return flight from Cairo, his wife had lost her job in Russia, and his place of work had already sent him final notice before letting him go.

No way out

Heightening their terror of total financial doom, they had just bought a home and committed to a mortgage. The doctor had applied for a permit to leave via Israel, through the Erez crossing, but as Gazans know, getting such a permit is no less than a miracle. For weeks, he and his small family had been suspended in powerless, unnerving uncertainty. I believe that not one of us, the rest of the people stranded and waiting at Rafah that day, will ever be able to forget the terrible scene. Many were crying, men included. (I can testify firmly to the fact that men, many of them, do cry.)

I don’t know what happened to the doctor and his family after this incident. I probably never will. But the sustained uncertainty entrapping this family is a basic fact of life for all Gazans today. Notably, on the occasion of International Women’s Day, women are often the ones bearing the most long-term burdens of such an existence. A recent report detailed gender-specific forms of violence suffered by women in the occupied territories, which for instance include imperative breadwinning for extended families after the killing or imprisonment of men with little or no support from a social security system.

Today, 18 months after the doctor’s act of desperation, the situation in Gaza is no different. Indeed, it is even worse. Getting out of the Gaza ghetto remains a miraculous feat. In fact, Palestinians in the Strip need multiple miracles simply to practice normal life. Following the July 2013 coup that ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, Rafah crossing has been almost completely sealed. On 25 October 2014, the crossing was declared closed – indefinitely.

Denial of Fundamental Rights

Since then, the blockade on Gaza has been even tighter than before. 1.8 million people have been sentenced to a form of isolated confinement, which has little or nothing to do with the security of Israel and everything to do with subjugation and humiliation. Nine years of Gaza’s forceful closure have already imposed severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods, and denied an entire community its most basic and fundamental rights, while repeatedly obstructing its sustainable recovery from destruction and devastation. The blockade amounts to collective punishment, which is a violation of international law.

Just this last summer, Israel carried out 51 days of horrendous military aggression against Gaza. The Rafah gate was sealed throughout most of the “operation,” with the exception of a few sporadic and unpredictable days. This denied Gazans viable access to vital humanitarian aid and demonstrated the depth and severity of the blockade’s effects on the life and death of every single person in Gaza. The urgency and gravity of the situation before, during and – perhaps more significantly – after these weeks of Israeli aggression, cast a dim light on the role, or rather the absence, of the UN and of regional and international governments in ensuring Palestinians’ most basic right to life.

Reneging on Movement Pledge

The barely describable circumstances of the Gazans under siege and attack emphasised the total impotence of supposed international powers in holding Israel to one of the clear terms of the agreement it signed with Hamas in Cairo in 2012, a term which it never implemented. The parties to that agreement committed to: “Opening the crossings and facilitating the movement of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements.” Attaining a ceasefire on these terms, however, Israel reneged on its pledge to facilitate freedom of movement. From November 2012 through June 2014 it enjoyed security and freedom, meanwhile maintaining the blockade and keeping Gaza cut off from the world.

Following yet another ceasefire on 26 August 2014, the grim humanitarian situation in Gaza has deteriorated horrendously. Israel insists on keeping in place measures that Sarah Whitsonof Human Rights Watch has described as unjustified restrictions “needlessly punishing civilians.” The prospective donors assembled at the October 2014 Cairo conference on rehabilitating Gaza have followed suit and reneged on commitments.

Given the utter failure of official American diplomacy and the repeated Israeli attacks on besieged Gaza, many wonder what can be done to alleviate the suffering of Gazans who are currently sandwiched between the Israeli blockade on one side and the effects of the military coup in Egypt on the other. There is little hope that the tension in the Sinai, which is always Egypt’s justification to close Rafah, will be resolved soon. Similarly, and despite several calls, there is no sign that Israel will ease the blockade willingly. A fresh initiative is urgently needed – one that gets around Israeli excuses for maintaining the blockade and provides Gazans with a glimpse of hope.

A Ferry to Cyprus

A commercial ferry service to Cyprus seems to be the answer. It is an initiative that could be put into place relatively quickly. It is doable, possible, and innovative – a solution that could be implemented were there a political will. True, there is no magic way to overcome the Palestinian plight, but certain actors such as the EU could provide a simple humanitarian remedy that would make a genuine difference in the lives of besieged Gazans. Perhaps a highly respected figure such as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, who is widely admired by Palestinians in Gaza, could take the initiative.

There are plenty of suitable ferry operators in the Mediterranean who could provide a normal commercial service. Cyprus is about 400 kilometres from Gaza. This is almost the overland distance between the Rafah crossing and Cairo. A ferry could make this journey in 12 hours. A Palestinian needs almost a day to reach Cairo when the Rafah crossing is not closed. A ferry would initially be only for passengers but eventually it could carry goods as well. It would run on a regular timetable two or three times a week.

Unlike other projects, money would not be an issue. A ferry service would be good business for Cyprus and provide hope for besieged Gaza. When fees, transportation costs and stamps are taken into consideration, a Palestinian must pay at least $150-200 to reach Cairo via Rafah. A ferry that carried 500 passengers (500 people normally use the Rafah crossing daily when it is open) would make a good profit. Desperate Palestinians would be ready to pay double or triple for a ticket provided they could move. Even if each passenger were to pay the regular $200 for a one-way journey, the ferry would gross a $100,000 a day. Once Palestinians were in Cyprus they could make their way to any place in the world.

It is true that the Israeli navy is maintaining a sea blockade of Gaza and all of Europe is concerned about illegal immigrants. If, however, the EU were in charge, it could guarantee for both countries that only people with the right papers would be on the ferry and that it would be loaded with no prohibited items. This humanitarian initiative is possible, and it could have all the guarantees needed by all parties, including Israel as the occupying power.

Dear Federica Mogherini,

On the eve of International Women’s Day, as women the world over stand against subjugation, I implore you to endorse this initiative. It can directly save the lives and livelihoods of countless women and families in Gaza. It can leapfrog, creatively, over the current deadlock and nurture hope when millions in Gaza are bereft of even the right to hope. Pondering the future with fresh imaginative eyes, the normalising effects of a commercial ferry service can pose a real challenge to stalemate and entrapment; to the closed gateways of Rafah and Erez, to the cycle of ceasefire and attack, to recurring, unending destruction and rebuilding. Based, as it is, on strictly human and humanitarian considerations, it circumvents the political obstacle of implied EU recognition of Gaza’s elected government.

I have witnessed the untimely death of my own father and watched one of my cousins die of medical conditions which were treatable or even curable – beyond the borders of Gaza. Both of them died awaiting a bureaucratic miracle – a travel permit. I have relived this experience repeatedly, watching the deteriorating health of numerous relatives and friends as they await a precious piece of paper. Please, support a practical means of ending this inhumanity. Many have died already. But many others can still be saved. A human, humanitarian, commercialised ferry service can open up so much more than the sealed gates of Gaza.

* Ghada Ageel is a visiting professor at the University of Alberta Political Science Department (Edmonton, Canada), an independent scholar, and active in the Faculty4Palestine-Alberta. Her new book “Apartheid in Palestine: Hard Laws and harder experiences” is forthcoming with the University of Alberta Press – Canada. (This article was first published in Middle East Eye.)

The post Federica Mogherini: Please Endorse A Ferry To Life – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Kuensel in one of its recent issues has a given a detailed account of the performance of the government in the past “year of the horse.”

What is commendable is that the paper has given a very objective and candid account of the performance of the Tobgay Government in almost all fields from political to social, economic and cultural fields. The paper has not spared the government where criticism was due but generally the criticisms and suggestions have been constructive and not offensive.

The 28 page long report is long and detailed and what is being attempted here is to highlight a few points that need attention.

• On the economy, the report admits that the GDP growth has plummeted to an all time low of 2.05 percent from 4.6 percent in the previous year. The slump is attributed to lower investment level and sluggish growth in the construction sector. It must also have been due to delay in pushing in programmes related to the first year of the 11th plan.

The government’s poor performance came in for a severe criticism from the opposition. The opposition wanted to know why the Nu 5 billion Economic stimulus plan did not have the desired effect in improving the economy. Surprisingly the banks are flush with funds to the tune of 19.7 billion and yet are unable to give the money out for growth. Expected investments from abroad had also not occurred. The Prime Minister’s visit to Gujarat had also not brought forth any fresh investments though promises were made in the meeting.

The only silver lining in the economy appears to be that the “rupee reserves” had reached a comfortable level of 20 billion. This is also ascribed more on account of hydro power projects loans and grants and not because of any increase in the country’s earnings. At any rate the government does not have to borrow from other private banks in India at higher rates of interest for the present as it did before.

• In the case of hydro power, the paper admits that the government has given up halfway its dreams of producing 10000 MW by 2020. Surprisingly the Indian government was not in favour of proceeding with some joint projects that were included in the 10,000 MW and this has also affected the plan of reaching the target by 2010. These include Kuri-Gongri, Sankosh and Amochu projects. It will be a miracle if the government is able to add another 3000 MW to the already existing 1488 MW of power. The Indian Government has generally been very generous but it would require an extra length to go for India to help improve Bhutan’s hydro power production which after all benefits India more than Bhutan itself.
• The government continues to depend on food imports and plans are being made to reduce the food deficit of Nu 4.2 Billion. Top most priority is being given to self sufficiency in rice which still appears to be a distant dream.
• During the year there has been a conscious attempt to preserve Bhutan’s rich spiritual heritage and strengthen the spiritual well being of the country. His holiness the Je Khenpo has been seen to be very active in visiting religious places, renovating historical dzongs and historical religious monuments.
• While relations with India were further strengthened by top level visits from both sides, the government has since April suspended all efforts to expand diplomatic relations and instead concentrate on consolidating existing ones on grounds that home affairs and economy needed addressing first. This appears to be a right decision as the economy needs immediate attention. The 22nd round of border talks was held in July in China and the only outcome was that field survey report of Bayul Pasamlung of northern Bhutan was endorsed. Progress as expected was slow.
• This year saw the departure of well known Chief Justice Sonam Tobgye on retirement after 43 years of an illustrious career. He was the main inspiration for the new constitution and people who have met him would always come back on being impressed with his knowledge, friendliness and professional acumen. He will be missed.

A new Supreme Court complex has just been completed next to Trashichhodzong and it is really an impressive building that goes well with the impressive landscape of the area.

• A large number of cases were taken for investigation by the Anti Corruption Commission. It is not indicative of any increase in corruption, but in the determined effort of the government to root out corruption to the extent possible. Bhutan continues to remain on top among the south Asian countries in the corruption perception index.

Several high profile cases were taken up that included embezzlement and fraudulent cases, corruption in immigration service, currency trading etc., but the most important was the one known as Lhakhang Karpo corruption case where the current foreign minister was involved. This case was formally filed in Haa Dzonkhag Court. Though no formal rules exist, the Prime Minister took the right decision to send the Foreign Minister on ‘authorised absence’ and took over the duties from him. There were several charges against the Foreign Minister that included violation of tender norms in awarding a bid to a local contractor, misuse of Dzonkhag truck for transporting his private timber and borrowing cement from a project for a private purpose. The project engineer and the project manager of the Lhakhang Karpo construction project have been suspended. Some more heads are also to roll in this case.

• During the year there has been a setback in employment rate that was supposed to go up with determined efforts of the government. Actually unemployment rate leapt from 2.1 percent to 2.9 percent. The figure cannot be considered as high but for a small country like Bhutan, this should be considered serious enough. One comes across the familiar problem of mismatch of jobs available with skills on offer.
• Tourism is one area where the government has done reasonably well though there is scope for great improvement. Surprisingly the Chinese accounted for the second largest number of tourists who visited the country after Thailand. India does not figure at all in the statistics made available by the government. With the current year being declared as “Visit Bhutan year” coinciding with celebrations to commemorate the 60th birth anniversary of Gyalpo 4, more tourists are expected.
• On law and order, there appears to be some unease on the southern flank with Bhutanese commuters being robbed along the Indian Highways. There have been cases of abduction for ransom from the Indian side and some cases are yet to be solved.

Though crime rates were reported to have declined, there was an increase in cases involving controlled substances both in possession and in illegal transaction. Thimpu maintained its top position in crime, followed by Chuka and Paro. The rest of the country was relatively free and this is creditable.

Tobgay’s government has done well though the main slippage has been in economic development. The previous government had spent millions of dollars in getting the famous McKinsey consulting firm to advice but it seemed to have drawn a blank. This is where India can perhaps help and ensure that the economic prosperity that is expected in the years to come in India is shared by friendly neighbours like Bhutan.

The post Bhutan: Economy, Corruption And Other Issues – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Peter Draper and Azwi Langalanga*

Recent events confirm that South Africa’s perceived receptiveness towards foreign direct investment (FDI) is declining. Consequently some foreigners are disillusioned, and look to better growth prospects elsewhere in Africa.

The case of EU investors – our single largest source of investment by far – confirms this: aggregate EU FDI stocks in South Africa declined by 23 percent between 2010 and 2012, at a time when their global FDI stocks increased. And that was before the legislative barrage unleashed before our 2014 national elections.

Since our economy is plagued by high unemployment, social discord, low growth, and rising political populism, the signal failure to retain, let alone ignite, foreign investor interest from our major source is disturbing.

But why is this the case? And will the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill, shortly to be presented to Cabinet, change this dynamic?

Our politics have changed sharply in recent months. The ANC, harried by the populist EFF, is struggling to respond. Unfortunately, sensible, orthodox economic policies don’t buy votes.

But the ANC is also responding to its own constituencies, large parts of which seek redistribution of current wealth, or favour inward-looking, state-driven industrial policies. Substantial segments of the formal business community, hit by rising costs and regulatory uncertainty, also seek to keep the South African market as closed as possible. The trade unions, notably COSATU but particularly the emerging ‘United Front’ led by NUMSA, are ideologically committed to inward-looking policy approaches. The mood in many townships seems to have turned decisively against foreign immigrants, and this is reinforced politically by the approach of next year’s municipal elections.

Consequently, advocates of liberal economic policy approaches are in an increasingly small minority. The legislative results are rapidly mounting up: a minerals bill rewrite generating huge uncertainty in our core economic sector; announcements concerning land ownership and reform that have the same effect in the agriculture sector; foreign private security providers (a term so expansive it could include the entire electronics industry) may shortly be obliged to sell off 51 percent of their assets to locals; proposals to oblige foreign shop owners to transfer their proprietary secrets to locals; a revised BBBEE act that will make it more difficult and punitive for established businesses (local and foreign) to operate a business; an expropriation bill whose outcome is currently uncertain; increasing hurdles for skilled foreigners to acquire work permits; and increasing tariff barriers.

The cumulative impact of this non-exhaustive list is breath-taking. The South African ‘gateway to Africa’ is becoming the gatekeeper.

Strategically this is a dangerous drift since, without our gateway status, it is not at all clear what our role in the regional and global economies would be. Furthermore, how will our economy be affected if our African trading partners implement similar policies, or our global trading partners retaliate?

To round it off our political elite has almost overnight taken on predatory dimensions, threatening core institutions, cementing investors’ worst fears about the legislative barrage, and inviting comparisons to oligarchical Russia. Are any assets safe in this legislative and political environment? Would you invest your money in a country in such circumstances? Foreign investors, who have many other options, are now openly asking this question.

We are not China; our market is not large enough to turn a blind eye to foreign investors’ concerns. We are at the cusp of a crucial turning point.

Enter the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill. The first version, released for public comment in November last year, confirmed some investors’ worst fears. Expropriation was redefined in order to allow the state to effectively transfer custody of seized assets to deserving beneficiaries (the ‘custodial clause’), thereby avoiding the need to pay compensation since the state would not own the assets.

This clause has reportedly been removed, but the overall treatment of expropriation remains uncertain.

The draft bill provided for foreigners to be subjected to an undefined ‘screening’ test to ensure their investments would not violate economic or social policy goals (think Walmart).

Several countries operate screening systems, a growing practice in light of the global expansion of many state-owned enterprises. Australia’s, for example, gives wide discretion to the Treasurer (Finance Minister) to block incoming investments if they are deemed not to be in the national interest.

More thought needs to be given to such comparisons. Australia remains open to FDI, and has strong domestic institutions anchored in democratic norms. The Australian state is not about to become predatory; hopefully South Africa’s will not either but its future is far less certain. Therefore different approaches are required here.
On the plus side the bill would entrench dispute settlement with foreign investors in the South African legal system. This would bring the long-running bilateral investment treaty saga to a close, and end the questionable circumstance in which they enjoyed more rights than domestic investors through their recourse to international arbitration panels.

South Africa’s legal system and judiciary have proved their independence and durability. However, if a predatory elite does capture South Africa’s democracy, the consequences for the judiciary will be uncertain. The bill could then be a pyrrhic victory.

The bill has since been thoroughly debated behind closed doors in NEDLAC. The resulting version is reportedly on its way to cabinet. How should cabinet respond?

First, it should engage in a thorough reflection on whether South Africa truly requires FDI, and in what quantities, in relation to our economic and social challenges.

Second, and assuming it does the right thing by concluding that the country must remain open to FDI in order to cement our gateway status, the next debate should be over what safeguards really need to be in the bill in order to prevent egregious abuses by foreigners. Screening should be contemplated but must be narrowly construed and subject to checks and balances in order to minimise ministerial discretion and over-politicisation. This power, should it be established, should reside in the Finance Ministry; the only one with an economy-wide view as opposed to narrower, sectoral approaches more prone to special interest group capture.

Third, this debate should be predicated on a fundamental principle: foreigners should be subject to the same laws as domestic investors; in other words the playing field should be level. Therefore, we should not single foreigners out for ‘special treatment’, such as technology transfer conditions or performance requirements. The World Trade Organization (WTO) legality of such provisions is questionable, but the principle is surely wrong, and wrong-headed if we truly want to attract FDI.

Different government departments are experimenting with expropriation provisions in their own regulatory patches, generating considerable uncertainty. So, finally, cabinet needs to send clear signals about how expropriation will be treated in the Expropriation Bill, and in the plethora of legislative actions underway.
The conversation needs to take place now, and a clear signal must be sent. Foreign investors are typically risk averse with their money, and signalling is a key confidence-building measure.

*Peter Draper is Director of Tutwa Consulting and Senior Research Fellow at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA). Azwi Langalanga is a researcher at SAIIA. This article was first published in the Business Day.

Source: SAIIA

The post South Africa: Clear Signal Needed To Keep Investment Gateway Open – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

While everyone else is wondering whether or not the Supreme Court will strike down the Obamacare tax benefits in 37 states with the actual Affordable Care Act as written, some Democratic U.S. Senators are urging women to dig deeper into Obamacare by encouraging them to delay getting health insurance until after they become pregnant.

As reported by Lydia Wheeler in The Hill, Senator Patty Murray has round up 36 signatures on a letter addressed to U.S. Health & Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, urging her to pull yet another “special enrollment period” out of her bag of tricks.

In a statement, Christina Postolowski, health policy manager of Young Invincibles, said she’s thrilled to see a growing chorus of leaders calling on the administration to create a special open enrollment period to make maternity coverage available to pregnant women year-round.

According to Postolowski’s December 2014 report “Without Maternity Coverage” maternity care and delivery ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 without complications.

Secretary Burwell has recently conjured up a special enrollment period, in April, for those who are shocked to learn from the IRS that they must pay a fine (or tax or penalty) for not having Obamacare-qualifying coverage in 2014.

The proposed pregnancy waiver seems discriminatory. Why are women who plan on getting pregnant the only ones to be offered the opportunity to avoid Obamacare until they decide to shift the costs of their pregnancies to insurers and taxpayers? What about people who engage in dangerous sports? Should I not have the ability to delay enrollment until I go on my next SCUBA-diving vacation?

This is an example of adverse selection. It is similar to allowing a driver to purchase automobile insurance after he has started competing in the Dakar long-distance race across the deserts of North Africa. The proposed pregnancy waiver would cause premiums in Obamacare exchanges to increase even higher than they already have.

(In employer-based coverage, there are also special enrollment periods, for events like divorce or a spouse losing her job with benefits. However, these are bad events that people usually want to avoid, so adverse selection is not a consideration.)

The post Senate Dems: Get Pregnant, Then Get Health Insurance – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

There is only one reason that Netanyahu is received as a Viceroy overseeing and dictating strategic policy to what clearly is a servile colonial legislature

There have been times when history has played tricks with man and..has magnified the features of essentially small persons into a parody of greatness. — Rabindranath Tagore(on Benito Mussolini)

Introduction

How is it that the ruler (Benjamin Netanyahu) of a puny country (Israel) of 8.2 million (6.2 million Jews) with the 37th biggest economy (GDP in current prices) in the world dictates war policy and secures the willing submission of the legislature of the largest economy and most powerful military empire in the world?

What significance does Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress have, beyond the fact that he uses it as a platform to attack the elected President of the US, to denounce US peace negotiations and to demand that Congress adopt policies designed to precipitate a war with Iran?

Netanyahu’s Dominant Presence in the US

There is only one reason that Netanyahu is received as a Viceroy overseeing and dictating strategic policy to what clearly is a servile colonial legislature: over the past quarter of a century, Israel’s proxy in the US , an entire panoply of Zionist political organizations, government officials, propaganda mills, media moguls, billionaires and millionaires, have deeply penetrated the legislature, executive and administrative centers of decision making. Netanyahu’s arrogance and “brazen” presumption (Financial Times, 3/4/15, p. 6) to dictate policy to the US Congress is rooted in the pre-existing power base created by the proxy Zionist power configuration.

Netanyahu can sneer, with a crooked smile, at the US President, because, after several decades of Zionist permeation of the US state, he knows that he comes not as an outside power but as a leader and spokesperson of an inside power.

His presence was hailed by all the mass media as a major event, as international news, for over a month in advance. With Napoleonic presumption he dared to announce in advance that he would advance a war thesis in the fashion of any head of state. He can act as an unelected dictator because the elected officials have been converted into docile and complicit subjects by his proxy power structure. Netanyahu follows the political precept of his predecessor Ariel Sharon, who faced with Israeli worry- wards criticizing his obstreperous intervention in US politics , once stated “Don’t worry.We lead the US by the nose”.

The crucial theoretical point is that the conditions that enabled Netanyahu to come, to see and to conquer, were not of his doing. His presence in the US Congress and his message is derivied from the power of his supporters, deeply embedded in the structure of political power in the US.

Otherwise, who would take serious his delusional military fantasies, his clinically paranoid vision of peaceful adversaries, conspiring to “nuke Israel” and then the world, without a single nuclear bomb!

Prominent among Netanyahu’s financial backers are a group of prominent Zionist lumpen bourgeoisie,billionaires who lent to millions of borrowers at extortionate rates(between 1400 and 4000% ) and played a leading role in the fraudulent mortgage induced crises of 2009-forward.They include Al Goldstein co-founder of AvantCredit and CashNetUSA;Sasha Orloff and Jacob Rosenberg founders of Lendup;Daniel Gilbert founder of QuickenLoans- a predator subprime lender;Ronald Arnall owner of Ameriquest….. .They used part of their ill-gotten gains to ease their consciences by donating millions to Israeli and US jewish causes.Being generous to Israel provides a sort of perverse “forgiveness” for screwing millions of Americans ..

One does not need much imagination to envision them cheering Netanyahu’s AIPAC and Congressional diatribes. It is not surprising that the lumpen bourgeoisie backs a lumpen prime minister.

The best and the brightest of the Zionist phalanx of pundits, professors, lawyers, economists and financiers have created an aura of gravity and profundity, around this vulgar beerhall brawler.

This raises a basic question: Why do upwardly mobile, prosperous and elite educated Zionist majorities, enthusiastically pledge unconditional loyalty to an authoritarian foreign ruler who humiliates their country of birth?

Why did ten thousand American born Zionist professionals, stand and cheer, as they did the day before his congressional speech, as Netanyahu dictated his rabid bellicose political line to them, at the AIPAC conference?

Is it because they believe he is their Chosen Leader of their Chosen Fatherland?

Netanyahu, with all his vulgarity and mediocrity, strikes a deep and abiding chord in the soul of his Zionist followers. They believe they are the collective geniuses of a superior species, who need not abide by the protocols of non-Zionist states and international laws which hinder his colonial rule over millions of Palestinians.

What else but that identity of superiority allows the educated and prosperous, the humane and the cruel, to bond and welcome Netanyahu, as a modern secular Moses crossing the Potomac, delivering “the Jews” (for the messianic Netanyahu claims to speak for “all Jews”) from the mortal threats (Iran) cultivated by gentile politicians. The great majority of Zionist activists are deaf, dumb and blind to those who criticize and refute his infantile and grotesque lies, the scrofulous screeds about non-existing “existential threats” which infest his speeches.Worse they will terrorize and cow any critic,demand that their employers fire them,as they have done over the past two decades. They believe that the Palestinians, who Israel bombed into the Stone Age, are threats to Israel. They believe that nuclear weaponless Iranians, facing hundreds of Israeli nuclear bombs, are a threat to Israel. They believe there is one “truth”: that all measures, speeches and actions which enhance the power and glory of Israel are virtuous. It is this “truth” that motivates hundreds of thousands of “virtuous” Zionists to donate hundreds of millions of dollars to buy and/or intimidate Presidents and Congresspeople,

Governors and Mayors, University Presidents and faculty, police informers and academic thugs. It is this Zionist power configuration which allows a political low-life like Netanyahu to enter and dominate the legislative chamber and tell US citizens where and when their next war should take place. It is for this power configuration that Congress “performs”; applauding and doing jumping jacks on cue for each and every one of Netanyahu’s emotional ejaculations.

Broad sectors of the Israeli public was immensely impressed by Netanyahu’s capacity to humiliate the President; by his willingness to dictate policy to the US: by the hyperkinetic docility and submissiveness of US Congress people. But this is not surprising. After all Israelis are used to dominating Palestinians and torturing them into submission and colonizing a whole people. Why shouldn’t they gloat, or be proud, if Netanyahu speaks and acts as a viceroy to the US? After all their leader is dominating a so-called ‘world power’!

No doubt the Israeli empire loyalists will overwhelmingly vote for Netanyahu, even if the “opposition” claims they also denounce the US-Iranian peace negotiations. Opposition leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni don’t have Netanyahu’s gangster look, that crooked smile that says to the US leaders, “we lead you by the nose and you love it”.What the rest of the world thinks of a braying burro led by the nose is not hard to imagine:world leadership certainly is not foremost in their minds…

There is much idle chatter from liberals, leftists and progressives, claiming that Netanyahu’s ‘brazen intervention’ would backfire; that it would damage relations with the US; that it would weaken, undermine US-Iranian relations and allow Iran to secure nuclear weapons. Liberal zionists claim that Netanyahu’s speech would weaken support for Israel among Democratic congress people; that it would undermine US-Iranian relations and allow Iran to secure nuclear weapons. Liberal Zionists claim that Netanyahu’s speech would weaken US support for Israel (God forbid!).

These lamentations have no substance; they are mendacious concoctions of minds which lack any capacity to understand power especially the permanent power of the Zionist power configuration.

Even a cursory reading of the political facts which preceded accompanied and followed Netanyahu’s Congressional dictates, demonstrates the exact opposite.

Immediately after Netanyahu’s intervention, Congressional leaders moved ahead to fast track legislation to heighten Iranian sanctions, to veto any Executive agreement. The Republication majority and over half of the Democrats chose to back the “foreign Viceroy” on policies of war and peace.

Far from “prejudicing” relations with the Obama regime, the Administration in the person of Secretary of State John Kerry vetoed a measure passed by the UN Human Right Commission condemning Israel’s savage war crimes against Palestinians… Obama’s United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power did the usual belly crawl for Israel at the AIPAC conference following Netanyahu’s rousing diatribe. US-Iranian “negotiations” in Switzerland increasingly turned on exactly the issues Netanyahu demanded.. US Secretary of State Kerry insisted on on-going intrusive inspections of Iran’s entire nuclear and military installations; retaining most sanctions for a decade; eliminating most enriched uranium …In a word disarming Iran, increasing its military vulnerability to an Israeli nuclear attack, without any deterrence or retaliatory capacity! Iran is formally negotiating with Kerry on behalf of the 5 plus 1, but the agenda and demands are set by the raucous over-voice of Netanyahu, who is the most influential invisible presence.

In other words there is ample evidence that Netanyahu’s intervention far from ‘damaging’ US-Israeli relations, further reinforced Israel’s power over the US. By securing the Administration’s declarations of unconditional loyalty while humiliating the President and seizing executive prerogatives, Israel demonstrates to the world that it can and will dictate US strategic policy and denounce its President with total impunity.

Netanyahu is far from being ostracized. He has a global platform from which to spew his rabid chauvinist diatribes against peace and negotiations. His speech, its content and style, received front page and extended prime time coverage. His war-mongering resonated with the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and US News and World Report.

Netanyahu’s political line inspired AIPAC’s ten thousand ultra-Zionists, who stormed Capital Hall and demanded Congress people and Congressional staff to act on His message. Not a single dissenting voice emanated from the Presidents of the 52 Major American (sic) Jewish organizations whose first loyalty continued to be toward Israeli interests as defined by their Prime Minister.

The voices of dissent among the few dozen Jews on Capitol Hill, and outside the AIPAC conference hall, did not register in Congress or among the vast majority of Jewish community leaders or in the mass media.

Contrary to the lamentations and claims that Netanyahu has “weakened” Israel, the facts on the ground demonstrate that he has strengthened his “leadership” among the billionaires who buy US Congressional leaders. He has demonstrated that US officials, even ones who he insults and attacks, will continue to support Israeli war crimes in international forums; regale Israel with $3 billion a year in military aid to enhance its military supremacy in the Middle East; and incorporate its demands in any strategic negotiations with ‘Islamic’ countries like Iran, even if it undermines the bases of any negotiated agreement.

Conclusion

Clearly Netanyahu alienated a minority of US Congressional Democrat but mostly on procedural issues of protocol rather than on the more substantive issues of mongering for war and sanctions against Iran. Netanyahu’s messianic claim to speak for “all Jews” did arouse over 2,000 American Jews and non-Jews to sign a paid advertisement denying his status as the Second Coming of Moses.

But as the rousing welcome and conclusion to his speech by the Congressional majority and the unanimity of AIPAC’s thousands demonstrate, Israel’s formidable Zionist power configuration still dominates US policy in the Middle East.

The ‘debate’ over Netanyahu’s episodic presence in the US Congress and humiliation of the US President, is misplaced.What really needs to be debated is the more fundamental question of the permanent presence, power and prerogatives of the Zionist power configuration in the making of US Middle East policy.

No other visiting Prime Minister or President can be recieved with so much media attention and political fanfare, as Netanyahu because none possess the formidable, organized, well financed and disciplined political apparatus which Israel possess. An apparatus which defends and promotes US wars on behalf of Israel, Israel’s war crimes, land seizures and torture of Palestinians. That they support Netanyahu’s gross humiliation of Obama is not surprising – it merely confirms the “Law of the Return”: that for American Zionists there is only one true state of the Jews –and that is Israel; and that their only “true” leaders, are Israelis… As it happens today he is called Benjamin Netanyahu. And that any US policy, negotiations or agreements in the Middle East have to be in accord with their leader.

Congress knows that.

The “52” know that.

Only the majority of the American electorate, who still believe they live in a free and independent country are not privy to that. Even as Netanyahu’s intervention tells them otherwise.

But then we live in a peculiar sui generis ‘meritocracy in which the opinions of 2% of the chosen people counts more than that of 98% of our citizens.

The critics, Jews and non-Jews ,must realize that their problem with Netanyahu requires them to delve deeper; and that their opposition needs to become more systematic and more directly confrontational with the Zionist power configuration. Otherwise there is no basis for believing that the US can end national humiliations and regain its status as a free and democratic republic.

The post Netanyahu: He Came, He Saw, He Conquered. The Power Of Israel Over US – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.